National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

The first item this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Economy and Transport, and the first question is from Llyr Gruffydd. 

Diolch. Improving the availability and quality of work in all parts of Wales is essential to our aim of tackling regional inequalities, and through the economic action plan we are taking action to empower people with the skills required to get the best jobs that they can and to empower each of the regions in Wales, including rural communities in those regions. 

We've seen, of course, an increase in the number of retailers who have gone into administration. I think it's up 6 per cent since 2017, and, of course, we're hearing that it's been quite a tough Christmas for businesses on the high street. Now, we need a major transformation in retail and in the way the high street operates and presents itself, particularly more challenging, I'd imagine, in rural towns than many other places. People won't stop buying; I suppose it's the way that they spend their money that's changing. But how is the Government helping those retailers, particularly in rural areas, to respond to those changes and challenges, and what are you doing to support them in that transition so that we can retain, at least, or even increase the footfall, and that we can maybe provide the enhanced shopping experience that some people are looking for?

Well, I think the Member raises a very timely question, given that we've just been through the busiest time of the year for the high street. And what is very apparent is that consumer behaviour continues to change, and many experts believe that we're only half the way thorough the, if you like, revolution that the high street is facing. Against that backdrop, the Welsh Government is able to assist, and is assisting in a number of ways, through rates relief, through the creation of business improvement districts. And I believe we are doubling the number of BIDs, with support offered from the Welsh Government for the creation of many more such interventions. But I think what is also important to note is that the retail sector has now been designated priority status by the Welsh Government, and, as my colleague the Deputy Minister takes forward work on the foundational economy, we'll be looking to test various interventions to support important components of the foundational economy, of course including the retail sector. 

What's vitally important is that we also place a renewed focus on quality of place as an attractor for consumers to go into town centres and into the high street. What we've seen in many parts of Wales, parts of the UK and the world, where there are vibrant high streets still, is that those high streets are not just based on the retail sector, on the experience of purchasing goods, but on a wider experience—on the experience of interacting with people, on services that are provided often alongside retail services. And, so, in terms of the regional plans and the place-based economic development programme that we're now taking forward, I believe that the retail sector in Wales has much to look forward to. However, that optimism that I have is set against a universal backdrop of continued consumer behavioural change.

Thank you. As part of the new economic action plan, we place particular emphasis on taking a regional approach to developing the Welsh economy. We've established chief regional officers and regional units to make sure we co-ordinate our work with local partners. And we are working with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to inform our approach to regional investment post Brexit.

Okay, thank you. The Welsh Government announced, as 2019 began, that the OECD will lead a new project to support the development of a regional economic development policy for Wales. This new project will see international experts visit Wales and discuss regional economic challenges and opportunities with partners. How can we mitigate the loss of European Union regional investment, and may I invite these experts and professionals to visit Islwyn to meet with politicians and officers from Caerphilly County Borough Council to explore how the Welsh Government can facilitate the future economic well-being of communities like mine in Islwyn?

Thank you. Yes, I'm sure that the OECD team will be keen to learn lessons from the experience in Caerphilly, and specifically in the Islwyn constituency. So, I very much hope that they'd want to meet with the officers there. This will be a two-year project. The first phase is now under way. And I think it's really important that we have external challenge and scrutiny to the approach that we've been taking, so we constantly iterate it. And I'm very keen that we focus on grounded firms and the foundational economy to see if we can make a tangible difference to the way people feel the local economy works for them.

On the Member's point on Brexit, then clearly it's important that the campaigners' promise that Wales will be no worse off as a result of Brexit is kept, and we'll be holding them to make sure that, in the world after regional funds—if it comes to that—we get no less money than we're getting now.

Cabinet Secretary, you'll be aware that communities in Islwyn form part of the Cardiff capital region economic growth partnership. At their board meeting last November, those members in attendance stated their support for an M4 relief road to be built around Newport. They said that an M4 relief road is critical to support and enable the economic and industrial strategy for growth for south-east Wales. Can the Deputy Minister advise when the Welsh Government will be in a position to bring this issue before this Assembly, and end the uncertainty that is damaging the economic prospects of my region?

Thank you. I think the First Minister has been clear and consistent in the process that's undergoing on the M4. He's still awaiting for the legal advice before he can look at the evidence of the public inquiry—he's not yet been presented with the inspector's report. And he'll take that decision in the way that it's been set out on a number of occasions.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, can you outline what plans are in place for the implementation of your economic action plan this year?

Yes, and I thank the Member for his question, and wish him and all other Members a very happy new year.

Of course, the economic action plan now has with it regional teams established and chief regional officers. We've got a cross-Government delivery board, regional plans are being put together at the moment, and the OECD has been invited to scrutinise and assess the success of the EAP. We've implemented the economic contract and also the economy futures fund, and, with the economy futures fund, of course, the calls to action—the lens through which we are now investing in businesses.

Can I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome him back to the post in the new Government?

Of course, you talked there about the implementation of the plan, but what I want to understand is the detail of that. Certainly, at the meeting of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee in January, Members asked you about the delivery of the new economic action plan, and at that meeting, when asked by committee members about the detail of delivering the action plan, you said that discussions were under way between the Welsh Government and relevant stakeholders and that more details would follow in the spring. So, I submitted a written question in the spring and asked for progress on the economic contract and the calls for action—of course, two key components of the plan—and in your answer, you said that,

'We have been discussing our approach with businesses and other organisations across Wales'.

So, again, I asked you in a written question just before Christmas—just last month—and in your answer then you said that your planned measures included refining your approach in 2019 and taking forward work to develop challenge proposals with groups of businesses. So, my concern here, Minister, is that there is talk about plans but nothing that we can tangibly see. All I hear about is plans: plans to deliver a plan and then to deliver the next plan. So, I will ask, Minister: has the delivery of the action plan stalled, and, again, when will we and businesses see progress tangibly on the ground?

The Member is absolutely right that it's all about implementing the plan. It's not just about designing a plan and publishing a plan, as the UK Government has found in its inability to implement a Brexit plan or indeed even get agreement for it. I am able to confirm to the Member that the economic contract is now in place and more than 100 businesses seeking financial support from the Welsh Government have signed the economic contract. In terms of refining the economic action plan, we're looking at how we can firstly extend the principles of the economic contract right across Government, including through procurement, but we're also looking at, as I think I've already made clear in previous committee appearances, how we can consolidate further funds into the economy futures fund. Dozens of awards have been made already through the economy futures fund. I think perhaps one of the highlights of the period between launch of the EAP and implementation has come just this week, when we were able to announce support for Thales to take forward the National Digital Exploitation Centre, which is of course an initiative that meets more than one of the calls to action. It focuses largely on the development of skills. It focuses on research and development, and it also focuses on innovation, demonstrating how the economic action plan is already making a big difference as we strive to increase the availability of high-skilled, well-paid work and as we drive forward the inclusive growth agenda.

It's perhaps worth my saying as well that, in terms of the challenge opportunities that we're looking at considering soon, just before Christmas I shared a platform with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Greg Clark, in London at the Royal Society, where we both talked about the importance of place-based economic development and how the economic action plan can dovetail with the UK industrial strategy in a number of ways. One of the ways in which we discussed further collaboration or one of the avenues that we discussed in terms of further collaboration concerned the UK Government's grand challenges and the Welsh Government's challenge proposals from business.

So, I think that a huge amount of work has already taken place in terms of implementing the economic action plan, through those dozens of awards, through the economy futures fund, and many jobs have been created. But, most importantly of all, we are now driving a very, very clear inclusive growth agenda through the implementation of the economic contract and through businesses so warmly welcoming it and signing up to that contract.

[Inaudible.] delivery, of course—that is important, rather than just a plan. What businesses need, I'm sure you will agree, is clarity to operate effectively, and they're looking to the Welsh Government to provide this. So, Minister, I want to see something specific and something practical happening on the ground, and what is going to be delivered over this next 12 months? Businesses want to know that and I think we, as Members, want to know that in order that we can hold you to account and scrutinise you in that regard. But can I ask you to consider setting out a timetable—a month-by-month timetable—over this next year so that we can measure the delivery against your economic plan?

Can I point to a number of areas that I think Members should take an interest in this year, particularly after we exit the EU, and they concern the awards that we make through the economy futures fund: how many awards are we making to businesses that are seeking to drive inclusive growth and to futureproof themselves and the Welsh economy?

The second concerns the economic contract: how many businesses are signing up to the economic contract? And then, thirdly, the creation of the regional units: how many members of the civil service are allocated to the contract research organisations? At present, CRO teams are very small. It's my intention, as we drive regional economic growth—that place-based agenda—to increase those teams as rapidly as possible so that the change on the ground is very apparent to businesses.

What businesses tell me, day-in, day-out, is that there is a large number of advisory services and there's a large number of support services available, but the problem, perhaps, is that there isn't simplicity and transparency. And within the ethos of the Be The Spark initiative, we need to ensure that there is greater simplicity, collaboration and consolidation wherever and whenever possible, and, for that reason, we're setting up the regional units, bringing together Welsh Government activities and local government activities on a regional basis and aligning them with the services offered by Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales. So, no matter where you are in Wales, you are only one  point of contact away from financial support, an advisory service and the sort of support that's required in order to futureproof your business in the fourth industrial revolution.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Minister, could you remind us how you define what an anchor company is and how important you think their well-being and long-term sustainability is to the Welsh economy?

The Member will be interested to know that I'm carrying out a review of the definition of anchor company status and regionally important companies. There is no doubt that large companies make a huge contribution to the Welsh economy. In 2018, Presiding Officer, there were 1,675 large enterprises active in Wales, and that represented 0.6 per cent of all active enterprises in Wales, which is well above the equivalent UK figure of 0.1 per cent. As we've seen with the likes of Aston Martin and Airbus, those companies that are currently considered anchor companies are hugely important in driving growth within their respective supply chains. 

I'm very interested to note the review that will be taking place and I look forward to hearing the results of that review. Ford, of course, is one anchor company. A thousand jobs are at risk there, we now understand. Airbus is another. Goodness knows what threats there will be to future investment there in light of Brexit. Wylfa Newydd, surely, would be an anchor in years to come. I'll have a chance to return to that issue with a topical question later on. But how do you reflect on the potential impact of the fact that across Wales anchors seem to be slipping, and is that a driver behind the review that you've called? 

Anchors aren't slipping, necessarily. Let's take Airbus as a perfect example. They are becoming far more efficient, and Airbus has approximately 6,000 employees in Broughton. It's about the same that it had six years ago, but what's changed between 2013 and 2019 is that the site has become about 40 per cent more efficient, and that has to take place—that sort of efficient drive has to take place right across all businesses if they're to succeed and strive in the fourth industrial revolution, the age of digitalisation, digitisation, artificial intelligence and automation.

Ford is a major concern, and just as I'll be at Airbus tomorrow talking about the consequences and the implications of what's happening at Westminster with business leaders in north Wales, and primarily with Airbus, today the First Minister was at Ford discussing the future of the plant. What is very apparent is that the change in the automotive sector is presenting huge challenges for the global automotive industry, and Ford itself is looking at plant closures, line removal at sites in France, potentially Russia and in Germany. Here in Wales, at Ford in Bridgend—as I said yesterday we have a highly trusted workforce, a very efficient work programme, and a product, the Dragon engine, which is seen as being at the cutting edge of the internal combustion engine production suite. Now, what's important for the Dragon engine is that it's considered for hybridisation at the Bridgend plant, and we'll be doing all that we can to ensure that that takes place. 

But it's also important for Ford in Bridgend to capture any increase in demand for the Dragon engine as it is today, because I believe there are only six facilities that are able to build that particular engine, and Bridgend is, if not the most efficient, certainly one of the most efficient, with an incredibly skilled and loyal workforce. Alongside that, there has been much speculation about the potential of the Ineos investment, and, again, the Welsh Government is doing all that it can in order to secure that investment. 

I hope, between the work that I've been able to demonstrate we're doing with Ford, with Airbus, the interventionist approach that we are taking whenever and wherever possible, which last week led to the creation of hundreds of jobs at a new challenger bank, and this week has led to the creation of the national digital exploitation centre—the Welsh Government is certainly not standing still as the world spins. It seems out of control because of the Brexit dilemma. 

What we are seeing, though, through much of what you discussed there is the vulnerability of even those anchor sectors that we consider to be so important. Now, you'll know I'm not an 'eggs all in one basket, let's depend on a foreign direct investment bank and only on large companies' kind of guy, and you'll know that we in Plaid Cymru are clear on the need, for example, to refocus on growing our small and medium-sized indigenous enterprises. But there is no escaping the importance of those big players, and this is clearly, as you agree through your answers, a very risky time for them. So, will you agree to convene a major economic summit now to show that Wales is serious about overcoming current challenges, to show that Welsh Government is serious about overcoming challenges, and to discuss the nature of those challenges plus our needs in terms of infrastructure investment, and the needs of our small and medium-sized enterprises? Because we cannot afford to face those challenges without showing our mettle as a nation, and showing that we are serious about overcoming them.  

I would not disagree with the Member on those points, and I'm pleased to say that over the past 12 or so months I've been engaging with businesses by their respective sectors and on a regional basis—smaller scale summits, if you like, to discuss the impact that Brexit is having, and also the longer term challenges and opportunities that many sectors, in particular financial and professional services, advanced manufacturing and life sciences face. And the next summit, actually, will take place later this month. It will concern mariner energy and it will take place in Swansea. So, we are keenly pursuing every opportunity to engage with business to identify the threats, challenges and opportunities of the future, in the context, of course, of the situation that we face with Britain leaving the European Union.

I think what's really important now, though, is that, for all of the work that Welsh Government is doing and can do, the UK Government offers a calm, collected position that a proper Government with proper leadership can offer at Westminster, and, above all, the uncertainty over Brexit must come to an end.

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. And can I also congratulate the Minister on being retained in his Cabinet position?

The First Minister stood in this Chamber—sorry. The previous First Minister stood in this Chamber and proclaimed that unemployment in Wales was below the UK average at 3.8 per cent. However, the latest figure is now running at 4.2 per cent, which is above the UK average. Does the Minister believe that the First Minister was a little premature in his positive assessment of this aspect of the Welsh economy?

No. In all fairness to the former First Minister, he was quoting factually the unemployment statistic at the time, and what is absolutely clear is that Wales now has record low unemployment, record low economic inactivity rates, record high employment rates, and that we are also seeing—. It is often assumed that economic activity and employment are confined, mostly, to the more urbanised areas, but actually, if you look at rural areas—you'll find, across Wales, in rural communities, employment rates higher and unemployment rates lower than the Welsh average. In parts of Wales—if you take north Wales for example—you'll find that not only is the unemployment rate there below the Welsh average and at a historic low level—in fact, the lowest level since records began—the unemployment rate there is also below the UK average.

I think there's a huge success story that should be told about the ability of the Welsh Government to drive down unemployment, and all of the facts, all of the evidence bears that statement out. Since devolution, Wales has had the fourth highest increase in gross value added, unemployment has fallen dramatically, inactivity rates have fallen dramatically. But what concerns me today, right now, is that set against a backdrop of record high employment and record low unemployment, we still need to ensure that jobs are more secure, we still need to ensure that jobs are better paid, and we still need to ensure that people have higher levels of skills in order to get better quality jobs.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Of course, as with all statistics, the devil is in the detail. For instance, we find that this unemployment statistic includes as employed those on the iniquitous zero-hours contracts. And another factor not addressed is the increase in the number of people in our border areas, particularly in South Wales East and the east of north Wales who, although they live in Wales, are actually working in England, which is not necessarily reciprocated. This would appear again, would you not agree, to further exacerbate the inaccuracy of the stated unemployment figures and therefore, of course, the true state of the Welsh economy? 

Well, the figure in the Mersey Dee Alliance area, that functioning geographical area of north-east Wales and Chester and Cheshire West and the Wirral, shows that around about 25,000 people do as the Member says—travel from Wales to England each day to work—and the figure travelling from England to Wales each day is also around 25,000. So, actually, it balances out very well, and that's why we're keen to ensure that the Flintshire corridor project goes ahead to make Wales a more attractive place for investment, so that we can win more investment on this side of the border. It's also a huge contributing factor to the improved GVA figures that I've already quoted.

But the Member raises and incredibly important point about zero-hours contracts and the availability of fair work. Well, we wish Wales to become a fair work nation, and in March, the Fair Work Commission will report back with recommendations about how we will meet our vision. Their recommendations will be fully considered in the context of the economic contract contained within the economic action plan. And it's my intention to be able to adopt those recommendations and implement them in a revised economic contract as soon as possible.

I thank the Minister for that clarification. The latest projections for post-Brexit Britain tell us that the UK will leapfrog France and become the sixth biggest economy in the world and is likely to remain there for at least a decade. Can the Minister assure us that he and this Government will do all that they can to ensure that Wales will not miss out on this unique opportunity to exploit this anticipated expansion of the UK economy so that we in Wales will avoid the seriously high unemployment figures currently being experienced across most of Europe?

Well, in order to raise the wealth and also the well-being of the country, we need Wales and we need the UK to become more productive. We also need to be able to compete better on the international stage. My grave fear is that, if we crash out of the European Union with no deal, our economy will shrink by around 10 per cent, our competitiveness will be hammered, our productivity levels could crumble and crash, because it will simply not be as easy as it is now to be able to get skilled labour here at the drop of a hat or, indeed, to deploy people from—we talk about Airbus—Broughton to Toulouse at a moment's notice. We won't be able to transport goods freely and rapidly. And also this is set against the backdrop of industry 4.0, which, I do believe actually offers us an opportunity to leapfrog other nations. There are precious few opportunities that economies have to excel in a short, rapid period of time, but the fourth industrial revolution, if we capture all of the opportunities, if we embrace it, gives us an opportunity to leapfrog, not just some of the existing strong economies of the world but also those that are biting on our heels. We will be able to surge ahead of them, but, as I say, it's only if we embrace the fourth industrial revolution.

Yes. Our 'Prosperity for All' strategy and the economic action plan set out actions for all parts of Wales to contribute to and benefit from economic growth, and this includes enabling our cities to be engines of growth that benefit their wider regions.

Minister, already today, in answering questions, you and the Deputy Minister have spoken about regional development, some of the new organisation for that and the new drive that you wish to see behind it.

Newport, Cardiff and Bristol have been talking and working together for some time in terms of development across that area. The abolition of the tolls on the Severn crossings, I think, gives new impetus in terms of the possibility and the potential, and at the same time we know that there is critical mass across the area in terms of people, businesses, organisations right across the sectors. So, given that potential, given those advantages and the new structures, the new drive that Welsh Government seeks, the role of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, could you tell me how that area of Wales will feature in the early action that you expect to see?

Well, I'm very pleased to answer the Member's question. John Griffiths raises an important point about the functional economic area that is Cardiff, Newport and Bristol, and just as we're seeing now closer collaboration on an economic basis, we have for many years experienced collaboration across that border within that area on an academic front with the GW4 group of universities often working very closely together on joint projects. I'm looking forward to the OECD taking a close view of the economic action plan and regional development in Wales. The OECD will directly inform the regional approach, and it will ensure that we've got the right structures and governance in place in order to create and maintain cross-border links.

The other important point to make, I think, is that, as we move forward with regionalisation on economic development, I think it will enable the regions to be able to collaborate on a cross-border basis on their own terms. This is very important in the context of a post-Brexit Britain because, if we've learned anything, it's that we have to ensure that communities and local areas and regions feel empowered to do what they can for their own people and for themselves and that they do not see central Government and a centralist approach as doing things for and to people. It enables a greater degree of co-production and collaboration and I think, whether it's in the south-east or whether it's in the north-east, or whether it's between the north-west and Ireland, we have to encourage cross-border activity and collaboration if we are to become a more competitive nation.

Minister, I hope you and your very promising deputy have had a chance to read the Conservative group's strategy on liveable cities. Indeed, if you and your wider team want us to run a seminar for you, we'd be delighted to inform you of our thoughts.

I think one thing that we were struck by is that some cities around the UK have really been key for economic development in their regions and nations. Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh clearly have had this at the heart of their development, and I think now, with the Cardiff and Swansea city deals, there's a real chance that we can start to think this way—that our cities have to do more than just what they do for their immediate populations. They belong to the regions and, in fact, the whole nation of Wales. And, in driving greater economic ambition, they really have a role that cannot be played by any other economic actor at the moment, and we must see them as a great resource, and they've all got great potential as well.

Well, I'd agree very much with David Melding. His assessment is absolutely right. I'd also add that, alongside cities, the importance of satellite towns cannot be understated. It's absolutely vital that, just as we support cities in developing strong identities, it's also important that we encourage our satellite towns to better link with the cities that they are dependent on, but also to ensure that they carve out distinct identities, not just for the people that they serve but also for the businesses that operate there.

I've been struck often by the success of—and I know the Member mentioned a number of cities; I've been struck by the success of Manchester in this regard, the way that the centre of Manchester has grown so rapidly since the 1980s, based on a number of factors. But, at the same time, satellite areas and satellite towns around Manchester and the greater Manchester region have also begun to thrive without losing their own distinct identities. So, I see the development of cities as being very significant indeed, but I also see cities as serving the growth and the development of the satellite towns and rural areas in the hinterland that are so dependent on the growth that often takes place at a faster rate within the centre of cities.

We work very closely with local authorities right across Wales on a number of fronts to further improve local bus services, and we continue to provide substantial funding to enable them to provide local bus services.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. The Afan valley is actually serviced by two local authorities in one sense, because buses come from Maesteg and Bridgend. The focus, mainly, is from Port Talbot up to the Afan valley. Now, the communities of the Afan valley are some of the most disadvantaged communities that we have in Wales and they don't have a lot of cars. The percentage of car ownership is quite low in comparison to many other areas; they rely upon bus services. Now, unfortunately, the bus service from Port Talbot up to the Afan valley one hour goes to Glyncorrwg, the second hour, it goes to Blaengwynfi and alternates. So, for two hours, you have to wait for a bus to come up. Now, for people who haven't got transport and who have to access services, whether it's employment, or maybe elderly people who need to go to hospital services 10 miles down the road to Neath Port Talbot Hospital, they may spend all day travelling and getting there to get back in for maybe a half-an-hour appointment. Now, these are challenging times. I've written to the bus company, who seem to focus mainly on commercial activities. But will you therefore meet with Neath Port Talbot Council and Bridgend County Borough Council to look at the opportunities to support bus transportation to allow people to actually get to places on time without spending their whole life travelling?

I'd be more than happy to meet with the local authorities. In fact, the example that David Rees has highlighted today shows the potential benefits of creating joint transport authorities on a regional basis so that local authorities can plan and deliver bus services together in a collaborative way. I think David also highlights a fundamental flaw in current arrangements, which is that neither the Welsh Government nor local authorities have the powers to require a bus company to run a particular service. That's achieved through local authority contracts, including a public subsidy. Now, we've been able to maintain the bus services support grant at £25 million for some time, and this money is used to supplement—I should stress 'supplement'—local authority budgets for this purpose. It does not exist to replace local authority budgets, and I do think that it's essential that local authorities continue to demonstrate their commitment to local connectivity by maintaining their own budgets for subsidising bus and community transport services. But this fundamental flaw in the system cannot and will be addressed in a sustainable way by having local government and Welsh Government continue to subsidise non-commercial routes. What we need is radical reform, and I've recently outlined, through the White Paper, the proposals that the Welsh Government has for addressing the dire consequences of deregulation and the decisions made in the mid 1980s for bus services. Through the reforms that we are proposing, I seek to ensure that bus services across the length and breadth of Wales serve the needs of passengers and citizens, rather than serve the desire of some to profit from this incredibly valuable and necessary service for many of our communities. And, Llywydd, I would encourage all Members to take a keen interest in the White Paper and to submit observations and views before the consultation ends in mid March.

Well, of course, both the councils that David Rees mentioned are in different city regions, which are taking very different approaches to their future transport needs. So, how that would progress is really very interesting. But, in the short term, in March 20i8, you confirmed that you'd issued guidance to local authorities to commit no less than 5 per cent of their bus budget to community transport, and, of course, community transport, if it follows the regulations properly, can pick up some non-commercial routes. It's a year on now. Are you confident that councils are following that guidance?

I am not yet confident that the guidance is being fully followed by all, and the extent of local authorities' commitment to maintain their own budgets for bus subsidies will therefore increasingly be reflected in my decisions about each authority's bus services support grant allocation, the reason being that I want to make sure that we use taxpayers' money that comes to Welsh Government to incentivise enhanced services in our communities, and we will only do that within the current arrangements on a short-term basis, by ensuring that local authorities contribute to the bus services support grant funding. Longer term, of course, through the reforms, as we use more of the tools that are currently available, but as we develop more tools and levers, I think we will be able to deploy a service across Wales that is not just more effective for meeting passenger needs, but one that is also more sustainable in terms of costs.

My view is that the system is currently broken. We have a perverse situation where councils are cutting key services like libraries and community centres in the Afan valley, with four more proposed for Neath Port Talbot ongoing, expecting people from the Afan valley, then, to travel further to get to those services, but then they can't get to those services, because the buses are simply not there.

You mention the White Paper. What, within that White Paper, because a lot of people may not read that—? What are the headlines from that so that people in our area can be assured that, when those changes come about, either through changing the law, whether it's a not-for-profit company like Transport for Wales that takes over the regulation, they will have more frequent buses in their valley communities, so that they can continue to live there and that they don't become ghost towns with people moving away from those areas because the services are simply not there anymore?

I think the Member makes a really important point. The system is broken, and that's why the reforms that we've outlined in the White Paper are so necessary. In brief—and, again, I would invite all Members to read the White Paper and to submit observations—the proposals include franchising powers, they include the power to be able create municipal bus companies, they include proposals for greater integration of different forms of transport, they include the creation of joint transport authorities to deliver and plan bus services on a regional basis, and they include proposals for Transport for Wales to take a more active role in delivering this vital service for the people of Wales.

