The next item, therefore, is a statement by the Minister for Economy on developing technological clusters in Wales. I call on the Minister to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The Welsh Government has consistently highlighted the importance of harnessing science, research and innovation to address societal challenges. To meet these and capitalise on opportunities, we need a coherent, co-ordinated and collaborative approach. 

A new innovation strategy for Wales is being developed in line with our commitments in the co-operation agreement and programme for government. We plan to publish in early 2023. It will provide a vision for innovation that can help to draw together our areas of strength and opportunity. We know that there are clear, transferable benefits for the economy from developing clusters of research expertise and capitalising on commercialisation and skills that arise from research.

Since 2012, the Sêr Cymru programme has helped to develop and sustain Wales's research capacity and capability. We've recently finished a consultation on the next phase. Previously, we used EU structural funds to significantly help to support research and innovation. Sadly, the UK Government has broken its promise that Wales would not receive a penny less in replacement funds. The undeniable reality is that we do not have the funds to support the next stage with the same level of public funding as before. We need to focus and theme future research calls. I expect to make a further announcement on the future of Sêr Cymru shortly.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

Critically, a small nation cannot have strength in depth right across the board. We can, however, point to clusters of technology in Wales that lead their field. The south Wales compound semi-conductor cluster is one. Combining industrial excellence and world-leading research, this cluster delivers the components that make our modern world work.

Today, I confirm our clear ambition for Wales to grow another technology cluster, while also tackling a fast-approaching challenge for medical treatment around the world. This concerns the continued production of medical radioisotopes, critical to cancer diagnosis and treatment. The equipment in facilities making these lifesaving radioactive substances is coming to the end of its useful life and being closed down. Without action, we face a real prospect in the medium-term future of not having medical radioisotopes, or the ethical nightmare of having to ration them.

The vision that we have is the creation of a critical mass of nuclear science—research, development, and innovation. Not only can Wales become the leading place in the UK for medical radioisotope production, but, with this, we can attract higher skilled jobs; create a surrounding infrastructure; support local communities; and build localised supply chains. Employment from delivering this project would cover a variety of skills and occupations: drivers, operations, production, technical staff, office staff, research scientists and engineers. It could provide well-paid, sustainable and attractive employment during both construction and operation.

As with our compound semi-conductor cluster, Sêr Cymru has already pump-primed the process, through funding a nuclear technology research chair at Bangor University’s Nuclear Futures Institute. This, and a past legacy of working with nuclear energy technologies, show north Wales as the most suitable place to develop such a cluster. Complementary research, industry expertise and activity in Wales and the wider UK will contribute and play their part in creating this new cluster.

Our initial aim is to secure the supply of medical radioisotopes for Wales and the UK through an advanced radioisotopes technology for health utility reactor, which I will now refer to as ARTHUR. The pilot project ARTHUR contributes to several aspects of the current programme for government. It reflects our commitment to build our research, development and innovation capacity in health and life sciences, while ensuring that Wales is a full partner in delivering the UK's 'Life Sciences Vision'.

This will be a major Wales and UK-wide strategic initiative. It will develop a sustainable supply of medical radioisotopes for diagnostics and treatments. Together with the north Wales medical school development, it will help to stimulate the wider north Wales economy. This represents a major collaborative development between the department for health and social sciences and the economy department within the Welsh Government. The potential from a new medical school, aligned with project ARTHUR and other health technologies, represents the best regional solution to a sustainable and secure radio-diagnostic and radio-medicines capability in north Wales.

More than that, NHS Wales and partner NHS services in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be key customers and stakeholders. To succeed, we must secure funding from different sources to create a public sector national laboratory for the supply and use of medical radioisotopes. We have all seen the consequences of supply interruptions through recent experiences, such as the temporary loss of isotopes from Cardiff University's PET imaging centre. This impacted diagnostic scans for several diseases, especially cancers. This demonstrates just how significant an impact a more general loss of supply would have on patient outcomes.

