The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, and amendment 2 in the name of Rebecca Evans. If amendment 1 is agreed amendment 2 will be deselected.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on Welsh Government funding, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move the motion. Nick. 

Motion NDM7206 Darren Millar

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that Wales benefits from being part of the United Kingdom.

2. Notes that, as a result of the Fiscal Framework agreed between the Welsh and UK Governments, Wales currently receives £1.20 per head for every £1 spent per head in England on devolved matters.

3. Welcomes the additional £790 million over and above the Welsh block grant which has been committed by the UK Government towards Growth Deals across Wales.

4. Recognises that the funding available for the Welsh Government is at record levels.

5. Calls upon the Welsh Government to:

a) use any additional resources which arise as a result of increased investment on the NHS by the UK Government to improve the Welsh health service;

b) use any additional resources which arise as a result of increased investment on education by the UK Government to improve the Welsh education system;

c) rule out any tax rises or new taxes in Wales between now and the next elections to the National Assembly for Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to move this motion today in the name of Darren Millar.

The fiscal framework agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments was a groundbreaking agreement that really moved the funding situation in Wales on. It was welcomed by all sides and I think it's to the credit of both Governments involved in that that we ended up with that agreement. As a result of the fiscal framework, Wales now receives £1.20 per head for every £1 spent in England. That's a really good news story. It's even a good news story for the Welsh Government, given their involvement in it. You don't often talk up the benefits of co-operation with the UK Government, for obvious reasons, but it is—

Will you take an early intervention? Do you genuinely mean to say—and thank you for taking the intervention—that Wales needing additional funding because of our poverty is something to celebrate and is good news?

Well, I would say, if I'd got a bit further along, he might have heard a bit more, but there you are. No, I'm saying that the fiscal framework is to be welcomed, and I'm sure that you welcomed the fiscal framework—I think you did anyway, and I think your party did. [Interruption.] Go for it. 

I'll come in. You said it's good news that more money is coming to Wales. The reason more money is coming to Wales is because of our poverty. That can never be good news. 

If you're actually saying that you don't want more money to come to Wales and you want us to suffer from the poverty that we've got, I don't think you really mean to say that. [Interruption.] I'm not going to let you in again. I don't know whether you're trying to get up again. 

Look, I welcome the fact that the fiscal framework means there is an uplift in the money that we receive and I think that is better than the previous flawed Barnett funding formula that was given to us. I will be frank—I probably would agree with you on this, actually—I think that, on the Barnett formula, longer term, there would be a better way of funding Wales and many of us have had those discussions in this Chamber. But as things stand at the moment—and I'm afraid to say it again, in case you jump up again, Rhun—the fiscal framework is delivering more money. And I hope that that—. [Interruption.] I'm sorry this has worked you up so much. I hope that the additional money will be invested in Wales in a way that will make the economy more sustainable and will deal with poverty. There you are, you see, I was getting there eventually, so I hope you're happy now. 

The UK Government has committed an additional £790 million over and above the block grant for growth deals across Wales. The Welsh Government's budget will increase by £593 million above the 2019-20 dateline. The latest spending round also includes an increase of £80 million to the capital budget, which has already been set for 2020-21. As a result, the capital budget will be 2.4 per cent higher than in 2019-20, and funding from the UK Government is actually at record levels.

And yet, when you look at the funding situation in public services in Wales, such as the NHS, that money doesn't seem to be being passed on. Wales is facing a deficit of £97 million in 2018-19. Demand pressures continue to increase and also, of course, there are new demands on the NHS, such as mental health services. That's putting extra pressure on the workforce, who do an outstanding job under challenging conditions. I think we need to see in the NHS a more sustainable, longer term, multi-year funding plan. We often talk about the importance of that, but it doesn't actually seem to happen in practice. 

Welsh Conservatives welcome the £385 million that has been pledged to the health service, as well as the £195 million to education and £20 million to capital projects, which has been pledged recently during the election campaign. And we know that there's going to be—if there is a Conservative UK Government after the election, at least—over £30 billion extra for the NHS across the UK, which means that here in Wales we will receive a significant uplift in that part of the budget.

But, of course, getting that money isn't enough—it has to be passed on. We know that in the case of the NHS particularly that hasn't happened over a considerable length of time. If you look at the details of NHS spending, taking oncology, for instance, there is a serious shortage of cancer specialists in Wales—I've just been listening to the previous debate, of course, on pancreatic cancer. We've only had a 7.7 per cent increase in consultants since 2013, compared with a 25.4 per cent increase in England and a 25.4 per cent increase in Scotland as well. Vacancy rates here are persistently high.

So, it's all well and good for the Welsh Government to say on the one hand, 'We don't receive enough money from the UK Government', and on the other hand to say that they are investing here, when we know that in the past the NHS did see an increase but it was only a cash increase at one point in time, when, of course, you need to safeguard the increase against inflation as well.

On a more positive note, I mentioned the north Wales growth deal, and that is a step in the right direction. Through the projects identified in the proposition document, the intention is to create over 5,000 new jobs, to lever in £3 billion of private sector investment and to increase the value of the north Wales economy from £13.6 billion to £26 billion by 2035. This investment is to be welcomed and will provide major benefits to the Welsh economy.

If I can turn to the issue of tax, which is also mentioned in our motion, Welsh Conservatives supported tax devolution. It was, of course, a UK Conservative Government, in coalition, that brought that in at the UK level as a way of making this place and the Welsh Government more accountable to the people. But, it is vital that tax rates in Wales remain fair and competitive. That is absolutely essential. Wales simply cannot afford punitive tax rates that take money out of the pockets of those people who are going to invest in new businesses, in small and medium-sized enterprises and in expanding existing businesses, and invest in the entrepreneurial economy.

So, we are calling on the Welsh Government, in this motion, to reassert its previous commitment to not raise income tax before the—

Mike Hedges rose—

Are you giving way?

I will in a moment, I'll just finish this.

