National Assembly for Wales

[Inaudible.]—questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Question 1, John Griffiths.

The road safety framework for Wales sets out the actions that we and our partners are undertaking to improve road safety across Wales, and the mid-term review of the framework showed that good progress has been made against the targets and the actions.

Cabinet Secretary, there is growing evidence and support for a default 20 mph speed limit in urban areas, with provision for lower or higher limits on particular roads. The evidence is that there would be fewer crashes, fewer casualties, fewer fatalities, and that traffic would move more freely, with lower emissions. It has strong public support, and it's estimated that tens of millions of pounds would be saved. It also links with active travel. In Bristol, for example, where they've rolled out such a speed limit, more people are walking and cycling to school and work, and, in fact, 25 per cent of Britain's urban areas are now 20 mph areas. There is a strong '20's plenty' campaign, calling on Welsh Government to introduce a 20 mph default speed limit in urban areas, and this is supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization, Public Health Wales, Sport Wales, and Brake. Will Welsh Government now introduce this policy in Wales?

Diprwy Llywydd, can I thank John Griffiths for his question, and confirm that Welsh Government's position is that we support the introduction of 20 mph zones and 20 mph speed limits where there is evidence that they are needed? The Member is absolutely right that the available evidence does suggest that they lead to a reduction in speed limits, and therefore to improved safety, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. Highways authorities already have the power to alter speed limits by order, and any changes that they make obviously need to be done in conjunction with consultation of the local community. But we actually provide funding for local authorities to implement 20 mph zones, and 20 mph limits, through the road safety and Safe Routes in Communities grants, and we also, in addition to this, provide support for 20 mph reductions outside of schools on trunk road networks, and I think that's particularly important in urban areas.

Cabinet Secretary, statistics published in January this year show that, although motor cyclists accounted for less than 1 per cent of traffic in Wales in 2016, they represented 23 per cent of all killed and seriously injured casualties in Wales also. In total, 22 motorcyclists were killed on Welsh roads in 2016. It's a staggering figure and totally unacceptable. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to increase awareness of the vulnerability of motorcyclists on Welsh roads, please?

Well, the Member is absolutely right—whilst good progress is being made against many of the targets, for example targets concerning young people and overall the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on the roads, the statistics relating to motor cyclists remain stubborn and of grave concern to us. There's only been a 1 per cent reduction, so as a consequence proportion continues to increase. In order to address this particular problem—and I'm aware that many Members in this Chamber are able to point to specific locations where motor cyclists are at great danger—we're working with Go Safe and other partners within the police force to develop a data analysis capacity, in order to better inform interventions. We've also begun discussions with a national not-for-profit road safety organisation about potential for their Two Wheels motor cycling courses to operate here in Wales. We believe that better training—an extension of the training that's already provided—is absolutely essential to reduce those killed or seriously injured figures. And we're also working with colleagues in the department for education on the potential to include road safety content in the health and well-being area of the learning experience. I think, again, the sooner that we can introduce responsible methods, responsible behaviours, in terms of cycling and motor cycling, the better, and doing it at school makes perfect sense.

Mick Antoniw.

No, sorry. Mick Antoniw.

Cabinet Secretary, can I firstly welcome the very significant investment the Welsh Government, in conjunction with Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, is making into road safety measures, certainly in the west of my constituency, and there are a number of projects under way? In particular, at Beddau Halt in my constituency, a notorious accident black spot, the agreement now of the investment of £700,000 to resolve that is extremely welcome. That investment is a product, actually, of a campaign by local people, local residents, by councillors, and has resulted, I think, in a tremendous partnership to actually work out ways of resolving some of these accident black spots. Do you agree that this is a good way forward, with Welsh Government listening to what local people and local councillors say, and the partnership investing in resolving our accident black spots?

I couldn't agree more. In fact, the example that the Member points to also demonstrates the five ways of working of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 being delivered on a local level, with collaboration and participation, and, indeed, there is a good degree of collaboration between my officials and the local authority in order to enhance the quality of the bid from the first stage to the second stage. And I'm delighted that we're able to support the proposals with more than £300,000 of funding, and I'm also pleased to be able to say that we've allocated £119,000 of resource to help improve road safety education across the borough. 

Thank you. I understand that you have given your permission for questions 2 and 3 to be grouped, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

I have, yes.

The metro development partnership will combine the resources of the public and private sectors to ensure that we drive forward a vision of creating an integrated, multimodal transport hub right in the centre of Cardiff, ensuring that there is a co-ordinated and managed approach to delivering the component projects as part of the MDP programme. 

It's good to know that the resources of the public and private are being combined, but I have a query really as to why, when we've had so much high-class development on the Central Square site, which is the site of the former bus station, it hasn't been possible to fund the bus station out of the section 106 delivery mechanisms that the council will have levered out of private developers who have benefited from being on Central Square, and why it's needed the Welsh Government to intervene with this metro delivery partnership. The buses, in the absence at the moment of trams, light rail and increased capacity on the suburban railways, are the way in which the majority of people have to get around. Being unable to understand where to get the bus to particular locations, as at the moment, is really deterring people from using buses, which, obviously, we want them to do. So, I'd be grateful if you were able to give me a date for when the bus station is going to be reopened, because it has been at least 10 years' campaigning, and that's what my constituents want to hear. 

Can I thank the Member for her question and confirm that completion is due in mid 2020-21 for this particular asset, a vitally important asset for Cardiff? It is for the council to determine how section 106 funds are spent, and my understanding is that the council is determined that improvements need to be made across the city with this particular funding. I'm more than happy to assist in facilitating a meeting between the Member and the council to better understand the projects that will be benefiting from section 106 funding. 

What plans does the Cabinet Secretary have to develop integrated transport in Cardiff?

With groupings, you can just go to your supplementary.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcomed the First Minister's answer last month to a question about the bus station—that we're seeking to provide seamless integration between trains, buses, coaches and the metro, and to provide easy access for cyclists and pedestrians. However, I understand that, in the new design for the bus station, there are actually fewer cycle spaces than in the previous one. I understand that the numbers have been scaled back from 750 spaces to 500, and that these will no longer be in the bus station itself but in a separate kiosk. So, I don't know if the Cabinet Secretary can provide more information on that and reassure us that cycling and walking are still going to be absolutely key elements of this transport interchange. 

I can most certainly assure the Member that cycling facilities will not be the cinderella aspect of any transport hubs that we develop in Wales, including this particular hub in Cardiff. Now, the design for the bus station is still being developed, and so there is time, there is an opportunity, to ensure that there are sufficient spaces for cyclists. I am absolutely committed to extending the opportunities for active travel, including cycling, and to ensuring that there are significant facilities across Wales that enable people to use bikes more. And I think, just recently, the announcement of the significant uplift in available funding for active travel programmes demonstrates our commitment to this particular agenda. 

Cabinet Secretary, I think everyone supports the roll-out of the metro system, and it seems to be that at every pinchpoint on the transport network—certainly, in South Wales Central—when a complaint or issue is raised it's referred to as, 'Well, don't worry the metro system is coming.' Can you give us a firm timeline as to when motorists and people who need transport to get into work or just get around their communities will actually start seeing some of those multimodal options that the metro system talks about, because if you drive around South Wales Central, or walk around central station or cycle around South Wales Central, all you seem to see at the moment is gridlock, and it's hugely frustrating for us as elected Members not to be able to offer the timelines—the firm timelines—that many of us want to see delivered?  

Can I thank the Member for his question? He's absolutely right—people are frustrated, and rightly so, with the lack of available public transport, not just on the railways but also in terms of local bus services. I  can confirm that there will be completion of the project in Cardiff Central in 2021. There will be completion of phase 2 of the metro project by 2023. But we're also bringing forward the projects that were originally designated as a future phase of the metro, for example park-and-ride facilities and other hubs, so that people see the delivery of the metro sooner than had originally been planned. I think it's essential that we give people more opportunities to get out of their cars, onto public transport or onto bikes, and we're doing just that. 

Elsewhere in Wales, in, for example, the north Wales metro area, I've announced recently funding to commence work on cycle ways and on integrated transport hubs in the Deeside area. Work is also under way at strategic sites right across north Wales and, indeed, on a cross-border basis into the north-west. Again, work is happening in the south-west of Wales, with Welsh Government funding work being led by the city deal partners in looking at how we could roll out a modern metro service in that region as well. 

Alongside this, we're investing very heavily through the national transport finance plan in road schemes to alleviate congestion, and we recently announced a pinchpoint scheme, which is being utilised across Wales to ensure that our trunk roads are freed up at specific points where there is currently congestion. 

The metro's been talked about for eight years. As your Labour colleagues pointed out, the Cardiff bus station is a fiasco—absolute fiasco. If you drive outside, to the west of the capital, as we predicted—and we were called liars at the time—the houses are going up, the bulldozers are in, and there's a single carriage road with another 8,000 houses going to be thrown up. What is your message to the residents of the west of the capital city? And what is your message to people who are going to buy those new houses, because they simply have no means to travel to the centre of Cardiff? What do you say to those people? 

Well, my message is this: we have intervened, because of what the Member calls a fiasco with the Cardiff bus station and, in years to come, people across Cardiff—across the whole of Cardiff—will see improvements in public transport services, not just in terms of what runs on rail lines, but also in terms of bus services through reforms to local bus services and through legislation that we'll be introducing in this term. It's absolutely essential, as I said to Andrew R.T. Davies, that people have the opportunity to get out of their private cars and onto public transport—safe, reliable public transport of the highest quality. We're going to be delivering that as well as part of the metro, and the new rail franchise, which will now be agreed and delivered from this October onward. 

We now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the first party spokesperson is Suzy Davies. 

Diolch, Dirpwy Lywydd. Gweinidog, the UK Government launched its 'Creative industries: Sector Deal' last month, forecasting a UK gross value added of £150 billion by 2023. They're committing tens of millions of pounds to that. Now, here, progress seems to be characterised by the fact that I'm still waiting, nine months now, for answers about conflicts of interest affecting the media investment fund. I'm wondering whether Creative Wales is real or imaginary. What have you identified as being useful in the UK deal, as complementing or enhancing cultural policy, particularly here in Wales, especially film and television, and what might be adapted for use in your own contribution to the wider Wales creative industries policy, any details of which we eagerly await?

Thank you for the question.

We very much welcome the UK Government's intervention on the creative industries deal. We have developed, and will be announcing, the precise nature of the activity of Creative Wales and its location within Government, which is shared by the Cabinet Secretary and myself. This will become clear very soon, and I'll be very pleased to meet with the Member and to discuss this issue in greater detail, in particular in its application to the Swansea city deal, about which I know she is particularly interested.

Turning to the broader issue of broadcasting, we have the announcement from Channel 4 of their intention to relocate. We are looking here for one of the hubs, because there's already been an announcement of three new nations and regions hubs, to be coming to Wales, and there is also the issue of the location of the national headquarters to be opened in 2019, and we see this as something that certainly we would campaign for, and have already campaigned for as a Government, with the support of the media industry in Wales.

Thank you for that answer. Obviously, we're all quite excited by Channel 4's news and two of the local authorities in my area are already lobbying quite hard on that, although I have to say that there's more to this than Channel 4 and Yr Egin. We are the best part of two years into this Government period now and I would have hoped to have had some clarity on creative industries development, particularly the cultural element for which you are responsible, although of course I understand that you've not been the Minister for that period of time.

I see that you'll be speaking at the launch of Wales Tourism Week pretty shortly. You'll be aware of the recent Federation of Small Businesses report that claims that specific Welsh Government funds for supporting tourism are, 'out of reach' for most small tourism businesses, suggesting that

'the vast majority of tourism operators...would have to plan to double in size'

to be in with a shout of getting,

'support from the Micro Small Business Fund',

which doesn't sound very micro to me, I must admit.

In the same way that Cadw has been very successful in adopting a more adventurous business model, so could our smaller heritage operators. I'm wondering how many heritage business operators are too small to benefit from these tourism grants, and how do you make sure that Visit Wales targets those who actually are big enough to benefit?

