The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies.

We move on to item 7 on our agenda this afternoon, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the Family Fund. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion. Rhun.

Motion NDM6252 Rhun ap Iorwerth

Calls on the Welsh Government to review the impact of its decision to cut the funding of the family fund, and to either reverse the cuts to the family fund, or establish mechanisms to provide direct financial support to low income families with disabled children at a minimum of at least the same levels previously provided.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to open this debate. It is quite a simple debate, if truth be told, with a very clear focus. It is a debate on how we protect and defend some of our poorest families, and some of our most vulnerable families. It highlights a situation when, in reality, a policy that could be a good one could be actually depriving this very vulnerable group of people through the small print, if you like. Now, I wasn’t aware of the Family Fund, I have to admit, until I met one of its trustees, who is a constituent of mine. She explained to me the value of the fund, and also explained what would be lost through making cuts to that fund. The main purpose of the Family Fund is to distribute public funds in the form of grants to families of ill and disabled children. Families can bid for grants towards items for the home, bedding or other equipment—everyday items that can alleviate the pressures of caring for a severely disabled child. They may provide some £500 per annum to low-income families who most need the help. Now, woe betide us if we forget that £500 is a huge amount of money. It is a huge amount of money to low-income families, certainly. My fellow Members I know will expand on some of the ways in which that funding can be used and how that funding is crucial to these families.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I’m going to focus, if I may, on why I believe the Government’s amendment to our motion is a failure to understand and recognise what is at stake here. A document sent to Assembly Members yesterday—I’m sure many of you will have had an opportunity to see that document—notes that Carers Wales, Contact a Family Wales and Learning Disability Wales are very disappointed that the Government’s amendment to this debate fails to recognise or tackle the financial impact that this directly has on low-income families with disabled children in terms of cutting funds to the Family Fund by over £5.5 million over three years. That’s 2016-17 and 2018-19. It goes on to say that this is not a general issue of project funding for the third sector but one that directly affects low-income families with disabled children, with over 4,000 families per year in Wales now unable to access an annual grant of £500, on average—£500 that can make a huge impact on the annual budget of low-income families. And they remind us that the three other administrations in the UK have maintained their financial support for the Family Fund at the 2015-16 level. The Department for Education in England announced yesterday, by coincidence, that it will continue to fund this programme—a sum of £81 million over three years.

I would add that the Government amendment does suggest that Ministers haven’t been aware, or haven’t taken account of the fact that the shift in funding to the sustainable social services’ third sector grant scheme has had this impact on direct funding to families. There is no alternative. Noting other programmes available and the availability of welfare rights, for example, doesn’t make up for the fact that this is a direct loss to these families, particularly in a climate where other sources of support are disappearing. The stories of service users that we’ve heard have demonstrated this, and, again, I quote from the document from Carers Wales, Contact a Family Wales and Learning Disability Wales, which quotes a parent who can no longer access Family Fund support: ‘As the parent of a profoundly disabled child, I know how difficult and discouraging it is to try to carry on during a time of reduced budgets as well as hostility, on the part of the Westminster government, towards disability benefits. We carry on as best we can, but we live on the edge of not coping, financially as well as in other ways.’ The Family Fund grants are a lifeline to so many—that’s what that parent had to say.

We have presented this motion, having heard from organisations that are frustrated with the current situation—with the loss of the funds but also the absence of any recognition that there has been a cut, because there has been a cut. That is why we have worded this in a way that provides an alternative way forward for the Government. If there is an alternative approach using a different model to the Family Fund, well, fine, let’s consider that. But what’s important for us, and what’s important in the wording of this motion is that that direct support should be available in some way, and that it should be restored.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you. Of course, if this is passed today, not one penny will go through. The only way to get additional money for this is through the first supplementary budget, isn’t it?

