The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 4 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the name of Paul Davies. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected.

Symudwn ymlaen yn awr at ddadl Plaid Cymru ar gyflogau’r sector cyhoeddus, a galwaf ar Neil McEvoy i gynnig y cynnig.

Motion NDM6171 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Regrets the gap between the highest and the lowest paid workers in Welsh local authorities and the wider public sector.

2. Notes Plaid Cymru’s success in forcing the Welsh Government to amend the Local Democracy Act during the fourth Assembly to include measures that have improved transparency in how senior officers pay is decided through the establishment of independent remuneration panels.

3. Calls on the Welsh Government to:

(a) legislate to introduce nationally set pay scales and terms and conditions to control senior and chief officer pay through a national framework which would ensure fair pay for all public sector workers in Wales; and

(b) define the role of local authorities chief executives in legislation which would include abolishing additional payments to council officials for returning officer duties.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion and ask for support for the motion tabled in Rhun ap Iorwerth’s name.

At a time of austerity, when public services are being slashed to the bone, youth and play centres are being closed, leisure centres are being privatised in Cardiff, it’s not surprising that the public is outraged by the wages being earned by a new Labour elite in the public sector—many people being paid in excess of £100,000 a year. Plaid Cymru is using this debate today to try to tackle runaway senior management salaries and deliver fair pay in the public sector.

Local authorities should be the benchmark of fair and consistent pay, but the inconsistency within local government over pay ratios remains alarming and unjust. [Interruption.] Not for the moment. Plaid Cymru is already leading by example. The median average salary for chief executives running Plaid Cymru councils is nearly £20,000 less than those running Labour councils, and that figure includes the highest chief executive salary in Wales, which was set by a Labour council before Plaid took office.

Suzy Davies took the Chair.

We’ve also taken steps to provide better scrutiny of senior pay by ensuring that the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 during the fourth Assembly improved transparency in how senior officers’ pay is decided through the establishment of independent remuneration panels. Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM ensured that all senior pay awards have to be scrutinised and voted on in councils, and that an independent remuneration panel had to make recommendations. This step removed the allegation and the perceived problem of things being done behind closed doors.

Our motion today calls for the introduction of a nationally decided set of pay scales and terms and conditions through a national framework. We’re also calling on the Welsh Government to define the role of local authorities’ chief executives in legislation, which would include abolishing additional payments to council officials for returning officer duties. Around £150,000 was paid to returning officers for their services during the 2012 Welsh Government elections, and why pay that?

The issue of senior management pay is of significant interest to the public, and the fact is that, really, telephone-number salaries in the public sector cannot be justified. The chief executive of Swansea council, appointed by Labour, earns just £2,000 less than the UK Prime Minister. The Labour-appointed chief of Carmarthenshire council earns just—. He earns, actually, £15,000 more than Theresa May, and I find that astonishing—more than the Prime Minister of the UK.

It’s not just the chief executives of councils, though—the salaries of senior management officers add up to millions, and, when Plaid Cymru ran Cardiff council, we got rid of a whole host of salaries over £100,000 a year, and we were actually praised by the TaxPayers’ Alliance, which takes some doing. When Labour got back in, they reintroduced fat-cat salaries of over £100,000 a year. [Interruption.] No. More than half the chief executives of Wales’s health boards earn at least £200,000 a year. On the Public Accounts Committee, we’re investigating housing associations, and rightly so, because the tenants are among the most vulnerable people and sometimes the poorest in Wales, yet the chief executives of these organisations earn six figures. Wales & West Housing, for example: the chief executive is paid £130,000 a year. When Nick Bennett was the chief executive of the umbrella group for housing associations, Community Housing Cymru, he increased the wage bill by 15 per cent in just one year, but the basic pay of staff only went up 2 per cent. Now he’s the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, earning more than the Prime Minister—grade 5 of the judicial salaries’ pay scale, another example of a six-figure merry-go-round salary, over £140,000 a year. I’ll repeat that—over £140,000 a year.

Let’s mention Dŵr Cymru’s chief executive, Chris Jones. His pay last year, including two bonuses and a pension, was £768,000—three quarters of a million pounds. Now, excuse the irony, but a not-for-profit company, as they keep reminding us.

Now, are these people worth it? I would argue that they’re not, but that’s not part of the motion today. But I think it would be fantastic—.

On a point of order, Chair. I’m new to this place, so I don’t know what the rules are, but is it in order for a Minister of the Welsh Government to heckle from a sedentary position a backbench Member who is trying to be heard? Could you rule on that?