—the next—I was going to say Assembly election, but I suppose Senedd election is more appropriate, isn't it—the next Senedd election in 2021, and to come clean with the electorate in advance of that election if the intention is to significantly raise income tax after it. Mike Hedges. 

Can I thank Nick Ramsay for taking this intervention? Can I also thank him for being the first person to use the name Senedd for this institution? Nick, the question I really want to ask you—I hope you can answer it—is: in the command paper it says 'no detriment'. Does that mean that if actions take place at Westminster that cause a reduction in the amount of money coming into Wales that the Westminster Government will underwrite it?

I think I understand. Your point being that in the case that there was a reduction in money coming here from the UK Government, then would that mean that the Welsh Government would be able to increase it?

No, a reduction in income tax collected because something happened that was the decision made by the Westminster Government, over which the Welsh Government had no control.

Yes, I wouldn't be averse to a no-detriment principle there, so you can infer that, but I think that that would have to be very carefully considered, and I think that, over the medium term at least, if that was done, there should be mechanisms within the Welsh Government so that tax rates are seen to be competitive.

I know that we've often had these discussions, Mike, about volatile taxes like land transaction tax—of course, all tax is volatile, to a certain extent—and what would happen if there was a major shock to the economy. Borrowing, of course, could be used to cover any shortfall in the short term. But, I think, yes, no detriment over the longer term should be the aim.

In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, and returning to the first part of the motion, the Welsh Conservatives believe that Wales's membership of the United Kingdom has been beneficial to the Welsh economy over many years. If you just look at Wales's estimated fiscal deficit alone in 2017-18, estimated at around £13.7 billion, that is currently supported, of course, largely by the UK Government. That wouldn't happen if Wales was independent.

You're asking for it. [Laughter.] I'm sure you will have read, of course, the work that was done around that, and I'm sure you will have noted as well the strong caveat that that analysis in no way reflects the fiscal situation of a potentially independent Wales. That is the narrative around the current settlement that we have within the United Kingdom, which you tell us is a union of equals, but which you've just proven is absolutely not.

I chose my words carefully, actually. I didn't say 'union of equals'; I said that our membership of the United Kingdom has been beneficial. I feel that this speech has been more of an intervention on everyone else, to be honest. [Laughter.] I don't dismiss your point, Llyr; I am, of course, talking about the current situation and, currently, that is estimated to be our deficit, and it is underwritten by the UK Government, the UK as a country, and the union as a whole. Now, if we had not been members of the United Kingdom over the last 500 years or whatever, then perhaps we might be in a different situation; I'm sure you'd agree with that. We will never know that; we are where we are now.

I will say to you in closing, unless anyone else intervenes, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I actually think it's a minority of people who support independence in Wales, but it is a significant number of people, and you represent that part of the electorate. That is your right in a democratic system to do that, and I think that those people deserve a voice and you're giving that voice, particularly in your interventions today. But you must come clean with the electorate in advance of an election if independence is your goal, then this is the economic price that Wales, at least in the short to medium term, will pay. Get it out there, be clear about it, and let the people of Wales decide what they want to do. I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that.

I have selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 1, tabled in his own name? 

Amendment 1—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Delete all and replace with: 

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that successive Westminster Governments – under both Labour and the Conservatives – have presided over intergenerational poverty and chronic underinvestment in Wales.

2. Believes that having the economic and fiscal levers of an independent country is the key to Wales’s future economic prosperity.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

There is a wonderful predictability about debates like this on funding for Wales. The Conservatives slam Labour, Labour slam the Conservatives, Tories say it's all about how Welsh Government spends money, Labour say it's all the UK Government's fault, and it's a cycle of blame that suits them both. Both can sling political mud at each other, Wales gets spattered in the middle, its financial and economic position unresolved, poverty unaddressed, inequalities entrenched, both UK parties seeking plausible deniability about their own culpability by arguing that it's the other's fault: 'It's not us, guv, it's them.' Yes, carry on. 

It's incredible that he wants to heap all of this stuff on the shoulders of the Conservatives and the Labour Party, but, of course, your former leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, was the economy Minister for four years in a previous coalition Government here in Wales, and yet the situation was even worse under his tenure than you describe. Do you accept your responsibility for the failures that we see today because he was the economy Minister? 

The Llywydd took the Chair.

That's nothing at all to do with what we're discussing today. In fact, Ieuan Wyn Jones's record as economy Minister through those dark days of Westminster-led troubles with the economy stand up to scrutiny even now in 2019.

But in reality, despite the mudslinging between the Conservatives and Labour, it's just one Westminster establishment tag-team that time and time again, Government after Government, fails Wales. Yes, the Conservatives have starved Wales of funding through ideologically driven austerity, but Labour equally complicit when it comes to failure to invest in the kind of infrastructure we need, for example. Labour slam the Conservatives for failing us on rail electrification, quite rightly, but how convenient it is to admit that previous and successive Labour administrations were just as guilty of inaction, leaving us without a single mile of electrified rail.

What makes Plaid Cymru different is our willingness to say, 'Let's face up to those failures of the past and define our own future.' Until we truly realise that the status quo is failing Wales, trapping children in poverty, starving us of investment, keeping wages low, we can't plan for a genuinely different journey as a nation. So, our amendment today, as well as reminding us that under-investment in Wales is the legacy of successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative, also spells out our belief that it's us, the people of Wales, who can find our way out of this. And do you know what? Nobody is saying it's going to be easy.

Yes, there's a deficit that you mentioned, and on the face of it it's very scary, but as Llyr Gruffydd says, that analysis of our current position is in no way a reflection of what situation an independent Wales would face. It's the situation that Wales finds itself in now as part of the United Kingdom—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course. 

Yes, you're quite right to say that it's the situation that Wales faces now. On the day after independence, on the day of independence, that would be the situation. So, to say, 'Well, it's going to be challenging and we wouldn't have been in this position before' will not matter when people find their taxes are going up, there's not enough money to spend on public services, and people in Wales are worse off.

I'll address the choices that we have to make as a nation, and immediately, Wales's liabilities change. I'm quite certain, for example, that an independent Wales wouldn't wish to fund nuclear weapons, for example, and we are paying our share of that notionally, currently.

