Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, and the first question is from Dai Lloyd.

International connectivity and selling Wales to the world is a key theme addressed in our national strategy ‘Prosperity for All’.

Thank you very much for that comprehensive response. Naturally, Cardiff Airport is exceptionally important in our efforts to link Wales to the rest of the world. Whilst Qatar Airways will be establishing a new direct service to Doha next year, there is an absence of services to other key locations across the world—North America, for example. Would you therefore be willing to consider creating a national airline company, let’s call it ‘Ken Skates Airlines International’, or an alternative model of governmental support to fill the gap that exists because of the unwillingness of the private sector to provide these services to these important locations?

Can I thank Dai Lloyd for his question and his kind suggestion, although I think my surname is probably better attributed to a different form of transport than flight? I’d like to pay tribute actually to the entire team at Cardiff Airport for the excellent work that’s being undertaken in promoting that particular facility and in establishing new routes. I think the new route that’s going to operate direct to Doha opens up Wales to the world. We’ve looked in the past, I believe, at the establishment of a national airline and found that the cost of establishing one could be prohibitive. However, it’s certainly something that I’m willing to give further consideration to. It’s my belief, however, at the same time, that Cardiff Airport is already doing an excellent job in attracting new routes and new operators to the facility, and I hope to have more news on that in the coming years.

I look forward to travelling on ‘Skates Air’. I think there’s probably a niche in the market for you there, Ken. [Laughter.] You’ve put me off my train of thought now. It’s clearly been disappointing, Cabinet Secretary, that air passenger duty hasn’t been devolved to this place, and before you say, ‘Well, it’s your Government’, I’m aware of that, and we will continue to press for the case for air passenger duty to be devolved so that we have that important tool in the toolbox. Will you also do the same to make sure that, at the same time as we get stamp duty devolved, and landfill tax and income tax, we also have vital economic tools, such as APD, so that we can really get on with the job of improving the economy in Wales?

Can I thank Nick Ramsay for his question and say that I agree entirely with him?

Our national strategy, ‘Prosperity for All’, sets out our ambition for an economy that delivers individual and national prosperity, one that reduces inequalities and grows wealth and well-being in the aggregate, where people can fulfil their ambitions and enhance their well-being, and secure sustainable employment.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The issue of modern working practices and wider questions about how we structure our labour market are hugely important. Chwarae Teg have noticed that the Taylor review, and the creation of the Fair Work Commission, help to change the nature of the debate around work and our ever-changing labour market. It’s crucial that we don’t miss the opportunity to ensure that secure, flexible and well-paid employment is available to all. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that we need to collate and have access to more data on the gig economy in Wales in order to maximise the benefits and minimise the disadvantages to the people of Wales?

Can I thank the Member for her question and say that I do welcome the work of the Taylor review, although, of course, the recommendations appear to stop short of the strengthened enforcement of legislation needed to prevent exploitation of low-paid workers. With regard to what could be beneficial, and the enhancement of data on the gig economy, to help us understand the nature and impact of this on the Welsh economy, I think that it’s important that we go on working with the Office for National Statistics, and other parts of the UK, to consider how best the data can be captured. I can inform the Member that officials are part of a group that was set up to look at scoping out analytical needs and methods of measuring the gig economy, which is an issue right across the UK, but which has particular significance for us here in Wales. And, clearly, given the nature of the gig economy, the insight and new sources of data available through the data science campus could well play a very important role.

Cabinet Secretary, the growth of the gig economy and the rise in non-standard working practices has created problems for significant numbers of workers and has tested the limits of existing labour market protections. It is also a problem for employers, who struggle with this regulatory and tax system, designed for formal and reliable employment. The UK Government set up the Taylor review, headed by Matthew Taylor, a former senior advisor to Tony Blair, to look into the employment practices in the modern economy, and its recommendations are subject to consultation. What study has the Cabinet Secretary made of the Taylor review, and will he take it into account when forming employment rights and responsibility in Wales? Thank you.

Well, I think I answered much of the Member’s question when I responded to Jayne Bryant, by saying that I do welcome the Taylor review. However, I do think the UK Government now needs to move at speed in responding to the recommendations. And, as I also said to the Member, I do feel that the recommendations appear to have stopped short of where they should have gone to. The recent decision, though, by the Supreme Court that tribunal fees introduced by the UK Government in 2013 are unlawful I think is a positive step to improve access to justice for those who have been subject to unlawful employment practices. I should say that work within Wales, in terms of procurement within the public sector, and in terms of the work that the First Minister has led on, on fair work, I think is important. It takes us ahead of much of the UK in ensuring that we have fair working practices across the economy.

Working in the gig economy suits some workers—it always has suited some workers, probably always will. But I’d suggest that the majority are not in the gig economy out of choice. What they’re actually getting in reality is no job security, no ability to budget. I’m sure you agree with me on all those things. The UK Government has identified the problem as being a reduction in the tax take, and Philip Hammond recently came out with a statement that he was going to readjust the tax regime to find more effective ways of taxing these workers. Personally, I think they’re completely ignoring the real problem. So, what representations have you made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to increasing the growth of secure employment, rather than focusing on the tax take?

I’d agree with the Member that, for some people, the gig economy may offer attractions. But, for the majority, I think it’s probably an insecure, uncertain environment in which to earn a living. And my problem isn’t so much with the tax take; that’s clearly an issue for UK Treasury. My problem is with the impact that the gig economy is having on the collective well-being and mental health of the nation, and the health of the economy as a whole. We’ve been very clear within Welsh Government that we need to have a proper living wage, that we need to embrace and enhance the best employment practices that take place, and work is therefore ongoing to explore embedding employment practices within the sustainable development charter across the economy. It’s our view, and it’s captured within ‘Prosperity for All’, that we should ensure that there is wealth, health and well-being for all people in Wales, and that access to employment should be on the basis of sustainable employment and secure employment.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I make no apologies for the fact that I have raised the theme of my question a number of times before in this Chamber, because I believe it is fundamentally important if we are to expand the economy of Wales. We have heard recently the criticism of the levels of grants, as opposed to loans, that the Government has advanced to companies since 2010, together with the allegations that it gave loans to companies that subsequently failed. We in UKIP acknowledge that the Welsh Government is in the high-risk sector when making decisions with regard to advancing these moneys, whether in the form of grants or loans, in that it is a given fact that it aims to fill gaps where high-street banks have declined to be involved. Can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that, despite some unavoidable setbacks, the Welsh Government will continue to invest heavily in the business sector? And I promise not to mention the circuit of Wales here.

Can I thank the Member for his question and say, yes, we will go on investing in business in Wales—businesses that provide work opportunities for tens and hundreds of thousands of people in our communities. Our support since 2011 has provided work for 185,000 people. In the last Assembly period, it was 150,000 jobs that we created and supported through helping businesses to grow and expand. And the Member raises the important point about business failure. Well, I think I’ve already stated in this Chamber before, but I’m happy to write to Members again with the data, that the proportion of companies that failed was lower amongst those that we’d supported than in the entire economy. I think that demonstrates that whilst, yes, there were losses and there were failures, by and large, our support has acted as an enabler for growth in the economy. And it’s as a consequence of this that we can now with some confidence say that we have a sustained low unemployment rate that goes way beneath what we experienced in the 1990s and the early 2000s, and that’s as a consequence of pursuing every possibility to grow the economy and create jobs.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that assurance. Can I now ask how the Cabinet Secretary intends to make sure that funding for start-ups, particularly in the innovative sector, is readily accessible, especially once the Wales development bank begins to operate?

Well, the Member pictures there the important role that the development bank of Wales will have in almost doubling the amount of finance that’s available to small and medium-sized enterprises. I’m pleased that, this week, I received the location strategy for the bank to operate right across Wales, giving easy access to all SMEs. And I also believe that the role of the innovation programme, Be the Spark, will be critically important in driving innovation-led entrepreneurialism throughout the economy, bringing together different stakeholders so that we can all work together in creating a strong tech-based and innovation-driven economy that’s based on strong foundations.

Well, again, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his assurances, but one of my constituents who is seeking funding for a very innovative product with huge commercial potential was recently told by a Business Wales representative that the product was insufficiently developed for funds to be made available. This hardly seems to be in accord with the Government’s affirmed policy to be involved in the innovative sector. Could the Cabinet Secretary give us some idea as to what the Welsh Government means by ‘innovative’, given that, if it is innovative, it may well not be fully developed?

I think it’s important that plans are at the point of being able to be realised, and I’d certainly welcome further detail about the particular example that the Member raises. There are support forms from Business Wales and also innovation vouchers that could be applicable to the particular case that the Member raises, but if he writes to me, I’m sure I can give it further consideration. Generally, through our support for business and entrepreneurship, through Business Wales and through initiatives such as Be the Spark, we now have more active businesses in Wales than ever before. That’s surely good for the economy, but we also need to have a dynamic economy where we have a constant dynamic that delivers new enterprises as exiting enterprises die.

Llefarydd Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Unlike David Rowlands, I cannot promise not to mention the Circuit of Wales. On Friday, in a written statement to this Assembly in relation to the publication of the due diligence conducted on that project, Cabinet Secretary, you said that,

In relation to the fit and proper person test report, we have been unable to publish either in full or in summary because Michael Carrick has not yet consented to its release’.

Could you tell us when a copy of this report, either in full or in summary, was first sent to the Heads of the Valleys Development Company and its principals with a request for their consent to its publication?

Yes, I’d like to respond comprehensively with the time frame for all Members today. Michael Carrick was provided with a redacted copy of the Grant Thornton corporate intelligence report, which is the fit-and-proper-person test, in May of this year. He then wrote to the Welsh Government on 30 May, setting out his observation that the report contained areas of concern for him and his colleagues. On 1 September this year, Michael Carrick, as chief executive officer of Heads of the Valleys Development Company, again wrote to Welsh Government stating that, and I quote, as regards the corporate intelligence report—which is the fit-and-proper-person test—which focused on individuals, they would emphasise that this not be released.

Now, I made it clear in my statement last week in relation to the fit-and-proper-person test report, we have been unable to publish either in full or in summary because Michael Carrick has not yet consented to its release. Following publication of the due diligence documents last Friday, Welsh Government wrote again to Michael Carrick on 6 October with a further copy of the redacted report, and asked again if he would consider the matter and advise whether he was content for the Welsh Government to make this material publicly available. I can share with the Member and, indeed, all Members in this Chamber the following information: Martin Whitaker, the chief executive of Circuit of Wales, responded and made it clear on Monday 9 October that, ‘Our position remains unchanged in that we decline any consent for the release of the report.’ He also said, ‘We refers to the Head of the Valleys Development Company, Aventa and all of the individuals mentioned and referred to in the report.’

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that report. The company in the letter that he referred to contests what he has just said, and I’m sure they will respond in due course. They maintain that a redacted copy of the report was only made available to them at 5.16 p.m. on Friday evening after the statement was made to the Assembly.

While we’re on the subject of the publication of information in relation to the Circuit of Wales, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary about the leaking of confidential information held by your department to the ‘Western Mail’? Is he able now to update the Assembly on the leak inquiry that has been conducted?

This is not a matter that I am leading on; this is a matter for the Permanent Secretary, and I’m sure that she’ll be making all of her observations known in due course.

On 7 July, Cabinet Secretary, you told me in a written reply that you did not expect that civil servants were involved in the leaking of this information, and I believe that has now been confirmed by the Permanent Secretary. On 14 August, you told me that you were satisfied that special advisers were not responsible for the leaking of this information. That doesn’t leave many people left in the frame, Cabinet Secretary, so can I ask you simply this: do you know who leaked the information?

No, and what about the company itself? I would say to the Member that I recognise, given his unusual pursuit of this matter over a length of time, that he feels personally hurt by the outcome, because he’s staked all of his credibility on this particular project. And after performing the biggest u-turn since the dawn of devolution last week, you’ve shot to pieces your credibility on the economy. Two weeks ago, you were writing to all local authority leaders urging them to back this particular plan—

Answer the question that I asked you.

[Continues.]—to back this plan. And then within a week you’d gone on to say, ‘No, the management needs to change, the plan needs to change, the funding system needs to change.’ After spinning like a whirlpool one week, you then went and jack-knifed like a juggernaut the next. I mean this when I say it: you’ve got a lot to offer this Assembly and it’s no good shooting your own credibility down in the way that you just have done. [Interruption.]

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Russell George. [Interruption.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, if a family of four from the north-west of England were thinking of going on holiday to either Colwyn Bay or Morecambe Bay, perhaps hotels and facilities very similar, and one of those was charging a tourism tax, which one do you think that that family would choose?

They’d choose the best location, in my view, and that best location is Wales.

Well, what I’d say, Cabinet Secretary, is that yesterday we heard the First Minister offering his avid support for a tourism tax here in Wales. The introduction of a tourism tax may well have the desired effect in countries that have low sales taxes, but in Wales where the full rate of value added tax is charged on accommodation, on meals and attractions, an additional tourism tax will in effect mean that the visitor pays twice. Slovakia is the only other country in Europe that charges a tourism tax while not having a reduced rate of VAT for accommodation businesses. So, is it your wish, Cabinet Secretary, that we should follow Slovakia’s lead? And also, your colleague Mark Drakeford has said that he wants to encourage behavioural change through the tax system. How do you think a tourism tax would change behaviour?

Well, first of all, if we look at the rate of VAT at the moment here in Wales, it’s charged at 20 per cent. In Paris, VAT is charged at 10 per cent. In Berlin, it’s charged at 7 per cent. In Barcelona, it’s charged at 10 per cent. I would urge the Welsh Conservatives to support this Government’s campaign, which has run for some time, I acknowledge, but which has fallen on deaf ears at UK Treasury, to reduce the level of VAT. The big difference between a local levy and VAT is that a local levy could be retained within that area to enhance the place that people wish to visit. It’s a local levy designed to improve the tourism offer. VAT goes to central finance in London and does not always find its way into those areas of Wales and Britain that need to be enhanced for the visitor economy.

Well, I wonder what the tourism industry would make of your answer. What I would ask is: what consultation have you done and conducted with the tourism industry or, indeed, were you actually consulted on this by your Cabinet colleagues at all as well? I have to say, the British Hospitality Association has said that a tourism tax will, and I quote,

undermine business sustainability, investment and…our employment plans’,

as well as

be handing an unfair advantage to our competitors in England.’

The BHA, the Wales Tourism Alliance and MWT Cymru, and many other experts across the industry, have said that the prospect of introducing a tourism tax will harm Wales’s competitiveness and heap additional pressure on an industry that already pays tourism VAT and has seen increases in business rates. A day visitor to Wales already spends £17 per head less than in Scotland, £5 less per head than visitors to England. A tourism tax will deter them from visiting and spending here even further. In 2004, an inquiry was undertaken by Sir Michael Lyons that concluded that there was not a strong evidence base to support the introduction of a tourism tax. The Labour UK Government agreed. So, will you now take the opportunity to follow the advice from the industry and rule out the introduction of a tourism tax to provide the industry with the certainty that it needs?

I’d like to thank the Member for his question. He’s offered comprehensive analysis of the potential impact of the tourism levy. He’s not yet provided though a comprehensive analysis of the benefits. As part of the consultation and consideration of this particular proposal, we will now undertake a consultation exercise that will encompass all elements of an evidence-gathering exercise. We need to establish the potential benefits and, of course, the potential consequences of a tourism levy, and I commit to engaging fully with the sector in analysing the potential benefits and the potential costs of that particular initiative. This is one of four that are being considered. Each and every one of those proposals will take time to assess, but I do commit to working with the sector.

Yes. ‘Prosperity for All’ frames our actions to grow our economy and spread opportunity. The economic action plan that will support the delivery of ‘Prosperity for All’ will be published this autumn.

That’s excellent news; we’ve all been looking forward to that because the UK Government’s austerity measures have meant that, at local authority level, we’ve seen a 65 per cent reduction in the money in economic development departments, a 45 per cent reduction in planning departments. Because of that massive reduction at local authority level, I just wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what communication he’s had with local government in drawing up those plans and also his communications with the private sector who are going to be key to driving this new model forward.

The Member is right that partnership will be crucial in ensuring that our focus on regional and place-based economic development is a success. Last week, I was delighted to meet with economic development leaders and with lead officials from across local authorities in Wales to discuss the proposals. I was also pleased last week to meet with Menter a Busnes to discuss the proposals that Welsh Government has for regional working. Today, I’m pleased to be able to inform Members that Welsh Government is appointing three deputy directors to lead in those respective regions. It’s going to be absolutely imperative that all local authorities work together on a regional basis to enhance the economic development provision within their collective area. We will play a part in that process as well by having deputy directors and regional units operating in tandem and in alliance with local government.

I think it’s essential that we look at the distinctive strengths of each of the regions and also that we tackle the regional inequalities that have persisted too long in Wales. I also think that infrastructure, both physical and digital, plays a critical role in developing the economy across all communities. That’s why I’m pleased with regard, specifically, to the region that the Member represents, that we are taking forward a pinch-points programme for road infrastructure, that the TrawsCymru free weekend provision is proving incredibly popular, and that, through reforms to local bus services, through the new franchise for Wales and the borders, we will be enhancing connectivity across Wales and in the area that the Member represents—Mid and West Wales.

One benefit for my region, of course, is the Swansea bay city region deal, which will bring £1.3 billion into the economy, if it’s a success, and I think that’s a matter of interest for you as economy Secretary as well as for the local government Secretary, of course. Like last year, we’ve spent several months trying to convene a meeting between Assembly Members and the acting board, just for an update and to see how we might be able to help, as Assembly Members, but we heard last week that the governance arrangements for the city deal have still not yet been completed. In advance of our meeting, could you confirm what expectations you and the local government Secretary have about when those governance arrangements should be done by?

As soon as possible. I have also written to the Secretary of State for Wales, asking whether Assembly Members and also Members of Parliament can be engaged in the process of influencing and scrutinising the respective work of the city and growth regions. I think it’s imperative that elected Members in both Parliaments and at a local level have a fair say over what projects should be taking part as part of their respective deals. For our part, we are pressing hard for each of the deals to be game-changing and to invest in strategic priorities that transcend parochial and institutional bias, and focus on the future economies of the regions, rather than individual interests.

We are moving forward with our ambitious vision to reshape public transport infrastructure and services across Wales, including local bus services, rail services through the next Wales and borders franchise, active travel, investments in our strategic road network and the south-east Wales metro project, which will act as a catalyst for integrated transport across Wales.

The Rhondda Fach in my constituency is an area that has been poorly served in terms of transport links. It’s got a bypass that stops halfway up the valley and no rail links. People, particularly those living in the northern-most communities, feel cut off and let down. That’s a sentiment that has been exacerbated by a recent bombshell that they could lose the Rhondda Fach Sports Centre as a result of council cuts. Following Plaid Cymru’s budget negotiations with your Labour Government, you now have an opportunity to start to right these wrongs. We insisted that an extension of the south Wales metro into the Fach would be explored. University College London, in a study called, ‘Transport and Poverty’, suggested that improved public transport can have a positive impact on GDP levels. Boosting the local economy of the Rhondda, I’m sure you will agree, is something that is very much needed, so will you give us an undertaking to look seriously into this matter with a view to delivering, for the people of the Rhondda Fach, a transport system that is worthy of the twenty-first century?

Our vision for the metro in south-east Wales is better connected communities right across the region. The metro must be designed in a way that meets the needs of Valleys communities first and foremost, that brings better jobs closer to people’s homes. I will commit to looking at the particular issue that the Member raises. The design of the metro and the procurement of the franchise are such that we should be able to allow for extendable services, and I look forward to being able to offer new, more reliable services to Valleys communities as we roll out not just the franchise, but specifically, an enhanced metro service. I would also like to offer any support that the Member may wish to seek regarding the future of the sports centre that was mentioned. I do, in my own constituency, have a very good example of a social enterprise that took over a community centre and leisure centre that was at risk from closure, and I’d be happy to share information and contacts with her particular leisure centre.

During my meeting—[Inaudible.]—with community transport providers in Flintshire, they told me that, after they resisted pressure to take on some commercial routes, the council had commissioned some pilot schemes from commercial providers that they felt would not be viable once the pilots ended. They also told me that the Welsh Government had set up transport for health groups in each region of Wales, but the north Wales transport for health group hadn’t met since May 2016, to look at all transport-to-healthcare provision in the region, and that the Welsh Government had not reconvened the meetings at that point. What action are you taking to address these concerns?

I’ll happily reconvene the transport for health group as soon as possible, as soon as members are able to meet. I think it’s absolutely essential that we consult with as many stakeholders as possible as we design the next franchise, and make sure that communities across Wales are better connected. So, I give my undertaking to reconvene that particular group on behalf of the Member and with the Member.

Can I talk about integrated public transport systems? In far too many areas, we have buses and we have trains, but the bus comes in at a different time to the train going out, and also we have a situation where buses park some distance away from the train. In my own constituency of Swansea East, for example, we’ve got Llansamlet station, but the bus stops a couple of hundred yards away around the corner on another road. What can be done to improve the rail-bus interchanges so that people can use public transport for the whole of their journey, rather than put them in a car first? And, when you put them in a car first, there’s a real danger that, once they’ve driven a certain distance, they just keep on going.