Thank you very much for that further question. I have indeed seen and studied the report by the Federation of Small Businesses. I think it would be very helpful if we had a meeting with them as well in order to assess more clearly what evidence is the basis of their report, because, certainly, as far as I'm concerned, I'm seeking to organise our funds for tourism in such a way as to make them accessible to all who produce relevant business plans for my department, so that we can assess the kind of investment that we can make.

We have placed tourism quite firmly as a foundation sector in the economic action plan of Welsh Government, which emphasises that regionalisation is important to us in terms of the development of the tourism industry. I have retained, with the support of my colleague the Cabinet Secretary, four regions for the purposes of tourism, which is slightly different to the Government's approach on the economic side, because I do believe that the contribution that comes from mid Wales to tourism, and the potential there, is something that we need to support, and that would certainly mean supporting smaller industries.

As regards the current fund, the Government is currently looking carefully as to how we can restructure and bring together some of our pots in a further development and enterprise fund, and the tourism element in that would certainly be available to as wide a section of the economy as possible.

Thank you for that answer. I'm hoping—in response to the last part of what you said there—that when you're talking about tourism businesses, it's not just about accommodation, but about small heritage owners as well, because obviously the combined offer of good accommodation and interesting heritage should actually be an advantage to Wales.

Just to finish on that theme of income generation, if I can put it like that, or business opportunities, the prestigious UK Museum of the Year award shortlist was published earlier this week, and the winner of that prize will receive £100,000, which is a substantial contribution to any museum's business plan, particularly those smaller or specialist museums that have actually won the award from time to time in the past. The prize has only ever been won once by a Welsh museum, 13 years ago. Why do you think that is?

I don't even remember which museum won the prize.

Big Pit. 

Well, that's not a small museum.

No, no, but others are.

Certainly, I have met with the association representing museums. What we are working on emphasising—. If she has read, which I'm sure she has, the remit letter that I sent fairly recently to National Museum Wales, we emphasise the importance of working closely with local museums and with regional hubs in terms of museums. I'm very keen to see how we can develop this further in creating partnerships in the tourism regions I've just described, between museums, so that people can undertake a tour of different museums within a region, so that they can enjoy the offer that we have.

I don't know why, to answer her first question, the museums in Wales have not benefited from that particular prize, but I will certainly find out in greater detail what the criteria are for this award. But as far as we're concerned, we welcome the collaboration with both local authority museums and heritage sites that have museums on them that are in private ownership. In particular, I have visited a number of privately owned wonderful castles, many of them in parts of the world that will be well known to her in the Tywi valley. I know how much people who care for these particular monuments are pleased to be working with Cadw in terms of the organisation of the place, while also clearly benefiting from the numbers of visitors, who are paying visitors, to their properties.

Thank you. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, this month's edition of Modern Railways magazine, which I know is required reading material for all Assembly Members, reported that future Valleys lines trains will no longer offer toilets on board for passengers. I'd like you to confirm whether or not this is the case. But, before you do that, I'd like to point out that there are two aspects to this question, really.

In the short term, it's suggested that, in order to avoid failing accessibility requirements and disability legislation, instead of proactively upgrading the existing Pacer stock to comply with the persons of reduced mobility specifications, the Welsh Government has opted to lock the toilets instead. Now, you've denied that, but I'd like you to set out in detail how you plan to make the Pacer trains compliant with the legislation.

The second element, looking to the future, is that it's widely believed that light rail trains, which do not normally include toilets, are being considered for some of the Valleys lines as part of the development of the south Wales metro. Can you confirm that it's the bidding companies that will decide whether or not toilets will be provided on board these new trains? As toilets take up significant space, which impacts on revenues, it doesn't take an expert, perhaps, to guess what their recommendations may be.

I can assure the Member that doors will not be locked on trains to get around regulations that require operators to provide facilities for people of limited mobility. The bidders in the procurement exercise have been challenged with demonstrating how they will ensure that rolling stock complies with the regulations that are coming into force shortly, and it will require them to do that without the locking of any doors whatsoever.

Equally, as part of the procurement exercise, we undertook a number of consultations with passengers and the wider public to ascertain exactly what it was that people prioritised when they were considering whether or not to use railways. Public transport and the quality of rolling stock were amongst the most important and significant factors in determining whether to use the train or their own private car. And so, as a consequence, this has become one of the primary areas of concern during the procurement process. We've required the bidders to demonstrate how they will ensure that there are toilet facilities on board trains.

I'd like to turn, if I may, to another transport-related issue. Last week, the Welsh Government afforded opposition parties the opportunity to be given a technical briefing on the proposals for the M4 relief road. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary and officials for that. Last week, you issued a written statement providing us with an update, and in that statement you said that in recognition of the importance of this matter you were committing to a debate in Government time before a final decision is made by Welsh Ministers on whether the project goes ahead. Can you clarify, Cabinet Secretary, whether that debate will involve a meaningful vote on an amendable motion? I think that's the phrase that we use under these circumstances. When it came to the comparable projects at a UK level, the high speed 2 line, Crossrail, the third runway, in all those cases, it was Parliament that made the decision on a motion before the House of Commons. So, can you confirm that that will be the case in our case, and if we decline to give our consent that that will not be interpreted as us having made a consent decision and leading the project going ahead regardless?

Can I thank Adam Price, not just for his question, but also for attending the technical briefing that took place? I've decided to hold further technical briefings on this issue, because I'm aware that a number of Members, unfortunately, weren't able to attend last week, and I'll be sharing details of those briefings as soon as they've been arranged.

In terms of the debate that we have committed to here, initially, as the leader of the house already indicated, the consideration was focused on whether or not it should be a 'to-note' debate. Now, we are now consulting with lawyers not just on the form of the debate, but also on the timing of the debate, and as soon as I'm able to provide full details of what the debate will take the form of and the date of that debate, I'll bring it to the Chamber.

Could I—? Certainly, I think it would be widely shared, not just on these benches, that that has to be a debate on a meaningful vote and an amendable motion, and that the Welsh Government decision must reflect the view of this Chamber.

Could I finally turn to other road projects? There's been talk of a Bontnewydd and Caernarfon bypass for over a decade. The work was originally intended to start in 2016, and to be finished this year, yet here we are in 2018, decision hasn't even been made on whether or not to proceed with the project. Closer to home to me, the Llandeilo bypass that was agreed as part of our budget agreement last year is already running behind schedule: the route appraisals were meant to be completed in the summer of last year; the appraisal only started in January. So, it's at least four months late, and probably will be at least 10 months delayed, even though we were told the construction would start at the end of 2019. Is it not the case, Cabinet Secretary, that the reason for the delays in cases such as this is that the M4 relief road is not just poised to consume the majority of Welsh Government expenditure in this area, it's also been consuming most of your officials' time?

Look, I would urge caution in calling for concrete to be poured as soon as possible in road projects that are in individuals' constituencies and yet urging caution and restraint on building M roads and other major pieces of infrastructure. We need to be able to demonstrate that we are approaching every piece of infrastructure development in a dispassionate way and in a way that is objective, and that's the reason why we're setting up the national infrastructure commission for Wales, to be able to inform decisions in a depoliticised way with the assistance of experts.

I can tell the Member that, with regard to the Caernarfon to Bontnewydd bypass, this has taken up considerable amount of resource in terms of the independent inspectorate and in terms of Government officials' time, but I have sufficient officials to be able to deal with both this and the M4 and, indeed, many other projects, and I'll be making a decision in the coming three weeks on that particular programme. But the reason that it has taken time—and it's right to take time over such a project, given not just the cost but also the number of people who have engaged in the process of consultation—the inspector considered 20 expressions of support, but he also considered 160 objections, and in addition to this, there were 20 alternative routes that were proposed as part of the inquiry process. It's absolutely right that we uphold our statutory duties in giving careful consideration to an inspector's report before reaching a final decision, and certainly before pouring that concrete as the Member wishes us to do.

Thank you. UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Could the Cabinet Secretary give us an update on micro-hydro schemes in Wales?

Well, this is a subject that is of concern across the Government. It forms part of 'Prosperity for All', it's a subject that I'm working closely with, not just with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary, but also with the Minister for Environment, working to ensure that small-scale energy schemes, and, indeed, larger-scale energy schemes, deliver benefits to local communities. That's why ambitious targets have already been set out by the Cabinet Secretary.

In 2015, Chris Blake of the Green Valleys (Wales) said his company had identified at least 500 sites in Wales suitable for micro-hydro projects. The Guardian in that year highlighted a hill farmer in Wales who said the installation of his 18 KW generator had doubled the income of his farm and was effective 24 hours a day. Given the parlous state of our hill farmers due to common agricultural policy policies, surely it would be a goodwill gesture by the Welsh Government to subsidise such schemes for our hill farmers, with the obvious added bonus of cutting carbon emissions? Of course, we do have some community hydro schemes in Wales, but, with more Welsh Government help, there could be many more. Surely, Cabinet Secretary, it is time to take a serious look at the these small hydro schemes, especially in the light of the appalling comments on the Swansea bay project yesterday by UK business Minister Lord Henley?

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more, but we are already helping farmers and other people living in rural areas to develop micro-hydro schemes, funding schemes and also offering advice. I'm particularly pleased to see UKIP having converted to supporting sustainable methods of generating energy, and renewable energy at that.

Well, Cabinet Minister, it appears that one of the major obstacles to these micro schemes and the larger community schemes is—. According to Western Distribution in 2015, the grid for rural Wales was at full capacity. Is this still the case, and, if so, is the Welsh Government able to do anything to alleviate this problem?

Scotland is now a world leader in renewable energy, and part of this success is that hydro power increased last year by 9 per cent. Does the Cabinet Secretary have figures for Wales? And, Cabinet Secretary, Wales is one of the wettest places in Europe. Surely we have the potential to emulate Scotland in hydro schemes, which, after all, are far less obtrusive in our landscape than those wind and solar farms? It appears that hydro power has, for far too long, been the cinderella in the mix of renewable energies in Wales.

I don't mind the Member talking about Wales being the wettest country in Britain in this Chamber, but please don't tell any of the tourists who are thinking of coming here.

I'll ask the Cabinet Secretary for environment to write with details concerning the uptake of projects in relation to micro-hydro plants.FootnoteLink The national grid is a responsibility of UK Government, and both I and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary have met very recently with the National Grid, and I can confirm that your assertion is absolutely right: the grid needs to be strengthened, and that requires additional infrastructure spend by UK Government. There are huge opportunities that National Grid can offer and are looking at, in particular a scheme on Deeside industrial estate that could see a particular plant that they have there become a centre of excellence in research and development. But underlying all of this is the need to strengthen the grid as a whole. Actually, one of the problems that we're facing with the roll-out of superfast charging points for electric vehicles is the lack of strength within the existing grid, and to bring the grid up to a sufficient standard requires a huge amount of capital spend. So, again, it's absolutely vital that UK Government looks favourably on the proposals that are being put to it by National Grid for what I believe would be 50 superfast charging points across the UK in strategic points, and that we get delivering those points as soon as possible.

Thank you very much. We now return to questions on the order paper, and question 4—Russell George.

Yes. As set out in the economic action plan, we are delivering a range of actions in partnership to support a stronger, fairer economy and to help businesses to develop, grow and prosper across Wales. This includes business support, business advice and investment in strategic infrastructure, including premises.

Can I thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary? I am being approached by an increasingly larger number of businesses that want to expand their businesses but can't, and this is because there are no suitable accommodation or commercial sites available for them to expand their operations. Now, there is a shortage, I think, of commercial units, particularly in the Welshpool and Newtown area, but I know that this is a problem in other parts of Wales as well, and I think that this is now becoming the main barrier preventing business growth. Now, I suspect that you will be aware of this issue, but I wonder if you could outline what your Government is doing to support businesses in this particular situation, and I'd also be grateful to know if you could comment on any support for advance or speculative units to support business growth. I'd be grateful if you would be prepared to meet with me with a handful of businesses that have this problem—which I think is a welcome problem to have, of course.

I'd be more than happy to meet with the Member and businesses, along with, if I may suggest, the chief regional officer who is putting together the regional plan for mid and south-west Wales. The problem that Russell George identifies is one that Chris Sutton, an expert in this field, has identified as well. As a consequence of this known problem, the economic action plan was developed to specifically address the lack of available and suitable premises for growing businesses.