Alongside this, there are potential changes that can be made in terms of the fare regime for passengers to make it more affordable, and more transparent as well, to integrate tickets. It's still a shocking fact that, in some parts of Wales, 20 per cent of unemployed young people can't afford, or can't get, a bus service to their interviews, never mind to jobs. They are locked out of employment because the system is broken, and that's why I believe that the proposals in the White Paper—that's why I believe that radical reform is so vital.

Thank you. The economic action plan sets out how we'll build a 'something for something' relationship with businesses of all sizes, based upon businesses sharing our values by contributing to a social cause. We're going to do this through the economic contract, through the calls to action, and through the economy futures fund, and, of course, that social cause is to drive inclusive growth with fair work for all.

I was interested also in his answer earlier, talking about what—the discussion about what we mean by anchor companies. That's an interesting development. Last week, I met with Admiral Group, Wales's only FTSE 100-listed company. They employ a substantial number of constituents in Caerphilly and nearly 8,000 staff across three sites in Wales. We discussed how that company had strategic links with the Welsh Government, and, from my perspective through the discussion, those strategic links seem to be fairly limited. One of the key things that a Government can help develop and grow is skills, particularly the skill needs of that organisation. They discussed some of their skill requirements and the fact that they've got the Admiral academy, which looks at professional and personal development of staff. I don't feel that there's enough of a strategic link between that and our education sector in Wales. Bearing in mind the Government's cross-portfolio approach to strategy, would the Minister commit to having high-level discussions with Admiral to explore how those strategic skill development links can be developed by the Government?

Can I thank Hefin David for his question and, furthermore, thank him for the keen interest that he's taken over many years in the skills system that we operate? I met the founder of Admiral just last autumn. We discussed, amongst many other issues, the availability of people with the right skills for the company, and I'd certainly meet with key stakeholders within the financial and professional services more widely in Cardiff. Of course, the Member is aware that the RSP—the regional skills partnership—for the Cardiff capital region has designated the financial and professional services sector as one of its priority sectors for the region as it seeks to plan—better plan—skills provision for the economy of the region and ensure that there is a closer alignment between what businesses require and what skills providers and training providers actually produce. Wales's larger employers such as Admiral are also allocated a dedicated senior skills relationship manager, who works very closely with them on their skills needs, and they also support businesses in facilitating productive engagement with the provider network, including further education colleges and higher education institutions. But I think, given that the RSPs are still in their infancy, there is still work to be done in ensuring that the fusing of business interests and the provision of skilled individuals is enhanced. 

Minister, my region depends on Tata, Ford and Sony, which are all major employers and a vital part of the supply chain. My region cannot afford to lose any more jobs. In recent years, all these major employers have scaled back their operations, leading to large job losses. This is a particularly worrying time for workers at the Bridgend Ford plant, and, as with Tata and Sony, the key to securing the plant's future lies in securing new and diverse business. Minister, when we spoke last year about the future of the Bridgend plant, I urged you to work with Ford to explore the move to an all-electric drivetrain being produced at Bridgend. Can you outline what progress, if any, has been made on this, and whether Ford Europe are even receptive to such a move? If so, what assistance will the Welsh Government give the plant to enable retooling to take place?

Well, we stand ready to support Ford in any way that we can. The First Minister was at the Bridgend site just this morning, meeting with site managers and also with trade union representatives. I said yesterday and I said earlier today that what could be critically important to the Bridgend site is the development of hybridised engines, including a hybrid Dragon engine, and Welsh Government stands ready to assist in any way that it can in ensuring that the Bridgend facility is a chosen facility for the hybridisation of the Dragon engine.

Within the forward work programme cycle for Ford, there are no obvious new engine products being developed, and we must await the outcome of talks with Volkswagen to determine whether Ford will utilise electric drivetrains from the German manufacturer. However, it is my intention to continue working closely with Ford and with social partners at Bridgend to ensure that the Dragon engine goes on being a success and that any additional demand for the Dragon engine results in increased capacity and, therefore, increased job opportunities at Bridgend, and, also, that whilst this work is ongoing, we seek every other opportunity to create employment, either through, or, potentially, both through hybridisation of the Dragon engine and through securing the Ineos investment. 

I'm pleased to be able to refer to my statement of 21 November 2018 on transport infrastructure in north Wales.

Thank you. Well, a few days later, on 27 November, I called for a Welsh Government statement on rail services in north Wales after a weekend of delayed and cancelled rail services in north Wales, where I've been reliably informed by rail insiders that a shortage of tooling spares and access to wheel lathes being in place and ensured they were put in place by the incoming operator had caused that, although there was now access to wheel lathes in Crewe, Bristol and Taunton. How do you, therefore, respond, given the subsequent apology and assurances from Transport for Wales to the e-mail I received at the end of December—five weeks, almost, later—that there'd been no trains on that particular day on the line from Shotton to Wrexham, that there'd be none tomorrow, the Monday would revert to a train every two hours, like it had been for several weeks? They were told there were no trains on Thursday either, that they're peddling storm Callum as part of the excuse, but that was six weeks ago. And how is it that other train operators are not affected by all the wheelset damage that's occurred in Wales? Given the original assurances we had from yourself and Transport for Wales, why was that still happening five weeks later? 

Well, largely because for far too many years we've seen in Wales a complete lack of investment by the UK Government in our rail infrastructure, particularly on our train lines, which remain a responsibility for Network Rail, and, therefore, the Department for Transport, and as I've said on many occasions now, this major problem can be largely attributed to the lack of wheel-slide protection. Why? Well, because the contract that Arriva Trains Wales was awarded was, simply, not fit for purpose. It did not incentivise them to invest in such technology, nor did it compel them when Welsh Government wished for such protection and technology to be installed on trains. 

I was pleased that the first service to return to full and normal operation was one of the north Wales services, and the Member points to an industry insider who gave him intelligence on the lack of wheel lathes in Wales. Well, it's true that when you have huge demand for wheel lathes, if you can't meet that demand with what you've got in your own country, you go elsewhere. Llywydd, I'm pleased to say that we did just that, and we were able to identify additional wheel lathes outside of Wales, and that's why we got so many trains back into full use so quickly. 

I’m sure we can all welcome the fact that there’s going to be investment in stations in the context of the Welsh railways. I don’t know if the Minister is aware, but Network Rail has been working closely with organisations trying to prevent suicides. There were 237 suicides on the British railways in 2016—4.5 per cent of all suicides within Britain. Now, research shows that people who are considering suicide in a train station follow a similar behavioural pattern, and one can use lights, benches facing away from the tracks, additional barriers, specific lines on the platform—it’s possible to use these methods in order to try and tackle these tendencies towards suicides in train stations. So, as we look to invest in these improvements in our stations, can you give us an assurance that you will work closely with that method of preventing suicide in order to ensure that investment gets the best possible outcomes?

Llywydd, I think this is an excellent question. I think it's a really important point. What I'm going to do is ask Transport for Wales, as it analyses and assesses how to spend the £200 million on all stations across the Wales and borders network, to put together at speed a suicide prevention plan, together with Network Rail, so that we can take on the sort of ideas that the Member has suggested and introduce them to as many stations as possible. 

Thank you to the Minister.

The next questions therefore are the ones to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister. The first question is from Llyr Gruffydd.

Leaving the EU will damage the economy. The failure of the UK Government to secure parliamentary agreement for their deal risks a 'no deal' outcome. The Prime Minister must commit to negotiate an EU exit as outlined in 'Securing Wales’ Future', which remains the least damaging form of Brexit.  

Thank you very much. In 2016, exports from the counties of Flintshire and Wrexham were worth £5 billion and 87 per cent of those were exported to the European Union. Now, do you agree that the best way of maintaining that level of exports and all of the jobs and economic benefits that come in their wake is to remain within the European Union? If you do agree, what’s your Government doing to ensure that that happens?

Exports, of course, are very important to the economy of Wales and the north east, and, on the whole, as the Member has acknowledged in his question, the percentage of exports from Wales is higher than other parts of the UK to Europe. The best way possible of ensuring the prosperity of exports in the future is as close a relationship as possible with the single market, the kind of thing that we haven’t seen in a political statement from the Prime Minister in Westminster. I hope that there will be an opportunity over the next few days—the Prime Minister there has said that she’s willing to discuss with other parties. It’s important that those discussions include the possibility of a customs union and working closer with the single market.

On a positive note, we have Airbus in north-east Wales, which has made its own concerns known. If we don't have a transition deal, then perhaps those who voted against the Prime Minister's deal should consider the risks that they have added of that not happening. However, on a positive note, and despite potential outcomes in this context, the UK defence and aerospace industry recorded a £10 billion increase in deals over the last 12 months, with the total deals valued at £31 billion. Last month, Airbus welcomed the announcement of the aerospace sector deal—providing, they said, a firm commitment to the UK's investment in research and design, and an inclusive, productive aerospace sector is one that embraces the technology of tomorrow, including a commitment to £125 million of funding to be matched by Airbus and industry. Are you able to tell us, notwithstanding that this might stretch beyond your brief, what discussions you've had with your colleagues in Welsh Government over what their role might be or already is in developing the aerospace sector deal with the UK Government, Airbus and other aerospace sector companies in Wales?

There is work going on in relation to that. I should just say that the Minister for Economy and Transport has held round-tables with large employers in north-east Wales over the course of the last year, including Airbus. We all know, as the Member indicated in his question, that Airbus was one of the companies that were very clear about their position if we were to leave the European Union without the transition deal. I take issue with the premise of the Member's question. It isn't the case that the only alternative to the Prime Minister's deal is no deal, which we believe would be very, very bad news indeed for Wales. The opportunity now exists for the Prime Minister to reach out across the House of Commons and seek to negotiate a deal with other parties that reflects the principles that are set out in 'Securing Wales' Future' and that this Assembly have endorsed, most recently in early December. 

Can I start by thanking the Member, Llyr Gruffydd, for North Wales, for recognising the importance of the north-east Wales economy? I was very pleased last Friday to welcome the First Minister for Wales and our new Minister for north Wales to Alyn and Deeside and just over the constituency border in Delyn, where we had an opportunity to discuss Brexit in a Brexit business conference, with over 150 business delegates in attendance, including the likes of Airbus. Now, the messages from that conference were pretty clear: that there's still a need for clarity and cross-party co-operation, and I think this is even more important now following the UK Government's disastrous defeat in the House of Commons yesterday. Counsel General, would you be willing to meet with me to discuss further the findings from the Brexit conference, and also to give you an insight on the business voice in north-east Wales to help you with your organisation and planning of the Welsh Government's response to Brexit?

Thank you for that question. I was aware of the event on Friday 11 January, which the First Minister attended, and also the Minister for the economy, and I noted that it was a very interesting discussion and a good opportunity to hear at first hand the sort of anxieties that employers large and small are feeling in north-east Wales. I know the work that the Member himself is doing in his own constituency in relation to understanding concerns that local businesses have in relation to Brexit, and I'd be very happy to meet with him to discuss that further.

Welsh Ministers have discussed matters relating to Brexit with the Irish Government, principally via the British Irish Council, which I attended on 9 November 2018. I have also contacted my Irish Government counterpart to open up further dialogue and build upon existing close relationships.

I’m grateful to the Counsel General for that response, and may I encourage him to continue to engage with the Irish Government? As I mentioned yesterday, myself and Rhun ap Iorwerth were able to meet politicians from across the political spectrum in the Republic of Ireland last week, including Helen McEntee, the Brexit Minister. May I ask him, and I touched upon this yesterday, about article 50 and the call from the Welsh Government, and the Scottish Government, of course, that the UK Government should extend article 50? May I ask whether he would be willing to convey that message to the Republic of Ireland too, as there needs to be consent from all member states within the EU if that request were to be made by the UK Government as we hope to see? And on a broader issue, and if Brexit were to proceed, what work has been done, for example, to look at the INTERREG plan or something similar for the future, as is possible, of course, in the case of Norway and Sweden, even including nations outwith the European Union?

I thank the Member for the question. In terms of article 50, we take every opportunity to ensure that Governments understand our position on that. We called more recently on the Prime Minister in Westminster to ensure an extension on that to enable the discussions to go on.

In terms of the collaborative relationship between Wales and Ireland, the Member talks about INTERREG. We have, of course, a close relationship with Ireland through that and through other joint schemes. The current scheme emphasises the work in terms of climate change, culture and so forth. Those issues are important, of course, in terms of strengthening the relationship and in terms of economic opportunities, but we want to ensure that that collaboration continues even after Brexit and also extends beyond the current schemes, if that’s possible. We’re certain in our view that we are fully committed to strengthen the relationship between Wales and Ireland.

The Welsh Government launched its Brexit website for business in September 2018, and you said in your statement yesterday you hoped to have a further portal up and running within a few days. The Irish Government launched its prepareforbrexit.com website in June 2016, within a week of the referendum, and has been offering grants of up to €5,000 to help SMEs prepare for Brexit since the first quarter of 2017. Is there anything Welsh Government could learn from the Irish Government with respect to timeliness in this area?

We have waited for two years to hear what the UK Government's view is on the basis upon which we should leave the European Union—two years. Two years ago, this Government, together with Plaid Cymru, launched a paper that set out, with a very clear evidence base, the kind of relationship Wales should have with the European Union after Brexit. We were able to do that two years ago, working together, and we followed that up with a range of policy positions, which are evidenced and substantive, and which have been persuasive. And the question is why the UK Government wasn't able to do the same. On the point of timeliness, we, as I have said in the Chamber, have an online resource, which we plan to launch in the next few days, and that will, I hope, give the people of Wales a clear understanding of what the Welsh Government is doing in terms of preparedness. 

Counsel General, I am pleased to hear that you are having meetings or arranging meetings with your Irish counterparts and discussing, because if we have a 'no deal' situation, or even a deal and the backstop kicks in, there will be a border down the Irish Sea, and we need to address that. But can I ask you also to meet with counterparts—I know we haven't got a counterpart, but equivalents in Northern Ireland? When I went across to speak to the parties in Northern Ireland, it was quite clear that a lot of businesses use the ports of the Irish Republic to actually access Europe through the Welsh ports. As such, there is going to be a huge challenge to that situation, whether they travel down through Dublin and on to Holyhead, or whether they go across into Scotland. It is important, therefore, that we address the issues for them as well, to ensure that, if there is a boundary in the Irish Sea, they don't end up having to cross two boundaries to get to Northern Ireland. And it impacts upon Welsh ports. 

I thank the Member for that question. One of the points that requires clarification in the UK Government's proposals is its reference to checks being undertaken in the least intrusive possible way. That needs to be understood better. But the issue of the backstop, of course, if the sorts of proposals were adopted that we have been advocating here, would not arise. And whilst the backstop is an absolutely legitimate concern for the EU and UK Government to ensure that there isn't a hard border on the island of Ireland, the best possible scenario is that that isn't required at all because we have a set of arrangements that encompass a customs union between the UK and the EU. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd.

My party will be supporting the vote of no confidence tonight in Westminster. Indeed, we are signatories of the motion that will be voted on in a few hours' time. But I think it's widely accepted that the motion is unlikely to succeed. Given your Government's stated support either for a general election or a public vote as a means of breaking the parliamentary logjam, if the vote, as expected, fails tonight, does the Government then intend to make a statement tomorrow, or in the days following, supporting a public vote as the only remaining means of ending the political impasse? 

Well, as the Member says, there is a motion of no confidence before the House of Commons today. I have read the same speculation as he has in relation to whether that will succeed or fail. I should say that it would be extraordinary for a UK Government to fail to get its principal policy adopted and supported in the House of Commons and then continue in Government. It would be pretty much unprecedented in recent times, certainly, and I think, in those circumstances, we should not yield the position that the Government should lose the confidence of the House of Commons in today's debate. I certainly hope that the motion will prevail. 

On the broader point, our policy has been, as he is aware, and continues to be that the objective of the Prime Minister ought to be to bring before the House of Commons a deal reflecting the principles which we have, in 'Securing Wales' Future', set out, and if that is not possible, and if a general election is not possible either, then, in those circumstances, the people may have a final say as a means of resolving that situation. 

I can understand generally why Ministers at the despatch box don't want to be tempted into speculation on hypotheticals, but this is a binary in relation to a vote that's only a few hours away, in the broader context of a ticking clock, down to, what is it, 73 days. So, I think the Minister will understand why we do need clarity as to what the Welsh Government is going to do in response to the almost certain result later this evening.

Now, it's plain that, in the unfolding Brexit crisis, we're running out of time. Mrs May's tactic has been to delay a decision for as long as possible—try and force a choice between her deal and no deal, and that tactic, indeed, failed last night. The key question now is whether Jeremy Corbyn is following the same tactic in trying to avoid what for him is, of course, the thorny issue of a people's vote. So, can the Counsel General at least confirm that you would not support the idea that is being floated in some circles of multiple votes of no confidence being brought in the next few weeks, which could, of course, take us perilously close to 29 March, with no hope of resolution?

I'll try again and outline our position. We have called on the Prime Minister to reach out across the House of Commons to seek to find a basis on which a better deal could be agreed. She has said yesterday that she intends to do that. She should do that, and include the opposition frontbenches in doing so. She should drop the red lines that she has insisted on—fruitlessly in many cases—for the last two years, and she should recognise that what is required is a fundamental rewrite of the political declaration, not a question of tinkering at the margins. If that fails, and if a general election is not achievable, then, in those circumstances, we have always said that a public vote is the best means of resolving that. But that requires us to give space for that discussion to take place, and we will hold the Prime Minister to her word on that being a meaningful discussion.

The UK Government has already said, following last night's vote, that it remains a red line for them—that they will refuse to accept a customs union. So, effectively, they're ruling out the kind of policy outlined in 'Securing Wales' Future'. And this is why, isn't it, that, generally, the consensus view emerging—in your party now as well; we've seen the MPs, the nine Welsh Labour MPs, who have come out unequivocally in favour of a people's vote—is that is the only means available to us of breaking the logjam and, indeed, ending the cataclysm of a 'no deal'. Your Cabinet colleague Vaughan Gething has said the time for indecision is long past and we must act now on a people's vote. The Minister for international affairs, Eluned Morgan, has made a similar commitment. Even the First Minister has said, 'I support a further referendum if all else fails'. So, when the no confidence vote fails tonight, what else is left to fail, when will we know that it's failed, and do you accept that, if the Welsh Government doesn't act quickly, clearly, decisively in response to tonight's vote, it's you that will be judged to have failed the people of Wales?

The timetable for understanding what the possible alternative deals are remains unclear at this point. I have said—I think twice now, in response to the Member's questions—that a public vote, giving the public a final say in this, may well be the means of resolving this. I would support that as a final say. But, having called for these discussions to take place, the Prime Minister having taken up that challenge, we must first allow that discussion to unfold, and we are clear about the kind of deal that we think should emerge from that. If she is saying that she still has some red lines, she has been urged, certainly, by the leading politicians in her party not to stick with a strategy that has failed her for two years.

The Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can you tell us what preparations the Welsh Government has taken to promote international trade with Wales, post Brexit?

Indeed. The First Minister, in making his new Cabinet, has included a new portfolio in relation to international relations generally, and a part of that portfolio relates to developing the relationships between Wales and the rest of the world and enhancing even further the work we do in relation to making Wales attractive as a trading destination.

I was delighted to see the new First Minister install a new Minister for international relations, following the calls from the Welsh Conservatives over a number of years. And I wonder whether you can tell us, in your capacity as Brexit Minister, what work will now be done to develop a network of trade envoys around the world, in order to promote opportunities to trade with Wales. We know that the Welsh Government, quite rightly, has worked hard on developing links with North America in recent years and that there have been a number of trade missions, but there's nothing like having people on the ground all year round in many of the Commonwealth countries, for example, or some of the emerging markets that we would have the opportunity to develop links with. So, will you also take another leaf out of our book and appoint a network of trade envoys, embedded within British embassies around the world, to make sure that the distinctive voice of Welsh businesses is being heard?

There's already a network of presence in key territories around the world. That has been in place for some time. That's obviously been strengthened latterly. We think, very clearly, that the best future trading relationships for Wales are those that are derived from full participation in, alignment with and membership of a customs union with the European Union. But we are very keen to ensure that we take every possible opportunity to advance the cause of Wales internationally in relation to it as a destination for investment and trading opportunities for our businesses here in exporting in circumstances which, if we end up being outside the European Union, will be significantly more difficult for them.

We are, or I hope we will be, outside the European Union, because that's what the people of Wales absolutely voted for. But do you agree with me that it is a matter of concern that our trade with countries like India and Japan has been falling in recent years, and will you welcome the decision of the Japanese Government, as a result of the work of the British Government in relation to beef and lamb exports, which now opens up opportunities for Welsh farmers to be able to sell their beef and lamb to the Japanese market of 127 million people? Would you agree with me that there are opportunities for trade envoys, if they are embedded within British embassies, to make sure that this sort of success can be repeated and that further opportunities can come for Welsh businesses as a result?

We obviously always welcome additional export markets for Welsh produce and so that is to be welcomed. I note that the export sums that have been described in the announcement are significant, but I'm also bound to say that consumers in Japan are going to have to eat an awful lot of lamb and beef to make up for the restrictions to the market that we would suffer as a consequence of Brexit.

The UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. Instead of still arguing over the different ways in which the Brexit referendum result can be betrayed and reversed, isn't now the time to think practically about the way forward and to revert to the offer that Donald Tusk made to Theresa May some time ago to embark upon discussions to bring about a Canada-style free trade agreement, which would have the advantage of delivering on the referendum result—the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Wales both voted to leave unequivocally two and a half years ago—and would also maximise the opportunities for trade with the EU that nobody wants to sacrifice on either side of the English channel?

I had the opportunity to meet, whilst I was a member of the Economy, Skills and Infrastructure Committee, with the Canadian delegation to the European Union and heard from them at first hand the experience that they had in negotiating the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement deal with the European Union, which has been described by many as essentially a walk in the park, but they will describe to you a very, very long and painstaking project. So, I think that the notion that we are going to be able to replicate that sort of deal with the European Union is, I think, fantasy.

We have been very clear about the relationship that we think that Wales would benefit from post Brexit with the European Union, and that is set out in 'Securing Wales' Future' and it remains our position, and I think, even on the Government's own figures, the flexibility that they describe from additional capacity to enter into free trade agreements internationally is completely dwarfed by the economic damage that losing out on the existing trading relationships that we have between the EU and the rest of the world would represent.

I'm afraid that because the Counsel General had his back to me at the end I didn't catch exactly what he said. Canada, of course, started from a very different position to the United Kingdom. We have been a member of the EU for the last 40-odd years, and we have complete regulatory alignment with them because, obviously, we have the same code of law and regulation. There should be no difficulty in reaching a free trade agreement with the EU. But, in any event, would the Counsel General agree with me that article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade treaty, which is now the World Trade Organization treaty, once we've entered into negotiations with the EU, in the short term will enable us to continue to trade with the EU on zero tariffs whilst negotiating the Canada-style deal?   

I'm not entirely sure I understand what the Member's position was. I had thought that he had spent the referendum campaign arguing for maximum flexibility and not having to be subject to regulatory alignment with the European Union. He now seems to be advocating that as a positive benefit.

No, not at all. Of course not. All I'm saying is that we wouldn't experience, in the negotiation, the difficulties that he alluded to, as alleged by the Canadians to whom he spoke a little while ago. We don't have to negotiate from a position where we have no agreements with the EU at all. We are actually part of it, so it should be much more simple for us to enter into a longer term agreement, not least because we have a £67 billion a year trade deficit with the EU at the moment. It's as much in their interests to trade with us as freely as possible as it is for us to trade with them. True, the European Commission has different interests from the people and businesses of Europe because they are engaged in their massive political integration project at the expense of the people of Europe, as the euro project itself amply demonstrates, and the ruination it's brought to many countries in southern Europe.  

Well, I'm just bound to say that businesses up and down Wales concerned about their exports after Brexit would just simply not share the Member's view. Looking at even the UK Government's own figures, as I mentioned earlier, they show that any conceivable additional value to the economy from increased flexibility, as they would describe it, is completely dwarfed by the hit to the economy from the loss of markets.

All the sensible evidence shows that the potential economic benefits of any new trade deals are dwarfed by the negative impact of significant increases in barriers to trade with the EU. We continue to call for the closest possible economic relationship with the EU, as set out in 'Securing Wales’ Future'.

Thank you for that response. You'll be aware that one issue that regularly has cropped up in this Chamber over the years has been the handcuffs that Wales is in as a result of EU procurement rules for the public sector. Many of those rules severely disadvantage smaller businesses, many of which are across Wales, wanting to get their foot in the door, to be able to engage in trading with the public sector. What work is the Welsh Government doing to look at the opportunities that leaving the EU might bring to supporting a more localised purchasing policy across the public sector, so that Welsh businesses can benefit from Welsh taxpayers' spending?

Well, of course, one of the issues is how rules are interpreted, and they often have more latitude than appears to be the case at first blush. So, the challenge is to ensure that as we—. Our view is that the best position for the Welsh economy is broad regulatory alignment with the European Union, but there is scope within that to seek the most flexible interpretation of rules that is permissible. I would say that, in terms of other opportunities from the departure from the EU, one of the issues that we are considering at the moment is how we can better integrate regional investment funding with other Government spending. That requires a commitment from the UK Government to ensure that we are no worse off in terms of regional investment funding, and the opportunities and the rules and priorities for those should be set here in Wales. That would provide us with a base for us to be able to integrate those schemes in future. And I hope, since he's looking for opportunities, that he will join me in calling for those principles to be upheld.

Counsel General, we have quite a number of relationships already within the EU, either in our own right from Wales, or as part of a UK network, with a whole variety of institutions that have been extremely important and valuable to Wales. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to actually ensure that there is a mechanism whereby Wales in its own right can continue to engage with the European Union, possibly through the enhanced Wales Office within Brussels, but ensure that, at least if Brexit does happen, we actually have a mechanism for engagement with those various territorial bodies, the Committee of the Regions and the various other institutions that I think will be so vital and important to Wales in a post-Brexit future, if that happens? 

