Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Trefn. Rwy’n galw’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol i drefn.

Before I call the First Minister, I would like to welcome the parliamentary delegation from Botswana, headed by the Speaker of the National Assembly of Botswana, Her Excellency Gladys Korkowe, who are present in the public gallery today. Welcome.

The first item on the agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question from Mike Hedges.

Yes. Llywydd, I understand that you’ve given your permission for questions 1 and 4 to be grouped. I can say that progress continues to be made in building collaboration and partnership around shared priorities for jobs and growth.

I believe that the Swansea bay city region is developing very well as a vehicle for economic development. I, however, see a more strategic role for it in things like a structure plan. Does the First Minister agree, and will the First Minister look to use the footprint of the Swansea bay city region for Welsh Government-funded public services?

The city region has tremendous opportunity. I’d encourage all those looking at a city deal for Swansea bay to put that bid in before the Chancellor’s autumn statement. It is important that local government work together in order for that to happen. We’ve seen this happen in the capital region. The same thing needs to happen in Swansea bay as well. But, yes, as part of the work that the local government Secretary has been carrying through in the summer, we are looking at how best to regionalise the delivery of services across Wales where that is the most effective way of doing so.

First Minister, you’ll be aware from questions last week that Assembly Members were getting a little bit restless that we weren’t hearing much from the city deal board, but I’m pleased to say that we’ve had a modest briefing from them now. From that, it seems that their major concern at the moment is the issue of governance in the short to medium term, and they’ve been working with Welsh Government, suggesting a not-for-profit model for the future. Bearing in mind that this board is only convened for another six months, or less than that, when will you be responding to them and what will you be saying to them?

Well, they are in the driving seat. The city deal is a matter for local government, and not for the Welsh Government. That said, of course, we are there to assist, as we did with the Cardiff city deal bid, but it is important now that they do work together to put a credible bid on the table.

We’re told by the city deal team that the situation is ‘very fluid’, and that the current prospects of success are about 50/50.

So, in view of that, what is the Welsh Government currently doing, and what does it plan to do to support the bid team and increase the probability of success from 50/50.

Well, of course, it’s a matter for local government to put the city deal bid in, not for Welsh Government, but as I said in answer to the earlier question, we stand ready to assist. Of course, we have been, as we did with the Cardiff city deal bid. So, any request for assistance, of course, will be looked at and assistance provided; and we have been working with the city deal team in order for them—because it is their responsibility—to put forward a bid. We want to see a city deal bid succeed for the Swansea bay region.

First Minister, the city deal is exciting and innovative. It’s actually focused on ICT and the next generation. Of course, the region has been built upon the traditional industries and manufacturing. What are you doing to ensure that that part remains a focus on city deals so that the manufacturing that’s existing, and advanced manufacturing, particularly research areas, will be supported in the future?

Well, to me, both these things run together. It’s hugely important that manufacturing in Wales is state-of-the-art. That means working, of course, with the universities. I know that Swansea University, which I know is in his constituency, has been working well with industry over many, many years. Indeed, we’ve been working with them in order to see how best we can maximise the expertise and intellectual property that they develop.

First Minister, if the Swansea bay city region is to be a success it will require collaborative working, not just between the four local authorities but collaboration with the Cardiff city region and with the Welsh Government, to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support the ambitious plans put forward by the city region board. What infrastructure enhancements is the Welsh Government planning for the Swansea bay region over the next five years; and how do you plan to connect the wider Swansea bay region to the south Wales metro project?

We’re looking, of course, at ways of creating a metro project in that region in years to come. Swansea, as a city, is an economic driver for the areas around it, and it’s important that people are able to get to Swansea easily as well. But, I have to say, what would be hugely useful is if the UK Government made good on its promise to electrify the south Wales main line as far as Swansea, something that they have so far steadfastly refused to do.

To date, Cynon Valley has been firmly aligned with the Cardiff city region, and, while I welcome this association and the many benefits it may bring, in geographic and economic terms, my constituency also has many links with the Swansea bay area. What assurances could you provide, First Minister, that the city region model will be flexible enough to incorporate the best interests of constituencies like my own, whose interests lie in both city regions.

Yes, the model has to be flexible to recognise economic reality, not political boundaries. We understand that. The city region, and the reason why Cynon Valley is in the city region along with Cardiff, is because of the tendency of the road links, and the rail link particularly, to come into Cardiff. But, of course, as we know, from the Baverstock roundabout westbound, there are links to Swansea as well. There is no reason why the two city regions can’t work together, seeing themselves as collaborators for collective prosperity rather than competitors.

Local authorities will play a key role towards the delivery of our ambitious target of 20,000 affordable homes in this Assembly, and we’re keen to support their work to build high-quality, new social housing in the areas that they are responsible for.

Cardiff council is committed to building 600 new homes over the next 10 years, built to the highest energy standards, and that’s created an extra 250 jobs. This is great news, as it’s the first time that Cardiff council has built homes for a generation, but more needs to be done. Even the Tories are recognising that there is a housing crisis. Whether they’ll actually do anything about it is another matter.

How can the Welsh Government ensure that local authorities, now that they’ve got themselves out of the housing revenue account, are going to be able to use their clout to borrow on excellent terms in order to build a lot more council housing?

Whilst the Member is right to point out that Welsh local authorities are free in terms of the old housing revenue account subsidy system, there is neverthless a cap still on borrowing that they have to observe. What I can say is that we’re working with those authorities who wish to build new council housing to ensure their borrowing cap is used to its fullest capacity in order to increase housing supply, and we’ll continue to work with them in order to make sure that they’re able to do that.

I welcome the fact that councils are now starting to build council houses once again. But, the main way of generating social housing is through housing associations, and I declare an interest as a member of a housing association. A decision by the ONS to change the classification of housing associations in Wales, to bring them into the public sector, does have very serious repercussions for the Welsh Government in terms of the £2.5 billion of debt that will be passed to Government. So, what steps is the Government taking to exact the situation, and do you intend to legislate quickly to put this right?

Yes, this is a problem and we are considering a way of resolving this through legislation. I can say that the housing associations should be confident that this will be resolved as soon as possible.

First Minister, do you agree that local authorities are perhaps best placed to be enablers by releasing land, or, a model which is favoured in many European countries is to support neighourhood and community groups that want to join together to build their own schemes? I see this as a way forward for many young people these days who are excluded from family housing to come together and agree these models, where they’re small and manageable for the future.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that local authorities can only be enablers; they are important builders of houses as well. But it’s not the only model, and that we understand. We know that housing associations will continue to be important in the provision of affordable homes, and, of course, innovative new solutions. We’ve talked in the past about community land trusts, of shared equity schemes. Co-operative housing schemes, I believe, are certainly models that can be explored fully in the future, and we would seek to provide what support we can in order for those models to be taken forward.

First Minister, areas across Wales have a substantial amount of brownfield land that could be used to build social and affordable housing. Brownfield sites are often an unknown quantity though, and if we add into the mix the potential on some sites for contamination by asbestos, lead and other substances, it is easy to see why developers are often not prepared to take the risk of developing a brownfield site. This puts yet more pressure on local authorities to permit building on open green spaces, or much-needed housing is simply not built. What measures is the Welsh Government prepared to take to incentivise developers to build on brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites, and what assistance is the Welsh Government prepared to give to developers to support them in the decontamination of brownfield sites?

Well, there are examples of brownfield sites that are being built on across Wales. Not too far away from here, the old Ely mill site is being redeveloped. The Member is right to point out that we do have a legacy where, in the days when environmental regulations were far more lax than they are now, where operators of sites no longer exist as companies, and therefore the liability then falls on the taxpayer. It is something that we have been wrestling with, for example, with some of the bigger opencast sites in terms of where liability ultimately should lie, given the permissions they were given in the early 1990s. We will look to work with developers, of course, in order to make sure that land is made available in the future. But it is true to say there are still some sites where a substantial amount of money would be needed in order to remediate those sites to the level needed for housing.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the opposition, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. I wonder whether the First Minister can tell us whether he knows how long it takes to travel from Aberdaron on the Llŷn Peninsula to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd if we assume no traffic and no poor weather.

That would be a journey, I suspect, of some two hours, depending on the traffic, of course.

Yes, that’s about right, First Minister—it’s about two hours. [Interruption.] The reaction to when the First Minister answers a question correctly is very interesting. [Laughter.] First Minister, two hours by ambulance, I’m sure you would agree with me, would be way too long. Now, you may or you may not be aware of proposals to centralise vascular surgery in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, removing it from Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor. Well, actually, it operates across two sites—it operates in Wrexham Maelor as well. Now, this is despite the fact that the service in Ysbyty Gwynedd is one of the best in the world, and it’s not just me saying that—that’s published data showing that. Can you tell us, therefore, First Minister, why your Government is proposing to remove a world-class service from Ysbyty Gwynedd?

Far from it—we want to make sure that there is a specialist centre. It’s happened all across the rest of Wales, and it’s important that people who live in the area of Betsi Cadwaladr do have the ability to have a very strong specialist vascular unit. I think the question is not that there should be a specialised unit, but where it should be placed. And I understand the points that have been made, particularly by her colleague, the Member for Arfon, that further consideration should be given to looking at other sites and not just at Glan Clwyd. But, that said, the community health council have supported the proposals, as I understand, so far. The board will be considering the matter further at its October meeting, and that might be an opportunity for those who are unhappy with the decision so far to make their voices heard.

Just to be clear, First Minister, it’s your Government that will sign off the final decision on this, and we already have an excellent service, and it’s located in Ysbyty Gwynedd. Now, when the Royal Glamorgan Hospital lost its vascular surgery service, other services there became unviable. Now, clinicians have raised serious concerns with me about the safety of imposing urban models of healthcare upon rural areas, and your Government is imposing a one-size-fits-all model right throughout the country. If Ysbyty Gwynedd loses its vascular surgery, it’ll make the medical school in Bangor, which we want, much less viable. It’ll also mean that people from Ynys Môn, Pen Llŷn and other places, travelling far too long for vital limb or life-saving surgery. Will you therefore commit today, First Minister, to protecting the world-class vascular service at Ysbyty Gwynedd?

We want to protect the world-class vascular service for the whole of Betsi Cadwaladr. We’ll consider all the representations that are made, and the health board will consider it next. I have to say, she makes the point about urban solutions in rural areas, and, I’m sorry, but that’s sometimes used as ‘a slightly worse service for rural areas than in urban areas’, and I disagree. I think people living in rural areas should have access to the best services that are available. I remember this argument about colorectal surgery in Bronglais. I remember it—that it was going to leave, that colorectal cancer surgery would leave Bronglais, and, as a result, things would be far worse. They weren’t. They were far better. Survival rates improved dramatically, even though people had to travel to Cardiff, that much is true. So, the board will have to consider these issues very carefully. I understand the point she’s making, and her colleague has made exactly the same points as, of course, as the Member for Arfon, I would expect her to do. The board must consider the points that are being made, and Ministers will consider any representations, but we wouldn’t get away from the fact that there needs to be a specialist centre. The question then is where it should be placed.

On behalf of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Paul Davies.

First Minister, getting access to a GP is becoming more and more of an issue for communities across Wales, and this is especially so for working people. Can you tell us what percentage of GP surgeries across Wales currently offer appointments after 6 p.m.?

The majority offer appointments at least one evening a week. But could I say to the temporary leader of the Welsh Conservatives that his party today have made announcements that will make it far more difficult to recruit doctors—not just into England, where the announcement was made, but across the whole of the UK? What kind of message does his party give to doctors who want to come to the UK to work when his own Prime Minister says there will be staff here from overseas in the interim period until further numbers of British doctors are able to be trained, and when Damian Green said that doctors are welcome whilst they’re needed—whilst they’re needed. Well, I’m afraid he can’t have it both ways. He can’t on the one hand complain that there aren’t enough doctors when his own party in London is doing all that it can to make sure that doctors don’t come here in the first place.

Well, clearly it’s time that the First Minister takes responsibility for the Welsh NHS. Clearly he wants to talk about England in order to deflect his own failings. So, let me give him the answer to my original question: only 29 per cent of GP surgeries across Wales currently offer appointments after 6 p.m., which is an appalling statistic considering the priority your Government gave to access to GPs in the last Assembly. In the 2011 manifesto, Welsh Labour said it would require GPs to

‘make surgeries more accessible to working people’.

The manifesto also said it would

‘instigate a programme of annual health checks for everyone over the age of 50, led by GPs, practice nurses, pharmacists and other health professionals’.

We’ve heard your Government on countless occasions promise to reform the way people across Wales access everyday health services, yet in 2016 we’ve seen no tangible improvement. Why did you ditch the commitment for face-to-face annual health checks with GPs for everyone over the age of 50?

Well, let’s have some figures. In 2015, 97 per cent—97 per cent—or 440 practices, offered appointments at any time between 5 and 6.30 in the evening on at least two weekdays. That’s the reality: the same percentage as 2014. That is the reality of the figures. I don’t know where his figures come from.

Well, I don’t know where the First Minister is getting his figures from, and he didn’t answer the second question about why he ditched the health checks for over-50s.

Now, your recent programme for government said it will again improve access to GP surgeries, making it easier to get an appointment. Well, the people of Wales have heard all this before, from you and from previous Labour Governments. Clearly, you’ve failed to improve the situation over the last five years. Why on earth should the people of Wales trust you this time? So, if your Government wants to improve accessibility to GP surgeries, what strategic benchmarks will you now put in place to improve accessibility by 2021, given that you’ve published no targets whatsoever in the current programme for government?

We’ve delivered, and the people of Wales recognised that in May. He’s no different to his leader. It’s like watching a fly constantly batting itself into a window and not making any progress at all. Well, let me help you with some more figures. In 2015, 82 per cent—373 practices—were open for daily core hours of 8 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. Monday to Friday—an increase from 80 per cent in 2014, on top of—on top of—the access that I mentioned earlier on. The reality is he’s got his figures wrong, and we delivered on our promises.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. First Minister, last week at the Labour Party conference, Diane Abbott, the shadow health Secretary at Westminster, said that the people who voted for Brexit did so because largely they want to see less foreign people on the streets. Does he not think that this is a slander on the 62 per cent of people in Blaenau Gwent who voted for Brexit, the 60 per cent in Torfaen, and, indeed, the 55 per cent in Bridgend who voted for Brexit?

Well, I can’t answer for comments made by other people. What I can say is that I don’t think people voted to see doctors deported, which is what the Tories want to do today.

No doctor is going to be deported. That’s an absurd thing to say. But they certainly wouldn’t be—[Interruption.] They certainly wouldn’t be—[Interruption.] They certainly wouldn’t be—[Interruption.] They certainly wouldn’t be deported under a Labour Government because it’s clear from the Labour Party conference that the Labour Party doesn’t believe in any serious immigration controls at all. Indeed, Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman said that he was relaxed about the prospect of higher immigration and doesn’t believe in reducing it. Mr Corbyn’s aides apparently said that it’s not an objective to reduce immigration and that Jeremy Corbyn believes the best way to deal with immigration across Europe is to harmonise wages in every country. Considering that the average wage in Romania is £100 a week and in Bulgaria is £80 a week, does the First Minister think that this is a sensible policy for controlling immigration?

Well, I see now the leader of UKIP is quick to defend the Tories. I mean, Damian Green was asked several times—I saw it—by Andrew Neil, ‘Are you saying that doctors will be deported?’, and he just wouldn’t answer the question. What he said was, ‘They’re welcome whilst they’re necessary’. Then, of course, he went on to say, ‘Well, of course, under a Labour Government there wouldn’t be any deportation’, as if that was a bad thing—a bad thing. He wants to see deportations, it seems to me.

The reality is that we in Wales offer a welcome to doctors. We offer a welcome to people who come and live in our country on an annual basis. We’d even offer him a welcome, if he chose to live in Wales, as well. [Laughter.]

I didn’t realise that the First Minister was an extremist. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh’.] There is no possibility of anybody being deported from Wales or the United Kingdom as a result of Brexit, because, as the First Minister well knows, the rights of those who are already here are protected under Britain’s existing treaty obligations that are not relevant to the EU. What matters is that we take into this country in future those who we need and we can choose who comes here. And that is the essence of any sovereign nation’s power.

If it was thought that offering him a welcome, if he chose to live in Wales, was the mark of an extremist, then I apologise in that regard, but he is nevertheless welcome to live in our country if he so chooses to do so. But one thing I can say to him is: we need doctors. There is no health service anywhere in the developed world that doesn’t recruit doctors from other countries. The reality is a quarter of our medical staff come from overseas, and the message that’s been given today is, ‘If you’re not from the UK, don’t come to the UK, you’re not welcome, because if you get a job you’ll lose that job as soon as somebody else comes forward, even though it might take 10 or 15 years to do so’. We will continue to recruit good doctors for the health service in Wales whilst others try to create a situation where fewer and fewer doctors are available to treat our people.

All current payments, I would expect, yes. What I would not be supportive of is that if those payments happen to be Barnettised because that would mean that we’d be worse off.

Of course, I applaud and share the First Minister’s ambition in this field. Many farmers have said to me that they would like to see Welsh Government spending on agriculture and rural development ring-fenced. Is that a commitment the First Minister would consider giving, perhaps in the context of UK Government guarantees of future funding and policy autonomy for Wales?

I think it’s possible to do so until 2020. That’s what we’re aiming to do. Beyond that, there is no money at all to pay farming subsidies unless the UK Government gets its act together and tells us exactly what it plans to do. So, yes, we would look to support farming as if we’d still been members of the European Union whilst the funds are available. If there are no funds beyond 2020, it stands to reason that we will not be able to do so.

It was fascinating the other day, First Minister, to see a representation made by 35 Conservative MPs saying we should seize this opportunity to look anew, post 2020, at how we actually use what they termed ‘public funds’ for public gains as well, such as environmental gains, flood alleviation, and so on.

The immediate issue is Brexit and making sure we work with farmers to get what’s right for Wales and Welsh farmers. Post 2020, is he looking forward, is he scanning what the opportunities might be there to make sure that we realise the widespread benefits of good landscape management as well as food production, and is he doing that in concert with the UK Government? Are they on the same hymn sheet?

‘No’ is the answer to that, but I can say that the Minister has already been holding meetings, looking to develop what future rural policy, including agriculture, of course, might look like. It’s true to say that we will have greater flexibility and greater power; what we don’t know is whether we’ll have any money in order to implement these things. So, the UK Government does have to declare, in line with the promise that not a penny would be lost to Wales, that in fact agricultural payments will be maintained, not just for Wales but Scotland and Northern Ireland as well, to provide certainty for farmers, because, at the moment, after 2020, farming is staring at a future without any public subsidy. It is not ready for that, if we’re honest. I’m somebody who knows full well the value of farming payments, not just to farms, but to rural communities and to the Welsh language, for example. Beyond 2020, we have no certainty at all whether there’ll be a brass farthing available to pay for these things, and we need that certainty.

What are the opportunities now to put the situation right in terms of payments to farmers and payments that are seen as environmental payments to create one national scheme for Wales that is agri-environmental as a whole? Within that context, isn’t it also true that producing food that is nutritious, healthy, local and environmentally sustainable also provides public benefit?

It is. It doesn’t mean to say that we can feed ourselves, because 54 per cent of the food eaten in the UK is actually produced in the UK. That is the nature of where we live, because of where we live in the world. Having said that, of course, we wish to ensure that producers can be sustainable, that they can produce saleable food, and food that people wish to buy. That’s all-important. There is an opportunity to reconsider pillar 1 and pillar 2, and that, of course, comes under the CAP. If the CAP no longer exists, there will be opportunities to see whether we want to put that line there in the future. So, there are opportunities in the future, and there is an opportunity for farmers to help us to shape the policies for the future, but we have to have the funding to ensure that that can happen.

First Minister, I completely agree with you that the last thing we need is for the current CAP payments to be squeezed through what you can only term ‘the Barnett mangle’. This risks the future underfunding of Wales more than that which we’ve seen. What discussions have you had with the UK Government regarding creating a system of farm support that isn’t subject to the Barnett formula and supports farmers on the basis of need, and perhaps even factors in a greater degree of production, which farmers themselves have been calling for?

Production subsidies are very much a two-edged sword. I remember when we had production subsidies and we produced probably 25 per cent too much in terms of sheep meat particularly, and the price was depressed as a result. We have to produce what the market will bear and not what we think people need to buy, because the reality is we’ll over produce and we’ll see the price drop. So, that has to be managed very carefully.

I know that Lesley Griffiths has had meetings on this very issue. I think it’s fair to say that the UK Government has no idea what farming policy should look like in the future. It’s also true to say that it has no real idea of the nature of devolution, when it comes to farming policy. From our perspective, what we want to see is autonomy for Wales in terms of farming policy, amongst others, together, of course, with a fair share of the money that we are told will be made available as a result of Brexit.

We work with the ONS across a range of issues, including the census, of course, economic statistics, the National Survey for Wales and, of course, the development of the new data campus.

Thank you, First Minister. The ONS’s new data science campus is being established in Newport. The campus aims to build world-leading expertise in data science and benefit from faster, richer economic, social and environmental data. The campus will also carry out cutting-edge research for the public good, exploiting the growth and availability of innovative sources. Several data science apprenticeships under the Welsh Government’s scheme will be filled, and an MSc in analysis for government will start in 2017, working with a number of universities. This will help to develop significant expertise in this area, and presents an opportunity to create a data hub around the ONS in Newport by attracting other companies. What can the Welsh Government do to support and encourage this development for the benefit of the Welsh economy?

The creation of the campus is a great boost for the region; it shows that that tech sector is thriving, and we’ve been working with the ONS to help them to maximise the benefits for Wales. It does provide us with an opportunity as a Government to explore the use of new sources of data, and to encourage more intelligent use of data and analytics within the public sector. We are already considering what potential projects we might be able to move forward with the help of the ONS.

Following the ONS reclassification of housing associations, will you, First Minister, set out whether you are intending to make legislative changes similar to those of the UK Government in England to retain the status of housing associations as independent social businesses, following, of course, changes brought about through the last UK Government’s Housing and Regeneration Act 2008?

I refer the Member to the answer I gave to Simon Thomas in question 1.

With respect to the ONS data centre and the link with economics, I worked as an economist previously and hugely benefited from relations with ONS statisticians. There was a time when the ONS emphasised selling data and using it to bring in revenue to Government, but now has a policy of open data. Does the First Minister agree that the Welsh Government should support that in its own approach, and also that there could be a huge opportunities for companies to come to Newport, benefit from its improving connections and that raw supply of data and expert statisticians we will have in Newport?

These things have to be looked at; I understand that. The chief digital officer will be considering issues such as this, but we know, for example, that in March this year we did see the publication of the first open data plan for Wales, and that contains our thoughts in terms of how that matter can be developed in the future.

We are committed to eliminating all forms of domestic abuse. We are currently consulting on the national strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, which, when finalised in November, will set out our key objectives over the next five years.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I’m sure the First Minister is aware of the reports from NSPCC Cymru last week that they have seen a big rise in the number of adults calling them worried about children suffering from or witnessing physical and emotional domestic abuse. The number of the calls to the NSPCC, I believe, has gone up 63 per cent over the last six years. What further can be done by the Welsh Government to tackle the issue of domestic abuse, in particular the damaging effect it has on young people’s lives?

NSPCC Cymru is represented on the ministerial advisory group, so we have established links with them to consider this report and to take any work forward. But I can say that in the national strategy, we committed to working with all the relevant partners to ensure we tackle adverse childhood experiences to reduce health-harming and anti-social behaviours in adult life. We need to look at this issue in the most holistic way possible, looking at eliminating the causes of domestic violence rather than simply, as it were, dealing with the aftermath. So, that approach is reflected in the work that the ministerial advisory group is taking forward.

