Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. And the first question, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Janet. Rural schools benefit from the full range of policies we have in place across Wales. In addition, since taking office, I have introduced a new small and rural schools grant worth £2.5 million a year, and, more recently, commenced consultation introducing a presumption against the closure of rural schools.

Thank you. As part of your twenty-first century schools programme, and on the promise of an amalgamation with Ysgol Dolgarrog, two rural schools in the Conwy valley in my constituency—Tal-y-bont and Ysgol Trefriw—have been closed for a year now. Yes, they were closed with the support of the Welsh Labour Government and Conwy County Borough Council at that time. The new school site at Dolgarrog is still awaiting any form of redevelopment. Can you say, in order for me to update my constituents, when the redevelopment phase at this site will start?

Thank you for your question. It’s important for Members to be aware that any changes to the schools organisation code will not be applied retrospectively, and I want to be very clear about that. The school site that the Member talks about, it really is a matter for the local council to pursue the building of that new facility. But I will write to the Member, having made enquiries with my twenty-first century schools team, as to the state of the progress on that particular project. We have the biggest school and college building programme since the 1960s. There are resources available and I am keen that those resources are put to good use and we provide the first-class educational settings in Wales that our children deserve.

Of course, the viability of rural schools depends so much on their ability to provide a comprehensive curriculum, and to do that to the highest possible educational standards in order to gain the confidence of parents and the wider community. So, Cabinet Secretary, can you add to what you’ve already said about ensuring that rural schools are connected through the highest quality broadband, to ensure that each of those schools is properly networked and can provide the most up-to-date technology for pupils in order to ensure that there is a prosperous future for rural schools?

Thank you, Simon. You’re absolutely right—the first consideration regarding the future of a school should be the educational viability of that school. Simply a school remaining open is not good enough. The education that that school provides has to be a first-class educational opportunity for those children. I don’t want children to have any less of an opportunity because they attend a small, rural school than if they attended any other school in Wales. Information and communication technology does give us an opportunity to address some of the logistical disadvantages that sometimes small, rural schools can face, as well as the professional isolation that sometimes the teachers in those schools can face.

You’ll be aware that we have recently ensured that all schools—although there continues to be difficulty with one school in the Ceredigion constituency, thanks to difficulties with the contractor—are now up to the Government’s target for all speeds, and we’ve announced an additional £5 million, which individual local authorities bid into, to update even to higher speeds for other schools. But, as part of the rural schools grant, one of the key areas that we would like to see councils use that grant for is to encourage innovation, which would include virtual classrooms and investment in ICT and innovative ways of delivering teaching via a virtual network.

I would be delighted to, Huw, because, in Ogmore, 36.5 per cent of pupils on free school meals achieved level 2 inclusive at key stage 4, and that is a 12 per cent increase since the introduction of the PDG. Three quarters of free-school-meal learners achieved the core subject indicator for key stage 2, and that is up from 62 per cent in 2012, an increase of 14 percentage points. The teachers and those students should be congratulated.

Indeed, and I extend my congratulations to all those in the schools who work with children, with significant advantages, because of the disadvantage that they might face, but also the teaching staff and support staff who work with them to produce those excellent results. And there’s no doubt that the pupil development grant is an invaluable resource to financially assist schools in delivering support to those children from deprived families, with free school meals, of course, being the trigger to eligibility. But, what I want to ask is about those families that are not eligible for free school meals but could be experiencing major disruption in their lives, such as parents divorcing, the bereavement of a parent, chronic illness in a family, job loss within a family, et cetera, and that emotional disturbance that can really impact on a child’s educational needs, as well as social welfare. There is surely a need as well to ensure that these families are also given appropriate support. So, could I ask the Minister to suggest in which ways we can help these families to see that they are supported, if not by the pupil development grant, then by some other mechanisms to ensure that these pupils also have the chance to succeed?

Presiding Officer, can I thank the Member for that question? The Member is absolutely right. Unless we give due recognition to the issue of a child’s well-being, then they will not reap the benefits of the educational opportunities that we provide for them. As the Member will be aware, it is my intention to publish an updated version of ‘Qualified for Life’, and I hope that he will be pleased to see recognition of the issue of well-being when that document is published later on this year.

With regard to specific action that I am taking, I am working very closely with my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for children. We are joint funding a series of pilots around ACEs, and the impact that adverse childhood experiences can have on a child’s well-being. And, in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary for health, we’re about to launch some pilots with regard to how better we can support schools by ensuring that health service staff with expertise in child and adolescent mental health are more prevalent in our schools. And we hope to announce details of that pilot shortly.

As you may know, Cabinet Secretary, there’s a new Welsh-medium school in Bettws, a very deprived part of the Ogmore constituency. I’m wondering how clear it is that the PDG can be used to improve Welsh learning skills, if you like, for pupils from English-speaking backgrounds, which actually makes it easier for those families to choose Welsh-medium education for their children, helping them to become bilingual and giving them an advantage in the workplace in later life.

Thank you, Suzy. The Welsh Government produces quite comprehensive guidance to schools on how they can use the PDG. That includes reference to the Sutton Trust toolkit, which is an invaluable resource, evidence and research-based, about what actually works in these circumstances. But each individual school is responsible for deciding on how best to use the PDG allocation because they know their children and their families and their community best. As the Minister said yesterday, we want all children, regardless of their background, to have the opportunity to become bilingual citizens of our nation, and I would expect that, in the school that you spoke of, their PDG, I’m sure, will be used to that effect.

Cabinet Secretary, it’s good news to see that the pupil development grant is having an impact on improving the education chances of our most deprived children and young people. However, the children and young people in Ogmore are about to have their education decimated as budget cuts take hold. Bridgend’s local education authority comprehensive schools could see up to five teaching posts cut as a result of Bridgend shortfalls, which, for the current financial year, is over £300 per pupil below the Welsh average. Cabinet Secretary, how will this affect the pupil development grant?

It will have no effect on the pupil development grant, because the pupil development grant is paid directly from Welsh Government to individual schools on the basis of how many pupils they have on free school meals.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Cabinet Secretary, just a few weeks ago, Labour’s First Minister was telling people to vote Labour to scrap tuition fees, but yesterday, in a betrayal of the students and Labour voters across Wales, you, on behalf of his Government, announced a hike in the cap on tuition fees paid by Welsh students. And I think that it goes to show that Labour cannot be trusted to deliver on the promises that it makes to the people of Wales. Last year, in the National Assembly for Wales elections, you made a promise to cut early year class sizes to 25 or under. Can you tell the Assembly today what progress you’re making against that promise?

First of all, as I said, I am not an expert on the Labour Party’s manifesto for the Assembly elections of last year, but what I am aware of is that what that manifesto commitment said was that Welsh students would be better off than their English counterparts. The fact that this Government will introduce a grant scheme that will see our poorest students entitled to a grant equivalent to the living wage is something that we can be proud of.

I noticed this morning in a speech, Justine Greening said that there were only two ways forward with regard to university fees: it was either fees or it was a cap. I would urge Justine Greening to pick up the phone and understand how a Government can do things differently, because that’s what we’re doing here in Wales.

With regard to class sizes, the Member will be aware that we are currently introducing a class-size reduction grant. We are working with the local authorities about how best we can utilise that money, focusing on our youngest pupils, our most deprived pupils and on those children for whom Welsh or English is not their first language, because that’s where the money will make the biggest difference.

I think the voters will make their minds up as to whether the Labour Party has broken its manifesto pledges from just a few weeks ago in a country where it’s able to actually implement those pledges. Can I just ask for some clarification? One of the things that you made a big fuss about during your election campaign for the National Assembly for Wales elections last year was this pledge of reducing class sizes to under 25, but, of course, you’ve spent the past 12 months watering that pledge down so that it actually means nothing of the sort, haven’t you? What you’ve talked about is reducing ratios of adult staff to pupils in classrooms rather than actually delivering on your pledge, and that is because, of course, you’ve got a huge mountain to climb. As of January 2016, there were almost 80,000 children in early years classes with more than 25 pupils—three out of every four pupils in those classes. We know also that there are over 25,000 pupils across Wales who are in class sizes of 30 or more. You promised to deliver class sizes of under 25. You’ve watered it down so that it’s actually a meaningless promise. So, we’ve got broken pledges on tuition fees from Labour and broken promises from you on class sizes. So, given that that promise is really dead in the water because you’re not going to deliver 25 or fewer in those classrooms, will you now listen to the chorus of experts who have spoken up, condemned that policy and suggested that you spend the £36 million that you earmarked for it on other things in the education system instead, where you’ll get better a bang for your buck?

And that, Presiding Officer, is the truth of the matter: Darren Millar is not willing to listen to parents and he is not willing to listen to the teaching profession when they say that class sizes do matter. My manifesto said that we would aim to reduce class sizes to 25, starting with the largest classes first, and that is exactly what we’re doing with the £36 million that has been made available to local authorities over the term of this Government.

Let me remind you of another promise that you made to the pupils and parents across Wales: you said that you were going to raise standards as education Minister, and yet, over the weekend, we saw you downplaying expectations about GCSE results for this summer. Just because we’re having reformed GCSEs doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re heading for poorer results. So, is the promise that you’re making to improve standards going to be another promise that you will not be able to deliver for pupils and parents, and can you tell us why on earth don’t you have more faith in pupils and teachers across Wales and expect them to do well?

I am absolutely committed to raising standards. That is my and this Government’s national mission: to raise standards and to close the attainment gap and to ensure that we have an education system in Wales that is a source of national pride and national confidence. The reformed GCSEs are an important part of that process. The reason why Qualifications Wales—the independent body that oversees the examinations system in Wales—has published papers warning of a potential dip in results is because of the introduction of more rigorous maths, English and Welsh GCSEs, because we are moving away from BTEC science. It is appalling to think—[Interruption.] Darren, if you would let me answer, it is appalling to think that, in some schools, until recently, not a single student sat a GCSE in science. Entire cohorts were put into BTEC exams. That was a disgrace. We also know—[Interruption.] We also know—[Interruption.] We also know that we have seen record early entry into this examination series. I am deeply concerned that some schools, for whatever reason, are entering children early for exams, after only one year of study of a course that should have been delivered over two years. And those students, who have the potential to get an A* maybe after two years, will get a C this summer, and those schools will settle for that C. That’s why I’ve asked Qualifications Wales to do a report into early entry, and I will take the appropriate action to ensure that early entry does not jeopardise my pursuit of high standards in our education system.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, in 2012, you said that the welfare of pupils, teachers, and staff at our schools is paramount, and also, when talking about the discovery of asbestos, that the Government will try to shift responsibility on to local authorities and schools. Do you still believe, as you did when in opposition, that the Welsh Government should take responsibility when a local authority either cannot or will not give our teachers and students confidence that they are teaching and learning in a safe environment?

It is absolutely crucial for teachers and pupils that they are undertaking their work in an environment that is fit for purpose and meets all the necessary health and safety regulations. That’s why we are, as I said, investing in the largest building of schools and colleges since the 1960s, and the removal of unsuitable buildings is a key part of how we prioritise our investment in the twenty-first century schools programme.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Last year, when you became Cabinet Secretary for Education, and again today, you quite rightly said that there should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and that pupils in rural schools deserve the same opportunities as children in other areas of Wales. What action, if any, would you take if you suspected that a local authority was letting a rural school rot in order to make the case for closure stronger?

Well, as you quite rightly said, a presumption against closure was a manifesto promise in the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto, and I’m delighted to be in a position to make progress on that when in Government. As I said in answer to the first question from Janet Finch-Saunders, we are currently out to consultation on the reform of the school organisation code to strengthen that code and, indeed, to create for the first time ever in Wales a definition of what a rural school actually is. The first question any local authority should consider when looking at the issue around small and rural schools is the educational viability of that school, and they should use the opportunity afforded to them by the £2.5 million we are putting into the small and rural schools grant to be able to look at alternatives to closure to maintain a good standard of education in those small schools.

Thank you very much for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. If a local authority isn’t maintaining a rural school properly, would you ever consider it appropriate to remove that school and a relevant proportion of the revenue support grant from the local authority and fund it directly as a delegated school?

My expectation is, should we move forward with reforms to the school organisation code—. That is a code that is underpinned on a statutory basis, therefore, it is a legal requirement that local authorities comply with that code. If there were examples that that was not the case, then I would take the appropriate action.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr. Cabinet Secretary, what did Carwyn Jones tell you when you asked him whether you could raise tuition fees?

The decision to link tuition fees to inflation was taken by the entire Cabinet, in recognition of a number of factors that I had to take into consideration—those factors being the ones I outlined to you, Llyr, in November of last year, when you raised this issue then.

Of course, Lord Adonis, Labour’s architect of tuition fees, has admitted that they’ve turned into a Frankenstein’s monster of £50,000 plus debts for graduates on modest salaries who can’t remotely afford to pay them back. Many of those students are clearly on the brink. What do you think is an acceptable level of debt for students in Wales?

The issue of how we fund students through their higher education has to take into consideration the principles of access to that education and the ability to sustain it. You will be very well aware, Llyr, that the National Union of Students, through their ‘The Pound in Your Pocket’ campaign, have stressed that it is living costs, and not fees, that are a barrier for people from lower incomes going on into higher education. That is a view that was signed up to in the Diamond review, on which I understand Plaid Cymru did have a representative and was able to feed fully into that review. They said then that that was the issue that needed to be addressed. I’m very well aware that these are difficult and challenging issues, as are you, Llyr, very well aware that these are difficult and challenging issues, because, as you said in this Chamber in November, there is a risk that the funding gap between institutions in England and Wales will only widen and:

There’s a possible perception that the quality of courses in Wales—that because they’re cheaper they’re not as good’.

He then went on to say—[Interruption.] You then went on to say—[Interruption.] You then went on to say, Llyr—[Interruption.] You then went on to say, Llyr, that, if fees went up in England, which they have done, it would be difficult to see how you could withstand the same move in Wales in many ways. You understand the difficulty our sector is facing and you should acknowledge that here in the Chamber.

Well, piling the pressure on the students isn’t the answer, is it? And trying to make it sound as if the NUS is supporting the increase in the fee that was announced yesterday is plain wrong. Yes, there’s a shift in how you support students—nobody’s doubting that. But raising the burden of debt that students in Wales are suffering—and you didn’t answer my question, by the way—is not an acceptable answer in my book. Now, I thought that the Liberal Democrats and Labour, in terms of—their principle was to move towards a free education. Your decision has taken us further away from that than ever, ever before. So, can you confirm that the original principle that you, and others on the Government’s bench, once held so dear is still in place?

Of course, in an ideal world, education at all levels should be free, but I don’t live in that ideal world. I live in a world where people from poorer backgrounds can’t access higher education because they cannot afford to pay for their accommodation or their books or their food. So, what we have done is fundamentally shift, in line with the recommendations of the Diamond review—of which Plaid Cymru were a part and signed up to—. We have moved the way in which we support our students so that we can ensure that those from the poorest backgrounds will have the equivalent of a living wage, that average Welsh students will have a non-repayable grant of £7,000 a year. And that is in stark contrast, Llyr, to your party, which has promised nothing on upfront costs, promised nothing on the day-to-day living costs of this country. And we have gone further than that, because we will ensure that this is available for part-time students and postgraduate students. Again, if Plaid Cymru were in charge, there would be loans for postgraduate students and no grants. We are delivering grants.

Can I thank the Member for the question? A thriving higher education sector is pivotal to achieving the Government’s priorities for the economy and for our society here in Wales. The funding reforms I announced yesterday will provide opportunities for all our institutions, including those in north Wales.

Since your announcement yesterday on increasing tuition fees, I have received a large number of messages from students studying in Bangor, as well as from school pupils who hope to go on to university. During the election, thousands of students and young people across the country were inspired by politics once again, partly because they had seen some of the political parties being willing to introduce policies that coincided with their own values. So, following your announcement yesterday, do you agree that politicians have raised the hopes of a whole generation of young people, only to dash those hopes a few weeks later?

Only yesterday, the Member was on her feet raising legitimate concerns about job losses in her constituency at Bangor University, and I’m sure that she will have had conversations with the vice-chancellor of said university about the necessity to respond to the situation we find across the border in England with fees rising, and his determination to ensure that Bangor, which recently got the very highest award in the teaching excellence framework, was able to compete with both UK and international students. The Member asks about values. The package that I introduced yesterday—[Interruption.] The package that I introduced yesterday, that will shift Government support away from paying off fees, which graduates have to do via their pay cheque, to supporting what many students and many parents say to me is the largest problem, upfront costs, is a package that I am proud of and it’s a package that is well in tune with my values. I’m not sure about what yours are.

Back to, I think, the issue raised yesterday, Bangor University are facing, or staff are facing, 115 compulsory redundancies. The university says this is because they need to save £8.5 million to address significant financial challenges, and we understand a number of other universities across the length and breadth of Wales are considering how they’re going to square the financial circle in similar circumstances. We know that universities lost out on tens of millions of pounds taken from them and given in grants paid to English universities through the fees of students going over the border to study, something that your party and mine accepted from Labour couldn’t be done after your party and mine and Plaid voted to scrap student fees during the second Assembly. We also know that yesterday, Universities Wales, responding to your student support package, referred to having had to absorb the increases in costs since the introduction of the current tuition fee system in 2012. Following your announcement yesterday, therefore, how quickly will the savings generated actually generate greater funding being received by universities in Wales to hopefully mitigate against these tough decisions they’re having to take?

We have to recognise, or some of us have to recognise, the very difficult situation that many of our higher education institutions are facing at the moment. It is a perfect storm of Brexit, of demographics, as well as having to compete in a market that is not just a market in the UK but an international market. This Government has to respond to that. Now, despite ongoing financial pressures, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales have been able to allocate funds in excess of £100 million to the sector for 2017-18, but there are challenging times ahead. However, our predictions over the implementation of Diamond should see HEFCW’s budget grow to be able to support our higher education institutions but, of course, that is subject to the usual budgeting processes that we have here in the Assembly. But you will be aware that, in my agreement that brought me into Government, I and the First Minister have agreed that universities should be no worse off as a result of the implementation of Diamond. In fact, it’s true to say that the implementation of Diamond will cost money to the Government in the first instance, but it is the right thing to do for Welsh students and Welsh institutions.

Thank you, Rhianon. In Wales, all children benefit from music education during the foundation phase and at key stages 2 and 3, when it is a statutory part of the curriculum. Furthermore, the Welsh Government is collaborating with stakeholders across the education and culture sectors to deliver a range of measures aimed at enhancing that provision.

Thank you. Wales has world-class and globally esteemed institutions such as the BBC National Orchestra of Wales, Welsh National Opera and the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama conservatoire. This is supported ably by National Youth Arts Wales and Tŷ Cerdd, who also administer the elite National Youth Orchestra of Wales, national youth dance, theatre, choir, wind and brass bands. These historical national structures and local Welsh music support services through accessible instrumental music support service tuition in school have sponsored, propagated and nurtured some of Wales’s finest talents, and that includes thousands of musicians and also icons such as Bryn Terfel, Catrin Finch and Paul Watkins and composers such as Huw Watkins and Karl Jenkins. Those of you who know that there’s a Welsh music event next Wednesday, some of them will be in attendance—a little plug.

Cabinet Secretary, I also welcome the creative arts and learning action plan, a collaboration between Welsh Government and the Welsh arts council; the innovative new Donaldson arts-based curriculum; and the national endowment music fund as clear indicators of this Government’s early intent and direction of travel. Today I also welcome the pilot music amnesty; I do welcome these important measures. As the Cabinet Secretary stated to me in a prior Plenary, such initiatives and measures are a spoke in the wheel to the future sustainability of active Welsh music performance in Wales. Music is important to Wales. Economically, in creative arts—

You do need to come to a question, however important music is in Wales.

I will. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that the time is right to futureproof and safeguard our structures in Wales? Would she agree with me that Wales would greatly benefit from a national overarching music performance strategy, a delivery model incorporating instrumental tuition across Wales regardless of income, wealth or privilege?

Wagner was shorter than that. [Laughter.]

Well, I can certainly agree with the intervention behind me, having sat through a Wagner opera once. It indeed was very, very, very, very long.

Can I agree with the Member that we have much to celebrate with regard to music and creative learning through the arts here in Wales? But there is more to do, especially with regard to local education music services, which have gone through a very tough time. I met only yesterday with Karl Napieralla, who chaired the task and finish group in the last Assembly, to look to see what more we can do in this regard.

I’m sure that all of us will enjoy the music showcase event that the Member has organised for us next week. Could I say that the timing of the event, Presiding Officer, is excellent? Because 19 July is the day that the Senedd will be a drop-off point for staff and Assembly Members to donate their unwanted instruments as part of the first ever Welsh Government and National Assembly for Wales musical instrument amnesty. I would encourage all Members here today in the Chamber to start looking through their cupboards and their attics to see if they have anything that they could donate to this innovative project.

Rhianon Passmore mentioned the national endowment fund, of course, and back in February when you announced this, in answer to my question of whether the fund would result in support for core music services being diverted into this new fund, you replied that you were mindful of the fact that it might mean diversion and we’ll have to be aware of that as we go forward. I appreciate the fund is still pretty much in its infancy, but can you tell us about the development of the criteria of access to that fund, and whether the vulnerability that it might present to core music services has been resolved?