Can I just endorse the premise of the Member's question, really, which is the value that Wales derives not simply from the relationship with the European Union per se, but also from regions and nations across the European Union, and the various institutions across Europe in which we're represented? And I know of his own work, for example, on the Committee of the Regions for many years.

It's imperative for us that we maintain, as far as possible, that network of relationships that are beneficial to us in economic terms, but also in cultural terms, and also in the sense of Wales's brand in the world, which is an important focus. Again, that is part of the work that the Minister for international relations will be taking forward. 

I've had a preliminary discussion about these issues with the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, and will be meeting her again next week to consider them in more detail. We are already delivering our tackling hate crime programme and expanding our community cohesion work to seek to mitigate any rise in hate crime. 

It was reported towards the end of last year that recorded hate crime in Wales and England rose by 17 per cent to 94,000 in the 12 months to March of last year. The Home Office say improvements in the way that crime is recorded could partly account for the large increase that has been evident for the last five years, but they acknowledge that there was a spike in the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum. Now, I've got no doubt in my mind and from my own experience that society has become less friendly for women and minorities since that referendum campaign, and this is reflected in social media in particular. Will your Government send out a strong message condemning such hate crimes, and ensure that victims know what, if any, support services are available to them? And would you also be prepared to open up dialogue with the social media companies to ensure that swift action is taken to shut down online hate crimes?    

I thank the Member for that question, and I recognise the point that she made in relation to the spike in hate crime, which we've discussed in this Chamber before, and it's absolutely shocking that that should arise in the context of the debates that we are having now. I absolutely will give the assurance that she asks for that we'll send a very clear signal that there is no place for hate crime against any of our communities here in Wales. I know that she has an event coming up in the Senedd in a few days' time, I believe, from which I'm sure that signal will also be sent out. 

As part of the preparedness work in relation to Brexit, we have expanded the community cohesion programme and funded a EU citizens' rights project, which will work together with the third sector and local government to ensure that there are appropriate services, and also stepped-up engagement with our all-Wales black, Asian, minority ethnic engagement programme, through the equality and inclusion funding stream.  

She will also know, of course, of the hate crime inspection report that came out recently by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, which highlighted some particularly good practice here in Wales, in particular in the Gwent area. 

Counsel General, during a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee's report into its post-legislative scrutiny work on the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, a number of Members spoke out saying that healthy relationships should be part of the curriculum, with the now Deputy Minister for social services saying, 

'that it’s absolutely key that we tackle attitudes to healthy relationships early on in a child’s education…And the sooner we try to provide this on healthy relationships, the better.'

And I think the same observations can be made on hate crime in all its forms. Do you think, then, that legislation might be necessary to ensure a place for this on the curriculum, or do you think that guidance and a simple policy will be sufficient to make absolutely certain we get this? 

We always need to be mindful of the best way of achieving these objectives. One of the issues that seems to me to be important is that we retain the level of flexibility to be able to respond to emerging dimensions in hate crime. It is unfortunately one of those areas that seems to find new outlets in different contexts, as Leanne Wood's question indicated. Social media has provided a whole new platform, hasn't it, for individuals to be able to express views that we would find abhorrent in this Chamber? And it's incumbent on us all, I think, to find ways of ensuring that that is eradicated, and educating children and young people in responsible means of being online and also in the nature of relationships, both community relationships and personal relationships, is an important part of that.

In my opinion, there's no doubt that the Brexit campaign normalised bigotry and emboldened racists, and in the years to come, that awful poster and shameful moments like the UK Minister Penny Mordaunt barefacedly lying to the country on breakfast tv about the UK not having a veto over Turkey's accession will rightly be judged as stains on our politics. So, we have a lot of healing to do. So, whatever happens or doesn't happen in the very near future, do you see any potential, Minister, within the European transition fund, to support action to tackle hate crime, especially if there's a 'no deal' Brexit? Also, there are fears that a 'no deal' Brexit would lead to an escalation, an entrenchment, within our communities, which is already existing since those terrible campaigns run by people who were both racist and bigots.

Well, I thank the Member for that question. She and I have discussed the nature of some of the posters and communications that other parties were advocating during the referendum itself as being a reason why this culture shift has developed.

Certainly, the European transition fund is being deployed to make the sorts of funding investment decisions that she is referring to in her question, and I think the community cohesion programme in particular has benefited from an expansion as a result of that. We are very mindful that one of the issues we need to be very clear about is ensuring that community cohesion, which has always been a priority for us as a Government, continues to be supported, and our regional community cohesion network is a key means for doing that.

Officials are in regular contact with UK Government counterparts on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, including in relation to the health professions. I and Cabinet colleagues will continue to engage with UK Government Ministers to ensure that Welsh interests are protected and that EU-qualified health professionals in Wales are unaffected.

I thank the Counsel general for his answer, which is, at some level, reassuring. We have, of course, previously in this Chamber discussed the difficulties that health and care services may face if we are unable to recruit staff from the EU. It's been particularly drawn to my attention that this will be a huge problem for the care sector, for the qualified nurses working, not in hospital settings, but in care homes. I hope the Counsel General and the rest of Government will continue with the discussions that he has outlined, because we would not wish to add to what is already perceived by many EU citizens as a bureaucratic process and potentially as a hostile environment—practical difficulties that would arise from the failure to recognise qualifications consistently across boundries.

I thank the Member for her question. This is a very, very important area for the health profession and other profession as well—veterinary surgeons, social workers and teachers all have concerns in relation to this area. The approach that is being discussed with the UK Government is in relation to laying legislation in Parliament, which will ensure that, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit for example, arrangements will be in place for professionals arriving and operation in the UK to have a means to seek the recognition of those qualifications. She will know, of course, that the regulation of health professions is a reserved matter to the UK Government. And so we are working with them in relation to those, but we absolutely recognise how important this issue is for the health service, allied health services and our public services generally.

I think the Minister's response is of some reassurance, but there is still work to be done, of course. But can I also ask the Minister to give us an update on the settled status pilots for health and for social workers as well and whether the UK Government has shown any unexpected last-minute flexibility towards the issue of the settlement of family members of those workers, as requested by the former Cabinet Secretary, now Minister, for health? What professional, quite simply, would choose to come and work and make this country their own if they're told, 'You're welcome, but not your family'? And, on that important matter of family—and, being proudly part of a large family that includes a couple of generations of Italian-Welsh immigrants who came here from poor parts of Italy, this doesn't affect us directly, but would the Minister care to reflect on the indignity that is now being heaped on people who've lived and worked and paid taxes here all of their working lives now being asked to leap hurdles to prove that they are worthy of staying? When I read stories like that of a 90-year-old Italian Bradford lady who came here from an impoverished part of Italy in the aftermath of the second world war who now has Alzheimer's and is now being fingerprinted in order to prove her identity, I wonder what level of shame, what level of indignity, the UK as a country and the UK Government in particular is now stooping to. 

Well, absolutely. The Member describes the situation, a very traumatic situation for the individuals concerned, with passion, and I would endorse his remarks. I'm aware that a response has been received in relation to the question of settled status and the family challenge, which the Welsh Government made to the UK Government in relation to this, and unfortunately that has not taken us further forward at all. So, we are at completely different, polar ends of the spectrum in relation to this and what we think is an appropriate way of proceeding in relation to this. He will have seen as well in the immigration White Paper, which the UK Government brought out before Christmas, a similar approach to families of temporary workers, for example, which is a system that will be appalling in its consequences for us here in Wales. We are anxious that the arrangements, flawed though they are, which the UK Government has put in place in relation to settled status, should be continued even in the context of a 'no deal' Brexit, because failing to do that I think would put even further pressure on EU citizens who are already living here in Wales and face the sorts of indignities that he describes in his question.

The whole Cabinet is committed to supporting Welsh businesses through Brexit. I attended the Cabinet sub-committee on EU transition in December, where the Minister for Economy and Transport presented a detailed paper on preparing business for Brexit, and we continue to engage closely with businesses across Wales.

Thank you, Counsel General, for that answer. When the previous First Minister was giving evidence to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee a few weeks ago, he said that over 100 businesses in Wales had already engaged with the Welsh Government's Brexit business portal. We know that the landscape post Brexit is so unknown, principally due to the shambolic approach taken by Theresa May with the negotiations. With that in mind, how is the Welsh Government ensuring that the portal is able to deliver accurate legal advice on matters such as exporting and hiring staff?

I thank the Member for that further question. The Minister for the economy launched the portal back in September, I believe it was, and the point of the portal is to provide a diagnostic toolkit for businesses to cover the whole range of potential challenges that might arise in the context of Brexit and to support them in readiness for a post-Brexit world, and, as her question refers to, one of the major issues there is international trading questions and workforce planning questions, both of which are factors that businesses are concerned about in the context of Brexit. The Paratoi Cymru website, which I mentioned earlier, will of course direct businesses to that portal to further highlight its availability and also a range of other measures that the Government have put in place to support businesses through Brexit, and the business resilience fund, funded through the EU transition fund, is a prime example of that.

If I might amplify Vikki Howells's point, the true irony of our current position is that the vast majority of businesses that export into the single market will want to continue to observe the regulatory framework that is set today, and for the future, by the EU.

I've heard what you've said about the preparations, but will you also be working with the likes of the Confederation of British Industry, who have emphasised how important it is that firms, many of them quite small, incidentally, that export, and they are in Wales, sometimes, get that information so that they can observe the legal frameworks of safety and quality design standards and other matters to allow exports to flow as freely, given the situation in terms of whatever we may be in with tariffs and the like? It's really essential they get that information.

Absolutely. One of the strands for the preparedness work has been to identify areas where the characteristics of Wales—in this context, the economic characteristics—might be slightly different from other parts of the UK, and therefore need a particular approach, and, obviously, having a business sector that is so well represented by the SME sector is one of those aspects.

In addition to working with other partners, there is a Brexit-focused Business Wales marketing campaign, which has been launched to raise awareness of exactly the sorts of things that he identifies, and asking businesses to plan, adjust and innovate in their response to Brexit. And that includes a direct call to action to ask companies and businesses to complete the Brexit self-assessment through the diagnostic tool on the portal.

Finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. Counsel General, in relation to this matter, clearly the businesses that are being helped in the main through the portal are mainly exporters, but there's a lot of supply chain businesses in that link. What discussions are you having with the businesses to look at their supply chains to ensure the supply chains are also supported in this process? Because we rely very much upon some of those other businesses to keep going, and automotive is an example. There are many automotive component companies in Wales that may not be directly exporting but supply to companies that do.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, that's absolutely the case and that is part and parcel of the advice that is provided through the portal. The reality of the situation is that many businesses aren't actively planning yet for the consequences of Brexit. The First Minister, the Minister for the economy, have recently called on businesses to ensure they are doing all they can to actively engage and actively prepare for Brexit. And I'll take this opportunity, if I may, to add to those calls for businesses to do that.

Thank you to the Counsel General.

The next item is the topical questions. The first question is to be asked to the First Minister, and the question is from Mick Antoniw.

Llywydd, the Prime Minister's approach has been decisively rejected. We need a new House of Commons under new Government to find a fresh way forward. That approach would rule out a 'no deal' exit and protect jobs and the economy here in Wales.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. For two years, the Prime Minister has pursued a European policy dedicated to protecting the interests of the Tory party rather than the interests of the country. For two years, she has treated the people of Wales and the Welsh Assembly with total contempt. Every promise of engagement and participation has been broken. The UK is now in a state of constitutional—[Interruption.] It is now in a state of constitutional rigor mortis. Government is paralysed and the UK has now become a laughing stock and the Prime Minister a beacon of incompetence. The US have Trump; we have Theresa May.

Following last night's catastrophic and historic defeat, she says the Government will listen and reach out across the Commons, but, at the same time, she says her red lines stay in place—so, no discussion on a customs union, no discussion on a single market, no discussions on free movement or the European Court of Justice, no discussions with Her Majesty's opposition. So, having excluded everyone—the EU included—who on earth is she reaching out to? This is a fatally flawed Prime Minister, a Prime Minister in denial, leading a Government that has no legitimacy, no mandate and no clue. First Minister—[Interruption.]—First Minister—[Interruption.]—First Minister—[Interruption.]—First Minister, do you have any confidence in the Prime Minister?

Well, Llywydd, any Prime Minister who finds herself defeated in the way that this Prime Minister has been when attempting to discharge the single most important responsibility that will ever fall to her should resign. I think that is the constitutionally proper course of action and she should face up to that and she should take it. Having said that, Llywydd, let me say, as I always say in the Chamber here, that, whoever is the Prime Minister tomorrow, the Welsh Government will work with the Government in the United Kingdom to make sure that the interests of people in Wales are always fully known and in front of whoever is the Prime Minister.

First Minister, will you agree with me that everybody in this Chamber and in the UK House of Commons should respect the outcome of the vote in June 2016 and support the UK Government in seeking to work through the consequences of that as we leave the European Union? Furthermore, would you also agree with me that the biggest threat that there is to Wales is Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in the United Kingdom? That's a worse threat than a 'no deal' Brexit: higher taxes, more debt in our public services and more waste?

Llywydd, the greatest threat to Wales is that we crash out of the European Union with no deal at all, with all the damage that that will do to business here in Wales, to jobs here in Wales. If the Member is so fearful of a Jeremy Corbyn Government, then no doubt he will be supporting calls in the House of Commons to defeat the Government so that that can be put to the people of the country, because, if he is so sure of his point of view, then why is he so fearful of a general election?

Can I ask the First Minister what happens now? What happens when Theresa May wins the vote of no confidence today? Would you agree with me that Jeremy Corbyn has no clear vision on Europe either—no clearer than Theresa May—so a general election would be a completely pointless distraction? Will you support a people's vote referendum instead?

Well, Llywydd, the Member asks what happens next. First of all, I certainly haven't given up on the prospect that the House of Commons will reject this Government. His party will vote tonight in favour of a motion of no confidence. I wish he had the confidence in the no confidence motion that his party will support. That's what I want to see happen; I want to see this Government defeated and a general election. And I completely disagree with him that a general election is an irrelevance, because not only would we have a Government that would deliver a sensible approach to Brexit, but we would have a Government that would turn its back on austerity and all the things that we, across this Chamber, his party included, week after week, call for here. There is so much more at stake in a general election. That's why we need a new Government, and think what that would do for Wales.

Thanks for your response to Mick Antoniw's question earlier, First Minister. I hear what you say—that you want the UK Parliament to rule out a 'no deal' Brexit. So, at least you've made your position clear. Obviously, over here, we're in a completely different position to that; we don't see a 'no deal' Brexit as being a bad solution; we actually see it as a World Trade Organization deal Brexit, rather than a 'no deal' Brexit.

Now, we did have a statement yesterday from your Brexit Minister, which I thought contained some useful elements, in that he was outlining many plans that the Welsh Government were formulating, advising businesses and so on about the eventuality of the UK leaving the EU on 29 March. Obviously, as you've stated, that's not your preferred option, but, if you're going along with your Brexit, Minister, that is an eventuality that you now have to consider. And I think you would do well to focus your efforts on making plans for the UK leaving the EU on 29 March and how that affects Wales, rather than doing what you've been doing as a Government for the last two and a half years and trying to thwart Brexit. Would you agree, First Minister, that that would be—[Interruption.] Would you agree that that would be a sensible approach?

Another question I do have is: I note from following Adam Price's social media, which we do fanatically in the UKIP group, that there were—[Interruption.] There were—[Interruption.] There were some—[Interruption.] There were some—[Interruption.] There were some cross-party talks, I believe, taking place, involving Adam and possibly Paul Davies. So, just out of interest, we were the only party that supported Brexit so I just wondered: why weren't we invited? Thank you.

Llywydd, let me respond to the first question first. As I've said time and again—and I've said it again now—leaving the European Union without a deal would have a catastrophic impact upon the economy here in Wales, on public services in Wales and in the lives of ordinary Welsh citizens. Does that mean that we do not prepare against that eventuality, especially as it looms larger? Well, of course, as a responsible Government, we prepare against that day, and our preparations have stepped up since September of last year, and been reported regularly to the Assembly. Those are the matters to which the Counsel General referred yesterday. We will report on them again on the floor of the Assembly next week, not because we are prepared to contemplate for a moment supporting such a course of action, but we have a responsibility to people in Wales to take action, should that turn out to be the case.

The Member is right that I met earlier today with the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Conservatives. I'm grateful to them for finding the time to have those discussions, and I did so on the basis that three parties in this Assembly are dedicated to a form of Brexit that would mitigate the impact of that here in Wales, whereas the party that Mr Bennett represents has the position that he articulated here this afternoon. He believes there is no need to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit, because he welcomes that prospect. Others here don't, and that's why I decided I would discuss matters with them.

Like yourself, First Minister—the defeat of the UK Government last night in the House of Commons was truly historic. I agree with your analysis, and had the Prime Minister any sense of obligation to the country, she would have resigned this morning as a consequence of that. I also hope that the House of Commons will pass a vote of no confidence in the United Kingdom Government this evening. I'm surprised that some of the signatories to that motion don't seem so committed to it. Is it the reality, First Minister, that whatever happens in the House of Commons tonight and whatever happens in the House of Commons next Monday, we are running out of time to reach a conclusion to these conversations? We are running out of time to find a solution. The extent and the size of the defeat of the United Kingdom Government's policy last night means that they can't simply return with a tweaked deal and hope that that will be passed. Is it now time for us not simply to look again at article 50, but to withdraw article 50, to enable us to have the time to have a real debate, in this country and across our Parliaments, about the sort of way forward, and that that way forward is then put to the people in a referendum, which will be an honest referendum, where people would be able to state their case and make their choice?

Well, I agree with what Alun Davies said about us running out of time, and that should be no surprise to anybody. We've been warned about that for many, many months, that the clock is ticking away. Now we're in the final part of leaving the European Union, and we need more time. We need more time to have the discussions that Alun Davies referred to. There's more than one way in which that could be brought about. I have called today for a suspension of the article 50 timetable, and I think there will be a willingness on the part of the European Union to agree to that, provided they know, in the way that Alun Davies said, that the discussions that are to be held over the next few days are not about tweaking Mrs May's deal at the margins. That will never satisfy 230 Members of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has to abandon her failed and flawed policy of negotiating through a series of red lines, constantly telling everybody else what she will not agree to. She needs to find out what other people are prepared to agree to. She has to show the flexibility that genuine leadership would involve, and in that way, given the time that Alun Davies has pointed to, there is still an opportunity to do a deal that would be in line with the prospectus set out in 'Securing Wales' Future' and would allow us to leave the European Union in a way that protects our long-term interests.

First Minister, the size of the Tory defeat last night was such that it's now plain that the only choices left are a Brexit the two major parties support, the disaster of a 'no deal' or a people's vote. Given that any Brexit deal would leave Wales worse off, would deepen the poverty trap and entrench austerity, would you agree with me that the only serious option now for those who want to put the people of Wales first is a people's vote?

I don't agree with that, Llywydd. I think we will come to the point when that may very well be the case, and if we reach that point, then going back to the people, having a final say on this matter, may have to be the way through the impasse that the House of Commons would find itself in if it wasn't able to do what Lynne Neagle pointed to in the first part of her question, and that is to find a form of Brexit on which the House of Commons can agree. Now, we may well feel here that that is a remote possibility, but the Prime Minister said yesterday—she repeated it in a telephone conversation that I had with her late yesterday evening—that she is to reach out to other parties and other parliamentarians, that she's to involve devolved administrations in those discussions, with a view to finding a different way through this impasse. I think we—if she's in a position to do that after today—have to allow her the few days at her disposal to see if that can be brought about. If there is a deal that she can do that meets the tests set out by my party, that meets the tests set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', there may yet be a deal there to be done. If that is not the case, then I agree, in those circumstances, with what Lynne Neagle said—that the decision will have to go back to the people. 

Thank you, First Minister. The next question is to be asked of the Minister for Economy and Transport, and the question is to be asked by Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch. As I outlined in my written statement to Members yesterday, I've spoken with the Minister for Energy and Industry. I've also written to the Secretary of State  for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I'm pressing for an urgent response by the UK Government on actions that it is taking on this matter. I'm also in regular contact with Horizon. I'll be meeting with the leader of Anglesey council tomorrow. I'll be speaking with the Secretary of State for Wales later today, and I'll be attending an emergency meeting of the economic ambitions board on Monday. Further, we're in very regular contact with the local Member of Parliament, Albert Owen MP, as well as with other Members of Parliament who are seeking to press UK Government to secure Hitachi's investment. 

Thank you very much. We’re expecting an announcement overnight this evening. As a senior member of Wylfa staff told me over the past few days, it doesn’t look positive. I have to say that I’ve come to a conclusion for some months now that the project is in a very serious state. Clearly, Brexit has limited the UK Government’s capacity to push the agreement through and to seek a funding model—people within Wylfa say that unequivocally to me. Rightly or wrongly, the decision by the Welsh Government to call in the planning application for preparatory work on the site was also seen as adding to the project's risk. But the upshot is that a project that was central to economic plans on Anglesey, across north Wales and for the whole of Wales, are now at risk to say the least.

I did appreciate the statement made yesterday. You said that you were speaking to the UK Government. May I ask if there has been more direct discussion with UK Government Ministers today by the Welsh Government and whether you’ve tried to have direct influence on partners in Japan?

May I also get an assurance that the First Minister personally has been involved in today’s discussions as was quite appropriate in the case of Ford this morning? I think it’s very important that the First Minister of Wales is seen to be playing a direct role in negotiations, as well as the role that you, of course, can play as Minister.

Wylfa is central to economic development in the future, but there are other excellent developments happening on Anglesey at the moment. I am thinking of renewable energy schemes, the science park and so on and so forth. But may I have an assurance now that if the worst is confirmed, the Welsh Government will seek to invest further in those proposals and will push for additional investment from the UK Government to put right their failure in delivering Wylfa if that is the outcome?

May I also urge, if we do hear the worst, for a commitment, and that you start now to look for ways of implementing this to give an economic boost to the north of the island, particularly including directing economic development to the Amlwch area, opening the Amlwch line, as a matter of urgency?

Minister, whatever the view on nuclear—and I understand that it is an issue that divides opinion, but many of the people of Anglesey, young Welsh people from Anglesey who will be attracted away from the island by other economic opportunities, will be looking forward to opportunities at Wylfa Newydd. If that doesn’t come about, we must ensure that there is a future for them.

I'd agree entirely with the Member and I'd say to begin with, with regard to this entire project, the reports that we have seen in the news over recent days are merely speculation. However, we do expect a decision to be made, UK time, by around about 10 a.m. tomorrow. I'll be visiting Anglesey tomorrow afternoon to meet with the leader of the council, by which time I expect we will know what the Hitachi board's decision is. 

The reason why I asked for an emergency economic ambitions board meeting to take place as soon as possible, and it will be taking place on Monday morning, was because I'd like to discuss with stakeholders and partners in north Wales how we might go about in the short term, if this project is merely paused, how we might go about ensuring that there are opportunities for people to get work in a similar field in and around Anglesey, until another investor comes forward and takes the project back off the shelf, or until UK Government decides to invest more in the programme and nationalise it. Already they've pledged £5 billion, I don't see why they shouldn't now consider providing all of the financial support and nationalising the project. 

In doing so, I'd like to discuss with stakeholders and local government partners, leaders in FE and HE, and with businesses what additional support we require from UK Government as part of the growth deal programme. I've already said that Welsh Government is willing to increase its support from £120 million on the basis of the UK Government first increasing its allocation to the growth deal. Partners in north Wales have requested £170 million for the growth deal, and UK Government, in spite of this comprehensive ask and programme of projects, offered £120 million. My view is that sum, if Hitachi do pause the project, should be significantly increased.

I think it's also important to stress that my officials have been in constant contact with BEIS over many weeks and months. The Member is right to point out that Brexit has had both a direct and indirect impact on deliberations; indirect insofar as how it has diverted attention and indeed key officials within Whitehall from the Wylfa Newydd project, and that has had an impact, I believe, in terms of confidence in Japan.

Welsh Government will do all that it can to ensure that this project is taken forward. Importantly, we will do all that we can to make sure that the people of Anglesey and the people of north Wales benefit as much as possible from the project. Tomorrow, we'll know whether the project is to be paused. My hope is that it will not be cancelled. If it is paused then work must begin immediately across Governments, with local government and with the business community in ensuring that there are job opportunities in the short term whilst we find a new investor for the project. 

We know that the Holyhead infrastructure prospectus says that the Wylfa Newydd nuclear new build, along with other proposed developments in Anglesey, presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform the economy and communities of the island. As you rightly said yesterday, this project has potentially significant benefits to Anglesey, north Wales and the UK. We know that the subsidiary of Hitachi, Horizon, has been investing heavily in apprenticeships and training centres, including at Llandrillo Menai college group and at Bangor University, and we know that the growth deal has been based on the premise that the Wylfa project would go ahead. Dr Jones, at Bangor University, said yesterday that he believed it's more likely to press the pause button than scrap the project because of the £2 billion investment already. But I'm also advised that one of the factors valid to the cost considerations that have led to this threatened decision was the Welsh Government decision to call in plans to prepare the site last month to build Wylfa Newydd, when Horizon said it disagreed with the Welsh Government's reasoning. 

Given your statements yesterday and today that you've spoken with the Minister for energy and industry, Richard Harrington MP, in Westminster, and that your officials are in close dialogue with Horizon Nuclear Power, what currently is your understanding of the position regarding the likely outcome and its impact on things like those apprenticeship placements and the possibility that this might just be a pause rather than a devastating announcement of the project ending? 

Obviously, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for north Wales, for Wales and for the UK. The Hitachi technology is recognised as being the most reliable technology that can be deployed, and it's important that the UK Government does all it can to secure that investment and the Hitachi technology for Anglesey.