Now, situations change in a different context with Wales as an independent nation, but, crucially, look carefully at our fiscal position and you realise that so much of the deficit is locked into paying for our poverty. We're locked into a system that convention tells us we can't break out of. We can't even consider it—can't entertain the idea because we're too poor, and we always need to remain poor in order to keep on benefiting from the benevolence of successive Labour and Conservative Governments at Westminster.

Well, colleagues, I've never accepted that convention, and more and more people are rejecting that convention. We have two options: to accept our lot, our underperformance, our poverty, as being inevitable, or we can chart a new course. So, support our amendment today if you, like us, believe in the latter.

I call on the Minister for Finance to formally move amendment 2, tabled in her name. 

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Notes that the Welsh Government successfully negotiated a new needs based factor within the Barnett formula as part of the Fiscal Framework agreement with the UK Government.

Regrets that the UK Government often invests less than the Welsh Government in important non-devolved areas of responsibility across Wales including rail infrastructure and digital connectivity. 

Notes that the UK Government’s one year spending round leaves the Welsh Government £300m worse off in real terms compared with 2010-11 and condemns a decade of unjust, UK imposed austerity.

Notes that despite the pressures caused by austerity, the Country and Regional Analysis November 2019 statistics shows that in Wales:

a) spending per person on health and social services was the highest of the four UK countries and 11 per cent higher than in England;

b) spending per person on education was 6 per cent higher than spending per person in England.

Notes the Welsh Government’s commitment to not increase Welsh rates of Income Tax during this Assembly term.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally.

Well, successive independent reports following the banking crash showed that the last UK Labour Government ignored warnings and applied light-touch regulation to the banks. By 2010 the UK budget was the worst in the G20, behind only Ireland and Greece in the EU. The austerity inherited by the incoming UK Government in 2010 was, therefore, a legacy, not a choice.

Will you give way?

If the UK Government had spent and borrowed more, as some advocate, greater cuts would have been imposed on them. I give way.

Just for the record, I happen to agree with him that the light-touch regulation was too light, but, curiously, it was backed by George Osborne. So, I just wonder if he'd like to reflect on that, because there was a consensus at that time, it was a wrongheaded consensus, but actually it was backed by the Conservative Party.

Well, it wasn't backed by me, as I said here in the Chamber here in 2004—or I should say in the old Chamber here in 2004. And if you check the dates on the reports and the people it names, you'll see Labour names coming up, not people who were in opposition at the time—independent reports.

As I was saying, if UK Government had spent and borrowed more since 2010, greater cuts would have been imposed on them, where those high-deficit nations that objected austerity got it in full measure. Since 2010 the top earners have been paying a higher proportion of income tax than ever before on record, whilst the amount paid by lower earners has fallen. With the deficit now down, Wales will benefit from £1.8 billion of extra investment under a majority UK Conservative Government, on top of the £2.7 billion already committed to increase spending on health and education here.

In contrast, Mr Corbyn's plans would generate higher interest rates and bigger cuts down the road. Conservatives are delivering on record investment with £790 million into growth deals across Wales, including, as we heard, the £120 million for the north Wales growth deal. The UK Conservative Government announced that it was opening the door to a growth deal for north Wales in its March 2016 budget, and earlier this month, representatives of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board joined the UK and Welsh Governments to sign the heads of terms for the growth deal in north Wales—expected to generate total investment of £1 billion.

The UK Government has also supported north Wales in other ways, including an £82 million defence contract with a Denbighshire firm and locating the F-35 maintenance programme at MOD Sealand in north Wales, which is expected to generate millions of pounds and support thousands of jobs. The 2015-16 Office of Rail and Road annual report on UK rail industry financial information said that Wales received 9.6 per cent of net Government funding for franchised train operators and Network Rail and 6.4 per cent of total net Government funding for Network Rail routes. Their 2017-18 report showed that net Government funding as a percentage of the rail industry's total income was 17 per cent in England, 47 per cent in Scotland and 49 per cent in Wales. The net Government funding for rail franchises as a percentage of total income, including infrastructure funding, was 56 per cent for Wales and the borders, compared to just 21 per cent for the GB total. And their 2018-19 report showed that Government contributed £1.79 per passenger journey in England, £6.14 in Scotland and £9.16 in Wales, where the Wales route has the highest Government funding per passenger kilometre. So, I hope the Welsh Government will stop peddling the statements it's put into its amendment. Further, Network Rail will invest £2 billion in railways across Wales and its borders over the next five years.

The Welsh Government's Superfast Cymru broadband programme was kicked off when the UK Government gave the Welsh Government £57 million in 2011—11 per cent of all UK funding—followed by £56 million more in 2017. And UK Government funding included the £7 million extra for north Wales announced in June to introduce ultrafast broadband connectivity across the region's public sector organisations and create more connections to local businesses and homes.

The funding floor agreed by the UK Conservative Government means that the Welsh Government now benefits from the certainty that the funding it receives for devolved services won't fall below 115 per cent per head of the figure in England. Currently, for every £1 spent by the UK Conservative Government in England on matters devolved to Wales, £1.20 is given to Wales.

However, after two decades of Labour Welsh Government, Wales has the highest unemployment and highest percentage of employees not on permanent contracts across the UK nations, and the lowest wages of any nation across Great Britain. Wales remains the least productive UK nation, and successive Labour Welsh Governments have failed to close the gap between the richest and poorest parts of Wales and between Wales and the rest of the UK, despite the Welsh Government having blown billions on top-down programmes meant to tackle this.

Between 2010 and 2016, Labour-led Wales was the only UK nation to see a real-terms cut in identifiable expenditure on health. Their accident and emergency targets haven't been met since 2009, and they spend a lower proportion of their NHS budget on GPs than any other UK nation. And despite repeated warnings, they've created an affordable housing supply crisis that did not exist when they came to power two decades ago. That didn't start in 2010, it started in 1999. Let this be a warning to all those considering giving their vote to Mr Corbyn.