We always try and ensure that anyone who wishes to make an intervention does it from a standing position, but we do invite lively debate here as well. I just hope that nobody here oversteps the mark in future.

I’ll willingly give way to the Minister, who once upon a time had three jobs—

You won’t give way to me; I’ve given my council salary back.

[Continues.]—whilst being an Assembly Member. Would you like to speak, Minister? You’ve got enough to say shouting. No? Okay, fine.

Carry on, please.

It really would be fantastic to see the wages of top—[Interruption.]

Can we please have no more interventions from a seated position? Thank you.

I think, colleagues, the way that Government Ministers behave sometimes is shameful—[Interruption.]

Not from a sitting position.

[Continues.]—and demeaning to this institution. [Interruption.]

Could the Member please continue with his contribution? Thank you.

I’ll make progress, because I think it would be fantastic that the top earners and lowest earners in the public sector—if their salaries were linked. In that way, Nick Bennett and others who give themselves pay rises would see the lowest-paid people in the organisation increase their pay also. If there was a pay cut at the bottom, there would also be a pay cut at the top.

Now, I would urge this Assembly and the Government to support Plaid Cymru’s motion and consider, in future, introducing a fair pay Act. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to formally move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Notes the requirement of the Local Democracy Act, which includes measures that have improved transparency in how senior officers’ pay is decided through the broadening of the powers of the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales.

Amendment 4—Jane Hutt

In point 3, delete sub-point (a) and replace with:

work with social partners to develop a national framework which would ensure fair pay for devolved public sector workers in Wales; and

Amendments 1 and 4 moved.

Formally, Chair.

Thank you. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete point 2, and replace with:

Recognises Welsh Conservative proposals, which called on the Welsh Government to place a binding limit on senior office holder salaries to ensure that local authorities enforce effective caps on pay.

Amendment 3—Paul Davies

Delete Point 3 and replace with:

Calls on the Welsh Government to consider legislation introduced in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, which has enshrined the responsibilities of local government chief executives in law, such as Section 94 A of the Australian Local Government Act 1989.

Amendment 5—Paul Davies

Add as a new point at the end of the motion:

Notes the evidence heard by the Public Accounts Committee, which saw stakeholders call for a correlation between senior management pay and organisational performance, as a key indicator in providing value for money.

Amendment 6—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Further notes the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers’ submission to the UK Government’s Communities and Local Government Select Committee Inquiry into Local Government Chief Officer Remuneration in January 2014, which acknowledged that since 2010, a number of local authorities have started to share chief executives and senior management teams, to further drive cost saving measures.

Amendments 2, 3, 5 and 6 moved.

Thank you, deputy—. [Assembly Members: ‘Chair.’] Chair. [Laughter.] I would like to move the amendments tabled in the name of Paul Davies AM. Those amendments state quite clearly,

‘Delete point 2, and replace with:

‘Recognises Welsh Conservative proposals, which called on the Welsh Government to place a binding limit on senior office holder salaries to ensure that local authorities enforce effective caps on pay.’

Amendment 3:

‘Delete Point 3 and replace with:

‘Calls on the Welsh Government to consider legislation introduced in other Commonwealth jurisdictions, which has enshrined the responsibilities of local government chief executives in law, such as Section 94 A of the Australian Local Government Act 1989.’

Now, we welcome this debate from Plaid Cymru, but with some bemusement, really, because many will remember the local democracy (Wales) Act in 2003, to which amendment 2 refers. At Stage 2, it was the Welsh Conservatives who, with the first group of amendments, were calling for the consent of Welsh Ministers to be given prior to a local authority paying a salary to any officer higher than the recommendation of Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales. This was opposed quite clearly by Plaid Cymru, as well as Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Then, at Stage 3, we tabled an amendment calling for the panel to recommend a maximum amount to be paid to any senior officer by a local authority. Again, this was opposed by Plaid Cymru, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, so it’s interesting—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, okay.

Well, there used to be the joint negotiating committee, which set the limit. The Conservative Government in Westminster did away with it. Do you regret that?

Yes, but I’m here in the Senedd, and I’m on about what the Welsh Labour Government and Plaid Cymru—how you have failed in this.