First Minister, Gwent Police is taking part in a three-force pilot scheme, which will see front-line officers primed to look out for coercive or controlling behaviour when attending domestic abuse incidents. This is a switch to detecting patterns of abusive conduct, following on from new laws introduced to tackle perpetrators who subject spouses, partners or other family members to controlling or coercive behaviours, and is aimed at tackling a range of conducts such as social media, spying on them online and stopping them from socialising—and offenders can have up to five years in jail. I’m wondering if you’re taking this into consideration on a Gwent level and that it’s something that can be looked at across the board here in Wales.

I think that’s a good model. I worked for many years in the family courts and dealt with many domestic violence cases. Of course, the issues that were the most difficult to prove were those that involved psychological harm. When somebody has been attacked and that attack leaves physical evidence, then it’s there for all to see, but it could be difficult, of course, to deal with people who were controlling and who inflicted psychological violence. In those days there was no social media—there is now. So, I do very much welcome what Gwent Police are doing in order to go underneath looking at what appears to be a normal situation on the surface, and delve deeper in order to make sure that psychological violence is not being displayed and that they can identify it early on.

You’ll recall that, when we debated Stages 3 and 4 of the legislation last year—the violence against women Act—the then Minister, although not accepting the need to include reference to perpetrator programmes, committed the Welsh Government then to gather further evidence on taking forward pre-custodial perpetrator programmes. What action is your Government doing to facilitate that?

Well, these are issues that are being taken forward via the ministerial advisory group and, of course, via the strategy. The strategy will aim to be all-encompassing, dealing with the issues that the Member has raised in order—as I mentioned earlier on—to make sure that issues are dealt with early on rather than, of course, dealing with the aftermath and the trauma that causes for the victim.

First Minister, since the introduction of the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, only a handful of charges have been brought. Is it therefore welcome news that police forces across the country will be training officers to recognise the signs of controlling or coercive behaviour? It’s similar to Bethan’s, I apologise. However, we need to inform the public that domestic violence isn’t restricted to physical abuse. How can the Welsh Government help spread the message that psychological and emotional abuse is a crime that won’t be tolerated, and to make the public more aware? Thank you.

We’ll continue to ensure that message is received. As I say, the strategy will be looking to take that forward. Creating the offence is one thing; finding enough evidence to prosecute can be tougher. That often involves making sure that people are aware that there’s an offence in the first place, which can be half the battle sometimes, and secondly, of course, making sure that somebody who wishes to give evidence feels safe in order to do so and feels that there will be an outcome for them and that they will be protected in the future. So, it isn’t simply a question, as she says, about creating the offence; it’s making sure that the offence is actually followed through and investigated properly by the police—she’s given examples of where that is happening—and then, of course, ultimately, successful prosecutions.

Yes. It was made available to schools on 1 September.

Thank you for the quick answer, Minister. Online social media platforms can be used by offenders to make contact with children who are unaware of the sinister intentions that may lie behind a seemingly innocent exchange. The NSPCC has called for online safety lessons to become part of the curriculum so children can recognise the signs of this behaviour and its dangers. Will the First Minister confirm that online safety lessons will form part of the digital competence framework in Wales?

This is part of what the framework will look to achieve. Actually, I know that schools do give lessons in terms of internet safety—I’ve certainly been aware of that with my own children and others will have the same experience. It’s true to say that, building on the good work that schools have displayed so far, we want to make sure that children are as fully aware as they can be of what lurks out there online. We know that, for many offenders, they will go to great lengths, sometimes, in trying to place young children in a position of vulnerability, and so, their safety is paramount.

The digital competence framework, of course, is one of a number of frameworks that are to be introduced over the next few years. One concern that’s been expressed, of course, is a lack of time within the academic year, as it’s currently structured, to train and prepare teachers and educators to take full advantage of these frameworks. Given that there’s only around 5 days available for training within a year for teachers, how do you intend to ensure that they are armed to use these new frameworks to their full extent?

Well, two things. The new curriculum will ensure that there’s an opportunity not just to teach but also to train. Then, secondly, with the devolution of the terms and conditions of teachers we can then consider the nature of training and what kind of training would be more beneficial for teachers. The current system has been in place for many years now and I think we need to reconsider it in order to give more training to teachers and to give them what they need.

The neurological conditions delivery plan for Wales and the 2008 Wales neuroscience review recognise the important role neurology specialist nurses, such as those caring for people with epilepsy, can have in supporting people to manage their condition effectively.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Does he agree that, in addition to improving the quality of care for patients living with epilepsy, speciality epilepsy nurses can also reduce costs to the NHS, by reducing the call on consultants’ time, on hospital admissions and emergency readmissions? And would he encourage local health boards to actively develop investment cases to employ more specialist epilepsy nurses?

Yes, I would. We know that there are good examples across Wales of where epilepsy nurses have been hugely useful, not just to the patient, but of course, to the health service as a whole in terms of being able to deal with conditions quickly and as close as possible to the patient. As far as the health boards are concerned, we do expect them to consider the staffing mix required to deliver neurological services to their local population and tailor it accordingly. That would mean, of course, looking at having a sufficient number of epilepsy nurses in order to not just provide the service, but to lessen the pressure on the service further on down the line.

First Minister, given that recent reports have suggested we should have 88 epilepsy nurses in Wales and we’ve currently got nine, and given the difficulties we have in recruiting people, I’m not going to ask you to go and find 81 extra nurses overnight. However, what we could do is run specialised epilepsy clinics on a more frequent basis. Scotland has five such clinics for just over 5 million people and Northern Ireland has two for just under 2 million people. So, that’s about 1 million people per clinic and their populations are served well. Here in Wales, we’ve got one centre based in Cardiff for just over 3 million people. It is an absolutely known fact that 70 per cent of people with epilepsy could have their seizures better controlled if they had access to such services. At the moment, we’re only just over the 50 per cent mark in Wales. So, whilst we can’t magic up another 81 epilepsy nurses overnight, perhaps getting neurologists to hold a few more clinics in a more fair and accessible way throughout Wales could help us achieve the same.

I can say we’ve committed £1 million annually to support the national implementation group for the neurological conditions plan to improve services in Wales. As a result of that allocation, I know that the neurological conditions and stroke groups have jointly committed £1.2 million to support community neuro-rehab services, and that investment across Wales will bring considerable benefits to patients and provide greater equity of access to services across Wales.

Yes. In August, the Welsh ambulance service responded to 78.1 per cent of the most life-threatening calls, known as red calls, and that means it’s met its target for the eleventh successive month and is the best ambulance performance since the introduction of the clinical response model pilot last October.

Thank you for that answer. Obviously, the First Minister’s mentioned the fact that the Welsh ambulance service has responded, again, to almost 81 per cent of the most life-threatening calls in eight minutes or less in August and in doing so has met the target for the eleventh successive month. That is a huge testimony to our Welsh ambulance staff.

So, would the First Minister state the response rates for my constituency of Islwyn since the introduction of the clinical response model pilot last October, and indeed, what this demonstrates about the performance of the Welsh ambulance service for my constituents?

I can say to the Member that red performance within the Aneurin Bevan board area was 79.6 per cent in August—above the national average—and performance in this area has improved by more than 10 percentage points over the course of the last year.

We continue to work with our partners to encourage people to register, first of all, and to vote ahead of local government elections in 2017. Assuming the Wales Bill, of course, is satisfactory as far as this institution is concerned, and it gains parliamentary approval, we will be in a position to consider the best use of new powers in electoral matters.

One use may be to lower the voting age to 16 for our elections. This was thought to have transformed voter participation amongst younger people in Scotland when the law was changed for the Scottish referendum. It would also allow us very elegantly to promote in the 14 to 18 age group a whole new concept of civics education and voter participation. This is something we really need to do; citizens have to be aware of their responsibilities, as well, in terms of keeping a healthy democracy going, and education is key to that.

It is absolutely key to it. When I meet people on the doorstep and they tell me that they don’t vote, I ask them to repeat what they’ve just said but without actually using their voice. And I say, ‘Well, there you are, you haven’t got a voice if you don’t vote. If you said to me, “I do vote, but why should I vote for you?”—then politicians take notice.' It’s sad that we’ve seen a decline, I’d say since the mid 1990s, in voter participation, and if we’re honest as politicians, it’s very difficult to understand the reason or reasons for that. We know that in Scotland the turnout was high in the independence referendum. But one of the things we have done, for example, is to fund an NUS Wales and Democracy Club website, ‘Where Do I Vote?’ It was launched in March of this year. It enables students and others to find the polling station they were registered at and it covered 10 of the 22 local authority areas, accounting for around 47 per cent of Welsh electors.

I thank the First Minister.

I have accepted two urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66, and I call on Suzy Davies to ask the first urgent question.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Just give me a second to find the question.

I’m committed to enabling our heritage and cultural institutions to maximise their commercial performance. I believe this can be achieved by exploring potential new structures and taking the necessary steps to realise the benefits that can be derived from better integration.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Minister, and for your written statement last week. Thank you, Llywydd, also, for allowing the urgent question so that the statement could receive early scrutiny.

As Welsh Conservatives, we would have no objection to sponsored bodies or bodies within Government making the most of their opportunities to improve all operational activities, including commercial activities. I remember raising this very point with one of your predecessors in the last Assembly. I’m also encouraged to see that a couple of the options before you recognise that Cadw isn’t necessarily best served by being entombed within Government, and that to have access to financial leverage it must operate at least partly at arm’s length. Would that the previous Welsh Government had listened to us in the previous Assembly, perhaps Cadw, the museum and the royal commission may already have discovered improvements to their ongoing partnership practices.

My questions are essentially about the options to merge, and I think they need answering early on in this process. And they are: what lessons did Welsh Government learn from the aborted attempt to exercise its preference to merge Cadw and the royal commission? How would you overcome the royal charter status of the museum? Would you need to use legislation to effect a merger of any activities of the bodies referred to in the PwC report? If you get an early steer from this Assembly, which is in balance, that the merger of functions would be unacceptable to us, would you make an early statement that that particular option would be taken off the table? And finally, looking at models for improved partnership working, can you tell us who you will be consulting with to ensure that no particular body or partner is dominant? Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Member for her question and also welcome the support of the Welsh Conservatives for improving the commercial performance of many of our heritage and historic environment organisations. In terms of Cadw, I’m pleased to be able to tell Members today that, actually, 2016 is on course to be the most successful year in its history. It is part of Welsh Government, but a decision that I took early on in my previous role was to bring the commercial activities of Cadw more in line with Visit Wales and the objectives of the Year of Adventure and the Year of Legends. As a result of this work, July 2016 was the best month on record for Cadw. Income was more than £160,000 higher than in July 2015, and nearly £400,000 higher compared to the first four months of last year. I’m pleased to be able to say that visitor numbers were up 14,000 in July of this year compared to last year. The reason that I state these facts is because it shows what can be done when organisations work more closely together in terms of promotional activity and marketing. The steering group that has been put together encompasses representatives from Cadw, the National Museum Wales, as well as representatives of the trade unions of the workforce who are employed right across the estates, and also the royal commission and the national library. The steering group will identify how Historic Wales can best be constituted so that it can effectively realise the commercial potential of our historic environment service, Cadw, and, of course, the National Museum Wales. The steering group will consider a range of options for Historic Wales that were evaluated in the report ‘Investing in the future to protect the past’, which the Member is aware was prepared by PwC earlier this year. That report, which has been published on the Welsh Government’s website, was informed by a steering group that was chaired by Baroness Randerson. The steering group now is chaired by Justin Albert from the National Trust. He has incredible knowledge of the sector and has great understanding of the Welsh heritage estate, but is independent of the organisations being considered as part of this exercise.

In terms of whether or not we need legislation, well, that will be considered as part of the recommendations that the steering group ultimately reaches. In terms of wider engagement, it’s my intention to go out to a public consultation in 2017, once the steering group has reported back.

This is an appropriate opportunity for us to air some of the concerns that have been brought to us in terms of this issue of Historic Wales. The Minister will be aware of many of those concerns. I’m sure he’s having the kind of e-mails that I’m receiving. May I just place on record in the first place that National Museum Wales is crucial to define us as a nation? In those dark days before we had an Assembly here we looked at the national museum as one of the pillars of our nation, and therefore it’s crucially important. We want an assurance that there’s nothing that’s going to happen that will undermine the future of our national museum.

Therefore, one of the questions is: can you ultimately give us an assurance on the independence of the national museum for the next years? That’s the crucially important point. Yes, we understand the financial issues, but there are also some, such as me, who think that it may be easier if we gave organisations such as the national museum more freedom to provide their own business plans, more than perhaps they’ve been able to do in the past, rather than going immediately towards having some sort of major scheme that brings everyone together, and perhaps put at risk that independence that I mentioned.

Can you also tell us exactly what you see as the responsibility of Historic Wales, because, of course, there are concerns out there, in all parts of Wales, about the lack of discussion that’s taken place? I did ask last week for a debate in this place so that we could air some of those concerns, with more time and energy than we can give them in just an urgent question, and I’m still awaiting that debate in the Chamber. There are concerns about the very real risk that could develop for some of our most valued organisations and institutions as a nation.

And, ultimately, would you agree that it would be a good idea if we could have an inquiry into this whole issue of Historic Wales in the culture committee? Would you as a Minister support such a move so that we can get to grips with the concerns that are around at the moment? Thank you.

In short, to the final question, yes. The Member was not present in 2013 and nor was the Chair of the new committee a member of that committee in 2013 when there was an inquiry into the Welsh Government’s historic environment. The vision that I’ve outlined for Historic Wales is not a vision held by one person or one party. It’s actually a vision that comes from all parties that were present in this Chamber in the previous Assembly. That inquiry recommended a number of changes to the current system. It included members of the three parties and the Liberal Democrats at the time, albeit not UKIP. But during the course of that inquiry it became clear, and I’m going to read a few sections from the evidence that was given, that more needed to be done to ensure that the sustainability of the historic environment sector is guaranteed. That was crystal clear from the outset. The more evidence that came in, the more convincing it was that change needed to take place.

‘Wales is a small country and it needs its lead heritage organisations to work in collaboration if it is to be most effective at serving the people of Wales.’

Not my words, the chief executive of the national museum’s words. He went on to say that the museum

‘believes that the added value achieved through shared funding and collaborative projects with local authorities and third sector organisations is of key importance.’

And I agree. In the recommendations, one of the recommendations was that the Welsh Government put in place mechanisms to better ensure collaboration in promoting the historic environment. I agree. Another recommendation: the Welsh Government should explore options to transfer the responsibility for promoting local authority assets to Cadw. That goes even further than what was suggested for Historic Wales. Another recommendation: the Welsh Government should explore the possibility of establishing a national membership-based heritage organisation in order to promote historic sites. And a further recommendation: the Welsh Government should explore the possibility of establishing a representative umbrella body such as English Heritage to represent non-Government organisations in the third and private sectors. This is precisely what we have taken forward with the programme of Historic Wales.

Now, in terms of the comments that were made by the committee at that time, and albeit that the Members from Plaid Cymru who were on that committee are no longer with us—Lindsay Whittle, and also Rhodri Glyn Thomas, who, as I’m sure you’re aware, is now the president of the national library—they said,

‘We feel that there must be an increased synergy in promotional activities…We support the view…that there is tremendous potential for a more joined-up approach to promotion. We feel that there is an opportunity to be bold and creative’.

We are being bold. We wish to be creative.

In terms of the responsibilities, I think this is very much for the steering group to consider. In terms of identity, let me be absolutely clear that, as part of the vision, the importance of Historic Wales is in maintaining the independence, the identity, the integrity and the core purposes of the national institutions. That is absolutely recognised. The objective of Historic Wales is to enable them to harness their collective expertise, and their resources, to maximise commercial revenues for the benefit not just of our heritage but also for the economy, and also for communities. We have a programme. Many Members are aware of it—the Fusion programme. That attempts to bring together some of our major cultural institutions with the communities that they serve to tackle poverty. That’s exactly what is being achieved via the national museum, working in collaboration with local authorities. It’s exactly what will be achieved by Historic Wales.

Minister, I think we all want more collaboration in the heritage sector. I think that is something that would serve us all well, particularly around marketing initiatives. But, you know, we do face some very hard facts here. The national museum has been an independent body since the 1920s, established by royal charter. The reason we established these great institutions as independent bodies is that so they can stand up to the state and have control over what’s out there in the artistic imagination, which is quite challenging. My simple question to you is that, if the national museum and galleries loses control over its commercial activities, how is it going to run, independent of Government’s choices, lively exhibitions and a choice of special exhibits that they develop? We’ve already heard from Dai Lloyd about the role that was played in developing the national imagination. All these questions come down to fundamental matters of how we imagine ourselves and how we test the coherence of what is coming out from, often, the establishment. How will the independence of the artistic spirit be preserved if, in effect, the museum, via Cadw, becomes a part of Government?

I don’t think anybody is suggesting that the national museum will become part of Government. Far from it. This is going to protect the sustainability, the identity and the independence of the museum, but ensure that we bring together the expertise that is necessary to actually realise the potential of many of our institutions. I’ve talked about the increase in visitor numbers to Cadw sites. I’m not satisfied with where they’re at at the moment. It’s been a record year. It’s the best year that we’ve ever seen for Cadw, in part because of those changes that were made, and the determination to attract new people to Cadw sites. But I want to see visitor figures rise still further. Why? Because it’s good for the economy, it’s good for skills training, it’s good for volunteering, it brings communities together. It’s also good for the heritage sector and for education. I do not believe that royal charters should act as a preventative measure when you have willing partners within those institutions that want to come together to bring expertise and resources together for the benefit of all, and that is precisely what the steering group will be considering. And, as I’ve already said, the steering group is made up of senior figures from those national institutions who, thus far, have been part of other groups, led by Baroness Randerson, and who have advocated, so far, coming together on a more collaborative basis.

Clearly, Minister, there is anxiety in the sector, and that anxiety does seem to have spilled over into Members’ e-mail inboxes. Would the Minister make sure, when he’s reflecting on the independent recommendations of a report by a former Liberal Democrat Minister, and reflecting on the report of an independent steering group that he has set up, that he puts the interests of the users at the heart of this and not any institutional boundaries and professional interests? Clearly, there’s a need to bring people along with any change and to listen to all the arguments of people at the coalface, but I think people need to relax a little bit and listen to what the evidence says, and let the processes that you’ve set out take their course.

The Member is absolutely right: this is about users—i.e. the people of Wales whom we serve and the institutions must serve as well. It’s also about the people who are employed in the institutions. The greatest anxiety that can be caused is job insecurity, and what this aims to do is ensure the long-term sustainability of those institutions, so that those jobs that are there at the moment aren’t just guaranteed, but that there are opportunities for many more people to enter what is a sector that can attract people right across the age range, from all demographics. I’m pleased that we’ve taken the work so far. I hope that the steering group will embrace this agenda and deliver a very creative and a very bold solution to what is a problem that I think everybody in this Chamber has recognised—that there must be greater collaboration and integration of what they do.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

I now call on Steffan Lewis to ask the second urgent question.

At 6.10 p.m. on Saturday evening, I was telephoned by David Davis, the UK Government’s Brexit Minister. He phoned to inform me that a Bill would be brought forward, repealing the European Communities Act 1972. It’s been over-spun as the great repeal Bill, as it’s described now. What he said to me was that, as part of that process, he wished to ensure that what is already law in the UK jurisdictions that comes from the EU is maintained despite the repeal of the European Communities Act. In principle, there are no difficulties with that, but, of course, we have to see the detail, and we reserve our position until that detail is clear.

Diolch. I thank the First Minister for that answer. Of course, it’s the mood music around the tabling of the idea of a European repeal Bill that is perhaps an inevitable part of a hard Brexit scenario and which has deeper and far-reaching consequences. I’m quite concerned about the nature of the way in which the Prime Minister made her announcement and, indeed, the way that the First Minister of this country was informed of that decision. I wonder if he can elaborate further on whether there will be a requirement for this institution to adopt a parallel process in terms of a European repeal Bill for European law that is to do with devolved matters, or whether instead there would be a requirement for this institution and other devolved Parliaments to consent to the UK legislation.

In addition, there is rightly growing concern that the so-called great repeal Bill could be more of a great power grab, enabling Westminster to centralise power and prevent repatriated powers from being devolved to this place. What action is the First Minister proposing to prevent that power grab from happening? This repeal Bill proposal poses wider questions now about our national future and the nature of our political union with the United Kingdom. Will he take this opportunity to define clearly what he means by ‘a more federal union’ and how his plans to deliver that can work within the framework of the announcement made by the Prime Minister earlier this week?

We are told in addition, alongside this announcement, that the Welsh Government will not have a seat at the negotiating table with the European Union. On this point, can the First Minister confirm or deny that his demands for a seat at the table were indeed a demand for a seat at the table, or does he have a different definition? In light of the announcement by Theresa May, will the First Minister further consider another u-turn on a Welsh veto of the final Brexit settlement? And, finally, now that the UK Government is signalling its intent for the hardest possible Brexit, will he now reflect on what his own Government can do to defend the national interest, and, particularly, to defend our place in the European market?

There may be a need for an LCM, but until we see the detail, it’s difficult to give a definitive answer on that. We reserve the right, of course, to decide whether to support that LCM or not, depending on what emerges. At this moment in time, what seems to be happening is that the UK Government wants to make sure that what is already in law, as a result of the EU, is not lost as a result of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. That may need an LCM. As far as this place is concerned, we wait to see what the detail of that is.

In terms of negotiation, we have an established procedure. For example, in the field of agriculture, where it’s been long established, the four Ministers come together and look to agree a common line, as far as the UK is concerned, in the Council of Ministers. That’s exactly the kind of process that I would expect to happen on this occasion. A lot of hubris has come from the Conservative conference about the UK Government, in effect, trying to say it has the sole role in terms of negotiation. It is in the driving seat, but it would be unwise in the extreme for the UK Government to try to force through a Brexit solution that was opposed in Scotland, Wales and, particularly, Northern Ireland, where such a solution has dangers in terms of it being seen as forced on that part of the island.

And so, at this moment in time, I think it’s fair to say the UK Government itself has no real idea what it wants to do. I think he is correct in his analysis that there is a tendency towards hard Brexit solely because they can’t think of any other way of doing it. All the talk that the EU would be flexible, that there would be flexibility in terms of freedom of movement, that there would be a free trade agreement in place and that there wouldn’t be tariffs, that’s all gone out the window. And my great fear now is that we end up in a situation, which some Conservative politicians seem to be happy with, of a hard Brexit with tariffs. David Davis himself has said, ‘Well, you know, if tariffs happen, it’s £2 billion for the Exchequer’, forgetting, of course, the effect on manufacturing industries particularly, and of course the fact that it would be consumers who would have to pay for those tariffs.

So, from my perspective, the engagement so far with the UK Government has been acceptable. We’re in no different a position to Scotland; Scotland has made a lot of noise, but the reality is it’s in no different a position to us. But, what is absolutely clear is that ourselves, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Gibraltar—who fear very much the effects of Brexit—do have to make sure that our voices are heard, and I intend to make sure that that’s exactly what happens.

Well, clearly, this isn’t about a great power grab. As you yourself have said, you want to be involved and engaged alongside the other devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, and the UK Government, whilst not having, as you also acknowledged in September, an ultimate veto. But, given that the great reform or great repeal Bill, as announced and as we understand it, will convert the body of existing EU law into UK law and that UK parliaments will then be free to amend, repeal and improve any law they choose, how will you during the term of this Assembly—bearing in mind that exit is likely to happen during the term of this Assembly—engage with bodies such as the Bevan Foundation, which says that a post-Brexit Wales needs a rethink of economic policies, or the Farmers Union of Wales, which says that we must recognise the opportunity to shape a future that suits Welsh agriculture, and all the other bodies expressing similar views, so that you’re ready in, potentially, 2019 to start bringing forward appropriate legislative programmes that meet the aspirations and needs identified by these organisations?