It's always nice to find out you were right. I have said continually since 2011 that austerity is a political not an economic policy. I'm sure the Conservatives would like to apologise to public sector workers and users of public services for the austerity measures that have slowed down the economic growth and led to a mass use of foodbanks and the increase in homelessness. Just to help the Conservatives, it was not a magic money tree that was needed, just a change of Government policy.

The Welsh Government receives around £15 billion a year to spend on its various priorities, activities and projects, which support our economy and public services across Wales. However, as a result of the Tory UK Government’s ongoing policy of austerity, the Welsh Government’s funding has been cut year on year in real terms. The Welsh Government’s budget is 5 per cent lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11—equivalent to £800 million less to spend on public services. Our revenue budget is 7 per cent lower per person than in 2010-11—that’s equivalent to £350 less to spend on front-line services for each person living in Wales.

We are now in the ninth year of austerity, and Wales is suffering the consequences of damaging Tory policies. Continuing with austerity is a political choice. It is a fact that, in spite of sluggish growth, tax receipts more than cover current public expenditure.

What have we got to show for almost a decade of Tory cuts? The Tories have presided over the slowest recovery since the 1920s. Last year's growth in our economy was the lowest in the G7 and the slowest since 2012. UK productivity is barely above pre-recession levels, and pay, adjusted for inflation, still remains below 2010 levels. Growth in tax receipts has been sluggish, reducing resources to fund public services.

The Welsh Government’s budget would be £6 billion higher in 2019-20 if, since 2010, it had increased in line with long-term public spending growth. Putting money into the demand side of the economy leads to economic growth. We know that.

I, of course, support more money for health and education. Education excellence, providing high-level educational attainment, is our best way of achieving economic growth. It is our best and should be seen as our most important economic policy—putting money into the education of highly skilled individuals. Something that is rarely said is that if you have to bribe a company to come to Wales, they do not really want to come. High growth areas do not have to provide incentives for inward investment; companies come because the skills they need are there. They come voluntarily. That is why I continually urge support for the university sector as the best way of generating high-skill and high-paid employment.

Education is not just schools. The role further education plays in producing skilled employees, from traditional trades through accountancy and ICT technicians, does not appear to get the credit it deserves. Further education really is the poor relation inside education.

Schools of course need additional funding in order to reverse the cuts that have taken place in recent years. I don't think you can overestimate the importance of education. It's what gives young people the opportunity to go on and earn large sums of money, it's what gets them skills, it's what produces our doctors, our nurses, our engineers—the people who we really need inside our economy. And far too often education is seen as something distinct from economic development. It is a key part of economic development. You get skilled people, you get highly qualified people, and then all of a sudden the employers come. Just look at Cambridge. Look at places like Sheffield. Look at these places that have done that: they've got the skilled people, they've developed through the university, and the companies have come.

Turning to health, additional money is needed, but what is needed is to improve public health. Which child do you think is more likely to be ill and need hospital treatment: the one in a cold, damp house who is poorly fed or the one in a warm, dry house who is well fed?

Plaid Cymru call for all the economic levers, which of course is code for independence. Just as they cannot answer the question regarding their view on nuclear power, they cannot answer the following: what currency would you use? What is going to be the central bank or lender of last resort? Who will set interest rates? How do you fund the Welsh share of the national debt? Are you really going to enter the euro? Are you going to let the European Central Bank be your central bank? That gives you less control than what we've got now. Also remember that Wales’s major trading partner, in terms of both goods and services, is not the rest of the EU, but England.

The work on defining those elements of how an independent Wales works, the detail of it—which is the subject of the commission that Plaid Cymru is working through at the moment—is one thing, but neither can you give us a cogent argument as to why this is not a means to address the failings of being within a UK system that is locking us in poverty currently.

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that we're locked in poverty because of the UK system. I would argue that we're locked in poverty due to the capitalist system, but that is something that perhaps you wouldn't agree with. But I think that we have a problem with poverty and we need to address it.

Finally, the other Plaid Cymru policy of independence and staying in the EU, if the UK leaves, would create a hard border between the European Union and England at the Welsh border. That is inevitable. [Interruption.] If I'm not out of time, I'll take an intervention.

I was going to say, on that particular point there's a very, very different situation between Wales-England and Ireland-Northern Ireland. The issue with Northern Ireland and Ireland is the Troubles that they've had there. We haven't got those issues between Wales and England. There is no way that there would be a hard border between Wales and England if we were an independent country.

The European Union would demand it, because that would stop goods entering into the European Union across that border. The European Union works on having control of goods outside the European Union coming in.

I must say, Mike Hedges, I think you've pretty much eviscerated the independence call on finances.

Minister, I would like to address my contribution today to the need to increase any consequentials due to the NHS into the NHS, and not for them just to be absorbed by the Government. A common refrain from your benches, when any criticisms are raised of NHS failures, is that if you had more money you could deliver the services long promised. You say that, with better funding, waiting lists would be reduced, ambulances would be able to spend more time treating patients and spend less time queuing outside hospitals to discharge patients, and everybody who wanted an NHS dentist would get one.

The Labour manifesto last week demonstrated the old socialist doctrine that government knows best, but after 20 years, we still appear to be facing the same old arguments and failing to take Wales forward at the same pace as other parts of the UK. And we should remember that, since devolution, a Labour-led Government has been in power all the time in Cardiff Bay and for a substantial amount of time in Westminster, so we'd be foolish to blame the ideological differences between the two Governments for the underfunding of the NHS. The real issue is how can we use any extra funds to improve the NHS for patients in Wales. And I would like to, at this point, make the comment that we need to all pay tribute to the hardworking and dedicated NHS workforce, and my contribution is designed to encourage you to push the extra investment into areas that many of those people have identified.