I disagree with the Member, and I think the Member, if he had correct intelligence, would agree with me that calling in the planning application was not a significant issue whatsoever. What really changed in the last month or so, or, actually, more than the last month, because I think the UK Government were probably aware of the situation about a month ago—. But what has happened steadily has been a lack of and a loss of interest by the UK Government, both at official level and at a ministerial level. And that was highlighted just last week when the Prime Minister was in Japan and failed to raise this vitally important project whilst on a visit there. And just as I said yesterday—I'll repeat today—this is not a purely commercial matter for Hitachi. This programme would provide up to 10 per cent of the UK's energy and work for thousands of people during construction, and hundreds of people for many generations to come. And so, I would call on the UK Government again, even in these final hours, to make every effort to get the right decision made at the Hitachi board tomorrow. 

The point has been made previously—there is a risk, of course, that we misunderstand the culture of Japan here, because losing face is difficult for us in the west but it’s even more difficult for the Japanese. And there is a risk, perhaps, whilst we think that the project is on hold, that, in reality, that’s their way of saying that it simply isn’t going to happen. So, I do think we need to be realistic in terms of the prospects when we hear exactly what the decision is. But what I’m driving at then is: for how long could the Welsh Government wait while the proposal is on hold? There are courses being promoted and advertised. Do we continue to promote and advertise those for the next year or two? Is the north Wales growth deal, or the relevant parts of that growth deal, to be shelved until we know what’s happening? So, at what point does the Welsh Government accept that we have to draw a line and move on? And, of course, for me, moving on means investing the billions of pounds proposed for the original project into renewable energy sources and unlocking that huge potential that we have here in Wales. 

Well, indeed. I think the UK Government could consider doing just that. We're looking at a number of major renewable projects that could attract UK Government funding. But let's just focus on Wylfa Newydd for the moment because this has to be our key concern over the coming days and, indeed, weeks. We don't yet know what, if you like, 'pause' would look like. Would it entail a pause in the development consent order process? My understanding is that that might not be the case, and the DCO process would continue. I would hope it would continue. Would 'pause' entail telling the apprentices they don't need to complete their frameworks for the time being? Well, again, I would hope that it wouldn't involve that and the apprentices could complete their frameworks and get alternative employment, until such time as the project could be taken back off the shelf. We're going to have to just take a step back tomorrow, if the decision is made to pause the project, and assess what viable alternative investors there might be, and assess whether the UK Government has the appetite to increase its stake in the project, in order to get it off the mark again.

I completely take the point about Japanese culture, and the importance of not losing face. Equally, I know, having spoken with investors in Japan, and having spoken with Hitachi, just how important this project is considered. And what they do not wish to do is to lose face with, as they see it, their British friends, by scrapping this scheme that does have majority support on Anglesey, that could provide transformational opportunities for many, many people, and which would demonstrate a strong link between Wales, the UK and Japan. So, the decision will be made with huge amount of consideration, and I would hope that, if it is paused, it really is just that—a pause—and that the processes, such as the DCO process, can continue, so that the programme can either be taken off the shelf and completed by another investor, or so that it can be taken back off the shelf by Hitachi, once, as I hope, the UK Government will increase its offer.

Minister, you made a big call when you responded to the Member from Anglesey, when you said that the site should be considered for nationalisation. Is that official Welsh Government policy that this scheme should be nationalised, because, as I said, that is a really big call? And I'd be interested to know what the Welsh Government's position is on nuclear power more generally, because, obviously, the current First Minister said that nuclear power should be treated sceptically. And has there been a shift in the way the Welsh Government offers its support for nuclear power projects? Because other members of the Cabinet—the health Secretary, for example, said such comments were troubling, and the external relations Minister said that it would be deeply damaging if such a shift did occur within the Welsh Government.

Can I thank the Member for his question? I stress that the First Minister said that his personal comment was that he was a nuclear sceptic, for very good reason, because of incidents and accidents that have occurred in the past. However, I think it's recognised that our policy is to support the nuclear industry, as part of an energy mix, and a very necessary energy mix. And in terms of my call for the project to be nationalised, I believe that this is something that has the support of my colleagues, but also, more importantly, has the support of shadow Ministers and Members of Parliament, who are seeking to press the UK Government to offer the maximum contribution that it can, and, if necessary, if all other options are off the table, then to nationalise the programme.

Thanks very much.

Item 4, then, on our agenda are the 90-second statements. And we have one from Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Earlier today, I sponsored a launch event for the 2019 vocational qualification awards. The awards are now in their twelfth consecutive year, and their aim is to raise the status of technical, practical and vocational learning. Indeed, their purpose is to ensure that we regard vocational qualifications as an aspirational yet attainable route for all, and that we consider them to be equal to other educational routes. In this, they chime closely with the Welsh Government's aim, as stated in 'Prosperity for All', to make sure that there are no artificial barriers between vocational and academic qualifications.

It is good to see the Welsh Government are one of the organisers of the awards, along with ColegauCymru, the National Training Federation for Wales, Qualifications Wales and the Education Workforce Council. Today marks the start of the nomination process for this year's awards. There will be winners across four categories—intermediate learner, higher learner, employer, and trainer. The process will culminate in VQ day—a celebration of vocational qualifications, which will take place on 15 May. Whilst recognising outstanding achievements, in their very existence VQ awards and VQ day mark the benefits of an area of our education system that does not always get the attentions it should, but one that is crucial to ensuring learners, employers and our economy more widely have the skills needed for future prosperity. So, congratulations to last year's winners, and good luck to the 2019 entrants.

Thank you very much. 

We move on to motions under Standing Order 17.14 to elect Members to committees. In accordance with Standing Orders 12.24 and 12.40, I propose that the motions to elect Members to committees are grouped for debate and for voting. Fine. Good.

Can I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motions formally? Darren.

I move.

You move formally. Does any Member object? No. The motions are therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

We have a motion under Standing Order 17.3 to elect a Member to a committee. So, I call again on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

I move.

The proposal is to agree that motion. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is the statutory instrument consent motion: the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. You will see that that's a very snappy title. Members will be relieved that the purpose of this brief debate is not to examine the policy intention of the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 or, indeed, to really challenge the assertion of Welsh Government that it's appropriate for this Assembly to agree to this statutory instrument consent motion. This is more to do with drawing Members' attention, once again, to the ability of the UK Government to sub-legislate on matters within the legislative competence of this Parliament and considering concerns about how this Parliament can maintain its own oversight of how primary legislation, material to us, is being amended by secondary legislation of another Parliament.

Until now, we've understandably focused our attention on primary legislation and related legislative consent motions, and we've encountered Bills on agriculture and healthcare that have caused committees to raise their eyebrows, perhaps. And the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in particular will have plenty to say in due course about Welsh Government choices on whether to recommend LCMs or not, as well as the quality of the information that Welsh Government provides to this Assembly to help us scrutinise those choices.

How easy is it then to lose sight of the reams of secondary legislation to which the same principles should apply? The UK Government is laying many statutory instruments, affecting many more pieces of primary legislation, in order to make retained EU law function after Brexit. And these could, and indeed do, transfer executive functions in areas where we have legislative competence to Welsh Ministers, or indeed Secretaries of State with the consent of Welsh Ministers. And because we're talking about statutory instruments, which are active in areas of devolved competence, we need to understand what Welsh Ministers are actually agreeing to on our, and of course their own, behalf.

There is a Standing Order process for this, but in reality Government decides whether we can rely on UK Government statutory instruments or whether they should introduce their own secondary legislation. At the moment, the majority of reports we get from Welsh Government is that we can just agree these UK statutory instruments, as there's no policy divergence and it makes for a clearer statute book. That's the general content of the explanatory memoranda that come to Members recommending Assembly support without the need for debate: 'Nothing to see here. Everything is in order. Why waste Plenary time?'

With so many statutory instruments coming through from the UK and devolved areas, we need, as Assembly Members, to be in a position where we can rely on ministerial judgment and avoid the need for debate. However, there are occasions, and an increasing number of them, where we can't safely rely on that judgment. And it's not that the judgment is wrong, but we don't have the evidence to support the judgment, and it's deliberately why I've chosen this hopefully rather benign example to make my point.

We're told in the Minister's covering statement that this UK statutory instrument could affect our legislative competence and Minister's executive competence because we have some legislative and executive competence in relation to the marine environment. The Minister's own motion contained a little more detail on existing powers, but nothing more on our legislative competence, except that it's subject to a few reservations. A few examples are given, but no concrete detail. It's also a negative procedure statutory instrument, limiting UK Parliamentary oversight, so the eye of scrutiny is already less than optimal.

My argument to Welsh Government is this: if you think a UK statutory instrument is fine and you want us to accept your advice without debating it, just give us fuller advice. If we have some legislative competence, identify what it is. If Welsh Ministers have various Executive powers under a number of enactments, tell us what they are. And, as you'll see, I've had to, with help obviously, draft and lay my own very similar consent motion to do this, and, as an AM, I don't have the resources to research and draw down the information that civil servants can do. Your officials do know what that legislative competence and what those Executive powers are to make the assertions in the first place. So, it's not enough to tell us what existing legislation's being amended, we need context and clarity about the effect of the change and Ministers need to be alert to that before they sign off. 

So, why does this matter? So many of these statutory instruments amend primary legislation in devolved areas and they can give powers to Welsh Ministers. And, if the only scrutiny we get is based on ministerial advice, the advice needs to be clear, comprehensive and overcome any space for suspicion of a conflict of interest, because we shouldn't be allowing other Parliaments to give our Ministers powers without us being sure that we understand how, where, why and what. I understand the irony of asking for you to consent to an SI that I've just confessed I don't really understand myself, but I hope it proves the point. Thank you very much. 

Can I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw? 

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. My contribution this afternoon will set out the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's consideration of the statutory instrument consent memorandum for the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The committee considered the Welsh Government’s SICM for the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 at its meeting on 10 December 2018. At that time, the committee noted the accompanying letter from the then Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, which stated:

'Given the volume of legislation that the Assembly is considering, I do not believe that a debate on this SI would be a productive use of valuable Plenary time.'

As permitted by Standing Orders, on 31 December 2018, Suzy Davies AM laid before the National Assembly a further statutory instrument consent memorandum for the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. The committee considered that SICM at its meeting this past Monday, and, in doing so, noted the Member's reasons for laying the SICM and tabling the motion. Thank you.  

Can I applaud Suzy Davies for tabling this statutory instrument consent memorandum and her subsequent consent motion, because—? The bigger picture, we are where we are as regards Brexit regulations and we must soldier on, and I'm not going to rehearse again our fears on this side of any Brexit power grabs. That's the bigger picture. As we've heard, Standing Order 30A states that Government must lay a statutory instrument consent memorandum and motion if a UK statutory instrument allows UK Ministers to amend primary legislation here in Wales in devolved areas. That's why it's important, and, as I said, I applaud Suzy for bringing this forward and shining a light on the importance of this. There is no particular disagreement as regards to this particular instrument in front of us, it's just being used as an example, because we do have common frameworks now to sort out the EU withdrawal legislation. An awful lot of secondary legislation, as we've heard, is coming our way.

We talk a lot about shared governance. In other words, it's not just one Government in one place telling another Government in another place what to do. Governance is meant to be shared now in an open spirit of respect and mutual confidence in one another. But, obviously, on CLAC, on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we do fret about these sorts of things. We fret about not just the loss of powers from this institution to Westminster, we also fret about the possible loss of powers from this legislature to our own Government. Both of those things occupy a lot of the time, and that is the framework where we're having this discussion.

So, this is about this legislature being able to hold this Government to account, and that's the importance of this little debate this afternoon, because SICMs are the secondary legislative equivalent of LCMs and we have got a recent LCM on the reciprocal health arrangements where we've seen a fairly blatant attempt by Westminster Government to broaden the scope of reciprocal health arrangements from just a simple transfer of functions—. That's what we were all expecting, a simple transfer of functions because of Brexit, a simple transfer, and we've seen a blatant attempt to broaden the scope of that, and the health Minister here, rightly, at the moment is minded to withhold legislative consent unless that particular Bill is amended along the lines of all our concerns here. So, that's the importance of this debate.

It might be a twee constitutional point, but it's a very, very important one, because the volume of SICMs coming our way is quite startling, and we have, as Suzy has said, many, many reports saying exactly the same thing, and our legislative support here is working extremely hard to keep up with it all, and we mustn't lose sight because, sometimes, things possibly can be agreed to if we don't look at dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

So, I'm grateful to Suzy so that we're able to shine a light on this. It highlights the potential, sometimes, for this Assembly legislature to be sidelined just because there isn't enough time, it's not important enough, there's too much work, and it's a Government to Government thing—well, actually, it's about this legislature. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to speak? Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Suzy Davies for bringing this motion forward. I did wonder if it was the detail of the Marine Environment (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 that you did want to look at with detail. I wouldn't call it bland, I'd call it technical, but I—. I don't think it's twee, either. I think it's a really important point that's been raised.

If I could just say the UK's withdrawal from the European Union has created an unprecedented legislative programme across all Governments in the UK; we are all working to amend EU-derived law so that we do have a fully functioning statute book at the point of exit, whenever that is, and I think it's absolutely vital that the Welsh statute book remains operable.

Our approach here reflects the real and pressing need to respond to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding Brexit, rather than any attempt whatsoever to limit or frustrate the Assembly's role as a legislature. It's been necessary to work with the UK Government on some aspects of the process of legislating for Brexit due to the sheer volume of legislation required. The UK Government's been producing its own SIs in some areas devolved to Wales, but only with the consent of the Welsh Ministers under the terms of the inter-governmental agreement. We are notifying the Assembly whenever the UK SIs to which we have consented are laid in Parliament, and to date we've notified the Assembly of 76 such instruments. The Welsh Ministers only consent to the UK statutory instruments where there's no divergence on policy between Wales and the UK, and the decisions made by Welsh Ministers are designed to balance the extraordinary set of demands created by Brexit, with the Welsh Government's commitment to provide the greatest possible practical opportunities for scrutiny of those legislative actions that have a material rather than simply a technical purpose.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I think it would be helpful for Members to recognise that, if we'd taken the decision to make all EU exit legislative corrections for devolved areas solely in Wales, it would have required 200 statutory instruments and at least four Bills to be laid in the Assembly in addition to business as usual legislation. It would only be possible to pass the necessary Bills in the available time by following the fast-track procedure, which, again, would limit scrutiny by the Assembly. Even then, even if we excluded all other business, it would have taken approximately six months of Assembly time. So, I don't think it's a matter of me believing that it's a waste of Assembly time; I just think it is very practical.

I just would like to reassure Members as well that I look at every SI on an individual basis, which, of course, you would all expect me to do. My officials provide me with very detailed advice. I've also worked very closely with the Counsel General in relation to these SIs. But I'd certainly be very happy to look at your suggestions, Suzy Davies, to see if we can bring forward more detail in the written statements we bring forward. Thank you.

Can I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for allowing me a couple of extra seconds on this. First of all, thank you very much to the Minister and to Dai Lloyd for their contributions. Part of having this debate was to give the Minister an opportunity to explain to us all quite what the volume of this work looks like, but that doesn't let Ministers off the hook either from giving us the fullest relevant explanation to help us be satisfied that you're doing the right thing on our behalf. So, I was delighted to hear that you said you get really the fullest advice from your officials. While we don’t necessarily want something the size of a stamp, if you could get something that's in between what we're getting now and what, perhaps, you're getting from your officials, I think that would bring some reassurance to us as a Parliament that we're doing the right thing in trusting your judgment.

And can I just apologise that you got stuck with this particular debate, because the point is a general one to all members of Government, and not just to the poor Minister who has had to respond today? Thank you. 

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

We now move on to item 6, which is a debate on the general principles of the Autism (Wales) Bill. Before I call the Member in charge to move the motion, can I just make a plea? We have a lot—a lot—of speakers who wish to speak, so, if your contributions can be trimmed, then that would be really good; you would get more people in the debate. But, if not, then I'm afraid I'll apologise now to some of you; you won't be called. So, if you can bear that in mind. So, we now will move to the debate, and I call on the Member in charge of the motion to move that motion—Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm pleased to open today's debate as the Member in charge of the Autism (Wales) Bill. I'd like to take this opportunity from the outset to thank Catherine Hunt and her team for their tremendous support and guidance during the development and passage of this Bill. Can I also thank National Autistic Society Cymru and the countless stakeholders and people up and down Wales who have helped make this Bill a reality?

I'd like to thank each of the committees who have considered and reported on this Bill and those who have contributed to the committee's work by providing evidence. I'm grateful to those committees for their scrutiny of the Bill and the useful recommendations that they have made. I've written to the Chairs of the committees outlining my response to the recommendations and the letter has been published ahead of this debate. I've carefully considered each of the reports and their recommendations, and I hope that Members have been able to see my response and recognise that I've listened to concerns raised. Where possible, I have accepted the recommendations and am committed to undertaking any further research or tabling amendments to the Bill in order to alleviate concerns.

I'd like to briefly say a few words in response to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's recommendation around the remedies available to citizens should they not receive the services they expect. I fully support the rationale of this recommendation. However, as I explained in my written response, I am unable to implement it at this time. I can assure Members that, should the general principles be agreed, I would be happy to work with Members, or to consider any amendments tabled during the amending periods, with the aim of strengthening the Bill in this respect. I acknowledge that members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee were unable to reach consensus on whether this Bill is the best way of achieving the improvements needed in autism services, but the fact that improvements are needed is emphasised throughout its report. I believe that my Bill will drive the necessary improvements.

As I said when I introduced this Bill, evidence from the two consultations that I ran showed that services for people with autism are inconsistent across Wales and, in some areas, inadequate. This was evident in the health committee's report, which stated that families it heard from have been waiting for 10 years for the autism strategy to deliver the services they need, but still they are struggling. These families are real people in all of our constituencies. Children and young people with autism aren't fulfilling their potential. Parents are despairing because the services that they need aren't available. We shouldn't still be in a situation where parents say that services aren't there and everything was a fight. These families deserve better.

People with autism have waited long enough. Urgent action is needed now to ensure that more support services are put in place. That's not just my view; that's the conclusion of the health committee, based on the evidence it received directly from families. The lived experience shared with the committee is testament that current arrangements are not fit for purpose. The committee concluded that the current difficulties that people with autism and their families face in accessing support are unacceptable. That's why this Bill is so important.

This Bill will ensure that a national autism strategy for Wales will be a statutory requirement and the services that people with autism can expect to receive will be enshrined in law. I agree with the health committee that there is a pressing need to improve autism support services and that this must be addressed as a matter of priority. I firmly believe that legislating in this way is the most effective route for delivering the improvements needed to ensure that people with autism get the support they deserve. My Bill identifies autism as a condition that requires greater attention, and it sends out a strong message that Wales is committed to ensuring that people with autism receive high quality, accessible services wherever they live in Wales on a permanent basis.     

I share concerns highlighted by the Finance Committee around the Welsh Government's interaction with this Bill. I fully agree with the committee that the Welsh Government has a responsibility to provide financial information to Assembly Members in their preparation of legislation, and in light of the First Minister's response to the committee, my concerns remain. 

The health Minister has made it clear that he does not support this Bill. Instead, he is consulting on a code of practice on the delivery of autism services. He told committees that the code will do everything that the Bill wants to do, but I do not believe the code will be sufficient to deliver the changes needed to improve services. My concerns are shared by the National Autistic Society and others, and I will outline some of these today.

My Bill would place a duty on the Welsh Government to prepare and publish an autism strategy, as well as review and revise it based on independent assessment, but there is no reference in the code to duties on the Welsh Government to publish, review or revise the code or autism action plan. It's important to stress the proposed code is not mandatory on health bodies. A further worry for people with autism and their families is the fact that the code can be reversed at any time by the Welsh Government. This is a far cry from the permanent and all-encompassing regime set out in the Bill.

My Bill ties the timescale for autism diagnosis to those set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, three months from referral to start of diagnostic assessment. The long wait for diagnosis is an area of enormous concern to many people with autism and their families. NICE standards are based on evidence and clinical expertise, but despite recognising the importance and authority of NICE on other aspects of healthcare, the Welsh Government has chosen to ignore them on waiting times for autism diagnosis, and remains attached to a 26-week target for children and, as yet, no target for adults. I have yet to see the evidence on which this target is based.

The code is heavily tied to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, whereas my Bill includes provisions much wider than those Acts. My Bill provides for meeting the needs of people with autism and their carers in relation to the Welsh language, employment, education and advocacy, but there are no duties or requirements in the code relating to any of these areas. Instead, the code says that health boards and local authorities should make reasonable adjustments. This is far weaker than the statutory duty in the Bill, and essentially allows Welsh Government to carry on doing more of the same. I'm concerned by the narrow remit of the code, as it doesn't provide for these wider aspects of a person's life. A broader holistic approach is essential if we are to ensure that people with autism are able to achieve their potential, and lead valued and fulfilling lives. The powerful evidence given by families living with autism, both via my consultations and during scrutiny, more than bears this out.

Whilst the Bill includes provision to ensure services reflect and facilitate transition from childhood to adulthood, the code refers to transition when leaving school, but there are no requirements or duties in the code to promote this in a meaningful way. We're all aware of the invaluable role played by families and friends in providing informal care to their loved ones, which is why my Bill strengthens and supports families and carers of people with autism. Such a commitment does not exist in the code, which merely includes a requirement to make carers aware of their right to an assessment under the social services Act. This is of particular concern to me, as I do not believe that this is sufficient to meet the needs of those carers.

I'd like to now address criticism directed at the Bill citing that it is diagnosis-led. This claim is simply misleading. The Bill is not solely concerned with diagnosis, but instead puts forward an overarching regime that seeks to address all the needs of a person with autism both pre and post diagnosis. Nowhere does the Bill state that a diagnosis of autism is or should be a requirement for receiving services. Indeed, having a diagnosis of autism is not an automatic passport to services. My Bill specifically provides that services can be delivered prior to a formal diagnosis.

It has been claimed that the Bill will result in an increase in diagnosis, but diagnostic criteria are determined by developments in scientific knowledge and professional practice, and will not change as a result of this Bill. And it is not morally defensible to argue that people with autism should go undiagnosed simply on financial grounds, or for lack of resources. Conversely, the data-collection requirements in the Bill will assist in identifying any tendency to over-diagnosis by health boards which, in turn, will lead to more efficient targeting of resources.

Evidence from existing trials in Wales has clearly established that the gathering of key data by the NHS, such as that prescribed in section 6 of the Bill, can lead to long-term improvements in the diagnosis of autism and delivery of related support services. The limited and unproven data-collection requirements in the proposed code would not offer these benefits. I accept that initiatives have been developed recently, notably the establishment of the integrated autism service. The Minister has told the Assembly that the IAS needs time to embed. Yet, two of the seven services have not yet been rolled out—west Wales and Western bay aren't expected to be in place until April 2019. This process has taken far too long. How can Members be confident that the IAS will deliver for their constituents when so many are still waiting for the service to be rolled out? Furthermore, the final evaluation of the strategic action plan and IAS has not yet been published. The final report will provide important, independent evidence on the effectiveness of the Welsh Government's autism strategic action plan. And without sight of this crucial information, Members cannot make a meaningful assessment of the Welsh Government's approach. 

I'd like to make it clear that my Bill will not result in wholesale changes to the structure and configuration of autism services, but seeks to underpin and further strengthen developments that are already under way. My Bill is designed to complement and be compatible with Welsh Government's existing activities, save for certain key improvements such as diagnostic waiting times, and, as such, is wholly realistic and achievable. 

Today's vote isn't about whether the Bill in its current form will become law, it's about agreeing the general principles to enable further scrutiny to take place. Should the general principles not be agreed today, the Bill will fall, and Members will have no further opportunity to shape the way autism services are developed in Wales. Agreeing the general principles will enable Members to table and debate the amendments they would like to see to the Bill. This is the only way of ensuring that Members are at the forefront of shaping the future development of autism services. There will be no further opportunity should the Bill fall today.

Whilst the Welsh Government is consulting on a code, it will not undergo the scrutiny afforded to a Bill, and Members will not be given a final say on its content. I passionately believe my Bill will deliver real and sustainable improvements to the lives of people in Wales with autism and their families, and I ask Members for their support in agreeing the general principles of this important Bill this afternoon.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Bill was referred to the health committee for Stage 1 scrutiny. As part of this, we took a wide range of evidence. In addition to the usual formal evidence gathering carried out in committee meetings, we consulted people with autism spectrum disorder and their families in a series of workshops run by the Assembly’s outreach team over the summer. Committee members also met with parent representatives and visited Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru, a one-stop shop providing a safe place for adults with an autism spectrum condition to access a wide range of advice and support, to talk to service users. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this work.

Now, autism is a lifelong condition like no other. We have talked to people with ASD and their families who are struggling, who say that they have waited 10 years for the autism strategies to deliver the support that they need and it has not happened. The committee understands the rationale of the Member in charge in introducing this Bill. We agree wholeheartedly with the need for improvements in provision of services for people with ASD. We have listened to people with ASD and their families and we’re convinced that further action, much more action, is required in this area, particularly in terms of access to support services. The current difficulties people with ASD and their families regularly face in attempting to access support is unacceptable and must be addressed. The message that clearly came through in the evidence was that more support services are urgently needed for people with ASD.

One area of particular concern was service provision for people with ASD with a high IQ and without a learning disability or mental health condition who seem to fall through the gap. The Welsh Government told us that it has all the powers it needs to deliver improvement to autism services in current legislation in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act and the NHS (Wales) Act 2006. However, parents who took part in our focus groups told us that the social services legislation had failed to deliver improved outcomes for their children because the assessments are not appropriate for people with ASD and they're therefore often wrongly denied care and support.

Would you take—? Would you agree with me that there are some people in our region who have had to travel to places such as Norwich in order to access private support because they wait so long for assessment? If there were to be a Bill such as the one being proposed today, it would be possible to ensure that they receive the treatment earlier and that they get that assessment at an earlier stage and that would provide those families who are suffering at the moment with some sort of hope.