I think you’re being mischievous. We are talking here about a fund that is not substituted by any other direct funding model by Government. That is why, I believe, it has been maintained by Governments in other parts of the UK. We need a realisation from Government that, despite the strengths, perhaps, of other measures that have been taken by the Government to support these families indirectly, that direct support needs to be reintroduced.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

I’m just trying to clarify why it is you focus so closely on the Family Fund, because there are 32 organisations that have benefitted from this social services grant scheme and the Family Fund isn’t the only game in town in terms of support for disabled families, and it’s important that we maximise the support that’s available for them through various organisations.

I would reiterate the point: there is no other direct payment scheme available. That is the value of the Family Fund in particular. Yes, there are other elements of Government support, which is indirect and of course can support families, but there is no substitute for the direct funding that goes to the poorest families. [Interruption.] Well, it is true, and we are talking about the most vulnerable and the poorest of families through means-testing. And that is why it is so cruel that this funding source has been taken away, when Governments in other parts of the United Kingdom have, in my view, taken the correct decision, as the department of education did in England—coincidentally, I add, yesterday—to maintain the £81 million of funding in England over a period of three years.

Mi oeddwn i, fel yr oeddwn i’n ei ddweud, yn cynnig ffordd ymlaen yn y geiriad yma i’r Llywodraeth drwy ddweud ein bod ni ddim yn dweud bod yn rhaid i hyn ddigwydd drwy’r Family Fund. Os oes yna ffordd amgen i gynnig cyllid uniongyrchol i bobl, mi fyddem ni’n hapus iawn i hynny ddigwydd, ac a dweud y gwir, rwy’n credu ein bod ni wedi disgwyl y byddai’r Llywodraeth yn cytuno i edrych ar hyn ac yna chwilio am ffordd ymlaen. Felly, mi oedd gwelliant y Llywodraeth yn siom fawr a dweud y lleiaf, ac yn atgyfnerthu’r sefyllfa yr ydym ni ynddi hi, lle y mae’n ymddangos nad ydy’r Llywodraeth yn cydnabod bod y cyllid uniongyrchol yma yn cael ei dorri a bod dim byd arall i ddod yn ei le o.

Rŷm ni’n cefnogi gwelliant y Ceidwadwyr. Fel y mae hwnnw’n ei nodi, Cymru ydy’r unig genedl sydd ddim wedi parhau i gyllido’n llawn y gronfa hanfodol. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at y ddadl y prynhawn yma. Rwy’n gobeithio y gallwn ni i gyd gytuno bod y teuluoedd mwyaf bregus yma a’r plant mwyaf bregus yn haeddu ein cymorth uniongyrchol ni. Gadewch inni felly ystyried hynny wrth inni fwrw pleidlais yn nes ymlaen y prynhawn yma.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move formally amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

1. Notes the Welsh Government’s

a) £22m Sustainable Social Services grant scheme to support third sector organisations deliver the Welsh Government’s ambitious social services agenda which includes supporting families raising disabled or seriously ill children;

b) £42.5m Families First programme, including £3m ring-fenced funding for disabled families;

c) £2.2m annual funding for Citizens Advice Cymru to support targeted groups including families with disabled children and help them access the benefits they are entitled to, which has generated £3.3m in additional benefits between April and December 2016.

2. Recognises that the Family Fund has been allocated the maximum available grant of £1.5m and an additional £400,000 this year to continue supporting families and adapt its funding model for the future.

3. Welcomes the positive impact the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act has had on strengthening the rights of and support of carers, including those looking after disabled or seriously ill children.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Notes that the Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government and UK Government, in relation to England, have all maintained their funding for the family fund.

Amendment 2 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. Families with disabled children have higher costs but lower incomes than other families. Contact a Family research shows that the extra cost relating to a child’s condition could be £300 or more every month, with 84 per cent of families with disabled children having gone without leisure and days out. For over 40 years, the Family Fund’s main function has been to help redress the balance by distributing public money across the UK in the form of grants to low-income families with sick and disabled children, with families able to apply for an average £500 grant annually. Welsh Government funding to 2015-16 was £2.64 million, almost all distributed directly to 5,429 low-income families with disabled children across Wales.