We all know that last year the NHS in Wales reported a deficit of £97 million, showing clearly that the current funding system is not working. We're not addressing adequately the areas of new demand, such as mental health services. We put extra pressure on our already overworked staff who are crying out for sustainable, long-term, multi-year funding plans. We welcome the extra £385 million that's been pledged to the health service in Wales, but this Government is running out of time. You are running out of time to prove that you can spend it in the right areas to make a real difference to the delivery for the Welsh NHS.

If we just think about it, if we just used a proportion of the £114 million wasted on the consultation on the M4 relief road, we could have supported an awful lot of nurses. In my own constituency, there was a ragworm farm—it's one of the biggest frauds perpetrated in Welsh history against the Government. It was almost £6 million. That could have trained over 100 million nurses—sorry, 100 more nurses, not million nurses; please don't tweet that. There wouldn't be enough room in our country—we'd have to put them all on the mountains. [Laughter.] It could have helped reduce ambulance waiting times, which would have saved my 91-year-old constituent from having to wait on a floor for seven hours for an ambulance, and my 94-year-old constituent only last week, who waited 12 hours. That's what we're trying to do; that's where the money needs to be deployed.

Let's be honest, if the NHS was really well managed, we would not see four out of seven health boards operating under Government intervention. We must make sure the money's spent in the right way. I believe that the major areas that can do with the most improvement involve the training and recruitment of the workforce, the retention of the workforce, and better support for primary care to ensure that the number of patients using secondary care is reduced. And we also have to look at spending the money in improving our social care services, in getting more people into social care, so that we can get people out of hospital. I have a lady in my constituency who's currently sitting in hospital because we cannot find a carer for 45 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the evening. That's all she needs. But instead she's taking up a hospital bed—not her fault—with the cost that that entails.

So, what I'd like to talk about is the fact that, with £109 million, for example, you would be able to fill a new cohort of freshly trained nurses, which would actually give us another 1,600 nurses. That's the vacancy rate we currently have in Wales. So, for £109 million, put the training into progress, train them for three years—that, actually, will go an enormous way forward to tackling some of the pressures that we have. The same issues surround GP and doctor recruitment. We've only got 186 training places available. Hospital doctors—it's just the same.

As far as workforce retention goes, we need to really not pay lip service to involving the workforce, giving them work, and understanding the enormous working pressures that they are under. This is why the workforce is leaving in droves—they cannot cope with the stress because they are under so much pressure. With that money, you can do an awful lot to alleviate that. You can put into process NHS support and improvement programmes to support our NHS staff to keep them in the NHS. Please, Minister, I'm asking you for nothing else except to spend those consequentials that come and will come from a Conservative Government in Westminster on the NHS in Wales. It's the least the staff there deserve, and it's certainly the least the patients of Wales deserve.

Can I thank the Conservative Party for bringing this debate forward, as I feel it covers matters that are fundamental to the governance of Wales? If we are to discuss the funding available to Wales, we cannot do so without consideration of the Barnett formula, which—I am sure there would be agreement across the Chamber—is fundamentally flawed. In this respect, I think it is pertinent to point out that, for the first 12 years of the Assembly, we had a Labour Government both here and at Westminster, and yet the Barnett formula remained unchanged.

Discrepancies between the funding Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales receive persist under the Barnett formula, with Wales being the lowest recipient per head of population. But rather than criticising incoming funding, a constant complaint here in the Assembly, perhaps it would be more appropriate to take a more robust approach as to how those funds are used. After all, whether taxes are raised in Westminster or in Wales, it is taxpayers' money and they have a right to see due diligence used in the way it is spent.

There are many instances where it could be said that very large amounts of money have been wasted on projects that are not delivered as promised. This is borne out by the concerns of the Auditor General for Wales, who said:

'The Welsh Government has not yet implemented an approach to balancing potential risks and benefits'.

If the amount of money received for our public services is reduced, then it becomes even more imperative that we use those funds that are available more productively.

We have to accept—and I do acknowledge—that decisions on funding companies and/or organisations are not without inherent risks. I've pointed out before that the Government is often lending at the higher-risk end of funding, particularly in areas where commercial banks are failing to provide such funds due to them being completely risk averse. But, in reality, it is not in the support of the private sector that we find the greatest Government ineptitude, it is in the support they give to institutions that are Government led but implemented on an arm's-length basis.

It is universally accepted that Wales is far too reliant on its public sector, but there is a growing dependence on third sector institutions. We now have one third sector organisation for every 89 people in Wales. One has to ask the question, 'Are they all giving value for money?', when there is such a plethora of such bodies. I urge the Government to stop complaining about lack of funding, but to concentrate on spending, not income.

One of the arguments put forward in favour of devolution in the late 1990s was that Welsh interests were being neglected. We were told that the problems facing Wales could only be solved by tailor-made solutions created here in Wales. However, in spite of successive generous funding settlements from the UK Government, whereby Wales received over 20 per cent more spend than in England, these problems remain.

Wales still has the weakest economy in the United Kingdom, earning in Wales remains the lowest in the whole of the UK, the Welsh NHS faces a deficit of £97 million as it struggles to meet its set targets, our education service is in crisis as schools have been starved of the cash they need. The Welsh Government has consistently tried to shift the blame for its record of failure onto the alleged Tory austerity. The fact is, for years, the Welsh Government has wasted money, through misuse of taxpayers' money and projects that have failed to deliver.

More than £9 million of public money was spent on the proposed Circuit of Wales before the Minister pulled the plug. The Public Accounts Committee said:

'The Welsh Government made some inexplicable decisions during its initial funding of this project', which included buying a motorcycle company in Buckinghamshire. Fundamental flaws in the way the regeneration investment fund for Wales was managed, overseen and advised cost Welsh taxpayers tens of millions of pounds. Failure in Welsh Government oversight and governance meant that sales of publicly owned land generated less than they should have done. In 2017, concerns were raised about Natural Resources Wales selling timber to a sawmill company without a proper business case. Again, the Public Accounts Committee said there was no evidence to demonstrate whether the contracts represent value for money. [Interruption.] Go on, then.

Do you think the £100 million that the UK Government spent in October on preparing for Brexit was money well spent?