Well, the Member is unfortunate in his choice of words, because what he described at the very beginning is a power grab. What he said was that these matters would now be dealt with in UK law. Well, UK law doesn’t actually exist in reality. But, secondly, it is not a matter for the UK Parliament in its entirety in terms of what happens with EU law. Much law is devolved, and it will be wholly unacceptable for the UK Parliament to have a role in terms of dealing with devolved administration in any of the devolved nations. That is a matter entirely for this institution, and those who are elected to serve in it.

He mentions farming. This work is already ongoing. The Minister has met with farming unions on a number of occasions. But, again, the uncertainty we face is that we do not know whether there will be any money available for farming subsidies post 2020. That certainty has not been given.

For me, the issue of tariffs looms very, very large. Many, many businesses have expressed to me their great concern at the possibility of tariffs, and their great concern about the possibility of diverging regulatory regimes, if that were to happen in the future. The reality is, if there is free and unfettered access to the European market without tariffs, then that would be immensely helpful. There’s no question about that. That, for me, is an absolute red line as far as Wales and Britain are both concerned. If, however, there are tariffs, then that will mean that much of what we produce will become uncompetitive. We will find ourselves in a position where a market that’s bigger than America and Russia combined is not as open to us as once it was, and I don’t think economically that makes any sense at all.

What does worry me is that there are some on the right of the Conservative Party who seem to think—and I don’t mention him, because it’s not something that he’s said, but I’ve heard Peter Lilley say it, John Redwood and Patrick Minford, who’ve all basically said that we should have tariff-free access for all manufactured goods and all food. That would destroy farming, I’ll tell you that now, and it would destroy our manufacturing industry. The quid pro quo would be access to new markets for financial services. In other words, as long as the City of London’s alright, then no-one else matters. That can never be an acceptable situation to any of us in Wales. It’s not a view shared, in fairness, by everybody in his party, but it is nevertheless a view that I’ve heard expressed by many on the right wing of his party.

I thank the First Minister.

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

Diolch, Lywydd. I’ve two changes to make to today’s agenda. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will make a statement on the M4 immediately after the business statement, and the statement on the national infrastructure commission for Wales has been postponed until 18 October.

Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement, found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

I just wanted to ask for a statement from the Welsh Government regarding the employment of Kris Wade, sentenced to life for murder last week—he worked for Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board—and particularly whether, in light of subsequent revelations about Mr Wade’s time at the LHB, the Welsh Government could consider escalating its current status from targeted interventions to special measures. If there wasn’t an air of complacency amongst management when dealing with allegations made against Mr Wade, then there were was certainly sluggishness. Mr Wade remained suspended from October 2012 until his dismissal earlier this year, and it has to be asked: why did it take a very serious incident for ABMU to finally act? These are very serious issues that are a matter for the Welsh Government, as the overseer of ABMU, as well as the LHB itself. So, I would ask for a statement in Government time on this particular issue.

The other question I’d like to ask for a statement on is that you will have seen that Neath Port Talbot council is currently consulting on its budget, but what interests me most there is that they are potentially going to slash £50,000 from their special educational needs budget, affecting two specialist education facilities and up to 11 school-based units in the county borough. This has, sadly, obviously provoked anger amongst parents, some of whom have likened competing for placements to ‘The Hunger Games’, as it pits friends and families against one another. They say there will be worse to come, and another parent pointed out that this is an investment and it should be retained.

I was wondering if we could have a statement in relation to the fact that there will be a new Bill coming before the Assembly on special educational needs by the Welsh Government. While that is to be commended, how can we see that go forward positively when special educational needs may be cut, not just at Neath Port Talbot council, but across the board, when those budgets come through from local government, to see how they then will be able to cope with the cuts coming through from Westminster? I know it’s a very difficult time, but I think it’s something that, when those types of educational schemes are being cut, then we really do need to wake up and to respond to those accordingly.

Well, Bethan Jenkins raises two matters, the first of which is a matter for ABM university health board, and of course it would be inappropriate to comment on that matter, which is for them to deal with. You’ve raised it today, so it has had that airing, but it is a matter for the health board to deal with and resolve.

Your second matter is of course specifically a matter for the local authority, but I do think you are absolutely right on the opportunities that we’ve got now with the forthcoming ALN Bill. There was a great deal of consultation and discussion in the previous and fourth Assembly, leading up to this ALN Bill, and I know that the Minister, and indeed the committee, are looking forward to having the opportunity to scrutinise, to take forward what will be another piece of pioneering legislation, specifically focusing on those needs in terms of professional education.

Leader of the house, can I ask for two statements, please, including one from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the availability of nursing care home beds in Wales? There’s a particular issue in my own constituency at the moment, where an elderly mentally infirm nursing care home, Plas Isaf in Rhos on Sea, is in the process of closing, which is of course causing great disruption for the 21 residents in that home, many of whom have called that place home for a number of year now, and of course a great deal of disruption for staff. The care home group that actually owns this property have closed other homes in the area in the past few years and there’s becoming quite an acute shortage of elderly mentally infirm beds, in particular in the north Wales area. I wonder whether the Minister may be able to make a statement on what the Welsh Government is doing in order to encourage the nursing home sector to invest in more of these sorts of beds in the future or perhaps to work with the NHS to develop other models of care. I would welcome a statement on that.

Can I secondly call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the review that he announced into the north-south air link last week? I was very pleased to hear about that review. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that I’ve had some concerns about the value-for-money aspects in respect of that particular air link for a number of years now, and it may well be that that money is better invested in either the road or rail infrastructure network or, indeed, in an air link to another location that serves the people of north Wales. I wonder whether we could have a statement on that just so that we can explore some of these issues and that AMs can have their say. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member for north Wales does raise a very important issue in relation to nursing homes in the care sector and, of course, as he says, these are homes often in the independent private sector. I’m interested to see the views of Care Forum Wales and Mario Kreft, who you will know well, in terms of the importance of the care sector, and also recognising that our inspectors and the people who receive care tell us, in terms of the quality of care that is provided, that it is excellent and that we are also investing more in both health and social care. Nursing care, of course, is of critical importance, as you say, but that is a matter also in terms of commissioners and the opportunities of working collaboratively between health and social care.

On your second point, of course, it is right that the Cabinet Secretary has instigated a review of the north-south airline, which was commissioned on 14 September, and the Cabinet Secretary will consider the findings and make a statement when the review is completed.

I wanted to ask for a statement on an issue that’s already been referred to this afternoon—the decision by ONS to reclassify social landlords as public sector bodies. The decision could have a very serious implication on house building in Wales, but I’m also very worried that any measures that the Welsh Government might take to mitigate that may lead to a deregulation of the housing association sector, which would be of great concern to tenants.

The First Minister did respond to a question from Simon Thomas, and there was a further question from Russell George. I think the important thing to repeat from his response is that we are looking for a legislative solution to the issue of reclassification. Housing associations—again, it’s important to put this on the record—can be confident it will be resolved. They will be able to continue to borrow from the private sector in order to help us achieve our target of 20,000 affordable homes in this Assembly term.

We’ve had numerous suggestions for the useful things this Assembly could debate. I’m wondering why the Assembly is going to be debating for the third time today the Government’s legislative programme. We had a statement on the legislative programme on 18 May, another one on 28 June and another one on 28 September. You know, stale food tastes no better when it’s warmed up for the third time. Our party thinks that this is actually an abuse of the Assembly, when we could be doing much more useful things. So my party today will not be participating in the debate in protest because it’s merely a repetition of everything that we have said before. I regret that the Government is doing this and I hope that, in future, we won’t be invited to waste our time in this way.

Well, I don’t think we in this Chamber—I’m certain I speak for many of us here, as well as the public outside—will have much of a problem that UKIP isn’t taking part in the debate this afternoon. You are losing as a result of this; you are losing a really important parliamentary opportunity. I think the more experienced or, perhaps, mature parties in this Chamber will be taking advantage and would want us, and expect us, to promote a debate on not only our programme for government, but our legislative priorities. I know you’re very keen on Standing Orders, certainly your Members are, and I would like to draw you attention to 11.21(i) and (ii):

‘Time must be made available in each Assembly year for debates on the following items of business: (i) the UK Government’s legislative programme (in accordance with section 33 of the Act)’.

You didn’t object to that; and

‘(ii) the policy objectives and legislative programme of the government’.

Now that is in our Standing Orders, and I’m very proud that we are now promoting a debate this afternoon in this Chamber.

The business Minister is perfectly correct in her interpretation of the Standing Orders, and this is a requirement of Government, to table a debate on the programme for government. This will be the first opportunity this Assembly has to vote on the programme for government, and it is certainly not an abuse of the time of this National Assembly to debate this this afternoon. Mark Isherwood.

I would like to raise two points. First, to endorse Bethan Jenkins’s call regarding the Kris Wade case, particularly given that the murder and conviction followed reports by people with learning difficulties when in care that they had been sexually abused. I would argue, and I hope you would agree, that any inquiry needs to go beyond the health board, beyond the local authority, and raise questions directly with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service over the degree to which credibility was given to the witnesses when interviewed, the degree to which the interviewers had disability awareness training, and the degree to which they even understood the basics of the social model of disability, where people are disabled by the barriers put in their way. Now, we can’t say or comment, obviously, on what they might have said and how that might have been interpreted, because we don’t have that evidence, but it does raise serious questions that do fall within the concerns and remit of the Welsh Government, at least as a facilitator, if not a participant in the inquiry that will go forward.

Secondly, and finally, could I call for an oral statement on the International Day of Older Persons? We had a written statement on the International Day of Older Persons last Friday, which was full of self-evident truths, such as that many older people want to keep working and that older people want to be safe, but very little specific action by the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government has said:

‘We have committed to developing a nationwide and cross-government strategy to address loneliness and isolation…We also know the importance of befriending schemes.’

But that’s déjà vu all over again. Every Welsh Government since I came here 13 years ago has said exactly the same thing, but what’s missing from here, anywhere, is reference to the importance of independent living and co-producing with older people to ensure that early intervention and prevention drives their well-being. I’ll just conclude by referring to the older person’s day event I attended last Friday, which was to publicise the services available to our older people in order to promote independent living. So, rather than creating a Welsh Government strategy, how will the Welsh Government engage with the co-production network for Wales, the Supporting People providers in Wales, the Welsh Reablement Alliance, and all those other brilliant organisations already working on the ground but needing the Welsh Government to engage with them as equal partners, to take this agenda forward?

I think my response earlier on to Bethan Jenkins is sufficient in relation to the first point in terms of ABM university health board.

On your second point, I also attended a very important event in my constituency of the over-50s strategy, which has developed from our very pioneering older people’s strategy here in the Assembly. It’s very important that there is continuity, Mark Isherwood, in terms of the Government’s perspective in terms of intervention and engagement. But, of course, we take on board the point, as was very much shown in the event I attended, that it is older people—the over-50s—that are now emerging, in terms of strategic objectives, and who are actually taking the lead in terms of policy for older people. That, of course, is the essence of co-production.

In light of comments on the weekend by the UK Government Secretary of State for Transport that pressing for fulfilment of promises made in relation to the electrification of the main line to Swansea was jumping the gun, will the Government bring forward a statement indicating what representations will be made to the UK Government so that the residents of the Swansea bay area and west of Cardiff aren’t let down by the UK Conservative Government again?

Certainly, I think we’re all very disappointed that electrification between Cardiff and Swansea won’t be completed by 2018 as we were originally promised and as was originally planned, but the Cabinet Secretary is indeed meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport, and it’s very helpful to have your intervention today on the business statement, Jeremy Miles, because I’m sure there is a strength of feeling across this Chamber that we need confirmation of electrification through to Swansea, and that it needs to be completed early in the 2019-24 funding period.

Leader of the house, it must be getting on for around 10 years now since I first attended Gwent Clinical Futures meetings regarding the construction of a specialist and critical care centre at Llanfrechfa Grange in Cwmbran. Here we are 10 years down the line and, aside from some preparatory work, we still don’t have that building with us in any real sense. There’s been renewed confusion over this over the last few days, with some concerns that there is further delay to this project. I wonder if we could have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health at the earliest opportunity to try and clear up this confusion so we can have a proper timescale for the construction of this facility.

I’m sure, Nick Ramsay, you would recognise how open the Cabinet Secretary has been in updating and clarifying progress on the SCCC business case. It has been a matter of updating on progress. Recent discussions at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee confirmed the fact that advice is due this month, in October 2016, and, again, promising to update Assembly Members accordingly at that point. So, again, that will be forthcoming.

Finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Lywydd. Last week, we held the first meeting of the cross-party group on steel, and I very much appreciate the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure attending that and providing an update. During recent months, steelworkers have been working hard to increase production levels and hit their targets. To the public, it appears that the issues around steel have dissipated; they have not. There are still deep concerns over the future of steel, and uncertainty and challenges ahead. Could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary to the Assembly on the current position in relation to the Welsh Government’s actions on steel, and perhaps on the discussions he’s been having with the UK Government as well?

On a second point, could I also support the issues that Bethan Jenkins raised on special education issues? I understand the answer you gave to her and I appreciate that it’s a decision for Neath Port Talbot council and that the ALN Bill will be coming, but it is important to understand the Welsh Government’s position in helping the most vulnerable children in our society who are facing some challenges now, and whether the Bill may actually require authorities to place more support in those areas where we are seeing at the moment some cuts.

David Rees, you have always consistently brought forward an update from your perspective in terms of steel in your constituency, Tata and the people you represent, and I’m grateful for that again today. Of course, actually, cross-party groups are very helpful, aren’t they; they’re a forum where everybody can meet together and where Ministers and Cabinet Secretaries make themselves available, and I think that that update was very well-received. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will want to put that into a written statement or perhaps in a letter to Members, as it was shared with a cross-party group.

I think your points, again, about special education needs, and the fact that we are taking forward the ALN Bill, all strengthen the fact that this is going to be a huge opportunity, which, of course, will be subject to further consultation and scrutiny as it’s taken through this Assembly.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the M4 corridor around Newport project. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Lywydd. This statement updates Members on a delay to the M4 corridor around Newport public local inquiry as a direct result of actions taken by the UK Government.

Due to the short time frame until the planned inquiry start date, I decided to release a written statement yesterday to advise all stakeholders as soon as possible. As I set out to Members here on 21 June, it is vital that this process is fully transparent. In this spirit, it is right and proper that this matter is discussed with Members at the earliest opportunity.

The Department for Transport has, without consultation, introduced revised methodology to their new forecasting for traffic growth, referred to as TEMPro 7. As I want to ensure that decisions on the M4 project are based upon the most accurate, robust and up-to-date information, I must now allow sufficient time for a review of reporting that supports the published proposals issued in March 2016 to be carried out.

Dependent on the outcome of my review, the inquiry, which was due to commence on 1 November, will start no later than 31 March next year. In the interests of fairness and transparency, reporting on this matter will be shared with all stakeholders as soon as reasonably possible. The timetable of an inquiry would be as I previously set out and last around five months and examine all aspects of the M4 project, as well as all suggested alternatives.

I am well aware of the range of views towards the project. An inquiry would allow these views to be heard, and outside of that process I am keen to continue to explore all opportunities for reducing negative impacts and maximising cross-cutting benefits of this major investment.

The UK Government has already expressed its desire to see work on the M4 project start as soon as possible, so it is hugely disappointing that the Department for Transport failed to engage with us on these revisions before they were introduced, forcing this regrettable delay. Whilst we push forward with our metro plans for the north and the south, the long-standing and continued problems associated with the M4 around Newport need a solution that delivers, for the long term, integrated and sustainable transport systems.

Assessments to date indicate that our proposed M4 project is the only reasonable solution, but it is only right and proper that the proposals are tested in light of the most up-to-date information available to ensure that we deliver the right choice for the people of Wales.

The problem has not gone away. We have made a strong commitment to deliver a sustainable, long-term solution to the chronic traffic problems of this stretch of the M4. Subject to my review and inquiry approval, the M4 corridor around Newport project can still be delivered in 2021.

Dai Lloyd.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, but I must say that this isn’t good news. As you’ve already said, you are extremely disappointed. May I also declare that I’m exceptionally disappointed? In your previous response, you alluded to the fact that some of us weren’t here in the last Assembly term, but I was here in the one before that, and I can assure you that we were discussing the M4 problems at that time. We were also discussing the need to electrify the railway line to Swansea. Well, nothing seems to be moving on here.

I understand the announcement, but why do we have to follow London? Explain to me and everybody else who was stuck in a queue around Newport this morning: why do we have to wait for a decision from London that has just landed on your desk without warning and you have to respond by delaying? Why do we have to follow the London line on this? Basically, could you say how this happened? How did this occur? People tell us—the people who want an independent Wales—that we are stronger because we are attached to England, because there’s collaboration and there are two Governments, one at each end of the M4, that are able to collaborate, co-ordinate and every other ‘co-’. Well, obviously, it’s not happening, so we must ask: how do we benefit by being stuck to England?

Emotions are running rather high when you see this kind of decision, because people have been waiting years for an improvement, or for something to be done about the M4. I know your black route—of course, there’ll be no money left if we pursue that one—the blue route, and, of course, you have a review. You’d imagine that the review would look at all the pressures and how to quantify things and there would be no need for further delay. People have been waiting and waiting for years.

In passing, as a party, we announced our national infrastructure commission for Wales yesterday. I know that we have actually agreed on NICW, but I have to say that our NICW is quite different to yours. We wish to see a powerful body that is able to get investment, that can attract funding and operate at arm’s length from Government and stay in the public sector. It would be able to provide an infrastructure such as the new M4, on whichever route we all agree on ultimately. It’s time to act and time for action.

As I said, there’s been delay and there are a number of things that haven’t been done over the years, such as addressing the problem of the M4 around Newport and such as the electrification of the railway to Swansea. We can discuss this ad infinitum, but, from your point of view, you believe that we are stronger in that we have to listen to London. I would disagree with you. I believe it’d be better for us to grasp the issue ourselves and go for it, but, of course, you have a different vision to me in that respect. But, please, explain to me how this current arrangement strengthens us when the people of Wales are still waiting for things to happen. Thank you.

I’d like to thank Dai Lloyd for his questions. It’s clear that neither of us are happy at all with what we’ve learnt this week. But I imagine that motorists who regularly use the M4 are absolutely furious by this further delay—an unnecessary delay and avoidable delay. Had we not chosen to defer the commencement of the M4 public local inquiry to, at the latest, the end of March next year, then, in all likelihood, the inspector would’ve adjourned the inquiry himself.

In terms of the process—and I do think that Members, and, I think, the public, deserve an explanation for this. Let me be clear: I do not think there’s any conspiracy on the part of the UK Government against Wales in this regard, but I do think there is incompetence. What normally happens, what is normal practice, is that we will be informed a year before data are published—a year. That enables us to then scrutinise—because this is an intense, immensely complicated process—the new data. It also affects all English regions, and therefore, Highways England. They are in a similar position to us; they were given just weeks before the data were published. We were given three days’ notice—it’s normally a year—and without consultation on the changes as well. Yes, we received an indication in the spring that there would be an update to TEMPro data, but the Department for Transport failed to engage with us on the scope of the changes.

As I’ve said, for previous revisions to traffic data, the Department for Transport have consulted with us around a year in advance. I do not believe it’s acceptable to give us three days’ notice in full knowledge of the consequences to an entire region of the UK. Normally, the relationship is a healthy one, but, in this instance, something has gone wrong. I wish to know what went wrong. So, I’ll be meeting with the Secretary of State, as my colleague the Cabinet Secretary has already mentioned, next month.

In terms of the relationship that we have with the UK Government, I do believe that we are stronger together as a country. That said, we have to ensure that decisions that are taken by the Department for Transport, or, for that matter, any other department in the UK Government, respect what is happening in Wales, and the time frame that projects—major projects such as the M4—are operating to.

The Member highlights the need for electrification to Swansea—absolutely; I agree entirely. And, again, I would state that, in the past, Wales has not received its fair share in investment through Network Rail. That must change too. And we must have those choice funding programmes within control period 6 agreed to by Network Rail, so that we have a fully integrated system—a system that actually is fit for the twenty-first century, not just in south Wales, but in north Wales and everywhere between as well.

I will first of all say that I very much welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s early statement yesterday to us, and it was extremely helpful, I think, to allow Members to digest the statement a day before you make the statement to the Chamber. I very much hope that that’s a model, Cabinet Secretary, that you’ll continue with, and, in fact, that other Cabinet colleagues will learn from that good practice.

If I look at your statement today, Cabinet Secretary, you’ve said that you’re disappointed that the Department for Transport failed to engage with you on these revisions before they were introduced. Now, the Department for Transport has said that it made it clear to your officials at the start of this year that they would be updating projections. Now, notwithstanding your answers to Dai Lloyd, which I heard, I would ask you, Cabinet Secretary: are your officials keeping you up to date in this regard? But, regardless of who told what when, the information on the revised methodology was made public, as I understand it, in July, months ago. If that’s not the case, I’d like to understand that, I genuinely would. But I would ask when you became aware of this change—I think you mentioned three or four days ago---just for clarification. But I would say, you know—I don’t quite understand, Cabinet Secretary, why your officials didn’t pick this up in July when the information was made public, and I would have thought that would have been common practice. To me, this does raise, I think, the issue—the very important issue—of how well officials are working together between Welsh Government officials and the Department for Transport officials.

It seems to be that there is some breakdown here in communication, and I would ask the same question of the UK Government as well, but it doesn’t seem to me to be beyond realms that officials on both Governments, working on a project, speak on a regular basis to each other. I’m sure you would agree with me on that and you’ve said to the previous speaker that you would be looking into that; I think we’d all be interested in the outcome of that. And I can also ask if the revisions will also affect any other scheme at all across Wales. Will the revised methodology be applied to other pending schemes as well?

You also say in your statement today that you want

‘to ensure that decisions on the M4 project are based upon the most accurate, robust and up-to-date information’

and that seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. You go on to say that you must now allow sufficient time to review, and you go on from there. So, I do want to understand the ‘must’. It’s not a political point here, but what I do want to understand is—. For me, it’s logical, when a project is being developed, that you use the model that’s present at that time. So why does the model at the time not take precedence on this issue? I’m sure that colleagues across this Chamber, and members of the public, as you say, stuck in queues on the M4, will want to understand that as well. Now, if there is a difference in the results of the original and the revised forecasts, when will that be made public? How will it be explained? How will the differences be explained? Will you make this Chamber aware or will this be part of the public inquiry? And how are you going to make this information available to the public as well? Finally, what difference in the forecast would change your plan for the black route? Or perhaps, if I put that question in a different way as well, to what extent will the differences have between the two models to your current plan for change?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions and say at the outset that I actually feared being scolded rather than congratulated for issuing a written statement ahead of giving an oral statement in the Chamber. So, I’m pleased that the Member actually recognised the value in my doing that, and it’s something that I would consider in the future. Again, I’m going to go back to the sequence of events that led to the decision to put back the commencement of the public local inquiry until the end of March next year at the latest. What happened was that, earlier this year, in spring, there was an indication from the Department for Transport officials to my officials that there would be an update to TEMPro data. In spite of my officials’ efforts, unfortunately, Department for Transport officials did not involve them in the case for TEMPro 7, in the development or in any consultation. That’s what caused the delay, because the data that were then produced—and I’ll come on to the actual questions that we’re asking about the methods and the statistics that are being used—raise questions about the business case that we put forward for the black route. TEMPro 7 would have an impact on all major road schemes in terms of the value for money. So, we will have to look at the case for many of our infrastructure schemes. The reason being—and the Member says that the model at the time should be used. That’s absolutely right. But, so too must the data of the moment, not data that are years old. Unfortunately, it appears that part of the problem with the data that are being used in this forecasting, in this modelling, is they do not recognise all of the LDPs that are being submitted. So, unfortunately, it appears that the modelling that has been used—and this is in spite of us being able to say to the Department for Transport, ‘Here are the data, this is what we’re using and this is our model, here are the predicted flows of people, here is the population growth’—unfortunately, they didn’t use those data. I want to know why they didn’t use those data.