The Member will be aware that £1 million has been made available jointly from my department and the department for economy and infrastructure for the establishment and the seed funding of the endowment. The Arts Council of Wales is currently in the process of setting the endowment up, but I will write to the Member with more details about the specific question that she has.

I wanted to ask specifically about your conversations with the new organisation National Youth Arts Wales. I was speaking to tutors at Gartholwg school, when we went as part of the committee inquiry on music, with Dawn Bowden, and one of the tutors said to me, ‘My daughter is applying for the European orchestra because she can afford to do that more than she can afford the fees for the Welsh orchestra.’ I feel that if our young people are being priced out of being able to apply for their own national orchestra, what does this say to the future instrumentalists of Wales when they want to aspire to the top of the pyramid, which is National Youth Arts? If they cannot aspire to that because of the fees, then how are they then supposed to engage in the process? So, I wonder, with this new body now in place, what conversations you can have with regard to extending bursary schemes so that everybody can be part of this exciting venture.

Can I thank Bethan for her question and the intense interest that the Member has shown on this subject over a number of terms here in this National Assembly? I welcome very much the review by the committee that she chairs, and the interest that they’ve taken with regard to this. I’m very concerned that a young person with obvious talent should not be able to participate at a level that is commensurate with her ability to do so. If the Member would be good enough to write to me, I will look at that specific instance.

We have to work across the piece with all bodies that have an interest and responsibility for delivering this to ensure that access is based on talent and interest and not on the ability of a parent to pay. I was greatly heartened recently, opening the new Ysgol y Wern in Wrexham. The headteacher there had used some of his pupil deprivation grant to purchase musical instruments for the children at that school, a school that has high levels of free school meals, and he said to me after the performance of their violin group, ‘I knew I’d cracked it when four of these children asked for a violin for their birthdays.’ But we need to ensure that, if we give them that chance, they are able to continue to pursue that at older levels. Again, this stresses the importance of why all Assembly Members should get into their attics and look to see what they can bring to the amnesty next week. I can assure them that their instruments will find a good home.

Thank you, John. I support the use of schools as community assets. We are working to progress the recommendations from the Public Policy Institute for Wales report on the use of school facilities by communities. The twenty-first century schools programme encourages the construction of flexible assets, especially those that can be used by the school and the community as a whole.

Cabinet Secretary, children spend relatively little time in school compared to time out of school, so it’s obviously very, very important that the home and, indeed, the community in which they live contribute to and encourage their education. Community-focused schools are a great way of building that partnership between the school, the family and the wider community. The facilities, sadly, are too often shut away at evenings, weekends and school holidays, which is not a good use of resource at a time of great strain on public finances. So, for lots and lots of reasons, including those, it would be great if we had more consistency in Wales. At the moment, I think it’s quite patchy. So, I’d be really interested in whether you are considering developing a mechanism, a means by which we could have consistently community-focused schools right across the length and breadth of Wales.

The Member highlights a very important point. After the quality of teaching, a family’s engagement with their child’s education is the second biggest factor that will determine that child’s educational outcomes. So, when I talk about community-focused schools, I am clear that it is not just access to a building. It is an ethos within that school that sees its role as engaging with families as a whole. The Member is absolutely right, Presiding Officer: good practice is not uniform. There is outstanding practice going on in Wales. I would particularly like to commend Miskin Primary School in Rhondda Cynon Taf; Monkton Priory Community Primary School in Pembrokeshire, which does some outstanding work with the wider community in engaging parents back into learning, developing qualifications for them then to go on into the world of work; Ysgol Maesglas in Flintshire; and Hafod Primary School, a school I hope to visit with Mike Hedges shortly, which have all been seen by Estyn to be outstanding in this field. We need to ensure that local education authorities and regional consortia are addressing issues of inconsistency when they carry out their challenge and review meetings.

Cabinet Secretary, you represent one of the largest rural areas in south Wales in this Chamber. Rural schools are among the most community-focused schools in Wales. They are at the heart of the communities they serve. Since 1999, hundreds of local authority maintained schools have closed, with rural areas worst affected. What action does the Cabinet Secretary intend to take to address the issues of underfunding, which is the biggest obstacle to keeping rural schools open in Wales?

Presiding Officer, can I correct the Member? I don’t represent one of the largest rural constituencies in this Assembly; it is the largest single rural constituency, geographically, in this Assembly. It is because of that that I have a deep interest in the subject. And that’s why my previous experience as a backbencher led me to be determined that this Government can take the issue of rural schools forward. The Member will be aware of answers I gave earlier. We’re currently consulting on the school organisation code to move to a presumption against closure. But with regard to finances, he will be aware of the special grant that has been developed, of £2.5 million per annum, to address some of these challenges—very real challenges—that face rural schools and maintaining education in those communities.

I was wondering what work you had done in relation to community relations and schools that are community focused. For example, in my area—and others’—we’ve got a new superschool in Ysgol Bae Baglan. They were told before the school was built, amalgamating different communities around that area, that they would be able to access provision—be able to access the field—for activities, but it now comes about that it’s for the governors of that school to be able to make the decision. Quite often, that creates tension in the local community, where the governors may have a different view as to what that field should be used for as to what the community has already used it for over many, many years. So, I’m wondering what conversations you’ve had to try and encourage proper conversations between the schools and the communities to ensure that everybody can actually access those facilities when they do need to use them.

I’m very sorry to hear that there are tensions around the Bae Baglan area. I officially opened the school. It is an impressive, impressive facility, and the expectation, as I said, in our twenty-first century schools programme, is that we build buildings that are flexible assets, with the expectation that the wider community will be able to benefit from the significant investment that Welsh Government is making in partnership with local authorities to provide those facilities. Of course, because of the local management of schools, governing bodies are very powerful, but I would be surprised that any governing body would not see their school as being central to a community. They are one and the same, or at least they should be, and I will take further advice as to whether this is a one-off or whether this is a systematic problem that Welsh Government will need to address.

The implementation of the Global Futures plan is overseen by its steering group, which comprises key stakeholders from across the education sector in Wales. The steering group monitors the delivery and the outcomes of the plan, and encourages partnership working to improve and promote modern foreign languages in Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As I’m sure you will have seen, the British Council has recently published their third annual language trends survey of modern foreign languages in Welsh secondary schools, the results of which, I am sure you will agree, are very worrying. The survey comes just 18 months into the plan, which is aimed at promoting modern foreign languages in Wales, but in reality we have witnessed the continuing diminishing status of modern foreign languages in Welsh schools. In fact, the report tells us that between 2002 and 2016 the number of pupils studying a foreign language at GCSE level has declined by 48 per cent, and more than a third of Welsh schools have less than 10 per cent of year 10 pupils studying a foreign language. In light of the report’s results, Cabinet Secretary, what more can we do to realise the Government’s ambition for Wales to become a ‘bilingual plus 1’ country?

Thank you, Lynne. I have noted the language trends survey and I have asked the Global Futures steering group that I referred to in my first answer to review the report at its next meeting, which will take place on 14 July, and report back to me on what more we can do to improve the take-up of modern foreign languages. There is a whole host of reasons why the drop may be happening, but the Government is taking action. Since the launch of Global Futures, we have invested in a modern foreign language mentoring scheme in conjunction with some of our higher education institutes, which send undergraduates who are studying languages into schools to inspire and to support pupils. We have recently signed an agreement with the Spanish embassy to support the teaching of Spanish, and we have done similar work with France and Germany. For instance, the Goethe-Institut are setting up a specific programme at Cardiff University. But there is still more, I’m sure, that we can do, and I will take advice from the steering group.

Cabinet Secretary, during First Minister’s question time yesterday I referred to the latest ‘Language Trends Wales’ report that found teachers were extremely worried about the future of modern foreign languages. The report said that Global Futures was popular with teachers, but, so far, it is having a limited impact on take-up of modern foreign languages in Wales. Can the Cabinet Secretary advise when she intends to the review the progress of Global Futures to ensure the serious decline in modern foreign language learning in Wales is reversed? Thank you.

Well, I would refer the Member to the answer I gave Lynne Neagle with regard to how we are following up on Global Futures. But can I just take this opportunity—I think we’re all, and rightly, concerned about the numbers of students who are taking modern foreign languages, but it’s not all bad news. GCSE results in 2016 showed that Wales had higher A* pass rates and A* to C pass rates for French, Spanish, German and other modern foreign languages than their counterparts across the border in England. So, whilst I want to see more students taking these GCSEs, the ones who are are doing really well and are to be congratulated. We need to understand what more we can do to encourage more students to emulate their colleagues in school to take these languages, because when Welsh students take these exams, they do well.

The report on language trends was discussed at the last meeting of the cross-party group on international Wales, and, by the way, I invite everyone to a meeting next week to discuss connecting with the Welsh diaspora and hearing what GlobalWelsh and Cymru a’r Byd have to say at that point. But one specific concern raised was that the Welsh baccalaureate used to include modern foreign languages, but that element has now been removed. Could that be reviewed now, because this perhaps has actually eradicated that pathway to a modern foreign language for some?

The Member makes an interesting point. I’m not sure that we should be adding more to the Welsh bac. Indeed, listening to professionals, actually, they say they want less in the Welsh bac, so I don’t know whether we’re in a position to add more input into the Welsh bac. What we do need to look at, potentially—there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that modern foreign languages, indeed all core subjects that have not previously been part of the schools’ accountability measure, have seen a drop in the numbers taking them, so music, drama et cetera. So, there may be an underlying trend that schools are entering students into exams that count towards that school’s individual accountability measures and, therefore, there is a narrowing of the curriculum. The Member will be aware that I have announced a fundamental review of accountability measures for schools so that any unintended consequences, whether that be a narrowing of the curriculum or, indeed, early entry, which we discussed earlier, stop. So, that issue around accountability and whether that’s driving some of these behaviours will be tested as part of that review.

Finally, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. When I was in school, the best part of 100 years ago, the policy was that everybody learnt at least one foreign language up to the age of 16. Things are radically different now, and I’m pleased to hear the figures that the Cabinet Secretary announced a moment ago and the emphasis that the Welsh Government is placing upon learning modern foreign languages. But one of the big problems we’ve got in persuading schoolchildren to opt for modern foreign languages is they’re perceived to be difficult, and it is true that learning a language from scratch is difficult and requires discipline for the mind. That’s, of course, one of the great, important reasons for learning a modern foreign language, and it also broadens the mind. And having learned French, German and Russian, as well as Latin, at school myself—it’s made me the cosmopolitan world citizen that I now am. [Interruption.]

The Member tempts me, Presiding Officer; the Member really does tempt me. But, you’re right, we do need to promote modern foreign languages within our schools, and that’s why we have extended the student mentoring project with Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor and Aberystwyth universities. We have over a quarter of schools working in that programme, where bright, sparky, enthusiastic undergraduates go into schools to provide that buzz around languages that we need to create to encourage pupils, before they’ve made their choices on GCSE, that this is something that they can enjoy, something they can be good at, and can give them really life-enhancing work and personal skills. We also have to ensure that the quality of language teaching is as good as it can be, and, as I said, whilst the figures in the report are concerning, it’s not all bad news. This year, two of the three German teacher of the year awards were awarded to teachers who are teaching German in Welsh schools.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the questions to the Counsel General, and the first question comes from Simon Thomas.

Members will understand that if I make assessments of the legal implications for Wales of any matter, those assessments are legally privileged.

I’m grateful to the Counsel General for his usual caution in these matters. However, perhaps I can tempt him by saying that I don’t think there are any legal obligations, but there are strong political obligations for Michael Gove’s decision. My understanding is that, in fact, the London fisheries convention is probably overtaken by our relationship with the common fisheries policy and what’s happened since then in joining the European Union. But what concerns me is that we have Michael Gove deciding to symbolically pull out of an international obligation that relates to a devolved matter, so perhaps I can ask the Counsel General whether he agrees with me that fisheries are devolved, that Wales and the Welsh Government is responsible for fisheries protection in Wales, and for what will happen when we leave the European Union as regards quotas, sharing of quotas, negotiations around that. And in the light of the fact that, yesterday, Boris Johnson told my colleague Jonathan Edwards that the Joint Ministerial Committee, the JMC, will now decide upon these matters, is he of the view, therefore, that Wales will be able to exercise a veto regarding further nefarious moves by Michael Gove?

Well, thank you for the supplementary question. Like the Member, I’ve also since this announcement experienced troubled and sleepless nights over this particular issue. It’s worth noting, of course, that the 1964 fisheries convention came well before the joining of the European Economic Community, now the EU, and also, what that convention actually says. Article 2 of it recognises exclusive territorial jurisdiction within a six-mile coastal belt, but it made provision for signatory states to fish within six to 12 miles, with conditions, and then went on in article 4 to provide that fishing vessels of signatory states were not to direct their fishing towards stocks of fish or fishing grounds substantially different from those they have habitually exploited, and that the coastal state has the power to enforce that rule. So, the convention sits alongside—and, in fact, is overtaken by—the common fisheries policy, which allows European vessels access, between 12 and 200 miles, and makes provision for specified member states to fishing grounds within six to 12 nautical miles.

Now, the specific nature of the Welsh fishing industry, consisting of mainly small vessels: there may be certain attractions to that within the 12-mile limit. However, that will be a matter that’s appropriate for the Minister with policy responsibility for the matter. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to discuss that aspect further, but I can, of course, express the serious concern that the Member himself raises, that in what is now a clearly devolved area, officials were only notified on 30 June that an announcement would be made on 2 July, despite a marine and fisheries working group of the four administrations being held on 26 June. That issue of consultation and engagement is clearly a matter of some concern on an area that does specifically relate to a devolved area, and a matter where Government has been engaged. So, there are concerns there, and concerns, I suppose, about the statements that are being made almost off the cuff, so to speak, and there is certainly a lack of clarity as to what the UK Government’s position is on some of these areas.

It is of course the case that the United Kingdom is the signatory of the 1964 treaty, and therefore it is the UK Minister who will take the decision to withdraw from it, but I do agree with the implication of Simon Thomas’s question, that as fishing is a devolved matter, there ought to have been some consideration for the views of this Assembly and the Welsh Government. But I do hope that the Welsh Government will take the view that the recovery of our waters, or control over the 6 to 12-mile limit, is going to be vitally important to the development of the Welsh fishing industry in the future, and it would be rather ridiculous if, in the rest of the United Kingdom, we were to have repatriated control but not in the case of Wales. Quite how that would work I don’t know, because the EU fishermen would still have the right to Welsh waters to that extent, and that would certainly militate significantly against the advantages for Welsh fishermen of being able to have an exclusive zone, which would otherwise be imperilled if we still continued to be a member of the 1964 treaty.

Some of those are very valid points. Of course, they are out of context in the sense that, of course, the UK fishing industry as a whole is very dependent also on access to many other waters. And that, of course, some of the limitations that exist, and the 1964 convention in particular, came into force in order to also recognise historic rights—sometimes rights that went back over several hundred years. Someone made the comment a while back that, of course, fish don’t carry passports. Of course, one of the purposes to the conventions of the common fisheries policy was actually the protection of stocks—the legal protection of fishing stocks—for the benefit of all. So, there are many complications, and I think it would be a grave mistake to look at the legal aspects of this solely within the context of individual interests, because individual interests are very much also affected by a broader collective interest.

I am, of course, not in a position to speak about any assessment I may or may not have made on this issue. Members will be familiar with the established convention that neither the existence nor content of law officer advice should be disclosed.

Thank you. Lord Kerr, the author of article 50 and former Permanent Secretary of the Foreign Office, suggested at a conference recently that article 50 is indeed revocable and that many political leaders have encouraged us to change our minds, including Macron, Schäuble and Rutte. He suggested that even if you have notified the EU of your intention to leave, then there’s nothing to say that we must leave, but he did say that there may be a political price to pay for that. Now, regardless of the complexities and issues of the rights of wrongs of the possible revocability of article 50, could the Counsel General actually just give us his legal assessment of whether the interpretation of Lord Kerr is correct?

Well, what I can say is that the position that was adopted by the UK Government in the Miller case—the article 50 case—was very clear: that it was not revocable. Of course, the ultimate body that would determine the legality of that would be the European Court of Justice, but as a matter of general principles and agreement with regard to the European Union, any agreement that has the consent of all the members of the European Union can achieve almost any position that is wanted to achieve.

Is the Counsel General aware that Lord Kerr’s own record of involvement and support for the European Union is almost as lengthy as Eluned Morgan, and perhaps his view on the revocability or otherwise of article 50 might be seen in that light. I was disappointed that the Counsel General was drawn rather further on his second response than he was in the first, because isn’t it the case that this consideration of revoking article 50 is essentially against the national interest because it undermines the UK Government’s negotiating strategy, it holds out the European Union possibility that we or Labour, as they might wish, might seek to revoke the decision of the British people in a referendum, and makes it less likely that we will get offered by the European Union a good deal that will be in the interests of Wales and the United Kingdom?

Well, it seems to me that the capacity of the UK Government to put forward any consistent position with regard to the EU negotiations at the moment is very much in doubt. The issue that’s being put to me in the question is: what is the status of the article 50 notification that has been given?

The UK Government has already expressed its own opinion in respect of the statements it made in the Supreme Court with regard to that. But, of course, the matter was never pursued further and, ultimately, the European Court of Justice, which the UK Government wants to break all links with, would be the ultimate determinant of the legal interpretation of that. But, as a matter of factor, many decisions with regard to the European Union are based on the consent of all the individual member states. That is how laws are ultimately made. Any proposals that were made would ultimately be a matter of negotiation and agreement with all individual member states.

As I understand it, the Labour Party is committed to withdrawal from the European Union, pursuant to the decision of the British people in the referendum last year. So, isn’t this question a bit like those medieval questions, which concerned how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

Well, I don’t know whether that was a question that actually wanted an answer or not. The Member makes a point; he’s made his views very clear over a period of time. All I’ve done is to set out, I think, the statement of facts, as to what the position is with article 50 and in terms of the position that was adopted by the UK Government.

This question engages the law officers’ convention. Nevertheless, I can assure Members that the Welsh Government will work tirelessly to ensure that Wales’s position is protected. We will need to carefully consider the impact that the Bill will have on Welsh legislation and the competence of this Assembly.

I thank the Counsel General for his reply. Obviously, when I was tabling this question, I was half hoping we’d have seen the repeal Bill—we’ll get to see it tomorrow, my understanding is. And, if the rumours around the Bill are correct, then what we will see is a replacement of the European Union with some sort of concept of a United Kingdom kind of framework, and we will not, in fact, see the devolution of those powers that are held now at a European level but which relate to fully devolved responsibilities here in Wales. That includes fisheries, which we’ve just discussed, but it also includes agriculture and the environment.

Now, if it is the case that such a Bill doesn’t allow for that flow of devolution, surely two things should be considered by the Welsh Government. One is a continuity Bill, which has been Plaid Cymru’s suggestion for several months now, and, secondly, is the use of a mechanism such as the Joint Ministerial Committee to ensure that no further movement is done on the repeal Bill without the agreement of this Assembly, and, indeed, the other devolved legislatures in the United Kingdom. So, he won’t give me the legal advice—I understand that—but can he confirm that he has given legal advice, ‘yes’ or ‘no’, to the Welsh Government on a continuity Bill? And what is the Welsh Government’s view now on the operation of the JMC to ensure that there is a strong Welsh voice in decisions around the repeal Bill?

Well, it’s not appropriate for me to comment on whether I have or have not given legal advice on any specific issue. But the Member makes a very important point about the fundamental principles of what that Bill will be. The Member will have heard, as has previously been commented on, that a number of commitments have been given in the House of Commons that it will require the consent of the devolved Governments. That was made by David Davis himself, and I think was also made yesterday in response to the question from Jonathan Edwards. That is, as we would expect, that any matter that impacts on the powers and responsibilities of this place will require legislative consent, and that is a matter that Welsh Government is determined to hold the Government committed to.

The First Minister, and others, have previously outlined what are the fundamental principles in respect of what we expect to see in any repeal Bill, and that is that the UK Government must recognise that any powers in the devolved field, currently held at EU level, must be exercised at a devolved level, unless there is a clear and agreed reason for them to be held by the UK Government. And, in that event, then there must be a mechanism for co-decision making in these areas, and that is the point that you’ve obviously raised there, with how those matters are actually determined. These are fundamental principles as far as Welsh Government and this Assembly is concerned, and those are ones that we would expect to be honoured and respected in whatever legislation is proposed tomorrow.

I refer to my response to the previous question. As before, this question engages the law officers’ convention. I reiterate the fact that we will work to ensure that Wales’s position is protected, and that will necessarily include consideration of the Bill for its implications on our devolution settlement.

That’s rather more than I expected, actually, and an improvement on your predecessor, who would have stopped after the first three words. Can I perhaps raise a supplementary question to the answer you gave to Simon Thomas, where you said that the great repeal Bill must be subject to a legislative consent motion from this Assembly? What happens if we don’t say ‘yes’?