Yes, it was. It was absolutely right, absolutely right. And, Presiding Officer, the list goes on and on. More than £5 million lost supporting the steel firm Kancoat, which went bust; £9.5 million spent on the acquisition and refit of the Pinewood Studios, now costing £400,000 a year to just keep it open; £114 million, as Angela just mentioned, had been spent on the M4 relief road project before it was axed. Throughout its time in Government, Labour has shown shocking incompetence in handling public funds and they should not look to increase taxes to make up for the deficiencies.

Low-tax economies are the most successful economies around the world. Cutting taxes boosts the economy, increases economic growth and delivers higher living standards. Wales cannot afford a tax system that acts as a barrier to economic growth and aspiration. An increased tax burden on Welsh taxpayers increases the risk that it will restrain economic growth and cost jobs. The Confederation of British Industry in Wales has rightly recognised that, quote, 'raising Welsh income tax should be a last resort and not a first response'. Quote closed.

Presiding Officer, I welcome this debate today, which I believe is long overdue in highlighting the importance of the union of the United Kingdom to the prosperity of Wales, supporting jobs, innovation, aspiration and well-being. The UK Government is playing its part in providing increased funding. It is now for the Welsh Government to commit those resources to deliver real benefits for the economy and our public services.

One last point that I'd like to say: the fact is, there are more than 17 per cent of households that are workless in Wales, and 12 per cent of children living in those households. I think it's a shame for the Government, for the poverty of children is certainly not acceptable in this developed nation. Thank you.

I'm genuinely going to try to make a non-partisan, non-political speech here, which is unusual in the middle of an election, but actually it comes out of something that has arisen in the middle of the election. Because I've been sent a copy of a letter that's been sent, apparently, to all parliamentary party candidates and it's signed by the head of external affairs for the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales; Dave Hagendyk, the director of the Learning and Work Institute Wales; Heather Myers, chief executive of the South and Mid Wales Chambers of Commerce; Iestyn Davies, chief executive of ColegauCymru; Professor Julie Lydon OBE, chair of Universities Wales; Margaret Phelan, Wales official of the University and Colleges Union; Rob Simkins of the NUS; and Ruth Marks, chief executive of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. 

The letter is actually calling on whatever Government is in place after the election to make sure not only that former funds that we were having from the European Union are replaced in full, but that the decisions that are made on them are made in Wales. And they say:

'We are calling on all political parties to replace structural funds in full. The current UK Government has pledged to create a Shared Prosperity Fund to replace these funds. Any Shared Prosperity Fund must be devolved by design and operate on a needs-based model.'

And they refer to the way in which European funding, funding that, indeed, went from taxpayers throughout the country to the EU but came back to Wales in spades—in spades—was actually used and plays a critical role in Wales in research and innovation, in our most disadvantaged communities, in young people and adults seeking to improve their skills and find employment and build careers, and the sustainable management of our natural resources. 

The replacement funding that we're looking for is equivalent to around £370 million a year, which we currently receive through European structural and investment funds. The replacement has got to be long term and needs based, and it's got to have within it permanent adjustment to the block grant above and over Barnett. And it's because, despite progress—and I could turn to the progress that we have made and the resilience that some of that funding has given to some of our communities—those regional inequalities, both in Wales and in other parts of the UK, still are there. And, in Wales, they often remain some of the highest in the EU. They don't disappear, these issues, with Brexit, and they could get even worse without continued investment that fits within the policy framework in Wales.

That EU funding has made an impact across the whole of Wales and across a wide range of policy areas. We can touch on the businesses that it's created and the jobs, over the last decade—48,000 new jobs and 13,000 new businesses; the 25,000 businesses that were helped with funding and support; the 86,000 people helped with funding; the 300,000 people who were helped with new qualifications—

Mark Isherwood rose—

I'll just finish my point, Mark, then I'll happily give way.

We could turn to the fact that on European social fund employability support projects, they were 46 per cent more likely to find work over 12 months than similarly unemployed people receiving other forms of support or no support at all; that European regional development fund business support has a positive impact on employment growth—7 per cent higher than for non-assisted businesses; that on employment levels, it's 15 per cent higher than for non-assisted businesses; that turnover growth is 5 per cent higher; and turnover levels, 12 per cent higher—I could go on.

Before I bring you in, Mark, it's also about the criticality of these to research and innovation, including some of the ones that many of us have visited and had our photos taken in. So, things such as Swansea University's bay campus, Blaenau Gwent learning zone, Coleg y Cymoedd's Nantgarw campus, the Menai Science Park, Aberystwyth University innovation campus, the Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, Baglan Energy Park, and so on. And I could list, to my right honourable colleague here who sits in another place as well, the investment that's gone into many of Wales's finest tourism venues as well, whether it's the Wales coastal path, Venue Cymru, Ponty lido, Nant Gwrtheyrn, and so on and so on.

The criticality of this is that that letter makes clear, as, I have to say, do the majority of people who are looking with interest at the future of the UK shared prosperity fund, that decisions on the future, as well as replacing the whole of those funds, need to be made in Wales. I hope Mark would support that as I take the intervention.

I not only support you, but I hope that you will share my pleasant response to the statement in the Conservative manifesto that:

'The UK Shared Prosperity Fund will be used to bind together the whole of the United Kingdom.'

In Wales, there will be no loss of equivalent EU funding—it's in the manifesto.

Sorry, I've gone over time. It would be a helpful clarification, Mark, if, in the current uncertainty and lack of any knowledge of what's going on with the UK shared prosperity fund, any incoming Government would, on day one, make crystal clear that they were replacing the £370 million annually, that that was coming to Wales and would be factored into the policy framework, and that decisions would be made in Wales. Has that been said within the manifesto? Has that been said? [Interruption.]—No, I'm sorry, I have gone over time. That would be helpful, because we have a different policy framework here in Wales. I know I'm over time, Llywydd, because of that intervention. Because of that different policy framework, because of the investment that we know continues to need to be made in Wales, let's all agree, please, in this Senedd—this Parliament—that the people we have here should be making the decision on that spending in future.