In 2015, the chief executive of Gwynedd county council was paid £306,000, and my colleague Neil McEvoy there raised the differential between local chief executives and the Prime Minister. Yet £306,000 was paid here and, to the director of environment at Blaenau Gwent—eye-watering or what—£295,000. Yes, definitely, you were right to compare that with the salary of our hard-working UK Prime Minister. There is no correlation whatsoever. You were very right earlier to make the point about how, in addition to this, some chief executives, including my own in Conwy, actually receive a salary of over £20,000 for being the electoral returning officer. That actually needs to be addressed, I believe, by the Minister.

Performance management and the chief executive appraisal procedures must be better implemented and monitored appropriately. Evidence taken by the Public Accounts Committee, ahead of their report into senior management pay last term, demonstrated cross-stakeholder calls—many of them—for this, alongside the acknowledgement that local authorities need to do much better in terms of performance management. How often have we seen what I call the revolving-door process where a head of service will actually leave an organisation with a really fine redundancy amount and then actually enter the same local authority again under another guise in another role? It’s quite wrong.

In 2014-15, Welsh councils spent over £100 million on redundancy pay-outs for staff. That was up 46 per cent on the previous year. The Westminster Committee on Standards in Public Life recently recommended that policies and procedures should be in place to manage revolving-door situations where individuals come from or go to the regulated sector, and that these should apply to all individuals at any level of any organisation. Regulators should be transparent about post-employment destinations and restrictions on departing board members and senior executives in the public sector. The reason I’m smiling is that we see so much Labour cronyism in Wales with many of the jobs that go to many within our public bodies, and it’s wrong.

In light of moving towards local government reform, and with the potential for voluntary mergers on the table once more, it is pertinent to note that the society of local chief execs and senior managers have highlighted local authorities in England that have started to share chief executives. Cabinet Secretary, now, with local reform on the table, where there seems to be an intention for you to retain all 22 local authorities, is it going to be 22 chief executives and 22 heads of service on extortionate eye-watering salaries? If you could address those, I think many people outside the Senedd will actually be very grateful. Thank you.

Can I say I was very much looking forward to speaking in this debate? As a long-standing trade union official who was dealing with these issues over many years in the public sector, I very much welcomed the debate coming forward. So, I do think it’s a shame that the Member had to stoop to the kinds of comments that he was making—the cheap kind of political jibes. Because we all know that this is not just a problem for Labour councils, this is a problem across the board, including Plaid-controlled Gwynedd and Ceredigion and other areas, which all have chief executives earning in excess of £100,000. The Member himself has two jobs where he pulls in in excess of £100,000 a year. [Interruption.] So, I really don’t think that was helpful. [Interruption.] I really don’t think that was helpful, Chair, because I can’t imagine anyone would disagree that the pay gap between—[Interruption.]

No, I’m not taking an intervention. I can’t imagine that anyone would disagree—

Neil McEvoy rose—

Sit down. Sit down, please.

[Continues.]—that the gap between the highest-paid officers and the lowest-paid workers in local authorities and in other public services in Wales is regrettable, and that is the issue that we should be addressing here today. Unfortunately, the motion only focuses on one aspect of that pay differential, and that is the relationship to the pay of senior and chief officers.

There’s certainly a key issue in looking at any comparison, but surely of equal relevance here is tackling the issue of low pay amongst some of those workers, more often than not largely part-time women employees—

Chair, a statement has been made about me that was factually incorrect. I ask the Member to be called to order, please.

The Member will have the opportunity to address this when he sums up at the end of the debate.

Thank you, Chair. I’m sure many of you will remember the issue that arose in Caerphilly council in December 2012, when it came to light that some chief officers had been party to drafting and taking to a council committee a report recommending pay rises of more than 20 per cent for the chief executive and other chief officers. If you were to talk to the hundreds of trade union members at Caerphilly who staged a lunch-time walk out, of course they were angry at the scale of the proposed awards. But what really outraged them was that this had come on the back of a three-year pay freeze for all other local authority staff. It was pleasing that the trade union campaign there did lead to an early settlement of that dispute. They were able to negotiate an agreement, which led to the removal of a substantial part of those pay awards, but this was only possible through the willingness of the Labour group in Caerphilly council to engage constructively with the trade unions, facilitated by the then chair of Caerphilly’s policy and resources scrutiny committee, who now sits in this Chamber as the Assembly Member for Caerphilly. That is the reality of what transpired, and not the distorted version that was given by Caerphilly Plaid in statements to the media today.

Can I make an intervention?