Project ARTHUR would be a multidecade endeavour, a commitment of some 60 to 70 years. Jobs created, both direct and in the associated supply chain, would be long-term and sustainable. Our facility, up and running, would then be one of only half a dozen across the world. And looking locally, successfully delivering project ARTHUR would help to sustain and improve the economy, especially in north-west Wales, an area, of course, with a long history of employment in the nuclear industry.

The ARTHUR vision includes creating a technology campus in north Wales to parallel other UK campuses with a nuclear element. These include Harwell, which is the Rutherford Appleton laboratory, and Culham, the UK Atomic Energy Authority in Oxfordshire, and at Daresbury in Cheshire.

The research component of ARTHUR would not confine itself to health research alone, but could also inquire into materials research for application in both fusion—that's fusing hydrogen isotopes—and fission energy, which is the conventional nuclear energy. This research could help to deliver reliable, sustainable and affordable low-carbon energy, and improved nuclear technologies with less waste and environmental impact and with greater efficiency.

The scale of achievement needed to deliver this is considerable. I will continue to make the case with the UK Government to co-operate in supporting our efforts. This development benefits and supports future cancer diagnostics and treatments right across the UK. I have raised the issue with a number of UK Government science Ministers, and my officials maintain a constructive dialogue with UK Government counterparts. The challenge of medical radioisotope supply and the opportunity of a research reactor is well recognised. Now is the time for some decisive action and commitment. The implications of not acting will be counted in poorer patient outcomes that could have been avoided, and a lost economic opportunity.

As everyone knows, we are now experiencing significant economic pressures, but that is not a reason or an excuse for failing to plan for this clear future need. We must prevent a future health and economic crisis. I have therefore approved expenditure for a technical feasibility study and the development of an outline business plan. This plan will build on the technical work already undertaken in the earlier strategic outline business plan.

Our ambition is to provide a paramount technology cluster in north Wales. It would offer significant opportunity in a vital technology and substantial collaborative opportunities with like-minded countries, including Australia and Canada. This could clearly become a global centre of excellence and a source of pride for Wales and the wider UK for decades to come. I hope that we can generate cross-party and cross-Government support to do just that.

I thank the Minister and I very much welcome his statement today. The use of medical radioisotopes is an important part of modern medical practice. Their use in non-invasive diagnostic imaging techniques at an early stage helps to identify and stratify commonly occurring critical conditions such as heart disease and ultimately cancer. Disruptions in the radioisotope supply chain, which have happened regularly, do in fact disturb the availability of medical testing for people everywhere, so I do genuinely welcome this statement, which will make Wales a leader in the production of these life-saving cancer treatment substances. This plan, however, will require considerable financial investment, including from the UK Government, as the Minister stated. So, I'd like to ask the Minister what discussions have been held with the UK Ministers in this regard, and with which departments specifically has the Minister had conversations to seek support for developing the site and getting the appropriate funding that's required. 

With regard to Cwmni Egino—I apologise for my pronunciation—it was reported towards the end of last year that they were developing a business plan for the site with the aim of construction starting in 2027. So, can you confirm, Minister, that the business plan is now complete and that the project is in fact on schedule? May I also ask the Minister for more details regarding the economic benefits of this investment at Trawsfynydd? It is reported that this plan will create around 200 jobs, which is always welcome, but can you advise how many of these jobs will be high-skill jobs? And do you envisage this site being expanded to include other sectors to support advances in physical sciences, making Ynys Môn a hub for the nuclear industry, not only in Wales, but for the United Kingdom as well?

Finally, Minister, you will be aware of the problems that people living on or in fact commuting to Ynys Môn are currently facing due to the repair work being undertaken on the Menai bridge. So, what considerations have you given, and what discussions have you had, with the Deputy Minister for Climate Change regarding the adequacy of the current transport infrastructure links to the island, and whether they could potentially hinder any further developments at the Trawsfynydd site? Thank you so much.