Well, there are three things that need to be done: (1) we need to make sure that interchanges are planned in the right way, and already we are committing work in certain areas of Wales that will see enhanced interchanges. For example, I announced recently work that is afoot in Llanwern. In Wrexham and in Deeside, and right across the metro Valleys regions, we’re looking at where interchanges can offer seamless travel between one mode of transport and another. But the other work that needs to be done concerns integrated ticketing, and through-ticketing. That can be achieved through Transport for Wales leading on the procurement of the next franchise and potentially taking on more functions in the future. The third area of work that needs to be addressed concerns the schedules of bus and rail operators, making sure that you don’t have to wait around for too long before you move from one mode of transport to the next.

Now, I do think that, in the City and County of Swansea, a good degree of work is already being undertaken with regard to integrated transport. We provided £1.1 million for the Morfa distributor road, £453,000 for the business case work for infrastructure enhancements along Fabian Way, £115,000, as I know the Member has warmly welcomed, to develop the outline concept for the south-west Wales metro, and, of course, £65,000 for the Kingsbridge link scheme. This is in addition to the considerable funding that we’ve made available through the local transport network fund, which aims to ensure that there are better integrated and better quality public transport services in Swansea and in the wider region.

Question 5 [(OAQ51140)] was withdrawn. Question 6, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I’m delighted that the national library is holding an event here at the Senedd on 18 October to celebrate the tercentenary of William Williams, and the First Minister will be taking part. Most of our cultural celebrations are developed in partnership and I am happy to discuss possible support for events that others may wish to put forward.

William Williams Pantycelyn is one of the most prominent figures of Wales, there’s no doubt about that, not just because of his contribution to the Methodist reformation and the over 900 hymns that he wrote, many of them among the most popular today still, but also he made a huge contribution towards the cultural and educational development of Wales. He modernised the Welsh language, was one of the first to write in Welsh against slavery in America; he was also very prominent in insisting that women should have the same rights as men in marriage and so on. The Welsh Government made huge efforts and carried out huge campaigns to mark the hundredth anniversary of the births of Roald Dahl and Dylan Thomas, and I do compare that, with all due respect, and look at it in a very different way in terms of this celebration at this Parliament, in this Assembly, in partnership with the national library, much as I welcome that event. A precedent has been set through the Roald Dahl and Dylan Thomas celebrations for truly celebrating some of the giants of our nation. More than 1,200 people have signed a petition asking for real investment in this. Does the Welsh Government agree that Pantycelyn too deserves real investment in his commemoration given his influence on Welsh culture and life?

Yes, I do, and that’s why I’m saddened that, to date, no organisation or group of individuals has approached the Welsh Government with ideas or proposals on ways to commemorate the three-hundredth anniversary. Now, I should say, in contrast to what the Member actually stated, we did not organise the celebrations for Roald Dahl and Dylan Thomas; they were organised and initiated by partners. We invested in them, we acted as the enablers. Could I urge the Member, if he is aware of any form of celebration or a fitting tribute to this three-hundredth anniversary, to please bring forward—? As I’ve said on numerous occasions to Members, please bring forward those plans. Our thematic years, and this year is the Year of Legends, are designed to celebrate people from Wales, events in Wales, and it would be incredibly helpful if we could bring forward more innovative ideas to celebrate the people and the past of Wales.

I’m very pleased to hear, Cabinet Secretary, that we’re knocking at an open door in terms of wanting to commemorate this very celebrated Welsh hymn writer. Can I make a suggestion to you that one fitting tribute might be a statue here in Cardiff Bay to celebrate this national hero, and, alongside it, perhaps, a statue of Ann Griffiths, who was the famous female Welsh hymn writer, who also is associated with the nonconformist history here in Wales? I think that a statue of this incredible duo, who are amazingly inspirational, even until this day, would be fitting tributes to them both. And, of course, in this three-hundredth year, I can think of no better way to mark this special occasion.

Well, I’d agree with the Member wholeheartedly. It would be fantastic to also have a statue of Ann Griffiths. I may be wrong, Members may wish to correct me, but I’m not aware of any statue dedicated to a woman in Wales, anywhere in our country, and that is something that we should be deeply regretful of. I would urge the Member to speak with my officials—I’ll facilitate it. What’s crucial is that we identify a delivery partner out there who could deliver this, but I would be more than willing to consider funding such a proposal through the same funding source that has helped to celebrate Dylan Thomas and Roald Dahl.

Sustainability is a key consideration for all my decisions on transport, including our investment in public transport services. The south Wales metro will be an exemplar of sustainable and integrated transport and it will act as a blueprint for the future of transport right across Wales.

I agree that the south Wales metro would indeed be an exemplar of sustainable development. Unfortunately, we have yet to be able to identify the funding for it. You’ll be aware of the correspondence with the future generations commissioner about the importance of taking into consideration our very own the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 when determining what constitutes sustainable development. She emphasises the importance of taking account of all four pillars of well-being and the five ways of working and that all decisions have to improve economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being. In light of the proposal for an M4 relief road, which had been round the track for many, many years, long before the future generations Act, how do you think the new future generations Act has changed your approach to this proposal?

Well, in terms of the future generations Act, it’s incredibly important that we take full account of the ways of working and the aspirations contained within that legislation. I can give the Member a number of examples of the way in which we have shaped policy and shaped delivery in light of the Act. For example, the refreshed Wales transport strategy will take full account of the well-being of future generations Act. In addition, the Welsh transport appraisal guidance 17 is being shaped in the face of the Act and has been welcomed by the future generations commissioner. The Member will be aware of the free weekend travel on the TrawsCymru network, which was designed with a view of enhancing and improving the availability of transport so that we can get modal shift away from cars. That is about a long-term change in behaviour through a short-term pilot scheme that would deliver great benefits, and so far the results are pretty astonishing.

We’re also looking at investing, as the Member is also aware, £100 million in an automotive technology park in Ebbw Vale, where there will be a particular focus on low-carbon, autonomous and connected and intelligent vehicles—again with an eye on future generations. And, also, I’ve asked officials to look at retaining a percentage of road infrastructure spend on new projects specifically for the purpose of enhancing the active travel.

I agree with the Member. I think use of the future generations Act is an important way of assessing the various options before us. The three routes to alleviate congestion of the M4 at Newport, it seems to me, do lend themselves to this sort of approach and that comparative analysis, because we need to do something, would be very, very helpful.

Absolutely. As I say, there are numerous examples of how we are shaping policy in light of the future generations Act. I can’t comment on the latest development concerning the M4, because we do have statutory procedures that are ongoing, but I welcome the commissioner’s engagement in the debate about the M4 relief road. I think it’s absolutely imperative that every stakeholder and every person in Wales gets to have a say on what is, I recognise, a controversial proposal, but one that we believe is necessary in order to free up the economy of south Wales.

We actively support Welsh businesses to trade with other Welsh businesses through our Business Wales and Sell2Wales services. We also hold supply chain events where Welsh businesses can identify alternative suppliers, including other Welsh businesses.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. Whilst it will always be vitally important to Welsh jobs that our businesses can supply businesses overseas, to export and to serve global supply chains, we should also, as he indicated in his answer, encourage Welsh businesses to trade with one another and to maximise the economic value in Wales and in our regional economies. What is the Cabinet Secretary’s confidence that the identity of Welsh businesses and their capacity to supply one another is understood by the Welsh Government, or, more importantly, by those trading businesses themselves? How does he respond to the Federation of Small Businesses’s call, last week, to undertake a mapping exercise of Welsh-headquartered firms so that we have a better picture of the capacity of Welsh businesses to trade with one another and to identify gaps in supply chains that Welsh Government can then support those businesses to fill to the benefit of Welsh firms, the Welsh economy, and the Welsh workforce?

Well, I’d like to thank the Member for his question and the observations that he makes, and for referring to the important contribution of the Federation of Small Businesses last week. I’m pleased to say that, today, we’re able to announce further expansion of an important company in south Wales: Maesteg-based Talgarth Bakery is set to move to new premises as a consequence of Welsh Government assistance, and that will create and secure dozens of jobs—another example of how Welsh Government support is acting as an enabler for growth.

Now, the principle of increasing collaboration and connectivity across businesses, academia and key stakeholders has been embedded in the anchor and key influencer network. This initiative has delivered an interactive innovation hub map and facilitated easier communication between key pillars of the Welsh economy. The network also works closely with Be The Spark and with anchors and other companies making pledges to strengthen innovative entrepreneurship in Wales.

I think another practical example of how we are working with supply chains to tier 1 companies might be the work that’s taking place with regard to Vauxhall Motors in the north and the entire automotive supply chain in north Wales, where we know there are opportunities with, particularly, the potential Astra replacement, given that currently only about 20 per cent of the products for that particular vehicle are sourced from within the region. There are huge opportunities for the supply chain, and that’s why we’re focusing on strengthening the supply chain, not just there, but right across Wales, for other sectors as well.

Yesterday, Cabinet Secretary, there was a huge pile-up on the M4, and one of the things, for business, vital to success is moving its people and its goods around a particular area, indeed around a country. This summer, the traffic jams on the M4 have been literally horrendous, and the loss to industry and the loss to all sections of society by those blockages have caused huge problems. What assessment has your department made of the measures that are in place, where suitable, to be deployed in a timely manner so that traffic can be put on the move again quickly, rather than see the 16-mile tailbacks that we saw yesterday? I appreciate where there have been fatalities or serious injuries then police investigations have to take place, but there has to be a solution to some of these problems in the hands of Traffic Wales, about the way they manage incidents on the motorway.

The Member identifies a particularly tragic case from yesterday. I’m sure all of our thoughts are with those who were involved in this particular incident. The Member was also right to draw attention to the fact that it is the emergency services that determine how long a period is required for work to be carried out. Nonetheless, I do believe that there is an important focus to be made on constantly improving the resilience of our trunk road network, and responding as quickly as possible to incidents such as this. I will be publishing this month the resilience study into the A55, which identifies relatively easy, I hope, and relatively quick delivery systems that can improve the resilience of that trunk road, and potentially then be deployed elsewhere.

We’ve long recognised the significant economic benefits and the opportunities for Wales with the removal of the tolls. This would boost productivity in Wales by approximately £100 million a year.

Does the Cabinet Secretary agree we should invest more in rail as well as road to drive that economic development? Since new stations at Llanwern and St Mellons will change the pattern of mainline services, does he agree a new station at Magor could complement this? With campaigners meeting the Department for Transport and Network Rail tomorrow, will he consider matching the £80,000 that they and Monmouthshire council have already raised to complete a GRIP 3 assessment and potentially unlock Network Rail investment?

Can I thank the Member for his question and recognise the consistent approach that he’s had to removing the tolls on the Severn bridge? I think that he’s been right to campaign for the removal of the tolls because they have of course enabled us to have tariff-free access to a significant market. It is quite ironic, though, that the Member campaigned for the removal of Britain from a tariff-free market, that is, the EU single market. However, we are working with partners across the border to identify maximum benefit following removal of the tolls, both in terms of the highway network and in terms of the rail network.

The Member already identified the investment at Llanwern. We’re looking to improve stations across Wales, but ultimately it requires a commitment from UK Government to improve on the 1.5 per cent of funding that has been provided in the current control period for the best part of 11 per cent of the rail network across England and Wales. It’s absolutely essential that the Department for Transport listens sympathetically to the campaign group from Magor, and I know that there are other campaign groups across Wales that would wish to see service enhancements and enhancements to their infrastructure. I welcome any opportunity to assist in the development of proposals to enhance stations. Indeed, I’ve met with the campaign group that the Member outlines. I’d be willing to meet with other campaign groups. But ultimately it comes down to one fact: we do not have the devolution responsibility and funding for rail infrastructure, and until such a date as we do, it comes down to UK Government to provide the money.

And finally, Jenny Rathbone.

I think that the Member raises an important issue here. I’m quite concerned to read that the Department for Transport expects this lifting of the toll to increase traffic by somewhere between 28 and 45 per cent over the next 10 years, and the savings of £1,400 a year for commuters mean that it’s more likely that even more people are going to be piling into Cardiff by car when we don’t have the alternative public transport solutions available. No £1,400 has been given to encourage more people onto the rail and bus services, and we are talking about something that could actually make our capital city a total nightmare.

And for that reason it’s essential that we plan transport holistically and that we do not see transport modes in isolation but as part of an overall package of responses to what is an increasingly mobile world. I think the figure, if we were to maximise the capacity on the metro—the maximum figure that we could remove from the M4 would be about 4 per cent of existing traffic. I’ll correct myself if that’s wrong. But, the fact is that we need to ensure that the M4 is fit for purpose now that the tolls are going to be removed. The M4 was built at a time when it was a bypass rather than a motorway. It requires urgent work. But I await the outcome of the public local inquiry before making a decision.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General. The first question—Simon Thomas.

It is not my intention to make statements about discussions I have had with law officers or to disclose the content of any such discussions. This is an established convention designed to preserve the confidentiality of those discussions and the relationship between law officers.

Thank you for that usual response. I hope, as the Member for Pontypridd, you could join with me in welcoming and congratulating a Pontypridd boy, David Lloyd Jones, on his appointment to the Supreme Court. He took his oath in Welsh in the Supreme Court, which was also to be welcomed, and I think you were there to witness that.

There are two things emerging from the fact that David Lloyd Jones is now a member of the Supreme Court. First of all, is this a solution to the question as to whether there should be a permanent Welsh representative at the Supreme Court? At the moment that isn’t assured to us in legislation nor in convention, but, of course, a person is in place now. So, what are you doing, as Counsel General, to move forward to ensure that this is a right? Because I believe that Wales should have the right to have a member of the Supreme Court.

Secondly, I noted that David Lloyd Jones, as part of the process of appointment, had called recently in Swansea for a Welsh institute of law, which would promote awareness of the law. Have you had any discussions—perhaps this is something that you could reveal to the Assembly—with David Lloyd Jones and others on this concept?

Firstly, I thank you very much for the question, and yes, I very much do welcome the appointment of David Lloyd Jones as the first Welsh judge of the Supreme Court, and the first Supreme Court judge to take his oath in Welsh and in English. I’m particular pleased about the fact that he is a citizen originally from Pontypridd, and so the development is extremely welcome. He is certainly a judge who has a considerable reputation, a considerable knowledge of Welsh law and matters relating to the Welsh language, and fulfils that function, I think, very, very satisfactorily.

Of course, you’ll be aware that we have made representations over the years in respect of the need for a permanent Welsh judge on the Supreme Court. By ‘Welsh judge’, I suppose you have to mean a judge who has a commitment to and an understanding of, and a knowledge of, the interests of Wales and the judicial process and the laws of Wales.

I see this as a first step. My view is that I think we are on the way to the whole issue of legislative change, eventually, which will require a permanent position. At the moment, of course, it is complicated, as you know, because of the way the law exists in terms of representation of all parts of the UK—by reference to jurisdictions—and we are still part of the England and Wales jurisdiction. But as we’ve discussed on many occasions, there is considerable movement as a result of the devolution process. Our representations still stand in respect of the need for a permanent judge and for legislative change to achieve that. But I believe very much that we are halfway there.

And, yes, it was a great pleasure for me to be there at the swearing in, because this was a symbolic occasion, but it was also an extremely important Welsh symbolic occasion and marks an important milestone in the development of the Welsh jurisdiction and Welsh law.

The Sewel convention plays a fundamental role in the operation of the UK’s devolved constitution. The UK Government has recognised that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will require the consent of the National Assembly in accordance with the convention.

So, would the Counsel General agree with me that, if they were to try and undermine that need to consult with us and to indeed get our consent to this Bill on parts that were relevant to the devolution settlement, this could indeed provoke some kind of constitutional crisis for the Welsh Assembly?

You make a very valid point. Of course, the issue of the Sewel convention was something that was considered during the article 50 case by the Supreme Court. Of course, much of the UK constitution is, in fact, based upon convention and is very much based upon agreement. So, the first point to make, I suppose, is that it was very sad and disappointing that the Bill was introduced without any proper engagement or consultation with the Welsh Government. Certainly, if the intention is to achieve legislation that has the consent of the devolved Governments to be part of that legislative process, then advanced consultation and engagement might have avoided some of the serious constitutional issues that I think now arise.

What the Supreme Court said was that they do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. So, the Sewel Convention is extremely important and there are very serious constitutional consequences were the UK Government to seek to override that.

The anticipation and hope is, though, that there will be agreement. We support many aspects of the Bill. We support the idea of the Bill to provide clarity and certainty. We certainly disagree, though, with the approaches whereby powers that are devolved matters are to be assumed by the UK Government and then, at some stage in the future, are possibly handed back—and in what form that actually takes. For me, that is almost like a form of constitutional mugging: someone who mugs you on the street, steals your wallet, but says, ‘Don’t worry, I’ll give it back to you afterwards’. That is not the way to proceed, which is why we have actually laid down in conjunction with Scotland a series of amendments that seek to rectify that, and we hope that those amendments will be supported and will achieve the objective, because it is a way in which agreement can be reached and through which consent can then be given to the legislation from the devolved Governments.

Does the Counsel General recognise that that Supreme Court judgment cut across the previous position, as put forward by the Welsh Government and, indeed, the First Minister? I recall him in this Chamber telling us of the importance to vote for the LCM on the Wales Bill, because it would put Sewel into statute and, as in Scotland, we would benefit from having that statutory underpinning of the Sewel convention. Isn’t the reality that the Supreme Court showed that legal position to be entirely misconceived and that the convention has no more weight now that it’s in statue than it did before?

The first point is that you are totally wrong in terms of the position that the Supreme Court adopted. That was a position that we put forward and that was actually accepted by the Supreme Court, so there was no change there. It has never been our case or our argument that the Sewel convention is justiciable. The fact is that, under the Wales Act 2017, the Sewel Convention is put into statute—that is, it’s on the face of the Bill—but that does not per se make it justiciable. It is certainly the case that the issue of the Sewel convention, certainly post Brexit and post further constitutional reform, actually needs to be reviewed, because there is a very strong argument that it should be a justiciable convention. But in terms of what we argued, and in terms of what the Supreme Court held, there has been total consistency there and there is total agreement between the current constitutional analyses.

The main provisions of the Wales Act 2017, including those introducing the reserved-powers model, are expected to come into force on 1 April 2018.

Thank you, Counsel General. On 1 April, powers in respect of fixed-odds betting terminals will be devolved to the Assembly. Members here will be aware of the growing concerns over problem gambling. Can the Counsel General comment on how these powers might help tackle this growing social issue?

Well, what I can do is certainly do an analysis of what the legislation actually says, because the Wales Act provides Welsh Ministers and the Assembly with limited new powers in relation to the licensing of fixed-odds betting terminals. But, of course, those powers only relate to gaming machines, which will allow stakes of £10 or more.

There are a few more things perhaps it’s worth saying specifically on that, and it’s also worth commenting that some powers have already been transferred to the Assembly generally under the Wales Act, and, of course, there are many more that will now be transferred, as of 1 April. But specifically with regard to the fixed-odds betting terminals, the Wales Act—what it does is provide Welsh Ministers and the Assembly with limited new powers in relation to fixed-odds gaming machines, equivalent, though, to the powers provided to Scotland via the Scotland Act 2016. Fixed-odds betting machines are a category B2 of gaming machines. They’re largely located in bookmakers, but they do allow customers to stake up to £100 every 20 seconds on electronic versions of the machines. The new powers relate to premises that hold a betting premises licence, under the Gambling Act 2005. They will enable the Welsh Ministers, via regulations, and the Assembly, via an Assembly Act, to vary the number of gaming machines of a certain type, authorised under such a licence. This would include reducing the number of authorised machines to zero.

I have made representations to the Supreme Court about improving the diversity of the judiciary. I welcome very much the recent appointments of Lady Hale as president of the Supreme Court, the first ever female Supreme Court president, and Lady Black to the Supreme Court, and, as I’ve previously indicated, I also welcome the appointment of Lord Lloyd-Jones as the first Welsh Supreme Court judge.

Llywydd, the Counsel General has anticipated my question—absolutely fantastic. What steps, though, can the Welsh Government take to further enhance gender and ethnic diversity, both in the Supreme Court and in the in the sphere of legal jurisdiction as a whole?

Well, the first thing is the Supreme Court itself has, since 2015, recognised very much the issue of diversity. And the current President of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, has also said on a number of occasions that the courts have to be representative of society in general, and that they were not, and that it was important that that increasing diversity took place, in terms of gender, and in terms of race, and in terms of the background of those in the judiciary, and, really, from the lower levels of the judiciary to the most senior levels at the Supreme Court itself.

These are representations that Welsh Government itself has made, in terms of any consultations and meetings with the Judicial Appointments Commission. There are a further three appointments to the Supreme Court to take place next year, as a number of lord justices retire, and we would hope that there will be further increase in diversity in all those areas to the Supreme Court. But let us not also forget that that’s a diversity that has to occur at the lower echelons of the judiciary, at all levels. So, that is something on which we’ve made those representations. It’s something that we very much support, and I’m pleased to say that it is something that is happening. It is beginning to happen. I think a decade ago we might have thought some of these measures and steps would have been inconceivable. So, there is a significant change under way at this moment in time and we are supporting that.

Well, this question engages the law officers’ convention, as the Member will know. Nevertheless, I can say that the Welsh Government has considerable concerns with the Bill, particularly in terms of the approach it takes towards devolution. I can assure Members that the Welsh Government is working tirelessly to ensure that Wales’s position is protected.