Thank you very much, Bethan. I would agree, and that's the kind of evidence that we heard time and time again during this inquiry as we scrutinised. The parents told us that not all high-functioning people with ASD are eligible for social services under the Act, and, while they may have a high IQ, they may have great difficulty undertaking daily tasks.

Adults with ASD who took part in the committee's visit to Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru here in Cardiff told us that they felt that they were an invisible group in the autism community as they did not fall into the category of children or adults who need day-to-day care and they're not affecting employability and disability statistics. We heard that they're keen to work but are unable to get a job and need support to help them into employment.

And we have not, as a committee, been able to reach consensus on whether this legislation at this particular time is the most appropriate way of achieving these much-needed improvements. Some Members support the introduction of this Bill now, believing that it is both timely and necessary to put services on a statutory footing to deliver improvement where previous strategies have failed to do so and achieve the change required for people with ASD and their families. Other Members feel that more time is needed for existing initiatives and legislation to take effect. Some were also concerned about the focus of the Bill, which some believe is diagnosis-led rather than needs-led and the potential consequences for people who will not receive an ASD diagnosis and/or have other neurological conditions. However, we are in agreement that there is a pressing need to improve support services for people with ASD and their families across Wales, and we believe that this must be addressed as a matter of priority.

To this end, we have made a series of recommendations to the Welsh Government aimed at driving forward these improvements. These include directing the integrated autism services to improve the consistency of the service across the regions beyond what is done at present and to ensure that services in the third sector receive sustainable funding to continue with the specialist support services that they provide for people with ASD and to expand these services. Second, to direct the integrated autism services to improve the consistency of the services across all regions to ensure a national approach, taking urgent action to address the clear need for employment support for adults with ASD. Then instructing health boards and local authorities to ensure that there are multiple appropriate referral pathways available to all, including a specific primary care pathway, and that existing barriers between the health, care and education sectors are removed—for example, to enable GPs to refer children for education support. Then a mandatory requirement for all school staff, particularly teachers and teaching assistants, to receive training in awareness and understanding of ASD during their initial teacher training and as part of their continuing professional development.

We also made a recommendation to the Member in charge, as we've heard, that, if the Bill proceeds to Stage 2, an amendment should be brought forward to ensure that judicial review is not the only route available for individuals to assert their rights. I note that the Member in charge accepts the principle behind this recommendation but has been unable to identify a workable solution to address the issue. This is disappointing—but we can understand the reasons why—as it came as a result of our conversations with parents who told us of their concern about their ability to seek appropriate remedies where necessary, given the complexities of the judicial review process.

We've not yet, as a committee, received a formal response from the Welsh Government to our recommendations, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister later on in this debate. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd?

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate in relation to the financial implications of the Autism (Wales) Bill.

Now, on this occasion, the Finance Committee was unable to reach a conclusion on the validity of the regulatory impact assessment. This is not a position that the committee wants to take, as it does not help Assembly Members to scrutinise the legislation before us.

Throughout our evidence sessions, it became apparent that the Welsh Government had not provided any costings for delivering current services to the Member in charge of the Bill. As a result, the committee was unable to fully consider the value for money of options 1 and 2, as there was little information available about the current Welsh Government costs to inform such considerations. It's incumbent on the Government, as the main source of financial information, to engage in the process, and we have significant concerns about the lack of engagement from the Welsh Government in this particular instance. Now, much was made of the assertion that it was the Member in charge's responsibility for producing and costing the RIA, however the Government also has a responsibility to engage and to co-operate fully in this process. Now, our experience on this occasion suggests that this hasn’t happened. The Cabinet Secretary, as was at that time, attended the evidence session and questioned a number of the figures in the RIA. However, we weren't given sight of his concerns until that meeting, and the Cabinet Secretary was reluctant to provide written evidence detailing his concerns about the costings in the RIA. So, this approach limited the committee’s ability to scrutinise and to question the assumptions in the RIA.

During our evidence sessions, it was apparent that there was no clear picture of the Government's autism spectrum disorder specific spend within the wider spending on neurodevelopmental conditions. This lack of information is a concern to the committee. How can consideration be given to the effectiveness of Government policy without knowing how much has been spent on it? The Welsh Government has suggested it’s revised autism spectrum disorder strategic plan covers all of the key parts of this Bill, and yet they have no financial information on what is spent in this area. This lack of information and lack of engagement meant that it was difficult for the committee to reach any conclusions. For example, we were uncertain whether the potential additional call on resources that a diagnosis approach may result in has been fully accounted for in the RIA. However, we were unable to test this uncertainty due to the lack of clear information about the money spent on ASD services.

So, on this occasion, the committee is unable to make a decision on the validity of this regulatory impact assessment. Members have not received any substantial financial reason for the legislation not to go forward, but we have been unable to ascertain whether there is any value for money in this legislation due to the lack of financial information. Now, the success of legislation relies on accurate information, and the failure to provide information on this occasion has hindered the scrutiny process.

We believe that this is a worrying precedent that should not be repeated. We would urge the Government, if it sees fit to vote a Member's Bill to proceed to the 'leave to proceed' stage—it must then be prepared to fully engage with the Member in charge. Not doing so can result in poor scrutiny, it can be a poor use of Assembly time and, indeed, Assembly resources, and, most importantly, it's unfair to stakeholders who have a legitimate and genuine interest in the subject matter. 

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. We reported on the Autism (Wales) Bill on 7 December and we made six recommendations. I'm pleased to note that the Member in charge has accepted all our recommendations, and should the Bill proceed to Stage 2, we look forward to seeing the necessary amendments tabled. My contribution this afternoon will focus on two of our recommendations: recommendations 3 and 5. The first of these: we are concerned that, in the absence of enforcement provisions within the Bill, the only potential remedy available would appear to be an action to seek judicial review, which we believe is unsatisfactory because of its complexity, high cost and potential for delays. Our recommendation 3 suggests that the Member in charge should reconsider whether the remedies available to citizens under the Bill are appropriate, and, if necessary, table amendments at Stage 2 to provide a more effective way of enforcing the Bill's provisions.

I note that the Member in charge has said that, at present time, he's been unable to identify a meaningful way of amending the Bill in this respect. However, I welcome his commitment to work with Members and other experts with the aim of strengthening available remedies under the Bill, should it proceed to the next stage. However, this remains an important area of concern to the committee and a weakness to the Bill in its current form.

Moving on, the power to amend the definition of autism spectrum disorder in section 9 to include other neurodevelopmental disorders is exceptionally broad. We are concerned at this approach for a number of reasons. It is clear from the Member in charge's explanatory memorandum that a considerable amount of thought and research has gone into preparing a Bill that relates solely to autism. However, the Bill permits subordinate legislation to be used to extend the Bill's provisions to other unspecified neurodevelopmental disorders—a term that, itself, is not defined in the Bill—without the guarantee of that legislation being accompanied by the same level of supporting evidence and analysis. If the Bill was enacted, it could, if the powers in section 9(1) were used, become an autism Act that applies to a range of neurodevelopmental disorders and not just autism. This has the potential to cause confusion. Furthermore, it would mean that subordinate legislation related to other neurodevelopmental disorders would not be subject to the same level of scrutiny as the autism Bill, rather as a piece of subordinate legislation, that widening of the enacted legislation's application would be subject to a take-it-or-leave-it vote, with no opportunity to amend that legislation. We do not believe, given the breadth of the power, that even the application of a superaffirmative procedure would overcome our concerns.

In our view, the approach in the Bill does not amount to good legislative practice and would not lead to good law. For that reason, our recommendation 5 suggested that if the Bill proceeds to the next stage, the Member in charge should table an amendment to section 9(1) of the Bill to remove paragraph (b) of the definition of autism spectrum disorder. In reaching this view, we acknowledge that the provisions were included on the basis of consultation responses received by the Member in charge. However, in our view, the appropriate way to have achieved this would have been to introduce a Bill related to neurodevelopmental disorders generally. However, we also recognise that this would've been outside the terms of the Member in charge's original ballot proposal, and his ability to do this was restricted. It is therefore of concern that this therefore appears as part of the Bill.

I note and welcome that the Member in charge has accepted our conclusions and recommendations on this matter. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to say at the outset that everyone in this Chamber wants to improve outcomes and the quality of life for autistic people and their families. And I agree that support for autistic people needs to be better. That support is not yet consistently available, and for some families it does feel like a fight to get the right support and a system that works against them. Many, if not all of us across this Chamber, will have heard this experience directly from our constituents, will recognise the impact that this can have on families that we have been elected to serve, and more than that, there are a number of people across this Chamber who recognise that experience from within our own families.

There are real, legitimate and serious concerns that I and the Government take seriously and are committed to addressing. That is why this Government has invested significantly and will continue to invest in new services. The difference in this Chamber is not whether we should improve services to make a real difference to the lived experience of autistic people and their families; the difference is how we make that difference.

I would like to thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee for bringing together a wide range of views as they scrutinised the legislation. The committee reports demonstrate a wide consensus in seeking to make improvement in our autism services. None of the Assembly committee reports make a positive recommendation that the Bill should proceed. We believe that we have all the legislative powers that we need to deliver the required improvements in autism services, and we are delivering on our commitments set out in the autism strategy. If the improvements that we're committed to make are not realised, then the door is of course open to future legislation, if that would make the difference that we all want to see. 

I appreciate you might be factually correct when you just said that none of the committee recommendations were that the Bill should proceed, but the Chair of the Finance Committee has eloquently said in his contribution earlier that we as a committee were unable to decide one way or the other. So, we didn't reject the Bill either; we simply said we didn't have enough costings provided to us, mainly from the Welsh Government, for it to proceed.

I'll come to that point. It's a point of dispute between the Government and the Finance Committee about the provision of information. I want to make some progress before I take further interventions.

We have begun a series of reforms to make services more responsive to the individual needs of autistic people and their families. The clear majority of clinicians, professional groups, the NHS and local government who gave evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee believe that the reforms we have introduced need the opportunity to work and be evaluated. That was also the view of some members of the committee in their report. I believe that our focus now must be on meeting the commitments that we have made: to complete the roll-out of the integrated autism service by the end of this financial year, to finalise the statutory code that will set new standards of care and services, and our commitment to evaluating and learning from what we have done to date.

I've written to Members this week setting out a range of our commitments to improvement and evaluation. We do recognise the call for greater consistency made by the health committee, and we have committed to do just that, but our commitment to improve will not end at voting time today. This is a commitment to the future, and I fully expect the Government to be held to account to meet those commitments. The alternative we have before us today is legislation that, despite its intent, has the potential to do harm not good. If this Bill were to progress today, work on the statutory code would have to slow down as officials would need to concentrate on the Bill instead. The consultation on that statutory code is open until 1 March, and I would encourage all people to have their say, including the points made by the Member in charge during his opening. 

We believe the code will address many of the core issues identified in the Bill, including statutory service standards and levels of support that people can expect to receive. It is also written in plain and accessible language that we cannot achieve in legislation, and the code will of course be in place more quickly than the measures suggested in the Bill. It is my expectation, subject to consultation responses, that that code will be in force before the end of this calendar year.

I thank the Minister very much for taking an intervention there. What I've just heard is about aspiration, and you've said that if your reforms don't work you'll consider legislation, but you need to see if the work that you're doing now embeds. Yet, you introduced the minimum alcohol pricing Bill and insisted it was necessary—that legislation was necessary—without any evidence to back up its necessity at all. Why a different set of rules for this from your own legislation?

I completely reject the comparison; they're entirely different issues. The public health measures we were looking to take with the minimum unit pricing Act have been supported by a range of evidence we put before committees, and indeed the purpose and point of that Bill was supported by committees in this Assembly during their scrutiny. But if this Bill is passed, we do risk concentrating our clinical resources on diagnosis rather than ongoing support services. The children's commissioner, the royal colleges for GPs, nursing, speech and language therapy, psychiatry, paediatrics and child health, and occupational therapy, the NHS Confederation, and the Welsh Local Government Association all recognised the need for further consistency and improvement. They were also all united that this Bill is not the right way to do so. I'll take a further intervention if I'm to be allowed time, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Just very briefly, Minister. I think you're misrepresenting the position of the children's commissioner. What she has said is that it is a matter of debate, and I have her response here in front of me. It is a matter of debate as to whether legislation is required. I fully acknowledge that you're accurate in your representation of the other bodies you mentioned, but I think you should revise what you've said about the children's commissioner, because that is not correct.

I think you'll also find that the children's commissioner also referred to the risk that having a diagnosis-led approach would be seen as a golden ticket to services. The six royal colleges were clear that services should be provided on the basis of need, not diagnosis. They also said that specialist practitioners needed to deliver the Bill's scheme would be difficult to recruit, irrespective of whether additional funds are made available. And the evidence to the health committee suggested that the Bill would result in funding and staff resources being diverted to address waiting-list initiatives and away from providing much-needed post-diagnostic care for children, adults, parents and carers, and, of course, the same staff are typically engaged in providing care that meets the needs of people who are not diagnosed with the condition or who do have a diagnosis for a different neurodevelopmental condition. Representatives of other neurodevelopmental conditions are worried about the adverse impacts on services if autism-only legislation is introduced at the expense of wider service provision. That point was made clear both by clinicians and ADHD representatives who gave evidence to the health committee.

The Finance Committee were unable to reach a view on whether the Bill delivers value for money and they laid the blame largely at our door, and we dispute that in the strongest possible terms. We cannot provide information that we do not hold, and it is not the Government's job to do the work of the Member in charge in seeking to prove the merits of his proposal. As a backbencher, I've co-operated myself in actually working on a new piece of work to understand the financial impact of that Bill.

I have met people with autism and their families and carers who support the approach that we're taking as a Government. It is not the case that all autistic people and their families support this Bill, and my own in-tray bears that point out. But the Welsh Government will continue to listen and act on the feedback and the evaluation of the measures that we are taking. We're committed to delivering the improvements that we need by strengthening existing needs-based legislation.

I want to close by again saying there is agreement in this Chamber with the Member in charge and across parties about the need to improve services for autistic people, and this Government is investing in long-term improvement, but there is still disagreement about the means. It is the view of health and care professionals working with and for autistic people that the Bill would have unwelcome and unintended consequences. That does include the likely redirection of resources that would reduce, not improve, care and support for autistic people and other people with neurodevelopmental conditions, and we share that assessment. We do not believe that this Bill would bring about the long-term improvement in services and outcomes that we all want to see. So, I ask Members to support our drive for service improvement in the next phase of reform, which includes a statutory code. This is a difficult choice for Members to make, but I genuinely believe that the Bill will not deliver against the hopes and aspirations that so many have for it. I accept that other Members will not share my view. Whatever the outcome of today's vote, I give my commitment, once again, to work with people across the Chamber and outside it to make a real and positive difference with and for autistic people right across the country.

At a meeting of the cross-party autism group in November 2014, members of the autism community from across Wales told us that the Welsh Government's autism strategy was not delivering and people were being pushed further into crisis. The meeting voted unanimously for an autism Act. On January 21, 2015, I led an individual Member debate here that called on the Welsh Government to introduce an autism Act for Wales. Members voted in favour. In October 2016, I led a debate calling on the Welsh Government to bring forward an Autism (Wales) Bill during this Assembly term. This was defeated on whipped party lines. I was therefore delighted when my colleague Paul Davies brought forward proposals for this Member-proposed Bill.

Autism must have a statutory identity in Wales, with specific duties placed on, amongst others, local authorities and health boards. Reliance on the Welsh Government's revised ASD action plan and integrated autism service otherwise promises more of the same. Every single day, I and my office are contacted by autistic people or their family members in crisis because public service providers don't understand, or don't want to understand, what autism is, despite going on the training course. We're constantly having to advise public service providers, including the integrated autism service, on how things need to be done differently with autistic people. As guidance from the Inns of Court states:

'In order for people with autism to communicate effectively, there must be: early identification of their needs; the acquisition of comprehensive background information about the individual; careful consideration given to the communication environment; appropriate preparation of the individual for what is expected and a planned and flexible approach taken.'

They add:

'Consideration must be given not just to the types of questions asked, but also to the manner of how this is done. Timings, changes to scheduling and environmental factors (such as busy buildings) are all likely to affect the overall quality of a person’s evidence.'

It is therefore incumbent on public services to establish and adjust to an autistic person's social and communication needs, recognise the causes of an autistic person's heightened anxiety and therefore avoid treating the autistic person as the problem, which is happening every day as we debate this, as we move forward.

As we heard from autism advocate 'the Agony Autie' at the last meeting of the cross-party autism group, there is too much focus on interventions based on behaviour, not what is driving this behaviour. The first thing to ask is: are they in pain? As the National Autistic Society states,

'it has become clear that the picture painted by Welsh Government and some professional bodies, such as the Royal Colleges, differs significantly to the lived experiences of autistic people and their families.'

This goes for the WLGA too.

As the parent of people with neurodiverse and sensory loss conditions, I am not calling for condition-specific legislation for them, because they do not suffer the degree of discrimination, trauma and torture too often suffered by autistic people today. As the mother of an autistic son who committed suicide in 2018 told me:

'He appeared just a quiet, bright young man—they don't see the struggle these kids go through every day to survive in a neurotypical world.'  

Typical of many, a mother told me that her 13-year-old daughter had been out of education for four years due to lack of knowledge and understanding of autism. Another told me that her autistic daughter is 240 miles away in a mental health hospital as a result of years of anxiety due to a lack of understanding, another that

'early recognition of Autism is vital as many of the associated difficulties benefit from early intervention. My eleven year son never received this and will have a much harder life in consequence.'

Others stated, for example, that

'being Autistic is like being a non-person,'

that

'people on the autism spectrum have a huge contribution to make to society but not when they are floundering without proper understanding, support and opportunities'

and that

'as a parent of an Autistic child and as a professional school nurse it is fair to say that services for Autistic people are sadly lacking.'

Last April, I hosted and spoke at the Going Gold for Autistic Acceptance event in the Assembly, at which autistic adults put forward ideas of how we can all work together co-productively to ensure that we begin to tackle the discrimination against autistic people that has become, quote,

'the norm rather than the exception.'

Only a very arrogant politician would think they understand the needs of autistic people better than autistic people themselves.

I will make the plea again that I have a lot of speakers, and even a minute over the timescale means that you're cutting somebody else out. Hefin David.

I'd like to, very quickly, Dirprwy Lywydd, acknowledge Steffan Lewis's empty seat. I didn't have the chance yesterday, and I will miss him immeasurably. 

I'd like to share with you, Dirprwy Lywydd, some of the questions that a parent of a child with autism has. These questions may be: 'Will she be able to remain in her school? How can I help her overcome her frustrations at not being able to tell me what she wants? Will we ever be able to hold a conversation? How can we possibly approach toilet training if she doesn't understand the concept? Who can teach me how to help her? Will she ever be able to tell me that she loves me? I tell her every day.' These are just some of the questions that the parent has and, Dirprwy Lywydd, I am that parent, and I declare an interest in this debate.

My decision on how I vote today will not be influenced by the voting advice I received from the Government. I said to the chief whip some time ago that if, after much thought and discussion with stakeholders, I felt that this Bill was appropriate I would support its movement to Stage 2. Every time we vote in this Chamber, we do so in order to make better the lives of those people we represent. My personal interest does not outweigh that consideration, but it does inform it.

In the course of my consideration, I've held discussions with the Minister—who has been very kind to meet me twice—with Paul Davies AM, with NAS Cymru, with the Aneurin Bevan university health board specialists, with constituents affected by autism, and with senior staff at Trinity Fields special school, of which I am a governor. 

I have considered the Bill in detail, as well as all of the committee reports. Following these discussions, on balance I find this Bill as presented at this time is not one I can support, and that is a decision that I have made based on very great, in-detail, in-depth consideration.

I'd like to share with you a letter from someone I respect very much—. [Interruption.] Yes.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention, and this is a really important contribution. Have you considered whether amendments at Stage 2 could resolve the concerns that you have?

I've considered whether amendments would be effective and I don't think, given the assurance that we've had from the health Minister that, should a Bill be needed in the future—given the action that's been taken by the Government then I think it's appropriate that we don't move this Bill to Stage 2, given the amount of time then that amendments would take. [Interruption.] I don't accept that—telling me 'shame' when I've got personal experience of this. I think it's inappropriate to say that.

I'd like to share with you a letter from Ian Elliot, who is the headteacher of Trinity Fields School, and Michelle Fitton, who is assistant headteacher and lead for the very well-respected, recommended Caerphilly autistic spectrum service. These are people I respect immeasurably, and they have raised the concerns that have been raised in the committee evidence that's been received. They believe that the Bill relies with too little emphasis on the views of children and young people in line with the Welsh Government's commitment to the UNCRC, and they say, in a letter to me yesterday, that perhaps the focus should be on developing the code of practice and ensuring the resources to promote the delivery of services for those individuals with ASD alongside the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018. They therefore recommend not to proceed with the Bill.

Aneurin Bevan health board have written to me and they say that

'we would also like to re-emphasise concerns regarding diagnosis specific legislation. There are concerns that the wider definition of ASD used within the proposals will not be agile or flexible enough to reflect and respond to the ever growing understanding of neuro-disabilities. As new classifications emerge the legislation would need to be regularly amended to reflect these new understandings.'

'Therefore, it is suggested that this reinforces the suggestion that any protection, however welcomed for ASD, should be on the basis of need and not diagnosis or condition.'

There are a myriad of symptoms that people with autistic spectrum condition demonstrate, and the fact that no two people are exactly alike makes it incredibly difficult to produce a piece of workable legislation. I am always working on behalf of those with autism and autism-caring responsibilities, and I would like to urge the Minister to see this call for this Bill to be a call for action from people who are affected by autism. I'm reassured by his letter yesterday, which outlined ongoing comprehensive action that he's taken, and I'm reassured by his speech that he's made today.

For my own part, while I await a diagnosis for my daughter, I can only praise the specialist support for my daughter's speech and language development that she's received, but we as parents had to fight for it. I also welcome the cruising into communication course I attended as a parent, which has enabled me to develop visual communication with my daughter. But it is the case that many questions and much uncertainty remain for me and for my family. I don't know what the future holds and what the next steps are, but I am as confident as I can be that the Government is taking action to provide more help for all of us who are affected by autism and its attendant needs.

I have to say, as a member of the health committee, I went into this process feeling I had some awareness of the issues, but I was far from convinced that legislation was the answer, and, through the process of receiving evidence, I have changed my mind.

I've been thoroughly disheartened and actually sometimes quite distressed by the evidence we received from people with autism and their families of the challenges they face to get some kind of diagnosis, of identifying support where support is needed, and, where it exists at all, of getting access to their support. Some of those stories were heartbreaking, and in some places—I'm afraid that, in Wales, in some places services for those young people particularly are scarcely better than they were when I was a special needs teacher in the 1980s. There's a shocking lack of consistency nationally, and, where things are good, they are too often dependent on skilled and caring individuals in certain professions.

I think it's clear from the debate today that we can all agree that this can't be allowed to continue and that something must be done, so why I am convinced that we need a law? Now, it is true that the evidence received by our committee was mixed, and the division has been summarised by others. Broadly, those providing services or responsible for providing services are against legislating. Their concerns are reflected in the report. I won't try to answer all their points, but I would say this: it is clear that the social services and well-being Act does not provide an adequate legal framework for the provision of services for all people with autism. The concerns raised about resourcing are genuine, of course, and they need to be addressed. But this is part of a wider debate about resourcing care and support for all people who need it, and it not a reason either not to legislate or to legislate. And, of course, generally speaking, providers of service rarely wish to see their services subject to more legislation than they think is necessary.

Helen, will you take an intervention?

Happy to.

Just from my background, can I just say, as a GP, when often faced with a patient where there is no service—and it is dependent on the diagnosis—there isn't unanimity of professional opinion either, and I support an autism Bill? 

I'm grateful for your intervention, Dai—and as do I, of course. Now, on the other side of this debate we have the people with autism and their families, and the organisations that represent them. Through this process, I personally heard no voices from this group opposing legislation, though I fully accept that that can't possibly cover the views, and I have heard, and listened very carefully to, what Hefin David has had to say—though, of course, many family members were clear that legislation alone wouldn't be enough.

They described, as I've said, the huge challenges faced in accessing services. I was particularly struck by parents who had contributed to previous consultations, who had sat on national and local working groups, contributed hundreds of hours of free advice and support—and then to hear from them that, from their perception, nothing has changed. They don't believe that, without legal force, anything will. I have to tell the Minister that these families feel they have heard this all before.

Now, the Government position, which I want to refer to briefly, is odd, to say the least. On the one hand, the Minister says that a diagnosis is not needed, and that the social services and well-being Act sets out how support should be provided for people, based on need, without a formal diagnosis. I would absolutely support that position, but all the evidence we received on the health committee is that that is not the case. Particularly for children with autism, without a diagnosis, nothing happens. This is just not happening, and even if it was, some of the people with autism will never meet the threshold for the kind of support that that Act is designed for.

Now, the Minister says that condition-specific legislation is unhelpful and isn't needed. Yet, at the same time, he proposes to bring forward a condition-specific statutory code. Now, you know, Deputy Presiding Officer, this makes no sense at all. I'm quite used to getting mixed messages from this Government, but it isn't often that they actually openly contradict themselves as the Minister did in one of our meetings.

The families do not believe, on the whole, that a code is enough. Is this legislation perfect? Well, possibly it is not, and the Member bringing it forward has acknowledged this. There are concerns about the difficulty of enforcing rights, and I know that he's agreed to look at this. There may be an overemphasis on assessment and diagnosis, rather than the statutory right to receive services. Again, the sponsoring Member has made clear that he is happy to work with others to address this through the next stage of the process.