In mid Wales, in the areas that the Member represents, we've invested in places to accommodate companies such as Zip-Clip, Invertek Drives and Charlies Stores. I think it's fair to say that the development that has taken place in Welshpool in particular has been transformational for that community. But there is an intensifying need to develop and deliver more suitable premises elsewhere, as well as still in Welshpool.

We've recently sold seven acres of land in Abermule to Powys County Council. Their proposal is to construct small, high-quality, advance business units as part of the site, but I do believe that there is an important role in this regard for the mid Wales growth deal. I met last week with Lord Bourne and the Growing Mid Wales partners and we discussed, in very general terms, what is required for mid Wales to flourish and to become more prosperous. It's my view that, if you're to drive economic growth in a sustainable way, you have to ensure that you invest in skills and infrastructure and the right regional vehicles for supporting economic growth. And, with infrastructure, as the Member has highlighted, site premises are crucially important.

Both I and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance have continued to hold positive discussions with the region to progress the deal towards the next stage of delivery.

Thank you. I wonder if you could update me, please, on whether Welsh Government will be agreeing a capitalisation order, sought by some of the councils on the shadow board. I'm trying to understand, should it go ahead, whether there'd be any adverse effect on existing capital spending plans upon which businesses will have been basing their participation in the deal as direct partners or as pipeline businesses. There's a little bit of nervousness in some quarters, which I hope you might be able to quell today. Obviously, I'm not arguing against the order, but perhaps you can tell us whether the Welsh Government has received a range of representations on this issue from business in particular, obviously, as this is your portfolio. And will you seek reassurances that any unintended negative consequences will have been considered?

Absolutely. I'll ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to write to Suzy Davies concerning the capitalisation order. The Member will be aware that some concerns were recently allayed with the agreement on the approach to the retention of non-domestic rates for the city deal. I think this has improved relations and will take the city deal to another level, but I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to provide you with the latest position concerning the capitalisation order.

Cabinet Secretary, as part of that deal, obviously Neath Port Talbot has responsibility for a couple of those projects, one of which is the steel innovation centre. Now, I understand that there are issues regarding where that will be located and there are concerns that Welsh Government is pushing them towards Felindre, which is actually further away from the university campus and Tata, which are both important partners in that innovation centre. Now, the current steel and metals institute is based in the university campus in Singleton. They want to move it nearer. There's land available, which I understand is Welsh Government land, and there's trouble having that land released. Will you look at this aspect to ensure that, if that land is available, you can release it to the organisations to ensure that the steel research centre is based close to the university and close to Tata, where it actually will benefit?

Can I thank David Rees for his question? This £80 million project is crucially important for the sector and particularly for Port Talbot. I'm pleased to be able to say that I spoke with the vice-chancellor just last week concerning land issues, and we hope to make very positive progress in the very near future.

Clearly, with news today that Port Talbot is the most polluted place in Wales, having a low-carbon focus in the city deal is something that I think is crucial. If it wasn't today, it still was when this deal was set up, and one of the programmes, as part of the deal, is homes as power stations, which is a large investment. So, how are you planning to provide international leadership to ensure that we can show Swansea bay is becoming a renewables area, in light of this news, and how will you be working with the deal to promote this element of the deal?

Well, I think a sector deal is absolutely vital—a steel sector deal. In order to ensure that we're able to corral all interests within the steel sector in Wales towards maximising the opportunities the UK industrial strategy offers, we have designated one of the five calls to action—if you like, the prisms through which we'll be funding businesses in the future—a decarbonisation agenda. We're also inviting businesses to come forward through a challenge facility to ensure that they're well placed to be able to take advantage of sector deals and also challenge fund opportunities within the UK industrial strategy. But we've been very clear through the economic action plan that, in the future, both with the economic contract, to get through the door to Welsh Government, and with the facility that you use in order to get financial support, you'll have to be able to demonstrate that you're contributing towards decarbonisation. I think the steel sector, probably more than any other sector, gets the importance of needing to decarbonise, because it contributes towards energy efficiency. Energy costs are one of the major problems that are hampering steel operations within the UK, with huge, huge differences between energy costs here and continental Europe. That has to be addressed; it has to be addressed by UK Government, but Welsh Government also has a part to play in ensuring that the sector becomes more modern and embraces decarbonisation.

Cabinet Secretary, the success of the city deal is dependent upon first-class infrastructure, whether that's excellent transport links or, more importantly, ultrafast and futureproofed telecommunication networks. What discussions have you had with the UK Government regarding the roll-out of gigabit broadband and 5G mobile communications throughout the Swansea bay region?

Well, this is largely a matter that's being led by my colleague the leader of the house, but digital connectivity has been at the centre of the vision for the city deal in Swansea bay for many years. I'm particularly pleased that we've seen Ed Tomp named as the preferred candidate to take on the chairmanship of the strategic board for the city deal. Ed is somebody who knows the value of digital connectivity, and I'm sure that, with his leadership, we'll see a greater focus and a sharper focus on the need to improve digital connectivity within the city deal area.

In terms of engagement with UK Government, it's absolutely vital that our actions and the actions of UK Government interface well, and that we're not duplicating spend and not duplicating or confusing programmes that both Governments might be leading on. For that reason, both I and the leader of the house have regular discussions with our counterparts in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we're working to the same end, which is to make Wales, to make the United Kingdom, one of the most digital connected countries anywhere on the planet.

We've held face-to-face discussions with a range of businesses of all sizes, from a breadth of sectors at locations right across Wales, with major business representative organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the FSB and the Welsh Retail Consortium. We've also used digital and other channels to communicate the plan more broadly. This approach will continue over the coming months.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that response and for attending the Newport business summit, which I hosted last week. The summit brought together businesses and public sector leaders from across the city, and their ambition and positivity about Newport as a place to do business was evident. Collaboration and partnership is key, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary is keen to engage and listen to the business community. Inclusive growth and futureproofing the economy for the challenges ahead is vital. What more can be done to ensure that we provide the right environment for businesses to flourish, creating jobs, innovation and improving skills for the benefit of all?

Can I thank Jayne Bryant, not just for the question but also for kindly inviting me along to the event last week at Celtic Manor? It was a great event and well attended. I believe, after I left, a number of speakers made contributions welcoming the partnership approach that they've taken with the Welsh Government. I think it's important that we continue to ensure that businesses and Government don't co-exist but collaborate more. We're going to be doing that through the economic contract, ensuring that there is investment with a social purpose from the Welsh Government. I've been stunned, quite frankly, by the number of businesses who have embraced this concept—the need to ensure that Government and business work hand in hand to the same purpose, which isn't just to grow levels of wealth in Wales, but to ensure that we're also growing levels of well-being, and that we're reducing inequalities in both. With regard specifically to Newport, I have to say I think it's an incredibly exciting time right now for Newport, with the International Convention Centre Wales, the removal of the tolls on the M4, CAF and, of course, the compound semiconductor cluster. It all shows that Newport is open for business.

Yes, of course. Since announcing our vision last year, we are making very good progress in developing key integrated transport hubs across the region, with an early focus on Deeside and Wrexham. As the latest stage of that work, I recently announced funding of £1.8 million to support rail, bus and active travel improvements in Deeside.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for the answer. As you know, the north-east Wales metro and improved integrated transport system is an ambitious plan that is certainly welcomed by myself and my constituents in Alyn and Deeside. I was very pleased to welcome you to Deeside last month to see and learn more about the plans for improved transport links, especially on the Deeside industrial estate. But rural areas are often forgotten about, so I'm particularly pleased that you share my ambition for those areas to be fully connected as well. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that investment in areas like these—both urban and rural areas—is key to the continued economic success of Alyn and Deeside and, indeed, the north-east Wales region?

Yes, I would. Rural areas should not be left at a disadvantage by virtue of having fewer transport links. Whether it might be rail or buses, we need to make sure that the right levels of investment are being pumped into rural communities, and I'm pleased to be able to tell the Member that we have decided to set up a north Wales business unit at Transport for Wales to take forward work across urban and rural communities. I've also established a cross-border steering group, which is working on various projects as part of the metro vision, and I'm pleased to say that we are taking forward work on a number of hubs as well, not just in Deeside, which I was pleased to join the Member in visiting, but also at Wrexham. We're looking at other hub developments in St Asaph, in Abergele and many other communities, ensuring that major urban areas are better connected to one another, but that they are also better connected to rural communities.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 2 is questions to the Counsel General. Question 1 is from Bethan Sayed.

Thank you for the question. The First Minister has established the Commission on Justice in Wales to provide an expert, independent, long-term view. The commission’s work is well under way and a call for evidence has been issued. I urge everyone with an interest to contribute.

Thank you for that response. Could you outline what the Welsh Government has decided are the potential implications of the commission? I understand that work is ongoing at the moment, but do you have any idea of what you expect out of this commission? For example, would you wish to devolve criminal justice in the future, for example? One of the problems, from my point of view is—and I think I've raised this in the past—that, if there were to be devolution of justice to Wales, there would be a situation, if new prisons were built, where prisoners from elsewhere, namely England, would be placed here in Wales. How realistic is it, therefore, to devolve justice if you have one regime in operation for Wales and those other prisoners came from another regime? Have you looked at the implications of the reality of the situation in those terms?

Well, as regards the recommendations of the commission, I don’t want to pre-empt their work, but the purpose of establishing the commission was to ensure that experts could discuss and that very broad evidence would be included in the analysis and it would give an opportunity for those voices to be heard.

The Member makes a specific point on the devolution of justice, and I’m certain that she heard the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services’s statement, saying that although we’re waiting for the outcome of the work of the commission, it’s important, too, to develop a different vision on how the criminal justice service could work in Wales. Because the criminal justice service—part of it—has been devolved, and so there is a mixture of powers that we would need to secure in order to ensure that they collaborate in an appropriate manner.

The Member also alluded specifically to the question of prisons, and what I saw in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement was a new approach to looking at powers and the way in which Welsh Government could influence these issues. It was also said that we would need further discussions with the United Kingdom Government before taking any decisions on a prison in Baglan. I know she’s been campaigning and that David Rees, the Aberavon Member, has also been campaigning on this, and the Government is very aware of that.

The agreement is to be reflected in the contents of the EU withdrawal Bill and it will be for the Assembly through the legislative consent motion debate to decide whether what is provided for in the agreement is acceptable for Wales.

The agreement between the Tories in Westminster and the Labour Welsh Government here is made up of two parts: the amendments to the legislation and the agreement itself. The policy areas included in the agreement are not in the legislation and they're not comprehensive. It's entirely plausible that, as Brexit rolls on, Westminster will decide that it needs to have more control over other policy areas. Can the Counsel General explain to this Assembly what legal recourse he has to stop Westminster taking control of more policy areas, and what legal footing does the existing list of policy areas stand on?

Well, I think the Member misunderstands the effect of the agreement—

That's such a patronising line of argument.

Well, I'm about to outline the position, and I'll be very happy to take further questions if the Deputy Presiding Officer is prepared to accept them. The question is this: the 26 areas that the agreement establishes as the areas that could be subject to regulation are clear. What has actually not been so clear is the additional powers that will be exercised in Wales rather than at the European Union level as a result of reversing the effect of clause 11. She will be aware, of course, that the original effect of clause 11 was essentially to hold all those powers in Westminster, and the effect of inverting clause 11 means that powers will be exercised in Wales that previously would have been exercised in Brussels in a wide range of areas, including things like carbon capture and storage, energy planning consents, hydrocarbon licensing, air quality, biodiversity, marine environment, and a host of other areas. Those areas are all areas that will now be exercised in Wales rather than exercised in Brussels, as I say.

With regard to the regulations to put the specific policy areas in the freezer, which is the language that has been used, as she knows, those regulations will come to the Assembly for Members here to grant consent or otherwise in relation to those regulations. [Interruption.] As she's also aware, the Sewel convention, which is the underpinning of our devolution settlement—I obviously know that that is not something that she and her party are happy with—is not justiciable, it's not able to be actioned on in court. But as we know, also, from the Miller decision in the Supreme Court, it's a very, very strong political convention, which is regarded by the Supreme Court as a permanent part of our devolution settlement. 