I thank the Counsel General for his reply. Can I ask him whether he’s seen the paper published by Plaid Cymru this week on the EU withdrawal Bill, ‘The EU Withdrawal Bill—A Legal Perspective: the constitutional implications for Wales’, authored by Fflur Jones? I’d be very happy to e-mail him a copy. There are several arguments set out by Fflur Jones in this paper, two of them I’d just like to mention here. One states that

The Bill as drafted adopts a binary approach to the devolution settlement, which does not reflect the “glue” that has been EU law on that settlement, nor the shared competences that exist between the UK Government and the National Assembly for Wales’.

And she goes on also to argue that

The Bill requires significant amendment to ensure it does not erode the current devolution settlement in Wales, which is reflective of the wishes of the people of Wales as expressed in two referendums’—

sic—

on devolution.’

I think you’d have sympathy with those arguments, Counsel General, as would the Welsh Government. So, can you say a little more than your original reply on how the Welsh Government can advance these strong legal and constitutional arguments, and seek the amendments now that the Bill goes through a committee of the whole House next week, I understand?

The first thing is to thank the Member for his offer of the paper. I have looked at the paper, and I agree very much with its content and its analysis, which very much reflects, I think, also the analysis that’s been included in the statement of the First Minister to this Chamber. And I think it’s an analysis that has considerable common ground across all those within the legal profession, and the legal academics, but I think all those who are looking at the constitutional relationship and the issues around this particular Bill. It also reflects very much the considerable and detailed analysis that’s taken place in the House of Lords Constitution Committee, and, in particular, a paper that I think came out two weeks ago, which was from the House of Lords Brexit EU committee, which has made a number of similar points, and also made a number of concerns about the way in which Henry VIII powers might be used.

One of the issues, of course, that arises from there, during any transition period, is the issue of the European Court of Justice. I’ve set out my views in the past on this—that I think this is an argument that the UK Government has got totally wrong. Any international agreement, any international convention, any international arrangement, will have a disputes forum, which is effectively a judicial process. And it is disappointing to see the misrepresentations, I think, that have been made of the impact and the role of the European Court of Justice. I note also that one of the points that Baroness Hale herself has made—her first speech, in fact, as president—was the need for clarity about what exactly the UK Government is saying about the judicial process and the disputes process. Because, if the Supreme Court is confused, and believes there was a complete lack of clarity, then heaven help the rest of society in understanding exactly what is being proposed.

The amendments are the ones that are aimed, actually, to deal with the power grab, and, of course, the power grab goes at the core of the paper you referred to, and many other papers. It is a power grab that could have been avoided, I believe, by proper engagement and consultation. The positions that the Welsh Government has and the Scottish Government has are very similar. And what had been put forward are a number of what I think are very reasonable and very sensible amendments, which basically just require the consent of Welsh and Scottish Government in respect of those powers that are devolved areas of responsibility.

Now, it seems to me there is difficulty to see why that should be objectionable, but, unless those matters are addressed, it is really inconceivable that Welsh Government, that this Assembly, would pass a legislative consent motion to the repeal Bill. Obviously, the amendment process is under way, and there will no doubt be further discussions. The First Minister met with the First Secretary of State, Damian Green, last month, to discuss the Welsh Government’s concerns, and to offer suggestions to resolve the current impasse, and the Welsh Government remains willing to continue to work towards this. The First Minister is meeting again with Damian Green, I believe today, and the JMC(EN) meeting that’s planned for later this month will also provide a further opportunity for that engagement. And I hope the willingness of the Welsh Government to work responsibly with the UK Government to resolve this is something that is taken up.

Counsel General, which specific demands are you making of UK Government, and how much success have you had so far?

The demands of the Welsh Government are those that are set out in the amendments, which would actually resolve the flaws in the legislation itself. The First Minister made a very clear statement about them, and those amendments are available to be seen. They are essentially demands that just require the consent of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in those areas where there is a taking over of powers that are devolved responsibilities.

The First Minister announced on 18 September that he was setting up a commission on justice in Wales to review the justice system and policing and to consider how the system can achieve better outcomes for Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer. I know it’s the ambition of the Welsh Government to have a separate justice system in Wales. Wales has been incorporated into a fused jurisdiction for 600 years, and its history is very different, therefore, from Scotland and Ireland, including Northern Ireland. And, whilst there may come a time when there are significant divergences between the law as it applies in Wales and in England, we’re a very long way from that as yet, and therefore it would be important, if we’re going to keep the costs of the law in proportion, to proceed slowly in this respect. And in particular insofar as the regulation of the legal profession is concerned, does the Counsel General agree with me that it is certainly premature to think of splitting off the regulation of solicitors or members of the Bar—and I declare an interest as a member of the Bar myself, in this respect—from the one that currently exists in the jurisdiction of England and Wales?

The first thing is, in terms of the ambition for a separate justice system, which you referred to, the ambition actually is related to the proper and most effective administration of justice. One of the complications, as I’ve said before, over the arguments over a separate jurisdiction are that it has almost achieved some sort of philosophical and catechismal status. A jurisdiction is really just an area where you have laws being made, and having one jurisdiction when there was just one parliament making law made sense; where you have another parliament making laws, it’s important that the system for the administration of justice actually reflects that.

You make a valid point in respect of the scale of that, the extent, but of course the extent of divergence is not just in terms of the legislation we pass, but also the legislation that is passed in England as well that doesn’t apply to Wales. One of the ways of looking at this, which was, in fact, referred to some while back was a distinct jurisdiction. That is, not about taking over the judiciary, taking over the courts, the buildings, the personnel, but purely a system whereby you ensure that, if a case involves Welsh law, it is heard in Wales by judges and with lawyers and advocates who actually understand Welsh law. So that, I think, is the correct framework within which to look at that.

In terms of regulation per se and the regulatory bodies for lawyers and, of course, the many non-lawyers who now work within legal services and the broader legal profession, I don’t think there’s ever been any case of putting up barriers. I think it is one of the perceptions I think it’s very important we avoid allowing to be created. We do not want to have barriers, we do not want to see barriers to Welsh lawyers being able to practise in England or English lawyers being able to practise within Wales, but it is solely about how you actually ensure that, firstly, lawyers practising in Wales do have the proper qualifications and knowledge of Welsh laws. I think the same actually will apply in respect of practising within England, and understanding what those differences are. There was an article—I don’t know if it’s the one the Member is referring to—that appeared, I think, in ‘The Law Society Gazette’ that said, ‘Now is not the time to split off’. It has never been a question of splitting off; that I think is a complete misunderstanding of what the development of a jurisdiction actually is. It is about the administration of law but not one where we want to have any perceptions of division, just ensuring that, where Welsh laws are involved, that the lawyers involved and the judiciary involved have been properly trained, and understanding what those laws actually are.

I wonder whether the Counsel General would accept this contention that regarding the devolution of justice and distinct legal jurisdiction as an entirely discrete competence is actually a false distinction, and that it is better seen as part of a continuum where this place makes laws, and, in order for them to be properly implemented and enforced, it’s a question of a continuum between the passing of the law and the enforcement of the law. So, the absence of devolution of justice and a distinct legal jurisdiction in fact operates as a constraint on the devolution of other powers. Would he accept that contention?

I do, and I think the point you make is an extremely important one because it goes to the root of the misunderstanding of the issues of jurisdiction and the divergence between Welsh law and English law. It is not a question of saying who should have the jurisdiction—should it be the UK Parliament, should it be the Welsh Assembly, or whatever; it’s a recognition of what the law actually is and how it interlinks with policy. So, the issues to do with policing, to do with youth justice, to do with prison and probation are not because they are a matter of saying, ‘Wouldn’t it nice to actually have these?’, but because the Assembly has responsibility for that policy, you cannot avoid the consequence of how that interreacts with the justice system itself. It is to actually have an integral relationship between them so that justice policy is then reflected in the justice system itself. I think that is an argument that needs to be explored, and that is why I’m extremely pleased that the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, has accepted the chairmanship of the justice commission that the First Minister is setting up, which I hope will have a broad remit to examine all those areas, not just in terms of jurisdiction but the interrelationship between policy and the law, the interrelationship between what we do and how that impacts on the justice system itself.

Thank you, Counsel General.

The next item is the topical questions, but no topical questions were selected.

That brings us to our next item, namely the 90-second statements.

This is Hospice Care Week 2017, celebrating both 50 years since Dame Cicely Saunders established the hospice movement in the UK and the many faces of hospice care, raising awareness of everyone involved, from nurses to volunteers, chefs to chaplains, fundraisers to carers. Hospices across Wales asked people to show their support by wearing yellow today, and Hospice UK launched the ‘Hospice care in Wales 2017’ report at a reception in the cross-party group at lunchtime in the Assembly today, quantifying the role of hospices in Wales. The majority of end-of-life care in Wales is provided by local hospices, improving the quality of life and well-being of adults and children with a life-limiting or terminal illness, helping them to live as fully as they can the precious time they have left. Collectively, the 15 charitable hospices in Wales provide vital care to 10,500 people every year, alongside support for many of their loved ones. They spend a combined £32.5 million on delivering care, and need to raise £2 million each month to continue doing this. Whilst adult hospices in Wales provide more than 24,000 day beds each year, the majority of their care is delivered in people’s homes, with 93 per cent providing hospice at home, outreach and day services and 40 per cent of services provided by children’s hospices being outreach services. So, let us ask our hospices how they can help us do more.

People across Wales have seen the tragic scenes of people, mostly Rohingya women and children, fleeing violence in Rakhine. This terrible violence has caused over 0.5 million people to seek refuge in Bangladesh. More than 500,000 people have crossed the border since 25 August and are in need of emergency food assistance; 300,000 people are in need of emergency shelter assistance. More than half of new arrivals are children under 18 years old, and one in 10 are pregnant or lactating mothers.

In Cox’s Bazar region, in southern Bangladesh, the local communities are struggling to cope with the displacement of people. Families are living in makeshift shelters on the side of the road or in overcrowded public buildings with no clean drinking water, toilets or washing facilities. Water provision and health services are stretched to breaking point, food is scarce and many people are reliant on aid to feed their families. Some are surviving on just one bowl of rice a day. With heavy rain and flooding, the risk of disease and infection is alarmingly high. Aid is needed now to relieve this humanitarian crisis.

Wales as a global nation should work with our friends internationally in order to tackle humanitarian suffering where we find it. In the past, yes, Wales has donated strongly to such appeals and, hopefully, the public will do so again this time. So, please donate by texting ‘HELPU’ to 70000 to donate £5, an amount that could provide a family with clean water for a week, or go to dec.org.uk to donate.

The next item on our agenda is the debate on the Economy Infrastructure and Skills Committee report, ‘Taming the traffic: The Impact of Congestion on Bus Services’. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion. When we talk about public transport in Wales, mostly we’re talking about buses. Bus travel accounts for over 80 per cent of public transport in Wales, but over the past decade, bus services have declined by nearly half. If we look at figures between 2005 and 2016 published by the Welsh Government, they show us that passenger numbers have declined by around 20 per cent. Interestingly, this compares to an increase of around 1 per cent in English journey times for the same period.

The average speeds of buses in Wales are declining faster than any other mode of transport, and slower journey times and speeds, of course, make bus travel a less attractive option for customers. I put it to you that a reduction in speeds is caused by congestion on the roads of our towns and cities but also key pinch points in rural areas as well. I certainly don’t think that this is just an urban issue. It increases journey times, it makes bus trips unpredictable, increases operational costs and fares, and undermines passengers’ confidence. And, of course, it reinforces negative perceptions of the bus. A leading expert on congestion, Professor David Begg, has said that,

Traffic congestion is a disease which, left unchecked will destroy the bus sector.’

Faced with congestion, bus operators are forced to respond in one of two ways: either to attempt to maintain service frequency with the associated increase in costs or to operate fewer services. Our bus services transport people to work and to education, connect communities, support our economy and help to make our country greener by reducing the number of private cars on our roads. They’re a vital lifeline for about a quarter of Welsh households without access to a car and for those for whom rail isn’t a viable option.

A fit-for-purpose bus service supports economic growth, but it also has a range of positive environmental impacts. Buses are a part of the jigsaw that will help us to release the ambition, I think, of many key pieces of legislation passed here: our carbon reduction commitments under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, a shift to sustainable travel supported by the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, and working towards the well-being goals set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report, which we are considering today, sets out our views on the action Welsh Government needs to take to urgently address the crippling impact that congestion is having on the bus industry in Wales. There have been examples of significant investment in the industry. The quality of vehicles is improving and the legislation is in place to support a modal shift to sustainable public transport. Despite this, the numbers of bus journeys and passengers continue to fall. The bus is still viewed as the Cinderella of public transport, and this downward trend needs to reverse. More action is needed to combat congestion and improve bus services for the people of Wales.

Our report sets out one recommendation and that is that, as a matter of urgency, the Welsh Government should develop and publish an action plan to set out how it will tackle the impacts of traffic congestion on the bus industry in Wales. Whilst we recognise that there is a substantial role for bus operators and local authorities to play, it is essential that the Welsh Government provides clear strategic direction on the action needed, and the starting point must be a recognition of the scale and extent of the impacts of congestion on the industry. We need a firm commitment from Government to tackle the issue, and, during our inquiry, we heard that further work is needed to understand the root causes, and this should be used, of course, to inform the development of sustainable, evidence-based solutions.

Local authorities are key players in the battle against congestion, of course. They need support from the Welsh Government to work in partnership with bus operators, they need guidance and support to establish effective bus quality partnership schemes, and they need to ensure that they work in partnership across administrative boundaries that are often meaningless to the residents who live there. Local and regional planning provides the ideal mechanism to ensure that congestion is tackled on a regional basis. There are many tools currently available to help tackle congestion: park-and-ride schemes, congestion charging, enhanced parking charges, workplace parking levies, and bus priority measures of course, as well, such as bus lanes. These need to be assessed in the Welsh context and decisions need to be taken about how useful they might be. Different solutions will, of course, be right for different areas, but it is indisputable, though, that, if bus is going to become a solution to transport issues, it does need to have priority.

Bus services are caught in a catch-22 situation. For congestion to be reduced, people need to be encouraged out of their cars and to make the switch to public transport. Whilst congestion is still having such significant impacts on bus travel, the bus industry is unlikely to be an attractive option. There is much work to do to sell the benefits of travelling by bus. The bus industry needs to market itself more positively, and there is a role for Welsh Government and local authorities in developing and delivering an impactful nationwide campaign to encourage the modal shift to public transport.

In response to the Welsh Government, the Welsh Government has accepted our overall recommendation to produce an action plan. It has also agreed with the committee’s suggestion about what the plan should include. I’m delighted that the Cabinet Secretary shares our committee’s vision for an effective and efficient bus services that is committed to improving bus services across Wales. We are encouraged by the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has taken on board our recommendation to better understand the root causes of the issue, and furthermore that, following on from the bus summit earlier this year, he will be convening a workshop in the autumn, and this will give local authorities, bus operators and other partners the opportunity to get together to discuss the particular issues in their areas. We hope that the Cabinet Secretary will feedback to the committee as soon as possible after that has taken place.

We remain concerned about how local authorities will work together. The Cabinet Secretary has announced funding for them to appoint bus co-ordinators in north and south Wales, whose remit includes closer working between stakeholders to develop bus quality partnerships. There is a raft of guidance already available for local authorities, encouraging them to work together, and it remains to be seen whether these new posts will actually make a difference on the ground to achieve the ultimate aim of a more efficient and sustainable service for bus users.

We welcome the greater transparency that will come from Welsh Government, requiring local authorities to establish the predicted revenue of bus operators for each route for which they have sought a support grant. In a time of constrained budgets, it is essential that funding is, of course, directed towards those services and routes where it is most needed. We also support the proposal that the Cabinet Secretary set out in his response that the grant could only be allocated in support of bus services that formed part of a quality bus partnership between local authorities and operators. This would be a catalyst, I think, for improvements in partnership working. I very much look forward to the debate this afternoon and hearing contributions from Members across the Chamber.

I’m very pleased to support the recommendations of the committee. It’s an opportunity, of course, for us to give attention to part of our public transport infrastructure that, as Russell George said, has, unfortunately, too long and too consistently been a cinderella sector in terms of public investment and in terms of the focus of public policy. I’m speaking now as somebody who was entirely reliant on bus services as a young person. We didn’t have a car as a family at all; therefore, in the area where I lived, aside from a few trains that went about three times a day, we were entirely reliant on the bus system, as many young people are, as are older people. My parents, for example, are entirely reliant on bus services that are contracting, to tell you the truth, which puts them in a situation of being isolated more and more because it restricts their ability to travel.

Therefore, it is vital that we now turn our attention to this industry. It still represents, despite the contraction and the pressure on it, about 80 per cent of our public transport system in Wales, and, in large parts of Wales, this is the only public transport that is available. So, hearing, as the committee did, about the pressure on the industry because of congestion does cause great concern to us all. As the committee says in its report, the reasons for the congestion vary from place to place, and one of the core recommendations is that the Welsh Government should press ahead with having a better understanding of the different reasons and factors that are driving this trend across Wales, and I’m pleased to see that the Government, in its response, has committed to doing this work at a local and regional level, working with local authorities.

In terms of what could be done, an important part of moving things forward is to support active travel, of course, in accordance with the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which tries generally across Wales to encourage a modal shift from car travel to a more sustainable mode of transport and a more integrated mode of transport. The Scottish Government have taken major steps in this direction, and they are in the vanguard, I think, at a British level; they have doubled the budget for active travel recently. They have announced five schemes across Scotland, with about £22 million for bus lanes, walkways and designated cycling paths. That’s the kind of ambition that I’d like to see from the Welsh Government.

There are things that we could do now to show that the Welsh Government does see travel by bus as being a central part of the offer in terms of integrated transport. There has been a feasibility study, for example, for reopening the railway from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth, and I’m very supportive of that. Maybe that should be a mid-term goal. But, it would be possible to start now by insisting in the franchise, for example, that there is a coach service that can be used as part of the railway system operating between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth now, in order to have proper integration between bus and rail services.

Thinking about the situation in Cardiff, it’s disgraceful, to tell you the truth, that there’s been no progress in terms of the bus station. We’re hearing that there are questions about what’s going to be developed on that site. In our capital city, we have to see proper status being given to bus services in the capital city, as we should in the rest of Wales as well.

Thank you for this report, which is very interesting. Getting people out of their cars in a city like Cardiff is absolutely essential in order to reduce congestion. Counterintuitively, of course, congestion reduces the number of people who actually want to travel by bus, because they think that if they go in a car they can rat-run and they can get there faster by private vehicle. So, it’s hugely important that we do something to tackle bus congestion because we’ll all drown in our own air pollution if we don’t do that, in a city.

What are the measures that we might introduce? Well, we could go for road pricing—I’m sorry to say that David Melding is not here at the moment. It is obviously a very logical way of reducing private motor cars on the road at the time when they are preventing the buses from getting through. It did, in London, cause a significant increase in the speed of bus journeys and cut their waiting time by 30 per cent just in the first year. But when a cabinet member in Cardiff proposed this as a proposal, the balloon went up in Cardiff. Everybody produced loads of reasons why we shouldn’t be doing this.

A softer alternative, but one that I think we should be absolutely pushing for now, is to increase the number of bus priority lanes. Cardiff Bus gave evidence to this inquiry that it isn’t much use having a bus priority lane along, maybe, 300 yards rather than the whole route. That certainly applies to the bus routes along Newport Road. It’s a real stop-start operation in a restricted space. But, frankly, the bus has to take priority. That has to be the way in which we can do it. I also am aware that when a bus lane along Caerphilly Road was proposed, it was strenuously opposed by all the local councillors, even though they ought to be thinking about the needs of the whole community, not just those who want to use their private motor cars, who probably don’t even live in their local areas. So, there’s a need for education there.

There’s obviously, also, an important role for priority traffic lights to ensure that buses go first at the traffic lights, before the cars, and that is an important way of ensuring that you get there faster by bus than you do by car. That is obviously one of the key factors, when people are running to work, that they will use. We can see how, when new proposals have been constructed in key areas like, for example, getting to the Heath hospital in Cardiff: a new park and ride from Pentwyn, the Llanedeyrn interchange, has been hugely popular and not just with car users who, instead of sitting in appalling traffic jams trying to queue to get into a multistorey car park, are able to get there in seven and a half minutes. It’s also benefited people who don’t have cars, because they can either get a cab or walk across the road and join in the park and ride. So, it’s been a fantastically useful way of ensuring that people can get to the hospital in a less stressful way, which is obviously very important when you’re talking about people who are either ill themselves or are visiting somebody who is ill.

But, in the week that the nudge theory economist Richard Thaler has just won the Nobel prize for economics for his work on the human propensity to make irrational choices, we have to think of ways in which we can encourage people to make the right, rational choices. So, I think bus priority lanes is certainly one of them, and I think we need to reflect on our policy on free hospital parking, which may be entirely appropriate in an area like Betsi Cadwaladr, where I’m fully aware that Glan Clwyd Hospital serves a huge diaspora of rural areas, where I’m sure the bus services will be infrequent and do not necessarily serve those communities, and they shouldn’t, obviously, be penalised for getting to the hospital, but in an urban area, it seems to me that free hospital parking in the middle of an urban area, where it’ll be tempting for commuters to dump their cars at the hospital, is something that we need to reflect on quite carefully, as it may have the opposite impact to what we want.

I thank the economy and business committee for their report, and I hope we can make a much greater push on the role that buses ought to be playing in encouraging people particularly to use buses for getting to work and school, and particularly pending the delivery of the metro system, both in Cardiff and Swansea, where until the alternative of the metro exists, we are going to have to offer bus services as an alternative, otherwise Cardiff is simply going to seize up with the congestion.