Sure.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I notice that Neil McEvoy didn't want to, and I can give you a corrected statement. He is taking a £13,000 councillor’s salary, the same councillor’s salary that I've given back. So, he could start a saving today of £13,000 if he'd be willing to give it back. What I also had regarding your statement is that the deputy leader of Plaid in Caerphilly did know about the decision when it was made. He was in the meeting, yet he chose not to raise it publicly for three months, and only commented when it was reported in the press, which was when I found out. So, since then, Caerphilly Plaid have shamelessly capitalised on—

It's a bit long for an intervention, Mr David.

[continues.]—but haven't acknowledged their role in the whole process.

Well, thank you, Hefin, for that intervention, and yes, it's absolutely my understanding that the deputy leader of Caerphilly Plaid was actually in attendance at that meeting of the council's then remuneration committee—that’s what I think it was called—and his refusal to still acknowledge it or even apologise for that is quite reprehensible, frankly.

So, yes, let's have a look at the national framework that will provide a senior management pay regime that includes organisational performance as a key indicator. But simply controlling chief officer pay will not, in isolation, address the gap. We should be looking to all local authorities and other public sector employers in Wales to pay their staff at least the foundation living wage. The two amendments from Jane Hutt embrace the wider devolved public services and call for a process of jointly developing a national framework with social partners. One of those key social partners, the trade unions representing the majority of staff in other areas of devolved public services, would, I am sure, welcome any scrutiny that extends into other areas other than local government, such as higher and further education, for example, where we've witnessed significantly increased salary levels for vice-chancellors while at the same time we have seen huge increases in the number of staff on zero-hours contracts, as well as the increased use of agency workers.

Can you bring your contribution to an end now, please?

The second part of the motion’s resolution talks about abolishing additional payments to officials for being returning officers, and I think it's certainly the case that this is an area that requires looking at, given the number of elections that we now have to deal with in the course of a parliamentary term. In that context, remuneration for returning officers does need reviewing, and it may be that, in developing a framework for determining that, we could find a legitimate area for consideration, and that would be an area that I would support. Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to reflect on some of the comments that have been made. I have to say, it's been made purely for populist gain. It's the politics, I think, of Trump. You know, when you actually look at what's really going on, what's actually happening is that there is a pay differential, and there’s a recognition that you need a pay differential, that pay differential exists, and we tend to stick to those things. Actually, the spirit of the motion I have no problem with whatsoever. It calls for transparency and fairness when it comes to the setting of public sector pay for senior officers, and it particularly looks at the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid, and although Plaid Cymru are kind of looking to take credit for the local democracy (Wales) Act, a good idea doesn't belong to anybody; it belongs to everybody. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I've touched on the senior pay issue in Caerphilly. It was, in fact, given some of Neil McEvoy's comments, Labour councillors who secured a scaled-back spot salary for the chief executive officer in Caerphilly. That salary remains frozen for the period of the administration and that senior pay issue won’t be revisited for that administration, and it's reflected in a published—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Of course, yes.

Do you accept that, when the legislation on pay was going through, a Plaid Cymru member, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, laid an amendment to put a cap on the senior salaries and pay? Do you accept that Labour voted down that amendment?

I would, of course, with the greatest respect to the leader of Plaid Cymru, accept whatever she says about what happened in the fourth Assembly, because I wasn't a Member at that time.

It wasn't quite like that.

I’ve got an intervention from the Conservative side who’s saying that it wasn't quite like that. So, far be it from me to interfere in a dispute between the two of you.

The lowest paid in Caerphilly council actually have the living wage, and it was the first local authority in Wales to introduce it, which further reduced the multiplier between the lowest paid and the highest paid. The Localism Act 2011, building on the work of the Hutton review of fair pay in the public sector, recommends the use of multiples as a means of measuring the relationship between pay rates in the workforce. What Will Hutton said—by no means a right-wing journalist—was that comparisons to the pay of the Prime Minister are unhelpful because they don’t give you an indication as to the kind of multiples you should be using. Hutton recommended that no public sector managers should earn more than 20 times as much as the lowest-paid person in the organisation. In the private sector it’s 88:1. I think 20:1 is too high, if you ask me, and it’s significant that very few, if any, local authorities in Wales actually have a 20:1 multiplier. In Caerphilly the multiple between the highest and lowest paid is 9.4:1, putting it towards the lower end of the scale for relative differentials in the UK public sector workforce pay.

Now, you could go to a system where we say, unilaterally in Wales—as Neil McEvoy’s advocated previously in this Chamber—we go below £100,000 for all chief executives in Wales. Now, the danger is that you’re fishing in the same pool for talent as chief executives elsewhere. There is a danger that you immediately, acting unilaterally, start to lose that talent. We must have a serious, grown-up conversation about that risk and not engage in the populist right-wing politics that is taking hold in this world today, and which the Member has engaged in.