Can I give the Counsel General my wholehearted support on this issue? Is it not correct that the agreement that has been arrived at between the UK Government and the Welsh Government is fundamentally a political agreement, not a legal agreement? Ultimately, as we are part of the United Kingdom, if the United Kingdom Parliament wished to reverse any previous legislation, it would be perfectly possible to do so. But any attempt to resile from the devolution settlement following two referenda here in Wales would clearly create a constitutional conflict between Wales and the United Kingdom Government, and there would be widespread support in this Assembly from all sides, I think, of the house for resisting any such move. So, the leader of Plaid Cymru's fears in this respect, I think, must be regarded as illusory. 

Clearly, acting in defiance of the consent of the Assembly would pose a constitutional crisis, so there's no question around that. The agreement, which is a political agreement—although it has legal aspects: the amendments themselves, the reference to the Supreme Court; those are all legal steps, needless to say—the agreement actually includes the application of the Sewel convention to the regulation-making powers, which wasn't previously a feature of the Sewel convention. In fact, it goes beyond that and it sets out a specific process by which those regulations are then debated and approved in Parliament. So, it is a political agreement, it is necessarily a political agreement, but it incorporates very specific legal actions, which we expect to be undertaken.

Decisions about cancellation of registration for day care providers are made by Care Inspectorate Wales. The inspectorate has operational independence. Day care providers that are the subject of cancellation decisions have a right of appeal against those decisions to the first-tier tribunal.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. It doesn't seem like much, but there we are. Counsel General, you may be aware of the case of Bright Sparks nursery in Taibach in my constituency, which has been closed since last year following allegations of force-feeding of children and restraint of young children. These are issues which must be investigated, because they must be taken seriously, and there is no question about that. In fact, a trial was held and three individuals were charged and prosecuted, but the trial found them not guilty of all charges, and therefore they were exonerated. Now it appears that even being exonerated in court is insufficient for CIW to reissue the licence, which implies that the evidence presented is still considered sufficient by CIW. What guidance can the Welsh Government give to CIW to ensure that, whilst the need to safeguard children in circumstances where allegations are made is paramount to ensure their safety is there, a thorough investigation is made, and if prosecution that follows fails, a plan is put into place, working with the organisation, to ensure that those nurseries get an opportunity to reopen in a safeguarded, protected way?

The Member will appreciate that the individual case that he refers to—it's difficult for me to make much specific comment about that. Any providers who wish to challenge a decision of the inspectorate have a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal, which is an independent tribunal with expertise in hearing this kind of case. He mentions the childcare provider in his own constituency and he will know that there is a hearing ongoing at the moment at the first-tier tribunal in relation to the cancellation decision made by CIW. The jury at Swansea Crown Court did not find the case was proved, obviously, to the standard relevant to a criminal court, but the burden of proof in these proceedings is different, so it remains to be seen what the outcome of the appeal is by the nursery against the decision to cancel registration.  

May I thank the Member for the question? I refer the Member to the answer I gave in responding to the motion on 18 April. It’s clear that there is a legitimate difference of opinion about the interpretation of section 37, and we are engaging in constructive dialogue with the Presiding Officer to resolve this.

Thank you for that response. The record will show, of course, that the Assembly didn’t actually cede to the threat of legal challenge at that time, and indeed that the Government didn’t proceed with launching that legal challenge. The Government argued, and you argued at the time, that a dangerous precedent would be established here. But the truth is that there is plenty of precedent in parliamentary practice internationally already in existence, where Parliaments can insist on the publication of important reports.

Of course, there is another report in the pipeline, dealing with the same circumstances—the very tragic circumstances, of course. So, what is your advice to the First Minister on the need to move as quickly as possible to publish the details of the remit of that other inquiry?

Well, I’m not going to allude to any specific advice that I give to the Government on these matters, because the Member will understand why that would be impossible for me to do. But he mentioned the debate in particular. I refer him to section 41 of the Act, which anticipates that it would be possible for the Government or the Assembly, or both together, to go to court to seek an explanation on parts of the Act that are unclear or that need further analysis. So, the Act itself actually anticipates that as a possibility.

It was clear in the discussion on that day that the Government had broader issues in mind rather than the specific question on that report. And the Member talks about the importance of establishing an understanding between the Government and the Assembly, or any legislature, regarding these important issues. In the Westminster Parliament, for example, the rules are different, because the Westminster Parliament is not a statutory institution but one that arises from common law. So, the rules are different and the modus operandi is different, but now we have an opportunity to discuss these issues with the Assembly, with the Llywydd, and it’s a way, if you like, of establishing a protocol and ways of working that deal with the same kind of challenges that Westminster and other legislatures have succeeded in dealing with.

The Welsh Government has secured changes to the UK Government’s EU withdrawal Bill. As part of the agreement, the UK Government will ask the law officers to make an application to the Supreme Court to withdraw the reference made to the court in respect of the Welsh continuity Bill.

I thank you for that answer, Counsel General. Obviously, since I submitted the question, things have moved on a little bit, and as a consequence you've indicated the action that has been taken. However, there was a precedent perhaps set here; the intent was clearly to take this Bill to the Supreme Court if those amendments had not been agreed. As a consequence, we may end up, and have ended up, in a situation where we were in the Supreme Court for our Bill, while the UK Government's EU Bill was going through. What would be the legal position in relation to us being held within the Supreme Court while the UK Bills were passed, therefore had Royal Assent, but we were still waiting for the outcome of the Supreme Court decision before we could go for Royal Assent?

Well, the Member will be aware that this is a matter that is very much in the mind of the Welsh Government, on a number of bases, not least the fact that the volume of Brexit-related legislation and subordinate legislation that needs to be pursued and implemented required all Governments in the UK, and all legislatures, to start the work as soon as possible. So, as the Member will be aware, an application was made to the Supreme Court to expedite the hearing of the matter. That expedited application remains in place, and obviously we will not be withdrawing that until the reference itself is withdrawn, and no decision has yet been made by the Supreme Court about that question of bringing forward the hearing. What we would expect and need is for the Attorney General to withdraw that reference if the LCM is approved by the Assembly in due course. That's obviously a matter for the Assembly to consider. And at that point, the continuity Bill will be available to be submitted for Royal Assent. That may seem like a curious step to take in the circumstances, but as the Member and others will know, it won't be possible to repeal the continuity Bill without it having been submitted in that way for Royal Assent. 

And I would appreciate an answer that doesn't tell me that I don't understand the issue, please. 

While the Supreme Court has said that the Sewel convention is not legally binding, it has also emphasised that the convention plays a fundamental role in the UK’s constitution. We expect Parliament to respect the will of the Assembly, and not to proceed with legislation that alters the Assembly’s competence, or affects devolved matters, without the Assembly’s consent.

The Miller versus the Crown case confirmed that the Sewel convention isn't worth the paper that it's written on. In fact, on at least seven occasions, Westminster has forced legislation on Wales without its consent. Under the Labour-Tory agreement on the withdrawal Bill, there is a new definition of 'consent'. Semantic arguments are being used by Ministers to argue that this revision to the Bill equates to a requirement of consent for Westminster to legislate in devolved areas. In fact, the amendment explicitly says if a motion refusing consent is passed in this Assembly, Parliament may continue to impose its legislation. Can the Counsel General give me another example in legislation where 'no' means 'yes'?

The Miller judgment was very clear that the Sewel convention was not be justiciable, could not be the basis of the claim in court. But it was also very clear that it had the strongest possible political weight, apart from being available as a basis of a claim. And as I mentioned in my answer to a previous question, the Supreme Court regarded that as a permanent feature of the devolution settlement. Before the Sewel convention was enshrined in statute, it had been used about 100 times, I think—the requests that had been made to this Chamber—and they had not been disregarded by the UK Parliament when the Government in the UK accepted that consent was required. So, the strength of the Sewel convention is well established. 

The point she makes in relation to the consent decision—the language in the amendment refers to a consent decision, i.e. the point at which this Assembly or the Scottish Parliament makes a decision whether to consent or not to consent. That is about the timetabling of how the Ministers in Westminster can submit regulations there. It is absolutely clear in the inter-governmental agreement that regulations will be subject to the Sewel convention, i.e. that the UK Parliament will not normally seek to legislate other than with the consent of this place. 

Members will know that social security is a reserved matter under our devolution settlement. Removal or modification of this reservation would require either an Act of the UK Parliament or an Order in Council. The UK Government would therefore need to agree this change.

I thank you for the response. And as has been the theme of questions today, last week, your Government made a deal with the Conservatives in Westminster, where you essentially agreed with them, and trust them not to interfere in devolved matters on powers returning from Brussels. Yet, time and time again in this Senedd, and elsewhere, Members of the Labour Government have repeatedly declined to press for the case of the devolution of welfare and benefits, on the basis that they do not trust the Tories to fulfil the commitments of any deal that might be arranged to facilitate it. Members of this Government have in the past claimed that the Scottish Government, for example, has not got the administration powers in relation to the devolution of some of their welfare powers, which, of course, we know is not the case because of the fiscal framework. Given the fact that this deal was made last week, why is not possible to do it in relation to welfare?

Can I just make one point clear that, in reference to the agreement, this is an agreement that brings more powers to be exercised in Wales than previously was the case? I don't want this idea to take hold that this is in any way handing back powers or trusting the Conservatives not to seek more powers. The inversion of clause 11, which was achieved by the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government in negotiation with the UK Government, has had the effect of more powers being exercised in the Assembly and by the Welsh Government than was previously the case. So, that is absolutely critical for this discussion. 

As she is aware—and I refer back to the debate that Plaid Cymru brought forward to the Assembly in October of last year, which I participated in before I joined the Government—the approach of the devolution of welfare benefits, which has happened in Scotland, to which she referred to in her question, has, in effect, transferred the financial risk associated with the demand for benefits to the Scottish purse. For Wales, the Government's view is that that would pose a very significant financial risk and, in addition to that, the costs associated with administering the welfare system would take resources away from the delivery of front-line public services. We know that for Scotland the costs have been very significant, including £66 million for administration and a one-off payment of £200 million for implementation. That money is money that should be used on the front line. Our view in the Welsh Government is that we should see a better welfare deal and social security deal for all residents in the UK, and we regard that as an absolutely fundamental approach to social justice, not just in Wales but in all parts of the UK. 

David Rees. [Inaudible.]. No, okay, thank you. Question 8, then—Lee Waters. 

I thank the Member for his question. I have begun to consider how technology could be used in helping us make Welsh law easier to find and understand. I recently met with the National Archives and with a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to discuss law as a form of data and how artificial intelligence could make law more accessible and easier to administer.

Thank you very much. I'm sure the Counsel General is aware of a recent competition that took place in the US between so-called 'lawbots' and law professors in a lawyering competition. Both the humans and the artificial intelligence were given four hours to read a contract and identify 30 legal terms and issues, including arbitration and confidentiality agreements. What was most impressive was that the professors scored 85 per cent, but the artificial intelligence scored 95 per cent. The professors took 92 minutes to achieve their score, and the lawbots took 26 seconds.

Some countries are ahead of the game in exploring how this innovation can be applied. New Zealand is exploring how new legislation can be written in both text and in code simultaneously to allow these bots in the future to digest and analyse law to be able to give tailored advice instantaneously to people. Has the Counsel General considered how this could be introduced in Wales? 

Well, I thank the Member for his question. He raises a number of very interesting points there. There is a fundamental both challenge and opportunity for the legal services sector across the world in the sorts of things that he describes, both in terms of creating smart contracts, but also, as his question infers, in the ability to research vast amounts of data and law and case law in a way that is robust and reliable. As it happens, the conversations I've had suggest that that's harder to achieve when it comes to researching legislation itself. But one of the things I've been very keen to do, in thinking about how we can make law more accessible to people in Wales in general, is to have in mind that the pace of change in this area is so significant that we run the risk of designing a better technological solution today for the challenges that we had 10 years ago, rather than thinking forward to what the world might look like in 10 years' time. Now, that is an ambitious challenge, and I don't for one second suggest that it is straightforward—it absolutely isn't. 