I, of course, fully endorse the recommendations of this report, and would also like to acknowledge here the contributions made by those organisations and individuals who took the time and effort to address the committee. However, in contributing to this debate, I wish to make a number of personal comments and suggestions that I feel may help to alleviate this very serious problem. In so doing, I make no apologies for returning to a number of points I made after the Cabinet Secretary’s statement on free passes in Plenary yesterday, in the true belief that repetition gives emphasis.

Whilst it is true that the car is the worst villain in this debate, we must also acknowledge that, to some extent, buses themselves contribute to the problem. The sight of four or more buses lined up in a traffic jam, each carrying a pitiful number of passengers, is as frustrating as that of dozens of cars carrying just one person, the driver. As indicated yesterday, the idea that buses run to a strict timetable, irrespective of demand, is quite ludicrous. I’ve personally seen near-empty buses pass my home at intervals of just 10 minutes for much of the day. I had best point out here that I’m not often home for most of the day.

Of course, we must blame the bus companies themselves, who should have the data telling them of the usage of each and every bus journey. But an equal amount of blame must be laid at the door of local authorities, who, we are told, are responsible for administering bus contracts and making sure that the taxpayer is having the best value for money from the operators. I honestly believe there must be a root-and-branch appraisal of the supply of services by bus companies, overseen by the Welsh Government.

Again, as mentioned yesterday, we must explore the possibility of on-demand public transport systems using smaller vehicle units, preferably, of course, running on electricity, that can be deployed even to people’s doors. These units would also be far more suitable for many of the Welsh towns and streets, which, as we all know, are often narrow and restricted. New housing estates would have to make provision for access for such vehicles, which would, by definition, be easier than for the buses now deployed. If we are to eradicate, or at least fundamentally affect, the scourge that traffic congestion represents on our roads, we must adapt public transport to fit the needs of the people, and not the needs of those delivering this service.

As a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, it was a pleasure to take part in this inquiry and also in the ensuing report. I too would like to thank all those who took the time to contribute to our inquiry. Clearly, the bus is the most well-used of all our public transport services, but also is the most inclusive form of public transport as well. It’s the only form of public transport that can reach into all of our communities, whether urban or rural, and particularly into the northernmost reaches of the south Wales Valleys where, even when the metro arrives, the bus service provision will be a key part of that delivery. So, it is really important that we can tackle bus congestion and get the offer right.

Yesterday, Cabinet Secretary, you updated Members on concessionary bus travel and you told us that a key Welsh Government aim is:

to increase the number of people of all ages using buses for their daily commute to work, for education, for access to health services and for leisure purposes’.

So, to do this, it is crucial that we tackle congestion, due, crucially, to its intrinsically cyclical nature: bus congestion puts people off travelling by bus, leads them back into their car; this, then, causes more congestion, which, in turn makes buses slower, and the problem, again, worsens.

Figures quoted in the committee’s report scope out something of the shape of the challenge ahead. The number of local bus services has declined by nearly half in the 10 years leading up to 2015. The number of passenger journeys has also declined, but, despite this, as I said at the start, the bus remains the most crucial and well-used form of public transport. In 2015-16, there were over 100 million bus passenger journeys, and that’s around five times the comparable number of train journeys. In the 20 years prior to 2015, bus journeys have slowed by an average of two miles an hour: a 13 per cent decrease in speed requiring additional capacity just to maintain the service. This is one clear symptom of the impact of congestion.

More generally, congestion has a negative effect on the environment and on the health enjoyed by our communities too. I’m sure that Members will have seen the briefing provided by the British Lung Foundation, with some stark figures to back that up. One thousand three hundred early deaths per year in Wales can be linked to air pollution. Children, in particular, exposed to severe air pollution are five times more likely to have poor lung development and increased infection susceptibility.

It also impacts on our economy, and we cannot ignore the social justice dimension either. Just under half of all bus journeys last year were concessionary fares—an increasing proportion in contrast with the general pattern of decline of usage. For those households lacking a car, buses are indeed a lifeline. In my own local authority area of Rhondda Cynon Taf, we have the fifth highest number of households without access to cars—a little over 27 per cent. Many of those people would be living in communities that are not accessible by the train. Therefore, the bus truly is a lifeline. With the highest numbers of households without access to cars also being found in Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent, this is clearly a key issue for the south Wales Valleys. As we heard from witnesses at an evidence session of the economy committee, a combination of the topography and urban design found in the Valleys can exacerbate congestion. To quote a witness from RCT council, talking about the terraces found in the Valleys:

The streets are very narrow. There’s no space…for residents to park their cars, so there’s on-street parking.’

This can cause serious congestion on bus routes. Indeed, it’s a familiar problem in my own constituency, and I think about the terraced thoroughfares of Cwmaman, Penrhiwceiber and Ynysybwl.

Work can be undertaken to tackle pinch points, such as the much-needed remedial works currently ongoing on the A4059 at Cwmbach and Mountain Ash. I also note in the Cabinet Secretary’s response to our consideration his comments that only one highway authority had applied for and adopted the full discretionary powers available to them from Welsh Government to help tackle traffic congestion. I would ask: how else will the Cabinet Secretary encourage highway authorities to use this opportunity to seek local solutions to local problems?

Consideration 8 is also really important. We need to promote our bus network as a convenient, affordable, and, above all, reliable option for journeys. I was really impressed with the standard of the Stagecoach bus service, their new gold service, and, equally, things like TrawsCymru show what can be done with a comfortable mode of transport that promotes facilities like Wi-Fi. Again, key to this is ensuring we tackle congestion so buses really are a first choice and not a last resort.

Can I echo the thanks that other committee members have extended to witnesses who came and gave evidence to the committee? It was an interesting inquiry. I hope and believe its conclusions were useful, and I welcome the approach that the Cabinet Secretary has taken to the recommendations made in it.

It’s always good to participate in a debate on buses to which the Cabinet Secretary’s responding because I know he’s a committed and enthusiastic supporter of the bus industry sector in Wales. The bus services summit that he convened I think was welcomed by all parts of the sector. He will recall the discussions we had about the Neath area economic forum report, which I presented to him and Cabinet colleagues earlier in the year, one of the asks in which, if you like, was for a new deal for bus users, and I think the question of the impact of traffic congestion on the bus service is a vital component in offering that new deal. It’s vital that we recognise the adverse effects on our bus service of that level of congestion. As Jenny Rathbone and others have indicated, you can’t really expect people to use buses if they’re not moving fast enough. There’s a vicious circle and cycle that is created by that, and yet our current model requires us to make sure that buses are as full of paying passengers as they can be.

My constituency has a number of areas, as with other Members in this Chamber, that are very poorly served by bus services because, in a sense, they’re caught in that no-man’s-land between local bus services not being commercially viable on the one hand and there not being adequate levels of subsidy on the other hand to deliver a publicly subsidised service. So, that challenge between profitability and public subsidy is inherent in our current system, and indicates clearly to me and to other Members that it doesn’t work on the current model, if you like—the current business model.

But I have one plea, really, to the Cabinet Secretary, and I know I’m absolutely pushing at an open door here, which is to see the question of bus congestion as part of a much larger whole, really. What’s required here is obviously a solution to bus congestion, but also a strategic view of a number of factors that are at play in delivering to my constituents and other constituents the kind of bus service that they need and deserve, quite honestly. This’ll take us down the road of technology and bus priority and planning issues, which are well aired and well explored in the report. But we also need to look at whether the bus service support grant, the local transport fund, the local transport network fund, and the investment that local authorities themselves make in bus routes, are being best deployed at the moment in pursuit of the Government’s objectives here—and, of course, the role of bus operators in choosing the right kind of fleet, and a green fleet. We recognise that bus transport is a more environmentally friendly option than car travel, but actually that continues to be the case only if the quality of fleet is maintained and is improved and it becomes the most environmentally friendly fleet that can be supported by the model.

There are many perverse incentives in the current system that are very well understood, so really it’s a plea to find a joined-up solution to a number of related challenges, and to look at it from a strategic perspective.

I’d support the general thrust of comments that have been made so far. If we are going to connect east and west, trains are not going to be the answer, as has already been recognised. In his response, accepting consideration 1 of the report, the Cabinet Secretary specifically mentions pinch-point removal funding to address congestion on the bus network, and this funding is very welcome.

Caerphilly council has received a portion of that funding to help carry out improvements on the busy Pwll-y-Pant or Cedar Tree roundabout in Caerphilly. On the council’s website they’ve said:

The improvements will increase capacity at this key strategic location, as well as reduce congestion and improve journey time reliability for local bus services.’

Throughout the report, however, there’s the discussion of political risk, and one of the problems with carrying out this kind of fundamentally needed improvement works is that the work takes time. Caerphilly residents are currently up in arms at the delays that are happening at the Pwll-y-Pant roundabout, which go right back through to Ystrad Mynach and Bedwas and towards Penyrheol. It’s a huge problem, and my intention is to meet with Caerphilly council and to talk to them about how further actions can be taken. I know local councillors have met today with the council to address these issues.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, of course.

Will the Member accept that the evidence shows that, in order to achieve modal shift, when you are making capacity changes like removing pinch points, the most effective way to do it is to use road space reallocation? So, rather than that space filling up with cars again, you’re locking in bus lanes or traffic light changes or wider pavements to try and build in that behavioural change.

And this is part of the improvements that are being carried out. In order to achieve that, you also need a modal shift. But, if you’re going to achieve a modal shift, that doesn’t happen quickly, and some of the improvements that are being introduced at this point will actually address some of the things that you’ve mentioned. However, my point is that there is political risk involved in that because you’re creating change, but, also, even creating these improvements creates a huge amount of agitation in the community, and I think what policy makers need to do is demonstrate the clear benefits of this.

The funding is welcome and it shows that the Cabinet Secretary is serious about tackling the impact of congestion on both buses and the wider road network, but it has brought other issues to the fore. There are a whole range of problems associated with the shape of our Valleys communities and the fact that we are, effectively, tunnels into Cardiff. It’s a real problem.

One of the issues I’ve mentioned many times in this Chamber is the overdevelopment of housing and the resulting pressure on transport infrastructure. You can’t deliver homes if you can’t deliver effective transport infrastructure. I’m concerned that we are addressing both of these things in parallel, but the connection needs to be better.

One of the things that I noted from some of the evidence we received was how unimpressive, frankly, some of the evidence was from local authorities. I won’t name and shame, but there were local authorities that treated bus operators as other stakeholders alongside car users, and that, frankly—to answer your question again—is not good enough. You need to have a proactive engagement with bus operators in your local planning if you’re going to achieve the kind of changes we want to see. Local authorities that we saw evidence from were not achieving that. They must get better at engaging with bus operators. And, by the way, I’m not counting Caerphilly county borough in that one, just to be clear.

That’s also recognised in the Welsh Government response—more and closer partnership working with bus operators and with neighbouring local authorities. I think we need a cross-border approach to all kinds of planning issues, including the strategic development plans that I’ve been calling for, which should replace, in my view, the narrowly focused and parochial local development plans, which are not allowing the movement across Valleys communities.

The city deal in my area and region gives an opportunity for this kind of working to happen. It’s a good footprint for regional working and I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has recognised that with a call for joint working. But I think, really, we’ve got to say that housing, wider planning issues and transport are the three biggest connected matters that the Welsh Government must have in its mind when addressing these things. If they are simply addressed in parallel, we won’t achieve our objectives. What we’re looking to do, particularly with regard to regional growth deals, is to get those three areas aligned and co-ordinated. I’ve no doubt we can achieve it, but it requires that connected thinking.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Firstly, I’d like to thank the Chair and members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee for their report, for their scrutiny, and for their recommendations. I’m pleased to be able to accept all of the recommendations, and I think it would be very difficult to disagree with much of what Members have said today.

In response to Jeremy Miles, I’m afraid that my enthusiasm for this particular subject led me to be mildly reprimanded yesterday for taking more than the allotted time during the bus concessionary fares statement, so I promise today that I will be as concise as possible. And I would agree also with Jeremy and other Members who spoke about the need to see bus services part of a much bigger picture.

Congestion affects the economy, it affects the environment and the health of the people of Wales, and I recognise that demand forecasts indicate that road use will continue to grow. That’s why tackling congestion is a priority focus for Welsh Government, and why it’s integral to the Wales transport strategy and, indeed, the national transport finance plan, as well as to the recently launched ‘Prosperity for All’ national strategy. The national transport finance plan, published in 2015, sets out an ambitious five-year programme of transport interventions that will take forward, across Wales, the measures that we are taking to ensure that Wales is connected via a reliable, modern and integrated transport network. Actions to alleviate congestion on the roads of Wales include developing our suite of models, so that we can better direct and predict future demands and plan well ahead. We have also made available to local authorities powers to adopt civil enforcement against a range of road contraventions, including parking, bus lane and certain moving traffic offences. And I think it is important that local authorities use these powers to ease congestion.

As Hefin David identified, we are working with local partners to identify pinch-point areas and to deliver infrastructure improvements to smooth traffic flow. Recently, we announced £24 million for pinch points, which will provide an opportunity for us to do more to tackle the junctions causing congestion, and to look at improving overtaking opportunities on key routes from north to south. In addition to this, another £15 million will be allocated through our local transport network fund, aimed at increasing safety resilience and movement along strategic bus corridors. This substantial funding forms part of an additional £83 million of Welsh Government capital funding to support road and transport schemes in Wales.

Presiding Officer, active travel infrastructure is a core component in modernising our transport network and delivering on an integrated transport system for Wales, helping to reduce vehicular emissions and helping to tackle congestion. Now, in an answer given to Jenny Rathbone a little earlier today, I indicated how I would like to ramp up investment in active travel infrastructure, and I look forward to updating Members accordingly. We do fund several behavioural change interventions, for example through our support for travel plan co-ordinators and pedestrian and cycling training, such as the Cymru Travel Challenge and the Active Journeys programme. We’re also investing in systems that support active travel management, such as the monitoring of networks through our national traffic control centres.

We’ve already provided substantial support by commissioning an all-Wales walking and cycling infrastructure survey, and have developed an active travel data mapping system that all local authorities are using for their maps. We believe that improving our public transport system is critical to raising the quality of life for the people of Wales. We’ll continue to support rail and bus services and modernise the public transport offer in Wales, including the development of integrated public transport networks such as the metro. The proposed south Wales metro will comprise a multimodal integrated rapid transit network, including improved bus and rail services. It will provide faster, more frequent and joined up bus and rail services. Enhancing connectivity is needed to support population growth and to tackle increasing road congestion. The metro project will be a blueprint for integrated transport across the whole of Wales, transforming the country’s economic and social prospects. I’ll give way.

Thanks for giving way. I fully support you, Cabinet Secretary, on the metro. I wonder if any more thought or discussions have been had over the potential of a metro hub at the Celtic Manor. I’ve raised this with you many times before and think it would be a good development in the metro network.

The Member has raised this on numerous occasions in this Chamber and outside of this Chamber. I think the idea has great merit, especially as we see the development of the convention centre at the Celtic Manor. The metro is being designed in such a way as to be extendable, so that additional services and additional hubs can be created as necessary. So, it’s certainly something that is being considered within Transport for Wales, and it’s something that I’m particularly keen to see considered as part of the potential extension of the metro network.

I do think that there’s no doubt that traffic congestion impacts negatively on the reliability and the punctuality of bus services, and that this, in turn, makes travel by bus less attractive. We fund and action a number of interventions for congestion, as outlined previously, and I remain committed to an integrated transport network that I believe will tackle the challenges such as traffic congestion and environmental pollution.

Presiding Officer, we also need to encourage motorists to use buses more often, by making buses more attractive in terms of the price of travel, through competitive and straightforward fares, through multi-operator ticketing regimes, underpinned by transparent and fair revenue sharing arrangements, and, of course, by publicising how good our bus network is already. Building on the bus summit that was held in January, a number of workshops are to take place this autumn to undertake further work to consider how best we can improve the passenger experience at bus stops by providing improved facilities, consistent with passenger information provision, to develop funding solutions that offer greater stability to the bus industry in Wales, and deliver an integrated transport system that provides improved accessibility and ticketing solutions that are fit for the twenty-first century.

Presiding Officer, I am also considering the responses from the consultation on local bus services in Wales, part of a national dialogue and call for evidence, following the success of the bus summit, on the longer-term direction for local bus services, and proposals, I believe, that could make a significant improvement to services in Wales.

I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I first of all thank the Cabinet Secretary for his words at the beginning of his contribution? As a committee, of course, we’re pleased that you’ve accepted our recommendations, but we’re very pleased that you’ve taken this issue seriously, and we’re grateful that you’ve accepted the conclusions of our report.

Adam Price—his experience as a younger person chimed with the situation or the experience of many today, who are absolutely reliant on a bus service, with no family car, or a train service that isn’t always suitable. And I absolutely agree with Adam Price in his remarks around integrated transport. I’m sure we all have as AMs in this Chamber constituents contacting us with examples—and I know I often get it myself—of a bus that leaves just after the train has arrived. Or have I got that the wrong way round? But you know what I mean.

Also, David Rowlands, I think, makes a correct point as well, in that this isn’t just an issue for Government to resolve. This is an issue that our local authorities and the bus operators themselves—they’ve got a stake in resolving this as well. We’re certainly not as a committee suggesting that it’s just Government’s responsibility to resolve some of these issues.

Vikki Howells and Hefin David highlighted the evidence that we had in our committee from local authorities. I have to say that was quite an eye opener, and perhaps there was some unexpected evidence that influenced the conclusions of our report. And of course, a recurring theme, which I talked about in my opening comments but also raised with Jenny and Jeremy Miles, was also that there’s that vicious circle—that catch-22 situation—that has to be overcome.

I’m very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary shares the committee’s vision for effective and efficient bus services and has committed to improving bus services across Wales. Long may it continue that the Government accepts our recommendations in full to our committee reports. I should also like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his invitation to AMs to attend the bus summit, and although I couldn’t attend, I was grateful for the invitation last year. I should also thank fellow committee members for their work on this report, and of course the committee clerking and research team who always support us to a very high standard, and of course to all those who gave evidence to our committee. And thank you to all those who contributed today, especially to Jenny Rathbone, who often, I notice, comments and contributes to our debate despite not being a member of the committee. I’m grateful that we’ve got Members around this Chamber who keep an eye on our work and read our reports but aren’t necessarily on the committee. I hope our report has been an effective contribution to the debate about bus travel and how to unclog our roads. Bus services in Wales may not yet be able to shake off the tag of being the Cinderella of public transport, but we should do all we can to ensure that they can get to the ball.

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

The next item is the debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee’s report on the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. I’m very pleased to open today’s debate on the committee’s report on the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports. I’d like to start by placing on record my thanks to all the witnesses, the committee staff and colleagues who took part in the inquiry. Ports in Wales make an important contribution to our economy through supporting jobs, driving economic growth and facilitating trade. Our ports also share an important and symbiotic relationship with our European partners, so it’s natural to consider the potential implications of Brexit on our ports, which could be considerable. Our inquiry sought to look into the implications in more detail, and we spoke with many of the main actors involved in the sector, including road haulage, rail freight groups, academics and port operators themselves—and ferry operators. Our evidence gathering was greatly enriched by our rapporteur visit to Dublin earlier in the summer, and I’m certain my colleagues Mark Isherwood and Eluned Morgan would like to place on record our gratitude to everyone that we met in Ireland for the warm welcome we received and for the constructive and open way in which they approached our discussions.

Llywydd, our report threw up a number of the important issues and considerations, including questions about future border arrangements, the post-Brexit customs regime, and the infrastructure in the hinterland of our ports. In total, we have made eight recommendations to the Welsh Government. I am pleased to see that all have been either accepted or accepted in principle. I am disappointed, however, that the Cabinet Secretary’s response does not provide the greater detail that we as a committee would like to see, and perhaps you will take the opportunity to explore these areas in more detail during today’s debate.

Perhaps the central issue facing Welsh ports in the context of Brexit is the questions relating to the future of the Irish border. It became clear that whilst looking at the impact upon Welsh ports in totality, the ports that would be most affected would be our ferry ports at Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock. We heard concerns of how a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and a hard maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland could severely disadvantage Welsh ports. The loss of competitiveness resulting from differentiated border arrangements could lead to a displacement of traffic from Welsh ports, like Holyhead, to ports elsewhere in England and in Scotland through the Northern Ireland route. I am further concerned that this will be a realistic possibility following the publication this week by the UK Government of its White Paper for a future customs Bill. Reading through their document, there’s discussion of the soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, between the need to ensure no restrictions of traffic flow between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but there’s no reference to the border between Wales—or even the rest of Great Britain—and the Republic of Ireland. A question I might ask, perhaps: is it even on their minds? Does Wales exist in some of the minds in Westminster? I have great concerns over that.

I thank the Member for giving way. I share his concerns. He’s talked about ferry ports, and we think about people, but, just for example, the port at Milford Haven has some 2,000 tonnes of Irish seafood coming through it on to the continental markets, and we’d want that to continue to come through Wales, but also to add value to it, perhaps, in development in Milford Haven. That’s an example of what we could be losing.

I appreciate the Member’s concerns and I totally agree that there are opportunities as well that exist. The problem is that we have businesses that work to just-in-time delivery, and when it comes to food products, actually it’s very critical now, and that is therefore important. The delays that could be experienced would impact upon that.