If we don’t say ‘yes’, then if the statements that have been made in the House of Commons are to be relied upon, that would be the end of the matter. If you’re asking in more detail about the position with regard to the Sewel convention, well, of course, I’ve given a statement on that previously. I think we come back to basics on this. What are the basic powers and responsibilities of this place and other devolved Governments within the way the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom is presently formed? What impact will the repeal Bill have, if any, on that? Does it, or does it not require the consent? Well, the UK Government has said that the consent will be required. That is a commitment that we will hold them to. We would expect the UK Government to want to proceed in the whole issue of Brexit with the agreement and consent of all the devolved administrations, because, ultimately, that is the only way in which it can succeed and retain the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom. So, those are commitments that I think have to be honoured and that Welsh Government would expect to be honoured.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is topical questions, and the first question comes from Julie Morgan.

What are the implications for Wales following the decision to hold a public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal? TAQ(5)0200(HWS)

Thank you for the question. I welcome the announcement yesterday by the United Kingdom Government of a UK-wide inquiry into the circumstances of this tragedy. We all need to know the truth about what happened. That’s why it’s important that those affected have their say about the inquiry’s approach and remit. I’ve previously called for such an inquiry, and I’ve written today to the Secretary of State for Health, and I expect full engagement with those affected in Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. Campaigners and members of the Assembly cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, many of whom have campaigned for 30 years for this public inquiry, have told me that the inquiry must have the power to compel witnesses, as previous inquiries did not. There must be full disclosure of documents, because it’s alleged that some of these have been destroyed and that medical records were destroyed or tampered with. They want to know why blood products continued to be used, and warnings were ignored and patients weren’t informed of the risks; why alternative treatments weren’t used; why mild haemophiliacs were treated with concentrates; why commercial interests took precedence over public safety; why money allocated for self-sufficiency in blood was reallocated elsewhere; why self-sufficiency of blood supplies took 13 years in the UK but only five years in Ireland; why Lord Owen and Lord Jenkins’s departmental papers were destroyed, under a 10-year rule which does not exist. They want to know information about the Department of Health’s inaccurate self-sufficiency in blood products report, which was published in 2006, and they also want the role of the pharmaceutical companies to be investigated. Those are some of the issues.

How is the Cabinet Secretary going to use his role to ensure that these people who have suffered so much—. Bearing in mind that 70 people in Wales died, 273 were infected, and so many others have had their lives ruined, how will you be able to ensure that they have their say in the process, that they are able to have their voices heard? The Prime Minister has said that she wants an inquiry that will be what the families want, and I think it is absolutely essential that people from Wales do have their say.

Finally, I think that you have partly covered this, but did the Prime Minister or the Health Secretary contact you before actually making this announcement yesterday? I note that you have written to Jeremy Hunt today, but how do you see your involvement in how this inquiry is going to shape up? Because we do know that there have been quite a lot of difficulties in deciding on types of inquiries for disasters that have happened. Obviously, I think it’s crucial that this comes out with clear answers because the people who have been affected in this tragic way deserve the truth?

Thank you for the question. I ought to start by recognising, in response, not just Julie Morgan’s role in campaigning on this issue whilst a Member of this Assembly and as chair of the cross-party group, but also from her previous years in Parliament, with a real and active interest in this issue and the scandal that has affected people right across the United Kingdom, including here in Wales.

This has been an issue where, again, there’s been cross-party interest both in Parliament and in this Assembly. I’ll start with your final point, if you like, about the links between the two Governments. I have to say that this is one where I’m hoping that there will be a more respectful relationship between the administrations. I previously wrote to Lord Prior, on 20 October 2016, about this issue, following a response the Prime Minister gave to Diana Johnson during Prime Minister’s Questions in September of that year. I didn’t receive a response. I then wrote to Jeremy Hunt on 20 December 2016 and I didn’t receive a response to that letter either. If there is to be genuinely what the UK Government have announced they want to see, which I welcome—a genuine inquiry that listens to the people directly affected and involved, and, in a response to my constituency colleague, Stephen Doughty, in Parliament yesterday, the Government again indicated that they want the devolved administrations to be properly involved—then that does mean that there needs to be a difference in approach. Rather than simply deciding the remit for themselves at the Department of Health for a UK-wide inquiry, there needs to be rather more genuine engagement not just with the Government, but with the families and the victims themselves as well. Because, if another inquiry is provided that doesn’t have the power to compel witnesses and that does not provide full and proper disclosure, that won’t just simply be a missed opportunity, but will create further anger and mistrust from a group of people who have not be well treated for many years in the past. So, the announcement is welcome, but getting it right and getting the terms right and genuinely listening to the families affected and to the devolved administrations is really important. I completely agree on the broad outline about the need for compulsion of witnesses and disclosure, and I certainly hope that we can come to a proper agreement on that so that the inquiry will retain full public confidence as it undertakes its work.

Cabinet Secretary, I too would like to thank the campaigners and Julie Morgan and the cross-party group for their tenaciousness and determination in following this subject to this conclusion. ‘One of the biggest treatment disasters in the history of the NHS’, and that was the motion passed in the House of Commons in 2016, and I think it sums up the scale of this scandal exactly.

What I find almost beyond belief is the evidence that officials in the Department of Health knew or suspected that imported factor concentrates were risky as early as the 1980s, and yet the NHS continued to give that blood out or those factors out to haemophiliacs. Cabinet Secretary, will you assure us that there will be total transparency for any records that may be available either in or from Wales to aid in this inquiry?

There was, as you know, an independent inquiry instituted by Lord Morris of Manchester and it took some two years. Cabinet Secretary, will you exert what influence you can to ensure that this inquiry, whilst being thorough, is also timely? Public inquiries have a terrible reputation for getting utterly bogged down in process, but this is about people and the hurt they have suffered, and they want answers.

Will you also ensure—and I think Julie mentioned this—that the people in Wales who wish to speak or give evidence are given that opportunity? I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you would actually think about how we might support them to get there, and support them in giving any evidence, because I am utterly convinced that it will be an exceptionally traumatic occasion for them and if we can offer support to enable them on that journey, I think that would be a very kind thing that you, as a Government, and we, as an Assembly, could do. I’m sure that you will press for complete transparency, but could you assure us that any lessons learnt from the end of this inquiry will be implemented with rigour throughout Wales, so that this type of dreadful event can never happen again?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, there is a question of culpability. If people are found to have been mendacious, deceitful, fraudulent, or even plain stupid, and any of it rebounds on any process, organisation, or person in Wales, I would hope that you can reassure us today that you will take appropriate action with them.

Thank you for that series of points, which I’m happy to say I agree with. I think part of the challenge in this is not just the pain of those families who have lost someone or someone who has become infected, but, actually, much of that is exacerbated by the feeling that there has been a cover-up and that people have not been told the truth and that has not been an accident. That’s why the inquiry is necessary, and it’s also why getting the terms right is necessary as well. I genuinely think that this is not an issue where the party politics should matter. To be fair, that has not been the approach of the cross-party group either in this place or in Parliament. I understand completely the call for transparency and for full and proper co-operation, and I am happy to confirm that, from the Government’s point of view, where information from Wales is useful to that inquiry, I fully expect there to be full and proper co-operation and transparency, so that people can see that we are genuinely playing our part in trying to understand why what happened did happen. The reason why we said that there always needed to be a UK-wide inquiry is the powers that exist for the compulsion in the inquiry, but also because these events took place before devolution, and so we were not in control of what happened at that time. That’s really important for people who want the inquiry to take place.

I want to be clear about how we can support the people of Wales. That depends on the remit and the way in which the inquiry’s set up. As a UK-wide inquiry, there needs to be a proper conversation about how people are supported, about making sure that this is a genuine UK-wide inquiry, rather than, effectively, an England inquiry then substituted to cover the rest of the United Kingdom. So, that has to be a conversation that I want to have with the Department of Health, which did not contact the Welsh Government before the announcement made yesterday. That was a point that Julie Morgan asked. So, that hadn’t happened at that point in time. I’m due to speak to someone from the Department of Health next week. Again, it’s disappointing, when a UK-wide inquiry of this nature is announced, that there isn’t an earlier conversation with this Government. It is not again necessarily about parties, it is about Government-to-Government relationships, and that this isn’t appropriate.

Actually, there is a real point here about people who believe in the union actually trying to make it work. It’s frustrating when things like this happen that do not do that in a way that actually promotes the interests of the citizen, which is what this is all about. In terms of as we are now, I’m happy to confirm that, actually, the way that blood products are managed now has changed significantly, and it should not be possible for the same scandal to arise in the same way. It is always possible that people are prepared to collude with each other, but the systems we now have in place mean that blood products in Wales and across the United Kingdom are incredibly safe, and you can trace where those products have come from. So, the screening that takes place now should be a real factor for assurance for anyone who uses blood products from Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom.

On culpability, some of those matters are not within the remit of this Government, but I would expect that any of the findings are used to properly hold people to account, as well as to understand and to learn. I think that is really important. If I may say, I think that, as well as the cross-party group, it may be sensible for spokespeople from the relevant parties to have a conversation between this week and the next to see if we may be able to find an agreed form of words from each of the parties in this place to sign up to in terms of what we would like to see happen in terms of the remit and the manner in which the inquiry will run. I think that, as well as Government-to-Government conversation, all parties being able to sign up to something may be helpful for us to do as well. But I’m happy to take up that conversation with the spokespeople after today’s question.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Norman and Jennifer Hutchinson, my constituents, who have very gently kept up the pressure on me to keep up the pressure, along with Julie Morgan and others here in this Chamber, on the UK Government to press ahead and help get us to this point. We’re not there yet, as Norman and Jennifer said last night to me. With the right leadership on the panel and the right remit, we could achieve the justice that is so badly needed. So, we need to make sure that we have those assurances now. Now, in thanking them, I’d like to also place on the record my admiration, as well as thanks, to all the families of those affected by this scandal for their steady determination to help over many years to get us to this point. In welcoming the offer of the Cabinet Secretary to work on perhaps a joint position across parties here—because this has been a cross-party approach—can I ask him if he will also make sure that he ensures that the families continue to be able to feed into him and his department in guiding him in how they approach UK Government over this matter to ensure that this is more than the potential of closure, but that this does resolve and answer the questions that have been so desperately needed to be asked for so many years?

Thank you for those points, Rhun. Again, I know you’re a member of the cross-party group as well and have taken a genuine interest in this issue. I, too, share the admiration of not just yourself but other Members in the Chamber for the tenacity of people who have not given up, not just on fighting for an individual cause for them and their family, but for a much wider cause that affected many other people across Wales and the United Kingdom. I also welcome your constructive approach to actually the potential for a cross-party letter as well. I think that could be very helpful.

In terms of the position of Welsh families, I’ve made clear that I want to make sure that families are directly and properly involved. And, of course, as a Government, we’ll need to talk to those people to give them an opportunity to tell us what they want to see, as well as directly trying to speak to the UK Government. I think, in the position that we take up as a Government, what we want to make sure is that we’re genuinely speaking on behalf of those families that have been directly affected. So, I am giving thought to how we do that. We have the ability to directly contact those families and to see what they want to do, as well as the Haemophilia Society and other support groups that already exist to support a number of those families. I have in mind the 10 points the Haemophilia Society have already set out previously for their position on the inquiry. So, that’s a helpful start for us as well, but we need to check whether there are other issues that families directly want to have brought up in the ongoing and unfinished conversation about the membership of the inquiry and its remit.

I’d like to first of all thank Julie, the cross-party group, and everyone else who was involved in bringing about this inquiry. Cabinet Secretary, I think it’s wonderful news that we are finally getting a public inquiry into this terrible scandal. My close friend, Faye Denny, lost her brother, Owen Denny, who died as a result of contaminated blood. Now, Owen, and his family and the thousands of other families who were affected by this terrible scandal, will hopefully finally get justice. The NHS is there to save lives, and it very often does, but it totally failed Owen and many people like him on this occasion. So, this dark period in history now needs to be fully investigated, and we must ensure that it can never happen again. We must also ensure that the voices of Welsh victims and their families are heard. Will you work with the Welsh Government to ensure the inquiry can deliver the truth about this appalling injustice, a truth that is fully transparent at all times? Thank you.

Thank you for the comments and questions. Again, many Members in this Chamber will be directly affected by knowing someone who’s been directly affected by the scandal. What we’re at pains to do is not to try and claim the Welsh Government can write the terms of the remit for the inquiry. We’ll do all that we could and should do to influence and to advocate terms of reference that meet the needs of families and what they actually want to see within the inquiry terms of reference. I’ll be completely transparent with party spokespeople around this Chamber on what we’re trying to do to reach that point. It goes to saying about the timescale as well, because almost all of us will want to see a brief timescale, but, given the period of time that this has taken place, given the number of documents that are likely to be provided or need to be provided and disclosed and then considered, I would not anticipate a public inquiry being quick. But I think, for those people who have waited so long to get to have an inquiry, to get the terms right, to make sure all the evidence is right and there’s properly time to consider that, I think, is most important. That means the inquiry has to be properly equipped rather than asking for an inquiry with a huge remit with hardly any resources to do so. So, they’re all points that we’ll be making in our conversation with the UK Government, and points we want to consider together with affected families. But, as I say, I’ll be completely transparent with this Chamber about the efforts that Welsh Government makes to try and advocate for the people who live here in Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. The second question—Eluned Morgan.

What discussions has the Cabinet Secretary held regarding job losses resulting from the confirmed closure of DWP offices in Llanelli and other parts of Wales? TAQ(5)0197(EI)

I’ve made repeated representations to the Minister for employment. I made clear my concerns when we spoke on 5 July. I’ll continue to seek assurances about the position of staff who are adversely affected by these changes. And, indeed, I’m meeting with the UK Minister tomorrow to discuss the matter further.

That’s excellent news. I’m sure the Minister will leave no stone unturned, as indeed will my colleague, Lee Waters, who’s the AM for Llanelli who is, as we speak, meeting for the second time with Damian Hinds from the Department for Work and Pensions, and Nia Griffiths MP, who are trying to gain a last minute reprieve for what I and they perceive to be a very misguided decision in relation in particular to the Llanelli situation, where we are foreseeing job losses of 146 people. Despite the fact that Carmarthenshire council has worked hard to secure the offer of alternative offices in Llanelli, and I know of the valiant efforts on behalf of the Welsh Government, who have offered free office space to keep these jobs locally, the Tory Government have once again turned their backs on west Wales. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that moving these jobs from Llanelli flies in the face of the UK Government’s industrial strategy, which says that it wants to spread prosperity across the United Kingdom?

Absolutely. I’m very disappointed that the DWP announced last Wednesday the decision to close the Llanelli benefit office and the job centres in Mountain Ash, Pyle, and Tredegar. Relocating jobs will affect about 150 staff, we understand. I’m also very disappointed that they did not see fit to consult with the Welsh Government about alternative solutions prior to the final decision. I stated my profound concerns regarding this to Damian Hinds last week when I spoke with him on the telephone, and I’ve written several times, both before the general election and afterwards, about this.

We welcome the relocation of jobs of 93 staff based at the Porth debt centre, who will now go to the Tonypandy job centre as opposed to Caerphilly, as was announced earlier in the year. And, during our conversation, the Minister for employment also indicated to me that he’s opening what he described as a large modern building north of Cardiff to merge five small and nearby processing centres, but he didn’t give me any details of that, so I’ll be pressing him on that tomorrow. I did point out very fervently that we were not looking to consolidate jobs in areas of high employment, but actually we were looking to preserve jobs in areas of lower employment where the jobs were much more important and much needed. We had some discussion about the topography of Wales in that conversation, and about how perhaps lines on a map without the mountains in between weren’t awfully indicative of people’s ability to commute, and so on. I will be pursuing that with him tomorrow.

But the bottom line is this: we are very, very disappointed that we weren’t properly consulted, that our offers of help with keeping jobs in areas that badly need them were not taken up. I will be seeking constructively to work with him tomorrow about their plans for the future to see if we can influence them to make sure that existing jobs stay in Valleys communities and other communities where unemployment is a bit higher across Wales, and we will be reiterating our Better Jobs, Closer to Home policy, not consolidating people in big centres inevitably further away from where they live.

Of course, I hope that you will be successful in your meeting tomorrow and that, hopefully, you will use that opportunity to convince the DWP to overturn their decision, especially in the context of moving jobs from the centre of Llanelli, which is going to have a huge economic effect on a town that is fragile economically, as we all know.

I’m grateful that you responded to my written question this morning, and, specifically, I’d like to turn to the fact that the DWP says that nobody will be forced to lose their jobs as a result of this decision, but that they’ll be relocated. But you will know that they’re talking about relocation to places such as Pembroke Dock and Cardiff, and it’s impossible for so many women, those with caring responsibilities, those with young children, and those caring for elderly parents to consider moving jobs from the heart of Llanelli to such far-flung areas. So, specifically, when you meet Damian Hinds tomorrow, will you ask more specifically for a guarantee from him that if someone is not able to relocate because of the responsibilities they have in terms of childcare or because of their personal situation, they won’t face compulsory redundancy as a result of that? It’s fine if they want to do that voluntarily; that’s a matter for them. But could you ask for that guarantee that there won’t be compulsory redundancies so that people can keep their jobs?

Well, indeed, that’s very much part of the conversation. We had a conversation about possible relocation areas for people from Llanelli, and a diverse range of places were mentioned, moving me to ask whether he had a map with the mountains marked on it. One of the areas that was mentioned was a possible relocation to Swansea waterfront, for example. I was explaining the difficulty of commuting from Llanelli centre to Swansea. That might not look like that much distance in the south-east, but here in Wales it is really quite a distance, and anyway the staff are likely to be coming from west of Llanelli.

So, I’ve made all of those points. We have made the point that we’re very unhappy about any kind of compulsory redundancy scheme. I will be reiterating that. But I would also like to say that, where people are affected by redundancy, if that’s what happens—and I am being assured at the moment that that will not happen—but if it does happen, then obviously we will work very hard to make sure that anybody affected gets the full benefit of our ReAct services and all the rest of it. So, we will want to be getting clarification from the work services director for Wales regarding the timing of the closures, the relocation plans and the likely effect on not only the staff but also the services offered to service users, and travel arrangements for them, and adjustment times and so on—really just getting as much detail as possible, (a) to continue the pressure on them not to make decisions that don’t make any sense in the context of Wales, and (b) where they do make those decisions, to make sure we line up our services to fill in the gaps, really.

Thank you, Minister, for the responses you’ve given so far. It’s an interesting comparison with what we were talking about with Tesco just a couple of weeks ago, where we were concerned that we couldn’t influence this large corporate, and now the Government, the UK Government, which can pay heed to our communities, is doing almost the same thing as Tesco did, which I find extraordinary.

The rumours, for example, are a huge issue. You mentioned the relocation from the DWP in Caerphilly to somewhere north of Cardiff—and other areas to the north of Cardiff. Well, I’ve heard possibly Treforest industrial estate. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but I do know that the PCS union, who I’ve spoken to, have huge concerns about access, particularly, for workers in Caerphilly. Wayne David MP has expressed those concerns and I stand with him in expressing those concerns today.

This also, as you say, flies in the face of Welsh Government policy where we’re trying to bring jobs further north through the northern Valleys and the UK Government is moving things south. It just doesn’t make any sense. Therefore, will you further commit, when you speak to the UK Government, to encouraging them to keep the Caerphilly centre—to reconsider their plans for the Caerphilly centre and keep that open as well?

Yes, indeed, I’m happy to make that commitment to you. We will, I hope, be having a broad discussion about exactly what the plans are, why they’ve seen fit to do this, why they didn’t consult with us, and indeed what can be done now. It hasn’t actually happened yet. What can we do at this moment in time to assist and to make sure that we understand exactly what the proposals are so that we don’t have a rumour mill going on, which has been going on for some time, and that staff can be reassured, and indeed service users can be reassured, about where the offices will be located in the future?

So, as I said, we’ll be looking for clarification regarding the timing of the closures, relocation of staff, what’s happening to the services—the whole range of issues around the relocation of the offices. I will be reiterating that this is absolutely not at all what the UK Government has said in its industrial strategy about bringing employment to areas where there’s less employment than you might get in urban centres, and it absolutely cuts across our own Better Jobs, Closer to Home agenda.

When the Minister meets the UK Minister tomorrow, she’ll be able to say that she has the united support of all the Assembly Members for Mid and West Wales, and indeed from my party as well as Plaid Cymru, in what she says. She’s absolutely right, of course, in relation to west Wales—one of the poorest parts not just of the United Kingdom, but in fact western Europe. It’s quite wrong for Government to take what might be called a hard-nosed, commercial view of relocation simply to save a few bob here and there and to behave in a way that a company like Tesco has behaved, as Hefin David has just observed. And insofar as this goes quite contrary to the policy of the Welsh Government in this respect, this is the third time this afternoon we’ve heard that UK Government Ministers have had the lack of basic good manners to consult with or at least to speak with Welsh Government Ministers before decisions are taken that affect the vital interests of Wales. We heard this from the Counsel General, we’ve heard it also from the Cabinet Secretary for health, and now from the Minister for Skills and Science. UK Government Ministers need to learn that devolution is a reality and they need to respect the interests of Wales as represented in this Assembly.