He mentions New Zealand in his question. One of the discussions I've been having with the National Archives is around how legislatures can legislate in code and in data form, so that where you have, for example, taxation legislation or benefits legislation, the legislature passes code that can be instantaneously turned into forms and made available to the public in that authoritative way. That obviously poses new burdens on any legislature and needs to be thought through very carefully. I have a meeting arranged with Google in the weeks ahead to discuss with them whether they are working with any other partners worldwide on innovation around some of these areas. I think it's important to have as many sources of inspiration from as many different jurisdictions as possible for what we hope to be able to achieve in the long term here in Wales.

Thank you very much, Counsel General.

Point of order, Mick Antoniw.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I wish to raise a point of order under Standing Order 13.9(ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi)—obstructing the business of the Assembly; seeking to raise a matter outside the scope of the debate; is guilty of discourteous or unbecoming conduct; refuses to conform to any Standing Order or other requirement for conduct—and possibly in respect of Standing Order 15.1 on 'The following documents' being tabled in this place, and there may possibly be other Standing Orders that I haven't yet been able to look at.

I have, as I think every single Member has, received circulated, unsolicited what I regard as offensive material, distributed by UKIP in this Chamber. As far as I'm aware, there has been no authority from yourself for the distribution or the tabling of this. It is clearly intended to influence a particular debate and is irrelevant to that particular debate. We have no idea what the status of it is. I regard this as offensive, discourteous conduct and I'd be grateful if you would rule on this matter.

Thank you very much, and I thank you for the notice that you intended to raise this point of order. I am aware that Neil Hamilton distributed printed materials to Members' desks in this Chamber before the start of Plenary today. It is not proper conduct for Members to leaflet other Members in the Chamber, whether that is relevant to the Assembly's proceedings or not. It is particularly discourteous and unbecoming for Members to engage in such activity anonymously. Members have the privilege of being heard in this Chamber and should advance their arguments by means of debate. I do not expect a repeat of such behaviour by any Member.

Further to that point of order—

I have made my ruling.

Yes, but further to that point of order I'd just like to point out that it was not anonymous; there was a compliments slip from me in each envelope. I was very careful to do that. It is relevant to what I hope to say later on—

No it's not. I've made my ruling. [Interruption.] I have made my ruling. Thank you.

There are no topical questions today.

We move on to item 4, which is the 90-second statements, and I call Jack Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm sure that you'll agree with me that our Presiding Officer always aims to be impartial in her role within this Chamber. She may, however, find it difficult and extremely hard to keep that same standard this Sunday when Aberystwyth Town FC take on Connah's Quay Nomads FC in the one-hundred-and-thirty-first JD Welsh Cup Final. I look forward to attending the final with the Member for Ceredigion and I want to take time today to congratulate both teams on their achievements to date and their contribution to both their communities—their special communities. But, of course, I am hoping to see the Nomads bring that trophy back to Connah's Quay this coming Sunday. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sure that the Llywydd would want to extend to both teams her wish that they have a good match. It is a showcase for Welsh premier league football. I'm only sad that the only team in the Welsh premier league that I ever wanted to support is not taking part in that final this year, but I hope, in future years, that I will be able to stand up and make a similar statement of congratulations or support for the team. I look forward to that match, as I'm sure the Llywydd does, and as other Members will. Thank you very much for raising it, and, as I say, I hope that that puts me in the good books with the Llywydd for later on in the proceedings. Thank you.

Item 5 is a statement by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee on public procurement, and I call on the Chair of the committee, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to share with you all today details of the work undertaken to date by the Public Accounts Committee in relation to public procurement in Wales. The committee agreed to undertake an inquiry, following the publication of the Auditor General for Wales's report on the National Procurement Service—the NPS—on 30 November 2017. This report followed on from a wider review of public procurement in Wales, released in October 2017. During the early stages of that review, some public bodies expressed particular concerns about the development and performance of the NPS. The auditor general's report on NPS considered these issues in more detail.

The report concluded that indicative figures show that public bodies in Wales spent £234 million through NPS frameworks and contracts in 2016-17, £222 million of which related to member organisations. However, public bodies are not using NPS frameworks as much as anticipated, resulting in concerns over its funding, less than anticipated savings—£14.8 million reported for 2016-17—and with many of its members dissatisfied. 

Members may recall that, in September 2017, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government set out initial plans to refocus the role of the NPS and Value Wales. This will be taken forward in collaboration with the Welsh Government's public sector partners. The Welsh Government also intends to merge the NPS board and the national procurement board. The Public Accounts Committee considered the findings of the auditor general's report and, during the course of our work to date, has taken evidence from a number of local authorities, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Government. 

Given the ongoing review of the National Procurement Service and Value Wales, which is due to report its findings in the autumn, we agreed that it would be premature for the committee to report its findings at this stage. We have agreed to return to this issue once the review has been completed and will reflect on the outcomes of that review in due course. In the meantime, we have identified some issues we wanted to bring to the attention of the Assembly and to assure Members that we will be returning to this important matter at the most appropriate time. There were a breadth of issues that the review of the National Procurement Service and Value Wales will need to consider in what appears to be a challenging time frame. 

The committee believes there is much to be gained by maximising the potential of the annual £6 billion public sector procurement spend and by transforming public procurement in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It's clear to the committee that this potential is some way from being fully realised for a number of reasons and that some significant development work and consensus building is required to move forward in a collaborative way and respond to some of the concerns that have been raised about the approach taken by NPS to date. Given the potential benefits, we trust that the Welsh Government and its partners will provide the resources necessary to drive the review work forward at a sufficient pace. We recognise that there will then be other decisions to be made about the resourcing of services in the future. 

The committee welcomes the establishment of the stakeholder reference group, which is an essential element of engaging the voices of all interested parties. We're pleased that the terms of reference for the group make it clear that members will be expected to secure feedback from colleagues within their respective sectors and organisations, including those organisations that might not currently be members. 

Building on the auditor general's recommendations, we believe it is important to establish the reasons why public bodies are choosing to purchase goods and services through other consortia arrangements, or simply through their own local arrangements, rather than through NPS. For example, we found that there is £60 million expenditure through Crown Commercial Service that could potentially be covered by the NPS frameworks. We welcome the Welsh Government's financial and incentive model for the service, which will be central to securing future buy-in, but there also appears to be similar issues with the inconsistent take-up of e-procurement tools and resources that merit further exploration.

We welcome that these issues will be explored as part of ongoing review work. We were pleased to hear that already NPS has asked its customers for comments on the effectiveness of its frameworks and has worked with its board to promote the benefits of using NPS frameworks to buy common and repetitive goods and services and to encourage members to use them. This engagement has provided key insight and has already influenced a number of positive developments. For example, we are aware that regionalised approaches are now being explored with its members, which have resulted in a pilot project where the NPS frameworks supported seven south-west local authorities in delivering their engineering consultancy requirements. 

Finally, we were particularly concerned about issues of recruitment and retention and the overall procurement capacity and capability in Wales. There is significant competition for professionals between public bodies and with the private sector. Although we heard from Welsh Government officials that capacity and capability were a core part of the scope of the review process, we note that these issues did not feature explicitly in the terms of reference. We also note that using the Welsh Government's own procurement policy statement, which sets out a measurement of one procurement professional for each £10 million spend, points to a deficit of some 274 qualified procurement staff. Welsh Government officials have told us that issues of overall procurement capacity and capability across the public sector in Wales is a fundamental part of the review and of what follows. We understand that the Welsh Government will be addressing these issues through a new procurement capability programme in due course. 

We will, of course, be monitoring the Welsh Government's work in this area, and we'll await the outcomes of its review on completion. We also look forward to receiving an update on actions undertaken arising from the two Wales Audit Office reports. So, while we take a pause in our work, we will be keeping a close watching brief on developments.  

Thank you very much. There are no speakers on the statement. So, thank you for that. 

We move on to item 6 on the agenda, which is a debate on the Standards of Conduct Committee's report 01-18 to the Assembly under Standing Order 22.9, and I call on the temporary Chair of the committee to move the motion—Paul Davies. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, as temporary Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, I formally move the motion. 

The committee considered the report from the commissioner for standards in relation to a complaint made against Michelle Brown, the Member for North Wales, for bringing the Assembly into disrepute, which is a breach of the code of conduct. The facts relating to the complaint and the committee's reasons for its recommendation are set out in full in the committee's report. 

The Standards of Conduct Committee gave the commissioner's report careful consideration, and the Member concerned took the opportunity afforded to her through the complaints procedure to provide oral evidence to the committee. Our report sets out the committee's judgment that a sanction is appropriate in this case. This is the first time that the committee has recommended a sanction like this, and it was not a decision we took lightly. In coming to this decision, we took account of all the mitigating circumstances but nevertheless concluded that the breach was such that it warranted a significant sanction. 

In light of the circumstances of this case, the Standards of Conduct Committee also wishes to remind Assembly Members that the code of conduct is a 24/7 code, and it is incumbent on us all to adhere strictly to it at all times. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I would therefore urge Members to support this motion.  

I'd just like to ask Members to consider one very simple question: how can a Member of this Assembly who has been found to be racist safely represent people of colour in her region? And the answer is that she can't, and I believe that that is a problem. Now, the leader of UKIP and the UKIP Member on the panel have accepted that their Member was racist, and no amount of letters quoting other people who might be racist will overcome that. Racism is racism. It's unacceptable. It has no place in this institution or, indeed, this country.  

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I regret that I'm not able to approve the motion before the Assembly this afternoon. It troubles me on several levels. In particular, we are not a self-selecting club in this Assembly with complete freedom to impose terms of membership upon it. We derive our right to sit here not from the approbation of our peers. [Interruption.] Kindly listen to what I'm going to say before you start heckling. We derive our right to sit here not from the approbation of our peers, but from the votes of the people, and excluding any Member is a serious interference with the democratic rights of the people who are to be represented by us, depriving North Wales, in this particular instance, of one of its Members. 

Now, all parliaments, of course, have rules to exclude unruly Members to maintain order in proceedings, without which we can't function properly. But very few other institutions around the world seek to exclude Members for using objectionable words outside the relevant assembly, let alone, as in this case, in a private telephone conversation between close friends never intended to be made public. And in this case, the position is even worse—[Interruption.] Well, Members, if they don't listen, are not going to be able to reach a rational decision on this, are they? So, I'd just kindly ask them to afford me—

Will you take an intervention, then?

—the courtesy—

Would you take an intervention?

—of listening to what I have to say—

Are you taking an intervention?

—particularly as nobody else is likely to make these points.

In this case, the position is even worse because the conversation was clandestinely recorded by somebody who was at the time a close personal friend, but in due course became Michelle Brown's chief of staff, who was then subsequently sacked for gross misconduct, including breach of confidence, and he maliciously published the recording as an act of revenge.

Now, in a world where surveillance technology is everywhere, admitting this kind of evidence in disciplinary proceedings creates obvious dangers of entrapment and prejudice, and not only in relation to words. Such material would not be generally admissible as prosecution evidence in a court of law, and indeed it may breach rights under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, the right to privacy in your private life, and AMs deserve the same protection, I believe, under our rules of procedure here as the law would afford them outside.

The House of Commons claims no right to censor the private conversations of MPs. Indeed, it doesn't even claim the right to punish MPs for the most vile and disgusting public utterances, like John McDonnell, who joked apparently about Esther McVey, saying, 'Why aren't we lynching the bastard?'—that was a joke. Emma Dent Coad, the Labour MP for Kensington, who described Shaun Bailey, a black Conservative member of the London Assembly as 'a token ghetto boy' and a 'freeloading scumbag' and who has very cheerfully put on the internet—[Interruption.]—a redesign of the Tory tree logo with a black person hanging from it. 

Are you taking interventions? No. No, the Member's not going to take interventions.

I don't think it would be profitable, Madam Deputy—I nearly said 'Deputy Speaker'—Deputy Presiding Officer, if I were to give way at this point.