More importantly to this project, I need to understand the implications of using data that are not up to date and accurate, because, in terms of the review that’ll have to take place, we will need to assess whether we amend the TEMPro 7 figures to actually take account of the position that we are in as of right now. That work will take place at speed, and, of course, subsequent to the review, I’ll make public the data and our modelling, and I’ll ensure that they are published. I think it’s only fair to everybody involved in this project, both supporters and objectors. It’s only fair that everybody should have the most accurate, up-to-date evidence possible.

I applaud the Cabinet Secretary for issuing his statement at the earliest opportunity, but isn’t there a certain irony that we are applauding him for accelerating a statement about further delays in the project itself? This is more than disappointing. Of course, the inquiry will have to consider the best forecasts that are available, but not all the evidence of the inquiry will relate to traffic forecasts, and I don’t see why the inquiry needs to be delayed for this purpose. It might need to be adjourned at some stage in order to resume later if the forecasts aren’t available at the right time, but, in any event, it would be possible to take evidence and then to have further hearings if any revisions are necessary.

What is vitally necessary is that we get on with this project as quickly as possible. It seems to me, as Dai Lloyd has pointed out, we’ve been talking about this since time immemorial, and the biggest roadblock on the M4 in the last eight years has been the Welsh Government itself, because they could have got on with this years and years ago.

What we know is that the M4 is overcrowded now, and it will get more overcrowded in future. The traffic forecasts are not likely to arrive at the conclusion that the traffic flows that we have today are going to be reduced. Therefore, it seems to me that this is just a further example of obfuscation and delay.

But we could make use of the time now made available to do further work on the blue route, which would be of relevance to the inquiry. We, for our part in UKIP, have extended the hand of friendship to the Government to say that if, at the end of the day, the black route is the only route available, then we will be prepared to make it happen, because the black route is better than no route, but we still prefer the blue route. A proper feasibility study could be done, funded by the Welsh Government. So far, Professor Stuart Cole seems to have been doing it all by himself. I’m going to ask the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, whether he will take advantage of the delay in order to facilitate that.

Can I thank the Member for his questions and say, first and foremost, that we need to be able to convince not just the independent inspector, but also the people of Wales that this hugely important project is necessary? The way that we do that is that we make an evidence-based argument. If we can’t convince the inspector that it’s the case that the current road is over capacity, and if we can’t convince the inspector that the black route is necessary, then we will lose the argument. We will lose the case, and this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be lost. So, it’s absolutely right, given that there are changes in TEMPro 7 that relate to the number of trips made per person, and provides population forecasts, that we take a very close look at what those changes are and whether they are accurate—whether they are sufficiently accurate—to actually justify proceeding with them. I don’t believe, based on what I’ve been able to ascertain so far, that they are sufficiently up to date, but we will need to review them and then proceed based on the most up-to-date data. I really don’t think it would be fair at all to anybody concerned, given the passions that this matter arouses and given the considerable sum of money, to rush into an inquiry based on questionable data. I think we have to reach an evidence-based decision, and I think the inspector would actually agree. Therefore, the inspector would, in all likelihood, wish to adjourn the public local inquiry if we proceeded. But I do recognise that this is hugely frustrating for the 100,000 people plus who travel on the M4 every single day. In 2014, the road was up to 95 per cent full. It’s simply not resilient in times of incidents. We saw it last week, when there was a huge tailback as a consequence of an incident. We saw it this morning, actually, albeit it wasn’t on the M4. But it’s what happens when you don’t have a road network that is resilient.

We know that the black route is considered the best possible option, based on our assessment. In terms of the blue route, I think the Member may be aware that I initiated a fresh assessment of the blue route. So, that’s being looked at again at the inquiry. In terms of the blue route, as it’s been examined so far, and presented so far, I’m afraid that it will provide very little relief to the M4, and also worsen problems on local roads. Given that it would cost between £600 million and £800 million, it would not offer good value for money, especially in a time of limited budgets.

In terms of the new programme, I’d just like to outline the time frame that we’ll operate to now, because I said in my earlier contribution that we still expect to be able to open the relief road in autumn 2021. In March of this year, we published draft statutory orders and an environmental statement. By 31 March next year, pending the current review that’s taking place, the public local inquiry will commence. During the summer of 2017, and pending receipt of an inspector’s report, a decision will be made on whether to make the orders and proceed with construction. If that’s the case, in the spring of 2018 work will begin to build the motorway. I’m mindful of the ongoing statutory process, but there are a number of measures that can be taken to ensure that we meet that autumn 2021 deadline for completion, such as parallel working and additional planning with utility companies to expedite detailed design and construction, and to mitigate the delay caused by the necessary review of new Department for Transport data.

I recognise the difficulty that the UK Government decision has presented the Welsh Government in terms of the M4 project, and appreciate that it is, in the least, regrettable, but can I ask the Cabinet Secretary about the potential knock-on effects? Does this also mean a deferment in terms of the work being able to be done on the A55 and the A494 in north Wales? As the Cabinet Secretary is well aware, the improvements and investment to those roads are not only a priority for Members in the region but for the public alike. The DfT’s revised methodology has the potential to create a lot of concern, and I’d urge the Welsh Government to do all that you can to alleviate and address that concern.

I think the Member is right to raise concerns about the implications of this right across Wales. As I’ve already outlined, there are implications that we must consider. That said, I am determined to proceed with public consultation on the work that is necessary to alleviate pressure on the A55 and the A494 in north Wales. We’ll be proceeding with that consultation in March 2017, so I’m pleased that at least we are able to commit to that work. That work will run concurrently with the public local inquiry for the M4, and it’s still our vision as a Welsh Government to ensure that we have a modern road network that complements an integrated public transport system.

I think the outrage expressed by Neil Hamilton and Dai Lloyd is entirely misplaced. It’s absolutely essential that, if we’re going to go ahead with a really major capital investment, we do so on the basis of accurate information. So, I applaud the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to delay things in order to look at the latest data, ensure that they are accurate, and enable us to make rational decisions. Hopefully, the relocation of the Office for National Statistics to Newport will give us better statistical information in the future, because clearly that is an issue that’s been raised by lots of stakeholders in relation to this and other matters.

I suppose one of the things I want to know is really whether the UK Government is still insisting that we should be going ahead with the M4 project based on inaccurate data, because my understanding is that the latest information provided by the Department for Transport—this TEMPro 7—is forecasting less traffic on the M4 than we have at the moment. Therefore, it’s absolutely essential that we understand whether that’s accurate, and if so, what impact it should have on our future. I am, of course, hoping that these forecasts are not based on a disastrous exit from the European Union, which could lead to a complete tanking of the economy if it’s done in the wrong way, but are instead an assurance that the message that we all need to change our behaviour in the light of climate change, and not be using the car for short journeys but using alternative methods of transport, is being reflected in those forecasts. So, I just wondered if you could clarify: what is the current UK Government’s position, apart from their profound apologies that they haven’t told you that this latest information was coming down the track?

The Member makes a very important point—a crucial point that, when we’re talking about such a huge sum of money, it’s absolutely vital that we invest it on the basis of evidence and on the basis of up-to-date, accurate data. The UK Government has given no indication as to whether we should proceed on the basis of the latest Department for Transport information. I’d be very interested to know whether that’s their position or whether they accept that the data that they’ve provided are of great difficulty to this project. One thing is for sure—that the current modelling that’s been provided will have implications if the causes of, as the Member identified, what seem to be very questionable data are not drilled into and answered. The modelling that is used by Welsh Government is modelling that is adopted for active travel as well, and so we need to ensure that every decision that is taken is taken on the basis of the best possible modelling programme. It may well be required of Welsh Government to develop our own.

This statement today by the Cabinet Secretary for economy will be met with disappointment and dismay by everyone who has experienced delay in their journey time due to congestion on the M4, including myself, who travels virtually four times a week. If I leave before seven o’clock, it takes me still more than 40 minutes from Newport to this place. Lord help those who come after half past seven and spend more than one hour on the M4 just to reach Cardiff, only 10 to 12 miles. That is actually congestion every day.

Just two weeks after Labour’s programme for government—[Interruption.] Just two weeks after Labour’s programme for government made a commitment to building an M4 relief road, they have kicked the project, once again, into the long grass. This is a fact. Poor transport infrastructure and lack of capacity means that the south Wales corridor is not fit for purpose and is discouraging businesses locally, nationally and internationally from investing in Wales. So why has the Cabinet Secretary chosen to ignore the existing evidence of the need for a relief road and delay the public inquiry? CBI Wales, the Institute of Directors, the Engineering Employers Federation and the South Wales Chamber of Commerce have all called for a quick decision to be made in this respect. The Cabinet Secretary has tried to blame the Department for Transport. He claims the department only advised him of the new matters of projecting the amount of traffic three days before they were introduced. The department denies this and says that it warned Welsh officials of this change earlier this year. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree to publish all correspondence between his officials and the Department for Transport to clarify this issue? Changes to the system of traffic forecasting were introduced over the summer, so why has it taken the Cabinet Secretary so long to announce the delay in starting the public inquiry?

South Wales East, this Assembly, sporting events and businesses: people travel on the M4 in not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands, Cabinet Secretary. We need the M4 to be completed as soon as possible—2021 is not good enough here. The unreliablity of this stretch of road will increasingly generate additional costs and uncertainty for business, harm tourism and cause frustration for motorists. The Welsh Labour Government has once again let down the Welsh public here. Thank you.

Oh, good grief. I’m not sure where to begin, other than to say I’ve already outlined what happened in late July. The Member seems to think that you can probably calculate with a Casio calculator and an abacus, in a few seconds, for what is an immensely burdensome project. It cannot be done overnight, and as I’ve already said, normally—normally—Department for Transport officials will engage with us a year ahead. On this occasion, we had three days’ notice. During the period between late July and today, my officials had to scrutinise the data. They had to make an abundance of calculations, they had to assess the data, and it then became apparent that the data, as my friend and colleague Jenny Rathbone has highlighted, clearly did not support the case for a relief road as the previous data—what I believe to be more accurate data—supported the case. Given that, we then secured legal advice on the likelihood of the public inquiry being adjourned or, indeed, the case being accepted for building a relief road. The answer that we had was that an adjournment is probable, and the case simply isn’t there. Now, the Member said, ‘Why have you ignored the evidence, and why don’t you get building?’ Well, the fact is, it’s that the Department for Transport has given us evidence that can’t be ignored, because if we do, it won’t get built. My point is: we now need to get the data right, because the Department for Transport has clearly not done that. And I don’t believe—as I say, it’s not a conspiracy, I think it’s probably incompetence. But the fact of the matter is that the UK Government have really done a disservice not just to this place but to the people of Wales—to the 100,000 plus people who use the M4 on a daily basis. Now, I know that the Member clearly has lengthy delays on a daily basis in using the M4, but so do the tens of thousands of people who are hoping that this local public inquiry will begin on 1 November and who regrettably now will have to wait until potentially March before it gets going. But that is as a consequence of the Department for Transport not engaging with us as they should have done and has they have done in the past. And surely—surely—given the scale of this project, given the publicity that this project has had, the Department for Transport should have recognised that it needed to give Welsh Government more than three days’ notice.

Yes, clearly, Cabinet Secretary, it is very, very important that the evidence base for this very important decision is as sound as possible. So, could I ask that in considering the revised methodology that the UK Government has now put on the table regarding future forecasted traffic growth, Welsh Government might also look at methodologies pertaining to this decision more widely? For example, WelTAG, I think, has been subject to much criticism, in predicting a time saving for an individual car journey on a road, and then multiplying that to obtain an alleged economic benefit. So, I was quite interested in what you said, Cabinet Secretary, about perhaps looking at a Welsh formula that could be used, which could obviously take into account particular circumstances here in Wales, and I think, perhaps, some of the drivers for Welsh Government strategy and policy, such as the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and sustainable development as a central principle.

So, with that wider picture in mind, and particularly with regard to the criticism of WelTAG, would you incorporate consideration of those factors and possible changes in your consideration, going forward, on this matter?

I think the Member raises an absolutely crucial point, and it’s one that has previously been raised by our friend and the Member for Llanelli, Lee Waters. I think it’s fair to say, actually, that, in the past, WelTAG was a system that had its origins in highway modelling, and therefore often skewed in favour of road development taking place. Changes have now been made to make sure that it’s mode agnostic, and those changes are also now reflected in the fact that transport models developed using this method have also incorporated walking and cycling schemes. But I remain concerned, given what has happened with the Department for Transport’s revisions, about using a system that has let us down on this occasion, or at least adopting a relationship that has not served us on this occasion, and therefore I am giving consideration to devising a Welsh model for future infrastructure.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the written statement yesterday, and for today. I think it’s been really important for us to have advanced notice. And I agree with my colleague Jenny Rathbone about the importance of data, and up-to-date data and evidence. But I have to say, my heart did sink when I read this, and heard about it yesterday, because this is an issue that won’t go away. I said in June that we should have grasped this nettle many, many years ago, and we’re still trying to grasp it.

It’s very frustrating that this has been held up by the UK Government, without consultation, and that is deplorable. The Cabinet Secretary has outlined the timescale that he was informed of this, which, to me, is inexcusable. But can you give assurances that this will not shorten the inquiry, it will not be to the detriment of the depth of the consultation, and reassure people that an M4 relief road is at the forefront of his mind? And can he press the UK Government on this, and convey the views of the Assembly in terms of how little consultation we had?

Yes. Can I thank the Member for her questions, and say that my heart also sank when this matter—the consequences of the Department for Transport’s failure to engage with us earlier, or to consult with us—came home? I can confirm that this will not shorten the inquiry. I think it’s absolutely right and fair that every person and every organisation that has an interest in this subject is able to present their case and be heard. And we will, of course, as I’ve already given assurance, publish our revised modelling as soon as that is possible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government: an update on local government reform. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. And thank you for the opportunity to make a statement today on the proposals for the reform of local government.

Local government plays a vital part in the lives of every citizen in Wales. Councils provide the services that educate our children, look after our elderly, dispose of our waste, and light our streets. They go on doing so, moreover, during a period that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called an extraordinary 10 or more years of retrenchment in public spending.

The pressures that austerity produces are real, and there is real need also to build new resilience into local authorities. That is why reform is a requirement and not a choice. As far as reform is concerned, of course, there was much in the Draft Local Government (Wales) Bill that was published during the last Assembly that was welcomed by local authorities and their partners. However, as Members here will be well aware, there were important aspects of these previous proposals that did not find agreement.

Wrth geisio nawr, Ddirprwy Lywydd, creu consensws newydd, rwyf yn awyddus i berthynas Llywodraeth Cymru gydag awdurdodau lleol fod yn seiliedig ar ymddiriedaeth a pharodrwydd i weithio gyda'n gilydd a gwerthfawrogiad o swyddogaethau gwahanol ein gilydd o ran gwella canlyniadau i bobl Cymru. Wrth fynd ar drywydd y consensws newydd hwnnw a’r berthynas newydd honno, rwyf wedi ymweld â phob un o'r 22 awdurdod lleol ers ymgymryd â'r cyfrifoldeb hwn. Rwyf wedi cynnal cyfarfodydd gyda Chymdeithas Llywodraeth Leol Cymru, undebau llafur a rhanddeiliaid eraill, yn ogystal â phleidiau gwleidyddol a gynrychiolir yn y Cynulliad hwn. Rwyf wedi gwrando'n astud ar yr holl safbwyntiau hyn ar yr heriau a wynebir gan lywodraeth leol a’r dulliau gorau o fynd i’r afael â’r rhain.

Fel y rhagwelwyd, mae fy nhrafodaethau gydag arweinwyr awdurdodau lleol wedi dangos bod llawer yr ydym yn cytuno arno, gan gynnwys llawer o'r cynigion diwygio a nodwyd yn y Bil blaenorol. Rwy’n gobeithio ein bod bellach wedi cyrraedd lefel o gytundeb ar gyfer ffordd ymlaen ar y materion hynny lle nad oedd consensws o'r blaen. Yn y datganiad llafar hwn, rwy’n bwriadu nodi elfennau cyffredinol y ffordd ymlaen hon sy'n dod i'r amlwg.

Ar y cychwyn, byddai'r model hwn yn gweld cadw’r 22 awdurdod presennol fel yr haen ddemocrataidd o lywodraeth leol y caiff cynghorwyr eu hethol iddi yng Nghymru. Efallai y bydd rhai awdurdodau, er hynny, yn dymuno ymateb i amgylchiadau lleol drwy gyflwyno cynigion ar gyfer uno gwirfoddol. Rwy’n bwriadu gwneud hynny’n bosibilrwydd sydd ar gael iddynt a phan gaiff cynigion o'r fath eu cyflwyno, sy'n gwella cydnerthedd yr awdurdodau hyn, byddwn yn cynnig cefnogaeth gadarnhaol iddynt ac yn gweithio'n agos er mwyn helpu i sicrhau newid.

Er mai’r awdurdodau fydd y drws ffrynt y bydd dinasyddion yn parhau i gael mynediad at wasanaethau yn lleol drwyddo, mae fy nghynigion i’n gofyn am gydweithio mwy eang a chydunol rhwng awdurdodau mewn trefniadau rhanbarthol. Rwy’n bwriadu, felly, mynd ar drywydd dewisiadau ar gyfer lefel uwch newydd o weithio rhanbarthol gorfodol a systematig. Bydd hyn yn darparu cydnerthedd o ran staffio a chyllid ac yn golygu y bydd cynllunio a darparu gwasanaethau yn cael ei wneud ar y raddfa sy’n angenrheidiol i wella effeithiolrwydd. Mae hyn yn golygu mandadu’r gwasanaethau a'r trefniadau llywodraethu ar olion traed daearyddol cyson a rhesymoli’r trefniadau cydweithredol presennol.

Y dull a argymhellwyd amlaf i mi mewn trafodaethau dros yr haf oedd model dau ôl troed. Un yn seiliedig ar ddinas-ranbarthau, yn cwmpasu trafnidiaeth strategol, cynllunio defnydd tir a datblygu economaidd, ac un arall wedi'i gyfochri â byrddau iechyd ar gyfer gwasanaethau fel gwella addysg, gwasanaethau cymdeithasol a diogelu'r cyhoedd. Ar hyn o bryd, Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae gennyf feddwl agored ynglŷn â’r manylion o ran daearyddiaeth a swyddogaeth, ond yr wyf yn sicr bod yn rhaid i’r agweddau ymarferol hyn fod yn gyson â'r egwyddor o drefniadau mandadol a systematig. O ganlyniad, byddwn yn ystyried yr holl wasanaethau yn rhan o'n trafodaethau, ac yn arbennig y rhai hynny yr ydym ar y cyd o’r farn eu bod fwyaf mewn perygl mewn cyfnod o gyni.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae profiad yn y GIG wedi dangos bod cydwasanaethau cymorth yn gallu cynnig arbedion a gwelliannau o ran ansawdd. Rwy’n bwriadu archwilio, gyda llywodraeth leol, y swyddogaethau hynny a allai gael eu datblygu orau yn yr un modd. Rwyf yn dymuno bod yn glir heddiw ein bod, yn rhan o'r pecyn diwygio hwn, yn cychwyn ar y daith cydwasanaethau hwn gyda phenderfyniad newydd. Rwy'n barod i weld cynnydd dros amserlen synhwyrol ac ymarferol, ond mae’n rhaid gwneud cynnydd.

Yn olaf, gadewch i mi gydnabod y rhan a chwaraeir gan gynghorau tref a chymuned yn rhan o'r tirlun llywodraeth leol. Maent yn chwarae rhan bwysig mewn llawer o gymunedau, ond yn fy ymweliadau ledled Cymru rwyf wedi fy nharo gan yr amrywiaeth enfawr o ran graddfa, cwmpas, gallu ac uchelgeisiau o fewn y sector. Rwyf yn bwriadu deddfu cyfres o drefniadau ar unwaith i helpu cynghorau tref a chymuned, fel y maent yn bodoli heddiw, i fod yn fwy effeithiol. Fodd bynnag, ochr yn ochr â hyn, rwy’n bwriadu sefydlu grŵp annibynnol i gynnal astudiaeth gwreiddyn a changen ar swyddogaeth yr haen hon o lywodraeth yn y dyfodol ac i ddatblygu glasbrint ar gyfer cael y potensial mwyaf posibl o'r sector yn y dyfodol.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, rwy’n ymwybodol bod llywodraeth leol wedi bod trwy gyfnod helaeth o ansicrwydd am ei dyfodol a’r effaith ddifaol y mae hyn wedi'i chael ar ysbryd pobl. Mae wedi bod yn rhan o fy nod wrth gymryd cyfrifoldeb am lywodraeth leol i ddatrys yr ansicrwydd hwn cyn gynted ag y bo hynny'n ymarferol. Cyhoeddais ym mis Mehefin y bydd cynghorwyr a etholir i gynghorau a fydd yn bodoli yn 2017 yn gwasanaethu am y cyfnod llawn o bum mlynedd hyd at 2022, gan ddarparu eglurder a sicrwydd i’r rhai sy'n sefyll etholiad y flwyddyn nesaf. Heddiw, rwy’n gallu cyhoeddi y bydd hefyd etholiadau i’r cynghorau hyn—heblaw am unrhyw rai sy'n uno’n wirfoddol—yn 2022. Mae hyn yn cadarnhau cylch etholiad pum mlynedd parhaol ac yn rhoi llwyfan sefydlog o 10 mlynedd i lywodraeth leol ar gyfer bwrw ymlaen â’r gwaith diwygio.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, nid wyf dan unrhyw gamargraff o ran yr her sy'n dal o'n blaenau. Byddwn yn gweithio gyda llywodraeth leol a rhanddeiliaid eraill dros y misoedd nesaf i ddatblygu manylion yr ymagwedd yr wyf wedi’i hamlinellu y prynhawn yma. Fy ymagwedd fy hun trwy gydol y broses fydd gweithio gyda phleidiau gwleidyddol eraill ar yr hyn yr wyf yn ei gredu sy’n uchelgais a rennir i sicrhau dyfodol llwyddiannus i lywodraeth leol yng Nghymru. Yn gwbl sicr, ni all hyn gael ei ddatblygu a'i gyflwyno gan y Llywodraeth ar ei phen ei hun; mae rhannu arweinyddiaeth, gwleidyddol a swyddogol, yn hanfodol.

Erbyn troad y flwyddyn, rwy’n gobeithio y byddaf wedi nodi ffordd ymarferol ymlaen, gyda llywodraeth leol, eu hundebau llafur cydnabyddedig a phartneriaid eraill. Byddwn wedi dod yn nes at wybod sut y dylai'r ôl troed ar gyfer gweithio’n rhanbarthol edrych, y swyddogaethau sydd i'w darparu drwy weithio’n rhanbarthol a'r trefniadau llywodraethu ac atebolrwydd cysylltiedig. Byddwn hefyd yn ystyried sut y dylai'r system ariannu llywodraeth leol gael ei chyfochri er mwyn cefnogi'r rhaglen newid. Mae llawer iawn i'w wneud eto. Heddiw, rwyf wedi nodi dull newydd a’r blociau adeiladu ar gyfer diwygio, gyda'r nod o sicrhau llywodraeth leol gydnerth ac wedi’i hadnewyddu yng Nghymru.