Can I also say that this decision just shows that merely because jobs are public sector jobs they’re not necessarily safe and secure? What is vitally necessary is that we have greater diversification of the Welsh economy, because two thirds of our national income ultimately depends upon Government spending of one kind or another, and we desperately need to get more private sector investment and better paid jobs in Wales.

I’m very grateful for the cross-party support. It makes no sense to us to move jobs from areas that need them badly into areas where employment is much higher. I don’t have all the details of the plan for the big new office, nor of the closure of, I presume, some of the satellite offices around it, but I will be seeking clarification on that, and indeed we will be seeking to affect the location of that centre. I don’t have the detail of that yet, but we will be seeking to get it.

In terms of diversification, I don’t disagree with that, really, but also we want the UK Government to commit to keeping good public sector jobs in areas of Wales where that employment is needed. They’re often seed jobs, they often keep a small local economy afloat, all the cafes and little shops around these centres also struggle once they leave, and it is often the centre of a small little ecosystem. So, whilst I don’t disagree with the diversification point, I also want to underline that we want a commitment from the UK Government to use its money and employment wisely and well in order to support other industry and employment in those areas.

We know that the scope of the DWP changes also include closing their site in Sovereign House in Newport. This will mean relocating 249 jobs, which were in the heart of our city, to somewhere north of Cardiff. The loyal staff at Sovereign House deserve better and the DWP faces losing highly skilled and experienced workers because of unnecessary changes.

The lack of consultation, as other members have said, is absolutely deplorable and this goes against the Government’s policy for jobs closer to home. In fact, these plans seem to have been drawn up by the UK Government with no understanding of the staff they currently employ, commuting times, or indeed the geography of Wales.

My colleagues Paul Flynn and Jessica Morden MP are leading this in Parliament, but can you assure my constituents that, in your discussions with the UK Government and Minister tomorrow, you will do everything in your power to protect those jobs in Newport?

Absolutely. As I said, we’re trying to get a picture of the situation across Wales. We are not at all happy about the consolidation of jobs into one particular area. We haven’t been consulted about it. It appears to us to have been driven by estate matters, rather than jobs and employment matters, which is, in my opinion, not the right way round. We have offered to work with them, and indeed we are currently—and I extend the offer now—hoping to work with them about what their office requirements are, and that we haven’t been consulted. I have offered officials as contacts to have that discussion with them, and I will certainly be making the point about Newport, alongside all of the other offices that are faced with closure in this what I can only describe as ill-considered and ill-thought-out proposal.

I thank the Minister. The final question—Mohammad Asghar.

Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on how the Welsh Government intends to prevent job losses at Coilcolor in Newport? TAQ(5)0198(EI)

Yes. My officials have been in dialogue with the company since the flooding of the premises occurred. On 10 July, we were notified that the company intended to enter into administration, but we stand ready to help in whatever way we can.

Thank you for the answer, Minister, but I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary shares my concern about the situation at Coilcolor and the threat presented to the jobs of over 40 workers employed there. I understand this situation has arisen from a dispute between the Welsh Government and Coilcolor over the payment of compensation after the company premises were flooded in 2016. The managing director insists a compensation payment had been promised, but the Welsh Government denies this. Will the Cabinet Secretary personally intervene to save the jobs at Coilcolor, and will he agree to investigate this matter fully to see how this dispute could have arisen and make a statement as a matter of urgency, please?

Can I thank the Member for his question and his concern, which is shared by many other Members in this Chamber? Indeed, the local Member Jayne Bryant has discussed her concerns over the future of the company with me on numerous occasions and made very strong representations. Essentially, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment or speculate over the viability of the company were the flood not to have occurred, but in terms of what happened with the flood, normally in this sort of instance an insurance company would pay out but then pursue the parties who are liable. In this case, Welsh Government as the landowner actually had the site licenced to Tai Tirion at the time of the flooding. In turn, the land was occupied by their contractors, Walters, who were remediating the site in preparation for a housing scheme. Now, as I say, normally the claim would be processed through an insurance company and they would then pursue us if we were liable. That has not happened. Officials have been in very close dialogue with the company, and I’ve been taking a very keen interest in this matter over many months. We helped to facilitate support through Finance Wales back in December 2016, enabling the company to continue to trade without major issues, whilst also pursuing their insurance claim.

I would reject any claim that a without-prejudice payment was ever promised by the Welsh Government. What did happen was that after the flooding a letter was received from Coilcolor’s solicitors relating to a claim for £600,000. The Welsh Government instructed external solicitors, who invited details of the claim, but the company has not progressed it. We did send a second letter in April and we received notification of another claim relating to a pay-out made to the landlord of the building amounting to £58,000, but the advice from our solicitor remains that we should not take any actions or make any payments relating to the claim or the property until we have had further details, including the full basis of both claims. That is both responsible and necessary. However, I am concerned about the future of the employees in the company, and we stand ready to help the bank and Grant Thornton in any way possible, should a new buyer come forward and take over the operation. We have tried-and-tested means of intervening when there are job losses. Again, we would deploy the sort of support that we’re planning on deploying if job losses occur at Tesco in Cardiff, for example.

Cabinet Secretary, I know that you and your officials have been in discussions with Coilcolor since the flood, and made available the support of Finance Wales and Business Wales. Will you continue to do all that you can to examine if there is a way in which the company and staff can be supported at this very difficult time?

Yes, absolutely. I give my undertaking to ensure that officials continue to work with the company, with the bank and with Grant Thornton to do all that we can to save the company and also the jobs that are taken by very skilled people—approximately 50 people—who are employed at the site. I should say, as well, that the support that we were able to assist with through Finance Wales was via their rescue and restructure fund, which essentially meant that because of state aid rules we could not apply additional funding on top of that. But we will continue to work with the company to try to secure a future for it and for the 50 plus workers based at the site.

This is very concerning news that a company with a good reputation that supplies multinational companies has had some very harsh things to say about Welsh Government. I’d be very interested to hear the Cabinet Secretary’s view on why he believes the company has got some very serious things to say about the way the Welsh Government has handled this situation. Obviously, 50 families stand to be devastated if the company were to wind down. We understand that there’s been an increase in enquiries from companies in terms of being supplied by Coilcolor, despite the fact that they haven’t got the means to purchase stock at the moment. On the point of the without-prejudice payments, can he clarify again that there wasn’t such an offer made? And, perhaps, can he shed some light on what offer was made and where the misunderstanding may have arisen from? I understand that the flooding came from land that was owned by the Welsh Government, adjacent to the company. Does he believe that the Welsh Government’s got a bit more of an obligation, therefore, to intervene rather than to just point them in the direction of Finance Wales?

On the broader point, particularly when we think of Wales’s reputation as a business-friendly country, what does it say that the best we can offer Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises is a Finance Wales loan with an 11 per cent interest rate, when many people are wondering how large multinationals seem to get a better deal?

I’d reject many of the claims made by the Member. The rescue and restructure fund that was utilised in this instance did carry an interest rate of 11 per cent, but that fund was required because there was limited scope elsewhere to draw down the necessary resources to keep the company afloat during that difficult time. No without-prejudice—and I’ll state it again: no without-prejudice payment was ever promised. However, what Welsh Government was able to do was act as a broker, ensuring that support from Finance Wales was forthcoming. We examined every other option for supporting the company with financial resource but, as I have just said to Jayne Bryant, that was not possible because further support would have contravened state aid.

We work very closely with the business community to find ways of overcoming problems such as this, but I go back to the point that I made to Mohammad Asghar: it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about the extent to which the flooding event led to the company entering into the sort of problems that it has encountered. In terms of the flooding, I’ve already given details of the occupiers of the land, and the normal process that would be followed by the insurance company, seeking compensation from the liable party—. That process has not been pursued. Instead, we received, as I’ve said to two Members now, a letter from the company’s solicitors calling on us to provide £600,000. It would not be appropriate for us to progress that without the details that are required. We have not yet had the response that we have asked for, in spite of writing on two occasions.

Thirdly, I think it’s absolutely vital that we view the continued employment of the 50 workers at the site as our priority right now. For that reason, officials are continuing to engage with the company to identify means of keeping the site in operation. The Member is right: it provides an incredibly valuable service and it has many suppliers who do require the company to continue operating. I am confident that the bank and Grant Thornton are doing all they can to identify a buyer. Certainly, we stand ready to help in any way we possibly can.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the 90-second statement. The first statement comes from Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I would like to take this opportunity to wish the Friends of Aberdulais Falls a very happy thirtieth birthday. Members may already know about this well-loved hidden gem in my region. It was opened in 1584—maybe it’s only Neil Hamilton who can remember that, mind—to smelt copper for coins to pay for warships to fight the Armada. It went on to be used for milling, but by the nineteenth century it was a major tinplate works, employing, unfortunately, children as young as eight. Its product was sold across the world until the US, protecting its own young industry, placed huge tariffs on imported tinplate and the fate of that particular works was sealed. The National Trust took on the site from the local council in 1980 and have been restoring the site ever since. It now is home to Europe’s largest waterwheel, which creates green energy, and the woodland around the waterfall is home to a colony of Daubenton’s bats, which pleases me immensely as one of the Assembly’s bat champions.

The Friends of Aberdulais Falls themselves came together in 1987. In their recent event to celebrate the anniversary, at which many founding members were present, chairperson Bethan Healey paid tribute to the visions of pioneers like Ivor Thorne, who was clerk to the old Neath Rural District Council, and Councillor George Eaton. In 1989, the friends made its first donation to the trust—£1,200—but since then they have raised £213,000, which has been spent on work on the site. As well as the social value of the friends, many of them contribute directly to that work by improving site presentation, maintenance, exhibitions, and even working in the tea room, which is my own personal experience of volunteering with the friends. Thank you.

Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Llywydd. On 8 July, 1873, 500 members of the South Wales Choral Union left Aberdare at the start of their journey to compete in the Crystal Palace challenge cup. The union, composed of voices from choirs from across the south Wales coalfield, returned to compete as reigning champions. In 1872 they won the cup without a contest. In 1873 they faced a challenge from one of the most prestigious London choirs, but were declared winners in a scene never to be forgotten by those who were present. The 1874 competition never happened but the union had earned the title of ‘Y Côr Mawr’—the great choir—for their success.

The conductor of the choir was Griffith Rhys Jones, better known as Caradog. The son of a carpenter, Caradog was born in the Rose and Crown Inn in Trecynon and trained and worked as a blacksmith. A gifted musician, Caradog found his calling as a conductor, carrying away his first prize at an Eisteddfod in 1853 at the age of just 19. Over the next 20 years, Caradog’s fame and success grew until it reached that triumphant culmination at Crystal Palace. Caradog is buried in Aberdare, his statue, standing proudly in the town centre. But for historian Phil Carradice, Caradog and his choir changed the image of Wales and the Welsh people. They made Wales the land of song.

Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. I was educated at Caradog’s school in Aberdare.

Mae 27 Gorffennaf eleni yn nodi hanner canmlwyddiant dod i rym Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg 1967. Er nad yw’r Ddeddf bellach mewn grym, wedi ei disodli gan Ddeddf yr Iaith Gymraeg 1993 a Mesur y Gymraeg (Cymru) 2011, mae’r Ddeddf yn arwyddocaol am ddau brif reswm. Yn gyntaf oll, fe ddiddymwyd y ddarpariaeth yn Neddf Cymru a Berwick 1746 y dylai’r term ‘Lloegr’ gynnwys Cymru. Dyma’r cam cyntaf ar y llwybr tuag at adfer awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol ar wahân i Gymru—taith nad ydym wedi ei gorffen eto.

Yn ail, ac am y tro cyntaf, fe osododd y Ddeddf hawliau i siaradwyr Cymraeg. Rhoddodd y Ddeddf ddilysrwydd cyfartal, fel y gelwid hi, i’r Gymraeg. Nid statws cyfartal â’r Saesneg oedd hwn; yn hytrach, darparwyd hawl i ddefnyddio’r Gymraeg gan gyrff cyhoeddus, megis gyda’r Saesneg, ond dim dyletswydd arnyn nhw i’w wneud. Er bod hyn yn wendid sylfaenol i’r Ddeddf, roedd yn fodd i osod yr egwyddor o gyfartaledd rhwng dwy iaith Cymru. Mae’n bwysig gweld Deddf yr Iaith Gymraeg yng nghyd-destun symudiadau chwyldroadol a dinesig y 1960au. Mae’n rhan o’r newid cymdeithasol a roddodd hawliau i bobl hoyw, i fenywod, drwy ffeministiaeth, ac i grwpiau difreintiedig. Oni bai am y Ddeddf iaith hon a gwaith yr ymgyrchwyr iaith y tu ôl iddi hi, ni fyddem yn cwrdd yr wythnos hon fel Senedd i drafod cenedl 1 filiwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg.

The next item on our agenda is the motion to approve the official languages scheme for the fifth Assembly and to note the compliance report for the period 2015-2017, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

It’s very appropriate for us to have this debate, of course, following the statement that Simon Thomas has just made. It’s true what he says, of course: the Hughes-Parry commission report, I think it was, was the basis for the Act, and that commission, in a way, was the Wolfenden commission for the Welsh language. And the Act didn’t achieve the highest aim we had that was set by that commission in terms of ensuring parity for the Welsh language, but the foundations were laid with regard to what was achieved in the ensuing Acts.

It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, to introduce this official languages scheme for the fifth Assembly and the compliance report for the final months of the fourth Assembly and the first year of the fifth.

First of all, I’ll refer to the compliance report that reports on our work, that crystallises our progress over the period in question and that concludes the fourth Assembly’s official languages scheme. A great deal of work was done during this period to prepare to welcome the new Assembly Members, following the election, of course, and to ensure that the good practice with regard to the provision of bilingual services established during the fourth Assembly continues. Firm foundations were laid to ensure that the Assembly Commission continues to offer excellent bilingual services to Assembly Members, their staff and the people of Wales. It is true to say that the new Assembly Members, I believe, have been struck—some of them—by the institution’s natural bilingualism and the strong commitment by all Commission staff to provide exemplary parliamentary services in both languages.

Of course, it’s not possible for everything or all organisations to achieve their aims 100 per cent all the time, and the report also mentions those occasions when we haven’t succeeded in hitting the mark. While compiling the compliance report, we had an opportunity to ensure that we learned from those occasions and initiate changes to ensure that they don’t recur. Feedback from our—well, I don’t know whether ‘customers’ is the right word, but certainly Assembly Members, their support staff and the people of Wales, which are at the heart of what we’re trying to achieve in this context, helps us to learn and improve.

So, turning to the new official languages scheme, the Assembly Commission is required to table an amended scheme for each Assembly. In preparing this scheme, in accordance with the official languages Act 2012, we’ve looked at best practice with regard to working bilingually across Wales and, indeed, beyond, and we have consulted widely. For the first time, for example, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee has scrutinised the draft scheme. This was a way of providing further assurance, not just to Members but to the people we represent, that the scheme is robust and meaningful. I’d like to thank the Chair and members of the committee for their willingness to undertake this work in such a thorough and detailed manner.

Those of you who are familiar with the fourth Assembly’s official languages scheme will see some changes in the way that this scheme is structured. The aim in making these changes was to ensure that the scheme remains timely and relevant for the duration of the fifth Assembly. The standard of service that our Members, their support staff, the people of Wales and Commission staff can expect are outlined first in the scheme. Following that, we’ve set our five main themes that will be our focus during the fifth Assembly term. Work on these themes will allow us to become a body that operates fully bilingually, with Welsh and English on an equal footing. That’s the high-level aim that is at the heart of the scheme.

In order for us to achieve this ambition, we must ensure that we provide excellent bilingual services naturally and by default. To do this, we will need to make great strides at times, including reconsidering the way that we consider the way that we set the language requirements of particular posts, as well as using alternative and innovative recruitment methods when we do not succeed in attracting applicants with the language skills required via traditional means.

We’ll also continue with work already begun regarding language skills training for Assembly Members, their support staff and Commission staff, ensuring that we provide flexible and meaningful training to all of those who wish to develop or improve their Welsh language skills.

Throughout the fifth Assembly, we will focus on linguistic planning as a lever to help us ensure that our staff have the appropriate skills to provide bilingual services in a proactive manner. This will include revising the bilingual skills strategy, and considering ways of gathering up-to-date information about language skills in the organisation as we go through this term. And, of course, it’s important that we support Assembly Members in their role as elected Members, and it’s great to see the enthusiasm among Members who are learning Welsh. I don’t know whether I should declare an interest here—my brother is one of the language tutors. But I do see, in speaking to Members, that there is genuine enthusiasm being expressed by Assembly Members, and also their support staff and Commission staff, with regard to their experience of the training provision available.

The final theme will be to develop the institution’s bilingual ethos. As I mentioned, we do want to be recognised as a bilingual organisation, where both languages are to be heard naturally. And we’ve received particularly positive feedback from the Welsh Language Commissioner in this context, following the annual conference of the International Association of Language Commissioners on our estate. She noted that visitors from all corners of the earth had enjoyed hearing Welsh as a living language around them during an event held here on the estate, in the Senedd. However, to be a genuinely bilingual organisation, there is more work to be done, and we’ll consider ways of identifying bilingual staff on the estate, building on the success of the lanyards for learners introduced during the fourth Assembly. We’ll also look at how we can use technology to support us in being innovative and in the vanguard of developments in this field at all times.

So, with those opening remarks, I look forward to hearing the comments of my fellow Members.

I call on the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Adam Price for his opening remarks in this regard. In our meeting on 10 May, the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee considered the draft official languages scheme, as previously mentioned, and we heard oral evidence from Adam Price, the Assembly Commissioner with responsibility for official languages, and from Assembly officials. However, before scrutinising the draft scheme, the committee agreed that it would be helpful to hold a limited public consultation to seek the views of organisations that may have an interest in this area. We received written responses from the Welsh Language Commissioner, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, the Law Society of Wales, ‘mentrau iaith’, and National Assembly for Wales trade unions.

After hearing evidence from Adam Price, I wrote to him to summarise the committee’s views on the draft scheme. My letter is available on the Plenary agenda as a supporting paper, as is Adam’s response. Members were broadly content with the draft scheme, and acknowledged the generally excellent support they received to help them carry out their work in both of the Assembly’s official languages. Many of the issues raised in our consultation were addressed during questioning. However, my letter did ask for assurances on a number of points before the Assembly was asked to formally adopt the scheme.

These areas included the accessibility of the Assembly’s website for visually impaired people, and that the Welsh version of the interface was not intelligible in Welsh, as it was phonetically in English. I am pleased to note that there is work under way to address this issue, although I’d be grateful if Adam Price could confirm that the Assembly website will use the new synthetic voices as soon as possible. We also asked whether the Microsoft Translator software could be used to help develop the language skills of users. Again, I am pleased to note that further training is available if needed.

The scheme is somewhat lacking in quantitative targets. Adam Price explained to us that the Assembly Commission is not convinced that quantitative targets are necessarily the best way of becoming a truly bilingual organisation. Adam Price’s response set out further information on some of the more qualitative and regular ways in which the success of the scheme will be monitored. Nevertheless, it would be good to see targets for workplace training in the scheme, according to cymdeithas yr iaith. Would the Commission perhaps be willing to reconsider this, and to give us those kinds of targets?

I believe that we need to consider further whether qualitative and quantitative targets could be set as an incentive for improvement, so that we as an Assembly can scrutinise what’s happening with regard to the languages scheme, and so that the public can also scrutinise what’s happening in the languages scheme. The committee also asked for more information about the new approach to recruitment set out in the draft scheme. The committee was broadly in favour of the new fluency framework, which will mean that in future all new staff will need to demonstrate at least basic linguistic courtesy. This is defined as the ability to recognise, pronounce and use familiar phrases and names and to understand basic text, such as simple e-mails.

However, there is little information in the draft scheme about how this would work in practice. I note from Adam’s response that a working group is to be established to ensure that the proposed system is fit for this purpose. While I don’t think it’s a reason to reject the scheme today, I must admit that I find it a little odd that the Assembly is being asked to approve a scheme where one of the key innovations proposed may turn out not to be fit for purpose ultimately. Perhaps Adam Price and the Commission may wish to reflect on that. Also, Adam Price, in his evidence, confirmed that the new recruitment approach would only apply voluntarily to existing staff, and being able to speak Welsh would not be a key part of decisions about staff promotion or advancement. However, in his written response to the committee, Adam has said that staff applying for vacant or new posts would need to, and I quote,

demonstrate the language skills level associated with that post.’

That is, of course, a rather different approach, and I’d be grateful if Adam could clarify the reason for the difference between the approach outlined in his oral evidence and that in the written response.

The committee also expressed concerns that the requirement for all new staff to demonstrate basic linguistic courtesy may have an impact on the recruitment of staff from under-represented groups, particularly BME staff. Adam Price provided the committee with an equality impact assessment that had been prepared to help mitigate some of those concerns.