I believe that what the temporary Chairman of the committee said is a serious matter: that the code of conduct applies to Members at all times, in their public and their private lives, in all circumstances. This, I believe, is a startling and sinister development that the Assembly seeks the right to police the private lives of Assembly Members, to censor them and, indeed, ultimately, to punish them for bringing the Assembly into disrepute. I don't regard the Assembly as being brought into disrepute by anything that anybody says outside this place. We all have responsibility for our own words and actions elsewhere, and I don't believe myself to be tainted by the actions or words of anybody else in this Assembly, and I think everybody else should take the same general view. After all, what does bring the Assembly into disrepute is a matter that must be regarded as highly subjective.

I regret that, in the course of the report, there is no detailed rebuttal or indeed any rebuttal of the arguments that I put forward on Michelle Brown's behalf as her advocate for the committee. I'm grateful that the committee allowed me to do that. I don't seek to defend the use of the word 'coconut'. It does appear to be in wide use, but the document that I distributed earlier on shows the huge number of highly offensive uses of the word 'coconut' by members or supporters of the Labour Party. I don't know whether the Labour group, which made this complaint against Michelle Brown, not as individuals but as a group, have made any complaints about the racism in the Labour Party, the anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and the vile and disgusting things that are said, not in private conversations, but in public and gloried in—

Can I ask the Member to wind up please?

—by pretty senior members of that party. Yes, the word 'coconut'—

Can you wind up, please?

—can be disparaging and offensive—

Can you wind up now?

I will wind up, Deputy Presiding Officer. But is it any more disparaging and offensive than Joyce Watson, for example, in this Chamber describing UKIP Members as rabid dogs—

I've asked you to wind up. Please do so.

I'm on my last couple of sentences.

Well, no, it's not a last couple of sentences. One please.

Is it any worse than Leanne Wood falsely describing me as a Holocaust denier—a most grotesque libel upon me? It seems to me that the indignation of the Labour group is highly subjective, and on those grounds I would urge the Assembly not to approve this motion.

We're all entitled to our view.

I will take a point of order after the debate. I can't take a point of order during the debate. Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I speak as somebody here today who has dealt with racism at the sharp end, growing up and to this day. I get judged. I have been judged because of the way that I look, because of my mum, my dad, my grandparents, my ethnic make-up. I loathe racism. Loathe it. Today, we're here to take a decision to throw out a democratically elected Member of this Assembly. Michelle Brown did make a racist comment in private. She was speaking in private on the telephone without knowing she was being recorded, with a person who liked what she said enough that he decided to work for her. I don't think it's right for me, as a representative of South Wales Central, to vote to ban an Assembly Member for North Wales. We have a decision for deciding who should and should not be an Assembly Member, and that's called an election. 

Will you take an intervention? 

I will.

Yes. Thank you very much. Are you, therefore, suggesting that she's only guilty because she was caught?

I'm going to speak with some restraint here, because I've witnessed racist behaviour in this Chamber and I've corresponded with the Llywydd at times. I've been appalled by some of the behaviour that I've seen in this room. So, let's stop with the virtue signalling, shall we, just for a moment? Maybe you'd like to correspond with the Llywydd and see what we've been speaking about in private.

Now, Michelle Brown was caught out. She was recorded, as my colleague across the Chamber said, and I think it really is a question of 'let he or she without sin cast the first stone' because I can imagine—I can imagine—if everybody around this Chamber was recorded in private exactly what could be dug up. I am speaking as a person of colour who has been through racism—. I've dealt with racism all my life. All my life. What I'm saying here is we have a democratically elected politician; the way to deal with these people is at the ballot box, and I firmly, firmly believe that. I reject virtue signalling. If we look at the real scandal in this building—[Interruption.]

Just carry on with your contribution, please.

If you could give me the respect of listening to what I've got to say, then I would very much appreciate it. Will you give me that courtesy today?

Respect is earned. 

Just carry on. I'm in the Chair, and I have given you the permission to carry on. So, please carry on, your time is running out.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. You give respect to receive respect.

Now, not long ago, Labour Members on the benches here were voting to keep their own—the Government's own behaviour a secret and, for me, that's a real scandal. What Michelle Brown did was disgraceful in private. The way to deal with those people is at the ballot box, and I firmly, firmly believe that.

Thank you. Can I now call on the temporary Chair of the committee to reply to the debate? Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I note Members' contributions in this debate this afternoon. I particularly note the Member for Mid and West Wales's contribution, and I would remind him that this report was unanimously agreed by a cross-party group of Assembly Members, including a Member from his own party. I would also remind Members that the Assembly Members' code of conduct should be adhered to 24 hours a day, and is applicable both in our private and public lives. Deputy Presiding Officer, the committee's report is absolutely clear and it sets out the committee's judgment that a sanction is appropriate in this case. I would, therefore, urge Members to support this motion.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Business Committee decided that any vote necessary on this motion would be taken immediately, so unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, one abstention, three against. Therefore, that motion is carried. Thank you.

Point of order, Joyce Watson.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to raise a point of order that I have an entitlement within this Chamber to be respected as an individual Member of this Chamber and not to be disabused by lies that come from another Member, accusing me of things that I clearly have not done or have not said.

In an aid debate last year, you described us as rabid dogs.

Thank you. We have heard that, it's on the record. Thank you.

Item 7—

Can I have a point of order? A point of order under Standing Order 13.9. I heard an accusation made a few minutes ago that there had been behaviour tantamount to racism in this Chamber. Now, we don't know who that is targeted at, but it tars all of us. Could we have a judgment from the Llywydd on that, please?

Okay. If you'll allow me to go and look at the record, I'll return to this at a later date. Thank you. 

Can we move on to item 7, if everybody—? Okay. Item 7, then, is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on period poverty and stigma. I call on Jane Hutt to move the motion.

I'd like to thank Jenny Rathbone—

Can we have some quiet, please? Thank you.

I'd like to thank Jenny Rathbone for co-submitting this motion, and my colleagues across the Chamber who have supported it. Period poverty is when women and girls struggle to pay for essential sanitary products on a monthly basis with significant impacts on their hygiene, health and well-being.

Findings from the charity Plan International UK indicate that one in 10 girls has been unable to afford sanitary products. One in seven girls has had to ask to borrow sanitary wear from a friend due to affordability issues, and more than one in 10 girls have had to improvise sanitary wear due to affordability issues. The growing public and political interest in this issue has revealed the shocking fact that for too many women and girls, basic feminine hygiene products are now unaffordable.

We have anecdotal evidence of mothers going without sanitary items in order to buy them for their daughters instead; of women who are homeless being forced to improvise with dirty rags, socks and even newspaper; of girls from low-income families missing school when they have their periods because of the challenge of managing them away from home without adequate sanitary protection.

We've also heard from the Trussell Trust that revealed last week that it saw a record increase in food bank figures for 2017-18, and that more and more women are struggling to afford basic sanitary products and are relying on donations, with some choosing to sacrifice sanitary products for themselves in order to put food on the table.

But there are serious physical and mental health impacts for women who are not able to manage their periods hygienically every month. From infections that can be caused by being forced to survive on just one or two tampons to feeling trapped indoors in order to be near a toilet, and of feeling too embarrassed and ashamed to ask for help.

Period poverty is a very private struggle and a hidden consequence of austerity that has only recently hit public consciousness. We must expose it as a health, hygiene and inequality issue too. But I also want this debate to acknowledge that we have a clear responsibility to women and girls in Wales to develop period dignity as part of our commitment to gender equality.

Unfortunately, there is stigma attached to menstruation, despite it being a natural and important process. It's unbelievable that periods have been, and remain, a taboo issue. Indeed, older generations often referred to menstruation as 'the curse'. Even today, we euphemise and belittle periods; we talk about 'being on' so that as well as not being able to afford sanitary items, women and girls can feel too embarrassed or ashamed to say they're menstruating.

This is extremely difficult for girls and young women, and it starts in primary school and through to secondary school. So, I think it is important that as well as talking about period poverty, we also talk and use the opportunity to talk about and address period dignity. The enlightening report from Rhondda Cynon Taf council's scrutiny working group, which was established to deal with free sanitary provision in schools, highlighted some of the concerns raised by schoolgirls about period dignity and stigma, with some of them saying, and I quote:

'Boys make fun of us if they see us going to the toilet with our bags—it’s embarrassing'.

'I would rather go home' than ask a teacher for a sanitary product, especially a male teacher. 'Boys mature later', menstruation needs

'to be put into perspective as they are going to be future partners, fathers, employers and the stigma needs to be taken out. They need to realise that it’s a normal bodily function and the impact it can have on females'.

This is why the motion today asks the Welsh Government to consider calls to improve public awareness and education on menstrual health and wellbeing, addressing the stigma that's still attached to menstruation and opening up a natural and national conversation about periods.

I do, however, very much welcome the Welsh Government's recent response to period poverty, with the announcement that local authorities will receive £440,000 over the next two years to tackle period poverty in their communities by providing feminine hygiene products to those women and girls most in need, and this can be through community groups, schools or food banks. And, most importantly, £700,000 of capital funding will be available to improve facilities and equipment in schools. It's particularly encouraging to note that this funding will be used in primary schools as well as secondary schools. This is in acknowledgement of research that shows that more girls are starting their periods at a younger age, and some primary schools can lack the facilities that they need.

At this point, I would like to praise the efforts of the local Labour women's forum and councillors in the Vale of Glamorgan, who've been working hard since last year to raise awareness of period poverty and make sure the issue of free sanitary provision in primary and secondary schools in the Vale of Glamorgan has been on the council's agenda. Councillor Margaret Wilkinson said: 

'This is a poverty issue. This is a hidden, quiet problem. Girls don't want to talk about it.'

Councillor Jayne Norman from Llantwit First said: 

'Menstruation affects every woman. We have no choice in the matter.... For too many young women and girls, admitting that they are even having their period is embarrassing enough, without having to confess that their family cannot afford to buy them the sanitary protection they need. The protection which allows them the right of dignity and wellbeing.'

I would also like to praise the excellent work of Welsh organisations such as Periods in Poverty, Wings Cymru, The Red Box Project, the Trussell Trust and many others, which I'm sure we'll hear about this afternoon, to raise awareness of and help tackle this issue.

Silence prevents progress and I'm so glad that we're breaking the taboo and it's good to see so many staying in the Chamber this afternoon to share and take on board this issue, to tackle the invisible scandal of period poverty and lack of period dignity by being part of this debate in the Assembly today, and I look forward to hearing Members' contributions. Thank you.

Poverty is a feminist issue. When young women miss school because they can't afford sanitary products, it's poverty. When women have to use toilet paper, old clothes, or often nothing at all, in place of pads and tampons when they menstruate, it's poverty. When women have to make the choice between buying sanitary products, clothes, bus fare or food, it's poverty. Yes, poverty is a feminist issue and it disproportionately affects women and girls.

In Wales, women make up the majority of part-time and low-paid workers and are the most likely to be affected by cruel cuts to welfare. It's a cause of national shame that there are women in Wales who are unable to afford to buy the sanitary supplies that they need. I was pleased when the £1 million grant provided by the Welsh Government was announced, because that will offer some level of funding to alleviate the symptoms of period poverty. But it isn't enough.

Broken down, the £1 million grant offers every local authority in Wales approximately £22,000 over the course of two years to purchase and distribute sanitary products. However, Rhondda Cynon Taf council alone would require £70,000 in just one year to buy and dispense the sanitary products. If we are to be serious about tackling the issue of period poverty, then we must go further than a short-term Band-Aid solution—we must look to tackling the root cause of the problem head on, and that means tackling poverty.

The Welsh Government must put in place real measures to eradicate poverty in Wales, and that begins with the devolution of welfare administration. It must also implement a coherent, long-term strategy that has been properly budgeted and which will include securing consistent, universal provision of sanitary items throughout Wales. The issue of period poverty is not without stigma and taboo. We need to rid the shame that is associated with menstruating and educate everyone openly and honestly about the topic. We should be as comfortable talking about providing sanitary products as we are about talking about providing toilet paper.

The Welsh Government has a responsibility to fully implement the recommendations of 'The Future of the Sex and Relationships Education Curriculum in Wales' report by the sex and relationships expert panel to ensure that all schools in Wales provide high-quality, inclusive sex and relationships education.