Thank you very much. Sian Gwenllian.

Thank you very much for the statement. I must congratulate you for all the work that has taken place with stakeholders, the trade unions, the council leaders and with councillors the length and breadth of Wales in order to gather their views on the future of local government in Wales. But, primarily, may I also thank you and congratulate you on introducing a version—a weak version perhaps, but a version—of the Plaid Cymru policy for local government reform? I wish to read just a few lines from the Plaid Cymru manifesto, which talks about our proposals for the creation of combined regional authorities. In this document, it states

‘We propose an evolutionary approach…to create new leadership at the regional and community levels.… These authorities will plan strategically for education…highways and transport, and other statutory services, including a new duty to promote economic development.’

Does that sound familiar to you at all? Well, yes, it sounds very familiar to me, at least, and I’m sorry to highlight that particular fact this afternoon, but I feel I must do so. Do you now accept, therefore, after all the consultation, that Plaid Cymru had the best policy for local government, as compared to what was proposed by your predecessor, Leighton Andrews?

My second question is this: what is the aim of your statement today? What’s the purpose of this strategy? If it is an exercise in saving money only, then it simply isn’t going to work, I’m afraid, and it won’t achieve the main aim of local government, namely to serve our communities. What assessments have you carried out in order to ensure that the proposal that you’ve put forward today will truly serve the needs of our communities more effectively than the current system?

One of the main strengths of local government is accountability and democracy within our communities. There is a lack of clarity in your statement today on how you will safeguard that accountability at a regional level, and this is a cause of concern. Can you, therefore, outline exactly how you will ensure accountability within this new regional structure?

Taking a step towards linking health and social care is extremely important, and, indeed, is at the heart of Plaid Cymru policy. During this Assembly, the Government must get to grips with this huge problem of the complexities in the relationship between health and social services, and ensure that this false wall that has existed over decades is removed in order to provide unhindered services for patients. The proposals as we see them today aren’t clear, from my point of view, at least, in terms of that integration that needs to happen between health and social care. Do you accept that if we are to make a real difference for Welsh citizens, regionalisation must include starting the journey of integrating health and social care?

And, finally, you make reference to savings by centralising back-office functions, such as information and communications technology and human resources, as was suggested by the Williams commission, and this makes sense of course, but, in rural areas, county councils very often are the main employers in those areas, so, what assessments have you made in order to identify the impacts of your proposals on jobs, particularly given financial austerity at the moment? Thank you.

Thank you very much for those questions, and I thank the Member for what she said at the beginning about the discussions that happened over the summer with local authorities and other stakeholders in the field.

Wrth gwrs, rwy’n cydnabod yr hyn y mae hi'n ei ddweud am yr hyn a oedd ym maniffesto Plaid Cymru; byddwn yn gwybod hynny o’r nifer o arweinwyr cynghorau Plaid Cymru a ddywedodd wrthyf cymaint y maen nhw’n anghytuno â'r ffordd honno o symud ymlaen. [Torri ar draws.] Rwy'n credu ei bod yn swnio fel fy mod i wedi cyfarfod mwy na chi. Fodd bynnag, y pwynt yw fy mod i wedi bod yn awyddus iawn yn y trafodaethau yr wyf wedi eu cael i chwilio am syniadau lle ceir consensws y gellir ei ddatblygu o’u cwmpas, ac mae’r syniad hwn yr oedd Plaid Cymru wedi’i gyflwyno o'r blaen yn amlwg, yn y trafodaethau yr wyf i wedi’u cael, yn un y mae pobl wedi bod yn barod i weld rhinweddau y modd hwnnw o wneud pethau, ac rwyf wedi bod yn awyddus i gyflwyno hynny yn y fan yma y prynhawn yma.

Gofynnodd yr Aelod: beth yw pwrpas hyn i gyd; beth ydym ni’n ceisio ei gyflawni drwyddo? A'r gair allweddol i mi, Ddirprwy Lywydd, yw cydnerthedd. Mae llawer o gytundeb ymhlith awdurdodau lleol am yr heriau sydd i'w hwynebu: heriau cyni; heriau cyllidebau’n crebachu a galw’n cynyddu; heriau recriwtio staff i swyddi arbenigol, ac yn y blaen. Rwy'n credu bod y model yr wyf i wedi sôn amdano y prynhawn yma yn ein galluogi i ddatblygu cydnerthedd newydd yn y system mewn tair ffordd wahanol. Rwy'n credu y bydd yn helpu i ddatblygu cydnerthedd ariannol economaidd, gan fy mod yn credu y bydd hon yn ffordd y byddwn yn gallu symud rhywfaint o arian i wasanaethau rheng flaen ac arbed arian mewn ffyrdd eraill yr ydym yn gwneud pethau. Rwy'n credu y bydd yn darparu cydnerthedd o ran staffio. Mae rhai gwasanaethau bregus iawn a ddarperir gan awdurdodau lleol bach iawn, lle y bydd gweithio ar sail ranbarthol yn caniatáu defnyddio staff mewn ffordd wahanol. Ac rwy’n credu y bydd yn darparu cydnerthedd ansawdd yn ogystal, gan fy mod yn credu, trwy weithredu ar ôl troed rhanbarthol, y bydd yn fwy posibl mewn gwasanaethau cymdeithasol, er enghraifft, i gynyddu arbenigedd is-arbenigol penodol ymhlith ein staff, nad yw’n bosibl pan eich bod yn gweithredu yn gyfan gwbl ar un ffin llywodraeth leol.

Gofynnodd yr Aelod i mi am atebolrwydd yn y system. Mae'n gwestiwn pwysig, ac mae'n un y mae'n rhaid bod ei phlaid wedi rhoi ystyriaeth iddo wrth gyflwyno cynigion ar gyfer trefniadau rhanbarthol. Mae gennyf ddau beth i'w ddweud am hynny y prynhawn yma, ond rwyf eisiau bod yn glir ei fod yn bwnc pwysig i ni barhau i siarad amdano wrth i ni fynd ymlaen i'r drafodaeth fanwl ar y cynigion hyn.

Yn gyntaf oll, yn fy nghynigion, mae swyddogaeth y cynghorydd lleol yn dod hyd yn oed yn bwysicach nag y bu hyd yn hyn. Rydym yn cadw pob un o'r 22 o awdurdodau lleol, rydym yn cadw aelodau etholedig lleol, a bydd gan yr unigolion hynny swyddogaeth bwysig yn y dyfodol wrth weithredu fel ffynhonnell o arweiniad ac arbenigedd i'w hetholwyr wrth sicrhau bod unrhyw un sydd eisiau gwybod, pan fo penderfyniad yn cael ei wneud, eu bod yn gallu dylanwadu ar y penderfyniad hwnnw pan eu bod yn dewis gwneud hynny.

Yr ail beth i'w ddweud yw nad yw hwn yn fater newydd. Nid yw fel pe nad ydym erioed wedi cael trefniadau rhanbarthol yn y gorffennol. Pan oeddwn lawer yn iau, roeddwn yn cynrychioli Cyngor Sir De Morgannwg ar Awdurdod Heddlu De Cymru. Roedd yn awdurdod a oedd yn cyfuno de, canolbarth a gorllewin Morgannwg. Bob mis, roedd aelodau o gyngor de Morgannwg yn cael gofyn cwestiynau i mi am y ffordd yr oeddwn i wedi cyflawni fy nghyfrifoldebau ar eu rhan. Felly, rydym wedi dod o hyd i ffyrdd o greu atebolrwydd a chyfrifoldeb mewn systemau a rennir yn y gorffennol ac rwy'n hyderus y gallwn wneud hynny yn y dyfodol.

Ar y mater o integreiddio, mae'n gwestiwn pwysig iawn. Nid yw fy mhlaid i wedi rhannu barn ei phlaid hi mai'r ffordd orau o sicrhau integreiddio yw drwy ad-drefnu gwasanaethau mewn modd rhwygol, ond drwy gyfochri ffiniau iechyd a gwasanaethau cymdeithasol yn uniongyrchol, rwy’n credu y byddwn yn agor posibiliadau newydd a gwell ar gyfer gwasanaethau integredig yn y dyfodol. Dim ond un arf sydd ar gael i ni yw hyn. Rydym eisoes wedi cyhoeddi y byddwn yn mandadu cyllidebau ar y cyd, er enghraifft, at ddibenion gofal preswyl rhwng iechyd a gwasanaethau cymdeithasol o 2018 ymlaen. Rwy’n meddwl bod y cynigion hyn yn o gymorth ar gyfer hynny.

Yn olaf, mae hi'n gwneud pwynt pwysig o ran gwasanaethau cefn swyddfa a chyflogaeth. Dyna pam nad yw’r hyn yr wyf wedi ei ddweud y prynhawn yma yn ailadroddiad uniongyrchol o'r hyn a ddywedodd comisiwn Williams. Rwyf eisiau gweld mwy o ddefnydd o wasanaethau cefn swyddfa gan fy mod yn credu mai profiad swyddfeydd cefn y gwasanaeth iechyd yw eich bod yn cael gwasanaethau o ansawdd gwell sy’n fwy effeithlon o ganlyniad, ond rwyf eisiau iddo gael ei wneud mewn ffordd ddatblygiadol ac organig a’n bod yn ystyried yn ofalus y ffaith fod llawer o awdurdodau lleol yn ffynonellau pwysig iawn o gyflogaeth mewn rhai rhannau o Gymru, lle mae’r cyflenwad o swyddi o'r fath yn gymharol brin.

I’d just like to endorse earlier comments made about how welcome this statement is today and the fact that you acknowledge now that your Government needed to do a u-turn on what was a fiasco during the past three years.

I would just respectfully disagree with you as regards the draft local government Bill, where you said you’d found much agreement. If you do recall, Cabinet Secretary, in committee, my colleague here, Mark Isherwood, and I were very much witness to the fact that it wasn’t met with much—there was more that they didn’t agree with than what they actually did agree with. Had it not been for the casting vote of the Chairman, on previous Bills to do with this, they wouldn’t have seen any light of day. I think, let’s be honest: there wasn’t any political consensus last time because it was a mess. I think we’re all now wanting to work with you positively, where we can agree, but I have to say that the model that you do present does concern me a little, when you talk about regional authorities, where the devil is in the detail, as to how much influence Plaid Cymru themselves have had on these plans going forward.

Leave us alone.

You should join us, really. [Laughter.]

There has been much demoralisation over the past three years and this certainly does bring more clarity to the table. You, of all people, know that I really welcome the acknowledgement and the work that lies ahead as regards community councils, but I do have some questions on this one.

You do mention further consultation. Again, that was not the best way to go about it in terms of the previous three Ministers, over the past five years, when many local authorities felt that they’d actually been dictated to. Many members of the public and community councils felt that they’d been completely not acknowledged in any of the responses. So, I would really ask you: how open, how transparent and what timescales do you have in mind for further consultation on this?

Obviously, I’m very pleased to see the voluntary mergers being back on the table and, where local authorities decide to come forward, can prove to you, can cost them on really strong business cases, how will that fit into your arrangements going forward with regionals? Will you be looking more at getting that process in place first and then allowing voluntary mergers, or will voluntary mergers be allowed along the way?

I noticed that you’ve mentioned about healthcare boundaries or health boundaries. Because many of us now are seeing our local health board in special measures, some of the queries there have been rather about the geography, the demography, and how will you address those?

You’ve mentioned that it will be systematic and mandatory, but we do need to be very wary of the level of prescriptiveness that comes in. Of course, Plaid Cymru did state in their manifesto that they would legislate to create up to six regional combined authorities comprised of existing local councils, with an emphasis on the integration of public services. What my constituents in Aberconwy will be asking me is, ‘Janet, is this another layer of bureaucracy? Is it another layer of democratic administration?’ Because, I think, right now, the last thing that people want is more bureaucracy and more expense in terms of having more elected politicians, but you know I’ve raised those issues with you.

I would like you to answer the Chamber directly: can you confirm just how Plaid Cymru’s policies in their manifesto have influenced your announcement here today? Of course, they also look for the Welsh Government to look at moving from a per-pupil funding mechanism to a funded model based on the catchment area, which could see local authorities such as Monmouth receiving significantly less than Rhondda Cynon Taf. Given your party’s close workings now with Plaid Cymru, will such reforms be part of a Welsh Labour Government led regional shared services agenda? Of course, in the UK, under the Conservative led Government, they set up the efficiency and reform group to bring in shared services in the public sector, leading to £14.3 billion of savings. But the ERG delivers by ensuring that Government acts as one customer, combining buying power, buying more quickly, buying locally, and increasing the pool of suppliers and small businesses, thereby supporting UK growth. Now, we want to see that kind of growth here in Wales.

[Inaudible.]—conclusion, please.

So, I’d ask you: do you really feel that local authorities are up to the mark when it comes to procurement? Because I’ve worked previously with the previous Minister for finance, Jane Hutt, on this and I think it’s fair to say that, with local authorities, in terms of local procurement and cost-effective procurement, we still have a long way to go.

Are you coming to a conclusion, please? You’ve had, I think, four or five questions now.

Right. Okay.

So, if you could just finally conclude in the next 10 seconds.

Okay. My final question then: what stakeholders have been engaged from successful ICT shared services in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and how are you looking at other devolved nations to see how they are actually working in terms of local government reform? Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you for the questions. I won’t spend a lot of time going over previous history, but there are a series of things in the draft Bill that was published that were very much welcomed by local authorities—the general power of competence, the new local government performance framework, the strengthening of the role of local councillors and so on. So, there is quite a lot to build from.

Turning to the specific questions, in terms of consultation, my plan is to use the rest of this calendar year to have a further round of detailed discussions with local authorities and their partners on the statement that I’ve made this afternoon. If we can bring that to a successful conclusion, then there will be a formal consultation, as we will be required to undertake on these matters. So, there’s an extended period of discussion coming up.

I regard voluntary mergers as being capable of being carried out alongside regional arrangements; I don’t think the one has to follow in time after the other.

In terms of the systematic and mandatory nature of the reforms we’re trying to bring about: both of those principles are important to me. We need to make sure that the arrangements we agree happen in the same way across Wales and I’m not, myself, prepared to follow the advice that I’ve had from a relatively small minority of local authority leaders that we should simply leave it to them, tell them what we’d like them to do, and I’m sure they would get on and do it. I’m afraid we’ve been round the track of bringing horses to water, encouraging them, leading them round the pool, letting them see their reflection in the water, hoping they will drink, only to find out, at the last minute, somebody makes a bolt for it, and we end up not being able to carry out things that most people would regard as sensible.

I don’t believe that this is a new layer of bureaucracy. It doesn’t lead to more elected councillors, certainly. And, as I’ve said, there is a large history of shared regional arrangements in Wales without that accusation being made against it. The origins of the proposals come through discussions with members of all political parties. We do have, through our compact, a particular relationship with Plaid Cymru, and I had a very early discussion with their local government spokesperson, as I think you would expect in those circumstances. And I’ve discussed directly the proposals with Plaid Cymru leaders of councils in Wales, as I have with Conservative Party leaders, Labour leaders, and leaders of no political party at all. My aim has been to try and find a way in which we can create a consensus in which we draw together strands from a range of different sources.

Finally, on shared services, I said in my statement that I want to be clear that we must make progress on that. Procurement will be a part of it, but we do need to do it sensitively. I can’t imagine that if I had said today that we were going to take shared services away from Conwy Borough Council and locate them in a single shared service centre somewhere 200 miles away that members of her electorate would be coming up congratulating Janet on the Conservative party’s approach to that matter. So, we will take it forward, but we’ll do it in a way that is sensitive to local needs and circumstances.

Thanks, Minister, for your statement today. The statement is in some ways welcome, as the new Minister for local government is at least appearing to be more consultative in his approach than his predecessor. We also have more clarity on the council elections next May, and, more importantly for council workers, a degree more clarity on the future shape of local government in Wales. However, as yet we have not got an immense amount of detail. If the merger of council departments across Wales is to be successful, we need to have, at all stages, clear oversight of this process. If the council bureaucrats are themselves allowed to take charge of proceedings, we will end up with more bureaucracy, and not less. So the Minister will need to be mindful of this. With this in mind, I have already urged the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, of which I am a member, to scrutinise the implementation of this reorganisation as it takes shape. Of course, it isn’t for me to decide what the committee’s priorities are, but I think we should certainly be scrutinising this process.

As well as the danger of creating more bureaucracy, which is exactly what the Minister is seeking to avoid, we also have to be wary of councils awarding excessive pay-offs—so-called golden handshakes—to senior members of staff, many of whom walk straight into another well-paid post as soon as they get their pay-off. Can the Minister ensure strict control of this process? We’ve had a problem of Labour-run councils in Wales screaming austerity at every available opportunity, only to allow their fat cats to award themselves preposterous remunerations. We saw this recently, indeed, in Caerphilly. So what guidelines will the Minister issue regarding redundancies of senior staff and will he ensure strong oversight of the entire process?

I thank the Member for the questions. I agree with his starting point that people who work in our local authorities in Wales are, by and large, people with families, with children who go to school, with mortgages to pay, and the uncertainty has not been good for them, and that’s why I’m very keen to try and create a consensus about a way ahead. If the committee choose to take an interest in this topic, I think that would be very helpful, and I would look forward to receiving their interest and their advice, if they are able to find the time to do that.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I think one of the strengths of the model that I’ve outlined is that it shouldn’t lead to wholesale changes in the way that people are employed. It seems to me that, by and large, front-line staff will remain employed by the authorities they are employed by today. We would expect—I would expect—that, at a management level, you would have more regional arrangements in order to be able to deploy resources across the regional arrangements that we are proposing. The detail of this is for the next few months, to discuss with trade unions, employers and others with an interest, and, certainly, from my perspective, it will be a topic in which I will retain a very strong interest.

Can I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? Councils in Britain are the largest in Europe, as the Cabinet Secretary knows. John Stewart has said

‘the average size of a British local authority is 10 times the average size of local authorities in the rest of Europe.’

At a Gorwel meeting last week, chaired by David Melding, it was stated that Slovenia, a country roughly the size of Wales, has approximately 10 times the number of councils.

Do large authorities perform better? Birmingham, which is the largest authority in Britain and one of the largest, if not the largest in Europe, has had serious problems with its social services. In Wales, three local authorities—Swansea, Cardiff and Rhondda Cynon Taf—make up approximately a quarter of the population of Wales. Do these authorities perform better than medium-sized and smaller authorities? I have yet to see any evidence to say so. If the Minister can identify evidence that I can see to show that larger authorities are performing better, I’d be very pleased to see it. If we look at health, is there any evidence that the two largest health boards, Betsi Cadawaladr and Cardiff and the Vale, perform better than the others?

There are two things that are guaranteed to annoy me when I hear them on the radio. The one is, ‘Wales is the same size as Birmingham,’ despite the fact it’s three times the size, and the other one is that larger organisations are better than smaller ones, despite the inability to provide any evidence to support that. Of course, before the 1970s’ reorganisation, there were lots of little local authorities in Wales: Llwchwr Urban District Council, Gower Rural District Council, and, perhaps the most famous of all, Tredegar Urban District Council, where Nye Bevan was a member.

Big can also mean bureaucracy, big can mean inefficiency and big can mean remoteness. With local authorities, there’s a right size for different things. If you look at planning, for example, the right size for development control is nowhere near the right size for a structure plan.

Can I raise two points and questions on what the Minister has put forward—

You can ask two questions, Mike, very briefly, but you can’t make points.

Okay. Can I ask two questions very briefly? [Laughter.] Why do we want to have a city region and another region for services? Surely, the city region is the footprint. I think that you might want to sub-divide within the footprint, but having it across—. Swansea and Neath Port Talbot will be called Janus, because we look east for some things and west for the others. It just does not make a lot of sense and it doesn’t work for building up relationships, where we work with Bridgend for some things, Carmarthenshire for others.

Can I say that, of course, in terms of health, which is a part of the public service, although not under your remit, the ARCH programme, for example, has started to get the area to the west of Swansea working with Swansea? The final question I’ve got is that we’ve seen in health a situation where we’ve had primary and secondary health put together: has that actually worked in getting them to work closer? I think that the answer most people will come up with is, ‘No, it hasn’t.’ I think that what it has done is move money from primary care into secondary care, and I don’t think that’s what people particularly wanted. You’ve only got to listen to primary care practitioners, who’ll tell you exactly how badly done by they are and that all the money goes into hospitals.

So, can I finish by saying: will the Minister look again at having the two-area model and look towards the city region as the basic footprint for public services?

Could I thank Mike Hedges, who I always listen to very carefully on these matters? I’ve said to him before: it’s never been a claim of mine that size is the determining factor in the success of public services; nor, however, do I think that size is an irrelevant factor in the way that things are organised. Size does bring some advantages in some aspects. So, I don’t rule it out, but I don’t think it’s the factor that overrides all others.

I said in my statement that, when I said to you that you could have three city regions discharging some functions and another set of regional arrangements for other functions, that was what was said to me during the visits that I have made since May and June of last year. I’m not wedded to that dual model, and I’m very happy to have further detailed discussions. He says to me that the city region is the footprint. Well, is it the footprint for social services in the Cardiff capital city region, where there are 10 local authorities, with three different health boards serving some very diverse populations? I don’t know. I just put the question there for us to discuss.

Finally, the point that I think he makes about primary and secondary healthcare being brought together in single health boards is that organisational boundaries do not, by themselves, dissolve professional boundaries. In that sense, I certainly do agree with him.

Can I say to the Minister that, after a cheap date, there often comes the morning after? The Minister seems to have woken up in Plaid Cymru’s clothes, but based on the statement he’s made so far they suit him very well.

There are a couple of things that I’d like to ask him, following his response to the statement so far. One is: he’s touched on accountability by referencing back to old police authorities and so forth, but I’d like to hear a little bit more about how accountability can be built into this new system. The other side of it, as well, is leadership. Plaid Cymru’s proposals, he will remember, mentioned the possibility of elected mayors, for example. We weren’t necessarily wedded to that, but that was something that we put forward as an idea. If we’re not going to have something like that, how will leadership be taken forward in these new combined authorities—let me just call them that for the time being—particularly, perhaps, when you come to city regions, which will also have a leadership need as well?

He hasn’t mentioned one of the big topics of local government reform, I still feel, which is the introduction of a better voting system. I think the single transferrable vote has to be, surely, on the agenda for local government, as it has been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, as the real way that reinvigorates and brings in new blood and new people into local government. I’d like to hear whether that is still something that he is prepared to consider, going forward.

He mentioned town and community councils. I’m not sure we need another review. They were looked at in the ‘Reforming Local Government’ White Paper. They were looked at tangentially, at least, in Williams. What do we need to understand about local government that needs another taskforce or review? Surely we have the information and the evidence now to move ahead with that very local level of local government and empowering them, to a certain extent, to do more for their local communities as well. He did mention elections in that regard around principal authorities—about five-year terms to 2022—but his predecessor talked about delaying the town and community council elections for another year. Is that still the case, or are these all now to be aligned?

I very much welcome what he said. I think this is the basis for far more co-operative working, not only at a local government level, but perhaps at a national government level as well. I look forward to some real ideas coming forward about how we can build on the 22 building blocks for genuine local service delivery and proper regional collaboration.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for what he said? I look forward to working with him and others who have ideas to contribute as to how we might achieve those ends. I’ll take his questions in reverse order, if I could. I intend town and community councils to be elected next year, on the same day as principal authorities. I’m not sure that I agree with him that we have the blueprint ready for the future of town and community councils in Wales. I want to empower them to do more in future where they do things well. I attended the annual conference of One Voice Wales at Builth Wells on Saturday. I don’t think, if you asked the audience there to give me the blueprint, they could have done it themselves. There is still an enormous variety of size, scale and ambition. I’ve seen some very good things. I was very pleased to be in Bala on Thursday of last week with Partneriaeth Penllyn, looking at the excellent work that they’ve done, and there is a possible model for rural community councils to work together there. But my impression from all the conversations I’ve had is that we are yet to be in a position where there is sufficient agreement around how we can strengthen that important tier of local democracy. I say to those who are involved in it: I use the word ‘democracy’ with some hesitation, where two thirds of seats on community councils are uncontested, and 1,000 seats were left for co-option at the last election. There is more to do, and more thinking to be done to get the very best out of that.