The Minister for Finance to contribute—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome today's debate and the opportunity to set out the reality of what's actually happened to Wales's finances. In short, had the Welsh Government's budget grown in line with the economy since 2010-11, it would be £4 billion higher next year. Against this stark backdrop, I do find it extraordinary that the Welsh Conservatives have actually chosen to debate the issue of UK Government funding for Wales during the course of a general election. It's entirely their choice, but it's certainly not something I would want to be drawing attention to in their shoes.

Would the Minister take an intervention? You made reference to the £4 billion figure there. Of course, in your amendment to today's debate, it talks about being £300 million worse off. Your colleague, Mike Hedges, referred to an £800 million figure. Who does these figures for you on behalf of the Government—is it Diane Abbott?

The figures that we've had in the motion and the figures that I've just given to you now are both correct, because the figure that relates to the £300 million over 10 years is, obviously, a correct figure, as is it the correct figure if the funding had grown in line with the economy. If we had grown in line with public spending over that period, we'd actually have £5 billion or £6 billion more. So, whichever way you cut it, Wales has been shortchanged by the UK Government. 

And the success, I have to say, of the fiscal framework in securing the needs-based Holtham funding floor was a success for the Welsh Government, and that was hard won by my predecessor, achieved after years of negotiation. So, it's by no means an act of generosity by the UK Government. But, by 2021, the funding floor, as negotiated by Mark Drakeford, will have delivered around £160 million more for Wales, and whilst only a UK Government can truly end austerity, this important difference is a testament, I think, to the Welsh Government's determination to stand up for Wales, and it simply wouldn't have happened without that determination. 

Contrary to the Welsh Conservatives's motion, the current level of funding per person in Wales, relative to comparable programmes in England, is not simply the result of the fiscal framework. It represents the cumulative effect of the Barnett formula and population movements over many years. The change we have secured through the fiscal framework will ensure that the level of funding that reflects the need in Wales is maintained.

Over the past decade, the UK Government's record on investing in Wales on non-devolved responsibilities has been shameful. The motion neglects to mention that the £790 million set aside for growth deals is actually spread over a period of 15 to 20 years. While the UK Government makes promises for tomorrow, it has presided over consistent under-investment on non-devolved issues, such as rail infrastructure and digital connectivity.   

Will you take an intervention? Thank you for that. That amount of money might be spread over a number of years, but it is, you must welcome, an amount of money that is going to come to Wales that wouldn't otherwise. On the fiscal framework, which, again, you've only just touched upon, I wasn't mudslinging earlier, as Rhun pointed out, I was actually complimenting the way the Welsh Government and the UK Government have worked together on that fiscal framework. That's a success for Wales, and that's money that will come to Wales that we wouldn't otherwise have had. 

Yes, and that money was hard won by years of negotiations on the part of the Welsh Government, which Mark Drakeford led on. 

Moving back to the issue of the consistent underinvestment by the UK Government in non-devolved areas in Wales, between 2011 and 2016, the Welsh Government contributed around £362 million to wider public sector spending on Welsh railways. We also invested over £220 million in rail infrastructure enhancement, including funding from EU structural funds. And during the same period, the UK Government chose to invest just £198 million on enhancing the network in Wales—proof, I think, that their priorities lay elsewhere.

Through Superfast Cymru, a total of nearly £230 million of public funding has been invested in providing access to superfast broadband to 733,000 homes and businesses, and let's be clear: these are homes and businesses that would not otherwise be able to access broadband. A hundred and forty six million pounds was invested from Welsh Government and EU funding support, while only £67 million of that was provided by the UK Government. Llywydd, this is major funding that could have been spent on devolved services, but we have been forced to step in where the UK Government has refused to fulfil its responsibilities.

Turning to this year's UK spending round, let me briefly summarise what it means for our budget. But, before I do, I will address the point that I believe Nick Ramsay made in terms of wishing to see a longer-term investment and a longer-term profile for spending. Well, that's something that we obviously share in Welsh Government but, unfortunately, despite being promised a three-year comprehensive spending review, we were just offered a one-year spending round that doesn't even give us the confidence of future spending that some departments in the UK Government have. 

In our 2021 budget, it will be 2 per cent or £300 million lower in real terms than compared to 2010-11. And, of course, there's the impact of the UK Treasury's choice to play fast and loose with the agreed rules that we have on funding allocations. This year, that approach delivered a £35 million shortfall for our budget following the failure of the UK Government to fully fund increased public sector pensions. I have to say that that shortfall rises to around £50 million next year, so that's £50 million that I'm not able to put into schools and classrooms in Wales; it's £50 million that doesn't go to the health service; it's £50 million that can't go almost halfway to meeting the identified spend that Angela Burns would like to see in terms of introducing more nurses to Wales. So, that's all money that can't be spent in Wales because we've been shortchanged by the UK Government. 

The pitiful outcome of a decade of austerity should be a source of deep embarrassment to the Welsh Conservatives, and we'll take no lessons from the UK Government when it comes to investing in health and education. Spending per person on health and social services here in Wales stands at more than £3,000, and that's the highest of the four UK countries. Spending per person on education in Wales was more than £1,300, and that's 6 per cent higher than in England.

Within the straitjacket of a decade of austerity, we continue to invest in the public services where there is greatest need. We've committed in our manifesto, and I have to say—

The Deputy Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Will you take an intervention? Just on that health figure, I don't disagree with you. I haven't got the figures in front of me, but I don't disagree with you that the figure might be higher here, but, of course, that isn't necessarily the issue. The issue is the rate of increase of the health budget within Wales vis-à-vis the other parts of the UK, and that's where—. Because you start off with a block of money, which we started off with at the start of devolution, if that isn't increasing at an appropriate level, then that will cause the problems, not necessarily the overall amount of money.

Well, Welsh Government has, over a period of years, prioritised the health service in terms of its budget and I've been very clear in the discussions that we've had in this Chamber and elsewhere that Welsh Government will again, this year, in our budget, which we'll be publishing on 16 December, be prioritising the health service alongside, of course, giving local authorities the best possible settlement.