I must also point out that this is not an original Labour initiative. It was Plaid Cymru who forced this issue on to the agenda, and when councillors in my area forced a vote on a period poverty fund, Labour chose to oppose. But their tenacious attitude has kept this campaign alive, and that's why I want to pay tribute to the formidable Plaid Cymru women councillors on Rhondda Cynon Taf, who, after a long, hard-fought campaign under the leadership of young councillor Elyn Stephens, ensured free sanitary product provisions for all secondary school pupils throughout Rhondda Cynon Taf. The councils of Merthyr Tydfil, the Vale of Glamorgan and Newport have all presented motions following Rhondda Cynon Taf's example, demonstrating that there is an organic movement towards providing universal sanitary provision, with young women at the forefront.

Menstrual care is a healthcare issue, and healthcare is a human right. For the sake of equality, sanitary products and access to comprehensive sex and relationships education must be accessible to everyone in Wales. Universal provision is a crucial cog in the mechanisms of achieving an equal society. Wales has the power and the potential to lead by example, not only in eradicating poverty, but in creating a country that is equal.

I'd like to thank Jane and Jenny for bringing forward this important debate today. I support the Members' efforts to highlight the issue, and fully support the motion before us today. Due to a quirk of our biology, half the population face a monthly challenge. Due to poverty, for many young girls, that challenge becomes a struggle. Far too many young girls are missing school because they can't afford sanitary products. Far too many young girls are forced to go to extraordinary lengths to improvise sanitary products. It's hard to believe that this is happening in 2018.

I welcome the moneys put up by the Welsh Government to distribute sanitary products to community groups, schools and food banks, but we do need to go further. Girls shouldn't face monthly exclusion from school because they can't afford to have a period. We have to make sanitary products freely available in our schools. We also have to put an end to policies that restrict girls' access to the toilets, notably during lesson time, and an end to a culture in which girls are too embarrassed to talk to school staff when they need to. To quote Plan International:

'Girls' periods are a fact of life and schools, as well as wider society, still need to adapt to that fact.'

We also have to make sanitary products cheaper for every one of us. I urge the UK Government, now that we are leaving the EU and free to set our own value added tax rules, to abolish the tampon tax. Sanitary products are a monthly essential, and should not be subjected to VAT. I expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish VAT on sanitary products on 29 March next year. Until then, they need to work with the product manufacturers to make the products more affordable. One of the largest manufacturers, Procter & Gamble, gave a pack of Always Ultra to a UK school for every pack sold during March and April. I would like all the manufacturers to emulate this scheme year-round.

While we're talking about the manufacturers, I think they need to move away from using plastic in their products. I was shocked to learn yesterday that 90 per cent of a sanitary pad is plastic, containing as much as four supermarket carrier bags. We need to eliminate this source of single-use plastic and look for an alternative replacement.

But, back on topic, I would like also to thank the hard-working charities that are doing their bit to end period poverty. Jane and Jenny have mentioned a few, but I would like to mention Matthew's House in Swansea, which operate The Homeless Period Swansea. They give homeless women access to sanitary products by distributing dignity packs, which contain the sanitary products, wet wipes and tissues, underwear and socks, deodorant and lip balm. In their own words, they deliver

'hope (in care package form) to the most vulnerable of Swansea',

which is within my region. 

Menstruation is a natural process that shouldn't put women and girls at a disadvantage. Charities are doing their bit to level the playing field. We need to do ours, and I urge colleagues to support this motion. Thank you.

It's a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the motion. This is really important, touching on how we ensure the dignity of girls and young women in Welsh schools.

Plan International UK’s data shows how far too many young women struggle to meet the cost of sanitary wear. The charity has also shown the terrible impact of this too. Nearly half of girls surveyed missed an entire day of school because of their period. Sixty-four per cent miss physical education lessons, and girls and young women are having to lie because of embarrassment.

This is an issue I encountered first hand, holding a pastoral role in a secondary school. It's just not right that girls and young women are being put in this position. Moreover, many of those affected lack access to proper information about what is going on to their bodies. One in seven admitted they did not know what was happening when they started their period, and more than a quarter reported they didn't know what to do when they started their period. This is shocking, and I'm glad that the motion also addresses this issue of education.

I want to focus on what is going on in my own local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf. As Members will know, RCT will be the first local authority in Wales to take action to tackle period poverty. As councillor Joy Rosser, cabinet member for education said, this is a groundbreaking move. I'm glad that this is also recognised in the motion.

I would like to pay tribute to the cross-party spirit in which this important policy has been developed in RCT. It is good to have seen all parties working together to improve conditions for girls and young women. But what does RCT’s work involve? Firstly, I'm glad that the working party who considered the council’s response took, as their starting point, the thoughts and experiences of female learners from across the county. As the working party noted, participation of the pupils throughout the review is paramount in raising the profile of the provision of sanitary provision within the schools. It's also about raising awareness, of demystifying and, hopefully, removing the sense of embarrassment.

So, I just want to pick out a few important points from their research. Fifty-two per cent of female secondary school pupils said they were aware that free sanitary products were available to them from their school. A majority said that they knew how to access these, and were happy with what was available. But, when asked if their periods had had an impact on their attendance, 46 per cent said that this had caused them to miss school. Although in line with Plan’s data, this could actually be the tip of the iceberg, as not all of the respondents had actually started their periods. Sixty-two per cent of respondents said that having a period impacted on their performance in secondary school. And, finally, whilst over half of pupils received information on periods during primary schooling, six out of 10 said that their secondary school didn't provide follow-up education around this. In contrast, though, 100 per cent of secondary schools who responded said that they felt that they offered appropriate classes to their pupils. I don’t think this is a case of one group being right and the other being wrong. I think it highlights a difference of perception and shows that schools perhaps need to look to adopt alternative methods to make sure that girls and young women know what support is out there.

I also want to pick out two further points from the research. A small number of secondary schools said that they already allocated a limited budget for purchasing sanitary products, but the vast majority did not. Typically, instead, they relied on staff purchasing the items, the use of petty cash, or also freebies that were left after the school nurse had visited to discuss puberty. Schools do inform pupils about the availability of these products in a variety of ways, ranging from discreet conversations to class discussions at transition and in year 7 personal and social education lessons. However, it is clear that there is not currently a consistent approach across the local authority, and I'm sure that that is echoed across Wales too. 

For the reminder of my time, I just want to look at what RCT is actually proposing as a solution. It will now be mandatory within my local authority for all schools with girls aged nine and above to provide a range of free sanitary products, which can be accessed—and I think this is crucial—independently at the toilet blocks. Resources and signage will be developed to raise awareness among learners, staff, parents and carers. Action will also be taken to improve the quality of PSE provision and there will be work with teachers to eliminate embarrassment or stigma. I know the Welsh Government has also taken decisive action, as other Members have already said, to support councils to ensure that projects like this are funded. So, I am very happy to support this motion today.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James. 

I'm also delighted that this debate has been brought forward and that it's so cross-party across the Chamber. It's really great to see this essential matter get such publicity and backing from right across the Chamber, indeed. It is—I'm just going to repeat it because it's worth repeating—completely unacceptable that there are women and girls in Wales who are unable to go about their usual daily activities because they cannot afford to buy essential feminine hygiene products when they need them. It absolutely stands to reason that people who turn to food banks, because they can't afford to feed their family, therefore also can't afford other essentials. And it is, as many Members—I think all Members—have said, completely atrocious for people to have to make a choice between food and dignity. 

Many Members have also mentioned the research undertaken by Plan International, which gives an idea how widespread the problem is in the UK. Rhondda Cynon Taf has also been mentioned by a number of Members, and their research has been extremely useful in shining a light on the inadequate toilet and washing facilities for girls, and in coming up with some innovative solutions that they've put forward. I'm afraid to have to admit this in public—but I think it's worth admitting, and I hope Leanne Wood will help me out here—but I sat on a panel with the excellent young councillor, whose name has totally gone out of my head—

Elyn Stephens. 

Elyn Stephens. Thank you very much. During International Women's Day, she spoke fervently about the struggle to get this agenda forward and why she was so passionate about it. She was very impressive in doing so and I was very privileged to hear her. It's a testimony to the councillors in Rhondda Cynon Taf that they persisted in getting this agenda moved up. She was very inspirational in talking about it, and certainly well worth listening to, and I'm going to have the privilege of meeting her to talk further about what we can do as a Government in two weeks' time. So, I'm very much looking forward to doing that. She did speak a great deal not just about period poverty, but, as many Members in the Chamber have talked about, about period dignity and the need for education and the need for knowledge, and how both education and knowledge are essential in order to maintain dignity, as well as to have the money necessary to have essentials in your life. And so, we very much want to work across those pieces in the Welsh Government, in order to get all of that—both period poverty and period dignity—into our policy on this matter. 

As many Members have already mentioned, we've put a fund together very rapidly of £700,000 capital grant funding, and I'm delighted to say that all 22 local authorities have taken up the offer of that grant funding. The round of funding is being used to make necessary improvements to school toilet facilities where they are not adequately set up to meet the needs of pupils. And I'd just like to highlight, as other Members have also done, that that includes primary schools, where often the toilet blocks are not adequate for that. It could mean the provision of disposal bins or changes to toilet cubicles.

Other rounds of funding totalling £440,000 for this financial year and next year are also being offered to complement the grant. We have several local authorities that have already taken up the offer of the first year's funding, and we're working with all of them to make sure that we spread that right across Wales. These will be used to provide feminine hygiene products through local authorities' networks, and in partnership with local third sector organisations. Basically, our aim is to make sanitary products available for those who cannot afford them. Food banks are an important outlet, and I think Jane Hutt mentioned specific food banks in her area as well. But there are other potential outlets, such as homeless shelters and women's refuges, for example. I know Caroline Jones mentioned one that's in my constituency that's very good in terms of the packs that they put together—care packs they're called. It's very interesting, because it's not just about sanitary protection, actually. They provide washing and wipe facilities and so on.

That brings me on to the next thing that we've asked local authorities to consider, which is we've asked them to consider providing reusable products or environmentally friendly products, because as several Members pointed out, sanitary protection can be very hard to recycle, actually, and can cause other ecologically unacceptable problems, and we want to be able to tackle some of those at the same time. So, I think local authorities efforts are to be applauded. I do think that there are further actions necessary, though, and they are outside the education system as well. I think at this point it is worth mentioning, as many people have mentioned it, that the Cabinet Secretary is going to be making a statement on the sex and healthy relationships report later on this month, in a few weeks' time.

So, in terms of future actions, we've got officials working across Welsh Government to explore further options, including provision through sexual health services and community partnerships. We're also considering options for distribution via programmes that target low-income families, such as Flying Start and Families First. We also have a series of regular meetings with colleagues in the Scottish and UK Governments, so we can learn from one another's actions and offer support on new policies to tackle both period poverty and period dignity. And, as Members will all know, the First Minister has asked me to undertake a rapid review of our gender and equality policies to bring in a new impetus to our work in this area, and this will certainly include a review of the period poverty and dignity issue that Members all raise, and has already been raised by stakeholders in our initial stakeholder engagements.

In terms of education, the Welsh Government is committed to ensuring children and young people reach their full potential, regardless of background and circumstances, and this includes helping learners to overcome barriers to learning created by social and economic circumstances. So, schools have well-understood arrangements in place to support learner well-being. Pupils ought to know where to go and, as Vikki Howells pointed out, it's essential that that communication is in the school, so they know who to speak to if they need sanitary products while they're in school, whilst maintaining dignity. Adolescent girls in particular can be very sensitive with these matters. Looking forward, these issues are going to be covered under the new curriculum, which will consider how the school environment supports the social, emotional, spiritual and physical health and well-being of pupils, and will be instrumental in supporting one of the main aims of the new curriculum and assisting our children to become healthy, confident individuals. 

In terms of health, period poverty, as many Members have also pointed out, is also a health matter. Period poverty is due to be discussed at the next meeting of the sexual health programme board, because it's vital that all girls and women have access to the sanitary products they need, especially if they have health problems as well. Effective menstrual hygiene is vital to the health, well-being, dignity, empowerment, mobility and productivity of women and girls and, therefore, it's an essential plank of this Government's action in terms of gender equality throughout Wales.