His first questions were about answerability in the system. There is a series of ways in which we already have regional arrangements in Wales—joint committees, combined authorities, joint authorities. I want to look at the detail of these different possibilities. They all throw up slightly different questions in terms of democratic answerability, but I think they all have solutions to them as well. Should elected mayors be part of all of that? Well, my approach so far has been to put the possibility of elected mayors there for local populations to decide and leave it for them to determine, rather than believing that, from the National Assembly, we should be directive to those local populations as to the choices that they would wish to make.

In terms of today of all days—for the Tories to talk about u-turns when the budget surplus is suddenly no longer necessary for austerity. But there we are. I digress.

Right. I want to welcome strongly today’s statement from the Cabinet Secretary and the positive co-constructive approach with stakeholders pan Wales today, which outlines new ways of working, further clarity and further surety for local government, its workforce, its representatives and the public. So, would the Cabinet Secretary agree, though, that it is imperative, as Wales continues to be hit and buffeted by the dual impacts—increasingly likely—of Welsh block grant cuts from the increasingly heartless Tory Government and, in addition to the 10 per cent of swingeing cuts to Wales, coupled with and alongside the ending of European structural funding and the hollow promises and, yes, lies from the parties opposite, to reference the still missing, promised and guaranteed money for Wales?

Excuse me. Will you reflect on what you have just said and the word—

I will reflect upon it.

Nobody lies in this Chamber.

The promised and guaranteed missing money from Wales—. Perhaps Paul Davies has gone to buy breakfast for somebody. This issue, secondly—

No, I’m sorry. You’ve asked a question. We’re nearly out of time, so can you now wind up, please, with your question?

This issue was only further exacerbated by an ever-increasing and growing need demographically for excellent local public service delivery. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that the need for a timely, resilient and strong framework is vital for Wales, and that the time is now for this Chamber to step up to the consensual plate, stop procrastinating over political points and reach a collective and welcome consensus on the way forward? Thank you.

Well, the impact of austerity is real, as the IFS report demonstrated. The loss of European funding adds another layer of uncertainty, which has a direct impact on local authorities, through which many of the very best European schemes have been put into practice. All of that does amount to a compelling case to build new resilience into local authorities in Wales, and that is what I hope the statement that I have made this afternoon will help us to achieve.

Thank you. Finally, Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Thank you very much, Deputy Llywydd. May I thank the Minister for his statement and apologise that I wasn’t present to welcome him personally to Penllyn just last week? I also declare that it’s a wonderful day for me when my own party’s policies and his party’s policies come together, particularly on issues related to the internal governance of Wales, because the question I want to ask of him is: is he sure in his own mind that he will be able to take full advantage of this first real opportunity, in a democratic and co-operative manner, to create a pattern of internal governance for Wales as a nation that will be sufficient for us to cope with the context in which we find ourselves at the moment?

I speak as one representing north Wales, who lives next door to, and often spends time in, the Northern Powerhouse in England and sees that there is a new, excellent member of the Conservative Party, who is a close friend of mine, Andy Street, who is going to be a candidate for the post of mayor of Birmingham. So, the midlands machine will, again, be competing with what’s happening in north Wales. Therefore, we have to be a robust and strong-enough region in north Wales, and, indeed in the rest of Wales, to compete in earnest in that context.

Just one further issue: I do think that it is entirely right to start an earnest review of truly local democracy, as one who lives in, I think, what was the smallest authority in Wales, Betws-y-Coed—at one time, at least. I’m very keen to see a pattern of local democracy that is truly efficient, but I do believe that elections at all levels are crucial for that to work, including the election of mayors or governance bodies for the regions.

Could I agree with the final point that the Member made? That’s what I said to Simon Thomas: when I speak to community councils, one of the things that I want to do is bolster the policy for electing people who represent local people. But, to do that, we will have to have a plan for the council level and persuade people to come forward to do that important work that the councils do.

Of course, I agree also with what Lord Elis-Thomas said about the importance of regional issues. In north Wales, there’s the board that they’ve drawn together. I had an opportunity to talk to the people on that board on Thursday. One of the reasons that they are doing things like that, and working hard together to do that, is because they are aware of what’s going on over the border in England, and they know that they have to collaborate to strengthen the possibilities for the future there.

Regarding the last point, I just want to say that we have spent a lot of time in this Assembly, for important reasons, on the relationship between us and Westminster. We haven’t spent the same time and the same energy looking at the relationship between us and local government. This is the opportunity, now, to do that. It is important for us, as an Assembly, in terms of the footprint that we have in terms of democracy here in Wales.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 5 on our agenda today has been withdrawn.

Therefore, we will move to item 6, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on improving care for major health conditions. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Vaughan Gething, to move the statement—Vaughan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last October, I shared with the previous Assembly my plans to extend the major health delivery plans until March 2020. The cancer, heart disease, diabetes, end-of-life care, critically ill and stroke delivery plans have been reviewed and are in the process of being refreshed. The respiratory and neurological conditions plans will be reviewed in 2017. The liver disease delivery plan is due to end in 2020. I am going to launch the second mental health delivery plan on 10 October on World Mental Health Day. This Government has invested £10 million annually—that’s £1 million for each of the delivery plans—and the impact of this investment is reported in annual reports for each major health condition.

There is a lot to be proud of. Since their introduction, each delivery plan has helped to improve the care and treatment of people with a major health condition. There have been significant improvements in patient outcomes including, for example, a steady decline in the rate of people in Wales dying from cardiovascular disease and diabetes-related diseases. Survival rates for many major health conditions such as stroke and heart disease are improving, as are survival rates for people being treated in critical care units in Wales.

Each delivery group has had a focus on prevention and support, with an emphasis on co-production with the third sector in particular. The diabetes implementation group has developed patient resources to educate and support people living with diabetes, covering subjects such as the importance of retinal screening, foot care and hypoglycaemia. The stroke implementation group is piloting an approach with primary and community care to identify those at risk of atrial fibrillation and ensure that the appropriate treatment is in place. This should reduce the number of people having strokes, as well as supporting people to understand and manage their own risk. The results from the pilot indicate that, if rolled out, this approach could result in a 10 per cent reduction in the number of strokes across Wales.

Ensuring services are working well and efficiently for the benefit of patients is a key aspect of each delivery plan. Working in partnership, the heart disease, stroke and diabetes implementation groups are introducing a national programme for cardiovascular risk assessment. This is focusing upon patients with the highest risk of cardiovascular disease in the most deprived areas in Wales, and aims to identify undiagnosed cardiovascular disease and to support people to reduce their own risk factors for developing the condition.

Developing effective rehabilitation services has been a national priority for both the neurological conditions and stroke implementation groups. As a result, both groups have jointly provided £1.2 million to support community neuro-rehabilitation services. In addition, staff at Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board ran a pilot seven-day patient-centred, integrated rehabilitation service for stroke. The results have shown a reduction in the average length of stay for patients from 58 days down to 24 days. The new service has continued and has been expanded. The learning from this service will be shared with other health boards at a national stroke learning event.

Making sure patients receive fast diagnosis improves the support and treatment that services can provide, and there are many excellent examples of progress in this area, including the new community cardiology service funded by the heart disease implementation group, now in operation across all health boards. The service provides a direct access one-stop cardiology community clinic and has introduced community cardiology services to provide basic diagnostics and assessment closer to home in primary care or in a community hospital setting.

Supported by Macmillan Cancer Support and the cancer delivery plan, a programme of investment in primary care oncology has commenced. Lead GPs and nurses have been identified in each health board area to support primary care clusters to improve diagnosis, referral and post-treatment support.

In September last year, the end-of-life care implementation board introduced an advance care plan, which details a patient’s wishes and preferences for future care. To date, for example, more than 900 members of staff have received training on care decisions in Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board alone.

In response to its local priorities required to deliver the critically ill delivery plan, Cardiff and Vale university health board opened a post-anaesthetic care unit in January last year, providing ring-fenced critical care capacity for high-risk, post-operative elective patients. The new unit has already delivered improved patient outcomes and revolutionised the delivery of critical care for elective surgery patients. For example, it’s reduced cancellations due to emergency pressures, it’s supported a further reduction in length of stay, and it’s reduced delayed transfers of care.

To actively self-manage, individuals need confidence and skills to manage their health on a daily basis and implementation groups have worked with health boards to improve services and patient experience. The diabetes implementation group has developed an all-Wales structured education programme for 11 to 16-year-olds with diabetes, called SEREN. For each of the delivery plans, the patient experience and their voice are represented by the appropriate support groups.

The neurological conditions and stroke implementation group are working together to develop a patient-reported experience measure and a patient-reported outcome measure for stroke and neurological conditions. This is a really significant piece of work that has not been attempted in other parts of the UK before. Both measures should be available for national roll-out by March 2018.

The cancer implementation group has established a three-year quality and governance cycle for peer review. All of the main cancer services have been reviewed and are now being re-reviewed, starting with lung cancer during 2016. Findings have already demonstrated measurable change, including the funding of clinical nurse specialists and other clinical staff, and the development of clinical policies and protocols to minimise unnecessary variation in standards of care across health boards. This model has been adapted by a number of implementation groups, such as those for the critically ill, heart disease and diabetes.

As I hope Members can see, from each delivery plan and implementation group, there has been a profound and positive impact. I expect the refreshed delivery plans to continue to do so, and I would like to thank the implementation groups for the progress that they have made against the current plans, and I look forward to further achievements over the coming years right across Wales.

Thank you very much. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I have two or three points and five questions, I believe. In terms of opening remarks, of course we welcome the improvements, the enhanced survival rates and better outcomes for patients for when that occurs. Of course, it’s happening across Europe and the globe because of improvement in treatments, technology and innovation, and in sharing best practice, and so on. The problem that we have in Wales is that these changes and the improvements aren’t happening as swiftly as we would like.

We, of course, shouldn’t take our eye off the ball on the fundamentally important issue of improving waiting times for treatments and tests, because, obviously, earlier treatment can reduce the likelihood that one will develop a chronic illness or make a chronic illness worse whilst they wait.

The third point—the context that needs to be mentioned here—is the failure to tackle obesity specifically, which means that there will be an increase in the need for services for people with chronic diseases. My first question relates to that. The Cabinet Secretary has mentioned structured education programmes for pupils between 11 and 16 who have diabetes, but, of course, children aren’t the only ones who need this education. Diabetes UK has highlighted the lack of attendance at such courses. Only 2 per cent of those with type 1 diabetes, and 6 per cent of those who’ve had a recent diagnosis of type 2 diabetes across England and Wales have actually attended a course. If we look at Welsh-specific figures, the situation is even worse: just 1 per cent of type 1 diabetes sufferers and 0.9 per cent of those with type 2 diabetes are supported or have actually attended a structured education course. And only 24 per cent of patients in Wales with type 1 diabetes have even been offered such a course, and that compares with a third of patients in England. So, would the Cabinet Secretary accept that we need to provide more courses, to advertise them better, to share information about these courses and ensure that they are held at convenient times?

I will turn to data, as I have done many times in the past. The poor quality of gathering data was highlighted in no fewer than 18 of the 22 inquiries by the Health and Social Care Committee in the fourth Assembly. It is shocking. The lack and poor quality of data actually hinders the planning of services, and it hinders the evaluation that we need of policies and specific initiatives. I will ask again: will you ensure that the situation is improved so that we can ensure that we don’t just take your word for things when you claim that improvements are made?

There is mention in today’s statement of investment in oncology and in primary care, and in developing more consistent services in cancer care, and that this will include the better collection and publication of data and more effective data. There was a recent report that suggested that only 32 per cent of patients actually access a key worker, and the Welsh Government response was that most patients did have a key worker in reality, but that recording this was the problem and the challenge. Would the Cabinet Secretary accept that when he does claim that the service is achieving something, he needs the data to back that up so that we can do our work in terms of scrutiny?

Regional divergence is the fourth question I have. Often, improvements occur and survival rates improve because some new technology or new method is introduced, and that happens, perhaps, more effectively in one area than in other areas. So, what plans does the Government have to ensure that these processes—delivering these improvements—happen more swiftly and more consistently across Wales?

And finally, the statement today, like many statements made by the Cabinet Secretary, is supposed to show that the NHS in Wales can introduce improvements effectively and efficiently. But if we bear in mind that three out of of nine Welsh health boards are in targeted intervention, which is one step below special measures, and, of course, that there is one health board in special measures—. Whilst there is excellence in the NHS in Wales, is the Cabinet Secretary confident that the management skills and the right leadership are in place across the NHS in Wales in order that we can make the kind of changes that he wants to see?

Thank you for the series of points and questions. If I can go back to, I guess, some of the starting gambit—I think it’s rather unfortunate that, sometimes, the impression given, when you talk about broader improvements in healthcare, is that all of this is inevitable and that the role of the delivery plans and the implementation groups have had no impact at all. I don’t think that’s a fair or reasonable assessment. Certainly, if you don’t want to take my word for it, you could go and ask the clinicians involved in that work, each of the national clinical leads, and you could go and ask members of the third sector engaged on the implementation groups, for example, about the value of that work and impact they’ve had on actually setting priorities with the health service, so it’s genuine engagement and isn’t just about the service deciding for itself what it will do. You’ve got that direct representation from the third sector. It’s one of the strengths of the approach that we take, actually, that we’ve got the third sector there as critical friends, but who are still able to help set the agenda, and they recognise the impact that we’ve made. For example, at lunchtime, I wasn’t able to see Dr Lloyd there—sadly, he had to run away before I could see him—but at the British Lung Foundation event that you were at and other Members, too, there was a real recognition of the work that’s been done with them, for example, in the major health plans that they’re involved and engaged in. They recognise that that delivery plan and the implementation of it is an important part of service improvement. Indeed, the money they’ve had has been important too—not to, say, design a strategy, but for some of that money to then be used to deliver on recognised priorities. A good example is one that you’ve mentioned—the diabetes implementation group. They’ve actually had structured education and patient education as one of their five key priorities this year. As you’ve highlighted, we recognise that not enough people take up the opportunity for structured education, particularly at the point of diagnosis, when there’s a real window of opportunity to try and get someone to think about their condition and how they can manage it for themselves. So, there’s absolute recognition that structured education, not just on diabetes, provides an important part of service improvement and outcome improvement and patient experience improvement. There is something there again, and it’s a continuing theme that, in fact, you’ve raised yourself in discussions both within this Chamber and outside, about the role that the citizen can play and should play in helping to manage and improve their own health and how we help that person to make different healthcare choices. Whether it’s about avoiding diabetes, which, again, is another part of the five priorities that they’ve set this year, but also for type 1, where you can’t avoid having it—you either have it or you don’t—it’s about how you help that person to manage their condition as well. So, I recognise the point that’s made and Diabetes UK are indeed involved and engaged in the diabetes implementation group. They have a number of good and positive things to say, as well as honest and constructive criticism to make too. I welcome both approaches from the way the third sector engage with us.

I’ll deal with your point about the leadership for the seven health boards and the three trusts. I made the decision that we discussed in this Chamber before for targeted intervention to take place in three health boards. At the same time, of course, the Welsh ambulance service moved down in the intervention status because they’ve made real and significant improvements, which I hope that Members across the Chamber will recognise on perhaps a more consistent basis. I’m confident that we’ll be able to put in place a range of support and accountability to see real improvement made. The assurance the Member should take is that this is a real process—were it not, then we could have avoided trying to escalate three health boards for political purposes. That didn’t happen, and it didn’t happen because the process is real and it’s robust, and the role of the regulator is a real and important part of making that real too. So, if you see those organisations improving, it will be because real improvement has taken place. We’re always looking for improvements in leadership and management, and the delivery plans themselves have helped to deliver some of that clinical leadership within the service as well. I certainly think that each of the national clinical leads have had a real impact in improving parts of their service areas too. It works alongside, for example, the 1000 Lives improvement programme too.

I’ll just deal, before I finish, with a point about data. We recognise that there are areas where data are messy and not as clean as we want them. There are challenges when coding, for example, a range of different issues, but the data really matter to us. The data and the process of clinical audit, too, have been a really important factor, for example, in the heart disease delivery plan and the cardiac area, and looking at what those audits tell us. It’s a really useful source, not just what they can tell us about accountability, but how they can drive service improvement, and not just by comparing ourselves on an audit basis within Wales, but actually these are significant surveys that take place across England and Wales, and certainly Northern Ireland and Scotland regularly take part in the same trials, also. We’re not just looking at ourselves within the seven health boards and three trusts in Wales; we’re looking at what data can tell us and what that improvement journey could look like.

So, there are real challenges to improve upon and that’s recognised. We’ve done a range of things to improve that too; for example, when you look at mortality reviews, that’s a definite improvement that we’ve made over the course of last term. But, there are also plenty of high-quality data, and one of the things we have seen from the delivery plans is that, where you can actually look at the high-quality data and look at research that’s going on in that area, it often helps to further improve clinical practice and that potential for innovation too. So, there are further questions to ask and points to be made about continuing to improve the quality of the data we have—not being complacent about it. We also have a good story to tell in a whole range of areas and I don’t want to lose sight of that in either this statement or in the work we’ll do in the years ahead.

Minister, thank you for your statement today. I’ve got four areas of questioning I’d like to raise with you. The first thing I’d like to talk about is co-production—this has become a watchword for many organisations, including the Welsh Government and the NHS. I would like to understand better what you’re going to be able to do with all these disparate plans to ensure that co-production and real integration happen, particularly in the areas that sit more comfortably side by side, for example, stroke services with neurological services.

You and I were both at an event only last week when the neurologists were talking about the fact that there’s still an awfully long way to go to ensure that they are able to be effective influencers in some of these implementation plans, and that they were calling for better integration of services. So, it’s not just there, it’s in other areas. What kind of read-across are you getting? How are you ensuring that the people who are carrying out these plans are doing a read-across of all the other plans in existence to ensure that we get the maximum integration and the maximum amount of co-production we possibly can?

My second area is on best practice. I was really pleased to read some of these examples of best practice that you cite here. You talk about Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board with their pilot seven-day patient-centred integrated rehabilitation service for stroke, and I think you talk about—there’s another one somewhere—Cardiff University with their post-anaesthetic care unit. I’d be interested to know how long it is taking these areas of pilots (a) to be run, (b) to be evaluated, and (c) to then have that best practice shared across other health boards to ensure that we can make these gains throughout the entire NHS and not in just one or two areas.

My third area is about recruitment and I’d like to just say that, whilst I take on board the optimism with which you’ve delivered this statement, I have to say that we still have worse outcomes on some areas—stroke, cardiac care and cancer. We are moving in the right direction, but I would like to understand, in the ambition to reach the successful goals and to catch up with other countries, what part is played by the lack of specialist consultants, specialist nurses and other health professionals in those particular areas of these plans. What is that doing to impact upon the success? I spoke earlier—I think you were here—to the First Minister about the lack, for example, of epilepsy nurses. Because we don’t have epilepsy nurses, how about running epilepsy clinics? We don’t have either. Initiatives like that that would actually, in that case, promote better neurological service delivery for patients, and of course, ultimately, improve that patient’s life and save the NHS money. Because having 70 per cent of people able to control their seizures is much better than having only 50 per cent of people. For epilepsy, you can read across the piece. You and I both know that recruitment is a real issue. So, I’d like to understand what impact it is having on these plans.

My final area is just that I’d like to understand the monetary element of it. I believe that you said that it was £10 million per plan. [Interruption.] Ten million pounds over all of the plans? Yes, thank you, because I thought it was £10 million over all of the plans and I was thinking, ‘Good grief, I haven’t noticed you give out £100 million recently, very generous man that you are.’ So, can you actually tell me, that £10 million, how is it divided up across all of those different implementation plans? Who says who is going to get what money, how much money? And who is actually then following that money through the whole process to ensure that we have proper value for that money and that it is delivering an outcome that we deem to be satisfactory in connection with the value for that money?

Thank you for the series of questions. Perhaps I can start with the end, just to deal with that quickly. It is £1 million for each of the major condition plans, and how that money is used is decided by the implementation group. So, there’s a range of people from the health service who are involved. It’s often a medical director or chief executive of a local health board or trust who is involved in chairing those bodies, but they involve a range of different people from different parts of the health service and the third sector, which, as I said earlier, is an important strength. They will then decide on a set number of priorities and what to put into each area. So, the Government doesn’t tell them, ‘This is what you must now do with the money.’ It is for that group to decide, ‘What can we do with this sum of money to improve this service area, and what do we think are the real priorities within that?’ That’s actually been really welcomed by people from the service and outside—the lobby, the interest and the third sector groups: having a sum of money to make a real difference.

As I said earlier, in my statement, about those plans, this goes back to your point about how much is shared, because I’m actually really encouraged in the read-across about the amount of joint work that has taken place quite quickly since the money was there—so, the points that I made about the areas of joint work between neurological conditions and stroke, and the point about cardiovascular risk assessment on shared work there as well. So, we’ve actually seen people coming together to talk to each other about how to use their money in a joined-up manner, and that’s actually really encouraging. It’s also brought together a range of different people in the third sector in new alliances as well. For example, there is a new cardiovascular alliance between a range of different charities involved and engaged in the same sort of area of work, and that’s really encouraging for us. It probably means that they’ve got a bigger voice as a result, but it’s also more useful for the Government to engage them as a group, coming together with unified priorities. So, I think that’s been really encouraging too.

But the work is still relatively new, so the point about understanding what they want to do, how they inform themselves about priorities, getting on and doing, and being able to evaluate that, is actually still in train, so it will be somewhere into the next part of the year when we’ll be able to evaluate what impact that has had. But, in allocating that money, we have to accept that, in doing that, the money may not always produce the desired outcomes that we want it to. But, I think that in a range of those we’ll see real gains being made, and I think perhaps the best example of that is the community cardiology, rolled out initially in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, in the Swansea area, and now being rolled out across the country. Because there’s real evidence that if you shift services into the community, it provides a real benefit to the patient, to the citizen as well, and it’s actually investing in primary care in that sense too. Secondary care for this has been very positive about it in the Swansea area, because they recognise that it really has shifted people in their area to where they could be seen, it’s released pressure on them, the waiting times are now reducing in secondary care as a result, and they’re seeing people as consultants that they recognise they really need to see. So, it’s a really good example of the progress we want to make.

And I guess I’ll try to deal with your points now about co-production and integration, because it isn’t just about the third sector, it is about the citizen, which is part of the ambition for the future of healthcare in Wales, not just in the delivery plans. It’s about making sure there’s a changed relationship between the citizen and the health professional, about making sure that that conversation is also matched up by a broader integration of services as well—so, the shift between primary and secondary care that we have talked about since the start of this place—and about making sure there’s more evidence that that happens, with community cardiology being one example where it has happened. But, equally, that integration with other areas of service as well, so not just primary and secondary care, not just social services, but with colleagues in education and housing too, and recognising the role this has to play in improving a range of different areas. And I think perhaps, on rehabilitation, there’s a really good example where the role of housing is really important too, about getting people into their own home more quickly, and what that means then for the joining up of different services, and actually the different professionals that need to be engaged with that. That’s really important, for example, with stroke care, moving forward, in the next iteration of the plan, and understanding the updated advice and guidance that the Royal College of Physicians has produced, with a heavy emphasis on getting people into their own home more quickly for the rehabilitation to commence. So, there are really important drivers that take place that each implementation group needs to take account of.