It’s somewhat disappointing that the committee was asked not to publish this assessment for administrative reasons. This means that other members of the Assembly and the wider public are unable to judge whether the mitigation measures it outlines are sufficient. It’s important that this is published as soon as possible. And an addition that I would like to mention is that we often ask the Welsh Government to publish these things, and I think it’s important that the Assembly does show the same willingness to publish in this regard. The committee agreed to respect this particular request, but the equality impact assessment is an important part of deciding whether mitigation measures in this area are sufficient and it is important that it is published as soon as possible. Despite all that I’ve said and the questions I’ve asked, I would still wish for this scheme to pass, and I am very grateful to Adam Price and the team for working on this particular programme. We hope that we will be able to scrutinise it again in future. Thank you very much.

May I thank Adam for bringing this new scheme to us before the summer recess? I would also like to extend my thanks to the Commission staff, who have worked so hard to implement the predecessor scheme and to prepare the new one. I’d like to start with the annual compliance report, if I may. There isn’t a huge amount in there on compliance complaints, and therefore I assume that there weren’t too many complaints regarding compliance, and those that were received were dealt with swiftly. This is good news, but, as with the rest of the report, as Bethan has said, I think it would have been more powerful if we could have seen performance against targets and had an idea of the costs of implementation too.

I do accept of course that the new scheme does take the issue of targets and structures forward, and I would hope to see reference to these in future annual compliance reports. But I raise it here because it is a bit of a missed opportunity in my view, because our living experience as Members is that we have seen significant improvements in our ability to work bilingually and in the development of the bilingual ethos within the Assembly as an institution. But this report could have told us how many Commission staff members have improved their own skills, to what levels those skills have been taken and in what areas, how research on the language choices of Members has made support for our committee and Plenary work more effective in terms of time and cost, even, how bilingual communication with the public has sparked any difference in the way in which the public engages with the Assembly—just so that we can see in a tangible way just how these improvements are being made. It is a means of assessing the effectiveness of our scheme and of achieving our aims—more than a simple compliance report.

I think that we have taken major steps as an organisation, as you’ve said, Adam, taking the fear and doubt out of working in a bilingual environment, whatever your skill levels are and whatever your linguistic choice and the linguistic choice of your fellow workers. I offer hearty congratulations to Commission staff for the success of the predecessor scheme, but I do hope that the next compliance report can give us some figures as well as the positive narrative. We ask this of Government, as Bethan said, and we should expect the same from the Assembly itself.

The Commission has three aims. The first is to offer excellent bilingual parliamentary support to Members, and I think that’s being achieved—understanding our language choices, improvements in machine translation, and a more tailored approach to Welsh language learning. We have buddies now to help us, if we choose to become more bilingual. We have access to a central translation budget to help us to use both languages without it being inconvenient for us or draining our office budgets, we have a swifter turnaround in terms of a bilingual record of proceedings and also bilingual material.

But the word is ‘support’, not ‘direct’, and, in my view, whilst Members should consider how we can actively contribute to the bilingual ethos of the institution, it’s a matter for the organisation to encourage us and to enable us, but not to direct us as to how to do that.

The scheme is relevant to the Assembly and its focus is, entirely appropriately, on how the institution itself engages with the people of Wales and promotes the Assembly itself—the second of the strategic objectives of the Commission. The requirements on Commission staff are clearly noted in part 2 of the scheme, which makes it easier for anyone engaging with the Assembly to understand what they should expect as a right. It’s encouraging, therefore, that the new scheme focuses on skills, recruitment and language. I’m pleased that there has been progress on language acquisition that is relevant to specific posts, and that that will be celebrated in performance management reviews.

The third objective of the Commission is to use resources wisely. This doesn’t simply mean money, of course, but human capital, too, and I’d like the next report to summarise the progress made in terms of the bilingual skills strategy of the Assembly and how identifying bilingual staff has changed engagement with the public and parliamentary support. We have much to be proud of, it’s going well, and it would be great to see more people in the Assembly wearing these lanyards in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am very grateful to the two Members for their comments this afternoon. Just to respond first of all to Bethan Jenkins’s comments as Chair of the committee, I’ll cover as much as I can, but if I do forget anything, I will write to you.

With regard to the equality impact assessment, I think that we did say in the letter that we would be content for the committee to decide whether to publish the assessment or not, and I accept that there is an important principle in terms of that. There were reasons perhaps why we didn’t want to publish at that particular point in time, but I wouldn’t oppose that, and I understand why the Chair did raise that issue.

With regard to synthetic voices, I think that perhaps we are going into a technical field that I’m not certain I have a full grasp of, but I do understand that there work has gone on, on a joint basis, between the Welsh Government and the RNIB with regard to providing this software to users. And I think perhaps what is important is that users, of course, know about the availability of this technology as they then try to read about the Assembly’s work. But I will write to the Chair, if I may, with regard to that issue.

There was a question on the introduction of a basic level of linguistic courtesy, and if there is any ambiguity with regard to that, I’m sure that that’s my fault. What I was trying to emphasise in the committee is that there’s no expectation that any present job holder will meet this particular requirement in their current post. If they were to decide to apply for a new post, for a vacant position or as a promotion, they would then be subject to that particular level of linguistic courtesy. So, if you stay in the current post, then you don’t have to meet that requirement, but if you do apply for a new job, it will affect that particular situation.

With regard to the qualitative and quantitative targets, then it’s an interesting debate, isn’t it? Because it’s a philosophical debate, almost. How do you lead to success? Some believe very strongly in the power of quantitative targets. Our opinion, looking at the scheme, was that setting aims and objectives that correspond to the themes that we’ve set out was more important with regard to the scheme, because some of the aims are more descriptive in terms of their origin. So, it would be difficult, with regard to them, to translate that into a specific target. What is the significance of being naturally bilingual with regard to a percentage who are able to speak Welsh?

But I do think that, in the context of what Suzy Davies mentioned with regard to the annual report, there is room to strike a balance between the narrative and figures. And I think that what I would like to do is now to take away the comments that we’ve heard and to consider, in the context of monitoring the scheme, what assessment can be made against those high-level aims in the scheme and how that is then translated into quantitative targets so that we, on an annual basis, as an Assembly and externally, can assess progress against those ambitious targets and aims that we’ve set. So, if I may, I will take those comments away and will consider and reflect upon them. Of course, monitoring is going to be vitally important, and I would welcome the continuation of the committee’s role in this regard, and there are a number of other committees, of course, that have scrutinised different elements of the language schemes in previous Assemblies, and I would welcome that to the same extent.

So, with those few general comments, then, we welcome the general support for the scheme and we look forward to collaborating with the committee and with you as Assembly Members to ensure that this exciting and ambitious aim that has been set out in the scheme will be achieved.

To conclude, I would like to thank very much my predecessor in the fourth Assembly, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, for his work in laying these firm foundations that we will build upon as we move forward. I would also like to thank my fellow Member Dai Lloyd for his work as Commissioner with responsibility for official languages, before I inherited the role following the summer recess last year. May I also thank the staff, the Commission staff, for the excellent and tireless work that they do to ensure that we achieve this aim that this organisation is naturally a bilingual one and inspires people—inspires other organisations to show what’s possible now in the modern Wales?

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

We now move on to the next debate on our agenda this afternoon, which is a debate by individual Members under Standing Order 11.21 on a paediatric rheumatology centre. I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for calling me to move this very important motion, which is proposed also by Caroline Jones, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Dai Lloyd and Julie Morgan. I’m also very grateful to those Members who have supported this motion.

I’d like to open this debate with the story of a young girl from Haverfordwest. Her name is Aimee, and some of you may have met her during the drop-in event that was organised on awareness-raising of juvenile idiopathic arthritis only two weeks ago in the Pierhead building. I’m pleased to say I think nearly half of Assembly Members attended that event. This personal account has been given by Aimee’s father, Darren:

Aimee was diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis just before her second birthday and it took us about six months to get a diagnosis. The local doctors didn’t think it was arthritis but I don’t think they knew much about arthritis in children. It took a lot of people by surprise. Aimee has to go to hospital every month—this means travelling to Cardiff, which is two hours away, a round trip of 230 miles. Once she’s had the treatment I can see a difference within a couple of days. The medical care in Cardiff has been very good and we are very grateful. However, locally it’s been disjointed and poor as there’s a massive lack of knowledge of arthritis in children. Travelling to Cardiff does put a massive strain on us. It means missing days of school and my partner has to take time off work which isn’t always easy. We’ve had to spend a week in Cardiff in the past when she needed physio as she can’t get that locally. We’ve even considered moving nearer to Cardiff on several occasions. It’s a real worry every day as our local doctors just can’t provide effective treatment for Aimee. We believe that by providing a multidisciplinary department, it would not only give a greater level of care to the children but also help raise awareness and knowledge of professionals and services outside of the Cardiff area. This would enable children across Wales to lead a childhood that is not dominated by arthritis.’

I think this is a most moving statement—the lives of a family with a young child that suffers from juvenile idiopathic arthritis. I will now refer to that as JIA. I think Darren succinctly summarises how a specialist paediatric centre would have a positive influence on services throughout Wales and therefore improve the lives of children with JIA.

When I was first approached by representatives of Arthritis Care, the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and the British Society for Rheumatology, who have all been doing fantastic work in raising awareness of this issue, I was surprised that such services did not already exist. It was disheartening to find out that Wales, with its 3.1 million population, is the only home nation without such a specialised service. This is in comparison to Northern Ireland with its 1.8 million population, which has one centre, and Scotland with its 5.2 million, which has two centres. England has 12 specialist paediatric rheumatology centres. I think it’s simply unacceptable that Wales has been left behind.

There are 12,000 children in the UK that suffer with JIA, and it’s estimated that 400 of these live in the south Wales region. As you can see, Members, this is not a marginal issue. An NHS England service specification paper published in 2013 states that, in NHS England, there should be one consultant paediatric rheumatologist, two nurse specialists, one physiotherapist and one occupational therapist per 1 million of the population or every 200,000 children. Currently, an experienced adult rheumatologist at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff, who, I may add, is about to retire in the next few years, is providing the majority of specialist paediatric rheumatology services for south Wales. So, even this makeshift provision is very fragile, given the impending retirement. However, some children from south Wales are travelling to Bristol, Birmingham and even beyond. As shown in the statement from Aimee’s family, travelling long distances for children with arthritis can be painful and stressful, and can cause disruption to education and family life.

This is an issue that the Government needs, in my view, to tackle. The succession planning should be taken forward in good time to avoid a situation of no service, and recruitment for the role would be made easier if plans are put in place to develop the service into a full tertiary provision.

JIA is a severe autoimmune condition that, if not properly treated and managed, can cause significant lifelong disabilities. Children with arthritis need access to high-quality health and support services to help limit the impact of their condition and to help them reach their true potential. According to AbbVie, the pharmaceutical research and development organisation, one of the most important factors to ensure that a child with JIA doesn’t have severe arthritis and joint damage when they’re adults is for children to receive early diagnosis and treatment. The longer arthritis has been active before treatment begins, the more difficult it is to control the disease. This is just one aspect of the problem, but early diagnosis and treatment can go as far as prolonging an arthritis sufferer’s life, it is so crucial. I believe that, with a population of over two million in south Wales alone, 400,000 of these being children, there is an overwhelming case for a specialist paediatric rheumatology centre in Wales.

Point 4 of this motion asks the Assembly to note that the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, WHSSC, is currently undertaking a review. The review will look into the needs of the Welsh population and assess any gaps in the provision against demands, service quality and specification. I welcome this review, and I welcome the news that upcoming meetings have been scheduled between WHSSC and the relevant organisations, such as Arthritis Care. I hope that this is a signal of progress for the development of such a centre. The looming retirement of the current rheumatologist adds a time pressure to this issue, and WHSSC’s review isn’t expected to be finalised until early 2018. However, the evidence is already clear on the need for a full multidisciplinary service. The WHSSC review could usefully look at how to implement a service that would best meet the needs of the population rather than again looking at whether Wales needs one at all. We’ve already been left behind the other parts of the UK. I believe the Government should give a firm lead and indicate that it is minded to commission this service so that Wales is not the only part of the UK without reasonable local provision.

Deputy Presiding Officer, if I may conclude with this, which is a final extract taken from Aimee’s story, again in the words of her dad:

Aimee’s condition is difficult for her. She just can’t do the same things as everyone else. At the age she is, it gets highlighted a lot. It’s little things like having a lot of time off school so she never wins the attendance awards or not being able to run about with her classmates. There’s always a constant reminder that she has arthritis.’

Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe that we can do more to improve the lives of these young children, who are already struggling with a condition that makes everyday life a challenge. I commend this motion to Assembly Members. Thank you.

I congratulate David Melding on getting this debate today, and I’m pleased to support him. As we know from the debate, arthritis isn’t just something that older people get, because I think that is often what people think. I became aware of childhood arthritis, which affects 400 children in south Wales, after being contacted by a constituent, Dawn Nyhan, and I met her and her daughter Harriet, who is now 19. She was first diagnosed with juvenile idiopathic arthritis when she was just two years old, similar to David’s constituent. As well as the more well-known effects of childhood arthritis, such as joint damage and mobility problems, which have already been mentioned today, perhaps less well-known is that 10 to 20 per cent of children develop an inflammatory eye condition that can cause blindness if not treated. So, this illness is a very severe condition if it is left untreated.

About 60 to 70 per cent of children grow out of rheumatoid arthritis, in that they don’t have ongoing disease, but they may still have to cope with ongoing problems as a result of joint damage they suffered when they were younger, and between 30 and 56 per cent of people with childhood arthritis will experience severe limitations in dexterity and mobility in adulthood.

Sadly, Harriet’s problems are ongoing, although she is determined not to let it stop her achieving. Harriet is now training to be a nurse, but she has such damage to her joints that mobility is a problem and she still has days when she can’t walk down the stairs and she’s in excruciating pain, and she never knows when her next procedure or surgery will be required.

Harriet’s mother, Dawn, said that they first noticed pain and problems moving when she was two years old. She had been an early walker but was reduced to shuffling to get around and was obviously in great pain. At first, the parents were told it was growing pains and they were passed, they felt, from pillar to post without a diagnosis. David mentioned about the importance of early diagnosis in his speech. I think that is really one of the points that we need to address today—there’s not enough knowledge among GPs of junior arthritis, and the family also found that there was no knowledge of it in A&E when they took Harriet there.

Eventually, after about five months, they had a diagnosis and, since then, they say they have had fantastic care—the problem was reaching that actual point. And, of course, it’s also important to note, as we’ve already heard, that they have the excellent care from their consultant, Jeremy Camilleri, who is also my constituent. He always does his utmost to help, but he is still an adult rheumatologist who can only dedicate a quarter of his working time to children. This motion highlights the need for a specialist, dedicated child rheumatology specialist for the population of south Wales, really, which has a population that does justify that.

In Harriet’s case, lots of physiotherapy and support, and the use of the hydro pool at UHW, literally did help to get her back on her feet. But there have been continued flare-ups of pain and swelling in Harriet’s knees and ankles throughout her school career. She’s had to spend a huge amount of her time in hospital, either to receive treatment or to have fluid drained from her joints.

She also lost a lot of school time, and I think this loss of school time is a very important issue. Her parents found it difficult to get support for learning at home, although the school, Llanishen High School, was absolutely very supportive about sending work home. But she wasn’t able to get a tutor at home, so they had to pay for private tutors to help Harriet get 10 GCSEs—three A* and seven As—despite having a very low attendance record at school and having surgery on her joints during both years of GCSE exams.

So, I really do feel that, with all the problems she’s encountered, and with such support from her parents, she has really achieved very well. She was a keen sportswoman and she captained the hockey team until she was 16, when she was told her playing days were over because of the amount of bone damage she had suffered on her knees because of the arthritis.

So, we know that there are hundreds of children with this extremely painful condition and if it’s not treated in childhood, bone damage and damaged joints are the result. While children do need the treatment in hospital, we’ve already heard about the difficulty of the long car journeys to get that treatment, and those journeys are very painful. So, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will think of a model that can address all the issues that have been raised today and can find some way of addressing this very debilitating, very important illness, which can be prevented and can be addressed if it is diagnosed early enough. Thank you.

I’m very delighted to be able to speak in today’s debate. It must be very hard, Cabinet Secretary, because I know that money is not infinite, but, as David Melding says, this is not a marginal issue, and these young people have every right to access the quality of treatment that we would expect throughout the entire NHS. The long and the short of it is that Wales should have a multidisciplinary paediatric rheumatology service.

I also met Aimee at the event that was held last week, and had a moment of embarrassment, which I’m prepared to completely admit to. She was standing next door to someone else who was on crutches, so I kind of beelined for the person on crutches, because there was this other bright, sparky, bouncy little kid—you know, bing, bing, bing—and I thought, ‘Oh, it must be this person’, and they went, ‘No, this is Aimee’, and there she was. We had a great chat about shopping, about clothes, about getting into Cardiff town centre—really, really excited—and then her dad said to me, ‘But tomorrow she’ll probably be in a wheelchair.’ That really brought it home to me, and I thought, ‘Oh, my gosh’. What a thing to cope with when you’re only—I think she’s seven or eight. One minute you can whizz around and do everything, and the next minute that’s it, you’re completely constrained by two wheels.

I also met a young man who was a bit older and, I have to say, probably a little bit more chippy, because teenage hormones were raging around his body, and he was finding it really tough. He was in a wheelchair and he was clutching a rugby ball and talking about various things, but he said that his life is really tough and he can’t join in with this friends, he can’t go out on trips and all the rest of it, and I just thought, ‘Wow, that really brings it home. This is a life-experience limiting illness/condition/disease.’ And that’s the issue, because a lot of these young kids, if they get support—and one of the big supports that they need and they cannot get and which isn’t available is physiotherapy and occupational therapy and psychotherapy that’s specifically targets the kinds of experiences that they are going through.

I had a long chat as well with Aimee’s father, and he said that he could cope, albeit unwillingly, with having to come up to Cardiff and deal with the adult rheumatologist and so on, but what he really wanted to be able to do was to have near their home in Haverfordwest, trained physiotherapists who could help someone like Aimee to cope with what she’s doing, to make her as strong as possible, to give her the best chance of going through this awful condition, and hopefully emerging out of it the other side as a young adult being the absolute best that she can possibly be. He’s asked Withybush hospital and Glangwili and there’s a real reluctance because they don’t have the staff, they don’t have the training, they don’t have the knowledge, they don’t have the skills. I met with the chief executive, and it was one of the things that we raised, because Aimee, the young man that I met and another young man that I met in my surgery—they all have that absolute right to have those kind of services. If I break my arm and I want physio, I expect to be able to deal with someone who knows how to help me get that strength back.

So, much of this debate is centred on having a centre of excellence, which we absolutely need in Wales, based somewhere sensible where people can get to it, with a targeted paediatric specialist in charge. But it doesn’t stop there. I think that’s the heart of the spider. The legs that go out all through Wales must have all these support services. We must have the occupational therapists, we must have the physiotherapists, and we must have the psychological therapists, because the young man who came to see me in my constituency office was just very unhappy, very down about what was happening to him, very down about his experience, and he couldn’t get the mental health support that he needed. So, it’s a whole range—these people are not just a person with a problem; it’s a complex issue. And I think it must be very hard to be suffering from something that can be so different on a day-to-day basis, and it must really upset the rhythms of your day. So, I would like to plead, Cabinet Secretary, for you to have a look at this whole area, to look at building a centre of excellence. We have the children’s hospital. This could be an absolutely great base to start from and actually put somebody into there who can look after south Wales, and then make plans for how we look after north Wales as well, of course, because children up there are having to travel across borders and so on. So, we need to make sure that we can provide that to mitigate what is a deeply, deeply unpleasant condition.

Final comment: we’ve talked a lot about public health, we talk a lot about the time bomb of the future, we talk a lot about empowering the patient, empowering the carer, hearing their voice and letting people make informed choices. Without having the staff in place and those people being trained to help these people, they can’t do that, they can’t have a voice, and they can’t make informed choices, and that’s what, Cabinet Secretary, we’re asking you to consider putting in place. Thank you.

I’ll begin by talking about the experience of a young person, Kelly O’Keefe from Talsarnau in Gwynedd, who is in her 20s by now but who has been suffering from arthritis from a very early age, receiving treatment in Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool—an excellent hospital, but that’s not the point in this context. Her parents had to take a day off work to take her to Liverpool, with appointments very early in the morning—sometimes at 9 o’clock in the morning—and she didn’t travel very well because of the arthritis. It would take days to get over the journey, very often. And the experience is one that has remained with her to this day.

On the assumption that we are considering that travelling over long distances for treatment is something that the NHS uses as a last resort—perhaps it’s unfair to make that assumption considering how many services have been outsourced to England in the past few years. But making that assumption, we do have to ask ourselves whether it’s possible, and how it would be possible, to have that specialist provision in Wales. What do we need for specialist services? Well, we need the patient numbers to begin with, and we can see that there is no problem with justifying that in south Wales, certainly. It is perhaps a little bit more problematic in north Wales, or at least if we accept potential users from areas in Chester or Shrewsbury, for example, which is what we would usually do. We should be developing services that can provide for those over the border as well, if that’s what’s needed to create that critical mass.