The administrations in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland have all maintained their financial support for the Family Fund at 2015-16 rates. However, since 2016, the Welsh Government has chosen to cut their contribution by £5.5 million, as we heard, over three years, meaning that, over 4,000 families each year across Wales will be unable to receive this support. In contrast, the UK Department for Education confirmed this week that it will maintain its £27.3 million annual Family Fund funding for three years up to 2020—£81.9 million in total—ensuring that tens of thousands of families in England will be able to rely on this extra support.

As the UK Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families, Edward Timpson MP, said,

No child, regardless of the obstacles they face, should miss out on vital life experiences’.

I therefore move amendment 2, which notes that the Governments of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England have all maintained their funding for the Family Fund.

Although policy in Wales has diverged since devolution, this funding continued, because it was a highly valued and cost-effective way of supporting families with disabled children. This position only changed in April 2016 when the Welsh Government decided to require the Family Fund to apply for its funding from the sustainable social services third sector grant scheme. It wasn’t sustainable. They do not appear to have published any analysis of the impacts such a substantial withdrawal of funding would have on the families affected. Welsh Government funding in 2016-17 fell to £900,000, including a one-off £400,000, and next year falls to just £499,000, reducing support to just an estimated 875 families.

Further, families in Wales are now only able to apply for a grant once every four years, whilst families in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland can apply every year, and they face restrictions on the type of support a grant can be used for in Wales. Insanely, these cuts will increase the financial burden on local authority and NHS budgets and run counter to the principles set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014.

The Welsh Government has made a decision that will have detrimental effects on the very families they claim their policies are designed to support. By continuing to deflect the issue on to general funding for the voluntary sector, they are failing to acknowledge the direct negative impact their £5.5 million cut in funding is having. The charities Carers Wales, Contact a Family Cymru and Learning Disability Wales have expressed disappointment that the Welsh Government amendment fails to acknowledge or address the direct financial impact on low-income families with disabled and seriously ill children across Wales—the over 4,000 families in Wales now unable to access an annual grant. I think ‘disappointment’ is an understatement of the despair felt. As they state, this massive cut to low-income families with disabled children, was an entirely predictable consequence of the decision to merge the Family Fund allocation into the Sustainable Social Services grant back in December 2015…a fact which the Equality Impact Assessment undertaken at the time completely failed to notice.’

They also point out that both the Families First programme and the annual funding for Citizens Advice Cymru, referred to in the Welsh Government amendment, pre-existed the decision to cut the Family Fund and that the Welsh Government has not reallocated an equivalent sum to support families with disabled children.

As one constituent told me:

My six-year-old is disabled and without the family fund, we wouldn’t have been able to make him safe in our garden nor offer him a tablet to help him with his disability’.

Well, a mature Welsh Government would stop doing things just to be different and start doing them better—stop doing things to people and start doing things with them.

It’s a pleasure to take part in this very important debate on the Family Fund. Of course, as we’ve heard, this is not the biggest fund ever, but it’s important because it provides direct funding to poor families who have children with serious illness and serious disabilities. The funding goes directly. It isn’t redirected through alternative sources that tend to suck some of the money out through administrative acts, whichever project they’re dealing with. Of course, it’s worth noting that there are additional costs in having a disability, particularly if we accept the social model of disability. That means that there is a responsibility on everyone, therefore, to recognise that social model of disability, and a responsibility on everyone to get rid of those barriers that are in the way of people who have a disability living a full life. So, in recognising the importance of that social model of disability, we have to accept that there are additional costs, therefore, to ensuring that people with disabilities can live a full life.