So, I want to finish by saying that, on the points you make about outcomes, recruitment and workforce issues, we certainly recognise that each of the delivery plans have been helpful in this way, in highlighting areas where we need to do better, where there’s a real deficit, where there’s evidence about what that means, but also what improvement can look like. So, this lunch time I was able to point out that having a multidisciplinary team approach for interstitial lung disease had been really positive in reducing waiting times for people, from something like 18 weeks down to two weeks. That’s been driven by the way that the implementation group has worked together, so there is a better experience, and there are now better outcomes for people as well. So, there are good reasons to be positive, as well as to say that we should not be complacent. Actually, this approach means that we should not be complacent because we have a range of different people who are involved and engaged in the work that we’re doing.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I look forward to reviewing the refreshed delivery plans when they’re published. I note your comments that survival rates for many health conditions are improving and, whilst this is true, we still have much more work to do.

I welcome the work that the stroke implementation group will be undertaking with regard to atrial fibrillation, and hope that the projected reduction in the number of strokes can be achieved, with the emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation. Stroke kills twice as many women as breast cancer, and more men than prostate and testicular cancer combined. Thankfully, more and more people are now surviving stroke, but this brings its own challenges. We now have nearly 65,000 people living with the long-term effects of stroke here in Wales. Stroke is the largest single cause of complex disability, and over half of all stroke survivors are left with a disability. We welcome the priority being given by the implementation groups to the development of rehabilitation services and the funding for community neuro-rehabilitation services also. Cabinet Secretary, I note the successful trial of rehabilitation services in Cardiff and the Vale and the intention to share the learning with other health boards. But, surely, if the trial was successful, it should be rolled out across Wales, as opposed to just sharing the learning.

We welcome the improvements in cardiac care, and look forward to both the delivery plans and details of how the forthcoming public health Bill plans to tackle the biggest contributors to heart disease.

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, we welcome the reviewing of cancer services. On cancer care, we have a very long way to go. Wales has the poorest survival-of-cancer rates in Europe and, while we have made some progress, we haven’t made enough. In order to scrutinise effectively, the collation of data is of paramount importance. Therefore, we need data to produce an audit trail of both our successes and areas of failure. Only by capitalising on past experience can we truly improve the services we deliver. Traditional cancer care treatments are not always effective and, to improve survival rates, we must consider alternate treatment regimes. Will the cancer delivery plan include a commitment to improve access to stratified medicines in Wales? One of the biggest barriers to survival is the lack of early diagnosis. How will the Welsh Government speed up access to diagnostics, and will the Welsh Government be investing in improved IT infrastructure to speed up the sharing of test data in order to reduce, as far as is possible, the diagnosis pathway?

Once again, Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your statement, and we look forward to working with you to deliver healthcare improvement over the course of this Assembly. I would also like to thank the various implementation groups for the hard work they are doing to improve survival rates from major conditions in Wales. Thank you.

Thank you for the series of comments and questions. I certainly recognise that there’s more to do in the areas both of survivor rehabilitation and prevention—in each of these areas. That’s why we have this approach—bringing together people who have a direct interest in this from outside Government, within Government and the NHS too. The example you started with of stroke is a good example of where the implementation group had helped to be part of delivering improvement. There are also difficult questions for all of us as well about the change in the nature of delivery, because the improvement, for example, in Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board, came on the back of a difficult service redesign, and that’s not easy. But if you talk to the national clinical lead for stroke in Bronglais hospital, he will say that there needs to be a smaller number of hyper-acute units. Now, that means difficult choices for people around Wales. If we’re going to concentrate and specialise that form of service, then it’s got to be done on the basis that there is a real and clear evidence base that it will improve outcomes, as there will be difficult challenges if people are expected to travel further for that treatment. But, ultimately, if the evidence is that there is a better chance of them surviving, and a better chance of them having effective rehabilitation as a result, that’s something that the service will need to deliver.

On your broader points—the points that you made around cancer—actually, it’s a remarkable success story for the national health service to sustain the increase in demand on the cancer services, and to still see as many people as they do. We are seeing record numbers of people within time, as more people have a diagnosis of cancer, and more people are treated more successfully than ever before. I don’t think it hurts to remind ourselves that survival rates are now over 70 per cent at one year, and over 50 per cent after five years. The challenge for us is how we make further progress. The next stage of the delivery plan, I think, will help to set that out for us: in particular, some of the areas we’ve highlighted, for example, diagnosis and earlier access. But, you know, that’s—. We’re not just learning from within the UK. So, part of the work that’s been done has been to go out to Denmark and look at what they’ve done successfully over a period of time to improve their own survival rates too. This does come back to how we share learning, but not just talk about the shared learning, but how we get on and implement it. That’s been a very consistent message from myself and leadership here at Government level—that we expect to see greater consistency in delivering upon improvements and greater pace in delivering them across the country too.

Finally, Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, there are just two areas I want to ask you about, if that’s okay. I’m surprised that you haven’t mentioned dementia at all in your statement this afternoon. Dementia’s one of the four biggest killers, an extremely prevalent disease, and it’s growing in prevalence as well in Wales and other parts of the UK, and yet there is not one single reference to dementia in the whole of your statement, which is supposed to be on major health conditions. I’m very disappointed by that, and perhaps you could give us an update on what the Welsh Government is doing to tackle dementia, and indeed to encourage health professionals to actually diagnose dementia.

Secondly, there’s only one reference to children in the whole of your statement, and that’s in relation to the work that is being undertaken in terms of the structured education programme, SEREN, which, of course, is something that I welcome very much indeed. But there’s no other mention of children throughout the document, and, as you will know, children and young people very often face life-limiting chronic conditions, and very often require a great deal of support as a result of that. I wonder whether you could tell us what specific work is being done in relation to the health conditions that you’ve referred to in your statement to support children and young people with those conditions, and, indeed, what action you are taking as a Welsh Government specifically to expand the role of school nurses in supporting the young people and children in our schools who are living with these sorts of conditions, and indeed others that might affect children and young people. Thank you.

Perhaps if I start with the first point, I think perhaps there may have been some confusion about the content of the statement. This is about the action plans that we have—the delivery plans covering major health conditions, of which there are 10. And, in particular, I’ve been referring to the six that are being refreshed and are due to be re-launched within this year. That’s why dementia hasn’t been mentioned, because there will be reference to it in the mental health delivery plan, and—. [Interruption.] You can either listen to the answer, or we can have a to-and-fro, if you like. I’m trying to be helpful, because I don’t think you were listening earlier on, Darren.

[Inaudible.]—the answer, and then—

The dementia action plan is going to be written this year. So, it will be available this year, and work is actually being undertaken now to do so. I attended an event two weeks ago at the University of South Wales, bringing together a range of different people, both carers and individuals who have dementia, and third sector organisations, as part of how we’re actually trying to drive improvement in this area to deliver on the ambitions—not just of Government; I think there’s a broader ambition here that goes across party about how we have a more open conversation about dementia itself and how we then improve services and work alongside people as well.

So, the chief medical officer, for example, is on the group trying to take that forward. We expect to publish that action plan within this calendar year. And, whilst we haven’t specifically mentioned children within each of the delivery plans that have consequently been given, of course the range of these services will affect the quality of services that children and young people receive as well. And, on a range of the priorities that the implementation group set, they’re looking in particular, for example, at the paediatric diabetic service, as well—a range of different areas and different conditions. They do specifically consider services for children and young people. So, just because I haven’t specifically said that this is something that affects children and is only prioritised at children, that does not mean that children and young people are being forgotten—far from it.

I’m really proud of what the national health service has done with its partners and with the third sector in making major gains for people in Wales in both the patient experience and patient outcomes. We have a good approach to take. I’m proud that we directly engage people outside Government and outside the health service, and I look forward to more success being reported on the back of the next stage of these plans of implementation groups moving forward.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the Government of Wales Act 1998 (Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales) (Amendment) Order 2016. I call on Mark Drakeford as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. The Government of Wales Act 1998 (Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales) (Amendment) Order 2016 amends paragraph 4 of Schedule 17 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 by altering the description of one of the bodies listed in that Schedule. Schedule 17 to the 1998 Act provides a list of public bodies in Wales that are conditional on some provisions in the 1998 Act in terms of auditing and accounts, and paragraph 4 at present provides that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales is one of the public bodies in Wales. The Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 has reformed the framework of rules within which the then Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales operated, and the 2013 Act has enhanced its responsibilities and changed its name to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. This Order, if it is approved, will amend Schedule 17 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 by replacing the reference to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales with a reference to the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. If the Order is approved, it will come into force on 7 October 2016. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I don’t have any speakers for this debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Thank you. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move on to item 8 on the agenda, which is the debate on the Government’s priorities and the legislative programme. I call on the First Minister to move the motion. Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, we return to this issue as the Standing Orders demand that we have to, and so it’s another opportunity for Members to re-examine the priorities of this Government and the legislative programme. Today is an opportunity for us to debate the Welsh Government’s priorities and programme. For the first time we’re combining the debate on the legislative programme with a wider discussion about policy objectives, and this is a sign of how far we’ve come since gaining legislative powers, that now legislation is a core part of how we deliver our priorities.

Now, as I said, Llywydd, when I published the programme for government, our priorities for this administration are clear. We want a stronger, fairer economy, improved and reformed public services and a united, connected and sustainable Wales. We’ve chosen those four areas in which we believe the Government can have the greatest impact and can play the strongest role in working towards the national goals. These priority areas—prosperous and secure, healthy and active, ambitious and learning, and united and connected—are the umbrella areas that will allow Government and its partners to work across traditional boundaries and deliver improvements for people in Wales. And everything that we do as a Government will be guided by those priorities.

As we look towards a prosperous and secure Wales we will be working hard to support job creation across Wales, equipping people with the skills that they need, but also helping them to live their lives securely. We’ve set out our headline plans for supporting businesses through tax cuts and a commitment to a prosperous agricultural industry. We’ll support people into jobs through 100,000 high-quality all-age apprenticeships and we’ll remove the barriers to work with the most generous package of childcare for working parents in any part of the UK—support that will not be restricted to term time.

Llywydd, I’ve also announced that we’ll bring forward legislation to abolish the right to buy. This legislation will help to protect the social housing stock, a stock we will increase as part of our commitment to deliver 20,000 affordable homes. We’ll also work towards long-term sustainable prosperity that also offers us a secure future, and that means progressing towards our goal of reducing greenhouse emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Llywydd, we are proud of our track record of increasing investment in the NHS and we’ll continue to work towards a healthy and active Wales. We know that the NHS cannot deliver our priorities alone and here, more than anything and anywhere else, we understand the importance of investing early to prevent problems later. We need to make sure, of course, that treatments are available, yes, but we will never lose sight of our long-term objective to reduce the need for treatments, enabling people to live healthy and fulfilled lives. That is, of course, a difficult balance to strike: spending to treat today whilst investing to prevent in the future. But I’m confident our priorities reflect that.

We will, on that basis, introduce the public health Bill to improve and protect the health and well-being of the population of Wales. We’ll prioritise mental health treatment, including a pilot social prescription scheme and increased access to talking therapies. We’ll also invest in a new generation of integrated health and social services centres alongside the transformation of our hospital estate, integrating services and building a model that better matches local needs and services.

Llywydd, we will work towards an ambitious and learning Wales that can support our aim of prosperity and security. We want to improve attainment across the board, but we also want to ensure that no-one’s success is predetermined by where they live, how much their parents earn, or whether they have additional learning needs. This means supporting our youngsters to start their journey early with our innovative Flying Start programme. It also means investing an extra £100 million to drive up school standards for all. It means extending the pupil deprivation grant to provide targeted additional support for schools, and our additional learning needs and education tribunal Bill will establish a system where learners are at the centre of everything, needs are identified early, addressed quickly, and all learners are supported to reach their full potential.

Llywydd, of course, neither ambition nor learning end when we leave school. We’re committed to enhancing both academic and vocational routes, including into and through further and higher education. The Government has accepted Sir Ian Diamond’s recommendations in principle and these will help to shape the package of student support that we deliver.

Last but not least, united and connected: this priority captures our ambition to grow together as a country, and to bind us together as a society where everyone is respected and valued—a Wales that has the confidence to take its place in the world. The UK withdrawal from the EU makes it more important than ever that we continue to punch above our weight and look beyond our borders. We’re working towards a Wales where communities prosper, are linked by excellent transport routes, and with every property in Wales benefitting from fast, reliable broadband.

Llywydd, earlier today we outlined our plans for the future of local government, which will continue to see them at the heart of their communities, but working together regionally in a way that makes sense to the people that they serve. And we’ll continue to promote the culture and identity of Wales by working towards 1 million people speaking Welsh by 2050.

Llywydd, we want a fair society and we will legislate to repeal aspects of the Trade Union Act 2016 that affect devolved public services. This year will also see us introduce two tax Bills, paving the way for us to raise our own taxes for the first time in 800 years. Llywydd, this is an ambitious set of priorities for Wales, a set of priorities that have already informed our legislative programme for this year and which will guide us as we deliver our programme for government.

At this point, if I could turn to the amendments that are tabled—not yet moved, of course—amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies: we will not accept that amendment. We know that this is an ambitious legislative programme and that the people of Wales supported it. In terms of amendment 2, again, we do not believe that the programme for opposition is more ambitious—I’m sure that’s a great surprise to the Plaid Cymru benches. But, of course, there is commonality with Plaid Cymru in a number of areas and, as we move forward, we look to enhance that commonality. In terms of amendment 3, it is for this Assembly to measure how the Government performs, and that’s what it’s done over the past five years. It’s for the Assembly to hold the Government to account in terms of its progress. We will, then, oppose that amendment.

In terms of amendment 4, the programme for government is intended to deliver. Of course, the elephant in the room is what’s happening with Brexit, but the reality is that nobody, at this stage, can predict with any great accuracy what will happen, but we will know more as soon as the UK Government makes up its mind in terms of which direction it wants to take. We will not accept that amendment.

In terms of amendment 5, we will not accept that amendment, because the detail will emerge, of course, over the course of the programme for government, but we have very much pointed the direction in which we want to travel.

We will accept amendment 6. It’s absolutely important, of course, that there is sufficient time for scrutiny, and that is something that we are content to support. Llywydd, this is an ambitious programme for the people of Wales, a programme that they voted for in May and they will expect us to deliver, and it’s with pride that I move it, therefore, in front of the Assembly.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to stand and respond to the First Minister in moving the debate. I formally move amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies on the order paper today. It was only six days ago that we ourselves moved a motion about the programme for government, and obviously we spent some considerable time looking at that. The Government could only put up one backbencher to support their programme for government during that debate, so I hope they do a better job this afternoon, to be honest with you.

There are some pertinent questions I do think need to be put to the First Minister during this debate that might well then start to inspire confidence. Some of those questions were explored at length in our debate last week, straight after a bovine TB debate moved by backbenchers in this Chamber. It is worth noting that, in the programme for government, there is no indication as to exactly how the Government will progress its strategy on bovine TB. I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary will be bringing a statement forward, but as I understand it, the programme for government is there for members of the public, Members of this institution, vested-interest charities and anyone with an interest in the way Government delivers services to be able to benchmark its progress, or not, as the case may be.

I don’t dispute what the First Minister said, that obviously the people of Wales endorsed his party to be the largest party returned here after the May election, and that’s why it’s important that the programme for government can be a document where we can measure the commitments that you have made and, in particular, understand how you are going to deliver those commitments. My colleague David Melding has touched on the housing numbers that you do have within the programme for government, and exactly how those commitments will be delivered, given the 20,000 affordable houses that you’ve touched on in this. What is that doing, then, to move to the 12,000 or 12,500 units that need to be built on an annualised basis to create a sustainable house-building programme to actually meet the demand and need of the people of Wales? Again, if you look in the programme for government, there is no way of being able to make out how the Government is going to take that particular policy issue forward. So, I hope that the First Minister, in his response to us today, will give us some confidence, because that’s what our amendment is talking about: it’s talking about giving us confidence to understand exactly how the programme for government will be taken forward.

We don’t, as I say, dispute the right of the largest party to form that Government; we don’t dispute the right of that party to put the programme for government forward, but I have yet to find one single third party organisation that has actually commented in a favourable way on this programme for government in the particular sector that you will be actually working in. Only today, for example, Nick Ramsay from Monmouthshire was making the point in the business statement about the critical care centre in Cwmbran. I can well remember when this particular project was first mentioned when I came into the Assembly, back in 2007, but it has been on the starting blocks far longer than that, and there is still doubt about exactly how that particular part of the health infrastructure will be delivered for south-east Wales. Excuse the pun, but it’s a critical part of the health infrastructure for south-east Wales. So, again, given that it is so topical and it should sit within the programme for government as to how that will be delivered for south-east Wales, perhaps the First Minister will use his time in responding to the debate today to actually give us some certainty that that project will come through and actually, by 2021, that project might well be either well on its way to being finished, or actually finished. Can you give us a date? Five years?

It is important to remember, on the education targets that are contained within the programme for government, that students going into year 7 today, or this term, at the start of the academic year, will be sitting their O-Levels, GCSEs, call them what you will, in 2021. So, their entire education in secondary education will be governed by the Government that sits on these benches, and it is really important that we can have the confidence that the aspirations of the Cabinet Secretary for Education—and, indeed, the entire Government—to make those improvements in education will actually be delivered in this fifth Assembly, because some Members have been here before in the fourth and third Assemblies. And it’s not that anyone on the opposition benches wants to wish you ill on education, because, actually, we want to wish you well on education, but we do want those delivered, because children only get one turn around the block, and it is their life chances that are taken away from them if we don’t deliver, or, should I say, if your Government doesn’t deliver on education.

So, the amendment is merely seeking to give that confidence to the people of Wales and to us as politicians who will scrutinise you. It doesn’t take away the legitimacy that you do have to put the programme for government. But to table a 15-page document for five years’ worth of work is quite a damning indictment of a lack of ideas. Only last week, First Minister, you chaired your own committee—the external advisory committee for advising you on European matters—and I do point to page 14 of your own document where it does say, ‘We will work to ensure that membership of our democratic bodies better reflect the whole of society and improve equal representation on elected bodies and public sector boards.’ There was no black or ethnic minority candidate on that committee. There was only 28 per cent female representation, and there were precious few geographical representatives from north wales and other parts of Wales sitting on that committee. So, on that very basic point—on that very basic point—that you could have implemented, you couldn’t deliver that. How are you going to be able to deliver some of the more knotty issues that have existed in health, existed in education and existed in the economy? That’s why we need to be given the confidence that this programme for government will be different from previous programmes for government, and will deliver for the people of Wales.

I call on Leanne Wood to move the amendments tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move the amendments in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

In this critical period, it is essential that the Labour Government presents an innovative and forward-looking programme that demonstrates confidence to people in Wales. The programme for government that was produced last month I’m afraid doesn’t meet that criteria. Before outlining Plaid Cymru’s positive agenda, I want to make one point about the Labour Government’s programme.

We in Plaid Cymru agreed with the First Minister that his programme for government should be delayed to take account of the implications of the referendum vote. It was a surprise and a disappointment, therefore, to see that the delayed programme, when published, didn’t make any reference to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. And we don’t have to be able to predict what will happen to have a plan. This is a light programme—it’s short in length and it falls short in terms of our expectations. Wales needs big, bold ideas now, not minimalism. In past Welsh Government programmes, we’ve been bombarded by statistics and indicators. Those indicators have disappeared instead of being finessed, and in that sense, Plaid Cymru sees this as the Government going backwards.

Plaid Cymru, as the party of Wales, has a duty, we feel, to try to improve this situation and bring about our own priorities instead. As noted by amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, Plaid Cymru has produced the first ever programme of opposition. So, rather than complaining from the sidelines, we will try to use this situation to get as many of our policy proposals implemented as we possibly can.

Sitting above our full policy programme, we have three key aims. First, we must protect Wales from any fallout from Brexit. That must be at the heart of the Government’s work. Secondly, we must continue with the nation-building agenda. A more confident, more empowered and more distinct Wales will remain at the forefront of all policies that Plaid Cymru puts forward in this minority Government situation. Thirdly, we advocate an all-Wales approach to Government spending. Investment and opportunity must be spread as evenly as possible right throughout the country. This is one Wales, and too many are feeling ignored and left behind. Whether imbalances within Wales are a matter of fact or a matter of perception, they must be addressed.

Welsh governments, regardless of their political colour, must be more committed than ever, to ensure that services are not centralised away from hard-to-reach areas. Pledges like the metro-style system for the north and the electric rail proposals for the Valleys must be followed through after being announced.

Llywydd, the Government’s legislation is likely to require Plaid Cymru’s support to pass. All of the measures appear to be consistent with Plaid Cymru policy and I look forward in particular to the taxation legislation and the trade union Bill, which are both areas that Plaid Cymru wants to see progress on. Whilst we welcome progress on legislation, we do remain disappointed by the Government’s programme, which, in its current form, does not deliver the ambition that this country now needs.

I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to develop innovative solutions to the challenges we face. The challenges we face are many and varied, not least those caused by the decision to leave the European Union. I’m also glad that the Government is open to new ideas and will be happy to listen to people from across our communities. The programme for government makes relevant reference to the importance of the future generations Act, and there are a couple of points that I wish to see some more detail on in relation to that.

One is in relation to our carbon targets, because the only target that is absolutely firm and in the legislation is the 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, which I don’t think is a sustainable position. Even the youngest Member of the Assembly, which I think is Steffan Lewis, will be considering his retirement options by 2050, whereas most of us will be long gone, pushing up daisies and certainly not in a position to be holding the Government, at that point, to account on this really important issue. So, I really do want to press the Government on some interim targets, and it seems appropriate that they should be 2021, because that is the full extent of our mandate. Therefore, we need to be able to measure how well we are doing on this.

My understanding is that, of the targets we set in 2010, the 3 per cent annual emission reductions since 2011 year on year are being met in areas of devolved competence, and that, of course, includes the amount of electricity that is being consumed across Wales by our homes and businesses. It would be good to know that we are indeed meeting that particular target, but how confident are we that we are going to meet the second target that was in the 2010 document, which is the 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gasses in all sectors by 2020 from the 1990 levels? My understanding is that we are falling well short of that target and that our emissions actually rose between 2011 and 2013—and this is largely, as I understand it, because of a shift from gas to coal in generating electricity because of changes in world fuel prices. That just underlines the importance of us seizing the opportunities to tap into our abundant renewable energy resources to safeguard us against those changes in world prices.

I think those are things that I would like to see much more detail on in ensuring that we can hold the Government to account. I think that Brexit obviously produces huge challenges for us in the way we are going to develop a prosperous future for Welsh agriculture. As the First Minister said in the Senedd earlier today, we have absolutely no guarantee that the farm payments we currently enjoy are going to be passported through from the Treasury after 2020. As, on average, farm businesses rely on those basic farm payments for 80 per cent of their income, the future could indeed be extremely grim for our agricultural sector.

Now, the hard line Brexiteers, headed by the former UKIP leader, say we don’t need to worry about that because we can just import food from abroad. My view is that that is absolutely a very cavalier approach, and the uncertainties of the world we live in and the speed of climate change means that sources of food we currently import may dry up, literally.

The latest DEFRA figures indicate that the UK imports approximately 40 per cent of the food we consume. I don’t think that that is a sustainable position. Ninety-five per cent of our fruit comes from abroad and half our vegetables are imported. We could, instead, be maximising the low-carbon opportunities to promote better food security in Wales, and help many of our monoculture meat producers to diversify, as we have no guarantee that the excellent beef and lamb exported today can continue if we find tariffs imposed as a result of a hard Brexit.