There is also something slightly strange about the difference between the population figures in Wales and the numbers at present identified as patients in the system. Wales is the only nation in the United Kingdom without a specialist paediatric rheumatology centre. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.8 million, compared to 3.1 million in Wales, and yet it’s Wales that doesn’t have a multidisciplinary service, as we’re asking for today. Scotland, with a population of 5.2 million, has two services of this kind. But when it comes to patient numbers, only 202 children were on the books, as it were, being treated in Cardiff, according to the 2014 figures. Now, if we consider that we believe that there are around 600 children with this condition in Wales, then the groups that represent and support this motion today expressed concern about this figure of 202, because it could mean either that children aren’t receiving a diagnosis or that their needs post-diagnosis aren’t being met in the way that they should be through having a multidisciplinary service.

We’ve seen before that, very often, when it comes to specialist provision, demand for it is very often underestimated by health officials who are, it appears to me, very willing to see England as the specialist provider—the default provider. The perinatal unit for mothers and babies that we’ve heard about is another example of the demand and the need being underestimated when assessing whether a unit should be closed or not. We also note that a lack of data is a problem throughout the NHS. Much of the data that we need aren’t available or aren’t being shared, and it’s as if institutions are planning for what they can close or move somewhere else, rather than for what they can create.

It’s no secret that this motion has been put forward and has been inspired because of the advocacy work done by several groups representing patients who require better services. We hope that we will receive a positive response from this Government as a result of that. But I do want to ask this question: what about those conditions that don’t have the same kind of efficient and effective advocacy on behalf of patients? We can’t be content with that piecemeal provision for those conditions. There is a wider matter here with regard to assumptions about Wales by NHS managers, it appears to me, which means that they don’t see it as the default option to try to provide specialist services here, or to attract patients from England when that would be required to create a critical mass. As a result, this won’t be the last that we see of this kind of debate.

Kelly O’Keefe’s experience speaks volumes, I believe. It speaks also, because of the lack of services in north Wales, about the lack of support services and supporting services stemming from that. Because there wasn’t a service, there were no support groups available in north Wales, and that also makes the experience, for her and her family, even harder. It’s clear to me that the children of Wales deserve better, and I’m very pleased to be able to support this motion today.

I’m pleased to be co-sponsoring this motion before us today and I thank David Melding for bringing about this debate, which is very important. It is unacceptable that Wales is the only home nation without a specialist paediatric rheumatology service or a dedicated multidisciplinary team. As a result, children in Wales who suffer from juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile onset systemic lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, juvenile idiopathic osteoporosis, fibromyalgia, and around 200 other conditions, are left without specialist care. Thousands of children from across south Wales are forced to rely on a substandard service provided part time by an adult rheumatology specialist without the backup of nurse specialists, physios, and occupational therapists, and some children have to travel to Bristol or Birmingham for treatment.

Last week, at an event to highlight this issue, I met an incredibly brave young lady who suffers from juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Aimee is eight years old, and brought home to me the real challenges she and her family face as a result of her condition and the fact that, when the current rheumatologist retires, in just a few years, she will have no specialist care. Aimee has spent the majority of her young life in pain, with stiff and swollen joints. Her arthritis has limited her childhood as she is often unable to do the things that many young people take for granted. When this happens, Aimee uses a wheelchair. Her father Darren explains she is sometimes teased or even bullied in school when she uses her chair. Her condition has had an impact on her education as she has to miss school on occasions, and it has affected the rest of the family. Without proper treatment, there is a risk she could develop lifelong disabilities, so this disease is not only robbing Aimee of her childhood but could also impact or limit her adulthood. Despite all of this, she continues to brighten the world with her smile.

Aimee, unfortunately, is not alone. There are hundreds of children in south Wales living with this terrible autoimmune condition, for which there is no cure. These young people deserve a dedicated multidisciplinary paediatric rheumatology service. Such a service is vital in achieving remission of arthritis, maintaining the disease’s remission, preserving normal development, and minimising the risk of lifelong disability. NHS England states that there should be one consultant paediatric rheumatologist, two nurse specialists, one physiotherapist, and one occupational therapist for every 1 million people. We have around 2 million people living in south Wales yet we have a quarter whole-time equivalent adult rheumatologist without a formal clinical network or multidisciplinary team. This is unacceptable. We are letting down Aimee and thousands of children like her.

I urge my fellow Assembly Members to join us in calling for the Welsh Government to deliver a full multidisciplinary paediatric rheumatology service in south Wales and to improve the provision of services in north Wales. We owe it to Aimee, we owe it to the thousands of children suffering from rheumatic conditions, and we owe it to those children yet to receive a diagnosis. Please support this motion. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. Before I call the next speaker, if you’re using your iPads or your iPhones, which you’re entitled to, could you please make sure that they are on silent? The constant pinging is starting to get on my nerves, and I’m sure you wouldn’t want me to start to throw a little bit of a tantrum from the chair. So, if you are checking, can you just check them please? It probably will affect the translation and the broadcasting. Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The first thing I’d like to do is to thank David Melding for creating an opportunity for me and, as he said, 50 per cent of the Assembly Members, to meet two fantastic families and their very courageous children, and also for creating an opportunity for us here today to recognise their condition and to ask for some support in that regard. That event was called ‘Too Young for Arthritis?’, and it would be in all of our minds, if we were talking about rheumatology, we wouldn’t necessarily be putting that with children. So, it came as a real eye-opener, I think, to most people, to actually meet young people and to talk about paediatric rheumatology. I was certainly—I will put my hands up to being one of those people.

They are living with a condition and receiving treatment for juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and I will refer to it as JIA from here on. Many people have spoken about Aimee, and all of us met her, but I also met Aaron, who was 12 years old, and both of them had travelled up from Pembrokeshire, from my area. And they did share their stories and their experiences very willingly and, I feel, very bravely with all of us. One of the things that I would like to add was the social isolation that they also talked about with me and the fact that, on a good day, they couldn’t actually access anywhere where they could socialise with other people very easily, due to access and due to understanding that maybe they could join a club this week, but not go to it next week. The inconsistencies of their day-to-day life and the interruption of their pattern within school, within their social life, and with their own family life, couldn’t actually be overstated, and I wanted to bring that to the table.

As somebody who travels from Pembrokeshire to Cardiff every single week, just about, and back home, I understand that it is a long journey and, mostly, it will take two hours, and sometimes it’ll take a lot longer, depending on the time of day. But for somebody who is suffering such a painful condition to have to undertake that journey on a sometimes fairly frequent basis, the pain and the discomfort must be something very difficult to bear indeed. I listened to them, as we all did, and they were asking for a specialist tertiary centre for paediatric rheumatology in Cardiff’s children’s hospital. As a consequence, and hoping that that might happen, they were looking forward to a satellite centre or hub where they might be able then to receive some treatment closer to home when that is appropriate. And they know and recognise that that would only be possible if there was that specialist tertiary centre opened in the first place.

Many here have said today that there isn’t such a service available to those individuals in Wales, and I really feel we need to look at providing that treatment here. Of course, around that, we would need some specialist multidisciplinary teams that would include doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists, and I think, again, that I would call for that support. It cannot be understated that, if you live with a condition like this and you have to travel to access that treatment, it has a really serious impact on your day-to-day life, but, when you add youth to it, and the expectation that, as a young person, you would live your life, I think that we all here need to do all we can to improve their lot.

One of the pieces of advice my highly esteemed predecessor as Assembly Member for Caerphilly, Jeff Cuthbert, gave me was to always take the opportunity in debate to raise the issues and concerns of your constituents, and therefore this is a very timely opportunity to do that. My knowledge of this dreadful disease came about as a result of meeting a constituent, Glyn Davies, who’s volunteered on behalf of Arthritis Care for 15 years. He suffers from arthritis himself and he’s run a range of courses for people of all ages who have been affected by arthritis, on activities such as exercise, employment, finance, welfare, and pain management. He’s talked to me about the importance of transition from paediatric to adult services, and it’s something that has been touched upon—I think Rhun touched upon that in some of the contributions he made. The role of volunteers, therefore, is very, very important, but I’m mindful that the motion concentrates on the issue of arthritis in children, which is something that is less commonly understood, I think—certainly in the dialogue I’ve had with other constituents.

Earlier today, my office was contacted by my constituent Alison Haines, of Caerphilly. Alison’s son has JIA, and is prone to flare-ups. At present, the availability of part-time support services means that access to care can take two to three days. Alison feels that her son’s flare-ups will be brought under better control if full access to treatment and advice was more widely available on a regular basis. What she told me was her son currently receives treatment from two different sites, the Noah’s Ark Children’s Hospital for Wales in Cardiff, and the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport. The problem is that his appointments are on separate days, meaning his education suffers due to more time off school. If a range of paediatric rheumatology services could be provided in one dedicated place, then this would reduce the impact on his school attendance, and also reduce the strain put upon the whole family. Clearly, the establishment of a tertiary, multidisciplinary paediatric rheumatology service in south Wales would be, as Julie Morgan said, of significant benefit to people just like Alison’s son, helping him manage his condition more effectively and providing a great deal of support for his family.

I signed up as a supporter to the motion. I wanted to understand fully the implications of points 4 and 5, awaiting the WHSSC review and the implications that has, then, for the decision on paediatric services. I think I was struck a little bit by Rhun ap Iorwerth’s contribution that said, ‘Well, we need a strategy. We need to think strategically about it. We need to base this on evidence’, and the evidence should therefore be provided by that WHSSC review. And, therefore, in conclusion, I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would agree to give that concept of a multidisciplinary rheumatology paediatric service consideration, pending the outcome of that WHSSC review.

I had also the fortune to meet with representatives of the British Society for Rheumatology and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society in the Pierhead building recently, and I thank David Melding for bringing forward this debate. I was struck by the points made to me, and that, with a population of over 2 million and over 400,000 children in south Wales, there is a strong case to be made for a full multidisciplinary paediatric rheumatology service. Inevitably, with this historic lack of current provision in Wales, many children are travelling real distances to access paediatric rheumatology, with children travelling to centres in England, such as Bristol and Birmingham. Nobody can believe that this is ideal or necessary, let alone desired.

Earlier this year, the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee confirmed that they will be undertaking, as has been said by many Members, a comprehensive review of paediatric specialised services for the Welsh population, and that the review will include that assessment of paediatric rheumatology, and I very much welcome this move. It is important that we do base our decision on evidence. This is the way that has been said that we can ensure the precious resources for the national health service in Wales, which are not finite, can be properly targeted to meet the cascading and ever-widening needs of the Welsh nation.

Only last night, BBC Wales’s flagship news show, ‘Wales Today’, highlighted this fundamental issue, and, with the growth in diabetes, Alzheimer’s and other conditions, an interim review of health and social care, chaired by Dr Ruth Hussey, has highlighted the Welsh national health service’s funding challenges moving forward in Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary for health, Vaughan Gething AM, yesterday said in this very Chamber that he expected the review and the Welsh Government’s response to it to form the direction of travel for the next decade. Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, a review panel member, stated that the Welsh NHS needs to meet the demands of the people of Wales like Aneurin Bevan advocated at the very beginning.

I sincerely hope and ask that the clear demand for paediatric rheumatology services in Wales can be met with a tailored response that the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee can recommend and, as such, I will strongly support such an outcome.

Thank you very much. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-Being and Sport, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to begin by thanking Members for their contributions to this debate. As ever, these individual Member debates are a good opportunity for issues that would not otherwise receive a national profile to do so. We are talking today about a painful condition, as set out by David Melding—one that is not perhaps properly understood. That was referred to by many other Members. It’s often that human experience of meeting someone with a condition that triggers a particular interest, not just in one Member but in a range of us, to understand that, actually, we almost all probably have constituents who are affected.

The Government will abstain today and not support the specific wording of the motion. We do recognise that paediatric rheumatology services need to be reviewed, and I’ll outline in my contribution what is already taking place.

Yesterday, as has been referred to, in the statement regarding the parliamentary review, we rehearsed some of our challenges in providing a service fit to meet the challenges of the future, and this service is a good example of where we recognise and need to understand the level of need and then take a practical and evidence-based approach to improving services. It may also require the NHS family to work across health board boundaries and potentially national boundaries in providing the right configuration for all of the services.

Now, we don’t have, as the motion recognises, a formally designated paediatric rheumatology centre. In practice, a tertiary service is provided at the University Hospital of Wales, as has been referred to several times in the debate. Actually, a referral from the University Hospital of Wales to an alternative specialist service is sometimes necessary at present as well. As has been mentioned, all referrals of this nature are reviewed by a consultant rheumatologist who acts as a clinical gatekeeper, and he is authorised to refer and commit Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee—or WHSSC—funding for treatment at those specialist centres outside Wales. So, we do already have in place, for south and mid Wales, service level agreements in place with Birmingham, Bristol and Great Ormond Street. But I recognise that the current arrangements do not provide for the full multidisciplinary team that should be in place in a designated paediatric rheumatology centre. I also recognise the points that were made about travelling distances, which I will come back to later on.

The motion largely refers to the number of patients in Wales—in particular, the number of patients in south Wales. In north Wales, there are outreach clinics provided by the health board, and patients do attend Alder Hey for their paediatric services. Before today, significant concerns hadn’t been raised with us about the quality or the reach of those services for citizens in north Wales. In fact, the third sector hadn’t raised challenges about that, and there are a range of support groups that exist in north Wales as well, but I’ll reflect on comments made by Members in the Chamber and have that discussion with service users and the third sector too.

There are three streams of work that I want to refer to to inform the future approach. The first is the comprehensive review of specialist paediatric services by WHSSC, as referred to in the motion and in the debate today. I know that WHSSC have already been in touch with the third sector, in particular the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, as part of that review. It is important to me that the third sector and the voice of the service user is a real feature in that review that takes place. I do welcome the review and I look forward to the results that can inform NHS thinking on both the potential but also then the practical considerations to be addressed around specialist service provision in Wales.

The second area of work is the review of the snappily titled commissioning directive for arthritis and chronic musculoskeletal conditions. If you don’t mind, I’ll refer to it as the directive. Now, ultimately, of course, the direct responsibility for delivering improvements for musculoskeletal conditions, including paediatric rheumatology services, rests with health boards, but they do so in line with this commissioning directive. Now, we are currently in the process of updating the directive. It’s nearly 10 years old at present. The broad aim is to move towards a greater focus on helping people of all ages to develop skills to enable them to manage their conditions and, where appropriate, increase their ability to stay in work and live the lives they want to live. Obviously, for children and young people, living the lives they want to live, as has been said by a number of Members in this debate, includes normal social interactions, the ability to go to school, and a range of other things.

A project steering group has been convened to oversee that work, and it consists of both clinical experts from each health board in Wales and third sector representatives. Currently that’s the National Osteoporosis Society and Arthritis Care Wales, and individual service users. An initial meeting of that group has already taken place, and the next meeting is scheduled for the first week in August.

The third area of work has come from a specific area that I have already asked for, and as a result of my request the interim managing director and the acting medical director of WHSSC are due to meet with Arthritis Care Wales and the consultant who manages the tertiary rheumatology service at UHW to discuss a way forward. Representatives of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and Arthritis Care Wales will be present at that meeting, which is due to take place within the next week.

I hope that provides some assurance to Members that the Welsh Government recognises the reality that our current provision and service model could be improved, and we’re committed to doing so, because I want to see all three strands of that work drawn together to provide us with practical steps forward. But if I may go back—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I’m very grateful to you, Cabinet Secretary, for taking a quick intervention. I’m delighted to hear the strands of work that you’re bringing together. Could you just quickly touch upon the case of undiagnosed young people? Because this deals with those who we know have it, and about them getting the service. I think a number of people who took part in this debate raised the numbers of children who have not yet even got that far, because there isn’t knowledge out there in the field amongst the GPs and other professionals. Perhaps you can just tell us how you can improve that.

I was going to touch on some of that in the next part of my contribution, but I will refer back to some of the conversations we had yesterday with the parliamentary review statement, and the reference to what could and should be local, what’s the responsibility of health boards individually and acting together, and where should there be a central guiding hand directing and requiring the service to do something. That would include, in this area, the debate and the discussion about the number of specialist centres we could or should have, what the evidence base is for that, but also the wider service model from community to specialist. That includes diagnosis, awareness and training, but then how much of that service you could and should provide locally and closer to home, and then the acceptance that, whenever you have a specialist centre, people will travel. Whether it’s located in Cardiff, Swansea, Carmarthen or wherever a specialist centre is, for lots of people that will require significant travelling distance to get to that specialist centre for the care that they only could have and should have within that setting. At present, given the position of Cardiff—and a number of Members have made a bid today for Cardiff to be a formal paediatric rheumatology centre with a multidisciplinary team—that would still require people to travel a long distance, and to have the right group of staff in place to provide the care.

I think there’s a challenge here about commissioning services within Wales, commissioning services across the border in England, where that’s necessary, or where that’s the right thing to do. But also, I’d still want to have a more open conversation with colleagues in England about commissioning services in Wales that would also take in and deliver on the needs of patients who currently live in England. There are some flows that already exist that could and should exist in more specialist services, I believe, as well. But I think rather than me determining the model of service provision in a single debate today, it’s important that we care about the need to resolve the questions about the service model—about the balance between community and specialist provision. That, of course, includes questions raised about those points and about the specialist multidisciplinary team that I recognise we don’t have.

So, I will take proper account of the WHSSC review, and I will then either make a choice with the service—or I hope the service will make its own choice, actually, because I think this is an area where there should not have to be central direction from myself. But I hope that, in indicating that I will take seriously the recommendations for service improvement, that meets the test set for me by Hefin David. I’m happy to give a clear indication about a direction to take place, and of course I will report back to Assembly Members in due course.

Thank you very much. I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to respond to this debate, which has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate David Melding first of all for bringing it all together and for arranging that event a fortnight ago in the Pierhead building, where we met those families who were suffering.

Of course, as a GP with over 35 years’ experience in Swansea, over the years, I’ve met a number of families who have a young person among them suffering arthritis at a very young ages, and it can be a very serious condition, as we’ve heard. And relatively common ailments that are serious in their impact do deserve to be treated in a specialist regional centre, because they are unusual conditions that require different treatments and where all the specialists dealing with those conditions should be located in a central location—a multidisciplinary centre in the true meaning of those words.

All of the medical evidence that has come to hand over the years would support such a development, so that we get the best quality treatment for these rare conditions. We’ve heard the strong arguments in favour of establishing specialist paediatric rheumatology services, and I agree entirely. And the quality of this afternoon’s debate deserves that, too.

I, too, have met a number of specialists working in this area and have spoken to families about the need for these developments—such as Lisa Evans and her daughter Bethan in my region who has this condition—and the need to establish a specialist service in this area.

In turning to the contributions, I congratulate David Melding on outlining in his usual mature manner the points in favour of creating a specialist paediatric rheumatology centre and on telling us the story of Aimee, who was mentioned more than once during the debate. Julie Morgan again gave us the history of another child and the problems that can develop with the eyes and eyesight—it’s not just a matter of joints and bones. And she emphasised the need for early treatment to avoid the impacts of the condition, and arthritis that can have grave effects in the long term, which means that children lose a lot of school as a result.

I congratulate Angela Burns on her contribution, too, outlining the experiences of those who are suffering JIA, and emphasising this element of this need for the multidisciplinary team: physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychotherapists. Likewise, Rhun mentioned the individual experiences of a family and the importance of developing this expertise within Wales. We can do this.

I also thank Caroline Jones, Joyce Watson, Hefin David and Rhianon Passmore for their wise and mature contributions this afternoon. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary. Yes, the background to all of this, as the Cabinet Secretary mentioned, is the Ruth Hussey report, the interim report, which was published yesterday, and there is a significant challenge for the health service there to change.

But there is also a significant challenge for each and every one of us to change. I don’t think that it is sufficient now just to think that something is a good idea and then to refer it to some commission to come up with a final solution in many years’ time; we have to start to take action now. And that’s what the interim report written by Ruth Hussey emphasises: the need to make far-reaching decisions now and to have the courage to implement those.

We’ve heard from the Cabinet Secretary what WHSSC is doing and about the importance of what patients think of the service at the moment. Well, we’ve heard this afternoon what the patients’ view is: they want to see a specialist paediatric rheumatology service now. Wales is the only nation that doesn’t have that specialist service, and I would urge the Cabinet Secretary to come to the same conclusion as everyone else in this Chamber this afternoon.

So, we need these changes now as a matter of urgency, and, of course, that’s what Ruth Hussey’s report anticipates. A change will have to come. Things are moving out of our regional general hospitals and into the community is all very well and good. We’ll do more in the community, we want to do more in the community, and we want to do more in the community, and we deserve the funding to do more in the community, and fewer of the day-to-day issues will be covered in our DGHs, but we still need these specialist tertiary centres to do that stuff that can only be done in those specialist centres. Yes, do more in the community, but we also need more specialist centres here in Wales to serve our people.