Of course, there are additional costs. There’s additional equipment as we’ve heard already. There is very complex care, and not all of it can be provided by the health service or social services. Parents have to work flexibly, sometimes not at all, and, of course, this causes great stress for families. I do believe that it is a moral duty on us as a society generally to help to look after our most vulnerable children, because we could all have been a parent of a child with a disability. Very fortunately the majority of us aren’t in that position, but I do think that there is a moral duty on us to help to look after those parents who are in that situation. Because, as a GP—I’m not sure if I’ve mentioned this previously—having spent 30 years as a GP in Swansea I have known and still know a lot of families who have this problem on a long-term basis. I’ve seen babies born, and now they’re adults with extreme disabilities, and the stress has been huge, and, yes, as a health service and social services we can provide as much as we can, but there are always additional costs that families have to bear.

The financial pressure, of course, is worse in a family on a low income. It’s double jeopardy.We know already that poverty leads to poor health, but think, if you have poor health to start with because you have a disability, then poverty makes things worse. Those two things affect the quality of your life because it’s very difficult when there is insufficient funding. On top of that, families do feel under great oppression. People don’t want to have to ask for additional funding all the time, and they do feel alienation, particularly from the Government at Westminster in terms of the benefits and so forth. On top of that now, they are losing this direct funding. As has been already noted, the loss of the Family Fund is not happening in any other country. Wales is the only country losing this direct payment, and Wales is the poorest country. It doesn’t make sense. England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are maintaining their Family Funds.

Basically, we are losing funding here. I know how these things happen: there’s restructuring, and there are unintended consequences, as they would say over the border. But, basically, families are losing direct funding. Our motion notes an opportunity to give this money back in any way, but it’s important that the money does go directly to those families and isn’t sucked into any kind of project funding structures in the third sector and then lost in terms of being direct funding for our most vulnerable families. Thank you very much.

UKIP fully support the motion before us today.The Family Fund provides an invaluable service to families with disabled children and it is highly regrettable that the Welsh Government took the decision to cut the fund. The loss of £5.5 million from the Family Fund in Wales means that thousands of families are being denied the kind of support that families in the rest of the UK enjoy.

I understand the Welsh Government’s assertion that they have to manage limited resources; however, when you announce that you are making £10 million available to develop flights between Cardiff and London Heathrow, I have to question the Welsh Government’s priorities. We are denying emergency help and respite to thousands of disabled children at the same time as we are trying to buy additional business for Cardiff Airport. I cannot agree with the Welsh Government’s decision on this. UKIP fully support what the Government are trying to do with Cardiff Airport, but in times when money is tight, we should not be trying to entice airlines to fly between Cardiff and Heathrow, especially not at the expense of disabled children. The £10 million the Welsh Government have set aside for the airport would pay for the Family Fund for the next six years. I’m not saying to cancel the route development, just postpone it until such time as we can afford it, and not press ahead at the expense of disabled children.

I urge the Welsh Government to reconsider. I will stand by the over 4,000 low-income families with disabled children affected by this decision. Carers Wales, Contact a Family Cymru and Learning Disability Wales are calling for the Welsh Government to reverse its decision and restore the Family Fund to, at the very least, its previous levels. UKIP will be rejecting the Welsh Government’s amendment and will be supporting the Welsh Conservatives’ amendment. I urge colleagues to do likewise. Let’s send out a clear message: austerity does not mean penalising the most vulnerable in our society. Thank you.

As we know, the Family Fund offers about £500 a year to low-income families who most need help. The fact that this money can be used so flexibly is key. One charity manager told me that this is the only source she can turn to now for a number of issues, including, for example, money to support families to have short holidays, which they deserve—weekend breaks that are so beneficial, but that they would never be able to afford without this fund. Because the fund depends on the income level of the family, that means that only the families who most need help to have a holiday receive support. Therefore, cutting the direct grants means that some of the most vulnerable families in Wales will suffer.