Our first recommendation, therefore, stems from these concerns and calls upon the Welsh Government to continue to press the UK Government to ensure that no Welsh port is unfairly disadvantaged by future border arrangements. And I am pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted this recommendation.

The next key theme that emerged during our inquiry was a concern relating to the future of the UK’s customs arrangements after we leave the EU. Now, I appreciate that a position paper has been published since by the UK Government, and also the White Paper on the future of a possible customs Bill, but having read those, I received little comfort, actually, that they will address the issues.

Since 1993 and the completion of the European single market, the volume of freight between Holyhead and Dublin has increased by 694 per cent. As it stands, and as indicated in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, the UK will leave the customs union as part of the Brexit process. Most witnesses raised concerns about leaving the customs union and the effect that reintroducing customs checks would have in terms of delays—and as the Member for Mid and West Wales has already indicated, that has crucial elements for businesses in his area. Furthermore, the most recent HMRC estimate suggests that Brexit could see UK customs declarations increase from the current £55 million per year—that’s £55 million per year—to a maximum of £255 million per year. That’s a five-fold increase.

At the same time, we heard that the use of new technology could help to ameliorate some of the worst risks of delay. Technology comes to our rescue. Even the White Paper continually refers to technological solutions to help establish a frictionless border between the UK and the EU. But in order to do this, we need the IT solutions to be up and running by 2019, and everyone we spoke to said—and past history tells us—it’s unlikely to happen. Therefore, the solutions will not be in place by this time. I’m not saying it can’t happen, but time is a big factor.

Our second and third recommendations reflect these concerns and request that the Welsh Government keeps us updated on the progress of IT solutions and, perhaps, the UK’s future customs arrangements after discussions it will have, because the White Paper, again, talks about involvement with the devolved institutions and devolved Governments, and I would like to know exactly what involvement it’s had already with the publication of the White Paper on the customs Bill. However, simply waiting for the UK Government to bring about solutions, particularly in the context of the new powers over ports that will be devolved to Wales early next year, isn’t good enough. We need the Government to mitigate possible risks to Welsh businesses by ensuring that businesses have everything they need to make the most of opportunities provided by things such as the authorised economic operator and trusted trader schemes—and these, again, are focused upon in the White Paper, but we need to make sure our businesses are up and running as quickly as possible with those.

Another key concern centres on the physical capacity constraints faced by the ports themselves. We heard that the lack of space to accommodate new border and customs checks after Brexit could lead to lengthy delays at our ports—not just applicable to Wales, because Dover has the same problem, as has been highlighted very often. And whilst we’re talking about Dover, please remember Holyhead is the second-busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the UK behind Dover. So, our fifth recommendation calls for the Welsh Government to undertake urgent work in this area—and urgent work, by the way, does not mean some of the solutions we heard at the evidence session, where someone said, ‘Well, we’ll be out of the EU, the habitats directive won’t be operational any more, we can span even easier’. That’s not the intention that we seek.

Although we welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has agreed to this recommendation in principle, the lack of detail, perhaps, in his response is a little bit disappointing and, perhaps, fails to address sufficiently the concerns we have highlighted. He may wish to expand upon that in his response. Crucially, it does not commit the Welsh Government to drawing up the highways management contingency plan that we asked for, and I would ask him to reconsider the need for this.

Moving on to the response to recommendation 6, we all recognise that many aspects of the UK’s withdrawal are not in the gift of the Welsh Government, nor, for that matter, in the gift of this institution. However, this does not preclude us from planning for each scenario. In shining a light on our ports, we had hoped to bring issues in need of consideration to the Welsh Government’s attention. And we hope the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, does further commit in his response to undertake the detailed scenario planning that we would like to see, particularly as I’m hearing more and more from the UK Government that they are now planning for a no-deal Brexit. I think, therefore, we need to be actively planning now.

When we set out to look at Welsh ports, it was clear to us that we would need to seek evidence from our nearest neighbour, and to that end I was delighted to go to Dublin on a rapporteur visit. The Irish representatives we met were delighted to meet with us, and I think that was an important aspect—they wanted to engage. It was clear, as somebody said in our inquiry, that all our ferry ports point towards Ireland. So, it was a matter of great concern to us that the Cabinet Secretary at that point had not actually sought meetings with his counterparts in Ireland, but we did hear when he visited us in the committee that he was making arrangements to do so. I would be grateful to hear if he has actually now done so.

The clock is ticking on these negotiations and if Welsh interests are to be safeguarded, there must be proactive engagement with our friends and allies all across Europe, by all Ministers, not just the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government. As I said, the Cabinet Secretary’s response indicated that he has had ministerial discussions with his counterpart in Ireland. I would be grateful for more details of that, and perhaps how he intends to take those further.

Looking at the future, our final recommendation centres on the idea of free ports, which are areas where import duties, VAT and other import charges may not apply, or where importers can defer such payments. They are an underexplored concept in Wales. We haven’t had to need them necessarily, but now may be an opportunity for us to look at the opportunities that Brexit will give as a consequence of that. Our recommendation 8 calls upon the Welsh Government to look at these opportunities of seeking whether free port designation in Wales can be effective and helpful. I’m pleased the Cabinet Secretary has committed himself to working with the sector to achieve this.

Chair, our report paints a sobering picture. It’s absolutely vital that we get this right and keep Wales and Welsh trade moving after Brexit. If our worst fears of lengthy delays at our ports disrupting the supply chains and tailbacks on our roads are not to become a reality, then we will need to see action being taken now and in the weeks and months ahead. We only have 15 months, approximately, before we leave the EU. Chair, I recommend this report to the National Assembly, and I look forward to hearing the Members’ contributions this afternoon.

I think it’s really important for us on the external affairs committee of this Assembly to be realistic in terms of the extent to which we are likely to be able to influence the Brexit debate. With this in mind, I think it does make sense for us to focus on areas where we can shed light on what Brexit will mean for Wales where the UK Government is unlikely to focus. I represent the constituency of Mid and West Wales, where we can boast some of the most excellent harbours in the United Kingdom. Our relationship with Ireland, one of the biggest export markets, is crucial, and our fear was that the UK Government would focus all its attention on the implications of Brexit on the major ports of the south-east of England. So, it’s critical that there’s a real understanding of what a hard Brexit would mean for ports in Wales. The fact is that trucks going to and from the EU through Dover take around two minutes to process. Now, if you’re driving a truck from outside the EU into or out of the UK, then it takes around 20 minutes to process. So, there are logistical and practical problems that will be thrown up by a hard border with Ireland, which would cause huge disruptions at our ports where there’s very limited land for expansion where lorries would need to be parked up.

Now, the negotiations in the EU are stuck at the very, very early stages, and one of the reasons for this is because we’re so far from the situation where we can find a resolution to the Irish border situation. The UK Government is still clinging on to some belief that it will be possible for the Northern Irish border to become the external border of the EU—a hard border—and yet they really believe that this is going to be possible without any need for customs checks.

Now, the UK Government seems to think that technology is going to provide all the answers to the questions around these EU border arrangements, but witness after witness told us that the complications associated with developing a technologically led solution would mean that we would need to integrate the HMRC procedures in Ireland and the UK into a wholly custom integrated system, and there is no way this can be delivered in time if we crash out of the EU, as seems to be increasingly likely. Now, I don’t need to remind the Chamber of the desperately poor record of the UK Government on high-tech IT solutions in relation to public services.

Now there’s only one other country that is really concerned about Brexit, and that is the Irish Republic. In our dealings with representatives from the Republic, it was clear that their focus has been very much on resolving the border issues with Northern Ireland and that they hadn’t given as much thought to what impact a soft border with Northern Ireland, where lorries could potentially just zip through unhindered, would have on direct trade between the Republic and the UK via Wales, which, potentially, could be subject to that significant time and paperwork hold-up. We heard that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy hadn’t met his Irish counterpart, and it would be good to hear, as the Chair suggested, whether that meeting has taken place.

Now, this week, the UK Government set out its vision for a post-EU trade and customs policy, and I suppose they do have to give something to Liam Fox to do. At the moment, there are 50 trade agreements between the EU and countries around the world. Whilst we remain members of the EU, we can’t make our own trade agreements. The UK Government is in cloud-cuckoo-land, and so is Mr Hamilton, if they think that we’re going to get anywhere near replicating the trade deals that we currently enjoy with the EU. And that’s one of the reasons why I believe we would be barking mad to leave the customs union. Witness after witness told us that a hard border with Ireland could have a significant negative impact on our ports in Wales, particularly if there’s a soft border with Northern Ireland.

I want to make sure that, if this happens, the blame for any negative impact falls exactly where it should be: on those politicians and those political parties who push and vote for the UK to leave the customs union. And I’d like to make it clear that I and the Labour Party locally will be watching in particular Stephen Crabb MP and Simon Hart MP in Pembrokeshire and the way that they vote in Parliament on this issue, and we will hold them personally responsible for any job losses, hold-ups or negative impacts on ports in Milford Haven or Fishguard as a result of leaving the customs union. Their votes really matter when the Tory Government has such a slim majority, and we and the people of Pembrokeshire will make a judgment on whether they will put the needs of their county first or the needs of their party.

Well, I’ll try and stick to the report, which states that concerns over implications of Brexit for Welsh ports centre on three areas: that a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will displace traffic from Welsh ports to those in England and Scotland via Northern Ireland; that any new customs arrangements will create technological and logistical challenges for our ports; and that many Welsh ports lack capacity to accommodate any new border controls and customs checks.

As the Welsh Government response to our report states:

Currently over 70 per cent of cargo to and from Ireland, Great Britain and the wider EU pass through Welsh ports.’

It adds:

If there were effectively no customs checks in the island of Ireland but they were introduced at mainland UK ports, freight operators may be encouraged to move cargo flows through the Irish land border and into the UK from Northern Ireland—using Liverpool and/or Scotland as part of the “land bridge”, and not Wales.’

It is therefore concerning that the Welsh Government only accepts in principle our recommendation that it seeks clarification from the UK Government on the anticipated timescales for the development and implementation of proposed new IT-led customs arrangements and sets out how it expects the costs of these new arrangements to be borne.

Stena Line Ports warned that Holyhead was constrained by space and would not have the capacity to stop vehicles. It is therefore also concerning that the Welsh Government only accepts in principle our recommendation that it sets out how it intends to address the lack of physical capacity to accommodate new borders and customs checks at Welsh ports.

In 2015, 50 per cent of more than 750,000 lorries carried along the central corridor to Dublin passed through Holyhead. After Dover, Holyhead is the second largest roll-on, roll-off ferry port in the UK, as the Chair of the committee indicated, with a business model dependent upon the open ports policy. Emulating the responsible approach being taken by the Irish Government, the Welsh Government should, therefore, be making detailed preparations now to ensure that any new arrangements do not lead to a displacement of traffic from Welsh ports, principally Holyhead.

As an antidote to some of the prophecies of doom previously heard, and perhaps more recently heard in this Chamber, let us therefore consider some of the evidence that the committee received. A 2017 survey of its members by the Irish Exporters Association found that 94 per cent do business with or export to the UK, and that 67 per cent make use of the UK land bridge to access continental markets. The Irish finance Minister told an Irish parliamentary committee earlier this year,

I cannot see how that would not be maintained because if one looks at the situation in Italy where every day thousands of trucks drive through Switzerland in both directions carrying goods and services from Italy to Germany and France and so on and they have an arrangement whereby one seals the truck so that it does not have to be physically examined and there are legal arrangements that apply. ‘

Having carried out detailed modelling, unlike the Welsh Government, the Irish Maritime Development Office told us that Brexit will not close the 18-hour advantage of the UK land bridge to continental markets. Only last Thursday, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee was told by the head of trade in Canada’s Brussels embassy that 70 per cent of its trade with the USA is carried by trucks across a few passing points on the border, and that security clearance programmes for trucks and drivers, combined with an e-manifest programme for goods, provides a very efficient and speedy system.

The Irish transport Minister told us that the common travel area issue should be resolved without any real problem and the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade told us that you can leave the customs union and still have customs arrangements afterwards.

In its response, the Welsh Government states only that it seeks to mitigate the risk to Welsh businesses of a lack of preparedness by working with HM Revenue and Customs. But Irish Ferries told us that an IT-led solution would be key and that discussions with HM Revenue and Customs and the sector were already under way. Perhaps this explains why the committee had to recommend that the Welsh Government urgently addresses the lack of engagement it has had with counterparts in Ireland and other EU member states, having heard that Ireland has had over 400 engagements over Brexit across Europe, but the Cabinet Secretary here confirmed that he had not yet met Irish Government counterparts to discuss the implications of Brexit for Ireland-Wales transport links. Diolch.

Thank you very much. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Although we are talking about concerns about the future of ports in all parts of Wales, as the Member representing Ynys Môn I’m sure you will forgive me for focusing on Holyhead, the ancient, proud, maritime town that developed into the main crossing point over the Irish sea since Telford brought the A5 there two centuries ago. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, therefore, the port has grown. Some of my forefathers were among those who made their livelihoods serving the postal, goods and passenger ships. Well over 1,000 people are still employed directly in the port of Holyhead—far more in the wider economy are reliant on the port. Four and a half million tonnes of goods pass through annually. As we’ve heard, only Dover is bigger in terms of roll-on, roll-off services.

But, if Holyhead has been created and defined by its port in the past, there is no hiding the threats facing it now. Any barrier to the flow of vehicles and goods is a threat to the port of Holyhead, and is, therefore, a threat to the well-being of the people of Holyhead. Therefore, we need assurances in a number of areas. We know of the risk to trade if there are financial barriers in place. This raises some deep questions on the whole economy—tariffs and so on—and I’m surprised that the Conservative Member didn’t make reference to that. I will focus on two elements of this report that are of particular interest to me and are particularly pertinent to the future of Holyhead, namely the future of the Irish border and the future of the customs union.

If a hard border were created between Holyhead and Dublin, clearly it would become less attractive for people to travel and do business through Holyhead. We are talking about 2 million travellers, 0.5 million cars and 400,000 goods vehicles. As witnesses told the committee, the process of moving freight always follows the easiest route—the simplest route. Therefore, there’s a real concern that if there were a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and a hard border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, it would have a very negative impact on us. Irish Ferries said that could have serious economic impacts on Welsh ports, in terms of direct and indirect employment.

The other threat then, of course, is Britain leaving the customs union. We’ve already hear that since the creation of the European Union single market, or its completion in 1993, abolishing the toll checks between Wales and Ireland, the amount of cargo travelling between Holyhead and Dublin has increased incredibly—almost 700 per cent since the early 1990s. I am going to quote the concerns of two of the major shipping companies working from Holyhead—first, Paddy Walsh from Irish Ferries, who warns:

na allwn ddychwelyd at Weithdrefnau Tollau cyn 1993, pan oedd yn rhaid clirio’r holl gerbydau mewnforio ac allforio drwy’r tollau... Nid yn unig y mae maint y traffig wedi cynyddu’n sylweddol, ond mae’r broses gyfan o archebu a chyflenwi nwyddau wedi newid.

People are now ordering goods today and expecting them to be delivered tomorrow without having been stored in huge warehouses, as was the case in the past. Barriers at a port don’t fit into the modern way of trading. Ian Davies from Stena Line Ports says clearly that the growth of trade between Holyhead and Ireland happened because of the policies of open ports. There is a good balance, he says now, between goods and passengers:

Os tarfwch ar un o’r llifoedd hynny, rydych yn amharu ar y model busnes cyfan. Ac felly’r canlyniad, yn lle cael 28 croesiad y dydd, efallai y bydd gennych lawer iawn llai o gysylltedd â phorthladdoedd Cymru yn y pen draw.

That would be very bad news for the future of Holyhead. We would also need to change the structure of the port, if there were a need for new checks. Quite simply, according to the port managers, the space and the capacity simply aren’t there, and this was one of the conclusions of the committee too, and I was very pleased to see that included. This is what I was told:

Rhaid i’r Llywodraeth sylweddoli na allwn greu gofod ychwanegol allan o ddim yn y porthladd os gwelir bod angen gwiriadau tollau llawn ar y ffin.

In his evidence to the committee, Ian Davies from Stena Line said:

Mae gennym rai o’r llongau fferi mwyaf yn Ewrop yn dod i mewn... Byddai’r porthladd cyfan yn dod i stop... Nid yw’n ffisegol bosibl ei wneud yn y porthladdoedd ar hyn o bryd.

I am coming to a conclusion. I’m pleased that the Government accepts in principle the committee’s recommendation to outline how they intend to tackle this lack of capacity in Welsh ports, but I very much hope that we will get more meat on the bone from the Cabinet Secretary so that I can report back to the managers and staff of the port. We are facing a series of challenges here. It’s not just a proud history, but a confident and prosperous future that I want to see for the port of Holyhead.

Thanks to the additional legislation committee for bringing today’s debate. It is on an important issue. There are economic complications that will inevitably arise from Brexit, and I don’t seek to minimise them. I don’t want to see these problems exaggerated for political effect because my view is that the people of the UK have had their say, and they want Brexit; that is what they voted for, and that is also what Wales voted for. So, perhaps our old friend Eluned Morgan needs to just occasionally remember that outcome. [Interruption.] Okay, that’s your view, if you think that the electorate of the entire UK is so credulous as to swallow a lot of lies, then that is certainly a reflection on your view of the electorate, and it’s not a very good reflection. [Interruption.]

If you want to make an intervention, please ask the speaker.

Thank you.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I’m just starting, Rhun, and I’m not going to get through it with all this nonsense. So, we shouldn’t exaggerate difficulties for political effect, but we certainly shouldn’t minimise them either. What we have to do is rationally consider all of the economic implications. In the case of the position of trade passing through Welsh ports, if there are any ways in which we can meaningfully move towards trying to resolve these issues, or at least meaningfully address them, then that is what we should be doing now, as far as we can, in the time remaining before we leave the EU. That is what the committee appeared to be doing with this report. So, I think this report may be helpful.

The report is fairly clear in what it recommends, and to be fair, it hasn’t shied away from criticism of the Welsh Government’s actions to date, or the lack of them. I quote from the Chair’s foreword:

We were disappointed to hear that Welsh Government engagement with our friends and colleagues in Ireland has been so limited to date and urge the Cabinet Secretary to address this urgently.’

The First Minister has spent a lot of time since the Brexit referendum talking about Brexit and all of the problems he thinks it is causing. One issue he tends to mention every single time, without fail, is the issue of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. So, it’s rather odd to note that a foreword written by his own Labour colleague David Rees notes that he has done so little to address this issue himself. The First Minister seems to want to talk about his issue till the cows come home so that he can raise people’s fears, but he doesn’t seem to actually want to do anything about it. So, I’m hopeful that the economy Minister, who is here today, will tell us what actions he is proposing to take, and I hope for all our sakes that he is planning to be more proactive in this regard than the First Minister has been.

A further point from the Chair’s foreword, which summarises the report. Again, I quote:

Furthermore, we are clear that the WelshGovernment will need to clarify the timescales for work on technological solutions to future customs arrangements with HM Revenue and Customs and the UK Government.’

This is quite a specific request, so I think it could be responded to fairly specifically. We know that the economy Minister usually has a good grasp of his subject, he can give us detailed answers, as we found out yesterday and on many previous occasions, so perhaps he could enlighten us today in his response on this specific point, which the committee identified. After all, David Rees, in his contribution, which I thought was pretty good, pointed to the need to start doing things now. If we are going to do something, let’s get the ball rolling now, and I agree with him.

I will return to the foreword to draw out a final point from it:

Above all, we want to see the Welsh Government work with the sector to prepare for the various Brexit scenarios and therefore call for detailed contingency plans to be drawn-up.’

I realise that there are limits as to what the Welsh Government can do. [Interruption.] Of course I do. The complaint of the First Minister, which we had from him again yesterday, is that he can’t do much as long as we are unclear what the UK Government wants to do. That is a reasonable point as far as it goes. However, in this area of the position of the Welsh ports, I think there are specific actions that the Welsh Government can take. These actions could be useful actions rather than merely pointless whingeing.

We’ve heard from several people about the actual issue of the displacement of traffic through Northern Ireland, which would mean it would be bypassing the Welsh ports. There is this risk. I do acknowledge that the risk exists and we have to look at it, but I’m also grateful to Mark Isherwood, who’s a member of this committee—of which I’m not a member—for clarifying several of the points relating to the evidence that they heard, because his outlook is far more optimistic. He realises that there is a challenge, there is a potential economic risk, but he also recognises that the technology is there that will help us to overcome this risk. He pointed also to the border between the USA and Canada, where there is a massive volume of traffic moving through, but due to the technology being in place, it passes through freely without much delay.

Free trade zone.

Okay. There may be differences in the trading relationship between the USA and Canada and ours with Ireland, but the reality is we don’t know what our future relationship with Ireland is going to be because of this issue of the common travel area that we enjoyed with Ireland before either of us even joined the EU. That may be in place once we leave the EU, so we don’t know.

Can I ask you to bring your remarks to a close?

Thanks, Cadeirydd, I will bring them to a conclusion. The last point is the free ports—I think that’s a very interesting concept. I’m very pleased the committee wants to investigate this and I’m interested to hear what the economy Minister has to say about the free ports because that is an opportunity that Brexit could bring. Thank you.

Thank you, we’ve heard from all parties now. I’d be very grateful if the next speakers could keep to time. Joyce Watson.