We’ve heard the evidence. We’ve heard from a number of people this afternoon. We’ve also had direct evidence from patients and their families and those suffering, and the time for action is now. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

We’ll move on to the next item on our agenda this afternoon, which is a debate on the live music protection in Wales petition. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee, David Rowlands, to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I say, I’m delighted to open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee? Earlier this year, the Petitions Committee and the Business Committee agreed to introduce a new petitions threshold whereby any petition that gathered more than 5,000 signatures would be considered for a debate here in Plenary. At the time I was a member of the Business Committee, and it is by a small quirk of fate that I, as Chair of the Petitions Committee, now stand here introducing this, the first debate on a petition to have achieved that threshold. I hope Members here today will support this innovation for the Assembly’s petitions process, which will potentially provide another route for anyone in Wales to bring their ideas and concerns directly to the Chamber. It is a splendid example of democracy in action. We, the Petitions Committee, hope that we receive a number of petitions with this level of support over the course of this Assembly.

The petition before us today was organised by Richard Vaughan and concerns the protection given to live music venues in Wales. The petition was open for signatures during April this year, and in that time it was signed by 5,383 people. The petition calls on the National Assembly for Wales to take steps to protect live music venues in Wales. Importantly, it suggests two ways of achieving this. Firstly, the petition calls for the agent-of-change principle to be introduced into Welsh planning law and guidance. The principle seeks to put the onus on the developers of new premises, whether residential or commercial, to plan adequate noise reduction measures if there is an existing business such as a music venue nearby. Secondly, the petition calls for local authorities in Wales to have the ability to recognise places as areas of cultural significance for music within the planning framework. This would then potentially have a bearing on future planning applications in the vicinity of such areas.

Many Members here will be familiar with the specific local background to this petition, which concerns Womanby Street in Cardiff city centre. A vibrant campaign has been undertaken during the first half of this year, in response to local concerns about the implications of new developments planned in the heart of one of the cultural centres of our capital city. Womanby Street, in the centre of the city, has long been one of its foremost cultural and creative hubs—perhaps it’s most famous for the live music venue and Welsh language club, Clwb Ifor Bach. I’m sure other Members here would wish to share their own experiences, or at least some of them, of the street in their own contributions to this debate.

Earlier this year, several planning applications in and around the area and fears over the impact these could have on live music venues there prompted the establishment of the ‘Save Womanby Street’ campaign. The campaign, in turn, gave rise to this petition. This issue has been raised previously in this Chamber by my colleague on the Petitions Committee Neil McEvoy, and a statement of opinion has also been signed by a number of Members here.

Before I open this motion up to wider debate, I want to outline briefly what the committee has heard about the specific proposals made by the petitioners. The agent-of-change principle is promoted by this petition and elsewhere as a way of protecting music venues from closure. It is argued that complaints made by residents of new developments about noise levels from established music venues have been a major factor in the closure of a number of music venues across the UK in recent years. The petition argues that adopting the agent-of-change principle would help to protect existing live music venues by stipulating that anyone seeking to develop or redevelop property nearby would be responsible for mitigating the impact of that change. That means that if, for example, housing or a hotel were built next to a live music venue, it would be the developer’s responsibility to mitigate the potential impact and noise from an existing live music centre.

Supporters of the agent-of-change principle argue that it would represent an important shift from current planning policies, which hold that whoever is reported as causing a nuisance is always responsible for that nuisance. This position is held irrespective of how long the noise considered to be a nuisance has existed or whether someone has moved into the vicinity of the noise in full knowledge of it. It is also important to note that the principle operates in both directions. So, where a new music venue is proposed near an existing residential building, the agent of change, the music venue in this case, would need to ensure they included appropriate measures to reduce noise.

The Petitions Committee first considered this petition on 23 May. Given the high level of support garnered by the petition and its timely nature, the committee decided to request this debate at the earliest opportunity. The indications are that the Welsh Government has also taken notice of the strong campaigning on this issue. Shortly before the committee’s first consideration of the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs announced that she intends to revise national planning policy to support live music venues. We understand that in the review of ‘Planning Policy Wales’ taking place this summer, the Cabinet Secretary has indicated her wish for the agent-of-change principle to be explicitly referenced and also that national policy be updated to allow for the designation of areas of cultural significance.

On the face of it, this appears to be a victory for the petitioners and, potentially, a step forward for live music venues across the country. I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary and from other Members about this and how this Assembly feels we should be protecting the future of live music in Wales.

As a result of the timetable involved, we haven’t been able to undertake detailed investigations into the propositions and the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement. Therefore, we present this petition to the Assembly without making recommendations in any direction. The committee hopes that the contributions we hear from all Members today will support the Cabinet Secretary and her officials to further consider the merits of the changes proposed by the petitioners.

Can I thank my successor as Chair of the Petitions Committee for bringing this forward today? As was said earlier by my successor as Chair of the Petitions Committee, this came from a Standing Order change that allows consideration of any petition that has more than 5,000 signatures for debate on the floor of the Chamber. It’s an excellent example of the direct involvement of the public in the work of the Assembly in a Plenary session. I was Chair of the Petitions Committee at the time of our recommendation to the Business Committee of the 5,000-signature threshold and when it was agreed to ask for a debate on the petition. Can I thank the Business Committee for allowing this debate today? I would also like to thank Rhun ap Iorwerth and the Plaid Cymru group for withdrawing a debate on this issue earlier this year. I do not think that we’d have been allowed a debate on the petition if we’d had a Plaid Cymru debate six weeks ago. I think that people would have said, ‘We’ve already debated it’. So, can I honestly say thank you very much for allowing this to happen and for allowing the debate on the petition to actually take place? I and, I’m sure, the rest of the Members here really appreciate you doing that.

The petition meets all the key criteria: it has more than 5,000 signatures; it has genuine public interest; and it is a problem that is going to have to be addressed at some stage. At the Petitions Committee, we agonised over the number of signatures necessary to automatically request a debate. Set it too high and no-one will ever meet the threshold. Set it too low, and the requests will be a regular occurrence and, dare I say it, the Business Committee would not be really pleased to be receiving one every week. The number 5,000 came from the 100,000 at Westminster, and we are approximately 5 per cent of the population, and it has worked. The number has been reached, but only once, over an issue that really has engaged the public.

On live music itself, if I look at Swansea and the live music venues I attended in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, the Patti Pavilion is now a restaurant, the Marina Nite Spot, which was known locally Dora’s, is now closed, Top Rank closed and is currently being demolished. There have been new venues opened, but they tend to be smaller. A number of pubs and clubs provide live music. In Morriston that includes, or included up until recently, places like the Millers Arms, Morriston RFC, Ynystawe cricket and football club and Morriston golf club. Whilst welcome, these are small venues. We also have the Liberty Stadium, which has hosted Pink and the Stereophonics, and a number of other major groups. But there’s a difference, isn’t there, between 20,000 to 30,000 and 100? And that little gap there is really where we’ve lost out and lost out massively.

I don’t believe that you can have too many music venues. People like listening to live music. The opportunity should be there. It is also true that late-night live music and flats and houses do not always make good neighbours, and sports grounds sometimes have difficulties with neighbours regarding noise and the ball going into their gardens. On both I have the same answer: who was there first? If the music venue or sports pitch was there first, the developer and the people moving in knew what they were moving into. They knew what was there. It is blatantly unfair to move in and then start complaining about something that was there before the building was built, never mind before you moved in.

Even more unfair is if licensing takes that into account. If you move in next to a music venue, expect to hear music. You know what its licence is. If you do not like music or music up until the time of the licence, don’t move in there. What we cannot have is a music venue curtailed by people moving into new developments and then getting the music stopped or finished so early that people do not attend.

Conversely, you should not be able to set up a late-night music venue in the middle of a residential street. We need a system that’s fair to everybody. If it’s there, you know what you’re moving into. I’ll speak for myself: there’s a garage in front of my house. If somebody decided to build a music venue there, I’d be unhappy. But it wasn’t there when I moved in and I didn’t have a choice. When you make a choice to move in next to a music venue, then you’ve got to accept that’s what you’re moving in next to. You can’t say, ‘I’ve been here now for some time. I don’t like it.’ You knew what you were moving into. There should be no late-night licences for any new venues in residential streets, but if it exists, it shouldn’t be punished because somebody else has built houses or flats near it. That’s what’s I call ‘chwarae teg’. Thank you.

I’m very interested in this petition, actually, because it does interest me that existing Welsh national planning policy is not already interpreted in a way that protects venues that have already been cleared by planning and environmental health as not exceeding acceptable noise levels. These are businesses that they themselves have applied for planning permission or licences in the past, usually at some cost, and were accepted as being within the bounds of social acceptability when they made and succeeded with those applications.

Local authorities can already take existing sources of noise into account when deciding subsequent planning applications and they can take into account that new uses shouldn’t be introduced into an area without considering the nature of existing uses. So, I am curious about what is actually driving the need for the petition today. This is not a negative, because I think what the petition is asking for is a good thing. So, is it that there’s suddenly a need for homes that is so great that every square inch of land must be built on as quickly as possible, and that that big social imperative outweighs the future of wicked businesses who are out there to make a buck regardless of the consequences to their neighbours, old or new?

Well, on this occasion, of course, capitalism is wearing its happy face, isn’t it? We’re talking about live music, and it’s easy to make the wider cultural argument about the place of live music in our personal and community identities, the value of this art form as entertainment, through the therapeutic purposes, its cohesive force, its ability to transform an individual, and even, of course, the benefits to the local economy raise their head in this argument.

All these arguments are right. Venues are much loved for these reasons. Yes, they can be noisy, which maybe limits the kind of neighbours that you can have, but the land adjacent to these businesses will be valued accordingly. And, as a former property lawyer, I can’t stand here and argue that landowners should be prevented from making a decent profit from their investment. But I can argue that if they want to enhance the value of that land by seeking planning permission for higher value building, then they should be the ones who invest in the mitigation that allows that to happen. So, in short, why should existing businesses pay for a new neighbour to make more money?

I do have a few words of caution, however. I remember a potential housing site in mid Wales, next to a metal fabrication unit. The owner of the unit was worried because, even though he had all his relevant permits for noise levels, odour reduction, waste disposal and so on, he was nervous that he might have to take the further mitigation action should housing be permitted on the site next door, as was, indeed, the case. So, to be consistent, we need to think about the agent-of-change principle applying for businesses like that as well, surely.

Now, as it happened, the housing proposals were reduced in size and orientated away from that factory. But what would have happened if the developer had said, ‘Well, do you know what, I’m prepared to throw some money at the mitigation myself in order to have more houses. The profits I will make will more than pay for it and I want to build as close to the factory as I can. I will argue that my obligation gives me a corresponding right—if I can mitigate, the presumption will be that the planning authority must find in the favour of my development.’ That’s the argument I’m putting here.

How long will it be before landowners are looking to develop parcels of land for higher value residential use, challenging LDP zoning decisions, and relying on a planning condition to mitigate, when, actually, their land is just far from ideal for a site as a home, anyway? I’m not talking about full-scale redevelopment of brownfield sites, which I think we probably all approve of, but infill in areas that are heavily industrialised.

The second point is how well this principle rubs up against the well-established principle of ‘polluter pays’, and I think David Rowlands was talking about that. It applies to noise nuisance as much as any other kind of nuisance. The inclusion of the agent-of-change principle into planning law would be very, very welcome, indeed, but the unintended consequences and questions that arise from that also have to be worked through, I think.

The petition also asks the National Assembly to legislate for local authorities to recognise an area of ‘cultural significance for music’ within the planning framework. I just would leave it at recognition of areas of ‘cultural significance’. Why not? That would easily capture music, but also areas where there have been concentrations of artists working, or theatres, or landscapes famous for their place in film or paintings, or even the Dylan Thomas trail, which some of my constituents are hoping to engender new interest in. I don’t think they’re captured by the historic environment Act, and maybe not by conservation area status, and I don’t think they could be by an outright ban on development either.

So, in short, what I’m saying is: I support the basic premise of what’s being asked for by the petition, but can I just ask us to remember that it may not be the straightforward answer that the live music venues on Womanby Street were looking for? Thank you.

This is a good day for Welsh democracy. Where else in the world would a petition fly through the Petitions Committee and reach the floor of the legislature within months? People coming together and working together can bring about change. I’d like to thank Richard Vaughan for starting the petition. He was, of course, Plaid Cymru’s candidate in Grangetown in the recent council elections, but he’s also a composer and a conductor, so this issue of protecting live music venues in Wales is very important to him personally. It’s also very important to many people in our country, given that 5,383 people signed the petition within days—within days.

This debate is also very timely, as live music venues across Wales face the threat of closure. It’s not just a problem in Wales either, because UK Music reported that 35 per cent of live music venues in the UK have closed in the last decade, and the threats often come from developers who build new housing right next to the existing live music venues. When the inevitable noise complaints come in from the new residents, the venue is forced to close. We’ve got Coldplay in town tonight and music is in the Welsh cultural DNA. It’s the biggest expression of popular culture that there is. The issue of Womanby Street has really brought this matter to the attention of this institution, because it’s the smaller, grass-roots venues that need our attention and that need help from this Welsh Parliament.

We can’t have major events without the independent venues where musicians make a name for themselves; they have to start in the smaller venues. Womanby Street has made a name for itself. It’s the heart of live music in this city, and most of us will have spent time there watching great bands and listening to great bands in Clwb Ifor Bach and spending too much time, maybe, trying the craft ales in the pubs just down the lane.

Two live music venues have already closed. Dempseys has gone. The Four Bars Inn, upstairs, has gone. Fuel has received a noise abatement order, which is serious. Floyd’s, which used to be around the corner, had a terrible time some years ago with noise abatement and fines, and, in the end, that business closed in that venue. There’s still a club there, but it’s something different now—it’s a different business—and they built flats next to the existing club, and then complained about the noise from the club. There are two new planning applications in Womanby Street that mean the future of live music there is very much under threat, so we need to act and we need to act quickly.

I’m speaking about Cardiff because, obviously, it’s where I’m from, it’s where I live, but I know this is happening across Wales, and, from what I’ve heard, it seems that we have support from all parties here to do something, and to protect live music. The petitioners have asked for the agent-of-change principle, as colleagues have already touched on, so that we can protect those venues. And for those developers that open up new properties, build new properties, then the responsibility is on them to make that property work and not on the existing business.

The ‘area of cultural significance for music’ is also important and it really does need to be recognised in the planning system. I support that and Plaid Cymru supports that, and it seems now that the Welsh Government, finally, supports that also, which is really welcome. So, I hope we can get on with changing legislation as quickly as possible so that we can protect our live music venues in Cardiff—Womanby Street—but also all over Wales. And I think that when that legislation is passed, it’s going to be a really good day for Welsh democracy, so let’s get it done. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome this debate and I welcome the new procedure of debating the petitions if they go above a certain number, and I think that’s a very welcome development.

Yesterday, I went along with my colleague Jenny Rathbone and the Cabinet Secretary, Lesley Griffiths, to visit Womanby Street and to meet three of the organisers behind the campaign. The street, of course, is in Jenny’s constituency, but I’d been contacted by many residents in Cardiff North, earlier in the year, who were very concerned at the prospect of the street’s live music being stifled by a potential hotel development. And after meeting those constituents and discussing it with Jenny, we did write to Lesley Griffiths, supporting the petitioners and seeking the change in the planning law—the agent of change—and also the designation of particular areas, cultural areas, in the LDP. And I’m very pleased that Lesley has responded to us so positively, and I think the campaigners who met us yesterday were very impressed with the quick response from the Welsh Government, because this change in the planning law should mean that any new residents can’t move to an area that already has a live music scene and complain about the noise to the extent that the venue gets shut down, and I think this has already happened previously in Cardiff, in particular with the closure of The Point in Cardiff Bay.

So, it was great, yesterday, to meet the campaigners, I felt, and to get a real feel for the passion they feel about live music on a day when, as has already been said, live music was really dominating the city as Coldplay were due to play the first of their two Cardiff dates in the Principality Stadium. The fact that there were 18-mile queues on the M4 with the amount of fans coming to see this band just shows how important live music is to the city’s economy and the tourist trade. I think the other point worth noting is that Coldplay first played in Cardiff as an up-and-coming band at Clwb Ifor Bach, just before they released their single ‘Yellow’ and really hit the big time. I think this is what the campaigners were telling us yesterday—that every up-and-coming band needs a small venue to start off in, and a small venue to play in. So, venues like Clwb Ifor and the Full Moon and the Moon Club, which are on this street, are the feeder venues for bands on their way up the music industry ladder, because, without them, you wouldn’t be able to have new talent coming into the industry and no place for these bands to showcase their talents.

So, I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has acted swiftly here in Wales to change planning policy to protect live music in our cities—in areas that are part of the cultural fabric and richness of city life. I’m really pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has already confirmed—and I’m sure she will say more when she speaks later on—that ‘Planning Policy Wales’ will be updated to allow the designation of areas of cultural significance for music within local development plans all over Wales, not just in Cardiff, and I hope that there will be progress in the individual discussions that will be had with the individual local authorities. I’d also like to congratulate Jenny on the efforts she’s made on campaigning for Womanby Street, which, as I say, is in her constituency.

I’d like to thank the petitioners—the over 5,000 of them—including my constituent Norma Mackie, who submitted the petition on the steps of the Senedd at the end of May, along with Mr Vaughan. I mention her because she is a very local fan. She only lives one street away from Womanby Street and is passionate about live music. It illustrates, if you like, the geography of Womanby Street—this very narrow lane, but very tall buildings, which means that, actually, you can live one street away and not be bothered by the music in Womanby Street. So, it’s a completely ideal place. The other occupiers in Womanby Street are office developments. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has its offices there and, obviously, the night-time activities and the music in no way conflict with the normal running of the RNIB and other offices. So, I think it’s an ideal location for live music, and we need to keep it that way.

The booming Cardiff economy is very welcome in creating more jobs and investment, but it comes with risks, and those risks include overdevelopment and the potential to destroy the key reasons why Cardiff is popular as a tourist destination. For the last year for which statistics are available—in 2015—600,000 people attended music events in Cardiff. Nearly half of them were music tourists—people who were also generating income in our hotels and restaurants. A total of £50 million was generated from this music tourism, sustaining over 700 full-time jobs in the city. So, it’s not insignificant. We don’t want to repeat the mistakes that have happened elsewhere. I was brought up in Liverpool, and it is our collective shame that Liverpool City Council allowed developers to take over and bulldoze the Cavern in 1973, where The Beatles, Cilla Black and Gerry and the Pacemakers all started their careers. You have to look back and think, ‘What were they thinking of?’ So, it was replaced by a completely indifferent shopping centre of no cultural or visual merit. And yes, there is a replica created, using some of the old bricks of the Cavern, but it’s not the same as the original. It’s just like saying, ‘You can recreate Womanby Street on Clifton Street or somewhere else in Cardiff’, and I don’t think that’s the case. I think it’s very much Womanby Street’s narrow lanes, in the middle of the city centre, and the lack of any residents living on that street that makes it such a popular and vibrant part of Cardiff’s night-time economy without bothering anybody.

As Julie and others have mentioned, Coldplay actually started their careers in Clwb Ifor Bach, and these small live music venues really are nurturing the talent of the future, without which people like Coldplay might never have taken off. The protest march on the last weekend of April by several thousand people really illustrates just how many people care passionately about the future of live music and their focus on the Save Womanby Street campaign.

So, I think it’s incredibly important to safeguard this important part of Cardiff’s musical heritage. We saw what happened elsewhere—for example, in the bay, The Point was put out of business because of noise complaints from residential accommodation that had been developed long after The Point was established, and so the recent planning applications for hotel and residential accommodation in Womanby Street could have eliminated the live music scene there too. So, I’m really grateful for the prompt action by the Cabinet Secretary, which I think addresses both the demands of the petition (a), by writing in May to all Welsh local authorities highlighting her intention to include an explicit reference to the agent-of-change principle into revised ‘Planning Policy Wales’, it immediately gives Cardiff council the confidence to reject applications that are in conflict with Womanby Street’s music culture, knowing that it almost certainly would be rejected if it came to an appeal. This is incredibly important for any planning authority, because otherwise the costs are huge. And (b) it also enables the council to designate areas of cultural significance for music within their local development plans. My understanding is that legislation isn’t required. It’s just planning guidance that the Cabinet Secretary’s working on, and I think that that will be sufficient. It also puts us in the forefront of protecting live music in the UK, because the Labour Party endeavoured to introduce a new clause in the Housing and Planning Bill in December 2015, but were unsuccessful. So, the amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 only asked councils to take into account noise abatement, but doesn’t force new developers to pay for any mitigation that might be required were there a need for, for example, a hotel on Womanby Street to accommodate those who are taking part in the live music. That is perfectly possible, but it means that we won’t be seeing Womanby Street taken over by the developers who simply want to create a completely different atmosphere and a completely different type of activity. So, I thank the Cabinet Secretary very much for her action.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I note the terms of the petition and heed the calls being made to better support live music venues and the night-time economy.

I have commenced a review of ‘Planning Policy Wales’ to ensure it best fits with the intentions of our well-being goals. I’ve also stated my intention to include a clear and explicit reference to the agent-of-change principle.

The planning system should be an effective enabler of the development we need to support national, local, and community objectives. This includes protecting the vibrancy of areas like Womanby Street, which I visited yesterday with my colleagues Jenny Rathbone and Julie Morgan, and where I met several of the campaigners. These areas offer a cultural experience for customers and provide a space to foster creativity in the grass-roots music scene. I acknowledge the various challenges facing live music venues. Lots of small businesses face these, and, where we can assist through positive action, then we will do so.