Those reforms introduced by the Welsh Government in the local democracy Act have ensured there will be greater transparency in assessing public sector pay, and this balances public interest and will do so in the future. It is a serious examination of the issue, not something that you can put straight on to Twitter. The recommendations of the Hutton review—we’ll need to attract the best staff in the Welsh public sector.

So, on that note, I urge, actually—let’s put this nonsense behind us. Neil McEvoy, give back your £13,000. I’ve done it. I support the amendments to the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Low pay is a serious problem for public sector workers at the bottom end of the scale in Wales. Local councils no longer have direct labour organisations, agency workers are often used, and this tends to have a depressing effect on wages. So, we do have to have a look at this, and one way in which low pay might be partially addressed is by trying to put a brake on excessively high pay. So, if any party has any reasonable suggestions to curb fat cat pay rises in the public sector, then we in UKIP are more than happy to look at them.

In the last Assembly, Rhodri Glyn did.

Okay, well done, Rhodri Glyn. But it may not be enough, Leanne.

Independent remuneration boards always sound like a good idea, but somebody has to appoint the independent board members in the first place. Sometimes these tend to be one set of public officials recommending a hefty pay rise for another set of public officials. So, the appointment of these board members needs to be carefully monitored.

Pay ceilings would be another tool that could be usefully employed. We also support the idea of clearly defined roles for council chief executives. If they are to be on their high pay scales, then there should be clear instructions as to their duties. It is difficult to argue that council CEOs should receive extra lolly for being election returning officers, which one would think would be part of their statutory duties.

But if we are going to get a grip on public sector pay here in Wales then we need to get our own house in order first. The pay rise AMs received this year, recommended by an independent remuneration board, provoked considerable controversy. I would propose that, in future, all AM pay rises are simply tied to inflation. [Interruption.] They are? [Interruption.] They are now? Well, it didn’t seem—that was not how it was reported at the time. [Interruption.] They are? [Interruption.] Okay, we’re making good progress. I see you did actually do something about pay in the last Assembly, so—.

I don’t think that we can use extra responsibilities as an excuse in future to hike AM pay above inflation levels. So, I hope that that argument won’t occur.

Now, we have had a look at other aspects of public sector pay. Neil mentioned housing association bosses. Dawn mentioned the problem of people in academia. Now, Colin Riordan, the head man at Cardiff University, is on £269,000 a year. Is he worth even half of that? And what are we going to do about his pay? Thank you.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Gadeirydd. The note that I’d written for myself as a guide to responding to this debate said that I was looking forward to a debate on a serious topic on which there was much that we can agree on. I really do regret the fact that we have failed to have that sort of serious debate this afternoon.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I share your concern about the tone of this debate, Cabinet Secretary. I chaired a Public Accounts Committee inquiry on this very subject, with some very sensible recommendations that could be taken forward on a cross-party basis to address what is a very real issue of concern to members of the public. I think that it is important that we move forward together on this, united as an Assembly, to address the real problem that is excessive pay in the public sector.

Can I thank Darren Millar for that? I hope my contribution will follow on from the tone that he has just established, because this is a serious matter and it deserved a serious debate. Unfortunately, it got off to a divisive and destructive start from which it’s been very difficult to recover.

Can I say as well, Chair, that I absolutely deprecate it—and I put it on the record here—I absolutely deprecate it when Members of this Assembly attack, by name, individuals—whether they are in the private sector, whether they hold public appointment, whether they are in the public sector—who cannot be here to answer back for themselves to that personal attack that is made on them? That is not the way that we have conducted our debates in this Assembly and I absolutely deprecate it when people indulge in that sort of behaviour.

Let me turn to the substance of the motion. There is an issue about senior pay, of course there is. That is why, in Wales, we have a requirement on local authorities to set out their authority’s remuneration policy and to set out the ratio between the highest-paid employee and the median-average earnings within that local authority. In local government, the pay policy statements show that the ratio varies between local authorities, between 4:1 and 9:1. It may well be that Members here will think that that ratio is too wide and that it doesn’t reflect, for example, the Welsh Government’s own ratio, where the ratio between the highest paid and the median salary is 5.54:1.