I'll just deal with what I was modestly confused by, almost as if Wylfa and Trawsfynydd were on the same site in some of the points. The Traws site is an obvious candidate for the proposal we're talking about today, but in moving forward with the business plan, it will be site agnostic. Trawsfynydd has a nuclear licence for development, the other site being Wylfa, but we'll need to look at what is the best fit in terms of developing the site. The Cwmni Egino development is focusing on the potential for small modular rector production, as I've made clear in previous statements. Now, the size and the scale of the reactor we're talking about for ARTHUR is sufficiently small that you could do both on either site, because what we're talking about is a reactor that would be essentially 1 per cent of the size of the previous Horizon proposal on Wylfa.

I think that shows you can do something small with entirely different safety questions around it in terms of the scale, but it is essential for the way that a modern health service works and functions. If you look at the development in Australia, they have not just done something that deals with their own healthcare needs for that part of the world, not just in Australia but for partner countries as well, but also the significant additional economic and research activity around the site. And that's where I think there is potential, not just for the direct provision of the radioisotopes that we need—we know that supply in western Europe is coming to an end—but there is a wider technology cluster opportunity that is available. That's where I'm interested in seeing what we can do.

I've had direct conversations with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the UK Government. As I say, I've had this conversation with a number of science Ministers. I've spoken to George Freeman about this in one of his previous iterations as science Minister. And as I said in my statement, there have been constructive and regular conversations between my own officials and those across the UK Government. 

We're in the fortunate position of having myself and the health department being in the same place and wanting to see the opportunity taken up. We need to have a similar conversation that would be ideal with both the health department and, indeed, BEIS in the UK Government, and there are then questions about the future funding. We would like the UK Government to be a partner in doing this. It is also possible that you could deliver some of this with private sector investment. My preference would be that we'd see this as part of a sovereign capability for the UK, with the ideal site, I believe, being here in Wales. However, there are a range of options and opportunities, because as we have seen in other parts of the world, there is a return on capital investment and a potential return on the operating cost of such a site, if successfully delivered.

Once we've gone through what I've outlined today, we'll have a much better idea of the technical facilities and capabilities we'd be looking to build, and a much better investment projector to be able to take this forward. And I would hope that a UK Government of any particular political shade would recognise the significant opportunity this represents and what that would mean in terms of genuine economic development in long-term jobs here in Wales. 

I thank the Minister for his statement. 

We agree that harnessing science research and innovation to address societal challenges is important, as is improving investment in science, technology, engineering and mathematics and research and development, which will have huge benefits for the Welsh economy, and we must continue developing our manufacturing and exporting in these areas. Of course, we support the ambition of establishing new technological clusters across Wales. However, if we really wish to boost Wales's technology research and design, manufacturing and exporting sectors, we have to have a strong research, development and innovation base, but Wales has had historically low levels of R&D for decades.

The British Heart Foundation found that, in 2019, total expenditure on R&D in Wales was £794 million, or 1.2 per cent of gross value added. Out of the three devolved nations of the UK and each of the nine regions of England, Wales has the lowest R&D expenditure as a proportion of GVA. They also found that 82 per cent of people believe it's important for Wales to be undertaking medical research, and 34 per cent of people think not enough research is currently happening in Wales.

Neither the UK Government's continued stalemate on Horizon association and the cut that is coming via the UK shared prosperity fund will help this funding situation in Wales, of course. However, the UK Government added funding to research in England to help with the Horizon stalemate and this meant a Barnett consequential. I asked you, Minister, in December to confirm the Barnett amount and asked whether it would be added to university research, but you declined to commit to the consequential being passed on. It is fair for the Welsh Government to criticise the Horizon stalemate, the shared prosperity fund and the damage caused, but it is questionable to then not allocate the Barnett consequential from the interim funding.

To see the full effect of programmes like the tech clusters and the Welsh Government's export plan, we must do everything we can to support our research base here in Wales. Scotland confirmed its amount and passed it on shortly after I asked this question to you in December, which meant an extra £24.6 million for Scottish research. Will you follow suit? If you were to make that call, that would go some way in making our universities more competitive. Quality-related research funding in Wales should be at £100 million; there's a shortfall of £18 million. At the very least, will you commit to uplifting QR funding by £18 million by the end of this Senedd term?