Technological advances in hydroponics make it perfectly possible to be growing fruit and vegetables in all parts of Wales, using half the water required by traditional horticulture and halving the growing time. So, I’d really like to see more emphasis on that in the programme for government, because I think it’s a particularly important thing, not only for carbon emissions but also from a public health perspective. I’d like to see a national conversation on food, because it’s very much a cultural, as well as an economic and health agenda.

In responding to the programme for government and the legislative programme, I do think that I must emphasise how dissatisfied I am at present with the Government’s response to the situation that’s arisen from the decision on Brexit. I think this is a real challenge, not only for the Labour Party but for the whole of the Senedd, and it’s a real challenge to the devolution process. Because unless we manage this in a way that appears to be robust to the public and shows that the interests of Wales are put first, before the interests of any party represented in this Senedd, then I do think that people will lose faith in what we can achieve as a Senedd and what we can achieve as a Government.

The fact that the Government, as Leanne Wood said, after some delays over the summer months in publishing its programme for government in order to deal with the fact that we are to withdraw from the European Union, then produces a document that is so flimsy is very disappointing indeed. It’s clear that the Government wants to avoid any attempt, as in the previous one, one has to be honest, to put any specific targets that can be used politically against them. They may be doing that because they feel uncertainties as a result of the decision on Brexit, but I do think it is disappointing, however, that the impact of that isn’t fully reflected in this document. There are a number of things that we would like to see the Government responding far more positively to, as Leanne Wood said in proceeding.

Rwyf eisiau gofyn ychydig o gwestiynau allweddol hefyd ynghylch yr ychydig ffeithiau a'r ffigurau sydd yn y rhaglen lywodraethu hon a beth y maent yn ei olygu mewn gwirionedd. Mae ymrwymiad i fuddsoddiad o £100 miliwn i wella safonau ysgol, ond nid yw'n glir a yw hyn yn £100 miliwn ychwanegol, neu yn cynnwys y grant amddifadedd disgyblion sy’n cynyddu yn barod, ac a yw'r gost o leihau maint dosbarthiadau babanod, sydd hefyd yn ymrwymiad, wedi cael ei ystyried.

Rydym yn dal i ddisgwyl gweld mwy o fanylion am gynigion y Llywodraeth ei hun ar gyfer comisiwn seilwaith cenedlaethol ar gyfer Cymru. Lansiodd Plaid Cymru ein cynigion ddoe. Ac rwy’n meddwl bod pobl Cymru—. Os nad ydym yn mynd i gael Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru ar gyfer yr unfed ganrif ar hugain—nid yw’n ymddangos bod hynny’n cael ei ffafrio gan y Llywodraeth hon, ond rwy’n meddwl bod pobl Cymru, serch hynny, yn disgwyl ffyrdd newydd ac arloesol o gefnogi busnes er mwyn ateb heriau Brexit a'r heriau sy'n ein hwynebu.

Rwy'n credu ei bod yn rhaglen lywodraethu denau iawn ar gyfer yr amgylchedd. Byddwn yn cytuno â’r hyn a ddywedodd Jenny Rathbone, ac rwy’n meddwl bod colli golwg ar darged 2020, er ein bod yn mynd i’w fethu beth bynnag, yn golygu ein bod wedi colli golwg ar alinio Llywodraeth â'r Ddeddf amgylchedd a Deddf cenedlaethau'r dyfodol i wir wasgu ar ein hallyriadau nwyon tŷ gwydr, a gweithio o ddifrif i wella gwasanaethau bioamrywiaeth ac ecosystemau lleol hefyd. Mae cyfle, wrth gwrs, gyda'r penderfyniad i dynnu'n ôl o'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, i alinio ein cynlluniau amaeth ac amaeth-amgylchedd at ei gilydd, i gael gwared ar rai gwahaniaethau ffug sy’n dod i'r amlwg yn anochel pan fyddwch yn ymdrin â model 28 gwlad, ac i gael rhywbeth sydd wedi ei deilwra’n fwy ar gyfer Cymru. Ond er mwyn cael hynny, mae'n rhaid i ni fod yn gwbl sicr ein bod yn cael dau beth gan Lywodraeth San Steffan. Y cyntaf yw bod unrhyw ddeddfwriaeth amgylcheddol a physgodfeydd yn cael ei throsglwyddo yn y Ddeddf ddiddymu fawr, nad yw'n ymddangos ei bod yn diddymu unrhyw beth ar hyn o bryd—ond mae'n cael ei throsglwyddo i Gymru, lle y bo'n briodol, ac nid ydym yn gweld unrhyw gipio tir gan Lywodraeth San Steffan ar hynny. Yr ail elfen, rwy’n credu i ni ei drafod yn gynharach heddiw, yw nad ydym yn gweld unrhyw gipio ariannol ar yr arian y mae Cymru wedi’i haeddu ac y dylai Cymru ei gael o ganlyniad i ddychwelyd cyfraniad Llywodraeth y DU i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Oherwydd, fel y gwyddom, mae ein sector ffermio, sef y sector sy'n amddiffyn ein hamgylchedd, ac sy’n gwario yn ein heconomïau lleol, yn gyfrifol am rywbeth fel bron i 10 y cant o wariant PAC y Deyrnas Unedig. Byddai fformiwla Barnett sy'n cyfateb o gwmpas 5 y cant a byddem ar ein colled yn aruthrol.

Ar ôl dweud ein bod yn cefnogi'r rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol, rwy'n credu bod dau neu dri pheth sydd ar goll yma. Mae gan Blaid Cymru ddiddordeb mawr mewn defnyddio'r pwerau newydd yr ydym yn eu cael yn Neddf Cymru i wneud llawer mwy o ran lleihau gwastraff: gwaharddiad ar styrofoam, er enghraifft, fel y mae’r Ffrancwyr yn ei wneud; gwaharddiad ar ffyrc plastig; treth ar gwpanau coffi. Ni waeth beth, gallwn edrych arno yn awr—mae gennym bolisïau arloesol. Mae gen i ddiddordeb arbennig mewn sicrhau ein bod o leiaf yn treialu yn y Cynulliad nesaf gynllun blaendal dychwelyd i Gymru, ac rwyf wir am i ni gyrraedd sefyllfa lle, yn hytrach na’r holl gŵynion, os mynnwch, sydd gennym weithiau am wastraff domestig, ein bod yn troi at y rhai sy'n rhoi gwastraff i ni yn ein system—y rhai sy'n gwerthu bwyd i ni a'r cynhyrchion sydd wir ei angen arnom. Ni ddylai fod yn wir yn y tymor hir, na ddylai, eich bod chi’n gallu prynu unrhyw eitem o siop yng Nghymru sydd wedi'i lapio mewn rhywbeth na ellir ei ailgylchu yng Nghymru? Yn syml, ni ddylai hynny ddigwydd—gydag un neu ddau eithriad eithafol o bosibl. Felly, rwy’n meddwl bod gwir angen i ni gau’r cylch.

Y ddwy Ddeddf arall, os gallaf sôn amdanynt yn fyr, y byddai gennym ddiddordeb mewn eu cyflwyno: un yw Deddf awtistiaeth, a byddwn yn amlwg yn cefnogi’r Bil anghenion dysgu ychwanegol wrth iddo fynd ymlaen, ond rydym yn edrych ar Ddeddf awtistiaeth ehangach yn ystod cyfnod y Cynulliad hwn hefyd. A’r un olaf, y mae’n rhaid iddi ddigwydd wrth gwrs mewn ffordd drawsbleidiol a seneddol, ond sy’n bendant ar yr agenda i Blaid Cymru, yw Bil i ymdrin â chosb resymol, fel y’i gelwir—mae’n well gen i ddweud trin plant yn gyfartal gerbron y gyfraith, ac yn sicr byddwn yn dwyn y Llywodraeth i gyfrif i sicrhau bod y Cynulliad yn cael cyfle i bleidleisio ar gynnig o'r fath yn ystod y pedair blynedd nesaf.

The programme for government opens by addressing the needs of a prosperous and secure Wales. The central challenge of the next five years for this Government is the task of creating a new economic policy that works for Wales in the new world in which we find ourselves. We are trying to navigate our way at the moment through uncharted waters. We don’t know yet, any of us, what Brexit will mean for trade, for immigration, for jobs. And the kind of relationship we have with the EU will obviously be influenced by a set of highly complex negotiations, and, needless to say, getting the right outcome for Wales is vital.

But there’s more at stake even than the precise settlement that Wales achieves as a result of those discussions. The fundamental challenge for us now is to make globalisation work for the communities who have felt so let down by its effects. And the answer to that can’t be to close our doors and hope that the challenges we face, globalised markets, the effects of technology and the movement of people around the world somehow pass us by, because they will not. So, I’m pleased to see, in the programme for government and in the statements of the Cabinet Secretary for the economy and the First Minister, a clear commitment to attracting more investment to Wales, and to opening up export markets for Welsh companies. We need also to build the resilience of our domestic economy, to put in place, insofar as any Government can, the conditions that enable our small companies to become robust, medium-sized companies, to help them develop local supply chains and to support their local labour market.

So, again, I welcome the commitments in the programme for government for the business accelerator scheme and the Wales development bank. I welcome the commitment to using procurement policy to support community benefits. But I’d ask the Government also not to lose sight of the growth of self-employment and microbusiness, which will be an increasing feature of our economy, even beyond what it is today, and to put in place the policy interventions we need to support those as well.

I welcome the recognition I’ve heard from the Government, from the skills Minister and others that we must build on the success we’ve achieved in getting people into jobs, with a focus now on supporting progression within the workplace. Getting a job should be the start. We want to make sure that those in employment can progress, acquire more skills and earn more. And I’m pleased to see the continued focus of policy on bringing into work those in our communities who are furthest from the workplace. We’ve had a great deal of success with our employment support policies, but it’s right that we keep challenging ourselves to ensure that the support we provide meets the changing needs of our economy and workforce.

We need to think broadly about what a good job looks like. A good job is one that supports people to live and work in their community, if that’s what they want, to care for their families and to be fully engaged members of a resilient community. Those are also vital aspects of the good society. So, I welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting projects delivered at a community level, projects to promote skills development, job creation, entrepreneurship, community energy, rural transport and broadband access. And let’s not forget that our partners in the voluntary sector can be allies for creating the kind of resilient, revitalised communities we want. So, that will involve challenge and commitment on both sides.

One of the great challenges we face today is how to redesign the support we give to disadvantaged communities when we no longer have access to structural funds. It’s very early days at this stage, of course, but we will need a system of support that is flexible, not rigid, that’s part of a Wales-wide strategy with clear priorities but tailored intelligently to local needs as well.

So, finally, I welcome the Government acknowledgement in the programme for government that our ambitions will be shaped by the challenges we face. It lists ongoing austerity, UK withdrawal from the EU, globalisation, technological innovation, climate change and an ageing population—all true, and I would add to that challenge the challenge of engaging the public in what we do and how we do it. That is no small challenge, but we are a small nation and it should be how we approach all our work. So, I’m pleased that initiatives such as the Valleys taskforce have put at their core the aim of engaging communities in their work in a very fundamental way. I hope that that can become the principle for how we deliver the programme for government across the board.

For me, the most important part of this document is actually on the last page, and the paragraph ‘Driving Forward Delivery’. Now, I know that other Members have, over the last few weeks, criticised the length of this document, but, to be honest, I’d rather see a few targets being met than a lot of targets being missed. So, delivery is key here—[Interruption.] Bless you. [Laughter.]

We know now that the delivery unit has bitten the dust, or, at least, has metamorphosed into a new shadowy form of which we are not yet aware. I don’t particularly mind that—we criticised it enough—but we do, of course, need to see new mechanisms in place to ensure that delivery does happen. And, of course, we need a relentless focus on driving improvement in public services. You would’ve hoped that that would have been there anyway and would be obvious, but then things aren’t always as obvious as people might think. But I think that, certainly, that focus on driving improvement is key.

I think the concern that we have here is that we’ve obviously been waiting for a long time in a number of areas for delivery to kick in. We haven’t been holding our breath, certainly not on this side of the Chamber. Let me be clear, there are proposals in here, First Minister, that have very real potential: a development bank, on whatever form of that you decide—a development bank certainly has a lot of potential, even more important with the results of the referendum that other Members have mentioned and the need to support infrastructure and the economy; improvement in public sector procurement—well, that’s not anything that you would argue with: we’ve all held debates over the last few months where we’ve spoken about the need for improving procurement across Wales; and, of course, the development of the metro, and, yes, the development of the north Wales metro is certainly an ambition. But I think we need to focus resources at the moment and our minds to getting the south Wales metro off the ground and not allowing that to go backwards.

So, there are a number of things where you will get cross-party support, but the question is: can the public be confident that, over the next five years, they will actually see delivery and, when the Welsh Government does report on all this at the end of the fifth Assembly, that the ambitions of this document, if one can call them that, have been realised? I think the jury is out on that at the moment.

If I can turn to the other part of this debate, the legislative programme, combined for the first time with the programme for government—you’ve saved UKIP at least one debate to boycott. [Laughter.] You identified in your statement on 27 September the issue of taxation as being key, and you are right to do so. Specifically, you mentioned in the statement land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax and this is indeed very new ground for this institution. These are areas that the Finance Committee in particular is looking at at the moment, and other committees will be. So, this is obviously work in progress, but it is clear for all of us to see that it is vital that we get this right. This is new territory: the first time that Wales has raised its own taxes in 800 years—I think that was the figure mentioned by the First Minister. The public are only just becoming aware of this development and it’s something that they will want to have confidence in as the process goes on.

The programme for government doesn’t say much about the way that new taxes can be used to stimulate the economy. I’m sure that’s the idea of them. Simon Thomas mentioned this in his comments earlier. So, it’s one thing to have the devolution of taxation, but we do need to have a bit more meat on the bones as to how that taxation is going to be used to stimulate the economy. There is, I think, a little bit in the programme about the use of, at least I assume it is, business rates and having a fairer taxation regime for companies, but it isn’t clear. So, we do look forward to greater clarity on that.

This is a debate that joins the programme of government and that legislative statement, First Minister. I must say, whilst that’s a noble aim, it doesn’t seem to me that these two are working completely together at the moment. We often talk about the need to relate outcomes with the energy we’re putting in at the start, and I think there are still some gaps as to how the legislative programme of the Government will fit in with what the programme of government states and those outcomes that you’ve stated. So, I think that it’s work in progress, First Minister. In conclusion, some good ideas, not enough as far as we are concerned, but let’s make sure that those that are in there do happen and that we see the economic and public service improvements by the end of 20 years—in two years—of devolution that we would all want to see.

First Minister, I think you’ve been quite clear that amongst the priorities for Welsh Government and, indeed, legislative priorities is the effective implementation of Acts passed in the last Assembly, as well as taking forward new legislation in this Assembly term. I think, in many people’s views, one of the real headlines of legislation in the last Assembly was the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and there’s a great deal of expectation for that legislation—rightly so, I think—because we all agree, or virtually all of us agree, that it could and should be transformative in terms of thinking around sustainable development and ensuring that public bodies make decisions in line with those principles and transform the delivery of public services in Wales.

So, there is a great deal of interest in the Act and how the Act will be taken forward. I think, obviously, all of us have to be a little bit patient to see how that unfolds, but not too patient, perhaps. Some of the interest amongst outside bodies at the moment is around the requirements of the Act in terms of Welsh Government and when Welsh Government will meet the requirements of it under the legislation, in terms of publishing the well-being objectives and the statement explaining their relationship to the goals, and, indeed, how the programme for government, the budget, the four strategies to take forward the programme for government that you announced recently, First Minister, together with those well-being objectives and statements, how all of those link up together, so that everybody in Wales and beyond will be able to be absolutely clear as to how Welsh Government will meet the legislation’s requirements of it, and in a timely fashion. So, I’d be grateful for clarification around that, First Minister.

The other legislation I’d like to mention is the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which again I think was rightly high profile in terms of the Acts passed in the last Assembly term. It’s very important for health, for the environment, for integrated transport, the economy and, indeed, general quality of life. So, how local authorities take forward their duties in terms of the existing routes maps and the integrated routes maps, the promotion of active travel, continuous improvement, and how Welsh Government investment helps to create the infrastructure and those much better cycle routes that really will drive a modal shift in people’s behaviour, I think, are absolutely crucial. So, if you could say a little, First Minister, in response, in terms of the Welsh Government’s approach to ensuring that that active travel Act is effectively implemented, I think, again, there would be a great deal of interest beyond this Chamber in that.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank Members for the way in which the debate progressed today? There were lots of questions, of course, many of which will be answered during the course of this Government’s term of office.

Could I start with the issue of Brexit? The reality of the situation is that nobody knows what the model might look like; it’s difficult to plan without knowing what the criteria might be. For me, it’s absolutely crucial that there are no tariffs involved in terms of trade between the UK and the EU. If there are tariffs, then the situation is very difficult; there’s no getting away from it, and it’s not in Wales’s interest for that to happen. Without tariffs, I believe that we can continue to maintain our position and say that Wales is a place to invest in because it provides a gateway to the European market. The reality is that Scotland is in no different a position—it hasn’t gone any further than we have—but there is merit however, I believe, in us, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man—because it’s losing its customs union with the EU—looking to find common ground and using that common ground to develop a position to take with the UK Government, as the UK Government looks at Brexit. I see no difficulty in doing that in principle.

I can say that I do welcome something that the UK Government has done today, which is to provide more clarity in terms of European funding. The Chancellor announced yesterday that European-funded projects signed after the autumn statement, but before the UK leaves the EU, will continue to be funded—a step further than was the case before. And we’ve had confirmation today that there is no question of the UK Government having any control over European funding in Wales, in keeping with the devolution settlement, and I quote:

‘It will be for the Welsh Government to decide the conditions used to assess projects within your devolved competence.’

So, I’m glad that the UK Government has moved away from any suggestion that it should control European funding in Wales, and I’m sure that the leader of the Conservatives will take note of that, because I know his position has been very different to the one I’ve just outlined from the Treasury. I look forward to what he says in the next 24 hours on that.

He mentions bovine TB. That will be an issue that we will continue to address. We know that that is a priority for farmers in Wales, and we know that the number of animals being tested has gone up. As a result, more TB is being found, but the disease certainly is not as prevalent as once it was.

In terms of affordable housing, there will be a mixture of ways in which affordable housing is achieved. Some will be through social housing—that’s true—but there will be those who want to buy a house and there are various different models that can be used for that. We know that, in some parts of rural Wales, the fact that every house is on the open market is not of benefit to local people, and that is something that we need to address.

The SCCC has been raised. The Minister will look to address that over the course of the next few weeks, at least taking a decision by the end of this calendar year.

In terms of education targets, we see—

Will you take an intervention on that?

Yes.

I’m grateful to you for giving clarity that the Secretary will make a statement and hopefully give clarity on the issue of the critical care centre by the end of this year. But, would it be your hope that that critical care centre will at least be in construction phase by 2021, the end of your mandate, or can you see real issues progressing on that particular issue?

The business case is still being assessed, but we do understand that there is a need to modernise and upgrade facilities in Gwent, in the Aneurin Bevan area. That’s something that the Minister is fully aware of, but we need to make sure that the project is, of course, robust from a financial perspective, that it can move forward, and ensure that the circumstances exist where that can happen. That’s the objective.

In terms of education, we’re seeing more and more improvements in GCSEs. He mentioned O-levels; I’m surprised he can remember them—I do, I know that. We’re happy with the way that GCSE results are improving across Wales; we expect that to continue. He mentions detail; if you want detail, look at our manifesto. There you’ll see the suggestions that we put before the people of Wales, and we will keep to them.

In terms of what was said by two Plaid Cymru speakers—time is short I can see, Presiding Officer. Well, we know that it’s hugely important: she and I are on exactly the same page and we don’t want to see powers filched away from this place and taken to Westminster. We’re not seeing that now with European funding and I welcome that, and I look forward to working with the leader of the opposition on legislative proposals. We are fully aware, given the arithmetic of this place, that any proposals have to be capable of support across the Chamber, and we look forward to working with her on that.

In terms of some of the issues that Simon Thomas raised, there are two issues there to be addressed very quickly. In terms of a national infrastructure commission, he will know that I am quango averse. It is especially difficult, I think, to spend tens of millions on quangos when that money could be better used elsewhere. That needs to be examined very, very carefully. Also, of course, I saw the proposals today that were put forward—I read them with interest—from Adam Price, but it would mean a revenue commitment of £700 million a year from the Assembly’s revenue budget, which is a not insubstantial sum if those proposals were taken forward.

On waste, this is the real problem. Waste arisings can be dealt with because they’re in Wales, but in terms of packaging, of course, how do you monitor that? You can do it in shops. It’s much more difficult if you’re doing it as people buy things from abroad. So, I agree with him that minimising waste as it arrives in Wales is a hugely important issue, but dealing with it has been trickier. Of course, once it’s already here it is dealt with, and we’ve seen our recycling figures improve. I heard what he said about the autism Act and moving forward in terms of reasonable chastisement.

If I can turn to what my colleague Jenny Rathbone said. Emissions reductions are important to us. I’ve already mentioned the target by 2050. I do hope to be here. Not in this job—you heard it here first—but certainly alive in 2050. So, I suppose, at that point, I will be asked my view on it, no doubt, if I’m able to give such a view. In terms of food, Britain will never be self-sufficient in food. The war taught us that. Fifty-four per cent of the food that we consume is produced in the UK. Because of our topography and where we lie on the globe, it’s not possible to produce many vegetables and fruit without actually some quite energy-intensive methods of doing so. It’s true that Iceland produces tomatoes—it has geothermal energy. If we were to go down the same line, a lot of energy would be consumed in terms of producing those fruits and vegetables. So, we have to look at how that stands in terms of the need to reduce emissions globally.

Very, very quickly, because I can see that the time is running out. I heard what Nick Ramsay had to say. I have to say that there are challenges, of course, in getting robust taxation legislation that is also fair in place. We’re up for that task. It is a great shame that air passenger duty hasn’t been devolved. I still can’t work out why the Secretary of State for Wales sees it fit to defend the interests of airports outside Wales and not an airport in his own constituency, which is the great irony. No reason has been given as to why APD shouldn’t be devolved, other than the fact that it was given to Scotland, that was a mistake and so Wales shouldn’t have it. That is the level of debate that we have had in that regard.

Finally, my friend and colleague John Griffiths. It’s absolutely true; we are moving forward this autumn with the development of the goals further in terms of putting more flesh on the bones—we understand that. The active travel Act is absolutely important. As someone who was on national route 4 on Sunday, on my own bike, I know how important it is to make sure that cycling is seen more and more as a mode of transport as well as a form of healthy recreation. That means that our local authorities, in getting to grips with the active travel Act, have to ensure that more and more safe cycle rules are made available so that people can travel to work. We know that for many, many occasional cyclists they don’t want to mix with cars on the roads, and they need to have the facilities to be segregated from cars and then travel to work safely.

I’m over seven minutes, Llywydd. I hope I’ve dealt with most of the issues that have been raised. Of course, I fully understand that, with the programme now having been put before the Assembly, it is up to us as a Government to deliver it.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. [Interruption.]

O, ni chlywais. Cafodd ei glywed, do? Do. Cafodd ei glywed gan bobl eraill, nid gennyf fi. Felly, rwy’n ystyried ei fod wedi ei glywed.

I will defer voting under this item until voting time. We now move on to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

I call for a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 39 against, and therefore amendment 2 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, against 29, and therefore amendment 3 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 29 against, and therefore amendment 4 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, against 29, and therefore amendment 5 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, none against, and therefore amendment 6 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 50, no abstentions, none against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.