I’ll do my best, Chair. Anyway, I was a member of the previous Assembly’s Enterprise and Business Committee, and I did take part in the 2012 inquiry into international connectivity through Welsh ports. Again, in February 2016, that committee reported on the potential of the maritime economy. Of course, we all know that much has changed since then. Brexit looms and it does have a massive implication for our ports. So, I’m really pleased to see that this committee has revisited this particular issue.

As somebody who represents Mid and West Wales, and that actually means most of the coastline of Wales, I understand the reality of this particular topic in our area. We have harbours like Burry Port, Aberaeron and Pwllheli, two major docks at Fishguard and Milford Haven, and they are absolutely integral to the economy, especially that economy in Mid and West Wales. I am hugely concerned about the potential of leaving the customs union, the single market, the common fisheries policy and the EU’s environmental frameworks, and that will represent dramatic changes for those ports.

We know that there will be global opportunities, but it does remain the fact that nearly half of UK exports and more than half of imports are to and from the EU. We have to get Brexit right, and that does mean not impeding trade at customs and checkpoints. It is absolutely critical. The committee report does highlight that at present over 70 per cent of Irish cargo passes through Wales, mostly roll-on and roll-off at Holyhead, which has already been mentioned. But that also happens in Fishguard and in Pembroke as well.

So, it’s fairly obvious that I, therefore, share the concerns that the committee has that a soft border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland would disadvantage Wales to the benefit of the English and the Scottish ports with those Northern Ireland connections. That is if it’s a soft border, because what we don’t know at this point is what on earth this Government intends to do. I note the Prime Minister in her Florence speech was once again conspicuously silent on this huge and problematic question.

I’ve recently read some interesting reports on how the border between Norway and Sweden operates. Norway, as quite a few Brexiteers—and I’m not one—were eager to point out during the referendum campaign, has the closest possible trading relationship with the EU without actually being part of that bloc. The two countries have had border agreements since 1959, and Norway with the EU since 1997, yet smuggling remains a huge problem. As a result, last year alone, there were nearly 0.25 million vehicle checks at that crossing. In short, the Norway-Sweden experience suggests that, even without the island of Ireland’s unique circumstance, plans for a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be difficult to achieve.

Nonetheless, we have to ensure that Welsh ports are best prepared for whatever the post-Brexit arrangement is. People have mentioned here today—so I won’t go into the detail, to save some time—the report on the technological solutions to speed up checks. They are not there at the moment. That availability is there, but the infrastructure is clearly not there. I wouldn’t actually set any great store on this Government giving Wales any extra money to be prepared for anything whatsoever, because we’ve already seen their reneging on promises of infrastructure development in Wales so far. So, I really don’t think that we can rely on that in any shape or form, but I do agree with one thing here already, and that is the fact that we will be watching—

Due warning, Joyce, I think.

[Continues.]—in Pembrokeshire very carefully the voting patterns of the two MPs who do owe their constituents explanations about their actions, which secure the jobs and the futures of the people that depend on them in Pembrokeshire.

I rather hope that my invitation to keep to time will be observed from now on. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Chair. Can I not repeat some of the issues that have been already raised, but just speak particularly for the port of Milford Haven in my region? We’ve heard, now, that Holyhead is the biggest passenger port, but Milford Haven is the biggest energy port, and some 5,000 jobs are reliant on the energy that comes through the port of Milford Haven. But there are other developments and opportunities there that I want to address in the context of this report—a very good report from the committee—as well. I won’t repeat what’s been said about Brexit and the need to retain a soft border between Wales and Ireland—I think that’s very, very clear in the comments I made in an intervention on the Chair—but I also just want to say this: wouldn’t it be ironic if we get rid of the tolls on the Cleddau bridge between the two sides of Milford Haven port, within an enterprise zone, at the same time as we have tolls coming in on goods that are coming through the port, or individuals coming through the port? I think that’s just so ironic and so disrespectful, if I can almost put it that way, of the Welsh economy and the way we need to develop the economy in our ports, and Milford Haven in particular.

Now, one of the things that is developing in Milford Haven is the alternative energy developments there, and so we want to see—. And there’s a link here with the marine plan that we want to see from the Welsh Government. We want to see some sort of decision on the tidal lagoon, because there are engineering companies in the port of Milford Haven that could be part of developing a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay and wider. On Friday, I’m looking forward to visiting Ledwood Engineering and the WaveSub unveiling that’s going on there—another alternative wave power device. So, we know the richness of our seas, not only in fish but in energy and in tourism, and the ports are the gateways to exploit that economy. I hope that we’ll see—. Next week, I think, there’s a statement from the UK Government on green and clean industrial development of some sort. Let’s see if there’s a commitment there to the tidal lagoon, which is really what we want to see.

I think there are two opportunities as well, for Milford Haven, that I’d like to see explored further by the Welsh Government. Let’s take fishing, to start with: traditionally not seen as a big thing that we major on in Wales, but that’s because our fishing quotas have basically been sold to the Belgians for the last 40 years. When we do have a reconfiguration, coming out of the European Union, we need to ask ourselves whether we can do something around a quota—that’s landing our quota, if you see what I mean—whether we can have a way that the Scottish Government has been suggesting, that a certain amount of the Welsh quota has to be landed at Welsh ports, so, once again, we can stamp things ‘landed in Wales’ or ‘landed at the port of Milford Haven’ and grow our own then—more fish processing and other ideas around that. The Chesapeake bay that David Melding speaks of isn’t far from Milford Haven. A lot of the shellfish could be landed there, processed there—as well as those links with the Irish shellfish industry and fishing industry, including fish farming, which is developing in Ireland and needs markets coming through Wales. So, there’s an opportunity to develop our fishing industry and to review the 10m rule around boats as well, because that’s been something that’s been just enshrined in European legislation. In our ports, we can review that.

The second idea has already been mentioned I think, which is the free ports idea. Now, usually, within a customs union, you wouldn’t really want free ports, not when you’ve got a big trading bloc. But there is the opportunity to look at tightly defined areas where excise duty or duties are not exercised, are not raised, in order to allow transit of goods through them. This may be a workable solution in terms of the border between Ireland and Wales. This may be a solution, and one of the areas that that could be applied to is Milford Haven. I’m sure that, if there were to be development of the free port idea by the Welsh Government, then Holyhead and also Cardiff Wales airport would all be very interested in seeing how that could be developed. But it’s a possible practical solution in order to unlock some of the difficulties around coming out of the customs union, though I would put on record my own belief that we should remain in the customs union, as the most appropriate and practical way of dealing with the issue of ports and Brexit.

So, I hope, whatever happens, we will pay attention to our Welsh ports as real economic drivers and as areas that employ a great deal of people in my region and ones that I want to see taken seriously by the Welsh Government. To that, I very much welcome the report, as it at least puts this on the political map.

Well done, Simon. You won. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I’m delighted to follow Simon Thomas, whose speeches are always informative and interesting, and today’s has been no exception. I warmly endorse what he said about the opportunity for free ports that leaving the customs union will give us.

I’m grateful to Eluned Morgan not just for the extra publicity by mentioning my name in her speech, but also for bringing the position of the Irish republic to the forefront of this debate. This is an excellent report from the committee, I think, because it’s very fair and balanced, but it draws attention to some potentially serious transitional problems arising out of Britain’s decision to leave the EU. I commend David Rees, as the Chairman of the committee, for being a model of partisan impartiality, if I can put it that way, and having made a real contribution to this debate more widely. Because, if there is no deal with the EU, this is a very serious matter for the Irish republic as well for Wales—much more serious, perhaps, for the Irish republic, than it is for us, because 50 per cent of Irish exports come to Britain. Ninety per cent of Ireland’s oil and gas comes from Britain, through Milford Haven, very largely. Fifteen billion pounds’ worth of goods are exported to the UK. Half of the Irish republic’s beef exports come to Britain, and 42 per cent of all its food and drink exports. Fifty per cent of Irish hauliers serve European continental countries through the land bridge with the United Kingdom, and 30 per cent of that traffic is refrigerated. So, given the time delays that would inevitably be the consequence of trying to re-route from the existing ports that are being used, then there are very serious downside risks for the Irish republic, which makes it perhaps all the more surprising that the European Commission is being quite so intransigent in these negotiations. Are the Irish going to fare any better than the Greeks in the minds of the European Commission, Monsieur Barnier and Monsieur Juncker and their colleagues?

I’ve never actually been under any illusion about these negotiations because the EU, having been from its inception a political project, not an economic one, despite the fact it was originally called the European Economic Community—what is obviously uppermost in the minds of the negotiators for the EU is the ultimate destination, which they see, of a federal states of Europe, which certainly nobody in Britain ever signed up to, and nobody was ever asked in any other part of Europe. For them, small countries are a small price to pay for the achievement of their grand continental political objectives. So, I think that the Government is to be deprecated, actually, for not going into these negotiations expecting to fail, and therefore having wasted the last nine months or a year or so when it could have been making preparations to deal with the very severe practical problems that have been referred to in this debate, and which do certainly need now to be accelerated—or the solutions, if there is no deal, need to be accelerated—over the course of the next few months.

I do think that the technological advances that were referred to by Mark Isherwood in his speech offer a partial solution to the problem, and certainly mitigate the difficulties that will arise, and the experience of other countries, whether it be Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden—Germany, indeed, has similar arrangements through these authorised economic operator systems, which are mentioned in the report. But I personally think that there is every reason to believe that, if the member states of the European Union are prepared to put pressure upon the Commission, a deal might be forged. What has always amazed me is how supine the member states are when faced with the drive towards federal union from the Commission when it threatens their own domestic national interests—in some cases, in the case of southern European countries, very, very dramatically indeed. I don’t want to see the Irish republic suffer from Brexit any more than I want to see Britain suffer from Brexit. We should have the closest possible connections with our geographical neighbours, not least because of the need to maintain the peace process in Northern Ireland. I think it would be criminal if the European Union were, by its intransigence, to put all that at risk, but that is certainly a possibility.

I do believe that this report offers the way forward in practical terms to deal with these problems, and I look forward to hearing the Cabinet Secretary’s enlightenment on the various questions that it poses for him and on the criticisms that were made in the report.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure—Ken Skates.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer.

That’ll do.

Excellent. I’d like to thank the Chair and members of the committee for their inquiry and for their report. I think it’s fair to say that Welsh ports currently punch well above their weight with over 11 per cent of the total freight moved through the UK handled by Welsh ports and over 70 per cent of cargo to and from Ireland, Great Britain and the wider EU passing through ports in Wales. So, it’s clear that the sector already makes a major contribution towards our ambition of providing a united, connected, sustainable and also a more prosperous Wales.

This is an important time for us as we look forward to the devolution of ports-related functions under the Wales Act next year, during our Year of the Sea. Devolution will signal a new contract between the sector and the Welsh Government and that enhanced relationship will allow us to work together to exploit the opportunities that lie ahead.

Ports in Wales have achieved great success with a commercial and market-led environment. I believe it’s essential to maintain that environment. I want to ensure the right conditions are in place to enable ports to achieve even more success, but we must recognise the uncertainty that lies ahead following the decision to leave the EU. This presents unique challenges.

In our White Paper, we set out clearly our priorities for Brexit, including the critical importance of avoiding disruption to our trade. We also stressed that any changes to migration and/or customs rules would have an immediate and major impact at Welsh ports, and the committee report highlights the seriousness of these potential impacts.

The key to managing these threats and opportunities is to ensure close and collaborative engagement between all relevant parties, and I am pleased to have accepted all of the committee’s recommendations, either in full or in principle.

The common thread connecting each recommendation is the need to work in partnership, whether towards ensuring customs arrangements do not disadvantage Welsh ports or towards consideration of an IT-based solution. This approach will enable us to promote and preserve maritime economic opportunities and increase prosperity throughout Wales.

The Welsh Government is being proactive in this area. In addition to the well-established engagement fora that already exist between Governments, businesses and the sector, we have asked the UK Government to ensure that they are engaged with us, with Welsh ports, and with relevant businesses on customs issues.

This approach, which is fully supported by the Welsh ports group, will enable us to understand the practical impact of new customs arrangements in Wales, both in terms of ports and the wider economic implications for Welsh business. We will then be able to determine, at the earliest possible stage, the right combination of solutions needed to maximise frictionless trade. Our key priority in this reserved space is to work with ports in Wales to influence the UK Government towards the most beneficial customs and tariffs arrangements that will provide growth for our ports and wider economy as well as enhancing commercial activity right across Wales.

We will continue to collaborate closely with the sector on the threats and the opportunities that could impact on our ability to protect and enhance the role of ports following Brexit, and we will continue to press the UK Government on the need to ensure that Welsh ports are not unfairly disadvantaged as a result of any potential differentiated border arrangements, as recommended in the committee’s report.

As recommended in the report, we will also continue to work closely with other partners such as the Government of Ireland to assess the implications of Brexit and explore mutual challenges and opportunities, and I’m pleased to have had the opportunity to personally engage with Shane Ross, my counterpart across the water, to discuss planning for a post-Brexit relationship. Wales provides a strategic link with Ireland for the rest of the UK and mainland Europe. Ensuring that link is maintained will be of benefit to all parties, as Members have rightly identified.

Since the publication of the committee’s report, the UK Government has set out its preferred approach to streamlining customs arrangements post Brexit and yesterday published a customs White Paper together with a trade White Paper. The customs White Paper sets out plans to legislate for the stand-alone customs, VAT and excise regimes that the UK will need once it leaves the EU, and also detail on the contingency planning in the event of a ‘no deal’. The strong representations we and industry have made in respect of frictionless trade I think have been heard, but how that will work in practice remains unclear, especially in the event of ‘no deal’, and a priority must still be to reach an agreement with the EU. Business simply cannot afford to face any risk of excessive delays or administration for new customs checks. We risk seeing important trade lost to ports in Scotland and the north of England, and much of the goods that cross from Ireland to Holyhead are perishable and they are in the other direction, so any delays—any lengthy delays—would be disastrous. I recognise that the paper appears to address the soft and hard border question and the potential detriment to Welsh ports by stressing that the answer to avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland cannot be to impose a new customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. But, again, how that will work in practice remains unclear, and I’m concerned the customs Bill White Paper essentially proposes to introduce detailed arrangements via secondary legislation.

As a number of Members have identified, the White Paper also places a great deal of trust in technology providing the answer to frictionless trade. It might well do that, but I think there is a high-risk approach here, leaving no room for mistakes or delay in an area where the UK Government’s track record is not good. Furthermore, details of the proposed IT solution have not been fully disclosed, and therefore it makes accurately assessing the cost at this stage impossible.

Acting Deputy Presiding Officer, I can assure Members that we will consider and engage on further detail via both White Papers and will update the Assembly as developments progress. On the point of free ports, I would like to say that such zones are not physically constrained to ports, but we are engaging proactively with the sector and with individual ports on the potential of free zones, and we will seek to influence UK Government’s position as that position becomes clear.

Thank you. I call on David Rees to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Can I thank all Members? As Russell George said, it’s nice to have Members who are not on our committee actually participating in the debate this afternoon. And can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy and Infrastructure for his response, particularly to some of the comments we’ve highlighted today?

I’ll just go through a few things. Eluned Morgan highlighted the current implication of the customs rules today—and it’s very important—but she also highlighted something perhaps people didn’t realise: that when we went to Ireland, we actually brought to their attention the possible implications for Irish ports. Because if they did decide to go through the Northern Ireland route, because businesses will take the route of least resistance, of course there would be an implication for the ports of Dublin and Rosslare as well. They hadn’t even thought of that at that point, so I think it’s well worth having these discussions, and the work we did also hopefully helped the Irish Government look at that aspect.

It is devastating to leave the customs union, but it seems that’s the way we’re going. But everyone’s been talking about—I’ll pick one topic—IT solutions; everyone’s talking about it. Just to let you know, I used to lecture in software engineering and software development. I know my colleague Mike Hedges has also been in the IT world. I can tell you that it’s not easy to do a solution for this, and if people think they can do it quickly, and if they’ve got solutions somewhere else because it works somewhere else, I’m sorry, the complications, the complexities, the different requirements, different facilities—it doesn’t transfer automatically. This is a very difficult, complex solution. It is long term, and cannot be done in 12 months, which is the time you’re talking about. Yes, it will be perhaps a longer term solution, and eventually we will get there, but not if we don’t get this right by March 2019.

Yes, the land bridge was highlighted—that the UK will still be a land bridge, probably. They did talk about the options of going via Cherbourg. The timescale on the ferry crossing was a challenge for them, but they didn’t actually rule out the option of increasingly going via the north of Ireland, and therefore that’s what our concern was: that that option would be available to us and to them because of the different arrangements that might be in place.

Rhun, you’re naturally focused upon the impact upon Holyhead and communities in your own area. It could have a devastating impact, if we’re not careful, on Holyhead and the communities around Holyhead, and the businesses and people working there. We didn’t want to see Holyhead, basically the whole town, become a parking bay for lorries, which is what could happen. Because let’s remember one thing: when there are problems in Calais, what happens in Kent? The M20 is shut and becomes a big parking bay for lorries. We do not want solutions like that anywhere. We need to address these issues now to make sure it doesn’t happen.

Simon, yes, again, actually our report focuses very much on the roll-on, roll-off ferries, but you’re quite right that ports do cover other areas. There are many bulk ports in Wales, and fishing, and the implications for fishing, also have to be considered, because Milford Haven does have opportunities to look at how the fishing quotas can be changed and how the fishing industry in Milford Haven can actually change as well. It is important. And Joyce—the effect on the different maritime industries across the whole range, everywhere in that region. Yes, you’re right: get Brexit right, that’s the message we must send, but I don’t think the Government’s doing that at the moment—and I’m talking about the UK Government here, not the Welsh Government.

Can I go to, perhaps, my colleagues—[Interruption.] Yes, Mark.

On the IT, you will recall that, several months ago, Irish Ferries told us that they were, amongst others, in dialogue with HM Revenue and Customs over IT solutions. Would you not, like me, hope that, by now, the Welsh Government would have engaged with this to establish what IT solutions were being considered by HM Revenue and Customs, as the body that will ultimately decide on this?

Well, you’re quite right, it is important to get the positions of where we are with IT solution arguments between HMRC and other bodies and groups and organisations; it has to be vital. But I do think—indeed, they did tell us that they even didn’t think they’d get it done in time, and that’s the biggest problem. So we’ve got to get something between now and then.

Gareth Bennett, thank you for reporting on my foreword—I wish I hadn’t written it now, sometimes—but can I remind you, as a Chair of a committee, that I’m not political? That’s the intention of the committee. Committees reflect upon the issues and report to the Assembly. We are not voices of Government or any other party, we are voices of the Assembly. That’s the job, and that’s what we did. And you talk about not being political, and then spent a long time being exactly that, but there you are.

Neil, I will mention you, so you’ll have a mention from me as well. Thank you for saying that this is a fair and balanced report; we try to keep to that. And you’re right, there is a huge impact for Ireland as well—this could have a huge impact upon Ireland, so it is important that we address this issue and we work with Ireland to address this issue. But then you lost it and went off on a rant about the EU Commission not doing deals. Well, I’m sorry, you were going so well, but there you go.

And so are you, Chairman, but we’re running out of time.

Two seconds—well, 10 seconds. Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your answers. There are obviously some areas we need to explore further on this issue. But I’ve one question for you: you talked about the UK Government and being asked to join in the forum; can I just ask, have they? Have they actually come forward and said, ‘Yes, we want to take part’? Because it is important that they start listening to what’s happening here in Wales. Thank you, everyone.

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

The next item is the UKIP debate on business rates, and I call on Caroline Jones to move the motion.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. I’m pleased to move the motion before you today. Before I entered politics, I was a small business owner, operating businesses on the high street in Bridgend and Porthcawl, and I experienced at first hand the challenges facing businesses on our high streets. The motion tabled by my colleagues and me seeks to mitigate some of these challenges. We are calling for the Welsh Government to take action on business rates as a longer-term solution and to introduce better rate relief for small businesses in the short term. This will inject much-needed support for small independent retailers who are struggling, particularly those operating on our high streets.

As the Federation of Small Businesses state in their 2017 manifesto, small independent retailers make a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the character of our streets in our cities, towns and villages. They are vital to local economies throughout the country. A much higher proportion of revenue is recycled into the local community through small businesses than through their local counterparts. Without small independent retailers, our high streets are at risk of becoming either empty shells or smaller versions of out-of-town retail parks. If we want to retain the character of our high streets, from Bridgend to Bangor, from Connah’s Quay to Cowbridge, then we have to act now.

One in every eight retail units are currently empty, and with the Welsh economy lagging behind the other UK nations the outlook for the high street isn’t great. High-street retailers are struggling with increasing rents and business rates, at the same time as facing increasing competition from online and out-of-town retailers who have much lower costs. We have to create a level playing field, and the majority of small businesses and small independent retailers want to see action taken on business rates.

Business rates, as currently constituted, are inherently inequitable as they bear no relation to the profitability of a business. They are a charge based upon the rent of the property, and, as many small high-street retailers have found to their detriment, do not reflect the turnover or profits of the business. Retailers who wish to remain on the high street have no choice but to absorb the additional cost. They can simply move on, as some Ministers have suggested in the past. It is therefore vital to the very survival of our high streets that we replace the current business rates system with a more equitable tax based upon the ability to pay.