There are a couple of specific questions. On the £18 million by the end of this Senedd term, we've yet to pass the budget we've just laid in draft form, and of course that's got to go through scrutiny and a final vote. We then have other budgets, and of course we'll look to the future of research funding in those future budgets. It all depends on not just the overall settlement the Welsh Government gets but the priorities we set within it. In our draft budget, we've set out health and local government, including education within that, as our big priorities, and that has consequences for the way we allocate the budget not just to those departments, but to all others as well.

I recognise the point you're making about Horizon. I will be able to announce shortly what is happening, so there'll be clarity on that. I've just been checking with my colleague the finance Minister, but we do expect to be able to make an announcement on that in the very near future, so there won't be much longer to wait. There'll be clarity on the money that is happening, what we've got, and how it's going to be used post Horizon. I hope that the broadly positive conversations that appear to have taken place on data sharing between the EU and the UK will be helpful for unlocking more for the future. Horizon is but one aspect of that, tied up with the Northern Ireland protocol and broader relations between the UK and the European Union. We continue to want to be constructive in that and making clear Wales has a very direct interest in the outcome of those discussions.

As I said in the statement, there's the undeniable reality that the replacement for structural funds is not going to reach the quantum that we previously had, and we've previously used a significant amount of that in research, development and innovation funding. The way that the shared prosperity fund in particular has been set up has essentially excluded higher and further education research. That's a significant problem. You and other Members will no doubt have heard directly from Universities Wales about the very direct problems that is going to cause, and the fact that when those funding streams come to an end, I'm afraid that we expect some people will find their employment and the research projects will come to an end. That's not an outcome that I think anyone in this Chamber campaigned for, but it's the direct reality of choices that are being made. It's within that backdrop that we're looking to develop not just this project, as the proposal I think does have significant economic potential in a discrete area that I hope will maximise support around it, but the broader points around the innovation strategy that we are developing.

Part of that is—and it's one of the challenges we need to set ourselves for the future landscape—we get just over 3 per cent of competitive UK funding calls coming to Wales, so we're underachieving in actually acquiring from those UK-wide funding pots. That's a big challenge for us to address. At the same time, one of the positive things the UK Government has been doing is saying it's going to put more money into the future of research, development and innovation spend. We need to make sure that Wales gets its share of that. I think that's a separate question compared to whether we can find the capital funding to see this project through with what I think that will then do in attracting a particular level and a particular type of research funding and economic activity to Wales. I think ARTHUR is slightly different, but there is a much broader point that I recognise on what we're going to be able to do with the future of innovation funding as well as the strategy that I look forward to being able to launch in the not-too-distant future, following what I hope will be constructive conversations with our co-operation agreement partners.

I very warmly welcome the statement. This is what levelling up looks like. This is what technological clusters and what successful economies have. It will also help stimulate the economy by attracting highly skilled jobs and create a surrounding infrastructure. The UK has no domestic supply of many radioisotopes, relying on imports from European facilities. This is an opportunity to have such a facility. Medical radioisotopes are critical to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer, and they can also be used to sterilise medical equipment. I have two questions. The Minister mentioned Bangor; which other universities is the Welsh Government working with on this project? Is this the start of developing a non-hospital medical physics industry in Wales, and how will it work with the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington?

I think the two detailed questions are actually around some of the points that we're looking to address in both the technical specifications around what we'd want to do on the site, but then the broader call for people to be involved not just in the creation of a radioisotope production facility, likely to be in north-west Wales because of the likely candidate sites, but what that then means in terms of research and collaboration with both other Welsh universities and other institutions around the UK. There is no facility like this within the UK, and if we're successful in creating it, I fully anticipate that there will be significant UK-wide interest in the potential for a technology cluster and high-level UK research and funding to go alongside it.