We'll continue to keep abreast of emerging research to inform the decisions we make and ensure that the actions we take support as many people as possible in Wales. I'm keen to know more about how low-income families in Wales are affected. So, research into the scale of period poverty across foodbank users, including the Trussell Trust, is planned for the coming months. Officials are also looking at options to work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who manage the UK Government's tampon tax fund, to ensure that we maximise the benefit from that fund for Wales. 

So, I think there is a range of issues, but I'm very grateful to Members for bringing this matter forward so that we can discuss it fully. I also want to say that I'd welcome very much any other ideas that Members want to bring forward as part of the review or in any other way, so that we can consider how we could best support those ideas. Diolch.

I call on Siân Gwenllian to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure for me to close this debate. I’m very grateful to Jane Hutt for asking me to do so. Jane started by talking about the stigma related to period poverty, as well as the affordability of hygiene and sanitary products, and of course the motion talks about improving awareness and education with regard to periods, and breaking that taboo. I think the fact that we’re discussing this issue in the Chamber today does start us along that journey of breaking the taboo and challenging the taboo. Leanne doesn’t remember us discussing this in the Chamber before. I haven’t been here that long, but I take it we’ve not had this kind of discussion until now, so we are in the process of challenging the taboo, in discussing the issue as we are today.

Leanne reminded us that a lack of sanitary products in schools, and the fact that girls are finding it difficult to buy these products, is a sign of poverty and that poverty is a feminist issue. We need to get to the root of that issue, and tackle that issue and to tackle poverty as part of that. That’s why we need a holistic strategy to tackle poverty. Leanne also talked about the importance of education and healthy relationships education. This is something that Plaid Cymru has been discussing for so many years, I believe—the importance of that education. And I’m very pleased to hear, this afternoon, from the leader of the house, that there will be a statement on that issue in the coming months, so we look forward to that.

Caroline reinforced the argument, and I agree that it’s difficult to believe that period poverty is happening in 2018. Vikki Howells talked about the research group in Rhondda Cynon Taf, and I would also like to refer to the work of that task group, and also to thank councillor Elyn Stephens and the Plaid Cymru group on Rhondda Cynon Taf council for leading this work throughout Wales from the very beginning. Three years ago, Elyn put forward a motion to the Plaid Cymru conference, after discussing the issue with Plaid Ifanc, while she was a member of it. Now, Elyn herself had suffered period poverty, after being brought up with her two sisters by her mother, who was a single parent, who was dependent on disability benefit to support her family. Elyn said, ‘We would face the choice of buying food, heating the house, buying clothes or sanitary products, and it was the latter of those that lost out every time.' 

After Elyn was elected as a councillor in May of last year, she tried to get a handle on the issue of getting sanitary products free of charge in schools in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Now, the motion that was put forward at the council wasn’t passed the first time, and indeed she has told me that, that evening, she received messages from fellow councillors telling her that she hadn’t done enough research and that people must be able to afford 50p for a tampon, and that’s the kind of attitude that she came across initially. But she continued, and the council did refer the issue to the scrutiny committee in order for it to undertake some further research. Four Plaid Cymru councillors did this work, sending out questionnaires to young women in schools across the region. Vikki Howells has talked about some of the results of that research. Things like this were being said by the women who took part in the survey: ‘Periods are never discussed in schools’, ‘They don’t tell us that we have a right to have sanitary products unless there’s an accident’, and that they didn’t feel comfortable asking male teachers if they could have products of that kind. 

Would you also agree that what we need to do is look at sustainable solutions? This isn't just about tackling poverty and tackling dignity. When you look at the amount of tampons that are dumped down the sewage system every year and the absolute unsustainability of this, we have to also look at educating girls about their bodies and how they function and how to insert a Mooncup, because a Mooncup costs somewhere between £15 to £20 and will last you for many years. That is a really important emphasis I want to place on this debate, because if we rush to produce more sanitary bins and we rush to redesign toilets in schools, we need to take account of the possibility that in the future, girls will be much more relaxed and conversant with how their bodies function and therefore will be able to use Mooncups, which means that they don't have to go to the toilet every four hours, they don't have to have the possible risk of toxic shock syndrome that you can get from tampons, and it also means that they're not having to shell out all this money to the companies that are producing these products, which charge an awful lot more than they cost to produce. So, I'd just like to raise that and ensure that we bear that in mind in the way we're going to take forward this debate.

I’m sure that we would all agree with the principle that you’ve just put forward. It’s a matter, perhaps, of offering the choice at present, and educating more young women about the advantages of the more environmentally friendly methods that you’re talking about. But I think, at present, it is important that the choice is there, and that’s why I do welcome the £1 million that has been announced by this Government. But I do agree with you: yes, we need to open this discussion out, and to discuss more than what we’re talking about here. There is a need to open it out even further still, isn't there? We need to see it in the context of tackling poverty, but also in the context of equality, or the lack of equality facing women in Wales today. It’s symptomatic of that—that we haven't been discussing the issue until now in this place.

I’m pleased, if truth be told, that it’s women who have been discussing the issue here today. Perhaps that tells us something. It does tell you one thing: when there are enough women in positions of power and where decisions are made, then issues that are important for women—women outside of this place, women in general—are discussed. And that’s why I’m in favour of ensuring that we have parity of female representation here, but also in county councils and across the public sector, so that important issues like this are given due consideration.  

Just to draw your attention—. We launched this morning the manifesto for equality for women and girls in Wales. It’s a manifesto that’s been put together, on a joint basis, by four important groups in Wales that are working towards equality. I was very pleased to be able to sponsor that event today. So, we do need to remember to place what we’ve been discussing today in that wider context, and I very much hope that we will be moving on with this agenda in general, as an Assembly, and that you as a Government will be leading the way. Thank you to everyone who has taken part.

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

The next item is item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch. We've heard the Orwellian doublespeak that this Government has used to justify its capitulation, and the accusation that has been levelled at us is one that we are flag-waving nationalists. Well, I would say at least our flag is not the white flag of surrender.

Today, I'm going to deconstruct this deal. I want to take it apart piece by piece, and the illogical justification that has been given for signing up to it. So that the Government benches are clear, I'll break my contribution down into three clear parts. First, I'll outline the scale of their retreat and the breadth of their hypocrisy by highlighting statements made prior to the agreement and how they match up to the deal itself. I'll then move on to the substance of the agreement and amendments, outlining how their deal with the Tories fundamentally puts the principle of devolution in danger. Finally, I'll outline what this deal means for the future of devolution, and fundamentally how it affects people here in Wales.

I am genuinely sorry to say that there is only one word to describe this Government's approach: hypocrisy. Yesterday in First Minister's questions I read out a quote from the First Minister regarding his then opposition to the withdrawal Bill. As he was not there at the time, I remind him of what he said on 27 November 2017. He said:

'we wouldn't accept a sunset clause. Who is to say that it wouldn't be extended ad infinitum in the future? It's a matter of principle'. 

A five-year sunset clause now forms part of the legislation that the Government has signed up to. In January this year, the now Counsel General said:

'I don’t think for a second that the instinct of the Westminster Government or this Prime Minister is in favour of any process that would easily allow Wales to receive the powers from Brussels that we deserve and that are our right.'

The legislation you have now committed to support sees at least 24 devolved policy areas move under Westminster's control. Let me take the Cabinet Secretary back to when we co-authored 'Securing Wales' Future'. Then, the Welsh Government had a radically different position. Page 28 of that White Paper says, and I quote:

'our core standing policy is that the UK exit from the EU must not result in devolved powers being clawed back to the UK Government. Any attempt to do so will be firmly resisted by us.'

'Resistance' seems to be a synonym for 'capitulation' in the Cabinet Secretary's thesaurus. Let me explain why ceding a single power is weak and ceding 26 whole policy areas in pathetic. There are, to quote the First Minister, an almost ad infinitum number of examples that highlight Labour hypocrisy, but I will just highlight one more. Last week, in his statement to the Assembly, the Cabinet Secretary said he would have

'preferred there to be no clause 11'

included in this Bill. By agreeing to do a deal with the Tories in Westminster, throwing away the continuity Bill and fundamentally conceding all of our leverage, he has guaranteed his preferred position is now lost. 

The Scottish Labour Party says that this Bill is deficient. He himself thought it was deficient. His own backbenchers think it is deficient. Yet, this Government has sold us down the river. It's embarrassing that this Government has said the things it has and now tries to tell the people of Wales that it has secured a good deal. You had a Michelin-starred meal and you made it into a dog's dinner. We will not forget and neither will people in Wales. 

Let me turn to the second point of my speech, which is the substance of this dodgy deal. It has two parts: a set of amendments to legislation and a political agreement that has no legal weight. I'll talk about the amendments first. Consent, agreement, the affirmative—not a difficult concept. 'Yes' means 'yes', 'no' means 'no'. However, in the upside-down world of the Welsh Government, 'yes' means 'yes', and 'no' now also means 'yes'.

So that we're clear, let me read, word for word, the exact phrasing of the amendment that the Government is recommending that we concede to. Amendment 89DA, tabled in the name of Lord Callanan, section 2(4), in the reference to subsection (3)—a consent decision is:

'(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, (b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or (c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft'.

Westminster can now interpret consent as (a) consent, (b) non-consent, (c) anything else that it wants to. The only parallel the legal experts in this Assembly can find is in local government planning legislation, and even that is stronger than what has been accepted here. Westminster is treating this Assembly like a local council and our Government is happy with that. 

Yesterday—.

Will you give way? In response to this point earlier, the Counsel General said, in any case, this amendment and all the amendments are subject to the Sewel convention. But, as you pointed out, of course, on seven separate occasions, the Westminster Government has ignored the Sewel convention. So, it gives us no protection at all.

And it shows exactly why the Tories cannot be trusted on this.

Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary attempted to argue the semantics of a consent decision versus consent. Again, there is no difference. What you conceded to is Westminster can interpret 'no' as 'yes', and it's a situation of, 'Heads we lose, tails they win'. 

Let's turn to the so-called agreement. Trust not law is what underpins this agreement, and I don't trust the Tories in Westminster to act in the Welsh national interest, but it seems like this Government does. And it's this concept of trust that lies at the heart of the issue of this deal with the Tories. As part of the deal, Labour trusts that the 26 policy areas outlined in the agreement will be all that Westminster wants to take back control of. Nowhere in legislation is this codified, and this could rise to any number as they see fit. And let's be clear: no extra powers will be devolved as a result of this deal. Powers that were already with this Assembly will simply be exercised with this Assembly, and that does not amount to extra powers. This is the bare minimum that the devolution settlement allows for, and to claim otherwise is to mislead this Assembly and the people of Wales. 

But that's not the worst of it. The short document outlining the agreement packs an impressive number of concessions. My colleagues will highlight many more, but one of the most jarring is the different treatment of Wales to England. Admittedly, this is complicated, but in the non-binding agreement—[Interruption.]—there is a vague commitment to legislate on England-only matters. 

Thank you. Just to take you back a few seconds on the question of powers, because I'm a little confused. As I understand it, powers in areas—they are devolved areas—but powers that are currently held in Brussels as a result of this agreement will come to this Assembly, rather than Westminster. So, how can you say that no extra powers will come to this Assembly? They will.  

It's up to Westminster to decide all of this. We are a junior partner in the process. 

Now, in the non-binding agreement there is a vague commitment not to legislate on England-only matters, whereas in the legally binding amendment Wales is explicitly precluded from legislating on Wales-only matters. Let me give Members an example. Westminster can legislate on farming, which is a devolved policy area, to whatever extent it likes and, for that matter, they can legislate to change the rules for Welsh farmers without the Assembly's consent. Yet, in this devolved policy area, Wales will not be able to legislate, a more obvious power grab you will not find. Fundamentally, Parliament's supremacy over us and England's special treatment shows the level of disdain, distrust and disinterest with which Westminster treats Wales. Our hands are tied by the law, where England is able to do what it likes.  

I now want to move on to the third and final part of this: what does this Labour and Tory deal mean for people's lives? The complex constitutional questions are often abstract, but this cave-in has many clear and simple consequences. