National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

And the first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Lynne Neagle. 

Yes. We are committed to a whole-Government approach to tackling child poverty and we are taking action to ensure that every child has the best start in life, and our child poverty strategy sets out our objectives and policy.

A new Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales report estimates that there could be 50,000 more Welsh children living in poverty by 2021 because of the Tory Government's welfare reforms. Given the challenges we face in tackling child poverty and the huge concern that has been expressed over the decision to end the school uniform grant in Wales, will the Welsh Government look again at this, and will the Welsh Government also take urgent action to ensure that its 2011 guidance, designed to ensure that school uniforms are affordable for families, is strengthened and properly implemented across Wales?

Can I give the Member the assurance that in the next academic year there will be a scheme in place that is broader than the current school uniform grant? That will be of huge assistance to many, many parents and many, many children, and it's intended that the process of moving on to that new system will be seamless. 

First Minister, do you at least welcome the 100,000 reduction in the number of Welsh children living in absolute poverty since 2010, and do you accept that the benefit cap has impacted most in London, which had 90 per cent of housing benefit claims above £20,000 rather than in Wales, and will you credit the near doubling of the tax-free allowance since 2010 for its role in helping many less well-off families?

Let me tell you that I deplore the enormous cuts in public funding that we've seen since 2010 from the Conservative Government, the bung that was given to Northern Ireland of £1 billion for health and education, whereas Wales got absolutely nothing, the fact that so many children have suffered as a result of impositions such as the bedroom tax, such as the incomes of their families, their parents' incomes, not going up, not being supported. Nobody in this Chamber can seriously believe that the Tories care about child poverty or that the last eight years has seen an improvement in poverty levels in Wales. 

I'm outraged by those figures that were relayed earlier on, and many of those contributory factors are outwith your control. But the school uniform grant is something that is within your control. Now, while the Assembly was in recess, and at the same time as your flagship anti-poverty programme, the Communities First programme was wound up, we heard that you intend to cut the school uniform grant to a tune of £700,000, which is a small amount of money in the scheme of things. It is a grant that helps some of the poorest families access education. While you're prepared to cut this amount of money, it looks petty, First Minister. What assessment have you made regarding the issue of child poverty and the impact of this change on child poverty, and will you agree to write to school heads to ask them to allow pupils to wear non-logoed uniform items in order to try and mitigate some of the impact of this cut to the school uniform grant?

Can I give the leader of Plaid Cymru an assurance that the education Secretary is in the process, as I said, of looking to introduce an improved grant that suits families' needs better, something which supports better access to curriculum activities and learning opportunities that might otherwise be denied to learners due to cost? A number of councils have already confirmed they will continue to run the year 7 school uniform scheme, or run similar schemes, in 2018-19. While the school uniform grant is certainly helpful for families, it was also inflexible because the money could only be used for school uniforms, and I know that what we are looking to introduce in September will be a scheme that is broader than that and looks to help low income families with so many of the costs of education. 

We'll shortly be launching a £1.1 million food business investment scheme package of grant aid specifically to help small and medium-sized slaughterhouses in Wales. That will enable such businesses, which are often in remote areas, to invest in competitiveness, and also to ensure their resilience and, of course, to make sure that they are sustainable in the long term. 

I thank you for your answer, First Minister. I hope we all want to see high standards of animal welfare in our slaughterhouses, and that, of course, goes for independent abattoirs as well. I know the one in my own constituency takes great pride in the respectful way in which they treat animals. I'm aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs is still looking at CCTV in slaughterhouses, and it seems that no decision has yet been made. Can I ask what specific financial support you will offer to slaughterhouses, and independent abattoirs in particular, for the installation of CCTV should the Cabinet Secretary make the decision in that regard?

Well, that's what this grant can be used for. What we will not do is impose CCTV before abattoirs in Wales are ready. In England, of course, we know this is moving ahead on a compulsory basis. We want Wales's slaughterhouses to be fully prepared. We don't rule it out, but, at this stage, what is hugely important is that there's assistance for abattoirs to be ready, if that is the direction that we take.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, when devolution came into being in 1999 we said at that time that things were going to be different, politics was going to be different. This morning, your Government, and you in particular, wrote a letter to the Presiding Officer indicating that you were minded to seek a legal judgment from the court to stop a debate in this Chamber taking place tomorrow. The only place we can find any comparable comparisons is the country of Egypt, where the executive tries to stop the legislature debating and discussing and voting on a motion that comes before it that is deemed in competence. Why are you trying to silence the Assembly?

Well, the leader of the opposition is wrong. There is actually no power to prevent a debate happening in this Chamber except that which resides in the hands of the Presiding Officer. That's not what the letter's about.

As I understand it, First Minister, from the letter that you sent to the Presiding Officer, you seem to deem yourself outside the scope of the Government of Wales provision, and therefore you do not feel that you are bound by the provisions within the Government of Wales Act, and that is what you will be seeking a judgment from the court on if you seek that route. That, in effect, places you above the law, if you take your interpretation to the extreme, because you are saying your Ministers are bound by the provisions within the Government of Wales Act but you yourself are not. Now, surely, First Minister, you should allow this debate to go ahead tomorrow, allow the debate, because it's deemed to be in competence—it's on the order paper—and I would seek confirmation from you today that you will not try and intervene and stop this debate taking place tomorrow afternoon.

I have no power to intervene to stop the debate taking place; that's a matter for the Presiding Officer. And also the leader of the opposition inadvertently misleads the Assembly when he claims the effect of section 37, as we interpret it, is to put the First Minister beyond the law. It is not. The interpretation that we place on section 37 is that it applies specifically to Welsh Ministers and not to the functions of the First Minister. Now, that is an issue that is hugely important in law—it's hugely important. Now, if something is in dispute in terms of the law, it's perfectly proper that clarity is sought as to how the law operates. We can't operate in a slapdash way; we have to make sure we have clarity for Government and, indeed, for the Assembly.

First Minister, I never thought I'd stand in this Chamber and find us debating these types of points, or discussing these types of points, where you—you—as First Minister, because it's your signature on the bottom of that letter, are trying to prevent a debate coming forward tomorrow because you want to seek a judgment of the court to prevent that happening. Now, you have said time and time again that the substance of the debate tomorrow, which is the leak inquiry report, is in the ownership of the Permanent Secretary, and it is for her to determine whether that report should come forward. Why are you intervening now to try and stop that report coming forward? Because, if that report became public and people could form an opinion, with suitable redactions, which is what we've called for in the motion tomorrow, to protect the identity of any witnesses who wish that identity to be protected, people could form an opinion on that report. Instead, today—the first day back after the Easter recess—we are looking at you as First Minister who has sent a letter to the Presiding Officer, trying to silence the Assembly. That is the wrong way to do democracy here in Wales.

It misleads the Assembly to suggest that we have the power to stop the Presiding Officer allowing a debate. That's not what the situation is here. Now, let me explain what the situation actually—. [Interruption.]

I am interested in hearing the First Minister's response.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I have no fear of the leak inquiry; I ordered it. And it is something that I was under no—it was not imposed on me, it was something that I took forward and Members can see the conclusion. There are far wider legal issues here that arise as a result of the operation of section 37. It's worth me exploring that with Members in detail. Now, first of all, there have been discussions with the Presiding Officer. It's not the case that this came out of the blue. It's not something I would choose to do, I have to say, if other options were available, but we have to protect the position of a senior member of Welsh Government staff who, if the motion was passed, would be at risk of prosecution. This is a serious issue—a hugely serious legal issue—and it is incumbent on us to make sure that steps are taken to protect her. But it goes beyond that.

Section 37 is so broadly defined that, without greater clarity—[Interruption.] Well, if the Member wanted to listen carefully, he might learn something. Okay? Section 37 is so broadly defined, and it lacks such clarity, that potentially any document of any kind that is in the control of a Minister, or an employee of Welsh Government, is potentially releaseable—any document—regardless of whether it was caught by an exemption of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, regardless of whether it was caught by the Data Protection Act 1998, regardless of whether a document might be libellous, regardless of whether the document might contain details of national security. Now, I have in my possession documents that are given to me as First Minister that deal with national security. Under the interpretation at the moment that we have, that would be releaseable—that would be releaseable. [Interruption.] Well, it is; there is no clarity on it.

Secondly—[Interruption.]

Allow the First Minister to be heard. 

Secondly, documents that are commercially confidential, under the interpretation and the lack of clarity that we have now, are no longer subject to confidentiality. It means that any document—a tender bid for example, a commercially confidential document—would be potentially releasable without further clarity. That is the reality of it without further clarity. [Interruption.] If Members don't want to listen—. I'm trying to put a reasonable case here for them. If they don't want to listen, that's a matter for them.

More importantly, if a whistleblower came forward to a Minister with a serious allegation on the basis of confidentiality, and a document was created as a result of that, there is now no guarantee of confidentiality without further clarity. There is no guarantee. I cannot give, as First Minister, any guarantee of confidentiality to anybody, nor can any other Welsh Minister, until this matter is clarified—until this matter is clarified. It also means that any person who produces a document in confidence, or who gives evidence in confidence to any investigation or inquiry, is now not able to receive an absolute guarantee of confidence. That's how serious the situation is.

Now, how can this be resolved? How can this be resolved? Well, there are three ways of resolving it. First of all, a change in the law—section 37. We can't do that. Section 37 is incredibly badly drafted and nobody disputes that. We can't do anything about that. Secondly—not my first choice—is for the matter to be decided in the courts by way of a declaration. That is not the way that I would want to deal with this. We have to protect our position as a Government. The third way of doing it is for a protocol to be developed, as happens in every other Parliament—a protocol to be developed—in order for Members to understand what would be in order and what documents would be releasable in the future. This is exactly what happens at Westminster. There is no reason why this can't happen in the Assembly. 

So, I reiterate the offer we have already made to the Commission, and we make it in good faith, and that is that tomorrow's debate is not time-sensitive and I do not advocate cancelling the debate—I don't advocate withdrawing the debate—but there is an opportunity for that debate to happen in the future. What is clear here is that there are serious legal and constitutional issues that have arisen that need to be resolved, and the way to resolve them, surely, is for this to be done working with the Commission to develop a protocol to provide greater clarity to Members. I make that offer to the Commission and, indeed, to you, Presiding Officer, to deal with this issue in a way that avoids the need for legal action. 

The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood. 

The problem is that sounds like a threat, First Minister, and the questions of openness and transparency are not going to go away. They cut to the very heart of democracy, and if there are so many problems with the Wales Act why have they only now been identified? These matters, we'll be coming back to them, but I want to ask you about the question of Syria. 

Does the First Minister support military intervention in Syria? 

I received a phone call at midnight on Saturday morning from Downing Street. I received a briefing from the Prime Minister. It was clear what the action was going to be. I made clear to her my concern that I feared there would be civilian casualties, given the complicated mosaic on the ground in Syria. That doesn't seem to have happened. But my concern, and it was made to her at the time—. I was very concerned that it wouldn't be possible to take any action without civilian casualties and that was something that I wanted to avoid. 

My party is committed to opposing these tokenistic, American-led air strikes, and I'd like to remind the First Minister that the road to peace is rarely paved with the weapons of war. Now, the effectiveness in terms of stopping Syrian suffering is far from clear. The Prime Minister herself has said that these strikes were not intended to change the course of the war in Syria and end the suffering of the Syrian people. Without a single vote cast in this Parliament, Westminster, or anywhere else, the First Minister was quick to show his support for those air strikes. So, can he now tell this Assembly: does he believe that Westminster should be able to start wars without any parliamentary approval?

Well, it's not a war, because that prerogative lies with the monarch. It is military action; that is true. Well, there is a precedent for it. David Cameron asked for a vote in Parliament, and it's a matter for the current Prime Minister to explain as to why there wasn't a vote this time around. There are great dangers here. Syria is complicated. There's no doubt in my mind there was a chemical attack, and anything that removes the capability of such an attack occurring in the future is something I would support. What I would be extremely sceptical of would be an acceleration or escalation of military action in Syria, which would lead, to my mind, inevitably to civilian casualties, and that, of course, would be a propaganda boost for those countries that are already in Syria and who themselves have a case to answer for what they're doing.

But that risk is there now, isn't it?

'So for me it’s not a question of bombing in Iraq and then bombing in Syria—I don’t see much of a difference.'

Those were the complacent words of the First Minister when the prospect of British bombs being dropped on Syria first arose back in 2015. He supported bombing campaigns in Syria then, and he supports them now. Yesterday, the First Minister's London Labour boss questioned the legality, the morality and the effectiveness of the strikes. Does the First Minister harbour the same concerns, or does he stand by his comments in support for the Prime Minister and her air strikes in the British national interest?

Well, firstly, I have no reason to doubt the soundness of the legal advice. On the issue of morality—well, we are talking here about a chemical attack that occurred on defenceless civilians, and if an attack means that the capability of repeating that is no longer there, then, yes, I would support that. Yes, I would support that.

That's not the case.

The third point, then, is effectiveness—well, time will tell. Time will tell. What I would not support is any military action that would put the lives of civilians at risk. That's a propaganda boon to other countries—a propaganda boost.

But there was a chemical attack by the Assad regime; of that, I am convinced. Secondly, I believe that these missile launches were designed to reduce or remove the capacity for a chemical attack in the future. That surely must be something that should be welcomed in order to avoid those attacks happening in the future. But in terms of escalation, no, there are no great dangers of that. 

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

As I listened to the First Minister's tortuous, legalistic response to the leader of the opposition earlier on, I was reminded of Denis Healy's first law of holes, that when in one, the best thing to do is to stop digging. Another international comparison of the position that the First Minister seems to find himself in today is the Watergate affair. He'll remember that it wasn't the break-in that actually brought down Richard Nixon, but the attempted cover-up. The President in that case said that when the President does it, it's not illegal. Does the First Minister really want to go down in history as the 'Tricky Dicky' of Welsh politics?

Well, this is the man who defends Enoch Powell. This is the man who defends Enoch Powell, and he seeks to lecture us on morality. 'Have a good look at yourself' is my response to that. No-one suggests that anybody is above the law, but I'd be interested to know whether there's anything that I said with which he disagrees.

Well, if I were counsel, Llywydd, in any legal action that might be brought, I would provide a legal argument for it, but the subsection that the First Minister refers to states, in relation to Ministers' functions—or, rather, the letter states that section 37, in relation to Ministers' functions, must identify a function that is exercisable by the First Minister and Welsh Ministers collectively. If the function in question is exercisable by the First Minister alone, section 37 has no application. So, what he's effectively saying is that if it's Welsh Ministers together, they are scrutinisable, in the way that section 37 provides, but if it's the First Minister alone, he isn't. That seems to be a very perverse interpretation of a very clear section. 

Well, I find it very strange that somebody who stands here in First Minister's questions every week, and has missed very few, suggests that somehow I'm afraid of scrutiny. But the law is the law, and the law has to be applied. Now, there is a difference of interpretation. There are two ways of resolving that interpretation, one of which would be my preferred way, which I have already outlined, and the other one is more formal, but I believe that there is a way of resolving this in order to provide Members with more transparency and to provide Government with the kind of comfort that it needs. I ask Members in this Chamber, and I ask the different parties in this Chamber: if you were in a position where you had been given documents in confidence and you found yourself with a vote demanding those documents should be produced, what would your response be? You want to be in Government; put yourself in the position of somebody who is leading a Government. It's hugely important that there is clarity in this regard, and that clarity I hope can be developed, working with the Commission and the Presiding Officer in the future.

Well, I'm sure the First Minister is also aware of subsection (6) of section 37, which says that, if the Assembly does pass a motion requiring the production of a document, a direction may be issued by the First Minister or the Government to direct the person at which that requirement is pointed not to comply with it. That, of course, would place the Government in a very embarrassing position, but it would protect against the legal consequences, which the First Minister was adumbrating earlier on. It would seem a very perverse outcome again, in relation to what he said about how this would breach commercial confidentiality, potentially, and the wider implications of what this is supposed to risk, if anything that the First Minister was dealing with would be gaggable or could be prevented from publication, but anything that any other Minister does is perfectly open to scrutiny, whether it would be in a court of law, in the court of public opinion or in this democratic Assembly, which represents the whole of the Welsh people.

There are two issues: firstly, whether the First Minister's functions are actually part of the operation of section 37, and, secondly, the broader Pandora's box that has now been opened, which is what documents are releasable under section 37. If all documents are releasable, I can't see how Government can continue, bluntly. It's that bad. There has to be some limit, surely. The operation of the Data Protection Act, the operation of the Freedom of Information Act—. I know the Tories haven't thought this far, but the operation of the Freedom of Information Act—they would not apply. They would not apply in these—. There has to be some limit to this.

At this moment in time, the Government cannot give a guarantee of confidentiality to anybody, and that is an interpretation that we can't clearly accept. It's in everyone's interests to get that clarity. Secondly, he only read out the first part of the subsection—subsection (6). Yes, it is possible for a direction to be issued that the person need not comply with the notice, but then another person has to be specified who has to comply with the notice. It's not an absolute discretion. So, have a look at the second part of the section, and it will give you a good idea of how the subsection operates. Yes, it is possible to direct that the person should not comply, but someone else has to be put in their place. So, actually, the discretion is not as absolute as the Member describes.

Yes. We provide universal and targeted support for children and young people across Wales, enabling them to achieve their full potential. This includes enhanced social care, childcare, education, play, youth services and support for additional learning needs and disabilities.

First Minister, in common with other parts of Wales, children in my constituency have also been affected by the withdrawal of the school uniform grant. I listened carefully to what you suggested was going to take place, i.e. that there's going to be a successor grant, but, of course, this existing grant, which has now been withdrawn was withdrawn without any consultation whatsoever with key stakeholders, including parent groups, nor was there a consultation, as I understand it, with our Children, Young People and Education Committee. Given that that was the case, can I also ask how that demonstrates compliance with the children's rights impact assessments that you as a Government must undertake when taking decisions of this nature?

Where was the consultation on the bedroom tax? Where was the consultation on the personal independence payment? Where was the consultation on the mess of the universal credit? Nothing at all. I don't take lectures from the Conservative Party about consultation. They are the most secretive party in Government that has ever been produced. But he asked the question about what has happened with the school uniform grant. I've already said to him that there will be something better in place in good time for September.

Was that it? They may be bad. They may be very, very bad. But you haven't answered the question, First Minister, so maybe I could ask whether the First Minister would answer the question.

I answered it in the supplementary to question 1—I thought very clearly.

Question 4, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. [Interruption.]

Question 4, Gareth Bennett.

Please allow the question to be asked.

Yes. The new bus station will be one of the first infrastructure—[Interruption.]

First Minister.

The new bus station will be one of the first infrastructure projects operated by the Welsh Government's subsidiary, Transport for Wales. Construction will start this year, and the project will pave the way for a fully integrated and multimodal transport hub at the core of the new metro system.

Yes, thanks for the answer. I think a transport hub is what we do need, and I think a crucial part of that will be the provision of a coach station as part of the overall plans for Central Square. Do we currently have any guarantees that a new coach station will be part of the finalised project?

That will be something that will have to be examined as part of the project itself. At the moment, the coaches come into Sophia Gardens, if I remember rightly. But, clearly, we would want to move to a situation where the transport hub is fully integrated in terms of all forms of transport.

I think many of us are very confused if this is the coach station, or does it include local buses as well? Because, as I understand it, the need for local transport being centred at the train station is really important, where the central station used to be, and it was part of the scheme that the bus station would be redesigned and be part of this new, exciting project. Indeed, the architects Foster and Partners were chosen to design that last phase to incorporate a bus station for Cardiff Bus. So, what is happening? Is this part of what we're talking about at the moment, or is this drifting into another project completely?

No. What we are seeking to provide is seamless integration between trains, buses, coaches and the metro, and to provide easy access for cyclists and pedestrians. That is important—I know that the Member for Llanelli is looking at me when I say that—so the intention is to provide a hub that is as integrated as possible.

Cardiff residents have been waiting over a decade for a new station and this is becoming an issue that is really making people feel very aggrieved. Last year, I was told by Rightacres that the development of the bus station would happen in January this year. Obviously, nothing yet has happened. I hear you say it's now going to happen this year. I'm just really concerned about the constant delays and the way in which this makes people cynical about our desire to provide a bus station that is crucial to the future health and well-being of all the shopping facilities in the city centre. We absolutely do not want people arriving by car because of the air pollution problem. We had an excellent Foster design. The Welsh Government is now the leaseholder, and you're going to be deciding on the design. What's wrong with the Foster design? Is it not possible to go ahead with the first part of it while you're waiting for your new tenants of the area above the bus station? But we definitely need a bus station, because people at the moment do not know where they have to get their bus, and it's over a decade. So, I'd be grateful for any clarification of what's going to happen.

I can give the Member the assurance that spades will be in the ground in June. That is the plan in order to move this forward, and completion is scheduled for the middle of 2021.

Well, he’s asking the same question as he asked previously. We are looking at options to provide a more appropriate grant that better suits families, including opportunities that might be otherwise be denied to learners due to cost.

But can you confirm that there will be no cut in the budget available—the funding available—to support the purchasing of school uniforms? The response of a spokesperson on behalf of your Government to the censure following the announcement was that school uniforms are now cheaper. Well, I have personal experience—at least two secondary schools in my area have moved to new school uniforms that you can’t buy in supermarkets. They insist that you buy them through specific providers, which aren’t much cheaper than they have been in the past, so that’s a false argument. What we need now is an assurance that there will be no reduction in the sum of funding specifically available for school uniforms from here on in.

That is not the aim. The aim is to secure greater flexibility in order to ensure that we have a more flexible grant system that can deal with things such as giving children and learners more opportunities to go on trips, et cetera, and to look at a grant system that is less restrictive than the present one.

Let's have another go. After this announcement was made, the Welsh Government said that the cost of uniforms had reduced. The Bevan Foundation called this a mealy-mouthed justification for a cut that will save a small sum. A headteacher in Bangor said uniform is a way of avoiding social stigma because pupils all look the same. He blasted what he called the bonfire of the grants affecting some of the most vulnerable school children. A Conservative Bridgend councillor described the move as heartless and said it would hit the poorest families the hardest. You were just asked clearly whether you would protect the funding, so can I ask you, yes or no, even if you won't answer whether you'll protect the funding, will all year 7 pupils in receipt of free school meals still be eligible for a school uniform grant?

Well, what we're looking to do is to do that and beyond. Our commitment to the most disadvantaged pupils is there for all to see. We've increased it to £93.7 million through the PDG spend. We are looking at not just school uniform items, but possibly the cost of school trips, stationery, extra-curricular activities, school photographs, cost of equipment or resources. But I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education is mindful that while, for the majority of schools, uniform costs are now lower, there are still certain schools that aren't doing enough to keep costs down. She is looking at whether there is merit in placing current guidance for school uniforms on a statutory footing.

Michelle Brown.

Thank you. The First Minister has already answered.

The Welsh Government has followed the principles of openness in Government for many years. We comply with relevant legislation such as the Public Records Act 1958, data protection and freedom of information. We're also active in terms of both the open data agenda and the wider open Government agenda.

As a result of your altercation with Adam Price during FMQs on 30 January, I realised that if your Government was seeking correspondence details between Adam Price and Hywel Dda university health board, then you may have asked the same questions about me. Indeed, for all I know, you may be collating information about all opposition Members' correspondence with public sector bodies. And so, I put a subject access request into your Government on 31 January; 37 days later, I was asked for clarification, which I gave; and on 15 March, I was asked for further clarification—to what is essentially a very simple question, First Minister—and this I gave. I have heard nothing. Meanwhile, a local journalist put an FOI into the health board and got this answer:

'Hywel Dda university health board confirms that the information request from the Welsh Government made on 26 January 2018 was initially regarding Adam Price AM. However, upon acknowledgement of the information sent by the UHB on the same date, Welsh Government requested further information about the engagement activities regarding other MPs and AMs.'