Like the families, I'm afraid I am not convinced, having been through the previous process of creating the strategy, that anything short of legislation is going to get for these fellow citizens what they deserve. On that basis, and on behalf of the people with autism and their families, including those in the gallery here today, I commend this motion to the Senedd. Let's allow this legislation to go to the next stage.     

I'd like to thank Paul Davies for introducing this Bill. I'm in complete support of this Bill and agree with everything that's been said so far in support of it, so I'll try not to repeat the points already made. 

But, turning to one of the representations that we've had against the Bill, I'm sure that everyone here has received the e-mail about the Bill, authored by a number of clinicians concerned that, if this Bill goes through, focus will be taken off conditions that, while every bit as impactive for the sufferers of ASD, have not secured a diagnosis of ASD and therefore aren't subject to this Bill and the targets or accountability that the Bill will introduce. To those clinicians, I would reply that if the Welsh Labour NHS fails to meet the needs of children who aren't diagnosed with ASD, it won't be the fault of the Bill. The blame will lie with the Government, whose successive failures so far have necessitated this Bill. I understand the concerns the clinicians have raised regarding possible unintended consequences of the Bill. It's something that you always have to watch, obviously, but the well-intentioned contribution to this debate may, in fact, act to let the Government off the hook for the mismanagement of the Welsh NHS. It will be in the hands of the Labour Government whether children with other needs will be ignored. This Bill won't cause anyone to be ignored; it's just Labour's running of the Welsh NHS that will cause that.

We can't vote against this Bill because we fear that the Government aren't competent enough to deal with it. The people of Wales need Government incompetence to be highlighted and challenged, not accommodated and appeased. So, with all due respect to the clinicians who've highlighted the concerns, I fear that following their advice will only make the Welsh Government feel better, not those people with ASD whose needs have been neglected for far too long.

We all wish this Bill wasn't necessary. We all wish the NHS was meeting the needs of those with ASD, but we also know that this isn't the case. Saying, 'Let's not do anything about it because there are other shortcomings that also need dealing with'—this diagnosis-versus-need argument—is not good enough. Should we feel the need to bring in additional Bills to tackle the shortcomings of the Labour-run NHS, we should do so. To refuse to tackle a problem solely on the grounds that it's not dealing with all of the NHS's ills is like a doctor refusing to treat a patient's long-standing symptoms until a cure for the underlying disease is found. We can't let those with ASD suffer any longer while a cure for Labour's incompetent running of the NHS is found, so I urge all Members to vote for this Bill. 

Turning to the second point that those clinicians made, nowhere is it more evident that the NHS is failing families in need than in the second point that they raise, when they say that there is a risk that individuals or families will feel that their best opportunity to access what support they need is by securing that particular diagnosis i.e ASD. Were the NHS and support service running as they should, this wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that it is an issue doesn't mean that we shouldn't do anything. As the Betsi Cadwaladr fiasco shows, not only can the Government not run the NHS at a strategic level, but they can't do it at a direct level either. That view is backed up by the e-mail that we've had from the clinicians.

So, really, the one and only reason this Bill is needed is because the Labour Government has failed to convince the Welsh NHS and other organisations to deliver the support and services needed by those with ASD. We know there are other individuals, groups of people and communities that are currently being let down by the Welsh Labour Government but, today, we're dealing with ASD, and in order to get those living with ASD the support they need, I urge everyone to back this Bill today. Thank you.   

Parents of children with autism I talk to feel they are not getting the support they need, although those with children who attend Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn, which is an exceptionally good school in my constituency, speak highly of the school. I have no doubt that the current Bill is flawed. However, something has got to be done. The Welsh Government has started a number of initiatives, and there is an argument to await their appraisal. What I want the Minister to say unequivocally to me today for me to not vote for this Bill is that if the appraisal finds that these initiatives that the Government has brought forward are not working, then the Government will introduce its own Bill during this Assembly term. I think we need to ensure that what is needed for the people is brought forward, and that a Bill produced by the Government will be produced in such a way that it would have the full benefit of Government support, and would go through. Thank you. 

I would like to thank Paul Davies for his continuing efforts to make an autism Act for Wales a reality. This Bill will help deliver what those on the ASD spectrum have been calling for for years—action to improve autism services in Wales, action that the ASD action plan has so far failed to deliver.

The Minister has, on a number of occasions, denied that there is any need for this Bill, but it is clear that previous strategies and current legislation have done little to improve services for children and adults on the autism spectrum. It should be a matter of national shame that in many parts of Wales, there are no clear pathways to diagnosis of autism, despite the roll-out of the integrated autism service.

According to a National Autistic Society Cymru survey, around six out of 10 people waited more than a year for a diagnosis, and a third nearly two years. Paul’s Bill will place a duty on every single health board to make sure that there is a clear, publicly available pathway to diagnosis. This Bill will ensure that staff working in our NHS and the social care sector in Wales are better trained and better equipped to support those on the autism spectrum and will help put an end to the gaps in these services. People on the spectrum receive services that are either focused on additional learning needs or on mental health provision, and many, unfortunately, fall between the gaps that exist between our health and education services.

It has been over a decade since the publication of the autism strategic action plan, and very little has changed for those on that spectrum. Successive Welsh Government Ministers have systematically failed to deliver any noticeable improvements to autism services in Wales and yet they are opposed to this Bill, saying that legislation is unnecessary. Well, the people that I've helped in my region would not agree with those words. We are a long way past the need for words. It is now time for action. We have all received hundreds of e-mails from those on the ASD spectrum and their families urging us to support this Bill. They know, unfortunately, all too well that warm words are not enough. Wales needs an autism Act and it needs it now. I fully support Paul in his Bill and I urge my colleagues from all across the Chamber to do likewise. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. We have gone over time, and, therefore, I apologise to the rest of the people who needed to speak in this important debate. I'm now going to call on the Member in charge, Paul Davies, to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And can I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate this afternoon? Unfortunately, I won't have time to make reference to points made by all Members.

Can I first of all thank the Chairs of the relevant committees for making their positions clear? The Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee confirmed that the committee had not reached a consensus on this Bill, but the committee is clear, we need to see real improvements to services for people with autism. The Chair of Finance Committee has made clear today the importance of receiving the correct and appropriate information in order to scrutinise legislation, and he expressed the committee's concern that the Government had not provided me, as the Member in charge, with relevant information, and this has therefore been a barrier in the committee coming to a conclusion. There are certainly lessons to be learned here as far as the Government is concerned.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his response to this debate, but I am extremely disappointed that he will vote against this motion today. I know the Minister has tried to argue that the Assembly committees do not positively support this legislation, but the Minister knows full well that the committees were not against this Bill either. They made it clear that it's now a matter for this Assembly.

The Minister again has argued that the code is superior to this piece of legislation, but, of course, I disagree with him on that and I'm not going to rehearse those arguments as I gave these reasons in my opening remarks. However, all I would say to him is that the code could be encompassed into this piece of legislation at Stages 2 and 3. So, my message to him is this: my Bill will build on some of the measures introduced by the Welsh Government, it will complement some of the Government's good work, and I therefore urge him and his Government to reconsider their position.

I'm grateful to Helen Mary Jones for making a powerful argument as to why this Bill should be supported, and she's a good example of someone who has been persuaded that legislation is the best way forward. And she's absolutely right that the Government is contradicting itself, because, yes, on the one hand, it argues we don't need condition-specific legislation, but then on the other hand is bringing forward a specific code. It can't have it both ways.

I believe this Bill will improve services for people with autism across Wales and I would urge Members not just to listen to me, but to listen to the many charities, the many activists, the many families living with autism, which affects them each day, all day, every day. The autism community have demonstrated sheer clarity on this issue and they shared their many stories and experiences with me, so many stories are deeply upsetting, and they're campaigning for legislation to give them protection and assurances that signpost them to services that will help improve their quality of life and that of the people around them. It is absolutely imperative in defining the difference between what the Welsh Government appear to want and what the autism community want. There's a danger here that the Government's measures will allow the Government to do more the same. The law would protect the needs of the individuals and their families.

I'm sure Members will recall the story I told the Chamber last year about a mum we can call 'Sarah'. Her name was changed to protect her identity. I talked about how her child would have meltdowns, how she would lose all control and scratch at her own eyes so that Sarah had to restrain her and how her brothers didn't understand why their sister sometimes hit out at them and why their mum wasn't telling her off. Sarah was holding down a job, looking after her family and fighting—and I don't use that term lightly—for a diagnosis. She told me that she had to fight for absolutely everything. She shouldn't have to fight. She should have what she needs to support her daughter and her family to help them live as normal a life as they possibly could. This is just one sad example. There are countless others in all our communities.

This primary legislation will help considerably to improve the lives of people living with autism throughout Wales. We have a duty of care to all residents, and we need to give them tailored opportunities that will exceed their expectations and give them opportunities to realise their potential. I urge all Members to look to their constituents and cast their votes today for them. I urge Members to reflect on the correspondence we have all received, which will show the strength of feeling on this very issue. If the Bill falls today then that's it. This is not about passing the legislation this afternoon, but it's about enabling this Bill to proceed to the next stages of scrutiny. I therefore urge Members to vote in favour of this motion.

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

Can I just say to the Chamber, with respect, that that's the second time I've heard somebody say 'shame' when a vote hasn't gone their way? We try to talk—[Interruption.] Excuse me. We try to talk about a kinder politics. We try to do a kinder politics in this Chamber, and by other Members shouting when somebody has an opposite view, given what we've just gone through, I find that quite an embarrassment for this Assembly, and I would ask those Members just to reflect on their behaviour.

Item 7 on the agenda is a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, 'Fire safety in high-rise buildings', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to open today's debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on fire safety in private sector high-rise residential buildings. I would like to thank all those who contributed to our inquiry. We can all agree that the safety of the place you call 'home' is one of the most important foundations to a happy and healthy life. Everybody was shocked and horrified by the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in June 2017. Since then, we as a committee have been looking at the safety of high-rise residential buildings in Wales to help prevent such a terrible event happening again.

Initially, we focused on the social housing sector. After taking evidence from the key partners and the Welsh Government, we were reassured that the necessary steps were being taken, but, as we continued to look at fire safety in more detail, it became increasingly clear that, in the private sector, there continued to be concerns—for example, ACM cladding on buildings less than a stone's throw away from the Senedd—and there were wider developments, such as the publication of the Hackitt review. We therefore turned our attention to high-rise residential buildings in the private sector. Our report has been produced to help inform the work of the building safety expert group and the Welsh Government's response to any recommendations by this group. We understand that the group is expected to publish a road map setting out how we in Wales should respond to the recommendations in the Hackitt review. This was expected early this year, and I would appreciate an update from the Minister today on how this work is progressing and when we can expect it to be published.

It is absolutely vital that there is no complacency about issues around building and fire safety. The Grenfell Tower fire and previous fires, such as the fatal fire in Lakanal House, show that these things can and do happen and that it is absolutely vital that lessons are learned and changes are implemented as quickly as possible.

I will now move on to some of the key areas in our report. I am not intending to go through each of our recommendations, but instead will focus on building management, the need to update fire safety legislation and the need for robust building control. Effective building management is critical to ensuring fire safety in high-rise residential buildings. We were reassured by the evidence we took from managing agents. Those who gave evidence to us clearly took their responsibilities seriously and provided us with evidence as to how they ensured the safety of their buildings. But we know we only heard from a section of the market. We are concerned that there may be those managing buildings who may not have the sufficient levels of competence and experience, or may cut corners to reduce costs. We therefore made recommendation 1: this calls for regulation of agents who manage high-rise residential buildings. We appreciated this could be complex and introducing such regulation could take some time. Therefore, in the interim, we suggested looking at whether Rent Smart Wales could take on board this role. I'm pleased that the Government accepted this recommendation. In their response, they detailed the reviews, looking at broader leasehold reform, due to report by the summer. It would be good if the Minister today could give a clear commitment that the implementation of recommendations arising from the reviews will be prioritised so that we can start to see changes taking effect at the earliest opportunity. I acknowledged the Minister's comments that the interim measures we have suggested may not work in practice, but, at this stage, can she provide further details about what steps can be taken in the interim to address our concerns?

I will now move on to issues relating to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. We have been calling for it to be revised since we first started looking at this issue in July 2017. It was an area of significant concern then and it continues to be so. As a committee, we feel that more urgency is needed from the Welsh Government. While we appreciate that the Assembly did not have competence over the subject matter of the Order until April 2018, there is now the opportunity to seek to reform or replace it as soon as possible.

In recommendation 3, we call for new legislation to replace the fire safety Order to be introduced in this Assembly term. We also highlighted areas that we feel the new legislation should cover. The Minister agrees with us that the Order needs to be radically reformed or replaced but states that this is a complex issue and time is needed to give consideration to ensure that any new system is effective and joined up. However, it is frustrating to see that this may not happen in the current Assembly. This is about ensuring the regulations that govern the safety of buildings in which people live are fit for purpose, and I continue to hold that the Government should make a clear commitment to deliver on this legislative change by the end of this Assembly as a priority in the legislative programme.

Moving on to some of the specifics about the fire safety Order, we heard in July 2017, and continued to hear in autumn of last year, that it was unclear as to whether the front doors to flats, which play an important role in preventing the spread of a fire, came under its remit. This was of particular concern because residents often make modifications to their front door, including replacing them with doors that may not offer any fire protection at all. This clearly could have an impact on not just the residents living in the individual flat but also their neighbours by undermining the integrity of fire safety measures put in place. The Welsh Government were clear that they believed these front doors came under the fire safety Order, but they acknowledged that this had not been tested in the courts. The fire services themselves were unclear and the legal advice we received was that the Order would not cover front doors. So, we were concerned about the significant ambiguity and lack of clarity on this important issue. This was just one of the changes we wanted to see made when the Order is replaced.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to talk about the role of building regulations. One of the most consistent themes that featured throughout this work was the general acceptance that there can be a significant difference between the building as designed on paper and the one that is actually built. This disconnect can happen for a number of reasons, including that unforeseen difficulties and challenges may be faced when turning designs into reality. But of more concern to us was the inspection regime, which seems to be under-resourced, and there seems to be limited powers to monitor what is happening on individual building sites. We heard from one developer how they tried to minimise this disconnect by employing the architect in a quality assurance role throughout construction. But we were unable to identify if this practice was widespread throughout the industry or not, because only one developer gave evidence to us. This was disappointing and meant that we were unable to better understand what developers are doing or not doing. We therefore made recommendation 8, which calls for the Welsh Government to assess the effectiveness of quality assurance throughout the construction stage, and whether best practice should be mandated through regulation. The Government accepted this recommendation but have highlighted that primary responsibility for the safety of a building sits with those involved in its design and construction. We understand and agree with this point that regulation and building control play an important part in ensuring public safety.

Clearly, the Hackitt review has provided a detailed set of recommendations for changes to the building regulation process and system in England, and we look forward to seeing the Welsh Government's response to these recommendations. While we acknowledge that the Minister cannot commit to much at this stage of the expert group's work, we would urge her to ensure that, once the group has made its recommendations, the Government response and implementation is done with real pace and urgency.

As all will agree, Dirprwy Lywydd, this is simply too important an issue to allow it to drift, and I now look forward to Members' contributions.

I do believe that this report's publication is a landmark for everyone concerned to ensure that people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower, but in the private sector, are safe and feel safe, and I do hope that the Minister will continuously update this Assembly on the progress that the Government are making towards implementing the recommendations. I think it was one of the first acts you made in your new responsibilities to reply to the report, and it is broadly positive.

Something that was very clear to me, Deputy Presiding Officer, throughout the evidence sessions was that the current system simply isn't fit for purpose. And it's painful that it took an event like the Grenfell fire for us to realise that, but it does, I think, mean that we have to have a comprehensive and robust approach now to reform in this area. We in the Welsh Conservatives completely agree with the conclusions of this report and support the principles behind its recommendations for such a new and more robust system. We agree with the call for greater clarity and accountability over who is responsible for building safety during the construction, refurbishment and ongoing management of high-rise homes.

Can I also take this opportunity to thank all the witnesses who came in and gave evidence on what was one of the most important committee investigations I've been involved in? We heard evidence, I think, of the highest quality and also a very considerable degree of consistency in what the witnesses told us.

I would like to pick out a few of the recommendations and concentrate on those, and, indeed, the ones I've selected I argued for strongly in the report, and I think all Members were convinced by the evidence that we'd heard on them. I do hope that the Minister will be able to say a few more words in her response to this debate on these particular issues, and indeed several of them have been referred to by the Chair already.

So, recommendation 3 in particular was a real eye-opener for me. I'm very pleased that we have made a stronger recommendation than that contained in the Hackitt review. I don't think many people out there would believe that the fire safety Order does not place any requirements on the competence or qualifications of a person undertaking a fire risk assessment, or indeed on the frequency of those assessments. Recommendation 3 in our report would rectify this, and it seems like an obvious and sensible reform to ensure that buildings are constantly monitored for fire risks.

In the committee, we believe that the lack of basic requirements set out in legislation was a clear gap, and was not in line with other comparable works such as gas safety checks, for instance, so I'm pleased that the Government does accept this recommendation in principle, although I note what the Welsh Government has said on the timescale and complexity of this work, and the Chair has referred to this. I hope the Minister in her response will outline how she plans to take this forward and to what timescale she imagines it will be carried out. It is, I think, one of the more practical changes that we can get in place quickly, I hope, and I'm confident that it would make a substantial difference to the fire safety of high-rise buildings. I do share the aspiration of the Chair that we could see legislation within this Assembly, and I can assure you that you'd get full co-operation from the Welsh Conservative Party—and, I'm sure, all parties represented in this Chamber—if you do set that as an ambition for this Assembly.

Deputy Presiding Officer, in the build-up to the recent publication of the Welsh Conservatives' housing strategy, I had several discussions with the construction industry with regard to the lack of upskilling opportunities in Wales so that older workers can modernise their methods, and I believe this is an issue throughout the UK, not just in Wales. This is something I think the Minister also mentioned in her response to recommendation 8, regarding the quality assurance of building works. I would be interested to see if the Minister would be willing to expand in her response, perhaps in writing or directly today, to highlight the conversations officials are having with UK Government and the industry to get these training opportunities in place.

I am disappointed that recommendation 6 has only been accepted in principle. I think the joint competent authority model was consistently backed in evidence. The model looks at the whole life cycle of a building and involves local authorities, building control, fire and rescue and the Health and Safety Executive to oversee the management of safety, and I think the key movement there was to look at buildings in their whole life cycle. 

So, I would appreciate a full response, if possible, at least of the direction of travel the Minister will now be going in, the speed she'll carry out the recommendations, and then also further information on the ones that have only been accepted in principle. I think this will go a long way to ensure that those who live in high-rise buildings can have a secure home and have the security and peace of mind that they deserve. Thank you very much.

I'm pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, although much of the credit for this work must go to my colleague Bethan Sayed, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this issue was placed further up the agenda, where it deserves to be.

It's now just over 18 months since the tragedy of Grenfell fire demonstrated just how vulnerable some high-rise residential units are, and also the extent to which basic standards of health and safety just don't seem to apply to people who are on low incomes, especially those who belong to minority groups. I found it shocking, for example, that there is still no statutory regulation for people wishing to manage high-rise residential buildings. I also found it shocking that, during our evidence sessions, we heard that in France and Germany there are materials that are specifically prohibited in high-rise buildings, and that isn't the case here. Perhaps it's because France and Germany have political systems that are less likely to give preference to profit over people. We had a small example of this a decade ago, of course, where a modest proposal by the current Deputy Presiding Officer for sprinklers to be installed in homes was met with an unbelievable level of hysteria from the industry. Now, our report makes a number of recommendations about fire safety that would start to address that imbalance, and, frankly, they need to be implemented with urgency. So, I'm pleased that all but one of these recommendations have been accepted by the Welsh Government. I'm not entirely sure that they had much choice, given the consequences of not implementing these recommendations. But even once all of those recommendations are implemented, there still remains a wider piece of work that must be done to raise safety levels throughout the private housing sector. Too often in the past, these high-rise buildings have been places where people with low incomes have dwelled but not lived. They've had to put up with poor conditions and underinvestment in services to support their communities and absent landlords. Is it any wonder, then, that we found so many issues urgently needing addressing? And isn't it a shame that it's taken this tragedy to give us the opportunity to take a proper look at this? 

I just wanted to add one or two comments to what's already been said by the Chair and other Members. Over the recess, I visited the site of the Grenfell Tower, and I think it remains a very devastating landmark to the disgrace that most of these residents have not yet been allocated a proper home, despite the fact that Kensington and Chelsea is one of the richest boroughs in Britain and they seem to be too busy making development deals with people who want to build million-pound homes. If the UK Government wasn't so busy with Brexit, they should have instructed Kensington and Chelsea to rehouse these people compulsorily.

Anyway, I want to emphasise this lack of clarity about the front doors of flats because, as the Chair's already outlined, we've had lots of conflicting evidence, and absolute—. We know, anecdotally, from all of us having visited properties, that loads of people change their front doors and nobody has any oversight over whether they are fire-resistant, and, obviously, that puts other people, as well as themselves, at risk. So, that is something where it would be very useful if the Government could take prompt action on. 

I think there's also the point about the need to use the architect as the quality assurer, because the construction of buildings is such a complicated business these days, and unless you are on-site reasonably frequently, you simply have no idea whether the work is being done to the standards as specified in the contract. And once the first fix is completed, it is absolutely impossible to see whether a building is fire-safe or whether it's a fire hazard. And we had very good evidence from the fire service, who specifically spoke about a particular building where they'd had reason to have to pull apart what was behind the panels to find that it absolutely was a fire hazard. So, how many other high-rise buildings are in a similar state? We have to—. It is the role of Government to ensure that the regulations are adhered to and that people can reasonably assume that, if they are going to be living in a high-rise building, it is going to meet the regulations to enable them to escape in the event of a fire. 

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, my thanks to the committee for its very careful consideration of what is clearly a critical but also very complex subject. Following the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, which a number of Members have referred to, and the myriad issues that have surfaced since, the Welsh Government has also been very deeply engaged in these matters. Our involvement has been at both a policy and a practical level. Throughout, our prime consideration has been that people living in high-rise residential buildings, whether in the private or social sectors, must be as safe as they and we should be entitled to expect, as has been referred to by a large number of Members, most latterly Jenny Rathbone. 

The report, to which I responded earlier this month—and, as David Melding said, was one of the first things I did when I took over this portfolio—is a very welcome addition to the body of knowledge that is developing as we take the steps to make sure that we can ensure that people are safe when they live in a high-rise building, right down to actually what a high-rise building is and what the height that constitutes the particular issue is. I've had quite a few discussions in the short time I've been in portfolio, and I know that my predecessor, Rebecca Evans, had a number of discussions before about whether it is in fact the height or the make-up or whatever of the building that matters, and the escape routes and the class of occupants and all those sorts of things. As Dame Judith Hackitt indicated in her report, 'Building a Safer Future', an effective and coherent system is the key to that assurance. Dame Judith's report was commissioned by the UK Government but we absolutely recognise the picture it paints. What we're doing now is to consider whether and how the recommendations are right in a Welsh context. It's essential, therefore, that our decisions and any legislative changes we bring forward in due course and the system they underpin add up to something real and coherent, something that makes a real difference to people's lives and to their well-being, as every Member who's contributed has said. That means improving design in construction processes, clarifying responsibilities, ensuring compliance both during a build and post occupation, and the ongoing safety of high-rise buildings in Wales, and it also means a strong enforcement regime wherever necessary. 

I will just address very briefly the issue about the front doors—only to say there is an ongoing issue with that. I'm very aware of it. I've already had some discussions on that, and the expert group is also aware of it. There are some issues around insurance and so on that are also complex that I know the committee picked up. So, we are very much aware of that. I don't have an answer to it at the moment, but we're very aware of it and it's part of what we're looking at. 

I did meet the ministerial expert group last week for the first time. That group brings together a range of expertise, including developers, building control bodies, architects, social landlords, fire safety professionals, the Health and Safety Executive and various sector representatives. They've heard from both UK and Scottish Government representatives, the Building Research Establishment and technical experts, and as a consequence of the group's expert input we are on track to produce what we call a road map, which will give shape and coherence to our approaches to the problems that Dame Judith's report described. So, they've had their penultimate meeting, which is the one that I attended just to meet them, and then they'll have their last meeting very shortly. So, we'll have the road map very shortly after that—certainly by the end of the summer term, but I'm hoping by what the Government calls 'spring'; let's hope that's May—as soon as possible. They're very committed people. They put a lot of personal time in over the Christmas recess to produce the interim stuff that they were dealing with at their penultimate meeting. So, I'm confident that we will have that at pace.

I also wanted to give more of a feel for where we are now. We're working alongside partners in local government and the third sector to identify the number and particulars of all tall residential buildings in Wales. That proved a much more difficult task than you'd expect, particularly in the private sector, but we do now have much stronger and more reliable data. We've shared the information via the Welsh Local Government Association to ensure that we're in a more robust position in terms of the information that is held and built on. Just anecdotally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm told that, in the end, we had to just send people out to have a look to see where tall things were because there was actually no register. So, that's a piece of information we now have. 

But that information, of course, only takes you so far. Three tall buildings in the social sector and 12 in the private sector were found to be clad in aluminium composite material, or ACM, the particular cladding that caused the difficulty in the rapid spread of fire at Grenfell Tower. The Welsh Government has worked closely and effectively with building owners and developers to ensure that responsible decisions have been taken. As it stands, work has either been completed on, or is in train to remove and replace the cladding on all but two of those buildings. In the case of the outstanding two, large-scale tests have been recommended on the exact nature of the cladding and its performance and the developer has committed to complying with any subsequent recommendations and is keeping us appraised of process. So, we're very pleased that that is ongoing at some pace. 