I want to talk about three families I know of, and how they have benefited directly from the fund. A family of four—mum, dad and two children, two and three years old—and the oldest child has severe disabilities that mean regular trips—weekly, sometimes daily—to the hospital. It means staying at the hospital, far away from home, on a regular basis. The parents’ care for that child is exceptional. The mother is in her 20s, and both have given up work in order to care for the child. It would be very difficult for them to work, particularly as the youngest also needs care. By the way, the community’s care for this family is inspiring. The community has raised money to buy bespoke play equipment for the village playground. The child joins in with his peers in the village despite the disability.

They use the money they obtain from the fund to help them pay travel costs to the hospital. They need to visit Ysbyty Gwynedd often, 15 miles away. They also need to visit Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool regularly—a journey of nearly two hours there and two hours back along the A55, which often means that the journey takes three to four hours. They have to use the car, because that’s been adapted especially for the child. They would never get there in time by using public transport. They need to pay a toll of £1.70 for every journey on top of the travel costs, and that’s aside from food, accommodation costs and so forth. It is possible to apply for some travel funding from the health board or the hospital, but only after payment. Every receipt must be kept carefully, and that’s the last thing on the mind of anyone in such difficult circumstances.

The second family has an autistic child. They have benefited from the fund in a different way: they have had funding to buy a large freezer, which means that they can buy large quantities of food at the same time and freeze it. Shopping with an autistic child is not always an easy task. They live in a rural area and they therefore save on petrol costs by making fewer trips. The nearest store is six miles away. It is from the Family Fund that they got the money to pay for the freezer. It would have taken years for this family to save up to buy it.

The third family includes a deaf child. This family also lives in a rural area. The child has a hearing aid and needs to be monitored regularly at Ysbyty Gwynedd, which entails an hour-long journey from home both ways. Petrol costs mean that the family sometimes decide not to attend the appointments—they skip them—and of course, if that happens three times in succession, the child can drop off the radar of the hospital services, and that can lead to significant problems down the line.

In accordance with the spirit of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, we must acknowledge the preventative value of the fund. With this family, from prioritising other things above the petrol costs to attend hospital appointments, problems can arise with the hearing aid; problems with communication and education can arise; the child falls behind at school, and needs extra support, and then significant costs start to develop. A problem that could be resolved simply by offering a small pot of money for travel then develops into a major expensive problem, and of course the child suffers in all of this.

As we’ve heard, children and families in England can access a similar fund for three more years. In Wales, the fund could support 5,429 families—similar families to those that I’ve described. This year, 1,500 will receive support, and next year, the estimate is that 875 families alone will receive support. There are 4,000 families like the ones I’ve talked about today—some of our most vulnerable families—that will be worse off.

The annual reduction of the Family Fund is £1.83 million. So, just to give this a little bit of context: this debate is scheduled for 60 minutes, 20 minutes after this debate finishes, the UK Government will have given that amount out in foreign aid. We are a wealthy nation. We do have money.

I’ve done some basic sums based on correspondence that I’ve received, so the figures may differ, but you’ll get the picture from what I’m about to say. There are roughly 5,429 families eligible for the Family Fund. That amounts to about £337 per family. What does this sum add up to? Well, it’s just over the cost of two tv licences, or a month’s grocery shopping, or even a little more than a day’s allowance for an elected lord. This is a small amount of money, but it provides those who receive it with very welcome respite.

Raising and caring for a child with a disability can be both mentally and physically challenging, putting additional strain on budgets, health, emotions and relationships. Wales now finds itself out of kilter with the rest of the UK. We’re lagging behind once again. These sums of money, while relatively small, and with no obvious and immediate social or economic benefit, have a disproportionate effect on a set of our society for whom life is challenging enough already.

A beneficiary of the Family Fund—she’s called Kate—has told me that her daughter was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 10 months old. Neither parent could drive. Hospital appointments, shopping, and trips out were all dependent on others. The Family Fund paid for driving lessons and a test for Kate. She had to pass the test, and pass she did, first time. That gave the family some freedom. She was no longer reliant on others, and her child could get to her many and varied appointments in the adapted car that she needed—a relatively small sum of money, making a massive difference. Fifteen years later, Kate still drives that adapted car, she still ferries her child around to the many and varied appointments she continues to need, and always will need, along with the social requirements that a 16-year-old girl has.