So, a local journalist finds out from the health board that my communications have been shared with the Welsh Government, but the Welsh Government seem unable to give that information to me themselves, despite me being entitled to ask this. [Interruption.]

I can't hear Angela Burns because her fellow Members are shouting across her. Angela Burns.

Thank you. My point, Presiding Officer, is a local journalist can do an FOI on the health board and get the exact same information that I put a subject access request into your Government for at the end of January, and I still have absolutely nothing. So, an Assembly Member can't get their information from you, a journo can from the health board. Your Government is not transparent, is not accountable, and it makes me ask, 'What are you hiding?'

First of all, an FOI request is entirely separate to a Data Protection Act 1998 application, because subject access requests are far broader. They're bound to be. I have to say, Darren Millar sits there pompously, shouting 'disgrace', what does he think happens in Westminster? This is exactly what happens in Westminster. Theresa May, when she receives briefings, is—[Interruption.]

Please allow the First Minister to respond to the question. 

Theresa May and other Ministers—. Theresa May and other Ministers receive briefing on a Member's interest in a question. That's normal. Plaid Cymru Ministers, as Simon Thomas will be able to tell you, did exactly the same when they were in Government. There's nothing sinister about it. When a Member asks a question, it is quite normal for research to be done on what the Member has said about it, and perhaps what correspondence there is in order for Ministers to answer the question properly. That's all that ever happens. It's exactly the same situation that has existed for many years—all the time since 1999, including for members of Plaid Cymru. There's nothing wrong with it, and this is the way things are done in Westminster. What are the Conservatives—? I know they haven't been in Government, but what do they think happens when an MP asks a question of a Minister? It is standard briefing for a Minister to be told what the MP has said in the past about it, and what correspondence there might be in order for the Minister to be fully informed. That's the way things have always operated both here and in Westminster. There's nothing sinister about it; in fact, it shows respect for the Members.

Comments by a former Cabinet Minister in your own Government today clearly suggest that what happened in my case was not a one-off aberration, as you previously argued, but part of a wider pattern—a smear machine whereby Government resources are being systematically misused to silence and intimidate critics, including people within your own party. And I have to say that, together with the news today of an attempt to intimidate this Parliament with legal action, clearly suggests a picture of a leadership culture within Welsh Government that is dedicated to crushing opposition, whatever the personal cost, and whatever the political cost in terms of public trust in our democratic institutions. My question is a very simple one, but perhaps it's best directed to the people behind you: at what point do we say enough is enough?  

Well, I prefer to stay with the people of Wales. I didn't disappear to America; I stayed and I fought my case with the people of Wales. Why doesn't he speak to Simon Thomas, who will tell him—? [Interruption.] 

You attack me personally on a question about personal attacks. 

The First Minister—

You're attacking me again.

The First Minister is attempting to answer the question.

Ad hominem attacks. 

The First Minister is attempting to answer the question. Please allow him to finish. [Interruption.] Allow him to finish, please. 

Adam Price stood in this Chamber and just attacked me personally; he complains when he gets it back, but it's not one law for one and one law for the other. If he speaks to Simon Thomas, he will explain to him that this is quite normal—. [Interruption.] There is no control, Llywydd.

There is at least one party in this room that is being very quiet and listening to the First Minister. I want all political parties to allow the First Minister to finish his questions and answers. 

The idea that Members are subject to a smear machine is complete and utter nonsense. [Interruption.] Well, look, if a Member stands up in the Chamber and attacks the First Minister, surely—. 

Just let's get through this. Allow the First Minister to finish. 

If a Member stands up in the Chamber and questions and attacks another Member, that Member is entitled to respond. There are no special cases in this Chamber. Surely, it's part of the debate within this Chamber. What I can assure Members on is that there's no smear machine—that is absolute nonsense, wholly untrue and has no basis in fact.

It is true to say, as I've said before, that where Members ask a question, then requests are made in terms of what a Member has said and what correspondence might be available in order to be able to assist the Minister with an answer. Plaid Cymru Ministers did exactly the same thing when they were in Government, and why? Well, it shows respects to Members. Surely, Ministers shouldn't go into questions without knowing anything about what the Member has said about a particular issue.

Aled Roberts was appointed in February 2018 for a 12-month period to implement the recommendations of the rapid review of the Welsh in education strategic plans. Fifteen plans have been approved and work is ongoing with the remaining seven authorities. We are committed to improving the planning of Welsh-medium provision, as outlined in 'Cymraeg 2050'.

Further to that answer, and naturally, as you’ve already mentioned, following the statement made by the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning on 15 March, there are now seven local authorities that have yet to have their WESPs approved by your Government. Three of those authorities—Swansea, Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend—are in my region. Indeed, their first-draft plans were a disgrace and an utter embarrassment, given your Government’s target of 1 million Welsh speakers. Are you, therefore, disappointed by the lack of vision and ambition of these Labour councils in the south-west, and what are you doing, as a Government, to progress matters?

May I say, historically, that it was the Labour councils that were in the vanguard of establishing Welsh-medium schools, particularly in south Wales, so they have a very good record on that? It’s true to say that some authorities haven’t come up to the standard we expect, and we have asked them to ensure that the plans are rewritten and redrafted in order to attain the ambitious target that we have. The Minister will speak with the leaders of those authorities that haven’t had their WESPs approved at present, and we wish to ensure that every new WESP is submitted to the Government by the end of May.

The 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and economic action plan set out the actions we are taking to improve economic development across Wales, including Newport.

Thank you, First Minister. A regular, reliable service on the Ebbw Vale to Newport rail link would ease congestion on our very busy roads and improve economic prosperity throughout the region. There is deep frustration as people have been waiting a long time for this to happen. One extra train per hour on the line, running from Ebbw Vale to Newport via Rogerstone and Pye Corner and on to Cardiff, would connect the Valleys and two of the largest cities in south-east Wales and vice versa. 

While I welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to increasing the frequency of the service on the Ebbw Vale line, with the up and coming decision on the award of the rail franchise, can the First Minister provide reassurances that the Ebbw Vale to Newport rail link will be a priority? 

We do remain committed to increasing frequency of services along the Ebbw Vale line and the options being considered do include services calling at Newport. It is important that the Ebbw line is consistent with our metro aspirations, so we will work with the winning bidder to identify the technical solution that's required to complete the infrastructure that's needed to enhance the number of services along the line. 

First Minister, Newport council recently unveiled their master plan for the future of Newport city centre, but unfortunately it contained so little detail and so little in the way of firm proposals that it only attracted 24 responses. Would he join me in encouraging Newport City Council to step up to the opportunities that the scrapping of the Severn tolls gives and put real investment into the centre of Newport so we really, really benefit from those opportunities? 

I have to say, Newport council has an excellent record in terms of investment. We see the development along the river, the university campus and the opening of Friars Walk, which I was pleased to open some years ago now. So, there has been significant development in the centre of Newport and I expect the council's good record to continue. 

This week, we saw the unprecedented step of a joint statement between the UK National Cyber Security Centre, the FBI and the US Department of Homeland Security, warning of heightened risks to our internet infrastructure and hardware from Russian state-sponsored hackers. Newport is at the forefront of cyber security expertise, with the excellent National Cyber Security Academy located in that city. What discussions is the First Minister planning to ensure that—as we need to increase capacity in the UK to face this very real threat, with economic and political implications for us all—what discussions is he planning with the UK Government to ensure that it's not centralised in London, and that the UK response is actually shared between the different cities of the UK where expertise exists and, indeed, to go even further and to say that the expertise and the remit of the UK National Cyber Security Centre should be shared to the areas where there is already existing expertise, in places such as Newport? 

I agree, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary is speaking at an event on Thursday that deals with this exact point. We are supporting a number of initiatives to assist the region's technology credentials. We have the UK's first National Software Academy, a National Cyber Security Academy and innovation point. The Member's quite right to say that this work cannot be centralised in London, not just economically, but I would suspect from a security perspective as well. 

The Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs is meeting the unions later this week and will discuss the current fodder situation. I understand that the National Farmers Union has opened its fodder bank.

Thank you, First Minister. Of course, straw last year was £42 a tonne bale. Now, it's as much as £70. Hay is £90 a tonne, clamp silage has gone up £15 a tonne to £40, and round bale silage has increased by over 230 per cent. Now, on top of this is the price of transportation, adding an extra £10 per bale. The situation, as you quite rightly point out, has led NFU Cymru and Forage Aid to set up a fodder bank to allow their members to post listings to find much needed feed. This is affecting a lot of farmers in Aberconwy, and I ask you, First Minister: what are you doing to support our farmers? And will you confirm whether the Welsh Government is prepared to follow Ireland by helping farmers through subsidising some of the costs of this transportation?

Well, first of all, Farming Connect's locally based team of development officers are on hand to provide advice and guidance. We expect the weather to improve, of course, over the next few days, which may provide some relief. We are in contact with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the other devolved administrations, which are all monitoring the impact of persistent wet weather on farm businesses. And, of course, as part of that monitoring, we'll continue to see what can be done to help farmers.

And finally, Simon Thomas. 

Thank you, Llywydd. The fact that the Irish Government is willing to pay and to transport animal fodder is having an impact on the market across the British isles, and it is having an impact on the markets and putting prices up for farmers in Wales. I think that is the argument, and the thing that's become clear because of the wet spring that we've had. What happens as a result of that, of course, is the broader question as to how we manage the market across the British isles as we leave the European Union. It raises all sorts of questions on the customs union and on the fact that the meat market is a common market between the Republic of Ireland, Wales and the rest of the British isles. In addition to assisting farmers over this season's problems, can you tell us a little more about what the plan will be in order to ensure ongoing subsidy to farmers to ensure that they can be economically active as we leave the European Union?

Well, the Farmers Union of Wales, of course, has raised concerns about what the Irish Government has done, whether it's legal or not, and that is something, perhaps, that ultimately we must consider. We understand that the farmers are now seeing the grass growing because the weather has changed. But can I say that there is a charity called Forage Aid, which supports farmers where they have been impacted by extreme weather conditions? They can ensure that there are things available to farmers. So, if some farmers have a major problem then they should perhaps approach Forage Aid in the first place.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item, therefore, is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I've one change to this week's business. Tomorrow, the Counsel General will make an oral statement on the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, I wonder if we might have a Government statement or debate on road safety in Wales, in the context of the new powers devolved under the Wales Act 2017 giving the Executive and the legislature powers to set speed limits and the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which called for a 20 mph default speed limit for built-up areas, something supported by the campaign 20's Plenty for Us, which is calling on Welsh Government to introduce such a policy. It's also supported by numerous organisations, including Public Health Wales and Sport Wales. In Scotland, there's a proposed Bill to introduce such a 20 mph default speed limit, and I think it's timely, leader of the house, given the ongoing accidents, fatalities and serious injuries on our roads in Wales in built-up areas, that we debate and consider what further steps might be taken to make our roads safer for all our communities.

Yes, thank you. The Wales Act 2017 does of course give the National Assembly the ability to legislate on national speed limits from 1 April this year, as long as the legislation does not create or modify road offences or affect exemptions from speed limits, so it does have some limitations.

The Department for Transport has commissioned a three-year study into 20 mph limits, which aims to consider road safety and the wider impacts, and the results of that are being reported this summer. So, we're taking a very active interest in monitoring that and other relevant research with a view to seeing what we can do in Wales. Of course, the 20 mph zones would need to be signed, because there is an issue about the national speed limit and what happens in unsigned roads. So, there are a number of things to look at, but it's something that the Government is actively considering at the moment.

Could I call for two statements, the first ahead of World Curlew Day, next Saturday 21 April, and Curlew Crisis Month, which will be running throughout May—an oral statement in the Chamber on the curlew crisis in Wales? The population in Wales has fallen by 81 per cent and continues to fall by over 6 per cent annually, with country-level extinction expected by 2030. Now, 21 April was chosen as World Curlew Day because of a traditional Welsh tale identifying the first curlew conservationist as St Beuno, a sixth century abbot from Wales and, of course, his feast day is 21 April.

Because of the seriousness of this crisis, there was a major conference in Builth Wells on 24 January, attended by 120 participants from across conservation, farming, game and rural policy sectors in Wales. That's led to regional workshops—I attended one in north Wales on 23 February—and local meetings. There was one in Loggerheads, Denbighshire only two weeks ago. I met the chair of the Welsh Ornithological Society who said, 'Given the plight of the curlew, we can't wait. We must work with the Assembly and Welsh Government to bring in a special curlew prescription as soon as possible.'

Well, as Wales species champion for the curlew, I'll now be joining a panel at the Hay Festival to discuss this crisis, our most endangered species. Clearly, there are many calls from species champions because there are many species champions here, but this bird is the most endangered species. It's on the red list in Wales and UK. Agencies across Wales are working on this crisis. Please can we have a statement in the Chamber so that we can find out further from the Welsh Government how it is working with Natural Resources Wales and the other sectors to address this?

Secondly, and finally, could I call for a statement on the recently tendered Welsh Government Warm Homes all-Wales area-based fuel poverty scheme Arbed 3 scheme manager contract via the National Procurement Service? The north Wales housing association, Grŵp Cynefin, has been working hard in partnership with south Wales based Melin Homes to develop a bid for this contract, but they heard earlier this month that the National Procurement Service for Wales has instead awarded the contract to a Scottish company, Everwarm, part of a much bigger group, which I'm told is called Lakehouse.

I'm told that due diligence appears not to have been fully met, that Melin Homes, which have run Arbed in south Wales for five years, have reality-checked their prices, 100 per cent of their spend goes into the local economy, they employed a team of local people, they support local SMEs, and that's all at risk. But I've been given a letter that says that the Lakehouse group, the parent company, has operated a loss for the last two years and are named in an ongoing fraud investigation by the Metropolitan police resulting from work on fire alarms undertaken in Hackney and linked to Grenfell Tower, and have agreed an £8.75 million payment in respect of a fire that destroyed a school where they were the principal contractor. These are serious matters, and an important procurement contract on behalf of Welsh Government in a key area, fuel poverty—something very close to my heart and many others. This does merit a statement, and these two Welsh-based housing providers need an answer.

The Member raises two very important points. I wasn't aware it was World Curlew Day—that's very difficult to say, World Curlew Day—so, I'm very grateful to the Member for raising awareness on that matter. The Minister's indicating to me that she'd welcome a meeting with you to better understand some of the issues you'd raised, and so I'd suggest that we arrange such a meeting and then see what happens as a result of that. The Member also mentioned that he was species champion for the curlew. I can't resist, therefore, the open invitation to say that I am the species champion for the native oyster, which I hope will flourish and therefore assist the curlew in its nutrition as it does so. But it's a very important point that the Member raises, and it's a very important issue that we need to address. So, I would urge the Member to meet with the Minister and see what can be done about it in that way.

In terms of the second matter, procurement, there are a range of legal issues surrounding the award of particular procurements and the process to be followed after that. If the Member has such letters in his possession, I suggest he writes to the Minister responsible quickly and puts those in front of her so that the process can be followed through to its proper conclusion.

I think we're certainly in for some interesting days in the business for the Assembly, but I'll concentrate on a couple of issues that have emerged over Easter, if I may, and ask first of all if it's possible to have a statement from the Government on the issue of Caribbean and Commonwealth immigrants here in Wales? We've seen over Easter stories emerge of what's been described as the Windrush, empire generation, who have been, through no fault of their own—the children and grandchildren, or children, mainly, of immigrants who have not had British passports, or haven't needed to prove who they are, now being turned away from NHS services—that may not be happening in Wales because we have a different approach in the NHS in Wales, to be fair—but certainly being turned away from job opportunities, landlord checks and so forth. These things do apply in Wales, unfortunately, and we have—certainly with the communities we have in Wales, we have communities of people who will fall into this category.

Now, under severe pressure, the Westminster Government yesterday did a u-turn and is now meeting the heads of Caribbean Governments at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, and so forth to discuss this. But I think it would be useful to have a statement from the Welsh Government as to how you are liaising with the UK Government on ensuring that our citizens, particularly of Caribbean and other Commonwealth origin, are not being penalised by this failure by the Home Office to have a considered, if you like, understanding of some 0.5 million people. It makes you wonder how they're going to cope with 3 million EU citizens when we leave the EU, mind you, but let's concentrate on what we have at the moment. Many of them will be in Wales, many of them will be citizens who will feel, even if they haven't experienced any difficulties yet, concerned about their future, and I think a statement from the Welsh Government setting out how you intend to liaise with the UK Government on this would be extremely useful.

The second thing I'd like to ask you to consider is whether you would give Welsh Government time to a debate on the activities of the Crown Estate in Wales. This is a very important body. We've had discussions about naming bridges and things like this, but let's concentrate on big, important bodies like the Crown Estate. I think it makes something like £300 million a year from its estate in Wales—mainly, of course, renewable energy is the link there, with its ownership of the shoreline and many Crown estates. It doesn't have an office in Wales, it doesn't produce its reports to the Assembly, we don't debate what the Crown Estate does, and yet it's a big economic driver. We have to ask the question as to whether it's doing the best for Wales—I can't answer that question because we don't get those debates. So, in the context of the new powers that you now have as a Welsh Government over energy and the National Grid, or over fracking coming down the line, these are questions that will relate to the Crown Estate and their activities. I think it would be opportune to have an opportunity to debate those and perhaps to examine how we as an Assembly and the Assembly committees can get better interaction with the Crown Estate and better reports back from them on their activity in Wales and the economic benefit that they bear and what ways they seek to work with the Welsh Government in ensuring that that is for the maximum benefit of all the people of Wales.

Yes, well, the Member raises two very important issues. In terms of the Windrush generation, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday, and I think—. Presiding Officer, I will have to check the legality of this, but I'm not aware that there's any reason why we can't copy all Members in to that letter, but just with the caveat that I haven't checked. So, unless there's some reason why I can't do that, I will make sure that we do. But I can say that, amongst the things he says in that letter, he says that:

'This situation requires urgent action to resolve the unjust and injurious circumstances which are leading to the children of the Windrush generation being made vulnerable to homelessness, unemployment or deportation due to Home Office mistakes over the past half century.'

I'm actually the lead Minister for that. We are doing a piece of work about how it's affecting the generations here in Wales, and I'm very happy to commit to bringing a statement forward when we've got that piece of work complete, which is very much at the top of our agenda, because I think we've all been truly horrified by the treatment of people who came here, after all, to rescue Britain after the war and who contributed enormously to the success of Britain and its rise from the ashes of the second world war. For them to be treated in this way is nothing short of shameful, embarrassing and disgusting. So, I'm more than happy to commit to such a statement.

In terms of the Crown Estate's activities, I think the Member makes a very good point. I haven't had a chance to discuss that with the relevant Cabinet Secretary, but I think he does make a good point, and I will have that discussion with the Cabinet Secretary, and I will commit, Llywydd, to bringing forward a statement or a debate once I've had that discussion with the Cabinet Secretary because I think he's raised a very important issue. 

As the Westminster Government rolls out universal credit, which will make many people in Wales poorer, the number of people getting a personal independence payment has decreased from the number who previously received disability benefits, and last year the Welsh Government ended the Communities First scheme. And whilst I welcome what the First Minister said today regarding the pupils clothing allowance, I was very concerned, as were many other people here, when we heard that it was being cut. Can I ask for the Minister to make an oral statement on action being taken to alleviate poverty in Wales by the Welsh Government?

Yes. I think I'm going to be discussing, with my personal equalities hat on in my portfolio, with the Minister for Children and Social Care, the Minister for Housing and Regeneration and the Cabinet Secretary, bringing together a number of poverty programmes around some of the equalities issues, and as part of the rapid review of gender-focused policies, which the First Minister has also asked us to look at. And some parts of that will highlight some of the things the Member has just raised in terms of the effect in particular areas of specific Government policies and, more importantly actually, some of the unintended effects of the juxtaposition of several policies at once on some people. So, we are having a piece of work done amongst a range of us at the moment, and I'm happy to commit to bringing forward—. I'm not too sure which one of us will do it, but one of the Government Ministers who has responsibility for this in their portfolio will bring forward a statement in due course. 

Leader of the house, can I make two requests, if I can? The first is in relation to Natural Resources Wales's consultation on salmon and sea trout fishing controls. There have been a number of concerns raised with me, and I know with other Members as well, that NRW's proposals are neither fair nor proportionate, and that applying a blanket restriction could be unenforceable and also do nothing to reverse the decline in fish stocks. And there's certainly a concern that there'll be a negative impact on the rural economy, forcing many angling clubs to potentially close. Now, as I understand it, the Cabinet Secretary has said that once she receives the formal application from NRW, she will consider the issue before making a determination. But can I please request that, before the Cabinet Secretary makes a determination, there is a debate on this matter in Government time to allow AMs to express a range of views on behalf of their constituents?

And secondly, and briefly, it has come to my attention that there has been some delay in receiving some Government responses to committee reports and papers, and I would appreciate it if the leader of the house could just investigate this, as I'm sure we'd all agree that responses from the Government should be received in a timely way and within the agreed timescale. I'd be grateful if you could just look into that matter. Thank you.

On that second one, I'd be more than happy to meet with you, and if you could give me some specifics to look at I'm obviously very happy to do that. I'm not sure if you were asking me for a more general report on response times, but I'm more than happy to meet and clarify what you meant with that. 

On the NRW point, the Cabinet Secretary will be making a decision in due course and, of course, it's open to all Members to put forward their own views and those of their constituents on those proposals, and that's part of the Cabinet Secretary's responsibility as she makes a decision once NRW has come forward with that. So, I don't think it would be appropriate to have a debate as part of that process. But I'm sure she would welcome representations from all AMs on behalf of their constituents as regards those proposals. 

The leader of the house will be aware that Caerphilly council will be spending another £193,000 to cover the ongoing costs of the ongoing, never-ending senior officer pay scandal, a cost, of course, which is being borne by local people themselves through no fault of their own. The total cost of this entire fiasco now is well over £5 million—incidentally, £5 million that could be put to use for local services, perhaps to keep a local leisure centre that is currently under threat open. Can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for local government on what a local authority has to do, how incompetent it has to be, before it is put into special measures?

Well, I know that the Cabinet Secretary is aware of the situation with Caerphilly council, which has been highlighted just very recently, in terms of the ongoing matter with regard to the senior staff there. I'm not too sure what the status of that is in terms of where it is in process, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment further. But I'll certainly raise it with him and ask what his view as to where we are at the moment is.

I'd like to ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services about the impact of the proposed 6.5 per cent pay increase for NHS staff and its effect on clinical staff who are working in the voluntary sector. I know that the hospices are very concerned about how it will impact on their funding. I declare an interest as vice-president of City Hospice in Cardiff. And this concern has been expressed to me, and I believe they may have already written to the Cabinet Secretary about this issue. But, obviously, it is causing a lot of concern to hospices throughout Wales because it will be an additional amount of money onto their funding, and they are uncertain about whether that will automatically come from the health boards, who fund them. So, it would be helpful if we could have some clarification of that.

The Cabinet Secretary has indicated to me that he is aware of the issue and is about to write to you about it.FootnoteLink

Thank you very much. And just to add, I am fully in support of Simon Thomas's issue that he raised about the Windrush generation.

Indeed.

Can I call for two statements, please, from the leader of the house? The first is in support, really, of John Griffiths's call for a statement on road safety. The leader of the house will be aware that there's significant concern in my own constituency around speeding on the Evo triangle, which is a triangular route in Conwy and Denbighshire that has been the scene of many deaths and a number of accidents in recent years. Now, to be fair to the Welsh Government, funding has been made available for the local authorities to bring forward some road safety measures on that route, with the installation of average speed cameras, but I think my constituents are very keen to have an update on whether there's been any progress towards that end, and a statement on road safety would afford them an opportunity to have an update.