The motion refers to Welsh rates of income tax, and we've committed in our manifesto and I've repeated, ad infinitum, in the Chamber that we will not be raising Welsh rates of income tax during this Assembly term.

Will you take an intervention just on that point? It actually refers not just to Welsh rates of income tax. It says 'tax'—full stop. So, can you give us an assurance that you won't be introducing any new or additional taxes, not just increasing the rate of income tax, but new or additional taxes before the next Assembly election?

Welsh Government has been really clear in terms of the new taxes that it's exploring introducing. So, we're currently exploring introducing a vacant land tax, but, of course, this process has taken a lot longer than we would have hoped, again, due to delays on the part of the UK Government. So, there would be no possibility of introducing a new tax this side of the Assembly elections, but, of course, we have ambitious ideas for what might be possible in the next term of the Assembly, and Members will be familiar with the areas that we're looking at.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, turning to Plaid Cymru's amendments, the Welsh Government set out a radical, evidence-based approach to reforming our union and we absolutely do not accept that independence serves the interests of the people of Wales. In our view, the constitutional arrangements for a union of four nations must respect the identity and aspirations of each, while preserving the collective interests of the whole, and the governance of such a union must reflect the reality that it's a voluntary union of four parts working together for mutual benefit.

And whilst the case for the union goes well beyond just the issues of finance, it is within the context of this debate that we recognise the gap between money raised in Wales and money spent for the benefit of people in Wales. The last figures of 2017-18 stood at £13.7 billion, and, of course, that gap is met through our membership of the United Kingdom. And the Welsh fiscal deficit equivalent is around £4,000 per head each year.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, just to conclude, the contrast between the level of investment in Wales during the first decade of devolution and the second couldn't be clearer. Our budget increased by over 60 per cent in real terms between 1999, 2000 and 2010-11—and, oh to be a finance Minister in those days. The percentage of people living in poverty in Wales fell by 3 percentage points, and at the end of that period, the poverty rate in Wales was the same as that for the whole of the UK, despite us having started the period with a much higher rate, and that shows what can be achieved when you have a Labour-led Government in Wales and the UK working together for the many and not the few.

Thank you very much. Can I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have to say, I'm a little disappointed with the Government response today. It was rather mealymouthed of them not to actually recognise the significant achievements of the UK Government in increasing the expenditure available to Wales. Of course, we have a record block grant this year here in Wales in cash terms—we know that that is the case. And we also know that it's the UK Government that delivered this fiscal framework. It takes two to tango. I recognise very much that the Welsh Government had to work with the UK Government, but that settlement was a mutually agreed settlement, and it's a bit disappointing that the Welsh Government hasn't recognised the role that the UK Government played in securing that.

It is a fact, as Nick Ramsay quite rightly said in his opening speech, that Wales receives £1.20 for every pound that is spent in England at the moment. I note that even the Welsh Government recognises that not all of that money is actually passed on to the national health service or our education system. You've quoted the figures yourself in your amendment. You said that spending is only 11 per cent higher here in Wales than in England, when, actually, it would be 20 per cent higher. That's what the facts actually are. I know you don't like it—[Interruption.] I know you don't like to hear this, but let me just spell it out—[Interruption.] Let's just spell this out very clearly: the fact is Wales receives £1.20 for every £1, but you're only spending £1.11 of that on the NHS and 6p more in terms of spending on education. So, that's way down.

What are you doing with the rest of the money? I'll tell you what you're doing, you're squandering a lot of it. You heard some references to those things that are being squandered from Angela Burns, Mohammad Asghar and others on these benches during the course of the debate. So, there are no excuses for the fact that you, as a Government, are failing to invest in our health service and failing to invest in our schools. That's why it should be no surprise that we have one of the worst performing education systems in the UK—in fact, the worst according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—and why our waiting times are longer, our ambulance service is worse, and our emergency department performance is worse here than in other parts of the United Kingdom. So, you said that you're being shortchanged by the UK Government; the reality is you're shortchanging our national health service and you are shortchanging our schools.

I smirk to myself every time Plaid Cymru get up and talk about the failures of previous Governments in this Chamber, because the party always fails to recognise its own responsibility when it was in Government here in Wales, propping up the Labour Government. I remember when Ieuan Wyn Jones was the Deputy First Minister and Minister for the Economy and Transport. In that time, we sent back £77 million in unspent EU aid in 2009, during his tenure: £77 million-worth of investment that could have been spent usefully to try and improve the economy of Wales. I'll happily take the intervention.

How much money did John Redwood send back from the Welsh Office to Westminster?

Let's talk about your record, because I know that you don't like to talk about your record, but the reality is that when your Deputy First Minister, the leader of your party, was propping up the Labour Government for all those years, the performance of the economy was the worst it's ever been, in spite of the fact that you had influence and the ability to do something.

You talk about independence. We all know that it's a complete work of fiction that Wales would be able to economically survive on its own without being part of this great United Kingdom of which we are part. I'm a proud unionist, and I believe that Wales benefits from being part of the United Kingdom. Now, I'm very pleased to hear that the Welsh Government also feel that that is the case. I'll take an intervention.

Can countries of 3 million people survive economically as independent nations, and if others can, why can't Wales?

If you can explain to the people of Wales how on earth you're going to close the fiscal gap, which taxes are going to rise, which public services are going to be cut in order to make those public finances meet, then I'll happily sit down and have a conversation. If you can explain to the people of Wales and the people of England how you are going to be an independent nation without a hard border, even though you want to be part of the EU single market and the rest of the United Kingdom is going to be coming out in the near future, then I'll be happy to have a conversation, but, to date, I've seen absolutely no evidence that that can be delivered.

So, I urge every Member in this Chamber to reject the Diane Abbott-crafted amendment in the name of the Government, to reject the appalling amendment that's been tabled by Plaid Cymru, which doesn't recognise the challenges that an independent Wales would face outside of the United Kingdom, and to support the Conservative motion on the order paper today.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.