The thing is that this ability to drive also opened up the job market to Kate. She now works full time, contributing to society, and is a great role model for her daughters. The Family Fund is not using a company credit card to purchase luxury lingerie, nor is it funding five-star trips to Barbados; it is funding a new washing machine or a long weekend away in an adapted and accessible caravan in the UK, giving much needed respite—things that many of us here take for granted.

I’ve no doubt that all of our inboxes have been inundated with e-mails from our constituents about this vote today—you know, those real people we are here to represent and for whom we are supposed to speak. Welsh Labour would do well to remember that when they are voting on this motion later. Anyone voting against this motion is out of touch with real people and they need to get out into the real world.

Every other administration in the UK has maintained funding. Yet again, Welsh Labour lets down those who need the help the most. One final word to you, Minister: you cannot dress this up, as you will no doubt seek to do. This is a reduction, a taking away, a deterioration in provision. Any suggestion to the contrary is outrageous. Mark Drakeford called on the Chancellor today to reverse the cuts in the budget. Well, get your own house in order, follow your own advice, and reverse this devastating cut.

I think many people have made the point quite clearly about the importance of the Family Fund, so I want to put the debate in the wider context of disability and the fact that cuts to other benefits have, of course, frequently affected disabled people in a disproportionate manner. We’ve heard about some of the higher profile Government cuts in this area, but there have been over 100 changes to social security in recent years, and some of them have flown under the radar for many. We must consider the cumulative impact of all of these changes on this particular decision here today, because losing £5 a week may not sound much to the wealthy backers of some of the other parties here today, but, when this happens hundreds of times, we must consider the overall impact of these often punitive changes on people.

When I read the briefing from Carers Wales and Contact a Family—. As Sian Gwenllian has already said, this was £500 of a grant. In the wider perspective of things, this is not a very big grant for people to access. It’s actually quite staggering to see, from the e-mails that I’ve had, what can be done with that money and why they see that as so valuable.

So, to try and be constructive, what I’d like to understand is, if there’s going to be debate around what’s coming after Communities First—and I know that there’s going to be extension of some funds—whether there can be a discussion as to whether this is part of that particular process. Because, of course, when we’re discussing new poverty programmes, we have to discuss that in the context of what’s being cut now or changed now so that we can prepare for that in the future, and we wouldn’t want to see, and I’m sure nobody in this Chamber would want to see, certain families being disproportionately affected.

I think that’s why I was concerned to see, again, the briefing that there would be no adverse effect on people from the decision to move funding to the sustainable social services third sector grant scheme. So, I need to understand what that scheme will say. Will there be ring-fencing within that scheme so that families can understand how they can track that scheme and how they can see where the money’s going? Because I think that’s a key concern. Because, at the moment, they can see the budget for what it is and they can analyse it for what it is, and I think that’s a concern for many, ongoing.

Yes, as many have said already today, we have had e-mails regarding this issue—I think that is reflective of the importance of the issue. We wouldn’t just receive e-mails if they weren’t important. I think this shouldn’t be downplayed, therefore—4,000 families with disabled children are losing out again. We expect it from the UK Government, don’t we? We expect it from them, with regard to the changes that they’re making through welfare reform and the way that they are targeting those most vulnerable. I would be very sorry to see it, if the Welsh Government followed in this way, because, of course, that shouldn’t be something for a party of the left to be doing.

I have to make sure that we support them and raise their concerns, because it might invite a debate over the fact that there may be additional barriers to people voting and taking part in politics from minorities in general. We are here to reflect everybody’s voice, and if disabled people face additional barriers to taking part in that debate, feel that their voice isn’t being heard properly about changes to budgets, then I think that’s something that’s very worrying indeed. So, I hope from today’s debate that we can see a positive outcome and that they can be assured that the money that they need and deserve will find its way to them.