And, secondly, can I call for a statement on skin camouflage services in Wales? The leader of the house may not be aware but, of course, skin camouflage services are a very important provision, particularly for those with skin conditions or those who've suffered disfigurement following accidents or illnesses, in terms of supporting their self-confidence and independence. But the skin camouflage services that are currently provided in Wales—or that were provided in Wales—have just recently ceased. These were provided by an organisation called Changing Faces, and it has withdrawn its services from both Wales and Northern Ireland because it's been unable to come up with funding arrangements to continue them, because of the different ways that the NHS approaches these services here. That's given a cause of great concern for a number of people in my own constituency who've benefited from these services in the past, and there's currently no service available other than for them to pay privately in order to access skin camouflage services. So, I would be grateful if there could be a statement on this, and I'm sure that the Welsh Government would not want people to be in that position. Thank you.

On the first, as you heard me say, I know there's a piece of research that's due to report back—that's been done by the Department for Transport—this summer. I know the Welsh Government's looking at that, and a number of other pieces of research, with a view to seeing what can be done with the new powers. So, I certainly hear you make the same points as John Griffiths did earlier.

On the second point, I was not aware of that. The Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that, if you supply him with details, he'd be very happy to look at it.

Leader of the house, you will be aware of the disappointment in Swansea following the decision by health boards across Wales to approve the siting of a new major trauma centre for south Wales in Cardiff, at the expense of a very strong bid from Morriston Hospital in Swansea. Now, not all of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board members agreed to this proposal, however; the vote was not unanimous. One board member, Professor Ceri Phillips of Swansea University, has claimed that the whole process was, and I quote, 'fundamentally flawed', because the cost of creating the centre and network was not known at the time the decision was made. He also stated that the decision, and I quote again,

'smacks of politics trumping economics again'.

Now, given the strategic importance of this major trauma centre, and the concerns in south-west Wales on yet another decision to centralise a service in Cardiff at the expense of Swansea, will your Government be prepared to bring forward a debate on this matter so that we can scrutinise the issue in detail and address the pretext that this is a clinical decision, when actually, in fact, it's a political decision? 

Yes, the Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that he's intending to make a statement at the end of the process, when the process has run its course. Can I say, Presiding Officer, I want to declare an interest in this because, obviously, my constituency is one of those most affected by this decision?  

I will only ask for one statement. Can I ask for a statement on the social implications for the people of Wales and in respect of access to justice of the Tory Government's court closure programme? And can I just remind you of the particular courts that I'm concerned with that the Tories have closed: Abertillery, Rhondda, Caernarfon, Aberdare, Barry, Carmarthen, Port Talbot, Pwllheli, Aberaeron, Newport, Llandrindod Wells, Neath, Port Talbot, Pontypool, Flint, Bridgend, Pontypridd, Swansea, Holyhead, and I think there maybe one or two I have missed? Could I also ask for some consideration to be given to the fact that, for example, a valuable site such as the Pontypridd magistrates court seems to have been sold or dispensed with for the sake of £350,000? But it seems to me that access to justice is being increasingly denied. That has serious implications for the people of Wales and for many of our communities and we need to have a debate on this issue.   

Yes, the Member raises a very important point. My understanding is that 26 court buildings in Wales have been sold since 2010 and their receipts total just over £5.5 million. The Government is extremely concerned that we keep access to justice locally in Wales and we've made those points to the UK Government on a number of occasions. I know that the Cabinet Secretary who's responsible for this—who is Alun Davies—is working very closely on this with the Ministry of Justice in developing a justice policy for Wales. We all know that it's essential in a democracy that people have recourse to the rule of law swiftly, locally and easily and are not prohibited from that by centralising decisions that take that ability out of their hands. We are very concerned about it, and I know the Cabinet Secretary is very actively pursuing a policy of attempting to understand what the overarching strategy is, because it's not entirely clear to us.  

I wonder if I could request a fairly urgent oral statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services please on the role of fire co-responders? Since the red categorisation has been narrowed as regards the number of conditions that are within it, if you like, the role of co-responders in attending amber calls has become far more critical in my view, particularly in attending those calls that I think most of us would consider very serious and probably should be included in the red category. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware of one particular occasion where, actually, co-responders weren't called and with the very saddest of consequences. 

To me, it's actually inconceivable that the ambulance trust is now considering reducing the role of co-responders to being only able to attend red categorisation calls, which limits the work that they're able to do, considering their expertise, to a very small number of cases. I'd be grateful if he could consider having a statement on that sooner rather than later, because I know the Assembly's concerned about the categorisation generally but co-responders very specifically. Thank you. 

Yes, the Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that he's going to ask the ambulance trust to write to all Members and explain what the situation is exactly. 

I would like to ask for two statements, if I may—the first from the Minister for Environment on the response to the flooding in Anglesey in November. One of the most important action points to be taken in the case of the Llangefni floods, certainly, was that monitoring should now happen in order to understand how the river Cefni behaves so that we can plan flood prevention measures for the future. I understand that NRW staff who are supposed to carry out that monitoring work have been withdrawn to work on other aspects of the agency’s work. I don’t believe that that’s acceptable, because without that monitoring now, local people will continue to live in fear that future periods of rain will cause similar damage again. Therefore, I would seek a statement from the Minister to explain exactly what’s happening and to seek the assurances that people in that area are looking for.

The second statement I would like is one from the Minister responsible for the Welsh language. Councillors in Anglesey are extremely disappointed, having been invited to the Welsh Government offices to an independent review panel session to discuss the future of town and community councils. They are disappointed because the invitation asked them to state in advance if they wanted to contribute through the medium of Welsh, and unless 10 per cent stated beforehand that they wished to do so, they would assume that they were willing to participate through the medium of English. We are talking here about councillors who work through the medium of Welsh in their day-to-day activities within their councils being invited to an event hosted by the Welsh Government on the Welsh Government’s estate. I don’t think this is acceptable, and I would like a statement to explain exactly what the Government’s views on this are.

Well, on that second point, I wasn't aware of that myself, so I think if the Member would be prepared to send details to—it's actually the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services who would be responsible for that. But to both him and the Cabinet Secretary, I'll undertake to make sure that we find out what happened there, because that sounds very strange indeed.

In terms of the first one, I think, if you highlight the specific circumstances in which you understand staff have been withdrawn, I'm sure the Minister will look into the very specific circumstances. She's about to make a statement this afternoon on the environment more generally, which I'm sure will afford you the opportunity to ask the question directly.

Leader of the house, during the Easter recess, it was my pleasure to welcome the Minister for children, Huw Irranca-Davies to the Oaklands play area in Cilfynydd to see how Rhondda Cynon Taf council have worked with local residents to make the play area inclusive for those with additional needs, and also to discuss what steps the Welsh Government could take to promote inclusive play following on from my legislative proposal earlier this year. Will there be a chance for the Welsh Government to update AMs on measures to improve inclusive play during this Assembly term?

Yes, I know the Minister was delighted to visit the Oaklands play area in Cilfynydd during half term, and to have the opportunity to see the difference that investment in accessible play facilities can make to children and young people. There were a number of follow-up actions agreed on the back of the debate on your legislative proposal earlier in the year, and I know that the Minister for children will be happy, in due course, to update AMs on all of the measures being taken forward to improve inclusive play during this Assembly term.

Leader of the Chamber, I would like a Government statement on the First Minister offering his support for the bombing in Syria. It seems that international chemical weapons inspectors are going to investigate in Douma tomorrow to report on what has happened there, but personnel, possibly from Wales, have already been sent to bomb Syria before the investigation has taken place, and the First Minister of Wales supported it.

In Westminster, your Labour colleagues are talking about a war powers Act to democratically limit military action, possibly. So, what's the policy in Wales? Is it that the First Minister just says what he likes on behalf of the Government? I've spoken before about your very selective approach to what you will speak on in terms of foreign policy. You've had little to say, if anything, about the Kurds—nothing, in fact—and nothing to say on behalf of the Yemeni community in Wales. So, what I'd like, really, is some clarity from your Government. So, can you please make a statement on the First Minister's actions in supporting the military action in Syria as First Minister?

The Member will be very well aware that international foreign policy is not devolved to Wales. The First Minister answered questions about his phone call with the Prime Minister earlier on in First Minister's questions, and I don't have anything to add to that.

I think, leader of the house, Wales has been regarded as a world leader in promoting equality and human rights. We now have the opportunity to progress further by commencing the 2010 Equality Act's socioeconomic duty, with the power devolved on 1 April. So, will you join me in congratulating Harriet Harman, former deputy leader of the Labour Party, who got this power on the statute book, alongside the gender pay gap provisions of the Act? The socioeconomic duty would require public bodies to make decisions on the way they tackle inequalities of outcomes caused by socioeconomic disadvantage. Will the Welsh Government now consider commencing this duty? 

Can I also ask, leader of the house, if we could have an update? We're awaiting the outcome of the environment Minister's consideration of the environmental impact assessment relating to the biomass incinerator. I'm aware that the company has commented on the request for an EIA. In the interests of transparency, I would like to ask for their response to be published and a decision date from the Minister to be given. Thank you.

Thank you for both of those. I'm obviously extremely happy to join you in acknowledging the contribution of Harriet Harman to the important legislation—we were all delighted when they managed to get it on the statute books—as well as in recognising the substantial part that socioeconomic inequality plays in exacerbating other forms of inequality. Indeed, the juxtaposition of those two sorts of inequality are very instrumental in some of the difficulties that people with protected characteristics experience across the UK.

We do have an opportunity now, as you identified, to look again at whether we should enact a socioeconomic duty in Wales. This is one of the issues we'll be considering in the context of the rapid review of gender equality that I've been talking about earlier in this session. We've also got the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is very relevant in this context, including the goal of a more equal Wales, and we want to carefully consider how the two play together and what additional duties or important responsibilities are necessary, if any, on Welsh public bodies and how those two things play together. We know that Scotland has recently taken the decision to enact their socioeconomic duty as the 'fairer Scotland duty', and we want to look more carefully at the backbone to their decision and the likely implications, just to inform our thinking of where we are in Wales. But it's very much an active part of the consideration at the moment of the rapid review that we're doing.

In terms of the Barry biomass plant, before we release a letter sent in by third parties, we are required to consult them, and I understand that this is now completed, so the letter can be released later today. The Welsh Government's currently considering the representations. We don't intend to set a deadline for a final decision on the environmental impact assessment, as a decision will require careful and full consideration of all of the issues to withstand legal challenges.

Stereo—I think we're picking up Radio Wales over there, aren't we, Simon? [Laughter.]

Two things, if I may, Presiding Officer. First of all, earlier, Darren Millar asked the leader of the house about the problem with the withdrawal of camouflage services for those suffering from skin conditions. I thought it was a good opportunity to advertise the cross-party group on skin, which is taking place next Tuesday, to which all are welcome, and which should be a good opportunity to raise that issue. I know, in the past, we've raised issues like that and then communicated with the Minister as well, who's always very helpful.

Secondly, I asked before the Easter recess if we could have a statement on the trunk road programme and where we were with proposed improvements right across Wales. I think you said then that that would be with us before the summer recess, from my memory, so I just want to make another plea for that statement not to fall into the abyss beyond the summer recess. Over the Easter recess, I was called to two issues—to one problem with flooding on the A4042 between Abergavenny and Pontypool. A major piece of infrastructure, which is going to become more important with the development of the critical care centre in Cwmbran—rightly important that ambulances and emergency vehicles are able to traverse that piece of road. Secondly, another issue I raised with you and the Cabinet Secretary in the past is that of the A40 between Abergavenny and Raglan—a degrading, old concrete road surface. Up until now—I know a lot of funding is going into the Heads of the Valleys road, so maybe the eye has been off the ball with these two pieces of road that I mentioned hitherto, but they are equally important pieces of road infrastructure, so I'd be grateful if you could keep the pressure up on your colleague to make sure that we do have that statement on improvements to the trunk road network in Wales before the summer.

Yes, on that second one—absolutely, we are expecting to have a statement before the end of the summer term, before we enter the summer recess, on the road trunk network in Wales.

I absolutely take your point on the skin, and I didn't know there was a cross-party group, so it's good to be reminded of that, and the Cabinet Secretary has already undertaken to write back to Darren Millar once he has the details.

And, finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just wanted to add my support for Simon Thomas's call for a statement on the disgraceful scandal of the treatment of the Windrush generation, and I just wanted to add some additional points. It is a reminder of the endemic racism in our society. I don't recall reading of any people from New Zealand or Australia being caught up in the way the immigration rules have been changed, and we have to remind ourselves that the people who have been treated so disgracefully are people who were unable to regularise, formalise, their right to remain, because they didn't have the money to apply for a passport, never mind the money to go back and visit family in the place they originally were born.

There's a particular issue that I'm very concerned about, which is the right to family life. Some people decided to go back to the Caribbean or elsewhere when they retired, and they now find themselves unable to visit their children and grandchildren because of the draconian immigration laws. One of my constituents, who died recently, was unable—they were unable to organise his funeral for a whole month after his death, simply because of the difficulties of people coming from Trinidad. And this applies even more acutely when we are dealing with the Asian community who, in general, wish to bury their loved one within 48 hours. It's just ridiculous that people cannot attend the funerals of their close relatives because of the barriers that are put upon them by the immigration service. So, I wondered if you are able, in this statement, to include some indication of the numbers involved who live in Wales, and what the UK Government might now be prepared to do in the light of the exposure that this scandal has raised on this issue, and hopefully we can have a more humane immigration policy.

Well, as I said in response to Simon Thomas, we did write expressing our serious concerns about the treatment of people who came from Commonwealth countries. I do think it's worth observing, Llywydd, that it's not just the people who came over on the Empire Windrush, of course; it's the people who came from all Commonwealth countries as a result of a plea from Britain after the war to come and help rebuild the 'mother country', as it was very much then called. Unfortunately, it's not possible to know how many people there are, because no documentation was issued at the time, after the Immigration Act 1971, and a large number of people who didn't travel abroad, for whatever reason, saw no reason to regularise their situation, and why would they? It's only recently, as a result of the hostile environment, which has now been renamed 'the compliance environment' by the UK Government, that people are now being asked to produce paperwork in order to sign leases and to get access to normal, day-to-day, routine things. Unfortunately, we do not know how many of them exist and are affected in Wales.

The Home Secretary, as a result of a very large amount of pressure, including from the Welsh Government, has announced new measures, I'm pleased to say, which do include: a taskforce dedicated to helping those affected; plans to work with departments across the Government to gather evidence on behalf of immigrants—documentation for every year is usually expected, such as bank statements or pay slips, but any of you will know how difficult it is to do that, especially in an electronic age where banks don't keep them past two or three years—a pledge that all cases will be resolved in two weeks, which, I mean, I would that it were so; that all fees for new documentation are waived so that people are not out of pocket, and those normally cost around £229, I'm told; and that a new website is set up with confirmation and a direct contact point. There were a number of other statements made, but we are aware, as well, that some people have actually been deported. We continue to seek assurances from the UK Government that everybody who has been poorly treated as a result of this appalling situation will receive the redress they're entitled to. 

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is the statement by the Minister for Children and Social Care on the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister to make a statement. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd, for the opportunity to make a statement about the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill, which was introduced to the National Assembly yesterday. The Bill, although technical in nature, will make it possible for the Welsh Government to put in place a national application and eligibility checking system to support the childcare offer in Wales.

The childcare offer was a key commitment in the Welsh Labour manifesto 'Together for Wales', and we are committed to providing 30 hours a week of Government-funded early education and childcare to working parents of three and four-year-olds in Wales for up to 48 weeks per year. The childcare element is aimed at working parents, which means that we need to establish a means by which parents can apply for the offer and be told whether or not they are eligible, and we are keen to ensure that this process is quick and easy. 

In September, we began delivering our childcare offer in seven early implementer local authority areas. This early testing phase is proving invaluable. We are learning from the delivery on the ground. It's helping us to fine-tune the offer before it's rolled out more widely. Early implementation has highlighted some of the issues and the potential challenges relating to the longer term administration of the offer. So, at the moment, local authorities undertake eligibility checks on a largely manual basis. We know that they find this burdensome, and it's resource-intensive, but I would like to thank them for their commitment and for their feedback to date.

But as we move ahead, it simply does not make sense to continue with such a burdensome approach, nor does it make sense for parents to have to provide their local authority with hard-copy evidence of their employment status and monthly earnings and so on. So, as we move towards the full roll-out of the childcare offer from 2020, we want to establish one national approach for processing applications and for making eligibility checks. This Bill will enable us to do just that.

The Bill provides Welsh Ministers with the power to provide funding for childcare for eligible working parents of three and four-year-old children and to make regulations about the arrangements for administering and operating such a fund. It also enables Welsh Ministers to access the information needed to confirm eligibility. It makes provision for Welsh Ministers to require parents to provide information that is relevant to their application, and to permit certain UK Government departments to provide information that is relevant to making that decision about a person’s eligibility. This is sensitive information, and it's only appropriate that the Bill also makes provision to apply a criminal offence in respect of the unlawful disclosure of such information.

The Bill makes it possible also for financial penalties to be imposed in certain circumstances. So, for example, if a person knowingly provides false or misleading information to support their claim for funding. However, applicants will also be able to ask for any decisions in respect of penalties or of eligibility to be reviewed and, ultimately, they will be able to appeal decisions to the first-tier tribunal.

We have explored other ways of setting up this process, and these are set out in the documents that support the Bill, which were published yesterday. Our preferred option is to take the power to make arrangements about how the funding for the offer is to be administered, and that's what the Bill does.

The current intention is to engage Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to operate the system on behalf of Welsh Ministers, thereby integrating with the system already operating for the English offer. I believe this is the best option. I’m sure Members will agree that, given current budget constraints and the ongoing period of austerity imposed by the UK Government, it simply does not make sense to reinvent new solutions where ones already exist.

This Bill will give us one common approach across Wales. There will be no postcode lottery when applying for childcare in Wales. Everyone’s application will be dealt with in the same way, and subject to the same criteria and rules. We also consider this approach to be less risky from the perspective of fraud and data security.

The Bill requires the consent of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other appropriate UK Government Ministers. I'd like to thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Rt Hon Elizabeth Truss MP, for providing her consent to the relevant provisions in the Bill. I'd also like to thank the Secretary of State for Wales and his office for their support over recent months in developing this Bill and in seeking the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The regulation-making powers, which the Bill confers on Welsh Ministers, provide for the operational details to be prescribed in subordinate legislation. The regulations will go into detail about who is eligible for funding under the scheme, and how they may go about applying for the funding. All the subordinate legislation, bar the commencement Order, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

So, it is my pleasure to introduce this Bill for the attention of Assembly Members. I very much look forward to working with the Assembly, and with Assembly committees, over the next few months, as it is my belief that this Bill is an important milestone in delivering one of our manifesto’s key commitments.

Thank you. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Can I thank you for your statement and for the briefing that you afforded me earlier on, with you and your senior officials? I think this is an important piece of legislation that needs to be taken through the Assembly in order that we can hang upon this framework the financial arrangements that will need to be in place for the new childcare offer. And you will be aware, of course, that the new childcare offer is also fulfilling one of our manifesto commitments, and manifesto commitments from some of the other political parties who are also represented in this Chamber, in that we all wanted to extend the eligibility for free childcare to those who are in the workplace, in order to maximise the opportunities for people to get back into work and also provide child development opportunities and early education opportunities for those children. I think it's absolutely right that you're seeking to fulfil that ambition.

Now, notwithstanding that, of course, there are some concerns that the eligibility criteria for access to free childcare is restrictive in a way that means that there's not a universal offer that's being made. The children's commissioner and others have voiced their concerns that those young people who are from poorer backgrounds tend to be around 10 months behind their peers in terms of development at age three, and many of those, of course, if their parents are not in work, will simply not have access to what is a high-quality childcare offer that you and I want our young people to have the opportunity to interface with. So, I do wonder, Minister, whether you will as a Government consider the eligibility criteria as we go forward with this Bill, as it moves forward into Committee Stage, so that there's an opportunity not just to discuss the development of the financial framework that sits behind the childcare offer, but also to look more widely at the eligibility criteria that was on the face of the Bill, if you like, in order to perhaps widen it. 

Other concerns have been raised about the involvement of family members who may well be registered and licensed child minders or nursery owners, and their ability to offer childcare that is paid for via the new childcare scheme. Again, I think that this Bill presents an opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised in relation to that. I can see that there's some reference to parents who might be child minders on the face of the Bill, and the exclusion of those specifically, but what about aunties, uncles, grandparents and any other members of the extended family, who may well be registered and licensed, delivering high-quality childcare and early education? They also, I think, ought to have the opportunity to participate in this scheme and to be funded to participate in the scheme.

Concerns have also been raised about capacity within the sector to deliver the childcare offer, and I wonder whether you can tell us where you're at as a Government in terms of pushing the capacity up in those pilot areas. You'll know that there have been some independent reports that have suggested that the capacity that is currently available in Wales is about two hours 40 minutes- worth if it was exploited in full across the whole of the country and this offer were completely taken up per week. That's clearly a long way from the ambition of all young people who are eligible getting the full 30 hours, so I wonder what work you're doing with the National Day Nurseries Association and others in order to ramp that capacity up, and what your experience is in those pilot areas in respect of that.

In addition, the Public Policy Institute for Wales raised some serious concerns about the costing of the free childcare offer, in their report some time ago. They reckoned it could cost up to £228 million to deliver it across the whole of Wales. I appreciate that not all of the detail in terms of the whole roll-out is within the explanatory memorandum in respect of this Bill, because it forms a small part of what you're doing, but clearly it is a concern, and I know that the Welsh Government has stuck to its guns in terms of this £100 million price tag. But perhaps you can tell us, given the continuing experience in the pilot areas again, whether you still feel that £100 million is going to be sufficient to be able to deliver against your ambition.

Just finally, if I can just say in respect of the involvement of HMRC to deliver this, I think it's eminently sensible. It's very clear from the explanatory memorandum and the financial attachments that any other option is blown out of the water in terms of the attraction, in terms of the cost-effectiveness of partnering with HMRC. You're quite right: they've already got an infrastructure that is in place over the border in England, and to expand that to incorporate a Welsh scheme seems to be absolutely eminently sensible. I'm very pleased that the UK Government have engaged positively, via the Wales Office and via the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in order to give the appropriate consents and support to facilitate this Bill. So, I'm very pleased to see that and I look forward to hearing your response.

Darren, thank you very much indeed. Several points there, but can I just begin by welcoming your broad support for this? As you rightly say, versions of childcare, early education offers, appeared in most manifestos of some sort, with variations on a theme, differently cut and spliced. But it is good that we are now at this point where, with the support of this house around this Bill, we can move to a position where we can see a full roll-out by 2020 of a national Welsh childcare scheme that involves those elements as well—not simply of childcare, but also of that educated, pedagogic influence as well. So, thank you for the support.

To come to one of the main themes of your points there, this is not the universal offer. In fact, there are those who have lobbied for a far more universal offer, not least among those—and I've discussed this with her—is the children's commissioner, but there are others as well. But this isn't that offer; this is very much the offer that has come directly from the manifesto, specifically focused at working parents as described within the Bill and within the parameters that will flow within the regulations. So, I wouldn't attempt at any point during this, including as it progresses with the will of Assembly Members into committee, to pretend this is anything other than what it is. To try and develop something that is a more universal offer will be for another day, and there will be plenty of opportunities to explore that, I am sure. But this actually is quite a focused technical Bill that will allow us to deliver the offer as it's currently framed. However, it does have some flexibility within it, which is quite interesting as we progress into committee, not to do the universal offer, but to look at some of those constituent groups out there in the child minding, childcare sorority and fraternity who are interested in being a part of this. But I think one thing we have to be crystal clear on is that this is not meant in any way to be some form of alternative subsidy into families who are looking after their own children—this is for registered and licensed child minders and childcare facilities, registered and licensed. So, we are having many others say, 'Well, can we not also benefit?' The focus for this is not purely on simply the child minding; this is on the wider benefits for those children within it and how this integrates. And this is part of the pilot—how this integrates also with things like the foundation years offer and so on. So, we can explore this in committee.