I’ve listened to the specific calls to introduce a clear reference to the agent-of-change principle within our national planning policy. The changes I propose to make will better equip local planning authorities and give them the confidence to apply this principle when considering new developments.

Existing policy in ‘Planning Policy Wales’ also states two important things: new uses should not be introduced into an area without considering the nature of existing uses, and local planning authorities can consider the compatibility of uses in areas and afford appropriate protection where they consider it necessary as part of their local development plans.

In supporting the night-time economy there is a need to give particular consideration to the compatibility of different uses. Trying to sleep whilst coping with night-time noise is a very real issue. However, the night-time economy is important in economic terms as well as providing the cultural experiences and entertainment that feature highly as part of our lifestyles. We need to strike the right balance between providing homes, enabling visitor experiences, protecting live music venues, and ensuring the health and well-being of local residents.

The revised ‘Planning Policy Wales’ will go further and be more explicit about the agent-of-change principle. It will offer greater support to allow authorities to more fully protect areas of significant cultural experience for music. The different characteristics that give identity to places need to be recognised fully as part of decisions on planning applications. Where noise mitigation offers an appropriate solution, it must be implemented. This is about redressing the balance and ensuring all issues are given equal consideration.

I want to take this opportunity to clarify a few points that underpin our decision to focus on changes to ‘Planning Policy Wales’. There has been no legislative change to enshrine the agent-of-change principle into UK law. The changes proposed in England in regard to agent of change are to alter their national planning policy framework, which is their equivalent to ‘Planning Policy Wales’, and the proposals are not to change the law.

It is more expedient to embed agent of change through amendments to planning policy rather than changes to planning law. To enshrine the agent-of-change principle into law would mean it always becomes a material consideration, even where it is not relevant, and time would need to be spent to discount it. This is not the most effective way to proceed, as it is not a proportionate response.

It is not necessary to make any changes to planning law to ensure the agent-of-change principle forms part of decision making. Focusing on policy change and including this principle in national policy means it becomes a material consideration for decision makers in all cases in which it is relevant with immediate effect. This is a proportionate and expedient measure.

In a similar vein, the only reason for asking local planning authorities to include cultural designations for music in their LDPs as a matter of law would be to ensure that all LDPs include them. This is not necessary, as these issues will not be relevant in many places—for example, in smaller towns or rural locations.

Embedding this through national policy means, where it is relevant to designate areas based on evidence, local planning authorities will be able to do it through their development plans. The plan itself has statutory status and decisions will then need to be made in accordance with the plan. This is the proportionate approach needed to address these issues.

In England, the permitted development rights were changed so it was possible to change offices, which are typically occupied during the day, into blocks of flats, which are sensitive to noise during the evening and night, without the need for planning permission. In England, this has led to very significant problems for music venues and the rest of the night-time economy and they’ve rolled back these changes a little in response to the successful campaign by the Music Venue Trust. These changes were never made in Wales and local planning authorities continue to have the final say over whether planning applications from offices to flats should be approved. In England, this policy has also seen some very small homes created as a result of changes to permitted developments, reportedly some as small as 16 sq m—the so-called dog-kennel flats, 40 per cent smaller than a Travelodge room. This is not something I would want to see in Wales.

Finally, the law on statutory nuisance, as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is the same in England and Wales. It provides a basic level of protection for citizens from noise that is prejudicial to health or a nuisance. The planning system and the well-being of future generations Act require both the protection of our cultural heritage and the creation of homes that are safe and healthy for people to reside in. We cannot do the latter if we water down nuisance law.

So, the answer is not to water down people’s rights in respect of noise nuisance, but rather to address this matter through improvements to planning policy. Planning is a preventative mechanism and can seek solutions. I want to make it clear this is the basis of the changes we are putting forward. I’m confident the changes that I propose to make will strike the right balance. They will give everyone involved in the process the confidence to obtain solutions that benefit all, and support a thriving live music scene. I’ve already written to planning authorities telling them to apply the agent-of-change principle with immediate effect, and further changes will be published as part of my overall revision of ‘Planning Policy Wales’. Diolch.

I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank all those who’ve contributed to this debate? And, if I may, I’d like to highlight some of the comments Members made. Mike Hedges—can I belatedly echo Mike Hedges’s comments on thanking both the Business Committee and Plaid Cymru for allowing this debate to take place? And I concur with all of his supportive comments. Suzy Davies spoke about the therapeutic value of music, and the economic value of such venues, and I agree we should also look at existing businesses and the consequence of noise they make. Neil McEvoy rightly pointed out how the unique procedure of petitions and their implications is something we in the Welsh Assembly should be proud of. Julie Morgan also added her support, having met—with Jenny Rathbone and Lesley Griffiths—the petitioners, and also rightly pointed out how important these venues are to promoting local bands. Jenny Rathbone pointed out how localised music noise can be if in the right place, and how important these venues and the music they create are to the economy of Wales. It needs only for me to thank the Cabinet Minister for her broad acceptance of the principles of agents of change, and her swift action with regard to proportionate response and to give appropriate advice to planning authorities.

To sum up, because the committee is not making recommendations at this stage, or siding in either direction, the main suggestion is that the committee takes comments back and considers what Members and the Cabinet Secretary have said following the summer recess. The committee with also, in the summer recess, seek the views of the petitioner over that period before deciding on a future course of action in the autumn. Thank you.

As somebody who spent many long, long nights in Clwb Ifor Bach, I particularly enjoyed that debate. In the 1980s and 1990s, no longer, I hasten to add.

Y cwestiwn yw: a ddylid derbyn y cynnig? A oes unrhyw Aelod yn gwrthwynebu? Felly derbynnir y cynnig yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 12.36.

We therefore reach voting time, and, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

The first and only vote is on the debate by individual Members under Standing Order 11.21 on a paediatric rheumatology centre, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of David Melding, Dai Lloyd, Caroline Jones, Rhun ap Iorwerth, and Julie Morgan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, nine abstentions, none against. Therefore the motion is agreed.

The next item on our agenda is the short debate. Therefore I ask Members to leave the Chamber, if they wish to do so, quietly.

Yn dawel, os gwelwch yn dda, wrth i chi adael y Siambr.

I call on Jane Bryant to speak on the topic that she has chosen.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to give Joyce Watson a minute in this debate. The 11 July to 14 July 2017 marks the twenty-second anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. Over 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb troops in the worst mass killing on European soil since the second world war. Last year, I had the opportunity to join a delegation organised by Remembering Srebrenica, led superbly by David Melding, with Joyce Watson, Joe Lucas, a teacher from Penarth, and Owain Phillips of ITV Wales to visit Srebrenica and to meet those who survived the genocide. What I heard and saw there will live with me forever.

Srebrenica nestles in a lush green valley among mountains that rise from the banks of the River Drina. But, in July 1995, Srebrenica had been a living hell for three years. In the spring of 1992, Bosnian Serb troops launched a campaign of violence in pursuit of a racially pure statelet, after multi-ethnic Bosnia voted for independence from Yugoslavia. Entire villages were eradicated, towns torched, their populations killed or driven out by ethnic cleansing.

Survivors fled into three eastern enclaves where the Bosnian republican army had resisted, one of which was Srebrenica. It was declared a safe zone by the UN, causing the population of Srebrenica to swell from 9,000 to 42,000. Under the direction of President Radovan Karadžić, General Ratko Mladić entered Srebrenica on 11 July 1995. He declared on tv that he was going to take revenge for a violent suppression of a Serb uprising that happened in Srebrenica in 1804. Fearing genocide, thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys tried to make the 63-mile trek to safety. Mladić’s troops blocked roads, carried out ambushes and used stolen UN vehicles and uniforms to trick Bosnian Muslims into surrendering. Men and boys aged 12 to 77 were separated from the others. Truckloads of those men and boys, blindfolded, their arms tied, were lined up by the gunmen in fields and forests, sometimes told to pray and then shot dead. The killing, systematic and methodical, lasted four days. Those unarmed men and boys were killed just because of who they were: Bosnian and Muslim. They came to a mass grave in trucks and were buried with bulldozers, all within a UN safe haven that failed to protect innocent people. The only survivors were those who hid under dead bodies and crept away once night had fallen.

During our visit, we had the privilege of meeting a survivor, Nedžad Avdić. After the fall of Srebrenica, Nedžad and many other Bosniak men tried to flee through the nearby woods in an attempt to reach territory controlled by the Bosnian army where they could be safe. Nedžad was captured together with the other Bosniaks and was then transported to a village and locked up in a school building. Nedžad said, ‘We heard screams and cries. The classrooms were overcrowded. No water. No air. We drank our own urine in order to survive. People died of heat, literally’. When the massacre started, Nedžad only survived by lying motionless and wounded in a tangle of bodies until the killers moved away.

In 1995, I was 17—the same age as Nedžad. I remember, like many, the horrific news stories on tv about the war. A vivid image sticks with me of a young man wheeling an elderly man in a wheelbarrow across mountains for days, fleeing for their lives. Twenty-one years later, I walked around that battery factory at Potočari, which was the UN base fatally abandoned by the Dutch peacekeepers where thousands were slaughtered: an empty, sterile, quiet space, but with an eerie feeling of what took place—the desperate fears of those packed into the room with no escape, no food, no water, knowing they were about to die. Opposite, stand thousands of uniform bright white headstones, each marking a life callously taken too soon. Most of the town’s former Muslim residents are either dead or have emigrated. Though international courts have recognised the Srebrenica massacre as genocide, this is still denied by Serbia and Bosnian Serbs.

Nedžad returned to Srebrenica in 2007 and lives there with his family. A startling fact to all of us on the delegation is that the education fails to teach the history of what happened at Srebrenica. Nedžad says, ‘They’re being taught that the genocide never happened. You turn on the tv and it’s like the war never ended. I fear for my daughters’ future. The education system generated new hatred and indoctrination. Despite everything, I hope that I can teach my daughters to grow up without hatred. This will be my success.’

The US-brokered Dayton accords that ended the war set up an intricate federal structure with a weak central Government. For Nedžad, the greater injustice is that the division of Bosnia into two halves—a Muslim-Croat federation and a Serbian republic—has meant that the practice of ethnic cleansing has been legitimised. Many regularly see the killers around the town. Some hold offices in local government. Others are senior figures in the local police force. Last October, Srebrenica elected a Serbian mayor with an ultranationalist history who does not accept that the Srebrenica massacres amounted to genocide—something that seems unimaginable to us.

While the genocide took husbands, sons and brothers, their mothers, daughters and sisters were left behind. Once a year, the Mothers of Srebrenica, who campaign to ensure each person responsible is brought to justice, host a ceremony to remember their loved ones. This intensely moving event is held in the Potočari cemetery, where some of the victims whose bodies have been found are buried. We had the privilege of meeting some of the Mothers of Srebrenica. They want to share their story with young children so that they can learn from the past and also prepare for the future. Those who killed believed they could get away with murder. They thought they could erase the identity of their victims permanently. But they were wrong.

While we were in Bosnia we also saw the invaluable work undertaken by the International Commission for Missing Persons. The ICMP spearheaded the effort to locate and identify the people who went missing during the conflict. In the aftermath of Srebrenica, work began on what were thought to be the five mass burial sites, each containing many separate graves in which the dead had been buried and left hidden. However, testing showed that body parts from what came to be called the primary graves had been moved to secondary ones, to hide evidence. Sometimes, they had even been disinterred and reinterred again, into tertiary graves. This had two implications: first, that more than a million and a half bones and body parts from over 8,000 people were scattered across countless sites; and the second, that the few byways of rural eastern Bosnia had for weeks—months, even—been heaving with trucks carrying the rotting, stinking remains of these people, yet no one said a thing.

Edin Ramulic, of an organisation called Izvor, which campaigns with relatives of the missing, said:

They drove past people’s houses along quiet roads. For every one missing person, at least three people know exactly where they are buried—the driver, the digger, and the policeman, plus whoever saw them pass—but all remain silent. While that silence persists, you cannot call this peace.’

Through the work of the ICMP, more than 70 per cent of those people have been accounted for. Furthermore, the scientific evidence of the identity of victims from Srebrenica made it possible to piece together an incontestable narrative of crimes and to present this evidence in numerous trials including those of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić.

When we remember what happened in Srebrenica it’s also important to remember those others who were targeted. The youngest victim of Srebrenica was a baby girl called Fatima, born in the UN base at Potočari. Fatima was just two days old when she was murdered. Thousands of women, children and elderly people were forcibly deported and a large number of women were raped. The use of rape as a weapon of war is one of the most harrowing and most savage crimes against civilians. The war in Bosnia took sexual violence to new levels. The UN estimates up to 50,000 women and girls, some as young as 12, were raped as part of an organised ethnic cleansing regime. We do not know the exact number because the majority have remained silent through stigma, shame and fear.

Many children born of rape have grown up isolated and rejected from society, and this is something that is still not talked about. Pramila Patten, the UN special representative on sexual violence in conflict, said:

Rape is a cruel weapon that is as devastating as any bullet or bomb. It ravages victims and their families. It destroys communities, and undermines their chances for reconciliation if left unaddressed. It has also been described as the oldest and yet least condemned crime of all.’

Many women suffered, and now we know many men have suffered from this crime too. Some 3,000 men and boys were raped during the war. Many of the victims have been isolated and shunned by their own families and communities.

Last month, in a bid to promote reconciliation, leaders of the Orthodox, Islamic, Jewish and Catholic communities signed a declaration denouncing the stigmatisation of survivors of conflict related sexual violence at Bosnia’s inter-religious council. This declaration is the first of its kind in the world.

What happened in Srebrenica was not inevitable; it was preventable. While those survivors mourn the loss of their loved ones and we say ‘never again’, we all have a responsibility to ensure future generations understand how neighbour turned against neighbour, tolerance turned to intolerance and similarities were shunned for differences. Never has it been more important to learn the lessons from Srebrenica. We have a duty to remember those who died and those left behind, but we also have a duty and responsibility to work harder than ever to challenge those ideologies of fear and hatred. Most importantly, we must teach the next generation about what happened in Srebrenica and the dangers of not tackling hatred and intolerance. I would urge other Members to visit Srebrenica, read the testimonies from the survivors and do all we can to bring communities together and stand up to those who try to divide us.

Furthermore, I’d ask the leader of the house and the Cabinet Secretary for Education to support the education programme launched by Remembering Srebrenica to ensure that pupils in schools in Wales understand the steps that led to genocide. It also gives us the opportunity to show what can happen if we let hate win.

I shall never ever forget the day that I heard the stories of those people who were at Srebrenica and those who lost their loved ones. Their dedication and courage in telling the world what happened cannot be underestimated. Their voices are so powerful and dignified. Every time I listen to them, I feel captivated, ashamed that the world allowed this to happen, and inspired to do something. Our guide Rashad states: ‘Unfortunately, in Bosnia we have three histories, and the most dangerous one is the narrative that kids get from their home. Only by listening to the life stories and remembering what happened can we understand how people can contribute to a better society.’

We’re told to learn from our past mistakes, yet it’s evident that we didn’t. We owe it to the people of Srebrenica. We must remember Srebrenica.

My visit to Srebrenica, going to that memorial at Potočari, meeting the survivors of the genocide—that experience stands out as one of the most important things that I’ve done, both politically and personally. Srebrenica was the final act of the worst European genocide since the war, and, in remembering its victims, we must never forget the 20,000 to 50,000 women and girls, mostly Bosniak, who were subjected to unthinkable acts of sexual violence. Twenty-two years later, they go on living with that loss and with that memory. We still do not know the exact numbers of the victims, and we never will. The majority have remained silent, though stigma, shame, fear and trauma are also buried. Many Bosniak women bravely have broken the silence around sexual violence as a weapon of war, and because of their courage, rape was prosecuted for the very first time under international criminal law. What happened at Srebrenica was the most terrible realisation of what can happen when hatred is allowed to root and flourish, when people are dehumanised by reason of their race, nationality, religion and sex. 

Thank you very much. I call on the leader of the house to reply to that debate—Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do welcome the opportunity provided by this debate to remember the events of Srebrenica 22 years ago. I thank Jayne, and I think all of us here today thank Jayne Bryant for bringing this to the National Assembly for Wales. It’s vital that we do take time to remember this terrible genocide. As Jayne said, at least 8,372 Bosnian Muslims, boys, men and elderly were massacred by Serb forces in a systematically organised series of summary executions. I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children is attending the Remembering Srebrenica commemoration event this evening over in the Pierhead building.

I know the visits, from the feedback that we’ve had from Assembly Members who have attended these events and visited—they’ve made an indelible impact on our and your shared understanding, and it’s important that you brought this to us again tonight in this short debate. The theme for this year’s, commemoration is gender and genocide, remembering, in particular, the women of Srebrenica. And, of course, Joyce Watson has spoken of that as well today. It’s this aspect that I want to focus on in my response.

Terrible suffering was inflicted on families as a result of this atrocity. We can scarcely imagine the fear, violence and grief that the Bosnian women and girls suffered. We remember today the thousands who were raped, sexually abused or tortured, often under the eyes of others and sometimes watched by their children or their own mothers. We remember the thousands who saw their sons, husbands and fathers killed or dragged away, never to be seen again. We remember, too, the thousands who were uprooted from their homes and made destitute, and Jayne has described this horrific massacre—the horror and crime of sexual violence and raped used as a weapon.

Reports show that there were over 50,000 cases of sexual abuse recorded during the Bosnian war from 1992 to 1995. For women in Bosnia and Herzegovina the legacy of the war continues to cast a long shadow. And nearly 20 years after the ending of the hostilities, women continue to fight for justice but arguably they have yet to be heard fully in a male-oriented Balkan society, and you’ve commented on that. There’s still much to be done there to promote gender equality and women’s rights, to tackle discrimination and gender-based violence, domestic abuse, enforced prostitution and trafficking in women.

Those who suffered sexual abuse during the war, or experienced domestic abuse in the 20 years since, have also been very vulnerable to economic distress. Many initially returned to homes damaged or destroyed in the war and were thrust into the role of breadwinner without essential skills or an education. The threat of poverty and destitution are an ever-present danger for those suffering domestic abuse in modern-day Bosnia. Jayne, you and your colleagues provided support to the mothers of Srebrenica just by being there, by understanding, by listening and having a witness with them of their suffering, and making a clear statement.

Commemorating Srebrenica is about all communities coming together to condemn the genocide that took place on our doorstep in living memory, continuing to learn the lessons and committing to do something in our own community to challenge hatred and intolerance. It’s vital that the stories and experiences of victims and survivors of past atrocities are never forgotten. We’ve heard more today of those memories—those personal stories. I know that that will be very important in terms of taking forward your request to look at ways in which we can share that understanding, learning the lessons in our schools, with our young people and older generations.

We have to remember, with violence against women in the UK increasing, it’s more important than ever to unify the stories of women in order to amplify their voices and learn from the horrors inflicted on women throughout the world. Creating a more equal Wales where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential is a central goal for the Welsh Government, and it’s vital that all women are able to achieve and prosper. Women encounter inequality in many areas, which only intensifies if they’re also part of another protected group. Women from black minority ethnic communities, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender women, elderly or disabled women all often face multiple disadvantages and can find it even harder to reach their full potential. We’re fully committed to implementing the rights of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Our officials have provided a contribution to the UK’s eighth periodic report, which will be submitted later this year and highlights the progress we’ve made in promoting the rights of women since 2013. Reducing all forms of harassment and abuse, including domestic abuse, hate crime and bullying, child-abuse and the abuse of older people, extremism and modern-day slavery is a key aim of the Welsh Government’s strategic equality plan for 2016 to 2020. We are seeing considerable progress, including through the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, our tackling hate crimes and incidents framework, our Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and our equality and inclusion programme—not only this landmark piece of legislation, the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence Act, but focusing on ways in which we can prevent violence wherever possible and to provide effective support for victims. We are making progress in delivering the measures of the Act and have committed £4.9 million to this work.

The key—and we understand this, and it’s really coming to the fore today as a result of your debate, Jayne—is to change attitudes so that violent behaviour is not acceptable in any circumstances, locally, nationally or internationally. It will not be tolerated in our society. We’re confident that our legislation and wider work will help develop a culture that challenges abusive behaviour to create a Wales, and a world, where everyone has the right to live free of fear.

I also recognise that we have to be resilient in the face of extremism, spreading hatred and fear, and strengthening our resolve to become stronger together whenever we’re tested by hate crimes, striving to build a strong and diverse society where people of every race, faith and colour are valued for their character and for their actions. That means bringing people together, breaking down divisions to create well-connected communities. It means fostering tolerance and good relations between people. In this work, we can draw inspiration from the survivors of Srebrenica, and women, men and children who’ve had the strength to endure their ordeal, and the courage to find ways to rebuild their lives and communities. The genocide in Srebrenica should never be forgotten. Jayne has reminded us of this again today, and, of course, following in the Pierhead building tonight, we must continue to learn lessons and continue to work to end sexual violence here in Wales and around the world.

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