I call on the Minister for Public Health and Social Services, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today’s debate provides me with an opportunity to confirm the Welsh Government’s commitment to supporting disabled children and their families, and to talk about the significant investment we’re making to ensure that they receive the services and support they need.

The Family Fund is one element of the support that we have put in place, and it must be seen in the wider context. I wrote to all Assembly Members last November setting out the background and the context to the robust and rigorous approach that was taken in relation to the funding decisions for the sustainable social services third sector grants scheme, which were taken in 2014. This scheme brought together four separate grant schemes, including the Family Fund grant, bringing together some £22 million into a single grant in order to support the delivery and implementation of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and to take forward our priorities of enabling all citizens in Wales to achieve their well-being outcomes and to live fulfilling lives.

We want to make sure that people have the control and are involved in the decisions that are made about the services that they receive. We are evaluating the impact of the Act to ensure that it’s delivering what we set out to achieve. This includes monitoring policies to ensure that they’re being implemented and are supporting improvement. This new grant scheme firmly enables third sector organisations as important partners to support our transformational approach to the delivery of sustainable social services in Wales. It’s an approach that is based on ensuring equity and fairness for all of those who are in need of care and support.

It’s neither accurate nor fair to suggest that there has been a cut in support for disabled families through our grants for the third sector. I want to emphasise that the Welsh Government has maintained the overall grant funding levels for the third sector in this area. We’ve created a fairer approach by supporting the widest range of third sector organisations possible, making sure that every part of the community can benefit from funding available—for example, our approach has allowed us to fund Carers Wales with £670,000 to provide support to disabled children and their families. The project raises awareness of caring, and supports families to manage their caring roles and to be involved in service improvement and delivery.

It’s also allowed us to fund Learning Disability Wales with £930,000 for a project that supports families to understand their rights and entitlements, to have their voices heard, to control decisions about their care, and to co-design the support that they receive.

Similarly, the All Wales Forum of Parents and Carers of People with Learning Disabilities receives over £400,000 to support families of people with learning disabilities to understand their entitlements and to control decisions about their care. It aims to improve early intervention and prevention and to support the co-design and delivery of services.

There were 84 applications to the new grants scheme, amounting to funding requests of £69 million. We’re funding 32 organisations, and the Family Fund was successful in being awarded the maximum grant available, £1.5 million. The Family Fund was also in the unique position of being awarded an additional £400,000 as a transition grant this year, including £30,000 to help them refocus their funding model to become sustainable in the future.

Disabled families tell us that the thing they value most is respite care. So, we’ve asked the Family Fund to focus on the provision of respite, and we expect them to use at least 70 per cent of their grant providing this. They do, however, maintain the flexibility to fund other things where there’s an exceptional need. Where a child has a statement of special educational needs and the provision of ICT equipment is identified as a need then the local authority must ensure that this is provided to support the child’s education.

It’s clear from today’s debate that there is agreement that we need to ensure that families can maximise their household income, with money going direct to the family. The most high impact and sustainable way of doing this is not through small, individual grants, but by supporting families to ensure that they’re receiving all of the benefits to which they are entitled. Since 2012, we have been providing over £2 million a year to Citizens Advice for their Better Advice, Better Lives scheme, which is unique to Wales. It’s not happening in England, it’s not happening in Scotland, and it’s not happening in Northern Ireland. But in Wales it operates in every local authority, offering face-to-face advice. And this is the most important thing. In 2015-16 alone, the project supported over 1,800 families with disabled children, overall generating over £3.5 million in additional benefits for these families. In the first nine months of the current financial year, the service has supported 1,400 families, generating a further £3,300,000 in benefits: money that these families are entitled to and now are receiving week after week, and not as a one-off payment. So, our Wales-only approach is high impact and it’s sustainable.