I think you make an important point about our current supplies of radioisotopes. We don't produce any within the UK in any material way. What we do is we rely on production from European Union countries, essentially. There's all the transport of those in. I remember from the difficulties of considering what a 'no deal' Brexit might look like on more than one occasion that the ability to successfully import radioisotopes was a significant factor within that. We know, and we knew at the time, that that production would come to an end at some point in Western Europe, who we currently rely upon. So, it highlights the fact that we've known that this is a challenge, we're planning for it, and we do have a plan in Wales about how to address it, not just for us, but for the wider UK, and, indeed, countries nearby where there's a potential for export, because, at the moment, there aren't other proposals to try to fill this gap in other comparable healthcare systems. As we get through this stage of it, I'll be more than happy to come back on the detail and the potential.

The Minister mentioned the open-pool Australian lightwater reactor project. I've actually spoken to some of the experts in Australia in medicinal nuclear; I've spoken to experts in Canada as well, and I'm due to have a meeting with the Jules Horowitz research reactor in France and the München research reactor before long. The Minister mentioned there that there's no comparable development. Well, the Jules Horowitz is a comparable development, and the UK is a key partner in the Jules Horowitz development, which would ensure radioisotopes for the UK post Brexit.

But nevertheless, in January 2015, Dr François Bénard and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia had shown that cyclotrons could replace large nuclear reactors as the main source of radioisotopes. Dr Bénard, the pre-eminent expert in this field, said:

'With this solution, we’ll be able to make completely locally-grown isotopes, without any long-term radioactive waste'.

By December 2020, Canada's health regulating body had given their approval for cyclotron production of technetium-99m to be used in their health procedures. It's been lauded as a greener, more reliable way to make technetium-99m, and it opens the door to huge possibilities, not least because many of the world's most common cyclotrons will now be able to produce technetium-99m.

So, does the Minister accept that it is therefore not necessary to develop a nuclear reactor and all of the dangerous radioactive waste and damaging environmental impact that comes with this, and that we should reach out and work with TRIUMF and British Columbia university so that we can develop these cyclotrons at Trawsfynydd in order to roll them out across the UK?

Actually, the cyclotron at Cardiff University that provides the PET scanners in Cardiff was one with which we had a particular problem. So, our challenge is, right across the UK, we don't produce enough. We significantly import those as it stands. And for all the potential of cyclotrons, we don't think—. The advice that I'm being given, the base on which we're planning, is that that isn't going in itself to deal with all of our needs. And that's the point: how do we deal with all of our needs for a modern healthcare system? We're talking about a very significantly different scale of proposal compared to the former Horizon proposal on Wylfa. So, it's nothing like the same scale.

When it comes to the characterisation of the Jules Horowitz reactor in France, our understanding is it's not going to be ready in the time frame that we want it to be, and indeed that it's not primarily being built for medical radioisotope production. There are different conversations that appear to have been had, but I've had direct conversations with officials in the Welsh Government office for science, within the NHS and economic development, and we do think that there is a need and a gap to be filled. We believe that north-west Wales is the most likely area of the UK for that to happen, and where we would like it happen, because of the potential to secure both the supply for health service use, but also for the economic development potential that would come alongside it as well.

I recognise the Member has an entirely upfront, broadly sceptical view to a range of these issues, and concerns around safety and what would happen. I think it's entirely legitimate to keep on asking those questions. We'll keep on developing the proposal and we'll need to make choices around securing future funding. I look forward to engaging with him and partners constructively about that, even if we don't always agree on every single aspect of it.

I'd like to start by thanking the Welsh Government for their continued recognition of the highly skilled workforce that we have in north Wales and for the investments being made in the health sector, including the medical school in Bangor. Medical radioisotopes can now be created by particle reactors, as was mentioned earlier, rather than nuclear reactors, and have been for some time in other countries. The latest and next-generation accelerators are much smaller and have a lower cost then previous generations. I'm told that the best locations for these, that may have a shorter shelf life, could possibly be by medical facilities and in areas with good transport infrastructure. So, I was wondering what has the Welsh Government done already and what research has been made into the latest technology alternative to nuclear, which has obvious drawbacks, as was mentioned earlier by Mabon? And what consideration has the Welsh Government given to investing in these, and also the assessment regarding transport from the rural area? The transport around there is quite difficult as well if there's a shorter shelf life of this product.