It’s more than a problem of high pay. As Dawn Bowden said, it’s a problem of low pay as well. How do we tackle people who don’t earn enough and make sure that our pay policies reward them properly, too? The NHS in Wales is a living-wage employer. In local government, the picture is less uniform. There has been some progress in authorities of all different political persuasions. I think there is more to be done and I certainly think that every local authority in Wales ought to own that aspiration and show how they are to take steps to achieve it.

On point 2 of the motion, as far as the transparency argument goes, there is a shared perspective amongst many people here in the Chamber and a history in which most of our parties here have played a part. There was the Localism Act 2011, which we’ve heard referred to this afternoon. There was the Public Accounts Committee’s important report when it considered this matter in 2014. The Welsh Government accepted the recommendations of that report and developed and issued a pay transparency framework, which local authorities and other devolved public sector bodies in Wales must follow.

Through the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, the independent remuneration panel was established. Until then a body confined to dealing with members of local authorities, the 2013 Act required it to take on the task of considering changes to chief executives’ pay and to make recommendations to councils on those changes. Then, only last year, in the Local Government (Wales) Act 2015, we agreed here to widen that role to address changes to pay of all chief officers in local government. It’s been an agenda, Chair, on which parties across this Chamber have worked together. And when we work together on an important issue, we show that we are able to make some progress, and the position on transparency is very different today than it was even four years ago.

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

There is a final part of the motion, Ddirprwy Lywydd, 3(b) on returning officers’ fees, and I’m very happy that we’re able to accept that, because that is already Government policy, and I aim to use a forthcoming local government Bill, if we are able to have one, to take further the points made in that part of the motion.

Finally, as far as 3(a) is concerned, I understand the thinking behind that part of the motion—I simply think that it is premature in its detail and in its prescription. Trade union colleagues presented a paper on this issue at the workforce partnership council only last week. We agreed there a timetable for taking that discussion further. The Government amendment reflects our intention to deal with the matter in social partnership. That way, we’ll make some progress, and that way, we might be able to rescue something from this motion and from the debate that we’ve had here this afternoon.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I call on Neil McEvoy to reply to the debate. Neil.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. First of all, in Caerphilly, the Plaid councillor did not support the pay deal, Labour councillors did. Insofar as my own situation, I’m looking forward to working with my community and investing the councillor allowance after the elections, if re-elected, in my community. I can’t wait. [Interruption.]

I think there’s a huge—. I think what we have here is a lack of recognition of reality, and the huge public concern. I’ll give you some examples. Health board chairs: Cardiff and Vale, the chair of the board, Labour Party member; Aneurin Bevan, chair of the board, Labour Party member; Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, chair of the board, Labour Party member. Let’s move on to the commissioners. The well-being of future generations, Labour Party member; the children’s commissioner, Labour Party member; the ombudsman, was in business with a Labour Minister. [Interruption.] This is the truth, and you don’t like hearing it. What we have here—[Interruption.] What we have here is huge public concern. [Interruption.] There’s not a single thing there that is not a fact. You don’t like it; you’re the Government, you should address it. [Interruption.] In terms of—[Interruption.] In terms of the number of jobs—[Interruption.]

Can I listen to what the Member is saying in replying to the debate, please? Can we listen quietly, because it’s very difficult when you’re all shouting? Neil.

What we have here are many facets of a one-party state, which has been run by the Labour Party since 1999. And do you know what, the news is: your time is running out. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much.

A point of order.

No, no. Hang on—

A point of order.

No, let me just do this bit first, and then I’ll come back to your point of order. So, the proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] You object, okay. Therefore, we will defer the voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Point of order, Neil McEvoy.

Thank you. What was said by the Member for Merthyr was factually incorrect, and I ask her to withdraw it.

Thank you very much.

Do you want me to respond, Deputy Presiding Officer?

I would ask you to reflect on what was said and I would ask you: do you want to respond?

I’m happy to accept that I may have got the figures wrong, Chair, and if I did, I apologise, but I do not apologise for my comment about the Member taking two salaries.

Like the Ministers, yes?

Okay, thank you. [Interruption.] Thank you. Well, it is the nature of parliamentary debate that facts and arguments are always contested, and so that should happen. [Interruption.] Hang on a minute. Members are responsible for the accuracy of the statements the make, and as long as they are not out of order—and I don’t think it was out of order, apart from the factual inaccuracy that has been raised by the Member—it’s not for me, the Presiding Officer, or anyone sitting in this chair, to judge the facts presented. And I’m happy to take the fact that you have withdrawn, the fact that the figures may be inaccurate, and therefore that is the end of that discussion. Okay. Thank you very much.