Families in the greatest need can access the Families First programme, and we’re providing over £42 million this year and the same amount next year. This includes £3 million ring-fenced for services for families affected by disability. Through the intermediate care fund this year we’ve provided regions in Wales with an additional £4 million to develop integrated services for people with learning disabilities and children with complex needs. We will continue to support this fund in future years. Also, through our new autism strategic action plan, we have committed £6 million to put in place a national all-age integrated autism service, which will create local teams in all areas, providing support across the age range, including for families. This is in addition to the £2 million we’re making available each year through the Together for Children and Young People programme to improve neuro-developmental assessment services.

We know that there’s more to do and that we need to be innovative in the way that we use financial resources. We’re currently refreshing the carers strategy, and, in a written statement I made last year, I made a commitment to examine a national approach to respite care, which we know is so valuable to families. We will review current provision with a view to strengthening the range and availability of respite services.

In terms of the Conservatives’ amendment, let me be clear, again, that the Welsh Government has not reduced the overall funding available. We have sought to distribute the funding that we have to promote fairness, equity, and to achieve long-lasting, sustainable improvements. I have demonstrated the significant support we are providing for disabled children and their families through the wider delivery of our programme for government.

So, to conclude, the funding of one organisation must be seen within the context of the wider strategic approach to delivering improvements to services and support for disabled children and their families. We must also recognise that it’s vital that we maximise the impact of all the funding that we provide to support long-term, sustainable benefits for families.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much to everybody who’s taken part in both debates this afternoon: the debate that we heard the Minister talking about there, about overall funding, and the debate that we actually presented to the Assembly earlier, about direct funding through the Family Fund to some of the most vulnerable families in Wales.

I think said in my opening remarks that I think there’s a good overall policy here, but that there’s small print that is letting down some of our most vulnerable families. And that small print is the omission now or the decimation of that direct funding stream, and that is what we’re talking about; £500 is a substantial amount as a one-off payment for a low-income family. It’s the safe garden that we heard about. It’s the respite. It is the tablet. It is the freezer. It is the washing machine because a child’s disability means that they need to have their clothes and bed linen washed more frequently than most. It’s a small sum for Government, though. We’re talking here about £5.5 million over three years.

If I can comment on what Nathan Gill said, I can name a lot of things that I’d rather Government didn’t spend money on. We’re talking here about what we want Welsh Government to spend money on. We can talk, if you like, about the £360 million that’s going to be spent on Buckingham Palace or the doubling of the funding of the royal family that’s just been passed, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking specifically about what Welsh Government can do, and I think it says everything about your politics that you want to use this debate about vulnerable families in Wales to attack spend on UK foreign aid, much of which is spent on vulnerable families abroad—and I’m more than happy to continue to support them. We’re talking about a modest sum of money—[Interruption.] Yes, of course.

How did I attack it?

Read the Record in the morning. We are talking—[Interruption.]

Two people cannot talk at the same time. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The Government Minister stated that support exists in other ways. I agree that support exists in other ways. I agree that it’s a very good idea to work with Citizens Advice in order to ensure that people have the support that they need to access benefits as much as possible. I agree with strategies on increasing respite, though not enough is being done. I agree that the third sector as a whole needs the resources in order to support vulnerable families and children. But I again stress that we are talking about a specific fund that is not substituted in any other part of third sector provision in Wales.

I think the case has been made here from all the opposition parties. There is no substitute for this funding. It is being maintained in other parts of the UK because it is such a specifically useful fund. I would ask again Government to withdraw the amendment, and to agree to consider the reinstatement of this direct funding to its previous level, either through the Family Fund, which seems to me to work well, or through other means, if you like, because it’s not how it’s done—it is having that access to these one-off pots of money that we want looked at. You may not think that £500 as a one-off is something that can make a real difference to people’s lives. We think it is.

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

Voting deferred until voting time.