One of the challenges is the fact that there is a short shelf life for these products. It was one of the concerns about a 'no deal' Brexit. I had to go through, I think, three different iterations of 'no deal' Brexit planning, and as well as challenges for pharmaceutical suppliers and a whole load of other things, radioisotope supplies were always near the top of the list as to what would happen. In fact, in the previous Senedd, Mike Hedges was regularly asking questions about whether we'd be able, on a licence basis, outside the European Union, to be able to have isotope supply. Some of that was resolved, but the challenge was really about if there would be delays because of the point about the shelf life. When it comes to our current import journey for the bulk of the isotopes that we use, we manage that successfully. However, having a production facility in Wales, including in north-west Wales, would be adequate in terms of shelf life and our ability to get it from where it's being produced to where it's needed. But in terms of going through the greater detail that this work would now undertake, it should deal with both those transport issues and indeed the point that yourself and Mabon ap Gwynfor have made about are there alternative technologies available, how far can they fill the gap, and then the need that is still there for, as I say, something that will be 1 per cent of the previous Horizon proposal and a very, very different scale of operation being proposed with all the attendant issues around that. I recognise the concerns people will have about the safe operation of facilities like this, as well as seeing the potential for investment. I'm very proud that we're continuing to make progress on the north Wales medical school. I see the former Minister for north Wales on the screen in front of me—it was part of the conversation we had in the last Government, and we're looking to carry on and deliver within this term as well.  

And finally, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, thanks very much for your exciting statement. I think the ARTHUR programme has all of the potential to become an incredibly important, strategic part of the economy of north Wales and, indeed, the wider nuclear arc across north Wales and the north-west of England. Of course, as you said, north Wales is in a unique position of being the only part of the UK that is really getting ready to embrace this opportunity and the supply chain opportunities that it could open up.

I was just wondering, in terms of other projects that you're leading on, how does this fit with your work in prioritising magnet projects that crowd in investment, based on comparative advantages that we have in Wales, for example the advanced manufacturing research centre and advanced technology research centre? And also, as you've outlined, this programme has come as a result of Ministers and officials across Welsh Government departments working very closely over quite a significant period of time. Indeed, when you were in your previous role and when I was in the role that you now have, we worked very closely in developing the outline ideas for what you've proposed today. How far do you think we would have come by now had Ministers and departments at a UK Government level been working as closely as Welsh Government, particularly BEIS and the Department of Health and Social Care?

Thank you for the points and questions. On your point about magnet developments, this is a good example of what you could do, because if you had the operation of a facility that would probably have likely north of 200 people employed directly in the ARTHUR facility, it would be extraordinary not to have other activity around it. And the OPAL facility in Australia is a good example of that. You've seen something where there is a significant capital outlay but the opportunity to see the capital outlay returned in 15 to 20 years, to have an operating profit, and to see more jobs created around that, and they'd have to be crowded in around the facility itself. So, you really would be drawing in good-quality jobs, not just for people to come in and to live in the area, but the opportunity for people in the local area to be part of the direct engagement in that activity and the supply chains that we would want to see as localised as possible. And I do know that the leaders of the two local authorities, Ynys Môn and Gwynedd, are broadly positive about the opportunities to do this, and I'm looking forward to talking with north Wales leaders about it in the future to go through more of the detail on this.

And exactly the same for the AMRC and the ATRC that you talk about as well, because there are real opportunities to gain a much greater whole from the project rather than simply the individual parts of it at the centre. And I do think that—and it is some time ago now—in pre-COVID times, we started discussing this in our previous ministerial roles, and to see the time it's taken to get here, we could definitely have got here sooner rather than later if there had been more focus on this and less focus on other issues that have caused the instability within the UK Government that we've seen over the more recent past. I am, though, looking for a constructive conversation with Ministers in the current and any future UK Government, because I genuinely believe that this should be an opportunity for a no-regrets investment to deliver significant economic benefit and to deal with a real and pressing healthcare need, and I look forward to what I hope will be a constructive and positive response from the current or a future iteration of the UK Government.

I thank the Minister.