This is supported by both the FSB and the Welsh retail consortium. The FSB state that the non-domestic rates system, as it stands, is an unfair and regressive tax that takes no account of a firm’s ability to pay. A business must pay £1 in business rates before it earns £1 in turnover, let alone £1 in profit. This system is no longer fit for purpose and is unable to take account of the changing nature of doing business. A property-based tax, by its nature, unfairly targets businesses in prime locations such as high streets. Infrequent revaluations merely store up trouble, exacerbating a property tax that already lags behind the economic cycle. We agree.

According to the Welsh retail consortium, Welsh retailers want to see fundamental reform of business rates for all, whether that be small, medium or larger-sized business. What is abundantly clear is that the current system is not fit for purpose. It’s deterring investment and leading to shop closures and job losses. We understand that this cannot happen overnight. This is why we are proposing an interim system of rate relief that will see businesses with a rateable value below £15,000 taken out of business rates altogether, and a reduction of 20 per cent for those businesses that fall within the £15,000 to £20,000.

Although business rates are the biggest barrier to the survivability of high-street businesses, they aren’t the only one. Our high streets are facing stiffer competition from online and out-of-town retailers. I believe in a free market but here we don’t have a level playing field, and therefore the odds are stacked against high-street businesses in more than one way. Out-of-town developments benefit from free car parking and those car parks are not included in the business rate valuation. In order to even up the playing field, we are proposing that an offer of at least one hour of parking in town and city centre car parks should be available. We believe this will encourage local trade.

It’s not just the Welsh Government who are to take action to save our high streets. The UK Government also have a role to play. They have to create the economic stability we need for the high street to survive. They also need to look at business taxation. I would like the UK Government to review value added tax when Brexit does materialise. The VAT threshold needs to be raised from the £85,000 it currently is, and a more graduated system introduced. But above all, the Welsh public also have a role to play. We should all prioritise small independent retailers—whenever we can—who offer goods and services at top value very often. To paraphrase the Labour leader’s conference speech, it’s a case of use it or lose it. If the Welsh public value the high street, they have to use the high street. In just under eight weeks, it will be Small Business Saturday, and the Federation of Small Businesses have once again launched the £10 pledge, in which they’re encouraging as many people as possible to pledge that they will spend at least £10 with a local business, a small business, on Saturday 2 December. I have accepted that pledge, as I did last year and the years before it, and I will be supporting Small Business Saturday and I urge everyone here to do likewise.

I urge everyone watching this debate to accept the pledge. Supporting our small high-street businesses ensures that we have a diverse and vibrant local economy. By reducing the threshold on VAT, we can then employ more people and then the economy grows further. I ask you to show your support for the Welsh high street by supporting the motion before you. Diolch yn fawr.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected; if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the leader of the house to move formally amendment 1 tabled in her name.

Formally.

Thank you very much. I call on Nick Ramsay to move amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, acting Deputy Presiding—Chair, I think is probably easier. I’m pleased to move the amendments today in the name of Paul Davies.

Can I firstly welcome the UK Government’s willingness to devolve business rates to the Welsh Government? We certainly in the Welsh Conservatives believe that that was a step in the right direction. Yes, we did have a certain amount of control over business rates prior to that, but the full devolution of business rates, we believe, brings a real opportunity for the Welsh Government to act in this area—another tool in the economic toolbox, as the First Minister and as the Cabinet Secretary for finance’s predecessor were keen to call it. Having the tool is one thing, using it to improve the business rate regime is another, and this is where we feel that the Government amendment is not acceptable to us. A number of elements of the Government amendment we wouldn’t disagree with. Certainly, the importance of small businesses—that stands to reason; I don’t think anyone would stand up in this Chamber and say that small businesses aren’t of vital importance to the Welsh economy, indeed as Caroline Jones has just made clear.

The vital importance of cross-Government working is a key part of the Government amendment as well, and that’s to be welcomed. In the previous debate, we heard about the importance of Governments working together. We need a joined-up framework between Governments, and the Welsh Government and the UK Government, particularly in the run-up to Brexit, during the Brexit negotiations, which I know many Members, including me, are concerned about.

However, there we part company, you won’t be surprised to know. We don’t believe that the Labour amendment stresses the urgency of addressing the situation and giving businesses across Wales the support that they are crying out for, and have been crying out for for some time. So, as our amendment, amendment 5, makes clear, we need to see more businesses taken out of business rates altogether, and small businesses with a rateable value of up to £15,000 specifically removed from that. We agree with a large part of the UKIP motion in this area, actually. We’ve got differences on some detail, but you’ve also broadly recognised the importance of businesses being taken out of that burden. We would also, as the amendment makes clear, remove the multiplier. That’s now within our grasp with the full devolution of business rates. Of course, all of this is designed to increase competitiveness and improve the economy; that’s what this is all about.

It’s very easy to stand in this Chamber and talk about statistics as though we’re in some sort of vacuum, and I can throw statistics at the Chamber and the Minister will throw them back, but I often feel that we don’t really get to the core of the arguments by doing that. What this is about, as so many debates in this Chamber are about, is improving the lives of people out there, supporting businesses, improving people’s lives, helping more people to support themselves. That’s certainly what I’m here for, and I’m sure other Assembly Members are too. So, let’s be mindful of the effect that the recent revaluation had on businesses across Wales. I won’t forget, because I was inundated, as I’m sure many Assembly Members were, with correspondence, phone calls and e-mails from people who were really, really worried about the effect that the changes to the revaluation would have on their businesses. Of course, it wasn’t a Welsh Government revaluation; the revaluation did happen across the spectrum, across the UK. So, we recognise that the Welsh Government were not to blame for the need to have a revaluation, of course—that’s a necessary part of the economic and business cycle and that had to be addressed. But the way that the revaluation was handled and the way that it was communicated to people across Wales did concern us.

As I said, I received many representations and, in fact, sadly—I checked on this recently—a couple of the businesses whose owners contacted me have already gone—they’re empty, there are boards in the windows. I think that brought it home to me very clearly why I was involved in a petition at that time and why I wanted to help those business owners. So, it wasn’t just scaremongering, as some of us are often accused of doing, it wasn’t making a lot of noise for no reason—the actual results of that revaluation and the lack of proper support for businesses has already had an effect.

As for our last amendment—there should be more support for free parking pilot schemes—I think the Government should be able to—well, I assume you should be able to—support this, because I know that you have already given some support for extending parking pilot schemes across Wales. We’re simply saying that we think that’s a good thing and it should be enhanced. So, we will be voting against the motion in order to get our amendments on the paper, but there’s a lot of good stuff in this motion and I’m pleased that UKIP have brought it to the Chamber today and I hope that there will be support for our amendments.

I call on Adam Price to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch. It’s yet another opportunity for us to discuss the reform of business rates. I mean, I’m not the only one, I’m sure, in this Chamber, to be hit by a tsunami of déjà vu. It seems a perennial in this place that we are constantly returning to this subject, and for good reason, really. This is an anachronistic discredited tax. It’s a bit like the window tax, which was repealed in 1851, but this one is still with us. And for all the reasons that Caroline Jones referred to and Nick Ramsay agreed with, it’s high time that we not just had some reform at the edges, but looked at a completely different way of approaching business taxation. Because, as we move to a situation where physical businesses, otherwise known as shops, in the retail sector in particular are facing huge challenges as we shift to online, then we are loading additional cost on to this sector, which is unsustainable, and the consequences that Nick Ramsay referred to are there to be seen in all of our town centres.

Our amendment set out the policy that we fought the election on. I mean, it goes in a similar direction. We suggested abolishing business rates for all businesses with a rateable value of less than £10,000 a year and then tapered relief up to £20,000. We disagree on some of the details, but I think the principle is clear. We also proposed exempting businesses in the first year of operation in order to encourage business start-ups, introducing a split multiplier for small and large businesses, which is the case in Scotland and in England. But this is the real one, this is the real prize, which is exploring abolishing business rates altogether and replacing them with alternative forms of taxation that do not discourage employment, town-centre regeneration and investment in plant and machinery.

Now, the Government has issued its consultation document. There are two days left, I think, for people who are keen to put their oar in, but it’s a very, very desultory, disappointing document, to be honest with you. One of the first things it says is that the new scheme will be designed within the existing £110 million annual funding envelope. So, where’s the scope for reform there? They also set out some proposals in terms of increasing the threshold for relief, but they’re incredibly modest. I mean, the only viable options, the consultation document says, are increasing the threshold of 100 per cent relief from £6,000 to £8,000. These are crumbs, really, in terms of helping the small business sector in Wales. Increasing the upper threshold for relief from £12,000 to £13,000—well, that’s going to create a transformative effect in our business sector in Wales. And, wait for it, potentially—it’s full of qualified language—increasing the lower threshold to £8,000 and the upper threshold to £13,000. Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? That’s the lack of ambition in terms of business rate reform and in terms of economic policy in general from this Government.

There’s no mention at all in the Welsh Labour Government’s own consultation document of switching from retail price index to consumer price index indexation. That was actually in their manifesto for the general election at the UK level. No mention of exempting new investment in plant and machinery. I remember John McDonnell hailing that as a radical policy that was going to make a difference to businesses right across the land—England, of course. Yet again, a case of doing and saying one thing when it suits them politically over the border and, in the one part of the United Kingdom that they’re actually in Government, not following through on their own policy. We’re not surprised, are we, but certainly, I think, we’ve a right to be deeply disappointed at the lack of leadership in the Government. We need radical thinking. It certainly isn’t contained within the ambit of the pathetically low ambition statement that we got from the Government in terms of their consultation. We should be looking at leading the rest of the UK in abolishing this outdated tax and creating the platform upon which our businesses can thrive.

The majority of employees are employed in small and medium-sized businesses. The business owners are usually from, or are living near, the community they trade with. Their interest in seeing a sustainable town centre is personal as well as professional, and profits, unlike those of Amazon, Tesco, Asda and the others, are far more likely to stay in the local community rather than be sent to some remote parent company in another country. Since the profits stay in the country, those businesses will be paying their fair share of UK tax, unlike some multinationals.

The current system taxes businesspeople on the basis of the nominal value of their property. This is illogical and focuses on buildings as opposed to the business that operates from them. It seems to forget that behind any small business is a person or people trying to make a living. It’s a regressive tax, and its change to a more progressive model is well overdue, as the empty properties on many high streets in Wales and the comparatively fewer SMEs in Wales illustrate.

Devolution of business rates to Wales enables Wales to take the lead on introducing a progressive and fairer system of business rates. I would like to see business rates based on profit or turnover, with incentives built in so that employers share the benefit of reductions in business rates with employees, in the form of employing more people. For example, business rates could be restructured in such a way that businesses receive a discount or concessionary rate for employing more people. Conditions could be set on the discounts to encourage businesses to employ people at a wage higher than the national minimum. It just needs a little bit of creative thinking here.

For those who claim that such a system would be complicated to administer, they may be right, but this is about the best way to support businesses and pay for local services. I really do believe that where there’s a will, there’s a way, and to stimulate the growth of local economies with a fairer local taxation system, the extra administration that may be caused is well worth it. Before a business starts trading, and before they have earned a single penny through the business, they’re saddled with a big business rates bill. The business rates regime disincentivises business start-ups, and makes life for young businesses more difficult at a time when they need some space in which to grow, turn a profit and start employing people.

I note the Welsh Government’s amendments to our motion, and I’d like to make the following points. Your amendments make much of your support for small businesses, but as long as you continue to stand idly by and allow local authorities to wreck high streets and the local economy by making it harder and more expensive to do business there, your assertions regarding support for small businesses will continue to ring as hollow as they have for the last 20 years. It is all very well to introduce rates relief, but businesses need to be able to plan and budget, which this ad hoc scenario we have at present doesn’t allow.

Will you take an intervention?

No. The remainers in this place keep talking about the damage of uncertainty when they try to argue against enacting the will of Welsh voters over Brexit, but then they’re happy to leave the issue of business rates uncertain and ill-defined. A country-wide set of hard and fast rules is required, despite Labour’s occasional whim to let businesses off business rates on the odd occasion. I note there’s no mention in Labour’s amendments of restructuring or reviewing business rates to make them more equitable.

Looking around the high streets in north Wales—high streets that were bustling, thriving centres of the community within my lifetime—they’re now full of empty shops. You can practically see the tumbleweed rolling down the high street. In areas of my region, traders have been prevented from loading at the front and rear of their properties. Perhaps the Welsh Government would get the relevant council to propose a solution to how traders load their stock into their shops if they can’t get near it with a delivery van. Parking in the multistorey car park down the road is hardly appropriate.

Things like this explain why, overall, Wales has the highest national vacancy rate on the high street compared with England and Scotland. Fifteen per cent of shops and leisure premises were standing empty at the end of the first half of 2015 and I’m guessing the situation isn’t any better. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: some of the decisions made by local authorities, such as pedestrianisation, parking regulations and charges, scrapping loading bays, increasing business rates, et cetera, are destroying our high streets and the small businesses that used to trade from there. It also shows that the people making the relevant decisions have never tried to run a small business and have no clue what issues those trying to run small businesses face.

It serves no one—not the Welsh Government, not the UK Exchequer, not the local authority, and certainly not the business owner and their employees—to make doing business in Wales more expensive, which is what our current regime of business rates does. I therefore urge the Welsh Government to urgently conduct a review on the restructuring of business rates, so that Welsh Government and local government stop killing the golden goose of small business. Thank you.

I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Well, I do welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate and it is an important time for policy development with regard to non-domestic rates. I do recognise the experience that we’ve got here in this Chamber as well as the policy views that have been expressed today.

Non-domestic rates contribute more than £1 billion a year to fund vital local services in Wales and all the rates revenue collected in Wales is redistributed in full to local authorities and police and crime commissioners here in Wales to support these services. We pay taxes because we all get the collective benefits of doing so. The local services that non-domestic rates support are absolutely the ones that businesses need in order to be successful. To maintain these services, it’s right that everyone who is able to contributes their fair share.

Non-domestic rates apply to most forms of non-domestic property, including car parks and out-of-town retail parks. They don’t just apply to businesses. They apply to property occupied by the public sector, of course, and not-for-profit organisations. The rates system was specifically designed to be a tax on property to raise revenue for local services. It’s not a tax on turnover or profit; these are subject to other forms of taxation levied by the UK Government and used for other purposes.

Nick Ramsay has reminded us that the valuation of property is carried out by the Valuation Office Agency. The VOA is independent of the Welsh Government. It determines the methodology for valuing property and applies the same methodology across the country, taking account of local property market conditions.

The Welsh Government recognises that not all rate payers have the same capacity to pay, particularly small businesses, where the rates can represent a higher proportion of their overall costs. That’s why we are providing over £200 million of financial assistance as rates relief in this financial year, 2017-18, and this is supporting more than three quarters of all rate payers. Over £100 million for a small business rates relief scheme already supports almost 70 per cent of businesses in Wales, and over half of all eligible businesses pay no rates at all. This scheme was due to end on 31 March of this year, but we’ve extended it for 2017-18. Without this support, small businesses in Wales would be facing higher tax bills.

We’ve also made it a clear commitment to put a new, permanent, small business rates relief scheme in place from April 2018. As has been said and acknowledged today in this Chamber—and why it’s so topical, of course—we’re currently consulting on proposals for this new relief scheme, with the consultation closing later this week. I’m sure those submissions—I’m sure we’ve seen them from our constituencies and businesses and bodies, leading up to the close of that consultation.

This consultation is important. It seeks views on how the relief could be better targeted to support those businesses that would benefit most and those that would contribute more to the growth of the Welsh economy and the sustainability of our communities. The consultation also considers how the permanent scheme could be developed to support wider Welsh Government objectives. So, it explores, for example, the option of providing additional relief to certain industries or sectors, such as childcare. There needs to, of course, be a robust evidence base for us to consider those options.

This permanent relief scheme will provide certainty and security for small businesses, delivering a tax cut and helping them to drive long-term economic growth for Wales. The introduction of a permanent small business rates relief scheme that is tailored to the specific needs of Wales clearly demonstrates the importance we place on supporting small businesses by reducing their non-domestic rates liability.

Whilst the overall rateable value in Wales has fallen, I recognise that values have risen in some locations and for some types of property. So, in response to the 2017 revaluation, the Welsh Government established a new £10 million transitional relief scheme to assist small businesses whose entitlement to small business rates relief was adversely affected. This relief scheme provides additional support to more than 7,000 ratepayers, and the scheme is fully funded by the Welsh Government. In contrast, transitional relief in England is being funded by ratepayers who saw reductions in their rateable values as a result of the revaluation. Just to be clear, the relief for those whose values have increased is being paid for by those whose bills should have fallen.

We’ve listened to what small businesses have been telling us, especially high-street retailers. Of course, some of us have been representing constituents who’ve been particularly affected by this, and we appreciate that some towns and communities were affected more by the revaluation. While there are many high streets across the country where rates have fallen, some retailers need additional support more generally—these points have been made this afternoon—because of, for example, competition from the growth of online and out-of-town shopping. That’s why we allocated an extra £10 million for additional support for high-street retailers, including shops, cafes and pubs in 2017-18. Again, this is fully funded by the Welsh Government. For many ratepayers, particularly those previously only eligible for partial small business rates relief, this additional relief has reduced their remaining liability to nil.

FSB Wales has welcomed the Welsh Government’s commitment to easing the pressure on high-street businesses affected by the revaluation and thus is a reflection again of the importance of engaging with FSB to learn and to debate these issues. I think it’s useful to highlight ways in which we are supporting our small and medium-sized businesses across Wales, particularly in terms of the high street and those opportunities. Launched in October 2012, the microbusiness loan provides scope, for example, to support businesses with loans of between £1,000 and £20,000. To date, the Wales microbusiness loan fund has supported 371 businesses, investing £9 million directly and attracting over £7.8 million of further private sector funds. The fund has created and safeguarded 1,747 jobs to the end of March 2017. Sometimes, statistics are useful, Nick Ramsay, in terms of just highlighting what has been achieved. Importantly in terms of regeneration, we’ve also funded 20 town-centre partnerships across Wales, and in addition to this, a £20 million town-centre loans fund.

I thank you for giving way, Minister. I recognise that there has been a level of support, over and above what was promised last year, and we do welcome that. But there are other businesses that have fallen through the net, besides those you’ve mentioned, so could your Welsh Government look again at the schemes in place?

Well, I think this is why it’s so important that the response to this debate today and the response to the consultation is fully taken up, and I think it’s also important to remember that—. I want to comment on the car parking scheme—of course, that was your amendment 6—but also the fact that, as you said, funding has been allocated to support pilot initiatives to test the feasibility and impact of free car parking, and that’s intended to support the regeneration of our towns and cities.

So, finally, in the longer term, we’ll be exploring whether more fundamental changes to the non-domestic rates system could benefit local services and the Welsh economy. I’m sure Adam Price will have welcomed the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government’s update on his plans yesterday, where we’re looking in more detail at alternative approaches to non-domestic property taxation. We have to look at the best examples of taxation systems from across the world, including different forms of taxation. And, of course, in considering those reforms, our priorities have to be greater resilience for local authorities, fairness for citizens, and sustainable funding for vital local services. So, an important time: development on policy on rates relief for small business. We look forward to seeing the responses to our consultation, and I do commend to the Assembly the Government’s amendment to this motion. Diolch.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Well, I’m grateful to those who’ve taken part in this debate today, and UKIP seems to have achieved something that people don’t normally associate with us: the ability to bring about consensus and unity, at least on the non-Government side of the house. I find myself in a position where I could have voted, actually, for the Conservative amendment or for the Plaid amendment, but for the fact that that would involve deleting part of our own motion. I think this has been, well, one of many debates that I’ve lived through in the course of my political lifetime—it is a hardy perennial—but, nevertheless, the importance of it never goes away, and that has been amply demonstrated by the speeches that were made, from Caroline Jones at the start of the debate, right up until the leader of the house speaking. Adam Price’s impassioned rhetoric is always an advantage to have on one’s side, and he pointed out what is the fundamental flaw in property taxes, that it’s anachronistic and, in this particular instance, goes back to the Poor Law of 1601. Land is an easy thing to tax because it’s fixed and can’t be hidden, and it’s a convenient tax for tax collectors, but that’s not normally the best argument that you can make for having a tax. We’ve heard from everybody else the damage that this tax does to the most vibrant businesses in the land, and how it has a chilling effect upon the economy. Caroline Jones pointed out in her opening speech that one in eight retail units in Wales lies empty. It’s unfair and regressive. We’ve heard the Cabinet Secretary for finance, in the course of the last few weeks, talking about the budget and the new taxes that we’re going to get very shortly, and refer to how glad he is to be able to make them progressive. But, of course, in the case of business rates, it’s the opposite. I can’t understand why the desire for progressivity is so great in other taxes that the Welsh Government has control over, but is wholly absent, as Adam Price pointed out, in the case of business rates.

Now, I realise that the Government wants to advertise what it’s done to relieve the problems caused by the current system, and we acknowledge that. Their proposals are welcome—both the temporary ones and the proposal to have a more permanent form of relief—but that doesn’t go to the heart of the problem. What we should have is a kind of all-party commission to try to form a consensus view on how to get rid of this ancient tax, which is doing so much damage. I’ve lived through many property revaluations in the course of my lifetime—some of them far more dramatic than the one we’ve just been experiencing here in Wales—and I’ve lived through disastrous attempts to reform property tax systems, not least the poll tax in the 1980s, which occupied too many of my nights, in those days, in the House of Commons. It’s not an easy problem to solve—I fully accept that—but, nevertheless, I think we ought at least to try, and—

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, I will, sure.