You mentioned the issues of capacity and the costings. We're still confident, but part of the piloting, by the way, is in order to actually help us refine where we think we're going with the costings, based on elements of take-up, et cetera, et cetera. So, we are refining that, but we still have full confidence that the costings we initially put forward are within the scope of what we can deliver by 2020 for the full roll-out. And similarly, in terms of capacity, it's quite fascinating that within the different types of childcare, child minding capacity, we are discovering that it's quite different geographically. There are—particularly looking to my right here—within parts of the south Wales Valleys many who are licensed child minders who are looking after their own grandchildren plus two or three or four others. Now that's quite interesting. But part of the piloting of this and the way we are phasing the roll-out is in order to make sure that we are also doing that work alongside it of building the capacity. And we are doing a lot of work with the sectors, the different parts of the sector, to build the capacity, to identify the gaps where there might be gaps in provision, so that by the time we get to 2019-20, we are ready to roll this provision out entirely.

HMRC—thank you for the welcome for the fact that we've chosen that option. We did consider other options. We did look at whether we should provide this, as we currently are, through local authorities. I think I've made clear why, both from cost and the burden of that, it's not the right way to do it, and also data protection, sharing of information, et cetera, et cetera. We did also consider a stand-alone entity to do this, a made-in-Wales new entity. Why would we do it when it's more cost-effective and there's one already there that is doing this? They have had some minor glitches, by the way, in the England model, but one good thing is we're confident, by the time we come to roll out, we'll have overcome those glitches. It could be that in future it could be the Welsh Revenue Authority—the Bill as structured allows those opportunities to be looked at in the future if we need to—but, as currently set, we're keen to progress with the HMRC model and I thank the various Secretaries of State who are helping us facilitate this.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? He’s right, it is a technical Bill, but I look forward to getting to grips with the Bill as the Children, Young People and Education Committee scrutinises it over the next few weeks and months.

Now, I want to start with a note of concern, perhaps, because you will know that Plaid Cymru supports the principle of expanding the provision of childcare in Wales. Plaid Cymru wants to extend it to all children of three to four years of age, not restrict it to children from working families only. It became clear from the evidence that you provided to the committee a few months ago that the Government is approaching this from the parental perspective and the economic perspective, perhaps, more than the perspective of children, whilst we, as a party, believe that children should be the central focus of this policy, and improving the life chances or the educational chances of those children specifically. Therefore, we agree with the children’s commissioner and the reports that have been published by Save the Children and others. We share their concern that excluding children from non-working households from this programme is going to risk expanding that gap between the most disadvantaged and perhaps their less disadvantaged peers, rather than narrowing that gap. We want to equalise the life chances of children. I’m sure you will refer to some of the other programmes available to support disadvantaged children, such as Flying Start, but we also know that many of those children live outwith those areas. So, there is still going to be a gap in provision, and that’s going to be an important gap that we feel should be a priority in tackling this issue.

So, the Welsh Government's focus is primarily, I believe, on the working parent, but I have to say a lot of the evidence suggests that maybe the impact of this kind of programme is limited in their respect, because I'm sure you'll be aware the Public Policy Institute for Wales's report, commissioned by the First Minister two years ago to look at the childcare policy options for Wales, concluded that, and I quote:

'The impact on work participation and work hours for mothers in families with a child of target age is extremely small.'

They conclude that it's unlikely

'to achieve either objective to any notable, possibly even discernible, degree.'

So, I'm just looking for reassurance that you are convinced that £100 million-plus investment from the Government will generate that necessary return in terms of the impact on working families, because the PPIW report suggests that maybe that isn't necessarily the case to the extent that we'd be hoping it would be.

In the paper that you've presented to the Children, Young People and Education Committee—and no doubt we'll go over some of this territory again tomorrow morning when you're joining us in committee—you referred to an OECD report from last year, which talks of benefits for women in the labour market, but of course the focus of that report was on children aged between nought and three years old, not three and four years old, as this policy does, of course. That report references provision in Québec, where an analysis of the policy there has found that it clearly favours upper income families. So, I think you can hear what I'm saying, and I'd be interested just to hear your response to that.

The second point I'd like to make is that Plaid Cymru support for this policy, as was reflected in the compact agreement and as has been already touched upon previously, was predicated on the belief, at least, or the hope, that this was the start of a journey that would take us to a point where there is universal provision. Now, you were very reluctant to commit to that or to suggest that you had that kind of ambition in committee a few months ago. I was just wondering whether you'd had an opportunity to consider where we would potentially go next, because certainly we've seen it as a first step towards the introduction of a universal service. If the Government doesn't intend to show that same ambition then we'd certainly be very, very disappointed to say the least. And it isn't just us that needs clarity on that; I think the sector would benefit from knowing that that's where we're heading ultimately as well.

Now, yes, it's a technical Bill and there is little detail on the face of the Bill, I have to say, and some very important detail as well is being left to regulation in terms of what would a qualifying child be, circumstances in which a person is or isn't to be regarded as another person's partner, circumstances in which a person is or isn't to be treated as carrying out paid work, and I'm just wondering: has this been tabled a bit too early? Do we not know the answers to some of these questions? Because we know that Arad Research is carrying out an evaluation. Should we not wait for that to be published in the autumn? And whilst I welcome the fact that any regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, of course we all know, with an affirmative procedure, it's a take it or leave it process; we cannot amend. So, I have some concerns that, whilst appreciating it's a technical Bill, maybe the level of—. I would have expected maybe a bit more detail, so I'm just wondering why now and why not maybe in a few months' time, when you'll be better positioned to present some more detail. 

The explanatory memorandum states that, because of the technical nature of the Bill, and its limited appeal to the wider public, you didn't feel it appropriate to undertake an open consultation, but it would be good to hear what elements of consultation have happened, not just in terms of parents but particularly in terms of children as well. I would welcome your comments on that. 

And the £100,000 upper limit for eligibility—what's the rationale for that? I haven't got an issue with that; it just sounds a little bit like a figure that's been plucked out of the air. I'm sure it isn't. Maybe you could explain to us why it's been pitched at that level. 

Finally, your statement talks of eligibility checks and the associated bureaucracy that comes with that, making it, I quote, 'a burdensome approach'. Well, of course, a universal approach would do away with a lot of that but, as I say, we look forward to scrutinising the Bill and, clearly, we'll be coming back to some of these issues over the next weeks and months. 

Llyr, thank you very much. Can I address the more fundamental question you put first of all, whilst welcoming again your broad support, and the question you raised of, 'Where next on the journey?' That's always the question we should be asking as policymakers and policy influencers. But, again, I simply do not want to overstep the mark or over-promise in terms of this particular Bill. It's a manifesto commitment, it's a very well-targeted commitment, we're absolutely convinced that it will have not only a material advantage, both economically and in terms of freeing up opportunities particularly for the most disadvantaged families, for the lowest income families, but it also has the impact—the Bill as it currently is if this Assembly passes it—on that wider foundational sector. We've talked so much about this within this Assembly, and we've talked about various foundational sectors. Well, what is more extensive across every street and every community within the country except for childcare, registered licensed childcare in all its variety? So, if we get this right and we step up the capacity, it's not only the impact on those parents and families, and some of the lowest income families in the communities we represent, but it's also the wider economic impact, I think, that's actually through stepping up the capacity issues. 

But you do ask, 'Where do we go next on the journey?' It's the right question to ask. I'm not going to give you a direct answer in the process of this Bill, I'm afraid, but I think it is the right debate that we now need to be in. But we do operate within constraints as well. The most obvious one is where we currently are with the funding regime we are in. I think there are persuasive cases being made from both within this Assembly, but also externally, for a more universal offer. But we will have to crunch through the policy implications of that. We will have to crunch through the financial implications of that as well but, for now, what we have in front of us is a very clearly defined targeted offer that is focusing on working parents. And it will have, as a step on that journey, a significant impact on many of our constituents.

There will be, by the way, I'm sure, plenty of opportunities outside of the scope of this Bill to test the wider discussions, not least in committee and here on the floor of Plenary at other opportunities as well. But this is very precise in terms of what this quite technical Bill is seeking to do. 

You asked, 'Why a framework Bill?', and this is, indeed, a framework Bill that is taking the powers—. Now, I've taken large framework Bills through Parliament before, where I've had to explain to committee members as I've taken it through, 'Don't you worry now. I will send you, within a fortnight, by the time we get to our next committee session—'. And Julie will be aware of this, being in Parliament—'In a fortnight, Julie, don't worry, I'll have written the guidance for you, I'll have written the regs in draft so you can see them'. We're not in the same situation here. We're actually piloting in seven early implementer authorities what we're planning to do. We're learning as we go. So, the guidance is out there. The eligibility criteria are out there. The HMRC—even though it's had some minor glitches, it's working in England. So, all of the aspects we're talking about we can touch and feel. It's very different from saying, 'Trust me. Further down the line I'll tell you what kind of things we'll do, what sort of information we'll be looking for from parents, who'll be eligible'. It's already described, so it's a slightly different approach to taking a framework Bill through. I'm not promising, 'Trust me; we'll get to it'. I'm saying, 'Look at what we're doing'.

We are evolving within those seven early implementer areas as well, and that's part of the reason for the flexibility. We need this framework in place. We need to get on with the discussions at both a ministerial and also a Whitehall and departmental level with HMRC and others to start really putting this in place for the 2019-20 roll out. But, meanwhile, we're also learning from those early implementers and part of the flexibility here is that Welsh Ministers—even though we're asking HMRC to do part of the operation for us, it's for Welsh Ministers to come back and say to the Assembly, 'We've learnt something new about some of the criteria, some of the eligibility, who we'd like to be involved as childcare providers. We're coming back with an affirmative motion to say, "We'd like to adjust this. Do you agree?" and so on'. 

So, it is slightly different. But let me also contrast here the—. We haven't, for example, followed the current English example of placing functions on HMRC to manage the application and eligibility checking process for their scheme. It's something we considered, but the model we've opted for—and this is what makes it different in this respect—it gives Welsh Ministers the functions in respect of administering the offer. Consequently, it gives the Welsh Government flexibility not only to chose its delivery agent but also to come back to this house and say, 'We think we can improve it. What do you think?'

So, it does give us some flexibility. It also gives us the flexibility, as I mentioned before, to come back and say, 'Well, there might be a way to, in future terms, look at the Welsh Revenue Authority as a possible deliverer' and so on. It gives that flexibility and we can come back to the house without looking for a legislative slot of primary legislation to do it.

So, I hope that explains. I know it's always a difficult challenge to say how much you put on the face of the Bill and how much should be framework powers, but we think we've got it right in this one because we're already piloting it, the HMRC system is up and running; we know what this looks like.  

We're almost halfway through this debate and I've got a number of speakers who would like to contribute. I'd be very grateful if both questions and answers could be kept as succinct as possible. Michelle Brown. 

Thank you, and thank you for your statement, Minister. I'd also like to thank the Minister for the courtesy that he's shown in meeting with me in advance of this statement. His communication of the broad principles in favour of the childcare funding Bill were very clear and comprehensive and I understand the reasoning behind using HMRC and it does appear to me to be quite sensible. HMRC are already in possession of the relevant data so it does seems a logical choice. I'd also like to compliment the Minister on his implementation of the early testing phase of the childcare offer. His approach on gathering essential data and fine tuning the offer shows that he's approached the programme with strategic thought. A discussion of the administration of the offer by HMRC and outline of these finer details were also very helpful. However, it's on these finer details and the administration arrangements that I and my party have questions and concerns.

I note that there was an opposition day debate in the House of Commons on 26 October 2016, brought by the Minister's Labour Party colleague Rebecca Long-Bailey MP, which raised a number of concerns about HMRC's work on tax credits contracted out to a company called Concentrix. It noted that the company had not met performance standards fully set out in its contract with HMRC. It also emphasised the human factor, including the suffering of women and single mothers who erroneously had tax credits withdrawn by the company, acting on behalf of HMRC. The debate achieved the broad consensus of representatives from all parties in the House of Commons, the consensus being that the contractor's performance was not up to standard and it had caused real human suffering. No-one in this place would want to see these problems replicated in the administration of childcare funding in Wales, so to that end I want to conclude by asking the Minister two things. Firstly, will there be an opportunity for both the Assembly as a whole and the appropriate committees to scrutinise the procurement costs and the procurement terms of the programme from HMRC? And, secondly, will there be an opportunity for the Assembly as a whole to assent or not assent to the HMRC using an external contractor to administer the programme? Thank you.  

Thank you, Michelle, and, again, thank you for the broad welcome there. On the HMRC issues, we are aware—everybody's aware because they've been made quite public—of some of the early implementation problems there have been, both in terms of the tax credits, but also their offer, their parallel offer, in England. However, they are overcoming those, and we've been in discussion with them while we've been discussing at a high level the principle of utilising HMRC as our provider. And we have confidence that, actually, the glitches that they've had will not only be overcome, but that they'll have the machine working smoothly, particularly by the time that we are looking for roll-out, which is 2019-20, and we'll be able to actually watch what is going on in our engagement with them, which is intensive at an official level, to make sure that that is happening.

I will indeed make sure that there is opportunity to come back and report on how discussions with HMRC are going, how the contract is shaping up, because what this Bill will enable us to do is to engage at more than high level, but actually in the detail of the contractual discussions with HMRC. And I will make sure that there are opportunities both for committees but also for Assembly Members generally to find out what is going on with those and to input into them as well. 

In terms of external contractors, I'm not convinced that we are in a position, as Welsh Government, as far as I understand, to insist that they make no use of any external contractors. So, for example, if part of the offer are things such as a digital platform, are we going to object if a digital platform is designed by an external contractor and so on? I think, Michelle, you're referring to more fundamental aspects of the delivery of it, but digital gateway to it is part of it as well and things can go wrong with that. I'll take that away and consider it and look at it, but I suspect that most Government agencies use some form of external contracting. What we need to make sure is that the glitches that they've experienced early on are not repeated, and that we have confidence, not only in HMRC taking on the overall contract from Welsh Government, for which we will be paying, but also that any organisations they subcontract to also have our confidence in delivering this very effectively. But thank you for those points. 

I welcome the Minister's statement today. I think we're really looking forward to this being implemented. Cardiff is certainly waiting for it to come to them and I'm frequently asked about when we are going to have it. 

We'll get there. We will get there. 

I know we will. So, it's good that we're doing this, which, as the Minister said, is a specifically targeted offer to working parents. And I'd just like to say how pleased I am that it is covering the school holidays, because I think, as any parent here will know, for a working parent, the school holidays are a nightmare. And so having this to actually cover the school holidays I think is very good, and I think it makes it a generous offer.

I just wanted to make some points about the administration. I think it's absolutely sensible to use HMRC, and I certainly support that going ahead, but I am concerned about how flexible HMRC can be. Thinking of parents who change jobs frequently, just about manage, and sometimes have to have more than one job in order to manage the households, and thinking about that sort of family, I would like the Minister to tell us how we would be able to cope with rapidly changing circumstances. And the other issue, of course, is parents who are in self-employment, where the income could be different every week, virtually. So, I wondered if this had been covered in thinking about how HMRC would actually administer the scheme. 

Julie, thank you, and 'yes' to the last question in terms of self-employment when it comes to the detailed design of this, and, of course, the England programme as well. The self-employment aspect has been taken on board. In terms of flexibility within the system, I'm pleased to tell you, Julie, that one of the advantages of using the HMRC system, both for English and Welsh language speakers, is the simplicity of the application, because part of using the HMRC system in concert with information sharing between Government departments, means that, in effect, we're not asking them to bring us their current or monthly pay sheets, find all the complex paraphernalia you need to make the application, and decide whether you're eligible—it'll be done for them. It's working effectively already. But, secondly, there's a helpline that runs alongside that, so people who have difficulty with that—there's a helpline to assist them as well. And the helpline as well will make sure, and the commissioning will also—. HMRC actually have quite a good record in terms of bilingual gateways as well, but we'll make sure that within this specifically as well for an answer in English—.

But the results are of course built into this appeals procedure as well, so that, because there will be situations where individuals don't quite fit within the criteria and the eligibility criteria, they also will be able to go through an appeals procedure on the basis of their application being turned down. So, there will be support there, but, again, the great thing about this is we have the—the fact that the England-based HMRC system is now up and running, we can learn from that. We can learn about some of these issues of flexibility, and get it absolutely right when we take ours forward. And just to confirm, because I know people do raise it with me about Cardiff, the reason we're in the seven areas that we currently are in is we're trying different things in different areas. It will come to Cardiff, and when it comes to Cardiff, it will be the bee's knees—it will be the right thing.

I'm glad to hear this will be the bee's knees by the time it comes to Cardiff. And I'd like to thank the Minister particularly for his clarity that this childcare element is aimed at working parents, and there are trade-offs, and there are some who won't benefit, and he's taken that approach, and we will see how it works, in line with his party's manifesto. I'd also say that, because it's 48 weeks a year, some of the other studies—be they on Quebec, or elsewhere—may not be so relevant for what the impact will be on the extent to which parents will work. And I hope he does succeed in seeing significantly higher numbers, and, if so, that should feed through to the resources available to Welsh Government, once the Welsh rates of income tax are devolved next year.

Could I, though, question the approach being taken to take powers to Welsh Ministers in order to use HMRC as an agent? There seems to be consensus across the Chamber—or at least so far—in terms of using HMRC, and HMRC has tried-and-tested processes for how it keeps information secure. And they include very clear protocols on the access, or otherwise, of UK Ministers to information on individual taxpayers. Yet, the Minister says that he wants legislation that enables Welsh Ministers to access the information needed to confirm eligibility. Why? HMRC works in this area by seeing whether an applicant is eligible, and if so, issuing a code to that applicant to allow them to access the childcare for which they're eligible. If HMRC is going to be the Welsh Government's agent, as he says, why does he need to have Welsh Ministers able to access taxpayers' information in this way?

Could he also clarify some of the linkages he's making between the English—or what he describes as the English, but I believe may in certain contexts be a UK system—and what is proposed in Wales? He refers to minor glitches in the England model. I actually think it's been major glitches in a UK-wide operation of tax-free childcare, which parents are eligible for in Wales, on exactly the same basis that they are in England, and it's that one that's had the big problem. The interaction has come because there are three types of free childcare in England: for two-year-olds on the basis of eligibility of certain benefits, including tax credits, where the income is below £16,190 a year; there's then the universal offer, which is for the 15 hours; and then there's the 30 hours for three and four-year-olds, which has been the major problem, and the major problem has been because of the linkage with the UK-wide system HMRC operates for the tax-free childcare. In order to get that 30 hours rather than the 15 hours they were getting before, eligible parents from England have had to set up a childcare account, which would enable them to access the UK-wide benefit, and has been the gateway for receiving those extra hours for the three-year-olds. And it's that area that there's been this very major problem with. Will the Minister confirm that what Welsh Government is proposing to do is to make the whole of the Welsh system dependent on that gateway? 

Can he also clarify why it is necessary to set up an account for UK-wide tax-free childcare to access a free childcare offer for the 48 hours? That's the model HMRC has chosen to date, but it's the one that's been leading to the problems. He is hopefully correct that these problems will iron out, but I would draw to his attention that the whole system is being made dependent on that and alert him to some of the risks contingent on it.

Mark, thank you very much. Probably one of my failings is due to my upbringing: I'm overly polite about what I describe as minor glitches or teething problems, but we are confident—and we have been in discussions with HMRC, both in terms of their tax offer, but also in terms of the childcare offer—that these problems are being ironed out, and will indeed be totally ironed out by the time we come to our use of their mechanisms for delivering our childcare offer. We are aware of these issues with the childcare service in recent months, both in relation to tax-free childcare and the England offer. Now, HMRC are addressing these. We're confident that these troubles will have been resolved by the time we come to use this system. We will also, by the way, have this advantage in that we can learn the lessons of these initial problems from HMRC in how we design and how we commission, and there is an important part here in how we commission our offer through HMRC, and also the issues that they've had with the HMRC and the Department for Education as well, to avoid the problems that they've had. So, we will put in place appropriate governance arrangements to oversee the development and the implementation of this approach and the digital solutions inherent in this.  

In terms of the legislative basis, this Bill provides the legislative basis for Welsh Ministers to make the arrangements for the administration of the childcare offer. Whilst we're proposing we engage with HMRC in the short to medium term, in that design and the commissioning, it could well be, and I'm pleased that we have put the flexibility within the Bill to provide the Welsh Government with the flexibility to change the delivery agent in the future, if we so wish. It's as a delivery agent acting on behalf of Welsh Ministers—as a delivery agent acting on behalf Welsh Ministers—that HMRC will be subject to the scheme that we commission with them, and also the Welsh language service standards that we will make sure are within there, and we will work closely with them to ensure compliance. We are marking the glad situation that with the early problems that they've had, both in the tax aspects and the free childcare offers in England, they've experienced them early and they are now overcoming them, and when we roll ours out we're confident that we won't experience the same problems. 

I realise that I've been remiss in not responding to a specific point in the question as well to do with formal consultation. 

There is one more speaker, but if you want to do that now.  

Thanks. Llyr, my apologies. You asked why there's been no formal consultation. This is slightly unusual from a lot of Bills that come forward, in that we're out there in the field doing the stuff at the moment. So, one: it's a technical Bill, so we didn't feel, on balance, that a consultation on the draft was necessary. Instead, we've discussed the Bill, the approach taken with it, with key stakeholders, including local authorities but also childcare providers, through the early implementer groups, live as we've been doing it. I think every week I've been having updates on how those discussions are going and what they're learning with members of the stakeholder reference groups and also with UK Government departments, and that's still ongoing and will be ongoing all the way to full roll-out. Of course, the offer itself is subject to this programme of early implementation. It's allowing us to test-drive it and to evaluate its delivery. So, as part of that process we're also engaging with a range of parents—extensive numbers of parents, into the hundreds and thousands—childcare providers and other stakeholders on the delivery and operation of the offer. So, in this particular circumstance with this Bill, we didn't feel it was necessary for a consultation again on it. We're out there in the field doing it and hearing it in live time. Thank you. 

And finally, Jenny Rathbone.

Diolch. One of the lessons of this whole situation is we mustn't reinvent the wheel. Just looking at the strategy that you're adopting for delivering this manifesto pledge, which is targeting working parents of three and four-year-olds, we clearly need to prioritise those families who want to work but can't afford to work at the moment, and who will become eligible as soon as they can get the sums to add up—you know, they've got the place and they can accept the work placement. That's the way we need to do it.

I wanted to look at how we are going to possibly tie this in with universal credit, because many of my families are on variable hours, including zero-hours contracts. One of the theoretical benefits of universal credit is that it will have real-time information about what somebody has earned in the last week and therefore how that will impact on the amount of money they're eligible for. So, I can see the benefits of working with the tax and revenue service, but I can also see the benefit of working with Jobcentre Plus, so I think it would be useful to clarify why you aren't thinking along those lines.

I absolutely understand that we can't at the moment afford to do what we all want to do, which is to provide a universal service for all three- and four-year-olds. But it seems that, in the meantime, there's an awful lot we can do using the existing resources. For example, local authorities every five years have to provide a childcare sufficiency assessment, but only every five years. So, in the interim, Cardiff, for example, doesn't know how many households have parents who are working, doesn't know the number of three- and four-year-olds and doesn't know how many three- and four-year-olds are accessing a childcare place. That, for me, illustrates the need for the public services boards to take ownership of this, because by health and education services and social services working together we can pool the information that everybody holds to some extent, and that would enable us to be much more up-to-the-minute on what care is available where.

So, I have a particular focus I want to concentrate on when Cardiff does become an early years implementor, which is how we're going to expand wraparound care based on the number of children who already have nursery places in primary schools, but obviously the room where they're getting that early years place can't be used for the wraparound care because there's another cohort coming in in the afternoon.

Why is not possible for social services to use early years childcare placements for children who they have concerns about? Because we know from the EPI evidence that this is the best way of, if you like, beating the disadvantage that some children get from birth. One of the other issues for me is that we only have one integrated children's centre in the whole of Cardiff, which is obviously in Ely, and which is a centre of excellence for achieving excellent outcomes for all children, whatever their circumstances.

So, those need to be our objectives and it seems to me that, whilst I appreciate that the Government only has the money at the moment for those who have working parents, we also need to use other streams of programmes—Flying Start, Families First, et cetera—to bring around the integrated childcare that we know all children need.

So, one of the key questions for me is: are we going to apply the same criteria to voluntary and private sector providers as we will be doing to public sector providers, as long as they obviously meet the early years education offer, which is the two to two and a half hours early years provision? It seems to me that because primary schools are not in a position to deliver the 30 hours, we have to have other organisations that can deliver the hours but also must be able to deliver the quality. So, I'd be keen to hear what you have to say on that.

Thank you, Jenny. A couple of things in response: first of all, in terms of getting this offer to the people who most need it because, curiously, even though it's focused on working parents, there's almost a universality to it as well, in that we're saying that all working parents should, but we know that there are some working parents who would benefit from this more, and how do we get the information to them? How do we persuade them that it's easily accessible? Well, alongside the early implementation options, we've also been developing—sorry, everything nowadays is a hashtag, but it's actually a hashtag scheme—#TalkChildcare. So, part of the engagement we've been doing, I was mentioning, with the hundreds of thousands of parents, both within the scheme and in other areas, is to try and make it simple to understand what this offers, and we've heard some interesting things. So, such as, you know, I'm from the south Wales Valleys and south Wales Valleys people do tend to, perhaps, disproportionately rely on relatives. So, when you say, 'We've got an offer here with Government-supported, Government-backed childcare', they say, 'Well, I've got my free childcare already sorted, thank you very much.' And we say, 'No, no, we've got it with bits attached to it and stuff.' But part of that approach is very much to get the message out, whether it's in Crickhowell or Llandrindod, or it's in an urban setting in the centre of Cardiff, getting that message out to those communities.

The related, but slightly separate issue of the wider wraparound services is an interesting one. This shouldn't be separate from the wider stuff that we are doing with the integration of children and youth provision and education, the whole pedagogical aspects as well. We're doing so much of it, and I see good examples on the ground. The challenge for us now in children and early years is how to make those experiences commonplace with more wraparound services. We're seeing good stuff happening; it goes nicely alongside this, curiously enough, because it's all to do with that early years intervention. We need to be doing both in parallel.

But this is very specifically the childcare offer based around working parents, and in answer to that, relating to that wider offer then, well, yes, providers need to be registered and licensed. We need to know that the standards are there. That's what we want to see: that they're able, fit and confident to provide not simply childcare, but to a standard that we know there's child development and there's socialisation, et cetera, et cetera. That's what this is about, but that will include social enterprises, voluntary groups that do that, as well as direct local authority provision, as well as many others. We want to encourage all of those who think they can play a part with us to come on board as we roll this out firmly right across the whole of Wales, and this Bill allows us to put in place the mechanisms to start that happening.

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education: update on the next steps for the pupil development grant. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer.

The gap in levels of attainment between learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers is an international challenge. The basis of the gap is historic and complicated; it’s rooted in inequality, disadvantage and class systems. Whilst Wales is not unique, we do face specific challenges. That is why I’ve placed narrowing the gap at the heart of our national mission to raise standards and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence.

Since the introduction of the pupil development grant, more than £394 million has been made available. This has supported the equivalent of over 450,000 learners, and we are seeing progress. But it is clear there is no quick fix. We have to think long term, and that’s why we're increasingly focusing on the early years and on early intervention.

Time and time again, I’m told how important the PDG is. It is having a real impact in raising aspirations; building confidence; improving behaviour and attendance; and involving families in their children’s education, all of which are essential building blocks in ensuring that children and young people reach their full potential. This feedback is backed up by the PDG evaluation that we published in December, which highlighted that it’s considered invaluable by schools.

However, there’s much more to do if our more disadvantaged learners are ever to achieve on a par with their peers, and that is very clear from the 2017 GCSE results. Whilst the old and new measures are not comparable, it is clear that EFSM learners were less resilient in dealing with the changes last summer, and looked-after children were less resilient again. But we did see some excellent examples of schools bucking the trend, where their EFSM learners actually out-performed their non-EFSM peers. We are working hard to understand what these schools did differently and to ensure this excellent practice is shared and built upon.

It's also important not to lose sight of the significant progress made in attainment levels over recent years. More than one in three EFSM learners achieved the level 2 threshold in 2016, compared to one in five in 2009. And 23 per cent of our looked-after children reached that level in 2016, compared with just 13 per cent in 2013. But we know that this single measure of educational success is not reflective of a modern education system. Performance measures need to drive an inclusive and diverse curriculum benefiting all pupils, so we are developing a suite of measures that will focus on progress and added value, as well as overall attainment.

In the meantime, we are further expanding the PDG to provide an enhanced support package for our disadvantaged learners. From this month, I have increased the early years PDG from £600 to £700, building on the doubling of financial support last year from £300 to £600, and reflecting the importance of early intervention in breaking down those barriers that are often created by poverty and disadvantage. I have expanded the definition of PDG to give schools greater flexibility to support learners who have been EFSM in the previous two years. This responds to concerns around the single data collection point being artificial and will drive creativity in the use of the funding.

Crucially, I have also guaranteed allocation levels for the next two financial years. This, together with our commitment to PDG for the remainder of the Assembly term, will provide schools with a level of certainty at a time of significant financial challenge and unpredictability. The imminent roll-out of universal credit is a significant factor in this unpredictability. Having the time to assess and plan for the full implications of universal credit was an important factor in my decision to set allocation levels for the next two years. Whilst the UK Government’s austerity agenda continues to place Welsh public services under the cosh, we can at least offer schools some protection in terms of PDG until March 2020. Members will be aware that the Children, Young People and Education Committee is undertaking an inquiry into targeted funding. Evidence has been presented to the committee suggesting that the PDG isn't always used for all eligible learners, with the focus sometimes being only on those who are struggling academically. Let me be very clear: the PDG is there to support all EFSM learners and looked-after learners, including those who are more able. This position is not new, but I am keen to reinforce its importance and I want to see practitioners building on current good practice.

I was very pleased to hear Estyn recognise, in its evidence to the committee inquiry, that the PDG is one of the areas of decision making that schools make best use of evidence. This is essential in ensuring effective interventions and value for money. Schools can also rely on the support of regional consortia, who are required through the grant to have both a PDG strategic adviser and a looked-after children PDG co-ordinator. As well as providing essential support, leadership and challenge across their regions, these consortia leads are working at a national level with my officials and our raising attainment advocate, Sir Alasdair MacDonald, to deliver a national programme of work to drive progress across the board. This programme will reflect the findings of the forthcoming evaluations of both the early years and looked-after children elements of the grant.

There is no question for me that we have to continue to prioritise narrowing the attainment gap. We have a moral duty to ensure that there is equity of opportunity for all learners to reach their potential, whatever that may be. That is our challenge, and I am absolutely committed to rising to it. Thank you, acting Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Look, while I welcome any additional funding that you might announce on behalf of the Welsh Government for learners in our schools, and particularly those who may face disadvantage, I have to say, I'm extremely disappointed by the timing of this announcement; I think it's a huge discourtesy to the National Assembly, to the Children, Young People and Education Committee and its Chair that you have made this announcement simply because of the convenience of the Welsh Liberal Democrat conference in the kiosk where it was held, no doubt, in Cardiff over the weekend.

I think that you should've announced this in the Chamber, not to your party members, and I, frankly, am appalled, because this is the sort of behaviour that you would have been the first to shout up and criticise when you were on the opposition benches before you joined this shambolic Government, so I'm very disappointed that you have made the announcement in this way, and I think it shows very much a significant lack of respect for the children and young people's committee in particular, particularly given that we are in the middle of an inquiry into targeted funding for children and young people in our schools. And you know that, within the purview of that inquiry, we are looking very much at the pupil development grant and the efficacy of it and we're going to be making, probably, a good number of recommendations about the shape of that grant in the future. So, frankly, why you've done this at the moment I do not know. You should have been waiting for the receipt of that report, rather than pre-empting it with a pre-emptive strike today. So, very, very disappointed indeed, and I'm very disappointed that you've laid aside the morals that you seemed to have when you were in opposition with regard to these sorts of announcements.

Now, that said, I do have a number of questions, as you might imagine, on your announcement. You've indicated that you've given some security to local education authorities in terms of the funding that you've provided through to the end of the Assembly term, but, as I understand it, you've based the allocations on the school census data in 2016. Why have you chosen to base the allocations on the school census data in 2016 and not 2017, which is available to you? Is it fixed, now, on the 2016 data, even though you know that the numbers of children and young people who might be eligible for the pupil deprivation grant will change from year to year in our schools? I've been contacted by schools in my own constituency saying, 'We haven't had a penny of pupil deprivation grant this year, even though we've got pupils who ought to be entitled to the grant, given the Welsh Government's criteria, simply because they've used the old data from the previous year'. Why have you chosen to do that? That certainly doesn't seem fair at all. So, I'd appreciate an explanation as to why you've done that.

I'm pleased to hear you recognise that it's very important that all learners who are entitled to this grant are afforded the opportunity to develop to their full potential, including those who are more able and talented. One thing that has been very clear from the evidence that has been coming in to the committee is that they have been largely overlooked to date in terms of the efforts that have been made, and I think it's very important not only that you send a clear message by saying a few words in this Chamber, but that there's some clear and practical guidance that is issued to our local education authorities, to the regional consortia and our schools. So, I ask you: will you issue such guidance in the future on things that are there, available for people to use, which are in accordance with best practice to achieve the best possible outcomes for those learners?

You made reference to the fact that the aim of this fund is to close the educational attainment gap. We know that that gap opened up significantly in 2017. Now, I appreciate that you say you can't necessarily directly compare to the previous year because you've changed the measures; it's the form of every Government to change measures where they don't like the measures that are in place, but the reality is that, even if you take into account those changes in the measures, the gap still grew. So, in spite of the fact that you're increasing the pupil development grant, we seem to have this reduction in its effectiveness in terms of being able to close that gap. So, I wonder what work you are doing to identify precisely why that gap is widening in spite of the extra resources that you are putting in.

Just finally, if I may, one question that many people ask me is why there isn't some sort of recognition for those individuals who may not be eligible for free school meals, but whose funding in the schools has declined significantly as a result of the ever-increasing push to increase this grant at the expense of the overall funding pot for our schools. You and I both know that, where you increase a specific grant, you've got to reduce the overall spending allocation that schools are getting. There are many parents who are just about getting by in those schools, where you've got young people who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, frankly, the measure that we have of free school meals isn't necessarily the best one, and, again, this has been coming through sharply in some of the evidence. Now, one of the things that has been suggested is the use of the Ever 6 measure, which looks at those individuals who have been eligible for free school meals over the period of the past six years, rather than taking a single snapshot in any one particular year. I wonder what consideration you've given to the use of the Ever 6 measure in terms of eligibility, rather than the current eligibility criteria that you are using. Thank you.

Can I thank Darren for his series of questions? Perhaps I can start where he left off. In one breath, Darren says, 'You're spending too much money on PDG, and that is at the expense of non-PDG children in schools,' but then he says, 'Why haven't you introduced an Ever 6?' [Interruption.] 'Why haven't you introduced an Ever 6?' I would love—and have looked very carefully at the principle of being able to introduce an Ever 6 system here with the Welsh PDG. I simply don't have the resources available to do that. To be able to implement an Ever 6 would do what Darren has just accused me of doing—prioritising the spending on this grant over other children. Now, Darren, I would agree with you that free school meals might not be the perfect proxy for what constitutes disadvantage, but, at this present time and in the absence of anything else, that's the best proxy that we have at the moment.

Darren also asked about the issue of best practice. Increasingly, we are aware of what works for our most disadvantaged children, and we have already issued guidance to both schools and to individual regional consortia around the use of an evidence-based approach to spending these resources. One of the most accessible resources is the Sutton Trust toolkit, which I know that Darren and the committee are very, very familiar with, as evidence-based interventions that we know work. Darren will also know, from the evidence I gave to the committee just before the Easter recess, that we are considering looking at a Welsh version of the Sutton Trust toolkit, building on Welsh interventions, Welsh experience, and what we know is working here in our schools. But, as I said in my opening statement, Estyn have themselves said that this is one grant where there is extensive evidence that schools are indeed using the evidence to direct their investments.

Darren asked about the issue about the 2016 PLASC data and the use of PLASC data. What's important to understand is that PDG allocations have always been behind—that's how they always have been. Darren asked a very reasonable question—why have we chosen 2016 as the base for the next two years? I have done so for a very simple reason, acting Presiding Officer. We have used that data because it is what allows me to get the most money into the system, because, actually, because of a whole range of factors, free school meal eligibility is dropping. So, 2016 gives me more money than using 2017 data, and we've frozen it for two years in consultation with the profession, because we simply do not know, at this stage, what the effect of the roll-out of universal credit will be on free school meals on Wales. It could present us with changes in behaviour that could see huge fluctuations in free school meal take-up and, therefore, big fluctuations in individual schools' budgets. We have taken the decision that it is better—it is better—to be able to provide certainty of resource for schools for the next two years for planning, rather than take a chance on what the impact of universal credit will be on the free school meal provision, because I simply do not know. Given the fact that I would be first to admit, Darren, that these are challenging financial times for our schools, certainty over that budget is what is important to those practitioners, and the 2016 data gives me more money than the 2017 data would have, and I'm trying to get as much money into the system as I possibly can. And that's the reason for that investment.

The figures in 2017 are complex, and, whilst no direct comparisons are able to be made, I was very clear in my statement that those children were less resilient to the changes to the examinations than their better-off peers, and we have to be clear about why that is, and there are a host of reasons—everything from tier 2 vocabulary and oracy levels that are needed now to get a maths qualification, through to people being taken out of other core subjects to get them through their maths and their English. There are a host of reasons, but I'm also exploring this with our independent overseers of our qualification system, Qualifications Wales, to get a better understanding. But let's be clear: there are some schools where their free-school-meal pupils did better than their non-free-school-meal pupils. So, Cefn Hengoed in Swansea: those entitled to free school meals did better in their GCSEs last year than their better-off counterparts. There are certain schools within the city of Cardiff with very similar levels of uptake of free school meals. Some of those schools have got significant numbers of those pupils getting their level 2 plus, and a similar cohort in the same city have not done so well. And that variation in the system, where some schools have been able to insulate their free-school-meal pupils and push them on, and have been successful in doing so, and schools in the very same city have not been able to do so, is of concern to me, and that is why we will be expecting our PDG co-ordinators in our regional consortia to ensure that best practice—where those schools that are bucking the trend and their pupils are doing well, that good practice is shared consistently across all schools. Because if some can do it then all should be able to do it.

I fear that I will also have to start by echoing the comments of the previous speaker on the timing of this statement. I do feel that it does show a little disrespect to the work of the committee, because we’re a matter of weeks away from publishing the report on school support grants, which will, of course, have a strong focus on the PDG, and here we are hearing a statement from the Government that suggests that you’re not willing to wait to see what our committee report will have to say on some of these issues. So, that is a cause of disappointment, and, okay, you can announce it to your party conference if you want, but it’s this Parliament that sets your budget and it’s to this Parliament that you should be accountable and making statements in the first place.

Of course, one welcomes any additional funding, particularly for the early years PDG. We’ve always said that that investment is needed in the early years, because that is when it will have the greatest impact, and that is a positive step, as well as moving to a two-year funding cycle. There are questions remaining, I fear, as to whether this is the best use of that funding. It’s an old argument that’s been ongoing for many years, as to what kind of return one could get for almost £400 million by using it in different ways. We must bear in mind that the trend of closing this gap between the attainment of those eligible for free school meals and those who aren’t had started before the introduction of the PDG, so there’s more work to be done, and I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would recognise that there’s always more work to be done, to prove that this investment is actually delivering results in terms of the Government’s policies in this area.

There’s no questioning the value that schools place on this investment, of course. I wouldn’t argue about that for one moment, but, in the evidence that we’ve received as a committee, and in the visits that I’ve undertaken to a number of schools, it’s not always appreciated as funding to deliver the purpose for which it’s given, but more to subsidise cuts in core funding of schools. Of course, that is done in various different ways that tick the Government’s boxes, but, perhaps, to use a term that has been used in a conversation with me by someone from the sector, it’s 'papering over many of the cracks'. So, there are questions to be asked as to whether the Government is confident that the money is being used on all occasions for its intended purpose.

Has consideration been given—? Perhaps we do need to have a debate on shifting this funding into schools’ core funding through the revenue support grant, because you are talking more and more about providing flexibility to schools to use it in the way that they feel is appropriate in terms of delivering its purpose, but I just see some inconsistency here in terms of policy, because I'm sure you would—and I see from your face that you would—argue that it’s important to protect this as a specific grant that has particular criteria that you would expect schools to deliver against, but, of course, you are abolishing other grants and putting them into the RSG, and when we then express concern that there is some loss of focus, you say, 'Well, no—there will be an additional focus on outcomes and outputs, and ensuring that we can track the use of the funding.'

So, there is some inconsistency, I think, in the way in which the Government is approaching the various means of providing funding to schools, and I think we need a debate. I'm not sure myself what the answer is, but I do see that there's an inconsistency, never mind some of the funding going to schools, some to local authorities, and some grants coming through the consortia. The feedback I get from schools suggests that perhaps there may be a piece of work that needs to be done around those issues.

May I also ask—? In light of the point that I made on the need to monitor the impact of the PDG, you mentioned providing an enhanced focus on progress and adding value. Can you tell us a little more as to which indicators you will be considering and what you will be seeking to measure? Because it's a very difficult thing to measure in that context. Some clarity on that would be welcome.

May I welcome the fact that you are moving to a two-year funding cycle for the PDG? Because the feedback as to how difficult it is to go on a year-to-year basis has come through very clearly from a number of different directions. May I say that Gwynedd Council has been guaranteeing funding for their schools over a longer period than just 12 months already? So, it's clear that the need to move in that direction on the ground is clear, and I'm pleased to see that reflected in your decision, although you are framing it in the context of universal credit, and that's quite reasonable, but I would say that it's not only because of universal credit—I would hope that this is a decision that goes over and above that. We are short of the situation in England, as we heard, with the Ever 6, but certainly it is a step in the right direction, and I do welcome that.

You've referred to the Estyn comments on PDG, but Estyn also say that only two thirds of schools use the PDG effectively, and that leaves a third of schools that aren't doing so, and I'd like to hear what steps the Government will take to ensure that the potential of this income is being maximised in every school, particularly in that third of schools that Estyn feels that perhaps aren't making the best possible use or making effective use of the PDG.

And finally from me, we had a few questions earlier on scrapping the school uniforms grant. In his response, the First Minister said that it would be turned into a more flexible fund—something that could provide additional support for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, something that may pay for school trips or specific experiences. It sounds very similar to the PDG, so perhaps you could tell us a little more about how it will differ. Thank you.

Thank you, Llyr, for that. I want to begin by saying that I'm grateful that you recognise the need to give stability to schools as much as we can, which is why the decision has been taken. That's especially true when, as I said to Darren, funding situations are difficult, and this gives schools and their governing bodies the best possible opportunity to plan for the effective use of these resources. And you're right; Estyn says that there is more that can be done to ensure that these resources are used effectively, which is why we are working with the regional consortia, with the PDG co-ordinator in each of them, to ensure that schools are doing just that: that they are using best practice and that they can evidence the reasons for the decisions they're taking with regard to the PDG.

You might not regard this as a particular priority, but we can't have the education system that I want for our pupils if we take our eye off this particular ball. Maybe, if you were standing in my place here, you'd want to get rid of the PDG. But I want to make it absolutely clear to the parents of some of our most disadvantaged children, and to the schools that serve those communities, that whilst I am the Cabinet Secretary for Education, then the PDG will exist, and I will do my best to ensure, where there are opportunities to increase the value of that, like we did last year, and like we have done this year, that we will do just that. I make no apologies for wanting to invest this money in the education of our poorest children.

I mean no discourtesy to the Chair or other members of the committee by making this announcement, but it is the start of the financial year, and we have had to make allocations to schools. It's not your fault that your report is going to come later on, but it is not my fault. When schools are asking me for their allocations, we need to be able to get that allocation out to them. I hope that I have demonstrated over the last two years that, where I can respond positively to the work of scrutiny committees, I will do that, but in terms of the allocation, we've had to make that money and those allocations known to schools as quickly as possible. It's not meant as a discourtesy to the committee. It's just a question of timing and the start of the financial year.

I will be making a statement later on this term to update Members on our changes to assessment and accountability measures. It seems to me we are in a position to move to a more intelligent suite of assessment and accountability measures that moves us on from where we have been in the past, which perhaps has been, in some schools, used to focus exclusively on the C/D boundary, which has had consequences for other aspects of our education system, for the types of qualifications that children have been entered for. Despite the dip in performance in 2017, what we did see in 2017 is more children on free school meals being entered for GCSEs than ever before—children that previously wouldn't have been entered for a GCSE science exam. More children than ever before from poorer backgrounds are being entered for these qualifications, and that's something I think we should take into consideration, and we do need a better suite of performance measures.

As I said, Llyr, you may not believe in the ability of this investment to transform the life of children. Listening to schools, listening to the evaluation and listening to Estyn, I believe that this is the right path, this is the right focus, and whilst I remain in this position, it will continue to be so.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome your announcement of the increase in the early years PDG. Acting earlier in a child's life to mitigate social and other disadvantages the child is subject to makes sense, and obviously the earlier you act, the better it is for the child, and the more likely you are to head off the consequences of that disadvantage. I also welcome your decision to extend the eligibility criteria to two years—with a little bit of caution, because it may well take a lot longer than two years for a child to recover from the effects of being on free school meals or other disadvantage. So, can the Cabinet Secretary explain to us why this period isn't longer, and why she has chosen two years as opposed to three, four, five or whatever? Guaranteeing the allocation for two years is also a welcome development. I do actually agree with you that it will provide a level of certainty at least. Do you have any thoughts as to whether you might review that period? Is this two-year thing going to be an ongoing thing or is it just going to be a one-off?

Coming to the PDG and how it's applied, a level of flexibility seems to exist in how schools use the PDG, and whilst 100 per cent of the PDG may not be specifically and directly targeted at pupils on free school meals by the schools, I wouldn't like to see that flexibility compromised. I think it gives schools something—an extra tool in their armoury to help children who may fall into a grey area, perhaps. So, do you have any intention to restrict how schools are going to be using the PDG? Because you've gone to quite big pains today to emphasise that this PDG is to narrow the attainment gap. What are the implications for schools? Are you going to try and restrict how they use the PDG, or are you just going to leave it as the status quo, as things are at the moment?

Free school meal entitlement is also quite a blunt tool, and I think you would agree with me on that. Factors such as adverse childhood experiences can have a hugely detrimental impact on educational attainment, so have you given any consideration to whether the PDG criteria could be adjusted to take into account factors such as certain ACEs that can detrimentally affect a child's development and educational attainment hugely through life? If you don't feel that the PDG is the appropriate tool for that, what proposals are you coming forward with to address those factors that do have such a big impact on educational attainment? I recognise that your objective is to narrow the attainment gap between pupils on free school meals and those who aren't, but narrowing the attainment gap is only part of the picture. If pupils on free school meals are to escape the cycle of low wages that their parents may have found themselves in, they must be allowed and encouraged to fulfil their potential. So, do you have any proposals on how pupils on free schools meals can be targeted to become higher achievers, over and above payment of the PDG? Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let me be absolutely clear about the usage of the PDG. PDG money is there to support the educational attainment of those children who are eligible for free school meals or children who are looked after, regardless of their potential. So, for some, that might be providing catch-up to bring them up to a level with their peers. For some PDG children, that's about supporting them to be the more able and talented children that they are. So, this is not about an educational attainment level for individuals, it's about supporting each of those children to be the best they can be.

The money has to be used for direct intervention for those eligible children, but the resources can also be used for universal interventions that would disproportionately benefit EFSM or LAC learners. So, that has a knock-on effect for those who find themselves perhaps just over the threshold or who are suffering from other limitations on their educational attainment, but not financial. Let me give the Member an example from her own region. Brynteg County Primary School in Wrexham has an EFSM percentage of over 32 per cent and they have used some of their PDG to develop a growth mindset programme for every learner in the school—every learner. But what we know is that that disproportionately benefits the learners who are from a more disadvantaged background. So, every learner benefits from that programme, but it disproportionately benefits those children on FSM. 

With regard to ACEs and to attachment disorder, which is something that increasingly primary schools are telling me that they are contending with and dealing with, LAC resources in the ERW regional consortium have been used to ensure that all primary schools are ACE and attachment aware. Again, that potentially benefits everybody in the school, but we know it disproportionately benefits a certain subset of children who are entitled to this resource.

I'm not intending to restrict schools' uses of the funding. What I want to do is ensure that schools are using best practice and evidence and knowing that the interventions that they're employing are the ones that we know actually work for children. So, Michelle, you're absolutely right; we need to look at each individual child in the round and where we can support those children to reach their potential, whatever that might be. So, this is not just support to use for children to catch up, but to extent children who are more able and talented and to raise those aspirations for the children, something that Brynteg County Primary School has done wonderfully. 

I'm not sure if this is the last speaker, Chair—

No, you have a few more. Sorry about that. Lynne Neagle.

Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. As Members have said and as the Cabinet Secretary is aware, we are nearly at the end of our inquiry into targeted funding. We've got a discussion about it tomorrow, and I really don't want to pre-empt the committee's findings on that, because we will be making, I hope, a good number of recommendations, which I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will want to take very seriously. I am pleased that the work that the committee has done has enabled a continued light to be shone on this very important area of work.

I just wanted to ask two brief questions, the first related to the resilience of pupils in the 2017 GCSEs, which you've referred to several times in answers. In particular, you've highlighted the fact that you are intending to ensure that the lessons of good practice will be rolled out to all parts of Wales. Can I just ask whether you can give a more concrete indication of when you expect that work to be completed and for your assurance that that is going to be in good time for this summer's exams?

My second question was on the issue of more able and talented learners, because the committee has received a lot of evidence that some schools are just using their PDG on free-school-meal pupils who aren't performing well, and I very much welcome the clarity that you've provided this afternoon that you expect that money to be used for all EFSM pupils. But in relation to that, do you have any concrete plans to ensure that that message is given loud and clear to the whole of Wales, and to ensure that that is properly implemented everywhere? Thank you. 

Can I thank the Chair of the committee for her comments? As I said in answer to Llyr Huws Gruffydd, there is no slight intended towards the work of the committee. It is the start of the financial year and schools need to know their budgets. We've had to make that announcement prior to the publication of the report. And just for clarity, many Members have been greatly exercised this afternoon about me announcing this money first to a party conference on Saturday morning. Let me assure all the Members the first people who knew about the additional resources were the schools. I announced this to individual schools in March. It is schools up and down this nation that first heard about this resource, and I want to assure all Members of that in the grant allocations that were sent to them in March.    

Lynne, I share your concerns around using this resource, as I said to Michelle Brown, just for catch-up, and not to recognise individual children who are more able and talented. I've been clear today, I hope, and I was clear in the committee evidence that I gave you, that I expect all children to be benefiting from these resources, and I will be expecting the regional consortia advisers, both individual ones in individual schools, as well as the co-ordinator for the entire consortia, to be asking these questions in schools of headteachers about how this resource is being used. And I have been very clear about my expectations that those questions are to be asked. This money is there for every child who is eligible to reach their full potential. 

The issue around resilience in GCSEs is an ongoing piece of work; it's not a one-off piece of work. We've already had conversations with regional consortia, headteachers via our headteachers conferences, as well as the ongoing dialogue officials continually have with headteachers about the need to spread good practice, and understand why some schools are able to buck the trend and why other schools, as I said, even within the same local education authority or the same regional consortia, were not able to support their pupils in the same way. If there was one simple reason for the lack of resilience, it would be easy, but this is multifactoral and slightly different in each school. But that work is ongoing and consistent across all the areas. One of the greatest strategic challenges we have in the Welsh education system is variability, and this is again another example of why we need to address that situation around variability.     

Thank you very much. And finally, then, Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I have a few questions on your statement. Firstly, I note your comments about how the PDG is being used to better involve families in their children's education, and you will know that I'm hosting an event for Parentkind at the Senedd tomorrow at which you'll be speaking. This aims to celebrate the work of the charity in getting parents to take a role in education. However, I know, and many other former teachers and teachers know, that it can be difficult to engage parents of EFSM children to attend parents evening or to feel comfortable visiting their child's school. What work can the Welsh Government do to help overcome these barriers? 

Secondly, the improvement in attainment for EFSM and looked-after children you mentioned is really welcome. One in three of the former are now reaching the level 2 threshold, and nearly one in four of the latter. It is right that we recognise pupil progress, but for many of these pupils progress cannot be measured by exam results alone. So, I'd welcome the return to more of a focus on the inclusive measure of value added. Could you expand on your comments about how the Welsh Government will develop a suite of measures that will focus on progress in terms of value added? 

Thirdly and finally, a crucial aspect of the PDG is obviously the way in which it is used to support looked-after pupils. The current flexibility in the system allows regional consortia to tailor-make support packages that address the particular needs of pupils in their area. How does the Welsh Government monitor this to ensure that best practice is rolled out across Wales so that all looked-after pupils receive the very best support? 

Can I think Vikki for that? I'm looking very much forward to the event tomorrow. What we know is that, after the quality of teaching, parental engagement in their child's education is the second biggest factor that reflects outcomes. So, we need fantastic teachers in front of our children, but we also need really supportive parents, grandparents and communities behind those children if they're going to make the most of their education opportunities.

There is some excellent good practice. I think maybe it's even Janet Finch-Saunders's constituency or it may be Darren Millar's constituency—Ysgol Glan Gele Infant School. I think it's Darren's. This is one of the schools that Estyn has highlighted has excellent practice for using PDG in terms of parental engagement. That school has worked really hard in systematically targeting its PDG to address the problem of disengaged parents. This includes basic skills sessions for parents themselves, taking place in the new parent partnership provision. So, they've created an entire scheme that really, really targets this issue, and they use their PDG to support it. As a consequence, the school has seen greater parental involvement in their own children's learning as well as upskilling the parents themselves, which is a great thing, in their own numeracy and literacy skills. That's also had a huge impact on well-being for both those parents as well as their children. It's a really good example of great practice in how this resource is being funded. But we need to see more of those examples being developed and spread across Wales. 

With regard to assessment and performance measures, I'm hoping to make a statement, as I said to Llyr Huws Gruffydd, later on this terms that outlines the approach that we're asking. It's necessary to align ourselves as we prepare for the new curriculum, because assessment arrangements are going to have to change and we're going to have to go along with our new curriculum, but it's also clear to me that we need a more sophisticated way in which we can measure the individual performance of schools.

Yes, we still need children to achieve in their formal examinations, but, actually, how we measure that needs to be much more sophisticated. At the moment, what we've got is a system that says, 'If you get a child a C in their GCSE—tick, you've been a success', but if you got a D, then you've failed that child. But, actually, if that child was barely coming to school and your school has worked really, really hard and has actually got that child engaging in activities and a suite of skills and experiences, we shouldn't write off that effort. Meanwhile, if a child came to you that should have got an A* and they've ended up with a C, we should not be congratulating the school system for that either, because they've not allowed that child to reach their full potential. We need a set of performance measures that focuses on the whole cohort, not just the C or D borderlines where we know some schools have focused, but on every single child in that school. Their performance and their achievements should matter and I'll be making a statement about that later on this term, about how we achieve that. 

It's perhaps not surprising but it's disappointing that much of the debate today has just been about free school meals and not about the LAC element of the PDG. If we're worried about the attainment gap for our poorer children, then, my goodness me, we need to be worried about the attainment gap for our children who are care experienced and who are looked after. 

My officials will be working very closely with the group that is chaired by David Melding. I'm hoping that David and I can meet up shortly to discuss how best we can use these resources to shift the dial for these children. It is not easy. It's complex. We have made good progress, but last summer we have seen a falling back because of that lack of resilience. I'm absolutely determined that these children's educational attainment is equally as important as every other child's in the system, and I'll be working cross-party, across the Chamber, to ensure that these resources that are being made available by a LAC PDG are used to best effect. 

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. 

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Environment on the environment in Wales. I call on Hannah Blythyn to introduce the statement. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In Wales we are fortunate to have an awe-inspiring landscape and a rich natural heritage. It's a huge draw for visitors to our shores and a fantastic place for us all to spend time. But our natural environment is not simply a matter of recreation; it's a living, breathing, working landscape  that is and should be there for the benefit of all of the people of Wales. It's more than simply a space that exists outside our towns and cities to escape to, and it's not only home to those who live in rural areas, but an asset that underpins key industries and a vital source of water and energy for the UK as a whole, and it's a fundamental part of who we are as a nation. So, today, in underlining our commitment as a Government to the environment and setting out my priorities, I do so not as an add-on to our main objectives but as a core value that must run through our collective approach. 

With the current focus of Brexit falling on the economic and social impact, it's perhaps easy sometimes to lose sight of the environmental threats that were previously the centre of attention and have not gone away. The threats posed by Brexit should not be underestimated, but alongside this we should also not forget the scale of the risks that stem from a continued decline in biodiversity or continued rise in global emissions. 

Farmers farm the environment, and without soil biodiversity and without pollinators, there is no long-term future for farming. And if we don’t play our part in the global action needed, we risk gambling away our own prosperity along with that of future generations. The environment is not an 'either/or'; it is fundamental to our economic prosperity and our health and well-being.

As a Government, we are absolutely committed to full implementation of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. The evidence from Wales’s first 'The State of Natural Resources' report is clear that the environmental challenges we face require transformational action. Evidence locally and globally shows that taking small, incremental steps will no longer do. The continued decline in terrestrial biodiversity brings this home in abundance. In Wales’s first natural resources policy, we set out that reversing the decline in biodiversity and improving ecosystem resilience is a challenge on a par with climate change. This is why reversing this decline will be central to my approach.

Our highest quality natural environments must rightly be at the heart of our approach to nature recovery and they represent key habitats from which we must grow our biodiversity. The evidence shows that maintaining the status quo is not an option. We must ensure action on green infrastructure, and that green engineering is mainstreamed across everything we do. We must also look at action like the reintroduction of native species, where it is sensible to do so.

We all recognise that we have world-class parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and my second priority is to work with the national parks and AONBs to enhance the value of nature for people across Wales. Our national parks and AONBs are central to enhancing the understanding of the value of our natural landscapes. They have a key educational role to play, which is also about helping people to explore and use those resources sustainably to ensure environmental, social and economic benefit. 

I am therefore calling on our national parks and AONBs to be exemplars on the sustainable management of natural resources, particularly on biodiversity, trees and woodlands, but also in contributing to the delivery of appropriate solutions of the right scale to improve resource efficiency and decarbonisation in those areas. The projects under our sustainable management scheme now show what is possible. I do recognise that the national parks and AONBs face a funding challenge, and that's why I've already allocated £3.4 million in additional funding.

My third priority is fundamental to the progress we must make: increasing the number of trees and woodlands in Wales. Forestry is already an important industry in Wales, both in its own right and as part of our world-class outdoor recreation offer, but our woodland resources are not sufficient or resilient enough to be sustainable, and this is a barrier to making progress environmentally and economically. To unlock commercial opportunities, particularly in a rapidly decarbonising economy, having diverse forestry and timber as a resource is crucial if we are to retain as much as possible of the supply chain benefits here in Wales. My aim is for high-quality, biodiverse woodland that delivers both economic and environmental benefit. I recognise, however, that to achieve this there will need to be a transition. For the creation of new woodland, there must be a transparent, proportionate and predictable process, and I will bring to this place a refreshed woodland strategy before the summer recess.

Expanding our woodlands is only one of the ways in which we will increase the number of our trees. Hedgerows, riparian corridors, and urban trees all have a vital role to play. Glastir has played a key role in the positive results to date, but after Brexit our new land management policy will centre on public goods, and woodlands have great potential in this space.

Let’s be clear, this is not solely a priority for rural Wales; it is a priority for our urban areas too. The Llynfi project is an example of how woodland can support a wide range of benefits for communities. There is growing evidence that demonstrates how important green space is to our physical and mental health and how putting the right trees in the right locations contributes to tackling flooding and poor air quality.  

This brings me to my fourth priority: accelerating our action on poor air quality. I'll be making a separate, detailed statement setting out our approach on 24 April. This Government is committed to taking action on one of the biggest preventable public health issues of our time, and this commitment reinforces how action on the environment has the potential to deliver win-win benefits. 

My final priority goes to the heart of our natural resources policy’s commitment to resource efficiency. Building on our already first-class record on recycling, I want to guide us to being the best in the world. We absolutely want to continue to reduce our waste and tackle key issues like the scourge of single-use plastic, but unlocking the opportunities that becoming more resource-efficient can bring is also central to our economic action plan. I will not only be bringing forward the regulations to implement Part 4 of the environment Act, but also developing a route-map for a more resource-efficient economy.

The five priorities that I have set out today are all as equally important as one another, and in many ways inter-linked: reversing the decline in biodiversity; working with the national parks and AONBs; increasing the number of trees and woodlands; accelerating our action on air quality; and becoming the best in the world on recycling illustrate the practical action being taken on the direction set by Wales’s first natural resources policy. This is the action needed to realise the high-level aspirations and ambitions set out in previous legislative reform.

As set out by the First Minister in 'Prosperity for All', our approach is cross-Government, whether that be by me working with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the use of green spaces to improve mental and physical health; with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport on air quality and the economic contract and opportunities for green growth in areas like timber in construction; or with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the move away from a system where profit is privatised whilst the public purse picks up the cost of environmental and social impacts—all work that we have already initiated—and, of course, working with the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on the reforms to planning policy, and using public money to deliver public goods by rewarding land managers for restoring and maintaining a healthy environment, and on a sustainable marine management policy that recognises both the importance of restoring resilient ecosystems and then securing the many benefits we gain from the marine environment. 

But action by Welsh Government alone will not be enough to address the challenges we face. The onus is on all of us to take responsibility and take action, and I want to pay tribute to the communities, organisations and individuals across the country already taking action. I welcome the initiatives in areas from Anglesey to Aberporth, who are already taking innovative action to tackle plastic pollution, and I will be undertaking a series of visits and engagements across Wales in the summer to see and discuss the work being undertaken. I want to ensure that we're working in partnership with others to empower people and remove barriers to positive action, to address our challenges and deliver on our priorities.

Empowering the public sector to take a leadership role, as we have already done in partnership with local government on recycling, is key. I intend to build on this partnership for biodiversity and will meet each local authority to discuss how they intend to implement their new legal duties in the environment Act.

The current focus on plastic shows the importance of action we can all take as individuals and organisations. There's a key role for our iconic events to play. I will be working with the organisers of major Welsh events, such as the Royal Welsh Show and the Eisteddfod, to see how we can use our world-renowned events as a platform for action.

Lastly, I set out up front that the environment is a value that runs through our collective approach. This is a value that we have in common with the EU’s environmental principles that recognise the importance of the environment, not just as a home to nature, but a key determinant of our health as individuals, of the resilience of our communities, and the long-term viability of our economy. I understand the worry that's been expressed at losing the EU standards and environment principles currently in place. 

We are committed to non-regression on environmental principles and standards, and are fully committed to not only maintaining current EU standards, but to continuing to improve upon them. And as we made clear in the debate on our continuity Bill, we will work to close the environmental governance gap caused by leaving the EU at the first proper legislative opportunity. But this must be done in a way that works with, and builds upon, rather than cuts across the internationally recognised primary legislation that we have put in place in Wales, which is unique within the UK.

I am proud of the fact that we are internationally recognised as a values based, environmentally conscious nation. In the twenty-first century, those values are increasingly at the heart of the most successful brands and will be fundamental to our ability to compete internationally. As a nation, we have the natural resources, the track record, and the ability to realise the opportunities of the transition we face. In setting out the priorities for environmental action today, we recognise that it's not a nice to have, but an investment in our nation’s future.

Whilst I welcome today's statement, I must say, two years in, it is very general indeed in its construction, and I fear in places it deflects us with expansive phrases from some very poor delivery. Do you know, I think sometimes more reflection needs to be made on the texts that come before you? I have to say, to state in this Assembly, and I'm quoting the statement:

'I am therefore calling on our National Parks and AONBs to be exemplars on the sustainable management of natural resources, particularly on biodiversity, trees and woodlands',

et cetera. Well, crikey, they're in crisis if they're not doing that naturally already, you know. I just think we need more detail and more bite. And I think your department in general—I see the Cabinet Secretary also here—needs to cause a lot more trouble for the environmental agenda and sustainable development, and the use of the key legislative vehicle—that's the future generations Act in particular—and at the moment, I think this explains a lot of the poor delivery: it's just not there; there isn't the cross-Government working at the moment that we need.

Can I look at some specifics, then, to highlight my concerns? Woodlands, forestry. You're now committed to refresh the woodland strategy. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean you're going to bin the current targets and come up with something much less ambitious? You will know that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report into woodlands in Wales picked up this issue of the low level of woodland creation being absolutely a key failure. And Confor stated to the committee, and I quote:

'Woodland creation in Wales has been a catastrophic failure. Wales needs to plant 31,800ha of the 35,000ha which should by now have been planted, simply to get back on track'.

We are way behind the target set by the Welsh Government in 2010, where woodland creation was about 500 hectares then, to increase that to 5,000 a year over a 20-year period. We've not even matched, in that whole time, one year's target—12 months. I think this does sum up some of the difficulties we're in. Can I ask you at least in terms of the urban canopy, when you refresh the strategy, to commit the 20 per cent target of woodland canopy cover in our urban areas, which, of course, then means they can be classified as urban forests?

On air quality, I think it's very disappointing that we have this bifurcated approach, where you're making this general statement this week, and you've said, 'Well, actually, the real detail on a very key area will come next week,' but obviously, we will scrutinise you in detail now. I really want to see some ambition in terms of how we're going to target the areas that have had for decades—generations some of them—poor air quality, and how that's going to be combated. And I want to see a more general green spaces strategy, so we have concepts like green roofs, and how green spaces, particularly in our poorer neighbourhoods, are able, with a good anti-congestion policy, to improve radically our air quality in urban areas.

On resource efficiency, I largely agree with what you've said. We need, not just in Wales, but all over Europe and the UK, a plastics strategy—how we use that very useful material, but it is causing real problems in terms of its single use and disposal. And where are we with the bottle deposit scheme? Even the UK Government has gone ahead of us now after a fairly slow start when it comes to deposit schemes. They seem keen on it, but after initial enthusiasm, we don't seem to be getting very far in terms of our plans and how we even define a pilot project caused us problems. And can I just say, I have issued a statement of opinion today, calling on the Commission to acknowledge and join in with plastic-free July, which is a strategy to try to reduce single-use plastics? It'd be a good idea if the Welsh Government did the same—we would all be able to cheer, then.

On joint working, I've already said I think the excellent legislative framework needs to be used. But, we had evidence a month or two months ago, perhaps, from the economy and transport Cabinet Secretary and his officials and they loftily told us that the organising principle was now the future generations Act. So we just asked, 'Well, what sort of training have you had? What review of your current targets and ambitions?' and it was like having some nervous schoolboys in front of you as they tried to splutter out a half coherent response, and they didn't really succeed.

Finally, on Brexit, you're right to say that we don't want regression; we need to maintain high standards. There are a lot of issues here that have to be tackled on a UK basis, and we will support you where you have to make the case for the Welsh Government and the National Assembly in the various fora at a UK level. And I do wonder if you've made any response yet to the UK Government's suggestion that some form of independent monitoring body should operate on a UK level.

Thank you for your numerous questions and contributions there. Firstly, can I say that I welcome your support in terms of making sure that we don't roll back on any of our environmental protections as we exit the European Union and that those mechanisms are in place in terms of actually retaining those protections and adhering to our international obligations? In terms of work done on the environmental body, conversations and work is ongoing in terms of regular meetings with DEFRA, both at an official level and at a ministerial level through the Cabinet Secretary.

On woodlands, this is a conversation that I recognise and that we've had before. One of the first debates I responded to in the Chamber was on the environment committee's report, 'Branching out', and I did recently come before the committee with the Cabinet Secretary in the scrutiny session just prior to the Easter recess. We recognise that we are off meeting those ambitious targets in terms of woodland creation, but I identified it as making sure that this is something that we do need to have a step change on.

I mentioned that I visited Scotland and met my colleague, Fergus Ewing. They are making more progress in Scotland, but their approach has been very much based on purely conifer, whereas as I said, here, we're looking for more biodiversity and that balance between broad leaves and conifers. We're looking for a solution that fits us in Wales. But, there are opportunities in terms of posts when we look at the future of land management; it will open up an area for us to go at scale on that, but in the interim—which will be outlined in the refresh of this strategy—it's actually about what steps we can take now and what are the barriers that exist at the moment in terms of woodland creation and tree planting and what we can do now. Can we look at whether there is potential to identify a presumption of woodland creation in some areas, so going back to the right trees in the right places and making sure that is place appropriate?

I very much welcome the Member's—I did spot it today—statement of opinion on plastic-free July. I'm sure that there is something that we can be doing in terms of that to back that, and I think it's a fantastic initiative and one of those things that actually brings things to the fore of the public's and media's consciousness. You were talking about the Assembly estate and single-use plastic free, that is something, from my perspective, in terms of the Welsh Government estate, work is in hand to look at how we can take steps. We're already working with the contractors and caterers to see how we can take that forward to work towards making sure that the Welsh Government estate is single-use plastic free.

In terms of resource efficiency and deposit-return schemes, you're aware that we have had the initial summary of the extended producer responsibility report, now, and I hope to be in a position to come back to this place in the very near future to outline the key recommendations of that and the next steps, and obviously, I very much welcome your scrutiny and input on that when we get to that point. But I think we should recognise too that when we look at the levels of recycling here in Wales, we are ahead of our counterparts in Scotland and England, but that is not to be complacent, because we do need to look at actually how we continue that progress and think of things and innovative solutions and different approaches that we can take. That's why I think there is so much to learn from the kind of community wave of action that we've seen and how we can bring that altogether. Like I said, there is action that we need to take at a Government level as well.

May I welcome the tone of the Minister’s statement today? The principles contained within it are robust, and I certainly couldn’t argue with them, but I also have to say that I had hoped to hear specific proposals in this statement in terms of how the Government is going to tackle the issues and the challenges set out by the Minister. Unfortunately, we’re still in a position where we are discussing some high-level ideas, without actually discussing what are the specific proposals put forward by the Government.

So, may I turn to some of these now, and ask a number of questions, if I may, of the Minister on these issues? For example, the Government held a very broad consultation on the management of the natural resources of Wales last year. It was a contentious consultation in certain areas, and most of those proposals now sit with the Minister, I believe. There were 56 proposals in this consultation. To date, we haven’t seen the summary report of the consultation that was promised in the new year, but certainly I haven’t seen anything that’s been presented to the Assembly. Of the 56 proposals, there’s no mention today which proposals the Government intends to proceed with, so I’d like to hear from the Minister which proposals she intends to take action on.

Fundamental to the challenge that the Minister has set out today on biodiversity, for example, and on the quality of the environment, are the area statements by NRW. When will we see these area statements, and when will we know what will happen at a very localised level in order to tackle some of these issues?