In the discussions with my predecessor, Rebecca Evans, developers and owners signalled that they would do the right thing by the residents. We made abundantly clear that the Welsh Government did not want to see the cost of that work passed on to residents. I'm pleased to see that residents are not being asked to bear the cost of removing and replacing ACM. That's obviously the right decision, which we welcome, and will doubtless come as a relief to people who bought or live in those particular buildings. 

In terms of new or future buildings, we've consulted on banning combustible materials altogether. My officials are currently analysing the responses and undertaking the necessary impact assessment work on the consultation that's come back. Whilst a ban is intended to add further protection, obviously I understand that builders and insurers are already taking practical steps to ensure new buildings are not developed using combustible cladding, but there obviously is a massive retrofit issue as well.

There are, of course, as many people have said, complicated issues that go far beyond the ACM cladding issue. Officials continue to work closely with counterparts in local government and the fire and rescue services to take on a casework approach to buildings about which other concerns have been identified. Bringing together key players is one area from which we continue to learn, and, like the committee's report, that experience will understand and develop sound systems to enhance their safety.

In responding to the ELGC committee report I've been keen to accept recommendations wherever possible and to ensure that these are factored into the work of the expert group. Dame Judith was very clear about the need for a coherent, rather than a cherry-picking, approach to implementing a whole-system change, and we are very keen to do that, because we know that, at the moment, there are a set of regulations and obviously the problem is that there are gaps, and then some things fall into those gaps, so that whole-system, coherent approach is essential so that those gaps are eradicated. The expert group completely get that. They've confirmed that the current system is, in their view, fragmented, complex and ineffective. We will be overhauling it. We must do that if we are to keep people safe from the sorts of fires that we saw at Grenfell, or indeed any kind of fire.

In terms of the time, I think it's best—. We have to get this legislation right, so we don't want to do something at pace that we then miss one of the gaps. So, we want to get the right combination of taking enough time to ensure that we have covered off a coherent, system approach and the pace necessary. So, I want to be able to say that we can do it within this Assembly term—we certainly would love to—but I think it's very important to get the system right, so to make sure that we have covered off all other gaps that exist in the current legislation and we've explored all the possibilities. So, I'm not going to commit to that other than to say I share the ambition, but whether or not we'll be able to do that, I don't know. But it is very important, and I make no apology, that we get the practical application right and then enshrine that in the legislation. We want to have all the appropriate consultations with key players, of course, including the views and voices of residents. We want to be clear, as I said, about the nature of the buildings in scope. Height alone is not necessarily the only issue. There are other risks posed to different groups. So, it's clear, isn't it, that a nursing home, for example, at only two storeys will have particular difficulties and might need particular fire protections that an ordinary residential domestic building might not need and so on. So, there are obviously more complex issues than simply height, although height continues to play an issue.

So, as I said, I expect to receive that in the early spring. We'll be giving thorough consideration to their recommendations, and I am clear that there will be no delay between their report and our response that isn't necessary to just make sure that we've got, to use the colloquialism, our ducks in a row.

I'm very happy to accept David Melding's recommendation that I keep Members fully informed via the committee and, Deputy Presiding Officer, via the floor of the Senedd. My officials will develop a programme plan and timeline as we consult and implement short, medium and long-term proposals to demonstrate our commitment.

I'm very clear about the importance of this work in ensuring we get it right. My portfolio includes housing, planning and responsibility for fire policy, so I'm committed to using the breadth of the portfolio to oversee and implement the wide-ranging agenda, bringing together the various components to ensure that the system in Wales is clear and effective and enhances safety in the right way. In that regard, I reiterate my welcome for the ELGC committee report and its part in informing the key decisions and actions we take, and, as I said, I will of course continue to update Assembly Members on the progress that we make. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I now call on John Griffiths as Chair of the committee to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Members for their contributions, Dirprwy Lywydd, and the committee members for their focus and commitment to this work. As everybody who has spoken today has stated, it's very obviously extremely important that we understand as best we can the issues around fire safety in high-rise in general, in private high-rise in Wales, identify necessary action and take that action as quickly as possible. I'm very grateful for the understanding of the importance of these issues, the focus that committee members have given, the seriousness with which they've approached the work, and the evidence that we've received, again reflecting the gravity of these matters.

As Leanne Wood said, obviously, it's a terrible thing that it took a tragedy such as Grenfell Tower to really bring to the fore the issues that we face and the need for the work that's now taking place and the action that has happened and will follow. We really need to get to grips with these issues and do all we can to make sure that such terrible tragedies do not happen again. That's why I think, as the Minister said—rightly said—it is very, very important that we get it right. But, obviously, the committee is also is also of the view—and I know the Minister is as well—that, yes, we need to get it right, but we need to get it right as quickly as possible, and that's the spirit in which we must move forward. In that respect, it's good to hear of the commitment from the expert group, as the Minister has shared with us, and the acceptance that there is a need to get that road map published as quickly as possible.

I'm very grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given in response to what David Melding said about the need to keep us all updated as regularly as possible, because there is a lot of work going on. There is a lot of work going on at a UK level, a lot of work jointly between Welsh Government and the UK Government, and a lot of work here in Wales. So, you know, there is a lot to update on, and, again, it's extremely important that we keep abreast of those developments, and that they are shared and that we understand what is happening and when it's going to happen. Again, I think it was very good to hear David Melding talking about the co-operation that he rightly reassures the Minister would be in evidence right across the political parties here were legislation to be brought forward and to be brought forward in this Assembly term. I think we heard what the Minister said on that subject. But, if it is possible, then I'm sure it's important for the Minister to know that there would be that spirit of co-operation from the other parties that would ease the passage of that legislation through the Assembly and help provide reassurance to the Government that some of the difficulties involved might be overcome with that spirit of co-operation.

So, in short, then, Dirprwy Lywydd, these are matters that the committee will return to. We have done that now over a period of years with our early work on the social housing issues, in terms of high-rise in Wales, and now with this subsequent report on high-rise private residential blocks. We will continue to return to these matters, and I look forward to working with the Minister, knowing that she's made this an early priority in her current role, and will continue to do so.     

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

We move to item 8, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on a 'no deal' Brexit. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to move the motion in our party's name and also pleased to note that the Government is supporting our motion in the debate this afternoon. We agree, therefore, in rejecting, in any circumstances, an exit from the European Union with no deal, and we agree that, as an emergency measure, the Welsh Government should ask for the UK Joint Ministerial Council to be convened to seek agreement on ruling out such a 'no deal' exit from the EU.

This agreement, I think, between us and the Government, and hopefully with other members here as well, is a good sign that there is an emerging understanding in this place that we must face together the problems that are crowding around Wales and the Welsh economy that threaten a perfect storm. There can be no doubt that the many challenges facing in particular, for example, Welsh manufacturing, and not least the redundancies announced at Ford in Bridgend and at Schaeffler in Llanelli, either flow from—or, at the very least, are being exacerbated by—the continuing uncertainty around Brexit. The most immediate thing that we can do to lessen that uncertainty is to take the threat of 'no deal' off the table. That is what my party in the House of Commons is straining—and, indeed, in the House of Lords as well, in the form of Dafydd Wigley—all its efforts in the coming days to achieve, in seeking collaboration across the parties in Parliament, in Westminster. I very much hope that, in approving this motion, the Welsh Government will convey also as a matter of urgency to the leader of the Labour Party in the House of Commons that he too should seek collaboration with us and other parties in the Commons to put 'no deal' off limits. 

I think, at the outset of the debate, it is worth reiterating how disastrous a 'no deal' scenario would be. It's of course difficult to predict with absolute certainty the consequences of a scenario that, by definition, is as yet unspecified in all its permutations. But I think it's reasonable to come to a conclusion about the nature of the impacts on the economy, and in the short to medium term they are three fold—a financial crisis, a trade shock and a domestic recession that is likely to be both deep and long.

In terms of the financial markets, the pound is already down some 20 per cent since the referendum, without the kind of UK-wide export boom that some predicted. UK equities, not including foreign-focused firms listed in the UK, are unattractive. Jobs and investment are heading abroad, with about £800 billion of staff operations and customer funds already moved abroad from the financial sector alone, according to a recent report by Ernst & Young. Indeed, on our recent visit to the Republic of Ireland, in a meeting with the Irish development agency, the IDA—of course, they are living proof of what might be coming further down the line. Fifty-five companies have already located, of course, to the Republic of Ireland, even without the horrendous prospect of a 'no deal'.

So, on 30 March, in a crash-out scenario, I think we can expect a rapid and radical worsening of these already existing trends. The pound would tumble probably at least a further 20 per cent to parity with the dollar. There'd be widespread concern about the UK's financial stability, accompanied by a frantic outflow of capital, and a whole range of financial institutions would be likely severely tested in echoes of 2008, but with the added dimension that both the UK and global economies are in a more fragile state than then and have far less capacity to respond positively. The strong likelihood is that the Bank of England would have to raise interest rates sharply to try and maintain confidence.

Now, in terms of the real economy, domestic-facing businesses will probably not be that hard hit on day 1, though one would anticipate a general slowing down in economic activity, given the financial uncertainties, the fall of the pound and the rise in interest rates, which will quickly induce a negative mood in general in terms of confidence in the economy. By contrast, though, the impact on the tradable goods sector is likely to be sudden and explosive. Every cross-border transaction will be affected. Indeed, whole new borders will be created where they previously didn't exist in the commercial sense. Red tape, delays, chaos and confusion will fatally undermine the very basis of much of UK just-in-time manufacturing. One can envisage company shutdowns and cash flow problems kicking in very quickly, given the scale of change and uncertainty. For services, again, the likelihood is almost certainly one of severe disruption and threats to the survival of some companies, and further catalysts for the relocation of others. How many jobs would be lost in the first few months is not accurately calculable, but the likelihood is that these would be substantial and, for the most part, gone for good.      

Now, looking beyond the first few weeks and months, it is true that in the long run those crises usually sort themselves out eventually. However, I think it's likely that, in this case, such is the depth of the impact in certain sectors, particularly the car industry, pharmaceuticals, aerospace, farming, probably finance, I think it would leave a long shadow of economic decline for many, many years to come. And because Wales has a higher concentration in most of these sectors, we would likely suffer disproportionately from a 'no deal' scenario. A major recession in the country will almost certainly be unavoidable. The huge hit to industry, allied to rising prices and rising interest rates, will leave people much poorer, struggling to make ends meet. Domestic-facing companies that will likely avoid the initial chaos would then be hit by probably the most severe depression the country will have known for many, many years. Of course, any of the individual assumptions behind the predictions I've made are contestable, I could be wrong. The question is: is it a risk worth taking? And most of us here, I think, would argue 'no'—a 'no deal' is unacceptable and it is unnecessary.

But it, of course, brings us on to the very pertinent question of how do we avoid it. Now, the Government has already said it supports the extension of article 50, and we welcome that. And praise where praise is due—it's ahead of the Labour Party in Westminster in this regard, who, at this stage, only say that extending article 50 is an option worth considering. What I would say to that, and we've heard the language of options in the Brexit debate in other contexts, haven't we, that famous—? I almost feel as if I was in that compositing-motion-room discussion, because we've heard it referred to in terms of the Labour Party conference so often. Time is running out for options. Actually, what we need now is a clear sense of a strategy and what action are we going to take.

So, I would urge the Government, now that it's adopted this position of asking for an urgent extension of article 50, if it could convey that message to its parliamentary colleagues in Westminster, then they would be doing us all a great favour. And, I think that, obviously, in the motion before Christmas, on 4 December, we voted against Mrs May's deal. I hope that in this motion today, this Parliament will vote against a 'no deal' Brexit. We've been influential—obviously, we led the way in terms of Mrs May's deal. I hope that we lead the way in terms of a 'no deal' as well and the Parliament in Westminster will also follow our lead.

But, you know, saying what we're against is only part of the solution. The next part is saying what we're for, and, ultimately, the only way of absolutely ensuring there is no 'no deal' is for us to find a positive majority in this place, obviously, but also in that other Parliament, in favour of an alternative. But that is a discussion for another day, and by that, of course, I mean next Tuesday.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett—Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. And I beg to move the amendment in Gareth's name on the agenda. Well, this is just the latest writhing of those who never accepted the result of the referendum two and half years ago. Tentatively at first, but now increasingly explicitly, they're coming forward with plans to first of all frustrate that result and, secondly, to reverse it, to remain in the single market and the customs union. Whatever infrastructure surrounds that effectively means that we do not leave the EU. That was made explicit in the referendum campaign itself, where all parties warned that if the people voted to leave, it would mean coming out of the single market, coming out of the customs union, and Armageddon would ensue just as night follows day. Well it didn't, of course, any more than it did when we had exactly the same predictions over the exchange rate mechanism when Britain was a member of that catastrophic organisation 25 years ago. When we left, of course, it opened up a new dawn that led to a period of unprecedented growth.

And I think that when we've completed this process, as I hope we will, and leave the EU, the freedoms that it will give to us will, in the medium to long term, be quite evident. The kind of Hieronymus Bosch picture that was painted by the leader of Plaid Cymru is absurd when you look at the numbers, that we will go into the most protracted recession that we've known in living memory. Does he not remember a real recession 10 years ago? Or look at Greece or Italy today if you want to see what real deprivation is.

Our exports to the European Union amounted to £274 billion last year—a very significant part of our gross domestic product, to be sure. We imported a lot more from them, of course, because we have a trade deficit with them of £67 billion a year, but nobody is talking about banning trade between the EU and the United Kingdom. The average level of tariffs in the non-agricultural sector—and agriculture is only 2 per cent of the UK's GDP, but in the non-agricultural sector, the average EU tariff is 2.6 per cent. And when you consider, as Adam Price pointed out, that there's been a devaluation of the pound since the referendum of six times that, the imposition of tariffs, if that were to happen—and I'm not in favour of tariffs; I want a free trade deal with the EU—. But if we were to have tariffs introduced on both sides then this would be a small fraction of that percentage of 16 per cent that might be affected.

Many people are trading with the EU in sectors where there would be no tariffs at all; in others, they are trivial. There are, of course, sectors, such as automobiles, where the tariff rate is 10 per cent, but we have a massive deficit in automotive materials. Eighty-six per cent of all the new car registrations in the United Kingdom last year were imported vehicles. We've lost the bulk of our automotive manufacture in the United Kingdom over the years. Germany exports to Britain one in seven of every vehicle that is manufactured in Germany. They're not going to want—they'd be foolish if they did want to see tariffs introduced between us that would inhibit trade. Germany's problems are much greater in relation to what's happening in China than anything that is likely to occur in Britain in the next 18 months. So, they've got other fish to fry, I think.

No, our interests, I think, lie not in ruling out a 'no deal', a so-called 'no deal', if we leave on 29 March without having even begun the negotiations to put something else in its place. We would leave on World Trade Organization terms, as we have with the rest of the world. Sixty per cent of our exports now go to the rest of the world, and we trade quite happily with them on WTO terms, and we cannot enter into free trade negotiations with other important trading partners, like the United States, until we leave the customs union, because the EU is the sole negotiator for every single member of the customs union.

So, there are opportunities, which were wholly neglected in the doom and gloom scenario that was painted by Adam Price in his opening speech in this debate. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world. We are a major player in all sorts of industries, and the industries of the future, like artificial intelligence and other technological industries. London is the world's leading financial centre. That isn't going to be undermined by Britain leaving the EU on WTO terms. We have financial infrastructure in this country that is unparalleled anywhere else apart from in the United States. Frankfurt is never going to overtake London as a major financial centre. The EU will still need to use London for most of the major capital-raising activities that are needed in Europe. Of course, there will be some structural change as a result of leaving the EU, and it will be necessary for banks and other financial institutions to set up offices in the EU in order to satisfy their regulatory requirements, but this is not going to cost us anything in the longer term. Certainly, in the short term, there will be transitional costs. Everybody has always accepted that.

But if we go into the future simply believing that, as a country, we're finished, washed up, can't do anything in the world, not only do we misjudge our own people and also actually falsify our own history, but we are closing off the future of not only our younger generation currently in existence, but all future generations, because all we're seeking to do is what I would have thought Plaid Cymru want more than anything else, which is to have the right of self-government for our own country: in this case the United Kingdom, which includes Wales.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 2, tabled in his name—Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I move the amendment tabled in my name. Of course, this is a very timely debate, given the events of last night. The meaningful vote on Britain's EU withdrawal agreement was an opportunity, in my view—an opportunity for politicians from all four nations in the UK of all political colours and of no political colours, remainers, leavers to put aside their differences and to put aside ideology on EU membership and try to act in the national interest. And it's a matter of deep regret to me that, unfortunately, given the opportunity that was there that it was not actually taken. Now, we know that the clock is ticking in relation to the date of 29 March, which will be the date when we leave the EU, as is currently the target, in any case, and I think it's important and imperative upon any Government, both here and at Westminster, to make sure that we do everything that we can to leave the EU on 29 March in an orderly way. And that's precisely, of course, what the UK Government was seeking to do. [Interruption.] Of course I will.

Thank you very much to Darren Millar for taking an intervention. I am grateful. Would you accept that 'no deal' would be a scenario that you would also want to avoid, and in that context, if it isn't possible to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit, and there's a need for further discussions at Westminster amongst the senior parliamentarians that Mrs May has referred to, that perhaps we will need to extend that deadline of 29 March? Because the clock is ticking.

Look, of course, I would rather we left the EU with a deal. Of course I would rather that. However, what I don't think you can do is completely rule out the possibility of no deal, because if you do that, what you do is you give all your bargaining chips away to the EU and say to them, 'No matter what you give us, we will take it because we are not going to rule out no deal.' So, it's not a good negotiating strategy. Of course. I want a deal. I want a good deal for the United Kingdom as we leave, and I want a good deal for Wales. And I think that's why we've seen a response from the UK Government, which has accepted the result of the vote last night, but has also reached out to people across the aisle and in all parts of the UK in terms of the devolved administrations and said, 'Right, okay, we accept the outcome of that vote. Help us now to craft something that we can all agree on so that there can be a team UK approach as we leave the EU.'

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. We're 72, 73 days away from the date when we are due—. I know you're getting excited about this, but we are very close to that leaving date. Don't you agree that it's slightly late in the day now to be reaching out to people when we've been crying out in this Assembly for the last two years to have our voice heard, including through the document, 'Securing Wales' Future', and the Government ignored it?

There's nothing like an approaching deadline to get people together and get minds together in order to find a way through. I am not in favour of deferring the article 50 leaving date because I think that what would happen is, we would simply keep on kicking it down the line and never fulfil the outcome of the referendum in June 2016 in which the people of Wales voted to leave the EU.

Now, I have to say, Plaid Cymru have tabled this motion today, and I understand why they've tabled this motion, because they want us to reject a 'no deal' scenario. But what they did yesterday in voting against the Prime Minister's deal that was before the House of Commons has made a 'no deal' situation all the more likely. So, I think it is a bit strange, really, for people who want to rule out no deal to actually have rejected the Prime Minister's deal at such a late date.

And, of course, what we've seen from the Labour Party is a situation where they don't really have a clear idea of what they want when it comes to leaving the EU. They make lots of noises about what they think that the UK Government should do and make demands of the EU in terms of the arrangements that they want to leave on, but, of course, they are unrealistic demands. [Interruption.] I've taken many interventions already. I do apologise to you. I've got just a few seconds left.

So, we will not be supporting your motion today. We think it's important that the Welsh Government, along with the other devolved Governments, should work closely with the UK Government and co-operate in trying to craft a deal that we can all get behind so that the UK can leave in an orderly way, with a transition period, towards a future trading relationship that will deliver the success that people want of Brexit. And it's upon all of our shoulders to make sure that we work together to achieve those aims.

I've only really got a few matters that I wanted to contribute because what's being created is the impression that with no deal, well, it's okay because we'll just fall back on WTO rules and half the world and half our trade is all on WTO rules, et cetera. I mean, quite frankly, that is absolute rubbish. We would be the only country in the world that is trading on solely WTO rules. I think Mauritius, at one stage, was trading on WTO rules; maybe the extent of their economy is what Theresa May has in mind for the UK economy, but it is an absolute nonsense. The moment we fall onto WTO rules, firstly, for non-agricultural produce, there are massive increases in tariffs, but not only that, we don't have the option of just trading with them, because there are quotas for all sorts of products. It would be an absolutely disastrous scenario. What we would actually lose out on is every single free trade deal that we actually have the benefit of at the moment. There are 35 free trade agreements that we benefit from by virtue of our membership of the EU, and there are 48 that are partly in place at the moment, there are 22 that are pending and there are 21 that are under negotiation. We would lose the benefit of every single one of those and we could only replace them by having to negotiate some 100-plus new trade deals with every single country in the world.

Now, it's taken Theresa May over two years to come up with a rubbish deal with the EU that she can't even get through Parliament. The idea that this Government is capable of negotiating 100 new free trade deals, or even 10, even one or two new trade deals, within a matter of years is an absolute nonsense. The immediate—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

A lot of these free trade deals, which are joined with us and the EU, will actually be grandfathered, so a lot of them will just go over and be grandfathered with just us splitting and signing our names on them as well.

Well, see, there you have it again. Absolute mythology. Where on earth do these bizarre ideas come from? Is it the UKIP game of Trivial Pursuit or something? That is absolute rubbish, because we cannot do it; there are all sorts of aspects with the EU trade agreements that actually restrict other countries having the same terms without the agreement of the EU. There are so many restrictions, the idea that, suddenly, they just all fall into place is absolutely bizarre. And that is the problem with UKIP—the mythology that they have been placing. You would think, at the very least, with their hard line nationalist position, at the very least they would say, 'Well, it's going to be tough, it's going to be disastrous, but this is what we want because we are British nationalists and this is our ideology'. Well, at least you could respect that as a position. But on the one hand to actually say, 'This is what we're going to do, but don't worry about it because there are all these magical things that will come; we're going to sprinkle woofle dust, or whatever it is, on every single agreement and suddenly they convert over'. It would be an absolute disaster.

I was talking with GE Aviation in my constituency. One of the problems they face is this: they are at the highest level of engineering, but they have 2,000 or 3,000 components in every engine that get sent all over the world. Now, any delay in that basically makes them, over a period of time, uncompetitive. It doesn't mean that suddenly, overnight, disaster will hit them, but you can be damn sure that, when it comes to the next stages of investments, when futures are being looked at, when there are reorganisations within businesses—. Where will they be? Where would any logical company choose? And that is the dilemma. So, the one thing I'd say is that—. I mean, I can support this motion, because it makes perfect sense. But the one thing I would say to those who are opposing it—

Will you take an intervention?

I will take a quick intervention.

It's the first time you've declared your support for the motion. Do you not accept that if you say that there is no circumstance under which we would leave without a deal, the EU would then have the UK over a barrel, because we would accept anything that we are given because we've ruled out the one thing that we've got at our disposal—to be able to get up and walk away and say, 'Forget it, it's not good enough'?

Isn't that absolutely bizarre? The idea that we're all in agreement that going out with no deal would be disastrous and we're not prepared to say it. The writing is on the wall; it is disastrous. We're not deluding anyone, we're not conning the EU over this. We know that a 'no deal' is a disaster and no-one in their right mind wants to go down the 'no deal' road. And that is the problem, because—

Will you take an intervention?

No, no, I've taken two. That is the real problem, because what is actually happening from the Conservative side is that this is about protecting the interests of the Conservative Party because Theresa May will not face up to the reality of the political situation that she is in. If she had any decency whatsoever, she would do the decent thing, to recognise the historic defeat that she has had and be prepared to go out and trust the people and have a general election.

Leaving without a deal—I don’t know where to start, if truth be told. I will say first of all that I do accept that there are different views in the Brexit debate, but I have to say that the small minority who favour a 'no deal' exit are willing to take an unreasonable risk with our social and economic well-being, and that’s why we as a party today have introduced this quite simple motion, so that the Assembly can again speak clearly and state that we must ensure, come what may, that leaving with no deal has to be avoided.

I thank those, including those on the Government benches, who will be supporting us today. Who will be listening to the Assembly? Well, out experience over the past two and a half years suggests that not many will listen. The whole issue of Brexit has shown to me how heedless the UK Government is of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As the First Minister himself has said, and Steffan Lewis and others who have been part of the Brexit discussions and have been involved with them over the past few years, the views of Wales have been ignored far too often and our aspiration to safeguard the future in our nation has also been ignored.

But we must once again raise our voice today, and that’s our intention by tabling this motion. Yes, the people of Wales voted by a small majority on the principle of leaving on the basis of the promises made, but I am confident that people didn’t vote to damage our economy. The pledges made were empty pledges, of course. I hear Mark Reckless barracking from his position there, and he was shouting earlier in the Chamber that, ‘You lost—get over it.’ Well, that’s not the level of debate that’s going to bring people together following this, whatever the outcome of all of this is. You should be ashamed of the childish way in which you are, at this point in the debate—

Will the Member give way? Will the Member give way? He says 'whatever the outcome' of this. The outcome was that Wales voted to leave the European Union. The problem is that people such as himself do not want to implement that result and are doing everything possible to frustrate it. By saying, 'We have to leave whatever; we won't accept "no deal"', you have to accept whatever they give you. But that's what you want, because you want to stay in and frustrate the people of Wales and what they decided.

You were elected by a party in an election two and a half years ago that was campaigning openly against devolution 20 years after the referendum to establish the National Assembly for Wales. I have a daughter who was 16 years old at the time of that referendum. She is now 18, she is an adult, she wants a say on her future. I also want her to have a say on her future. I believe in the currency of democracy. I believe in making democracy relevant today. I believe in asking people what they want today, rather than just listening to what they said two and a half years ago, in case they themselves, including you, Mark Reckless—. You might have changed your mind. I happen to know what you think, but I don't know what people out there think, and I want people to have an opportunity to reflect today, on the basis of evidence that we have in front of us today, whether they think this is the right course of action for us to follow as a country, and I have no doubt at all that following a 'no deal' strategy is one that will not be in Wales's interest, and I cannot in any way endorse or allow this National Assembly to endorse allowing a 'no deal' Brexit to take place. That is why I'm pleased that, in an hour, or less than an hour, from now, this Assembly will vote to say that we will under no circumstances accept 'no deal'. Now, this is about democracy and it's about today's democracy and taking people seriously, not shouting about 'getting over it' from a sedentary position. You should have more experience than that from your parliamentary days. 