Thank you. Would you agree with me that it’s about Governments working together so that, when we do come out of the EU, and the VAT threshold and the rate can be lowered to encourage people to invest in our country, that Governments need to work together on this issue of business rates and VAT? Because, when Gordon Brown did give 5 per cent off, and lowered it from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, the difference that that made to small businesses, I can tell you, was astronomical. People did take on new staff with that, so—.

Well, it is true that all business taxes, actually, are ultimately borne by consumers or other taxpayers than the businesses who are the conduit through which they are paid, because, if a business doesn’t have the money that it’s going to give to the taxing authorities in its own bank account, to spend either on investment within the business or developing its business or, indeed, to transmit to investors in the business by means of dividends, then of course other ways of spending the money are denied, and taxation is always a dead weight on the enterprise economy, although taxation, of course, is inescapable, like death, as we know. But what I—

Will you take a question?

Yes, of course.

Would you acknowledge that, as you’ve referenced earlier on, £210 million so far, plus £20 million, has gone into Welsh non-domestic business rates? In regard to England, less than a third have had such similar rate relief. Would you acknowledge what the Welsh Government has done in that regard, and also the current consultation? And, in regard to the split multiplier, that there seems to be some consensus across on the opposition benches, would you acknowledge that that is a case of subsidising, say, for instance, small businesses, from hard-pressed sectors such as the steel industry?

Well, in the spirit of consensus in which I started my speech, I welcome Rhianon Passmore into my big tent, if that’s not too frightening and gruesome a prospect. But, yes, of course I acknowledge that the Government has applied several bits of sticking plaster to the existing system, but what we want is not sticking-plaster solutions. We want, for the longer term, at any rate, a solution that is going to deal with the fundamental flaws of this property-based system, which has long outlived its usefulness. The economy is very different from what it was in the early seventeenth century, and we have other forms of taxation that are related to ability to pay, and that is the road down which we should go if we want the Welsh economy to be revived. I keep saying this—that we’re at the bottom of the income scale for the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. If we want to change that, we’ve got to have more radical solutions here in Wales. Wales has always been a radical country, and what I find is so depressing and demoralising about this Labour Government is its utter lack of radicalism. Adam Price talked about its modesty. I remember that Margot Asquith said of her husband, Herbert Asquith, who was the Liberal Prime Minister a hundred years ago,

his modesty amounts to deformity’

and I think that is true of this Labour Government as well. We need to combine our resources, I think, and try to arrive at a solution to this problem, which isn’t going to perhaps please everybody, but everybody is agreed upon the flaws of the present system, I’m sure even Labour Members—although I’m disappointed that not a single one of them has participated in this debate this afternoon. Everybody agrees that the system is flawed and everybody agrees on what the nature of those flaws are. But, nevertheless, nobody seems to think that there is a solution; it’s all too difficult. Well, Governments very often create difficulties. They’re not so good at solving them, but I do believe that, with a will, and goodwill, we can achieve this.

So, I’m grateful to everybody who has taken part in this debate today and the spirit in which they’ve made their speeches—Nick Ramsay, Adam Price and Michelle Brown—and there were even parts of the leader of the house’s speech with which I could agree. But my principal point is that, whatever good the Government has done, we do need to have a much more radical and long-term approach, and I don’t see that coming from this consultation document that is currently ongoing. So, I commend our motion to the house.

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

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to the vote. The vote is on the UKIP debate on business rates. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, no abstentions, 43 against, and, therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1—if amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 23 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

The next vote is therefore on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, one abstention, 25 against, and therefore amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 5—I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 33 against, and therefore amendment 5 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 26 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 22 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next item on our agenda is the short debate. If Members who are leaving the Chamber could do so quickly and quietly, I will call on Dai Lloyd.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. This debate is about protecting and developing regional centres of medical excellence, and I’ve allowed Mike Hedges some time at the end of my speech as well.

We mustn’t forget that short debates in this place are important and can be effective in shaping Government policy. It’s almost 10 years to the day since I had a short debate on organ donation and opt-out and now we see it as the law of the land and several other lands.

Also, a previous short debate about 18 years ago started moves for a Swansea medical school. I’m hoping that today’s short debate will foster a similar change in mindset because the future of major trauma in Wales is the subject of a current review that is going out for consultation.

There’s a perception in south-west Wales that all key services are being centralised in Cardiff. The major trauma centre for south Wales is the latest example—the suggestion is one major trauma centre for south Wales and it should be in Cardiff.

Seasoned Senedd watchers will remember a previous debate on paediatric neurosurgery. Was it going to be—? We needed one unit—was it to be Swansea or Cardiff? Swansea had the only paediatric neurosurgeon at the time, 15 years ago, yet the unit went to Cardiff, which didn’t have a paediatric neurosurgeon. A couple of years later, about 10 years ago now, we had the same debate about adult neurosurgery units. There was one in Swansea, there was one in Cardiff. Review says: ‘You can only have one’. Hey presto, it goes to Cardiff. So, we’ve been here before.

The leader of this independent review, Professor Chris Moran, in leading the review that suggested the one major trauma centre should be in Cardiff, further suggested that the award-winning burns and plastics unit at Morriston would also, ideally, be located in Cardiff then. So where does all this stop? There’s a review down the line about thoracic surgery. We’ve got thoracic surgery in Swansea, we’ve got thoracic surgery in Cardiff. I’ll hold another short debate nearer the time, shall I? I’ve had representations this week that neurosurgery in Cardiff—which, as you know, we’ve lost from Swansea—is under pressure. You need neurosurgery for a functioning major trauma centre, yet I’ve had patients this week telling me that they’re on the waiting list for neurosurgery in Cardiff and have been offered neurosurgery in Liverpool, Oxford and elsewhere, because neurosurgery in Cardiff is under pressure.

Rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru gydnabod nad yw Cymru’n dod i ben yng Nghaerdydd. Ni ddylent esgeuluso Abertawe, de-orllewin Cymru, canolbarth Cymru a rhanbarthau eraill o Gymru. Mae pobl yn ne Gwynedd a sir Drefaldwyn yn defnyddio gwasanaethau arbenigol Abertawe. Mae angen i Lywodraeth Lafur Cymru ddatblygu gweledigaeth ar gyfer Ysbyty Treforys yn Abertawe i ddod yn ganolfan rhagoriaeth rhanbarthol gwirioneddol, ac yn saff o’i dyfodol. Nid yw’r canoli yma yn broblem sy’n wynebu de-orllewin Cymru yn unig, wrth gwrs. Mae angen i ni weld Llywodraeth Cymru yn datblygu gweledigaeth ar gyfer y gogledd hefyd, a buddsoddi mewn ysgol feddygol ym Mangor a chynlluniau eraill o’r fath. O ystyried y ddaearyddiaeth, y dalgylch a’r arbenigedd allweddol sydd yma, mae gan Ysbyty Treforys y potensial i fod yn ganolfan rhagoriaeth rhanbarthol allweddol yn ne orllewin Cymru, nid yn unig o ran dadl bresennol y ganolfan trawma, ond mewn llu o feysydd eraill, ac i fod yn gadarnle i ddiogelu presenoldeb pob arbenigedd yma yng Nghymru.

Morriston is a specialised tertiary centre now. Any dilution of specialised tertiary services at Morriston could potentially undermine attempts by the Swansea bay city deal and ARCH—a regional collaboration for health—to further develop health research and innovation in south Wales. Swansea’s excellent medical school is already a focus for high-quality research and development, as is the institute of life sciences, attracting the very highest calibre researchers, not to forget, obviously, the £450 million bay campus as well. Only by having high-quality and challenging tertiary services will Swansea and south-west Wales ever be able to attract the very best medical staff and researchers. The Swansea bay city deal and ARCH programme are founded on the principle of developing south-west Wales as a leader in terms of health innovation and research. Welsh Government must not undermine that.

Previous UK-wide reviews—this is the latest one—have seen services based in Cardiff lost to Bristol because the two cities are so close together geographically. Paediatric cardiac surgery was lost from Cardiff to Bristol some years ago. There was a review of cardiac surgery following the Bristol cardiac unit’s deaths scandal. It was decided: ‘Too many units, let’s have fewer units’. Cardiff was pitted against Bristol and despite the problems being in Bristol originally, Cardiff lost out to Bristol in cardiac surgery at that time. We currently send a number of neonatal cases from south Wales to Bristol. We need to be strengthening the high-level specialisms here in Wales, and that means not just in Cardiff, but in other parts of Wales. As regards major trauma centres, there are 27 now in England, and one in Wales will be. What is to say that a subsequent UK review of 28 major trauma centres will not recommend centralising in Bristol as has happened previously, if we’re going to have Cardiff and Bristol sat next door to one another?

In terms of trauma services, there are many questions that need to be asked and many points that need to be clarified, and hopefully the consultation coming up will do some of that. It is therefore vitally important that the public in south-west Wales and mid Wales are given an opportunity to scrutinise these plans in detail. We know that over a third of all major trauma patients in Wales originate in south-west Wales; this is as a result of the particularly high rate of road accidents on rural and semi-rural roads, agriculture and activity-based accidents often linked to tourism in rural west Wales.

Other Members in this place are also concerned. We’ll hear from Mike; I’ve obviously raised my concerns already with the First Minister, ABM and the community health councils. This matter is hugely important and needs in-depth scrutiny. The concerns of people in south-west Wales and other parts of Wales need to be heard. We need an open debate around these issues and the long-term future of hospitals such as Morriston and other regions of Wales, and that means the Welsh Government setting out a long-term vision for these regional centres of excellence.

With the proposal for the one trauma centre in Wales to be sited in Cardiff, with the implication that burns and plastics may well follow and be lost from Swansea to Cardiff, triggering yet another domino effect, what happens, as I’ve already implied, to thoracic surgery reviews subsequently? Siting everything super-specialised in Cardiff makes the NHS in Wales vulnerable to losing those specialisms completely, if a subsequent UK review pits Cardiff against Bristol—so close together geographically.

Burns and plastics in Morriston is an excellent unit, a leader in its field. It held off competition from Bristol to be the burns and plastics unit for the whole of south Wales and the south-west of England. We need regional centres of medical excellence dotted around Wales—Cardiff, yes, Swansea, Aberystwyth, Bangor, Wrexham—to attract our most talented doctors, nurses and consultants to all parts of Wales in the face of a recruitment crisis in all parts. So let us have a mature debate about Swansea and Cardiff working together in the same ‘team Wales’—now that would be radical in a medical sense—instead of being driven apart by that same old tedious Swansea-Cardiff competition, and Swansea always coming second.

Now, the NHS is not awash with money. We’ve heard the budget; we’re not awash with money. We cannot move an excellent burns and plastics unit to consolidate a decision on trauma on a whim, just to consolidate a Cardiff decision because you need burns and plastics in a major trauma centre as well. Why not have the major trauma centre in Swansea? That wouldn’t be a radical solution, because burns and plastics are already there. We could keep the unit there, not have to move it, expensively, elsewhere. And in closing, why not have a truly collaborative, Swansea and Cardiff together, approach? Considering the NHS in Wales as a whole and the people in Wales—yes the people in south Gwynedd, Powys, Pembroke, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire, they depend on Morriston now for their tertiary care. Let’s put a stop to the domino effect of haemorrhaging tertiary services to Cardiff and beyond. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Dai Lloyd for giving me a minute in this debate? South Wales has two major hospitals—that is without argument—that is Morriston and the Heath. Really, what we’re looking at is: how can we make the best use of both? We need to support both. To west Wales—and I include the area that you represent, Llywydd—Morriston is the major hospital. Anybody who has spent any time there will know that major road accidents from Machynlleth end up in Morriston. It may be slightly over an hour away, and I know people talk about this really important hour, but I think an hour and five minutes is an awful lot better than two hours. And I think that, perhaps, is saying that, yes, an hour’s great, if we can get it in an hour, but don’t write it off as ‘Well, if you can’t do it in an hour, well it doesn’t matter, it might as well get there the next day’. That’s not necessarily the way forward.

On burns and plastics, it is inconceivable that burns and plastics will move to Cardiff. It’s conceivable that it will move back to Bristol. Swansea won it in competition with Bristol because of the high quality of staff in Swansea and that it has created a reputation, and it’s a reputation that has been hard earned by a number of very talented physicians. I think it really is important that we look at what is best for the people of south Wales, and it’s not one place suits all. Can I just say, as somebody who used to travel back to the old Welsh Office—? I used to know that halfway from my house in Morriston to the old Welsh Office in Cardiff was somewhere along Northern Avenue in terms of time. I’ve seen ambulances make their way down there and I’ve seen the cars parting, but the cars are parting and the ambulances go through at 10 mph not 70 mph. So, let’s do something that benefits all the people of south Wales, and keep two centres working for the benefit of the people.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for health to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m happy to get a lectern and respond to the debate. Thank you to Dai Lloyd for bringing the debate today, but also to Mike Hedges for taking part as well. I recognise the very real concerns that local Members in and around south-west Wales have about the future direction of not just policy, but the practical reality of what that means in terms of where services are located.

I want to start on a more general point, though, about specialist services, because we already accept that people in any modern healthcare system will travel for specialist services. How specialist they are will affect how far they travel, whether that’s for a secondary care service or, in this instance, a tertiary service. There are some instances where, of course, we have people travelling outside of Wales to access highly specialist services, and with Morriston people travel into Wales from south-west England, in particular, to access the excellent services provided by the Welsh centre for burns and plastic surgery.

If I can just say at the outset, I recognise that the comments made by the person who led the independent review into major trauma services were particularly unhelpful, floating the suggestion that the burns and plastic unit might move or should move. He then qualified that, but there’s something about people getting involved in a highly charged political debate and not understanding the power of the words they use. So, I hope it’s helpful for me to clarify that this Government has no intention of moving the burns and plastic unit. Our challenge is how we sustain our services, and how we actually recognise and be proud of the excellence that the burns and plastic unit already provide. It’s my understanding that any choice about a major trauma network or centre does not require the burns and plastic unit to move.

On a more general point, we recognise that as we have new and more complex procedures and technology changes what we’re able to do, that means that, actually, some of our services are becoming new and groundbreaking. We’ve had a conversation about interventional neuroradiology, for example—a new service being developed in a small number of services. So, we recognise that some of our services will develop anew in a limited number of centres, and equally there will be times when we need to concentrate some of those centres to give them the robustness and stability that they will need, and make them attractive to staff. We know that in doing that, we are concentrating services so that people travel longer or a further distance to get to those services. Conversely, of course, technological advances will mean that we can deliver more care closer to home.

There’s a challenge here, though, about our general message about reform. I’ll talk later on about more care closer to home. As we have a conversation about reform in the health service, this isn’t new; we have always talked about the health service changing. As the reality of demand changes and the reality of what we can do changes, we need to then talk about how we keep changing our service to make sure it continues to provide the quality of care that people rightly expect. But in doing that, I think we have to have a conversation with the public based upon evidence. I recognise that in the past some of the current unhappiness is because people were simply told, ‘This is what will now happen’, as opposed to there being a conversation within the service so that staff feel part of the conversation, and also a conversation then with the public. In having that conversation, we need to have a real ambition for the quality of our services, rather than simply trying to explain to people that it would be acceptable for them to have a lesser service in different parts of Wales. That can be difficult, because that challenges local politicians in every party about the current location and organisation of services, and I know that just isn’t easy. But if we’re not prepared to have real ambition about what quality looks like and what better looks like, then we’re going to get stuck into a way of doing business where models of care that will be unsustainable will continue to the point of near collapse.

So, in terms of reform, we know there’s been a consensus for some time amongst a range of clinicians, the public and politicians that change is essential for NHS Wales. The challenge always comes when you get a local decision that really challenges how and where that is located. But for me, I think we have to be bold enough to change parts of our service, to reform them because we choose to do so, because there is a clear evidence base to do so as well as a consensus in clinical advice and opinion. And that’s why that’s still part of the conversation with the public. I actually think that, if we allow ourselves to be trapped in a position where we fight for the status quo then we’ll change our services but we’ll change them when they’re at the point of collapse or at the point where real clinical harm has been done as well, and that simply is not acceptable.

So, reforming our services is difficult, but it must be embraced with maturity and leadership to meet the challenges that we know that we face in Wales today and across every modern developed healthcare system. Those challenges include a rising number of our ageing population, enduring health inequalities, increasing numbers of patients with chronic conditions and, of course, austerity and the undeniable financial challenge that Dai Lloyd mentioned in introducing this debate. We can’t pretend those challenges aren’t with us and that we can simply carry on as we are and as we have done.

We also know—again, going back to comments that were made in a variety of debates and questions—that we have very real workforce challenges. Planning for a workforce when we know that there are challenges over money is difficult. Planning for workforce when the health service is changing and with the care system—that is difficult—and also, planning for workforce when we know we have speciality shortages, in particular, in Wales, in the UK and internationally as well.

So, we do know that, in a range of our services, in amongst all of that challenge, to maintain the right level of skill and quality, doctors and the wider team will need to see a minimum number of patients to maintain their skills and expertise. There is a wealth of evidence that, in some cases, that is best done by concentrating those specialist services into fewer centres. In fact, the interim report for the parliamentary review of health and social care reconfirmed the compelling case for change, highlighting the need for further integration of services that are more readily available within the community. Again, it makes clear that doing nothing is not an option going forward. And that brings us back to local care. We spoke yesterday, actually, about the fact that telehealth and the new technologies are big enablers to delivering more care closer to home. They give clinical staff anywhere in Wales potential to have the information they need to provide better, safer, more integrated care, and we see that in a range of services, whether it’s eye care or whether it’s dermatology—a range of things that are already happening now as a matter of course, and the potential is there to do more. It isn’t just the potential; I think there’s a real demand and a real expectation that we need to do more, because otherwise our system is unlikely to last. We’ll miss out on the opportunity to give people a better experience of working with the health service if that is not our absolute ambition, and I do look forward to receiving the final report from the parliamentary review, and there will be undeniable challenges that each of us will face in trying to do so.

I said earlier that, when a service change is proposed, it has to be clinically led—proper engagement with our staff so they understand and agree whether there is or isn’t a proposal for change that should be supported, and accepting from the outset that people won’t always agree within the health service as well. Clinicians in specialities do not always agree on the physical relocation or indeed the service model for how services should be run and managed. But we have to be able to have that debate within the health service and then to engage wider stakeholders, including, of course, the most obvious and important stakeholders, the public, and focus on how we improve both experience and outcomes. So, staff, the public, carers must be more involved in the design, implementation and evaluation and subsequent development of new models of care to show that they are clear on their shared roles and that responsibilities are better understood.

Turning to the comments made more directly about the major trauma network and centre, it is the case, of course—and people in this room will know this—that, ultimately, it’s possible that I will have to decide on this if, following the current and ongoing consultation and engagement process, it’s referred in to me. So, I won’t make any comments about the proposed location between the two tertiary centres. But what I will say is that, when we look at our major trauma network in itself, we already know that north Wales participates in a major trauma network. It’s not seen services pulled out of the three major accident and emergency units across north Wales, despite the fact that the centre is based in Stoke. We also know that there is clear evidence that outcomes for people in north Wales, from north Wales, have improved, as a result of being part of that network. For me, the overriding objective here is how we get to a point where we understand that having a major trauma network with the centre will improve outcomes for people—there’s a good evidence base for that—and then to make sure that, actually, we say, ‘Well, that must be delivered.’ We have to make sure that we don’t continue to have a conversation in south Wales where we argue over a choice rather than ultimately making a choice, because we’re then denying people in Wales, I think, an improved quality of care and outcome.

I recognise that our NHS needs to make that choice for people in south and mid Wales in creating a network, and for me, there’s something about understanding how people, whatever the choice that is made about a centre, can get to that centre properly, because if the centre was in Swansea or Cardiff, there would be people who would live, physically, at a decent distance from that.

It’s why, regardless, when you think about our transport options, the choices that are made, even now, when there are significant accidents, people are taken by helicopter. They don’t get asked what will happen. These normally are people who are unconscious—they’re taken by helicopter to the most appropriate place for them if they need to be there rapidly. So, the development of the emergency medical retrieval and transfer service—the flying doctor service—in all the different things that it does, is a real bonus in the treatment of trauma—so, the treatment at the scene, the treatment in transit and the rapid transit to the right place for those people to receive their care. Whether that would be a major trauma unit within a new network, or the centre—that’s a choice for clinicians to make about what is appropriate.

For me, it’s that focus on outcomes for the public. That’s my overriding priority. In every choice that I make and that I try to make in this job, that will be where I start with my focus. I will continue to be guided by the best available evidence on what we should do to configure our service, the outcomes we can expect and the experience that people expect to get from that care. I look forward to the more difficult conversations that are to be had, but, ultimately, to getting to a point where we make choices because we understand the evidence, and we’re making a choice based on that about what to do with this most precious and most trusted public service.

So, I appreciate I can’t give, perhaps, the direct guarantees that some south-west Members may want me to give, but I think people understand in this Chamber why I do that. But I hope the comments I’ve made about the burns and plastics unit have been helpful, and, ultimately, the basis on which I will make any choices I have to in the future is helpful too, about the direction of travel. And I really do look forward, again—I’ve said this before—. The maturity and the leadership that went into creating the parliamentary review—I hope that each of us who took part in that can continue to behave in that way as we face many more difficult challenges in the months ahead.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. That brings today’s proceedings to a close.