The Minister has mentioned forestry, and David Melding also made mention of this. I think it’s true to say that we’ve only reached 10 per cent of the current target that we have, so what exactly does the Government propose in order to hasten this process so that we can move far more swiftly with the planting of trees, particularly commercial forestry? I accept that we have a different landscape and a different environment to Scotland, but there is room to develop commercial forestry in Wales. For example, is there anything further that the Minister can tell us about enabling NRW to retain some of the funds raised through the leasing of land for renewable energy in order to redirect that funding directly to the planting of trees and also the commercial planting of trees as well?

The challenges of the national parks have already been mentioned. Although I do recognise that there is some additional funding available, the core funding for the national parks, particularly the areas of outstanding natural beauty, is very small and has been reduced over recent years. So, are they sufficiently funded to respond to the challenges set out in this statement? And may I ask whether NRW is sufficiently funded and in a sufficiently robust governance position to tackle some of these challenges too?

I accept that there is to be a statement in a few weeks’ time on air quality, but it is true to say that we do need very swift action by the Government in this area. I and Plaid Cymru are now of the view that we need no less than a clean air Act in order to tackle this issue, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will have to say. I accept that it’s not contained within today’s statement, but I hope that we will see that very soon.

A final point that the Minister has dealt with is the needs of a resource-efficient economy, on which I share her objectives, certainly. We do need to see the producer responsibility report as soon as possible. We need to understand, as well, how the Government is now going to react to the new infrastructure, if you like, around a deposit-return scheme. We've discussed the possibilities or feasibilities in Wales. We really are beyond that now; we have a UK-wide proposal. The Scottish Government, interestingly, has said that it wants to host, or see whether it can join with ourselves and other Governments to have, a summit on deposit-return so we can agree what a common UK framework is, and I'd really like to know today from the Minister whether she will respond to that invitation from Roseanna Cunningham and the Scottish Government and be part of a UK-wide summit to discuss this.

When it comes to plastics, of course, we're in the completely idiotic position that today we drink water from plastic bottles that contains plastic from previous plastic bottles. When you get to that situation, we really need to know that—something needs to be done. Though it's talked about again in this statement, the opportunity was missed to have a levy on single-use plastics in Wales as our innovative first tax, and now we need to move on, certainly, if we're not going to have that levy, into something that really addresses a deposit-return scheme, and builds on our success in recycling. Because the Minister will be aware that though we recycle something like 70 per cent of plastic bottles, those are only the 70 per cent that reach the recycling waste stream. A lot of them are simply disposed of either as rubbish or even on the streets or whatever—they may be in the bin, but they're not being recycled. So, the 70 per cent is a bit of a misleading target.

The final thing that I'd like to ask her is: she has talked in this statement about legislation and seeing the legislation opportunities—when does she see the opportunity arising for legislation that was talked about before Easter around preserving our European protections as we leave the European Union? When does she see that happening? And she also talked before Easter, only a month ago, about the potential for legislation for national parks around their use of natural resources. So, when does she see the opportunity for legislation on that matter?

I think the Member's absolutely right when he talks about the levels of recycling plastic bottles, in terms of, actually, one of the challenges now, actually, is the 'on-the-go' issue, not just littering, which is a contributing factor. But also I can't help but notice now, wherever I go, I actually do specifically look to see if a shopping precinct or a transport hub has recycling facilities. I've actually turned into such a geek, I tend to take photos of them as well now—I've changed. But that actually shows, actually, that we can see a cultural shift as well in terms of people's expectations in looking for the opportunity to use that, and I think it's just work in partnership to make sure that we make that happen.

In terms of DRS and the feasibility study and next steps, I believe you and I are meeting tomorrow morning. I have had contact, correspondence, with Roseanna in the Welsh—. In the UK—. In the Scottish Government; I'll get there eventually. And we are due to have a cross-Government discussion specifically on this issue next month, I believe. So, I'm sure I'll be in a position then to update Members on that.

I need to correct the Member on one thing. You say that the air quality statement is in a few weeks' time; it's actually next week, so it's sooner than you think. But I take, obviously, with all seriousness, on board what you say about the need to take action as a matter of urgency. It's one of the biggest preventable health issues we face in our generation.

In terms of the sustainable management of natural resources consultation, I don't know if you'll be aware that there was a high level of response to it—in excess of 17,000 responses. Officials have completed the initial summary of all the responses, and it's clear that some of the proposals, shall we say, polarised opinion. But, nevertheless, these responses have allowed us to gain a better understanding of the views and positions of a wide variety of stakeholder organisations, as I'm sure the Member can imagine. I do want to publish that response document as soon as is possible now, but I do want to make sure that we consider properly, and in a balanced way, the potential impacts, positive and negative, to make sure that we do find the right way forward. But, no, I recognise what you're saying in terms of the length of time and the need to progress that now.

Just to answer your point on the—. We're talking about woodland creation again, and you specifically referenced the ability of Natural Resources Wales to raise funds, and Welsh Government has now agreed that NRW can carry out compensatory planting from the income from windfarm developments. As managers of the woodland estate, they'll also get about £3.7 million additional funding this year to tackle Phytophthora ramorum, and part of this will also be replanting as well.

I don't wish to be unkind to the Minister—sometimes it's a positive duty on us, as earlier on in First Minister's questions—but, in this particular instance, I would like to follow up the points that were made initially by David Melding earlier on. The statement does lack in depth what it contained in length. The Government often, I think, shows its commitment to recycling by repeating what it's said before many, many times, and this is, I think, an example of that.

The statement does, of course, contain the ritual tilt at Brexit, and talks about threats, but I hope the Minister will recognise that, in environmental terms, what is the threat here? The threat is that we take these decisions for ourselves rather than have them taken for us by others. We are in charge of our own environmental policy from the day that we leave the EU, and that gives us the opportunity to correct some of the deficiencies of EU environmental legislation. In the specific example of Wales, I'd like to repeat something I've said before in this connection as well as regards the wilding of the hills, for example, because I fully applaud what's said in the Senedd about biodiversity in all its forms. We've seen, through the wilding policy, which is consequent upon the EU habitats directive, some disastrous changes. There's been a catastrophic increase, for example, in most predators, and the corollary of that is declines, sometimes towards extinction, of many vulnerable prey species.

Leaving the EU gives us the opportunity, because environment is one of the most important areas of responsibility that we will gain, to take a very different approach to the one that's been adopted hitherto. We've seen, again, a rise in rank and unpalatable grasses infested with ticks as a result of unburnt mature heather, and also other infestations, such as heather beetle, have been the result of that. Out-of-control bracken can also sterilise a landscape, and bracken is a vector of Lyme disease. I think we've got to reconsider the way in which we look at these areas of the countryside, and Brexit gives us the opportunity to do that to the benefit of biodiversity. So, if we do that then we'll all be marching in the same direction together regardless of what differing views we might have upon the bigger issue of national self-government.

I was intrigued by the mention of the reintroduction of native species where it's sensible to do so. She'll know that there is a vigorous debate going on about the reintroduction of the lynx, and even the wolf, into the landscapes of this country. So, it will be I think valuable for us to have some reassurance on this. Certainly, farmers are very concerned about animals of that kind being loosed into the wild to the danger of sheep farmers, in particular.

As regards areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks, again, I fully support what David Melding said earlier on. And, again, I'd like to make my ritual plea that, where there are potential conflicts between the objectives of environmental policy on the one hand—in the case of renewable energy, for example, which I've raised many times, the siting of windfarms in areas of outstanding natural beauty—we must take, I think, a more proportionate attitude towards this. Without entering into the debate on man-made global warming, the cost to the landscape of siting a significant windfarm must be regarded, I think, as greater than the benefit overall of the energy that the windfarm can produce, and so we have to be sensitive in landscape terms, I think, and that's where I would like to put my priority.

I fully support, as an enthusiastic planter of trees myself, what she says about woodlands, but, again, David Melding has made the point that the Government is way behind in its objectives on this, and I'd also like to point out the need for greater diversity in the forms of woodlands that we plant. In the past, the deadening of the landscape by excessive conifer plantations is widely accepted now, and we have to move towards a more diverse form of tree planting.

Again, nobody could quarrel with what she says about the need to improve air quality, but it is a paradox, isn't it, that within relatively recent memory we've been promoting the use of diesel, for example, on environmental grounds, only to find that—it should have been pretty obvious, I think, from the start, when you simply look at the emissions themselves, physically, by observing them—they are pretty disastrous, in comparative terms, compared with the alternatives.

And, finally, she mentions plastic pollution. Again, nobody wants to see litter on the streets or in the countryside, but, again, we have to, I think, bear in mind the distinction between costs and benefits and the limitations of what anything we do is going to achieve in respect of the global problem, particularly in respect of the marine environment, for example, which is mentioned specifically in the statement. I think we have to recognise that more than half of the global plastic waste flowing into the oceans comes from five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam, and the only industrialised western country in the top 20 polluters is the United States, at number 20 itself. China is responsible for 28 per cent of the world's plastic pollution—2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste. Ninety-five per cent of plastic polluting the world's oceans comes from 10 rivers, eight of which are in Asia and two of which are in Africa.

So, I think we need to look at solutions that concentrate more upon the visual aspects of the use of plastic, where it's unsightly and diminishes our enjoyment of the environment, more than what you might call the environmental aspects. After all, where does plastic originate? Of course, these are oil molecules that are changed. The oil starts off in the ground, and it ends up in the ground if it's put into landfill. I personally don't see any objection to putting plastic into landfill because it is inert, it isn't going to degrade, it's not going to do us any harm.

I just take issue with one thing my neighbour Simon Thomas said about recycling plastic into plastic. I don't necessarily see anything wrong in doing that if it's commercially sensible to do so, but what we need to do is to have more of a cost-benefit analysis of what we do. When I was a member of the EU Council of Ministers as a deregulation Minister for the UK Government, I often made speeches to my colleagues about, before legislating, trying to take a proportionate attitude towards what we were trying to do, and trying to measure the costs as well as the alleged benefits.

So, when we come to reconsider all the environmental legislation that we're going to inherit from the EU, it gives us the opportunity not to take an absolutist view that everything that's there already must be maintained, but to look at it afresh on a sort of scientific and analytical basis. Sometimes it might be sensible to increase the amount of regulation, and sometimes—and I think there'll be lots of opportunities for this at a micro level—to reduce the impact and cost of regulation upon us. So I hope the Minister will accept that that is a common-sense approach to regulation in the future.

I'm shocked to hear the Member say that exiting the European Union is a good thing in terms of our environmental protections. Because of the threat of that—what I would say is that there's a very real chance that we risk having our protections rolled back, but also our powers rolled back, and the undermining of the legislation that we have in place. But as a Welsh Government, we remain, as I reiterate, absolutely committed to actually maintaining and meeting our international obligations when it comes to the environment.

The Member also talks about—. You recognised at the start of your significant contribution there how we as a Welsh Government keep talking about our recycling success. I make no apologies for that, because I'm proud of our record on recycling, but also I recognise that there are still things that we need to do to build on that, which is why we've talked about these things today, and we'll be taking them forward in terms of looking at a deposit return scheme. We'll also look at extended producer responsibility, because actually, as I said in the statement, there's a responsibility that we don't let people use private profit and then the public purse picks up the bill in terms of the social and environmental impact. We need to change that, and it's really important.

The Member once again talks about certain countries being contributors to the problem around plastic, but whether or not we are part of the European Union, we live in an increasingly interconnected world, and I would say that it's part of our global responsibility as a global citizen to actually take the lead and show leadership when it comes to tackling plastic waste.

First of all, I'd like to welcome the Minister's statement. The environment where all of us in Wales live is not only the areas of outstanding natural beauty, the national parks, the farms and the countryside—it's areas where people like myself live. Within Swansea East we had a mass tree planting programme in the 1960s and 1970s, and the lower Swansea Valley where I was born was the largest area of urban dereliction in Europe. It was transformed by the lower Swansea valley project, supported by Swansea council and Swansea University, and involved mass tree planting.

The Neath Road in the Hafod in my constituency has the second poorest air quality in Wales due to a combination of traffic and topography. The Morfa Distributor Road has led to a reduction in  the traffic on Neath Road, but it's still a major cause of air pollution.

As you have mentioned non-native species, I'm not going to go on about knotweed again, but there is a serious environmental problem with these non-native species. And it's not just knotweed, though that's the major one in the Swansea area. You have others, like Himalayan balsam, and you have some others in other parts of Wales and they are a serious problem. When we talk about the environment, we keep forgetting and not mentioning and not talking about it, but we really do need to address these, because they're having a serious effect.

I've only got three questions. What is the Welsh Government going to do to transform other areas of urban dereliction? What is the Welsh Government's proposal for increasing urban tree coverage? And not just planting some trees or some more woods in an area, but actually having trees in areas where people like myself and my constituents live.

And what proposals has the Welsh Government got to improve air quality, especially in the areas of very poor air quality? And there are a number of those. I see Hefin is not here at the moment, but he can mention a place in his constituency. I can certainly mention the Hafod in mine, and there's also Fabian Way, which is in both David Rees's and my consistency, where you have the topography and the volume of traffic and the fact that traffic keeps on stopping and starting because of the volume of traffic, which really does have a serious effect on the environment of the people living there. In a lot of these areas, there are people living closer than I am to the Presiding Officer away from the main road. Some of them are as close as I am to David Melding from the main road. I think that really is a problem. The cars are stopped outside their houses and then they're starting up again and it's sometimes the width of a pavement away from their front door. I'm a great believer in the 'worst first' philosophy and policy, so what can be done about the worst areas of pollution and air quality?

I thank the Member for his contribution. If my geography is right, I believe I was in the lower Swansea valley on Saturday, if I dare say, at the only premier league team in Wales, but I have to add a caveat: I was there supporting the opposition. It was a draw, so I'll move swiftly on.

On non-native species, I know you didn't ask a question, but you're right to raise Japanese knotweed and the real threat from other non-native species. This was something that was high on the agenda at the last British-Irish Council last month in terms of actually how we work UK-wide and with Ireland to tackle that as an issue that doesn't respect borders and goes across shorelines as well.

I think you might have said something about increasing urban tree coverage. You're right, it isn't just about woodlands in more rural areas or where we would think of where woodland is placed. It's actually about all the innovative different things we can do in terms of green infrastructure, and that actually has the win-win added value of actually improving the local environment in terms of visually and pride in the community, but it also can help us tackle things like flooding and air quality.

If you look at examples not far from here with the Greener Grangetown partnership between Cardiff Council, Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales, they invested £2 million in Greener Grangetown, which actually catches and directs clean rainwater directly into the River Taff rather than pumping it eight miles up the road into the sea. As part of that, they've also replanted thousands of shrubs and plants. If you go through there now, you can really see visually the difference it has made to the community. I think that is something that we can learn from as a working partnership with the various organisations and public bodies, to see initiatives like that rolled out across Wales. There's also the Llanelli RainScape.

One thing I think is really key with these initiatives—and it goes back to the air quality question and the topography and the issue of how close you could be, especially young children, if you're close to the road and the exhausts, and cars idling outside schools. Really, what is key as part of this too is actually starting with a generational change and involving children, because pester power is powerful. I've said that before and I'll say it time and time again: it does have an impact in shaming adults to take action and change their behaviour. It's one of the things in the Eco-Schools project. We're trying it in 35 schools where children will be taking part in air quality monitoring, and then from those results they will initiate their own behavioural change campaigns, and that could include walking buses, scootering to school or a 'no idling' policy. So, I can actually see at one point, if a car is idling outside the school, a six-year-old coming knocking on the window and telling them to turn off their engine.

But in all seriousness, in terms of tackling air quality—obviously, I'll go into more detail next week—the Member raised some valid points about the impact of our topography and, actually, we know there are some places that are worst hit in Wales that will need it, which is the purpose of taking a place-based approach. We're thinking that if we're looking at clean air plans or clean air zones, then they have to actually—. A one-size-fits-all is not going to work, and we need to do things that actually meet the challenges and take action in a way that is suitable for those areas.   

Thank you very much, Minister. I think you've got the prize for putting football into every statement, and you've taking it from somebody who used to be able to do that, so well done.

We move on to item 6, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the Public Health Wales review of sexual health services, and I call on Vaughan Gething to introduce the statement. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In November 2016, the then Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans, commissioned Public Health Wales to undertake a comprehensive review of sexual health services in Wales. The year-long review was carried out in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, and overseen by a sexual health programme board, chaired by the chief medical officer. The final report has been published today, and I'd like to thank Public Health Wales for the collaborative way in which they have undertaken the review, and, of course, all those people who contributed to the review.

The Welsh Government remains committed to the continual improvement of sexual health and well-being in Wales, and to the provision of services that meet the needs of our population. Here in Wales, we have made tremendous strides in recent years in reducing teenage pregnancies. There was a 50 per cent reduction between 2010 and 2016, from 2,081 teenage pregnancies in 2010 to 1,061 in 2016. But the number of sexually transmitted infections in Wales remains considerable. In 2016, there were more than 12,000 infections diagnosed in the 64,000 people who sought care.

Chlamydia remains the most common infection, although we continue to see both syphilis and gonorrhoea in those who engage in risky sexual behaviour. Sexual health services in Wales also continue to diagnose new cases of HIV. The maximum number of new diagnoses of HIV in any one year was in 2014 when 186 new cases were identified. By 2016, this number of new cases was 141. The downward trend needs to continue. Last year, I decided to begin a national trial in Wales to deliver pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. This has been very successful to date, and there have been no new cases of HIV in those receiving PrEP.

Studies show that the majority of sexually transmitted infections can be prevented. If prevented or treated early, the chances of experiencing medical problems can be greatly reduced. Those healthy outcomes can only be achieved if all individuals have access to responsive services. The Public Health Wales report acknowledges the significant contribution that sexual health services in Wales make to the prevention and the treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and the provision of contraception. The sexual health workforce in Wales are committed to deliver excellent services against ever-increasing demand. The recent successful introduction of PrEP in Wales is a further tribute to the professionalism and the dedication of that workforce.  

My vision for sexual health services in Wales is one of modern services meeting the needs of all users. The review identifies a number of areas for further improvement, which will help to achieve this, particularly in respect of access and inequality. And the review recognises the needs of particular groups and how they access services. It also highlights the variation in ease of access to services and in some service provision across Wales. There are some communities disadvantaged through a lack of service provision, in particular rural communities and prisoners, and there is an inequity of provision of termination of pregnancy services. The report recommends that, as a priority, health boards in Wales have a robust understanding of the needs of their population and systems, and put resources in place to deliver services to marginalised and vulnerable groups more widely.

In addition, all health boards will want to understand, and I would expect them to understand, the contribution that the implementation of new patient pathways and technologies—for example, online triage, self-testing and point of care tests—could make to improving patient experience and reducing some of our current service pressures. The report also points to the need for enhanced surveillance systems that support all-Wales data collection by having a common IT platform supporting specialist sexual health services.

An important element of the review was to consider the current arrangements in respect of sharing of patients’ sexual health records between sexual health clinicians and wider healthcare providers. The review concludes that relevant information should be shared amongst the healthcare professionals who have a relationship with the individual patient and that consideration should be given to revising or replacing the existing legislation governing information sharing.

Whilst there is a wide range of groups and partners that have a role to play in improving sexual health, the report highlights the potential for an enhanced role for primary care and community pharmacies in sexual health provision. An example could be in delivering over-the-counter oral contraception and to extend the provision of long-acting reversible contraception.

I have listened very carefully to the views of clinicians, women’s groups and the views from across this Chamber. I have instructed officials to start work immediately on how we can amend the legal framework to allow for the treatment for termination of pregnancy to be carried out at home, in line with recommendation 7. Termination of pregnancy is a legal healthcare entitlement in Wales and a woman’s right to choose must be respected and access to services improved.

My officials will now work with stakeholders to develop a fully costed and timetabled implementation plan. The sexual health programme board, chaired by the chief medical officer, will remain in place to support and oversee implementation of the service improvement recommendations over a two-year period. I will of course ensure that Members receive regular updates on the progress of implementation. 

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today. There is much to be welcomed in this statement. I was particularly pleased to see the reduction in teenage pregnancies because, of course, as we know, that can have significant long-term life barriers sometimes for young women who get pregnant at too early an age. So, that's really, really welcome. I was also very pleased to hear about some of the other comments that you've made, particularly about PrEP. That's proving to be a very successful trial and I do recognise that and welcome that going forward. 

However, reading the report, it does appear that sexual health services are still not really meeting the demands of the services. From my reading of the report, it found that the services that held drop-in centres or drop-in clinics were far more likely to be successful, and that artificial barriers, in terms of appointment times, inability to get hold of people via the telephone et cetera were putting caps in certain areas.

But I think what I really am concerned about is, as attendances at sexual health clinics have doubled over the last five years, why have we seen such a significant reduction in NHS expenditure on sexually transmitted infections and the Public Health Wales functions? According to my reckoning, since 2015-16, spending on STIs has fallen by some £10 million, from £17.774 million to just over £7 million. Public Health Wales has also received real-terms cuts to its budget, so could you perhaps just explain to us how you believe we can still deliver this level of service to the people of Wales with such a significant reduction in budget, and especially when you look at the fact that the need for sexual health clinics is growing rather than reducing in the round?

It's very welcome to hear that you're going to be looking at how pregnancy and termination of pregnancies may be able to be offered to people at home. However, there are still huge inconsistencies in health board provision of abortion services. They vary in terms of the gestation time limits and they vary in terms of what women are able to access at different abortion services. Abortion, under the 1967 Abortion Act on grounds C and D can be carried out until 24 weeks of gestation. However, obstetrics and gynaecology departments in Wales will only manage abortions on grounds A, B and E to the late mid trimester, meaning that women who don't meet grounds A, B and E have to travel to England for their treatment. So, whilst it's welcome that, on the one hand, you're allowing people to perhaps take their appropriate medication at home, on the other hand, we're actually making it more difficult for some women to be able to access abortion services and access those services in a coherent and cohesive way across the whole of Wales. So, I wondered whether you can just give us a real comment on that.

My last comment—and I'd be really interested to understand how the review came to this—is on the item where you discuss the fact that the review concludes that relevant information should be shared amongst the healthcare professionals who have a relationship with the individual patient. I know that, in Pembrokeshire, there was a move to relocate a sexual health clinic to a location that was in a far more prominent place, and it caused real worry and consternation because, for a lot of people, attending a clinic such as this is their most private of private business. They're reluctant to let the local chemist know because, actually, the local chemist knows their mum. They're reluctant to tell their doctor too much about it because, in fact, the doctor knows somebody else who knows somebody else. It's sort of that, if you're in a community, this kind of information you do want to really hold to yourself, or a great many people do. In Haverfordwest, it caused real problems, because people felt that people would see them just walking in and be able to pinpoint, 'Oh, so and so's going there and doing that.' So, I just like to understand what work the review did with patients about how happy they would be to have their information shared in such a manner.

I do have, Deputy Presiding Officer, one more final point, which is the fact that the review itself makes a comment about the inconsistency of the data and the data collection. So, I would ask you what faith you have and what store you can set by the data that's being put forward when the review very clearly says that all the data collection in this review needs to be leavened with a very strong dose of salt because they have not been comparable year on year even within health boards, let alone across the whole of Wales.

Well, on the final point, the data is the best available. It allows us to make the conclusions that we can. There will always be more to do to improve the evidence we have to base policy choices on. That's not just in this area but in every other one. I don't think it undermines the nature of the recommendations or the work we still have to do, actually. 

I was pleased to hear you again welcome what we've been doing on PrEP and the significant reduction in teenage pregnancies. I recognise what you have to say on what's in the report about recognising that we do need to improve access. That's part of what was in my statement as well. That's part of what I expect to see worked through with that timetable for improvement.

I also come then to your point about spend and outcomes, because I'm interested in how we improve outcomes. We've had to make difficult budget choices, as everyone knows, but I'm especially interested in—. The reason why the review was commissioned by Rebecca Evans in her former role was to ensure that we are sighted properly on the way in which services are being delivered and where they're actually properly meeting the needs of citizens, because we were concerned that we weren't meeting those needs on a consistent basis. The reason why we will have a programme board with a sexual health steer in place is to have a properly costed implementation plan to try and understand not just whether we're interested in the recommendations but how we take them forward, what that means and who needs to do them and to have some clarity and consistency then between health boards and partners about what they will need to do.

I fully expect that once we come up with a costed implementation plan over the next two years, not only will I report back to this place, but I would fully expect that one committee or another and this place would be interested to understand whether that's been taken forward and then whether we've actually achieved what we set out in our plan.

I have to say that I recognise the points you make about Public Health Wales and their overall budget, and the point that I would politely but firmly make back is that we are in a position of having to make really difficult budget choices, and there is no getting around it. Even within the health service, which has been the area that has done better than every other part of the Government, there are still incredibly difficult choices to make, and simply saying that you want more money spent in one part of the health service than another is not going to be an answer to where we are. We've had a focused review to give us an idea on what to do to improve, we'll come back on outcomes, and we need to understand how we do that, and at the same time we always need to deliver the greatest value for the money that we spend in every part of the public service given that we are eight years and counting into austerity.

On your two final points, on the variation in abortion services and access, I recognise that and, in fact, I've had a conversation with Jenny Rathbone about pretty much the same point, about a variation in services between different parts of Wales and where we are, and I've committed to actually taking an interest in that and looking at what we could and should do to actually try and level up the variation that exists and to have a proper answer. It should not matter which part of the country you live in and it shouldn't make a real difference in terms of the service that is available to you.

And, finally, the point about—I recognise this is difficult—the current regulatory environment and how records are and aren't shared. On the one hand, you understand that people may feel that the local healthcare professional may know someone that I don't want them to know and I may feel difficult about them having access to parts of the record. The challenge is that, actually, there's a potential clinical risk in that as well, if the person who may be responsible for your care in another area doesn't know.

Now, we currently have the interestingly—well, the aptly titled the National Health Service (Venereal Diseases) Regulations 1974. Now, England have repealed and replaced those with different ones. We're now considering on the back of the review whether we could and should replace those with a different set of standards and measures. So, the recommendation in the report is the one that we'll take through, and we will need to consider and talk to stakeholders, including the patients, about whether we should change those and, if so, what the settlement should be and understanding those different issues between clinical safety and the choice of a person about how those records are used because, ultimately, our ambition across health and care is to have more sharing of health and care records between relevant healthcare professionals, both to eliminate the time that is potentially lost, for people not to have to explain the same thing more than once, and to eliminate areas of clinical risk. So, there isn't a finalised viewpoint on that, but there is a commitment to look at and to take advice on whether we should amend, repeal or do something different and how we actually take that forward here in Wales.

As much as in any discussion that we’ve had, I think that Angela Burns and I have thought along exactly the same lines, in terms of the questions arising from this statement, but I’m sure that there are a couple of things left that we would wish to ask. I’d like to thank the team chaired by the CMO that did this very important work, because it is an important area. We have seen, through this amazing figure relating to the reduction in the number of teen pregnancies, that genuine success can come when the policy does target the right people, and when it says the right things and takes the right steps. So, certainly, I would congratulate everyone who has been part of achieving that outcome.

 In terms of the people who are looking for advice and support with STIs, what we read, however, is that the figures have doubled within the last five years. The review does recognise barriers that there are for people attending clinics or centres where they are looking for support. So, it’s possible that there is an underestimation of the number of people who need support. What that suggests to me is that the education and the preventative agenda that aims to prevent people from having STIs in the first place is failing, and failing in a significant way. We’re not talking here about education in schools only, because it’s evident that there is educational work among the adult population as well. So, my first question, which possibly relates to a reduction in budgets, as Angela Burns suggested: why has there been a failure in terms of the preventative agenda, because that is evidently vital as we move forward?

One of the barriers that I mentioned to those people who are seeking support and treatment is that there is a lack of consistency across Wales, as the report and your statement today have confirmed. We heard Angela Burns mentioning the lack of consistency across Wales when it comes to services that are available in terms of abortion and terminating a pregnancy. A lack of consistency in regulation or rules—that’s what that is. What we have in terms of treatment of STIs generally is a lack of consistency in terms of provision, namely the postcode lottery that we always talk about. I’m pleased that you recognise that there is variation in terms of provision in different parts of Wales, and I’d like to hear more about what exactly you and your Government are intending to do to seek that consistency for people, wherever they are in Wales.

There is a reference to drop-in clinics. Those are important, but the opening times mean that, again, access—accessibility—can be difficult. Is that something that you want to see being responded to? I also noticed the services that are run in some areas of Powys, in particular, by GPs. That is a barrier, I do agree, in rural areas, and particularly if I can draw particular attention to the Stonewall review, which shows that there are still many—although a minority—NHS staff who have a prejudice against LGBT people, and because of that, possibly, are not confident in terms of meeting the requirements or needs of LGBT people. We are talking about LGBT people when we talk about people who need treatment, therefore I think that there is a strong argument for keeping services separate for GP surgeries. And one final question: given the opportunity here, and given that it is sexually transmitted, could we have an update on where we are in terms of the HPV vaccine?

On the final point about the HPV vaccine, we'll continue to take advice from the relevant joint committee on the evidence base for undertaking any additional steps. We've already announced in this term of this Government—I believe it was Rebecca Evans in her former role who announced the extension of vaccination for men who have sex with men. There is still an ongoing debate. I know there are active members of the medical profession engaged in sexual health work who believe that the vaccine should be extended, but that is not a view that is currently supported by the relevant expert joint committee that every Government within the UK takes advice from. If the position changes—and I've said regularly in this place that there are times when you absolutely must be led by evidence, and the very best clinical evidence and advice—if the position changes on the evidence and advice, then the Government will change its position. So, I'm happy to give that assurance.

I recognise what you say about education and prevention, and recognising that, actually, much of this is still about how we persuade people to reconsider the choices that they make. These aren't just adolescents making these choices, there are adults of a variety of ages who are making choices, and part of the challenge is how we have an effective education and prevention approach with those people. It's part of the reason why, in looking at the PrEP study, it wasn't simply about deciding to deliver the medication, it was also about looking at how that fits in with other services, about some of the conversations that need to take place about what is and isn't a risky behaviour and how to see that as part of it.

You'll recall the rather obnoxious Daily Mail attack that suggested that PrEP was a licence to be promiscuous. And that isn't what it is, it's actually a means of understanding how we successfully treat people to prevent further infection in very practical terms. I'm confident it would save the national health service money and would allow people to make different choices about how they're able to live and enjoy their life. But there is an honest need to look at how we persuade and have that conversation with people about the choices from a behaviour point of view.

I recognise what you and Andrew have both said about the demand on the service, about our levels of outcomes, our ability to maintain excellent outcomes, and we can't simply rely on the workforce being ultra committed and continue to run further and faster. Actually, the challenges around consistency and access were a large part of what persuaded the Government to undertake the review. So, that is work that we're absolutely doing, and if you look at the recommendations and the commentary in the review, we do see, not just the organisational challenge and a drop in the services, but a greater role for primary care, and the thing about how those services can be delivered and making better use of a whole primary care group of professionals.

I go back to what Angela Burns said earlier—not every person may want to go to their pharmacy to receive part of their sexual health and contraceptive services, but a range of people will do, because almost every pharmacy, particularly all those that have an enhanced service, have the ability for people to go and see someone in a private room within the practice. When I have my medication review at a pharmacy walking distance from this building, I go into a private room, no-one knows what we're there to talk about and so it is a private consultation space. There will be a range of people who I think will be confident in going to different settings to receive part of the service. That is consistent with our broader drive to get people to use other healthcare professionals and not simply default to go and see the doctor, whether that's in a hospital or in general practice.

So, I recognise the challenges that are real and are there and I'm confident that, in taking forward the work in response to the recommendations of the review, we will have a series of logically worked-through recommendations about how to do this, with a costed implementation plan. And the assurance that Members have is that the board is going to continue to be overseen by the chief medical officer; it isn't simply a matter of politicians deciding to do what we think is the right thing to do without the proper evidence base and without the best and most up-to-date clinical evidence and advice.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome the review undertaken by Public Health Wales on sexual health services in Wales. The report rightly praises the sexual health workforce in Wales. The take-up of services has doubled in the last five years. This increase, undoubtedly, will require adjustments and reform to existing services to best meet demand. The key issue is getting these reforms right.

I welcome the dramatic reduction in teenage pregnancies between 2010 and 2016. Furthermore, I'm sure that all in this Chamber welcome the continued decline of HIV diagnoses and applaud the Welsh Government's proactive steps to combat the virus. There is still much work to be done to remove the stigma surrounding HIV, however the high number of people coming forward for testing and campaigns to educate the public on the importance of regular sexual health tests should be celebrated. By increasing accessibility to PrEP, we are moving closer to beating HIV. It is indeed good news that there have been no new cases of the virus in those receiving PrEP.

By reducing high-risk sexual behaviour, we take another proactive step to tackling the diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases. However, Cabinet Secretary, as you highlighted in your statement, diagnoses of other STIs remain high. While we must encourage people to use the preventative measures such as PrEP, they should not be seen as a gateway to high-risk sexual behaviour. Such behaviour, in turn, may expose people to other infections that consequently may add to the strain on sexual health services. Dr Giri Shankar or Public Health Wales has stated that much work needs to be done on reducing high-risk behaviour. Cabinet Secretary, what specific measures and initiatives do you have planned to respond to Dr Shankar's recommendations for more work in this area?

The statement mentions that prisoners are disadvantaged through lack of prison service provision. I find myself having to pause for thought here. There are already health services in prisons that all prisoners can access. Moreover, prisoners are educated on sexual health during their induction and they have their own healthcare department and everyone sees a healthcare specialist professional on a one-to-one basis upon arriving at the prison, and that is mandatory.

The statement rightly says that rural communities are disadvantaged through lack of service provision. Cabinet Secretary, could you state what specific and practical measures are being taken to improve access to sexual health services in rural communities? The statement states an aim to implement the Public Health Wales recommendation over a two-year period. It also states that demand for sexual health services has doubled over a five-year period and is putting pressure on existing service models. Therefore, what measures will be taken during the transitionary two-year period to ensure that demand for services is met? Online triage is mentioned, but could a full range of online services be implemented more rapidly to cover this two-year transitionary period? Thank you.

Thank you for those comments and questions. I am pleased to see a large amount of consistency in issues being raised by spokespeople. I'll try and briefly cover the issues, rather than repeating what I've said in responses to both Angela Burns and Rhun ap Iorwerth on some of the points. I will, though, remind people that I've already indicated there'll be a plan—it'll be costed, it will be timetabled—about how we'll take that forward, so I won't stand up and try and freestyle here now about how that'll be done, or the time and speed for it, otherwise there'd be precious little point in having a group work together to deliver an implementation plan.

I was pleased to hear Caroline Jones mention the reality of the stigma of HIV, but more broadly about sexually transmitted infections, and that's still a challenge for us, in terms of persuading people both to take seriously their own choices, but also for them to seek help at an early enough stage for it to have the best prospect of being successfully treated and managed. Recommendation 9 in the report does refer to sex and relationship education. Now, the review didn't ask them to specifically look at the curriculum review that is taking place, but there's a recognition that's an important tool about how that's done and to make sure that young people growing up in the world are equipped with a range of information and are able to manage the choices that they themselves will make, although, of course, being an adult is no guarantor of being sensible or reasonable, as I'm sure we all know from various parts of our own lives.

I just want to refer back to the point about inequity of access in provision across the country in a variety of settings, and that is recognised in recommendation 1, about the reality that we will need to do more. So, when we see the plan on the improvement, I will expect health boards to be signed up to it and to be able to set out in response to that improvement plan how they're going about not just recognising the inequities that already exist, but what they will be doing about those in response to this report, but, as I say, to the implementation plan that will be drawn up.

I very warmly welcome your commitment to allow misoprostol to be administered at home. That's excellent news. I just wondered if you could elaborate on what work your officials will need to do and the timescale for doing it, as we're not talking about revising the Abortion Act, we're talking about extending the location of where a medical abortion can be administered, namely at home. As this has already been done successfully in Scotland and is already available to women who have an incomplete miscarriage here in Wales, it doesn't feel like a very complicated process, but I agree that it requires political commitment, and I thank you for that.

It's excellent to see that teenage pregnancies have halved, but there were still over 1,000 in 2016, and it does obviously beg the question about the quality of the sex and relationship education that is available in schools, which, obviously, your report indicates is not part of the review, but it's clearly an issue we need to take up with the Secretary for education, as it's vital that young women and young men understand when they're making informed decisions about relationships and where they can get contraception if they need it. I can see that that's a particular problem in a rural area, if a young person doesn't drive or hasn't got a car—very difficult to access the correct services.

I represent a very young constituency. I've got three universities in Cardiff Central, so I have, I think, the constituency with the largest number of students across the UK. I'm particularly concerned, and have already raised with the chair of the health board, about GP practices who're very keen to recruit students as their patients, but aren't necessarily providing the services that patients will need. It is obvious that young people arriving at university are going to need sexual health services, and they include rapid access to a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases, because things like chlamydia can obviously cause infertility if not treated. So, I'm a bit confused by recommendation 5, as to why it wouldn't be standard in a practice that has a large number of young people in it, which are the ones where there is an accumulation of young people, why they wouldn't, as standard, have those sorts of clinics available. Because I have had students telling me about real difficulty getting the medical advice they need, because they know they've got a sexually transmitted disease, and so delay in getting the right treatment, obviously, can make it worse in the meantime. 

In terms of access to pregnancy advice, if somebody falls pregnant, (a) do all pharmacies make the morning-after pill available? Because obviously people do make mistakes and realise very quickly that they might have got themselves pregnant by mistake. But I also want to understand why it's necessary to go via your GP if you think you want to argue the case for an abortion. Why is it not possible to go straight to the pregnancy advice and termination service? That is something that I also raised with the health board.

One of the issues that is quite concerning is the point that was flagged up in the report about the all-Wales data collection of sexual health diseases, because it seems to me essential that we have this information. Otherwise, how else can public health respond to an outbreak of chlamydia or gonorrhoea unless they've got accurate information about who is being treated for these diseases? 

And in terms of the really very welcome information that no new cases of HIV have been found in people who have been given PrEP, I wonder, then, what justification there is with continuing with a national trial rather than making PrEP available to anyone who is at risk of HIV. If it really is that good, why are we still doing a trial?

On the first issue raised, I just want to be reassured that there is no bar to being able to make the progress I've indicated that I want to. So, it's about 'how' and 'how quickly' as opposed to 'if', from my point of view, and I recognise what you've said; I think it is helpful to make clear that we're not talking about changing treatment. We're talking about the place in which that treatment is provided, and it is already the case, as you say, that for an incomplete miscarriage, this can be administered at home. And so, I recognise there will always be people who will raise objections to changing any form of abortion provision, but this is about trying to do the right thing, simply being able to move as quickly as we possibly can to make the right choice. I recognise what you say about teenage pregnancies. A 50 per cent reduction is, of course, welcome, but there is more to do and there is no hiding from that.

I didn't quite hear all of the comments you were making about the challenge about access to treatment for your students and primary care. That may be something that we may be able to have a longer conversation about, and I'm happy to meet with you and/or constituents to actually run through their current view on what's happening and how they'd want to see that provision improve. Because, generally, in urban environments, in city environments, access is better and isn't the challenge that we're especially worried about and that the report highlights. But if you think there is a particular challenge within your constituency, I'd be happy to discuss that further with you to see what we could and should do.

And on the broader points about pharmacy, of course, there are enhanced contracts in place for the provision of services. One of the things the review recommends, though, is actually about using pharmacies not on an enhanced contract, but actually to look at the regular provision of regular oral contraception. So, there is a variety of different ways in which that can be done to ease access as well, and that should also mean that it should be easier for general practitioners, in terms of an extra area of demand being taken away from them, that the report authors consider that our community pharmacy is perfectly adequately set up for and able to do, and will improve access to people.

A final point about PrEP: the initial results are that PrEP is highly effective. The reason why we're running a three-year trial is we want to be assured over a longer term period of time that that remains the case, and it's also about seeing not just the provision of PrEP, but changes in behaviour as well. So, we're looking at all aspects of that to try and see a sustainable and deliverable improvement. Then, of course, whoever is in this fortunate position—me or another person in the future—will then have to make a choice about the longer term provision. But the results so far are significant and encouraging. I look forward to being able to report back at the end of the three-year trial, not just about the results from the trial, but about the longer term choice that we all make, here in Wales.

Thank you. And finally, Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for listening to the voices of women and that he will act to allow the termination of pregnancy at home. So, I'd like to thank you very much for that.

I also wanted to say something about inequity and inconsistency. Last year, the Cardiff abortion rights group had a fascinating exhibition, actually, to mark 50 years of the Abortion Act, along with a conference over in the Pierhead. To me, one of the staggering points that came out of that conference was the fact that, in Cardiff, it's six or seven weeks later in terms of getting access to a consultation about an abortion than in Gwent—the neighbouring area—and there always has been a difficulty in Cardiff in getting access to abortions. So, it came out as a clear signal of the inequities that do exist. So, I do urge him to address that point very strongly.

Finally, I just wanted to flag up the barriers that there are for women getting a termination, particularly in Cardiff, where a group of anti-abortionists do gather during the period of Lent outside the clinic on St Mary Street, and make it very uncomfortable for women who are going in to seek a consultation. I know, over the last month, in one of the London boroughs there has been an exclusion zone set up so that nobody can demonstrate in any way, either against or for, and I wondered if the Cabinet Secretary could make any comment about that development because I do believe this is a public health issue, because it is a barrier to women seeking to have a consultation and they should not be in the position of feeling that they are being criticised and pressurised by a group who have different views.

On the first point, I'm interested in the Cardiff issue that both you and Jenny Rathbone have raised, so I'll be happy to meet both of you at the same time to try and run through the localised challenges that you're both expressing.

On the second issue that you raised, I too noticed the exclusion zone around providing abortion advice in clinics. It is something that concerns me about the manner in which people will feel pressurised unfairly into making one choice or another, and I do not think that the protesters are simply there to try and have a polite conversation or to provide pastoral support or guidance. I think it is plainly something that I would personally, myself, view as being intimidatory. So, I'd be happy to think again about what powers are available and to whom, to think about how we make sure that people are able to access healthcare services in a manner that is not judgmental, and they're able to make choices that each of us would want to make about any aspect of our own health and care treatment.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 7 is the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 (Continuation of Effect) Order 2018. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I laid the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 (Continuation of Effect) Order 2018 on 5 March 2018, and I'm presenting the Order today for debate in the National Assembly. The Act contains a sunset clause that states that it will fall if no action is taken to preserve it by 30 July 2018. The Order will preserve the Act, and the Welsh Government's commitment to ensure fair wages and employment terms and conditions for agricultural workers continues to operate in practice.

In the summer of 2017, I consulted on the operation and effect of the Act. The resulting report on the review of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 was laid before the National Assembly on 27 February this year. The report highlighted how the Act has supported rural communities and ensured that workers in the agricultural sector receive fair pay. It also identified how the Act supports my commitment to the long-term viability and success of the agricultural industry in Wales. The Act has enabled fair minimum wage rates to be set for agricultural workers in accordance with their responsibilities and skill sets. The minimum pay rates and allowances safeguard household incomes and support local communities to thrive across Wales. This reflects the importance of the contribution agriculture makes to our economy, environment and rural communities, which is crucial to the further development of a prosperous, resilient and more equal Wales. The Act supports the development of an appropriately skilled agricultural workforce necessary for the long-term viability of agricultural businesses and the wider industry, and important to our rural communities. We also know that sustainable employment is the best route out of poverty.

The agricultural advisory panel for Wales was established under the Act on 1 April 2016. In the short time since establishment, the panel has undertaken a significant amount of work. The first Agricultural Wages (Wales) Order prepared by the panel took effect on 1 April 2017. This was replaced by a new Order on 1 April 2018, which takes account of increases in the national minimum wage. The panel quickly established its statutory skills development and training sub-committee, demonstrating its commitment to helping to improve the long-term future of the industry. The panel, along with its sub-committee, is investigating the provision of professional development, and has commissioned research on the labour market to identify priority areas in need of improvement. This was commissioned in partnership with the food and drink Wales industry board to ensure there is consideration of the whole food and drink supply chain and to achieve economies of scale. The findings of the research are expected later this month.

Retaining the agricultural minimum wage regime in Wales and implementing the Act provide benefits for the whole sector and rural economies. It underpins the Welsh Government's vision of a modern, professional and profitable agricultural industry, and this Order will ensure these benefits continue. Thank you.

May I say at the outset that Plaid Cymru will be supporting this Order today to keep the legislation in effect? The reason we’re discussing this today is that there is a sunset clause in the original legislation. The reason there was a sunset clause was because it was passed as emergency legislation—we just had experience before Easter of that. It’s slightly ironic in this context because it took 18 months after passing emergency legislation to establish the board that there was such urgency in terms of its requirement. However, having been established, the board, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, has outlined many of the important things underpinning salaries in the agricultural sector.

I think there are three reasons why we should support the continuation of this legislation. First of all, if we gave up the legislation today, we couldn’t return to this legislation in the future, because the Wales Act has changed the situation and we would no longer have the right to legislate in this area. That’s not any reason to hold on to powers over centuries, or we’d still be voting on prohibiting drinking on Sundays if we stuck to that sort of argument, but it is an argument for us to consider as an Assembly, not to give up the powers that we currently hold.

The second reason, of course, is that although the board is operational and although we do have an agricultural sector supported by this legislation, the level of salaries is still lower than the average salary through other sectors in Wales. So there is work to be done in enhancing skills, raising salaries and raising the level of awareness and information within the sector. So, obviously, there is ongoing work to be done in this context.

The third reason, and the final reason, of course, is the fact that this sector is facing one of the greatest challenges imaginable over the next year or two, and that is exiting the European Union. We don’t know, if we’re entirely honest, whether this legislation will be of great benefit as we exit the European Union, but what we do feel strongly is that we shouldn’t add to that process of change within the sector as it faces so many changes and the challenges on the horizon. Therefore, I am in favour of retaining as much consistency as possible within the sector, and that is something that the sector has become well used to, in terms of ensuring that the interventions that will happen as a result of Brexit are kept to a minimum.

There is one aspect of this, however, which does strike me as being a weakness within Government and more generally: the information that we have available about Wales—about the impact of salaries in the agricultural sector, on the comparison between the agricultural sector in Wales and that in England, and the comparisons on a cross-sectoral basis too. What’s described in the papers published by the Government does highlight this lack of information. In supporting the continuation of this legislation, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary whether it would be possible for her to tell us what she has in train in order to improve the way that we gather information and to gather evidence as to how effective this legislation is and how effective the work of the board is too.

Thank you. Can I call the Cabinet Secretary to reply to that debate?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and to Simon Thomas for his comments, and I'm grateful for Plaid Cymru's support. I think you raised some very pertinent points. Certainly, I mentioned that the group was looking at research into professional development and raising skills and I think it's very important that we continue to do that and I'll be very happy to publish the information when I get it later this month or next month, if I think that Members would wish to see it. 

You're quite right, at this current time, we are facing a great deal of uncertainty around Brexit, so I do think it's good that we don't add to any more of those challenges that we face. With regard to your last point, I do recognise that—obviously the current regime has not been in place long enough, I think, for us to properly assess the impact it's having, but I think it's something that we need to look at. I would think that we would need a policy review of it, maybe within the next couple of years, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. 

So, with the Assembly's approval, Deputy Presiding Officer, the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 (Continuation of Effect) Order 2018 will come into force tomorrow.

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

Item 8 on the agenda is the motion to vary the order of the consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Regulation of Registered Social Landlords (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Formally moved.

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

And that concludes our business today. Thank you very much.