My time is cutting short. On so many levels, we know what the impact will be of a 'no deal' Brexit. I remember going across the road, on that secretive day when we had to put our mobile phone in a box so we couldn't take photos of the UK Government's own projections of the effects of Brexit. It was horrifying reading, even those ways of leaving the European Union that were controlled. A 'no deal' scenario, we know, would be hugely damaging. Ford, this week—do we genuinely think that Brexit will give Ford more confidence to protect 1,000 jobs at Bridgend? Do we genuinely think that Brexit had no influence whatsoever over what has happened to Wylfa and the announcement that we're expecting tomorrow on the suspension of that? Do we honestly think that businesses of ours, like the mussel farmers of the Menai straits aren't bothered if 97 per cent of their produce that needs to be delivered alive to the European Union within 24 hours might be threatened because of tariffs, even if that's only temporary? Do we worry about the effects on our agriculture industry? Neil Hamilton talks about tariffs—non-agricultural. What about the agricultural ones? What about agriculture in my constituency? What about the effects of losing young people? What about the effects of losing young people from the agriculture industry in my constituency because they're losing the export market? It's not the speech I wanted to deliver, but that's how strongly I feel about this, and that's why we need to explain—[Interruption.]

The Llywydd may allow an intervention, David, if you want to make one. 

The Llywydd will allow it if it's requested. It's not requested.

You're too late. We have UKIP Members who can't decide whether they want to intervene. We have former UKIP Members arriving after the opening speeches have been made with no respect to the comments that have been made earlier. Well, it doesn't work like that. Let's make a stance today, as I'm confident that we will do, and say 'no deal' will not work for Wales. It will not work for our young people in future.

The Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles.

Llywydd, considering the disorder in the Parliament in London and as we await the result of the motion of no confidence this evening, now is the time to ensure that we work towards one unified aim here at the National Assembly for Wales, to ensure that the key interests of Wales are noted clearly and safeguarded. That’s what our main objective has been since the 2016 referendum.

I’m grateful to Plaid Cymru for outing forward this motion. We fully support it. A ‘no deal’ Brexit is an unacceptable result, this is our stance as a party here and in Westminster. It would be the worst possible outcome and the United Kingdom Prime Minister has wasted two years repeating that, ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’, when she should have been developing a practical strategy and trying to engender support for it across parties. No deal is the worst possible outcome, and we’ve been saying that from the very first day. The credible evidence shows that leaving without a deal would lead to greater job losses, the economy shrinking, uncertainty and costs for businesses that export, as Adam Price described, and even domestic companies that rely on European supply chains. It’s incredible that any government in the United Kingdom Parliament would allow such a result that would so clearly be against the interests of the nation. It’s said that there’s no majority in Parliament in favour of a ‘no deal’ Brexit and the Prime Minister said she would listen to Parliament. It’s about time now that she considers carefully the voices being raised against a ‘no deal’ Brexit.

From the point of view of the second part of the motion, the First Minister of Wales has already written to Theresa May asking for the reconvening of the UK Joint Ministerial Committee in plenary as a matter of urgency to discuss the crisis following the vote in the Commons last night. He’s noted clearly that that is on the presumption that the Government will survive the no confidence vote and that she will not have done what she should have done having suffered such a great loss, namely to step aside. In the letter, he asks the meeting to agree to four things, namely: to reject a ‘no deal’ exit as a result of the negotiations; to commit to holding immediately a series of cross-party discussions in Parliament and to work with devolved administrations and institutions to agree on a new way forward—this should include renegotiation based on a firm commitment to participate in the single market and in a customs union or to give the option back to the people of the UK by committing to a general election or a people’s vote; to ask for extension of the article 50 process to facilitate this; and to legislate to abolish the reference to 29 March in the legislation.

From our part, we welcome the commitment, despite it being so late in the day, that the Conservative Government, if it survives, will work in a cross-party way with the House of Commons in order to find a way forward. This of course will have to include the front benches of all the opposition parties and the devolved institutions. The Government must also do what it pledged to do in establishing the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Union negotiations and try and seek consensus on the way forward with us and the Scottish Government.

Llywydd, let us be under no illusion about the seriousness of this situation. I note the one thing the Prime Minister did not say last night, despite the crushing nature of the defeat, was that she would ask for an extension of article 50 to give breathing space for the new approach that she offered. Indeed, Government figures have continued to say that such an extension is not necessary. Meanwhile, as President Tusk has said, the risk of a disorderly Brexit has increased. A disorderly Brexit, as Mick Antoniw reminded us, would bring with it the tariffs and the quotas, despite the wishful thinking of Neil Hamilton. 

As things stand, we will leave the European Union on 29 March. That is what the law currently says. This can only change if the UK Government intervenes decisively. We call on them to ask the European Union to postpone the article 50 deadline and amend our domestic legislation, but for this request to succeed it must be clear that the Government are serious about arriving quickly at an approach that can command widespread support across Parliament and the country as a whole and which is acceptable to the EU-27. We've seen too often the Prime Minister meeting EU leaders with opaque propositions. Now, more than ever, the country needs robust, deliverable proposals, and this requires a fundamental rewrite of the political declaration. Minor adjustments will not do and this will not win agreement in Parliament in light of the scale of last night's defeat.

In the meantime, we must prepare for the reality of 'no deal' as best we can. I said so yesterday in my statement, and the First Minister said so last week in his, and yet again today. It is the only course of action open to a responsible Government that prioritises the interest of our people above all else. That is why we are proposing to reschedule business in this Assembly next Tuesday to focus on 'no deal' preparations. Notwithstanding our many disagreements, we are working constructively with the UK Government and our partners here in Wales and we will continue to do that, but such an outcome would be a travesty. It is the preference of only a tiny minority of ideologues and zealots in Parliament and in the country and would inflict great harm in the ways the Welsh Government and others in this Assembly have described, both today and consistently over the last two and a half years. 

The Welsh Government worked co-operatively with Plaid Cymru at the outset and we jointly produced 'Securing Wales' Future', a sound set of positions defining Wales's interests, which has stood the test of time. We were able to do this whilst respecting that of course we have differences and will continue to do so, but where we are able to agree on the big issues, we have done so for the good of the country. As I said yesterday in my statement, if we were able to produce a collective position, endorsed by this Assembly fully two years ago, why was the UK Government unable to do the same? The Prime Minister must now engage with an open mind with Parliament and the devolved institutions, drop her red lines, and put the national interest first.

Llywydd, I note that the amendment put forward by the Conservative group calls on us to work constructively with the UK Government to deliver the results of the 2016 referendum. Of course, we will continue to work with whatever Government is in power, as we have throughout the last two and a half years, but as I have explained, the onus is really on the Westminster Government to show that its commitment to start serious cross-party talks is genuine, if of course it survives the no confidence vote this evening. 

However, we oppose the amendment because it does not go far enough. The Assembly should make absolutely clear now that 'no deal' should be ruled out. Since the Conservative amendment says nothing at all about what sort of solution to this crisis might be envisaged, I surmise that this is because the divisions here mirror those in the party in Parliament. I know that some Conservative Members opposite really understand how deeply damaging 'no deal' would be. So, I appeal to them to join with us to support this motion, and then the First Minister can take a truly unequivocal message to the Prime Minister if and when she convenes the JMC this motion rightly demands. 

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate. 

May I thank everyone who's contributed to this colourful debate this afternoon? I think that that, of course, reflects the strong feeling and the increasingly polarised feelings in this debate, and that is a shame, but of course that is the challenge we're facing in terms of finding a way out of this huge conundrum. And Adam Price struck a sobering note at the very outset, giving us a picture of the damage that a 'no deal' Brexit would cause, and he admitted himself that perhaps he is wrong. But if he is wrong, then certainly he won't be the only one, because there are commentators and experts and people working in sectors across the economy, across the UK, who fear and predict the same outcome, as does the Government itself. So, is it a risk worth taking? Well, no it's not, and that is why we as a party have brought this motion forward today.

I want to mention the impact on the agricultural industry, because it's a sector that's very close to my heart, and it's one that is of course going to be facing the storms of Brexit more than most other sectors, perhaps. 

And some of the farming concerns have been well rehearsed, of course, but particularly recently in the UK farming round-table, where a number of the major and immediate impacts of a potential 'no deal' Brexit were aired. We know, for example, that there could be huge implications for animal-based products such as meat, eggs and dairy that are being exported currently to the EU. They will only import from approved countries, and it could take months for us, of course, under a 'no deal' scenario to achieve such status. And the impact for our lamb sector in Wales particularly, along with others, doesn't bear thinking about.

Export tariffs have been referred to. What does that really mean? Well, it could be imposed on 60 per cent of UK food, feed and drink that goes to the EU, increasing export tariffs to an average of 27 per cent on chicken, 46 per cent on lamb, 65 per cent on beef. These are the figures that we're talking about, and I can see Mr Hamilton on his feet. Go on.

But we're massive net importers of all these products, apart from lamb. [Interruption.] Apart from lamb, where we import as much as we export—trade is in balance. We're massive net importers, so the vicious tariffs of the EU will apply to their sales to us as much as our sales to them, so they will be the ones who will lose more than us.

Here we go. You're the personification of this delusion of grandeur that the British empire still exists. [Interruption.] No, it's true. And that's what gets me about a lot of this debate. It gets me because some of the rhetoric around Brexit and leaving the EU—it has echoes of that wartime rhetoric, doesn't it? The Dunkirk spirit, digging for victory. This is meant to be peacetime. It's meant to be peacetime, and that kind of rhetoric smacks more of self-harm than self-reliance. [Interruption.] It does—it does, absolutely. And, look, it's not me saying all of this. This evening the Farmers Union of Wales have released a statement, and I quote:

'Given the result of this vote and the dangers of a no-deal scenario, our chairmen and Presidential team felt that the only way we can take back control of the Brexit process is to withdraw Article 50'—

this is the FUW—

'and by doing so safeguard the future of the agricultural industry not just in Wales but across the UK'.

And they go on, and you won't like this bit:

'There seems to be growing support for a second referendum across the country, which appears to be reflected in our own sector'.

There we are. Anyway, I've lost track now, haven't I? [Laughter.] But you get the gist, don't you? We know there will be impacts upon the sector, and of course in terms of labour as well—the sudden end of labour mobility from the EU would cause serious problems when it comes it securing labour to harvest and process UK produce as well, of course, and there's another impact in terms of veterinary inspections, which is something that we've rehearsed here previously in this Chamber. In the worst-case scenario, even one of the architects of Brexit, Michael Gove, recently warned of a cull of up to a third of all sheep in the UK, and he had the cheek to lecture others, and I quote, that

'Nobody can be blithe or blasé about the real impacts on food producers in this country of leaving without the deal.'

Well, who was more blithe or blasé than he was two years ago?

As with everything surrounding Brexit, yes, it's being polarised and there will be different views, but what we do know is that there is actually a clear consensus from all directions that a 'no deal' Brexit would be the most harmful Brexit of all. Even the infamous Brexit bus, I reckon, will end its days parked up on a hard shoulder near Dover, trying to get out of the country. [Laughter.] No. The 'no deal' Brexit is the worst of all worlds, and it has to be rejected, and I urge all Members to support Plaid Cymru's motion. 

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

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we’ll move immediately to the first vote. That’s a vote on the general principles of the Autism (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on a ‘no deal’ Brexit. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

And we therefore move on to our next item, which is the short debate. If Members could leave the Chamber quietly so that we can proceed to the short debate.

I now call Jack Sargeant to speak to the topic he has chosen for the short debate. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Before I begin, I would like to make the Chamber aware that I would like to be giving one minute of my time each to David Melding, Mohammad Asghar and my colleague Rhianon Passmore.

I'm delighted to lead this short debate today on mental health within the workplace, particularly in light of the Welsh Government's recently published economic contract. I'd like to thank the Minister for Economy and Transport for all his hard work on that contract, and say that I hope we can continue to work together closely on the issue of mental health. I also hope that I can work with the Minister for Health and Social Services on this issue as well.

Members will know that improving mental health support is something very close to my heart, and this short debate is another opportunity to discuss this issue and express my feelings towards this issue. But it's also a good opportunity to rightly highlight the work of the Where's Your Head At? campaign—a campaign that is aiming to ensure that all employers look after the well-being of their workforce. Specifically, it is asking to make it compulsory to have a mental health first-aider at work.

Now, I agree with that call, and it's why I thank a leading figure of that campaign, Natasha Devon MBE, for all her work so far. Her campaign has been widely supported across the UK, with over 200,000 signatories—MPs from across political parties, as well as over 50 UK business leaders. Supporting such a campaign and making change a reality here in Wales makes absolute sense, and it is the right thing to do. It makes sense from both a human and financial perspective to ensure that we protect mental health within the workplace the same way we protect physical health.

Each year, workplace mental health issues cost the UK economy almost £35 billion, with 15.4 million working days lost to work-related stress, depression or anxiety. But the cost is not just financial. Left untreated, mental ill health impacts a person's relationships with friends, family, colleagues, and ultimately it impacts the quality of their own life. A major study into workplace well-being by the Mind charity found that more than half of the people surveyed had experienced poor mental health within their current job. 

The economic contract is one of the key policies within the Welsh Government's economic action plan, and, under the contract, businesses seeking Government support will need to commit to the principle of growth, fair work, reducing carbon footprint, health, skills and learning within the workplace. So, I'm particularly pleased that mental health is a priority within the economic contract and that the Government will support different initiatives.

But, just as people who suffer mental health illness want concrete support, I want concrete change and solutions. I believe this campaign has an important part to play and would urge the Welsh Government to support fully the Where's Your Head? campaign, which will be debated in the UK Parliament, and for the Welsh Government to consider all options as to what can be done to ensure that we make provision for mental health first aid, as they do physical first aid, in the workplace, both in the public and private sector.

Employers have a duty of care to their staff, and, whilst some employers are at the forefront of change, we cannot afford to leave anyone behind here in Wales or the UK. I pay tribute to Airbus in my own constituency and Jayne Bryant's constituency, who I know do a lot of work in this area, and I'd also like to pay tribute to my own union, and thank them, Unite the union, for all the work that they do in providing members with support and training around mental health and this particular issue.

Now, we need to share best practice, but we also need to ensure that other employers equalise their number of mental health first aiders. Cost cannot be a reason for objections, because having mental health first aiders in the workplace will lead to savings in the long-term future. I want Wales, and I want the Welsh Government, to lead the way on this issue. If we succeed here in Wales, others will follow and others will succeed too.

Deputy Llywydd, a letter recently was sent to the UK Prime Minister, and it rightly said that success will ensure employees across the UK can access a trained member of staff and they will be able to receive initial support and guidance if they are dealing with a mental health issue at work. Success will ensure that every employee has the right to a mentally healthy environment—a mentally healthy work environment. And I think, from the cross-party support that we have here this evening, it's clear that we all in this Assembly Chamber want to succeed in this issue.

So, finally, Deputy Llywydd, I'd like to just mention what success would look like to me. To me, success will mean that we can finally break the stigma of mental health in the workplace and we can make it clear that it is okay not to be okay. And if we do push forward with this campaign we will be heading towards a world of good mental health for all. Diolch.

Can I thank Jack for raising this really important issue of mental health first aid in the workplace? I speak as someone who's had my own mental health problems quite consistently throughout my adult life, and it has impacted in the workplace, there's no doubt about that. I think in an informal way I've been supported and I've struggled through and most of the time I've been in good health. But I do think we need consistent policies, because there are times when people probably are underperforming significantly. I notice that some of the latest estimates on cost to employers run from £33 billion to £42 billion. It's astonishing, and obviously the main thing here is the humanitarian concern about keeping people in the best health possible, but economically it really doesn't make any sense. Unfortunately, the Department of Work and Pensions estimates that up to 300,000 people a year lose their job because of a mental health condition. That's really the scale of the problem.

Can I just ask the Minister? I understand that the Welsh Government's mental health strategy did set targets for Public Health Wales to look at this whole issue in the workplace, and they're supposed to report by March 2019, so just coming up. I do think that the NHS, our largest employer in Wales, is really in an excellent position to highlight best practice in how to support employees that have ongoing mental health concerns. Thank you. 

I'm thankful to Jack for giving me one minute of his time for this very important issue. Actually, it is a legal duty of the national health to protect our mental health, people, to make sure that local authorities and health boards improve and support people with mental health problems. It is a sad scenario that mental health problems—they can damage lives and weaken society. Three quarters of those with a mental health problem have no treatment support in Wales, which is a staggering figure, which Jack already mentioned. Billions of pounds have been spent on research and development. For those people who are in work, there's only minor research work, less than 5 per cent, and, for mental health, it's negligible—not much money. Could the Minister make sure that money is set aside to make sure that people in work—there is continuous development for their mental health in workplaces, not to get sacked or removed from their job?

Words beginning with P—between O and Q, P—are very—. There are very toxic words there, which mental health gives you—. It's through poverty, prison, pressure at work, post natal—so, words beginning with P are very, as he said, toxic in mental health, which people go through. Dementia is one, with 43,000 people suffering in Wales. I live with one, a relation in my family, and Minister it's a long subject we have to deal with, a mental health subject. I would be grateful if you'd consider that people in work should have not just support from their employers but also from the Government to make sure that mental health—when they go though certain problems, whether family or work, they should be cared for there and then and things should be sorted out. Thank you. 

I want to start by thanking Jack for bringing forth this short debate on this very vital area and for bringing this debate to us today. According to the mental health charity Mind, more than one in five people have said that they have called in sick to avoid work, when asked how workplace stress had affected them. Though the overwhelming majority of managers and employers will, I'm sure, want and wish to support their employees' well-being, it can all too often be more than a real challenge for many people to discuss their mental health with their line manager, for obvious reasons.

This is why it is absolutely important that workplaces do have a mental health first aider—and I would agree completely with the sentiment that Jack has just stated—able to provide well-being support, someone who is there for us when we are not okay. We can all in this Chamber play a role in providing pastoral support to our colleagues, whatever organisation we work in. I know that on our corridor in Tŷ Hywel Jack does practice what he preaches. He often pops his head around the door, sometimes with a chocolate bar, if I'm allowed to state that. It's a very unique brand of well-being support, but I do recommend it.

As we continue, though, to experience—on a more serious point—ongoing austerity, rising prices, stagnant wages, collapsing welfare nets, the ongoing effect and impact of welfare reform, the vast majority of welfare claimants being in work, and the ongoing concerns around Brexit, I am very glad to hear the argument today that it is okay not to be okay. We do need to act now to break the stigma around mental health in the workplace. I'm glad to hear of some very real examples in Wales that our Welsh Government is leading the way on and I do believe that real progress is under way.

I welcome the priority given to mental health within the Welsh Government's economic contract. This is a critical plank of our national vision, and I very much welcome it also, but, in this age of the smartphone, it is often very easy to feel like we're never too far away from work e-mails and work stress. So, it is vital that, wherever our place of work, we all have the support we need and a mentally healthy workplace environment. Diolch.

Can I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate? Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start by thanking Jack Sargeant for bringing this important short debate topic to the Assembly and also to Members for their contributions in the debate. This is a welcome opportunity to discuss mental health in the workplace, a subject that affects all of us, not just our constituents but all of us, and is recognised as a priority by the Government in our programme for government.

We know that the work that we do, the fulfilment and the enjoyment that we get from it, and the achievements that we realise through our working lives, are often a key factor in our overall sense of well-being. We also know that, even with those positive effects, sometimes we find ourselves under pressure or working with others who are under pressure for reasons in their work or their personal lives. I know this not just from my time here but my time before this place when I was an employment lawyer and much of the disability discrimination that I dealt with in terms of giving advice and representation was actually about work-related stress or employers not dealing with factors from outside of work that affect their ability to work. So, this is a long and consistent theme of the challenge that comes from not properly recognising mental health pressures and how employers and employment can be an important factor in a person's sense of self-worth and well-being. The impact of employee health and well-being is now more universally recognised as a key factor of business growth in an increasingly competitive economic world. The benefits include increased productivity, reduced costs and improved staff retention and commitment.

Of course, the issues and challenges around mental well-being in the workplace are complex, but there is a role for all of us—the Government, employers, employees, colleagues and friends—both as sources of support, but also in making such a big part of our life both prosperous and happy.

In terms of the contribution of Government, our role is an important one, setting out the overall policy direction but also helping to put in place practical interventions. I am proud that this Government, with support from across the Chamber in each party, has placed a high level of importance on improved mental health and well-being, and for the Government it features strongly amongst our overall priorities, because mental health and well-being is one of the five key themes in 'Prosperity for All', and we set out a range of commitments in the programme for government on how it would be delivered.

I'm particularly pleased that, in opening this debate, Jack Sargeant didn't refer to the health service, he referred to the economic contract and the commitments that were made there about what we want from employers, recognising that the workplace is a key factor in mental health and not simply that mental health is only a topic for the health service. Because we do recognise that receiving the right treatment at an early stage, raising awareness of conditions, can often help to prevent more serious and long-term impacts. Of course, in 'A Healthier Wales', our joint plan for health and social care, we've got a future vision of a whole-system approach between health and social care, focused on health and well-being and on preventing ill health, and not just physical ill health but ill health in all of its aspects.

Now, whilst it is crucial for the strategic national direction to be strong and clear, that in itself is not enough to fully realise our ambitions. That needs to be supported by a range of policies and programmes across the Government in order to make a real difference to people's lives. I deliberately refer to 'across the Government'—as I've just said, this is not simply an issue for the health sector. We have an important role both as an employer as well as a service provider. But, as a Government, this is work that moves across portfolios to ensure that mental health and well-being is a priority in the workplace. I want to address a few particular areas to highlight some of the variety and scale of activity.

Last year, the Government published a cross-Government employability plan that set out our vision for Wales to be a high-employment, high-tech and high-wage economy. In that plan, we committed to helping everyone to achieve their potential through meaningful employment, regardless of their ability, health issues, background, gender or ethnicity. And we fund, between the economy department and the health department, the Healthy Working Wales programme, which is delivered in partnership with Public Health Wales. That programme aims to improve health and well-being to help people stay in work or return to work. I've presented a number of awards under that programme to small, medium and large employers and it does make a difference when employers engage in that programme with the idea of understanding it's good for their business and their employees to make that difference.

There are a wide range of services that help to reduce the costs and the burden of ill health and absence, from one-to-one support, training events, workshops and the provision of online and telephone information and guidance. And some elements require managers and employees to be given training to identify signs and symptoms associated with stress and mental health problems in the workplace. And that's what we call mental health first aid.

Now, I recognise that, in moving this, Jack Sargeant referred to the Where's Your Head At? campaign. The mental health first aid programme that I referred to is currently delivered by the social enterprise called Training in Mind. They have over 100 approved trainers in Wales and the programme receives no direct funding from the Welsh Government, but my officials are actually due to meet Training in Mind shortly to discuss their work and to consider whether the Welsh Government could support the potential development of the programme. I'm happy, following this short debate, to update Members on the progress that we make in those discussions once they've happened, as well as the broader point that David Melding mentioned about the Public Health Wales report due by the end of this financial year.

I'm pleased that, with Healthy Working Wales, over 3,000 employing organisations in Wales, employing over half a million people, have engaged. That's over a third of the working population of Wales within those businesses. And a complementary programme funded by the Welsh Government and the European social fund is the in-work support service. It provides free and rapid access to occupational therapy designed to help people with mental or physical health conditions to remain in employment. And, since we launched it in 2016, the scheme has already provided therapeutic interventions to 3,500 employees, including over 1,300 people with mental health conditions. That's helped over 2,500 people to remain in work and another 430 to return to work, and it's also helped nearly 2,000 small and medium businesses to reduce the business impact of sickness absence. In November last year, an additional £9.4 million of European Union and Welsh Government funding was announced to continue the in-work support service to December 2022. That should help us to significantly expand the service to support up to 12,000 people and an additional 2,500 businesses to help build and sustain a healthy workplace. It will also provide more in-depth support to enterprises, including dedicated business coaches to support their small and medium businesses to take forward the well-being agenda within their workplace.

Now, we have made progress in tackling the stigma associated with mental health. There is, of course, more to do. The third phase of the Time to Change Wales campaign started last April with Welsh Government funding of over £650,000 over three years. The central aim remains to challenge and change negative attitudes towards mental ill health. Phase 2 of Time to Change Wales yielded encouraging results, with evidence of a 5 per cent improvement in public attitudes towards mental health and with more than 150 Time to Change Wales champions having spoken about mental health to over 8,000 people. I'm delighted that over 100 employers in Wales, including the Welsh Government, have signed the Time to Change Wales pledge on behalf of over 260,000 members of staff.

A key difference of phase 3 will be to focus on targeting male audiences. Other target audiences include rural communities and Welsh speakers. So, there's a broad range of activity making an important contribution to mental well-being in the workplace. But, of course, we need to consider that outside the workplace too, and how we encourage people to adopt healthy and active lifestyles to improve not just their physical health but their mental well-being too. Helping people access well-being activities and services is a key aspect to doing so, and we do believe that social prescribing could have an important role in helping get people to community-based non-clinical support, to shift the emphasis from treating illness to promoting better well-being, and to support people to take greater control of their own health and the broader preventative agenda. Whilst further evidence of its effectiveness is needed, that helps explain why we're funding two social prescribing schemes with robust evaluation mechanisms that I've approved within the last year to expand our evidence base on the effectiveness of social prescribing in improving and maintaining good mental health.

So, I am by no means complacent. The challenges are complex and the impacts on people's lives are real. There is always much more to do, and we, all of us, need to strive to make the most positive contribution we can do, but on this, I believe that there's a shared commitment across parties and I hope, across the country.

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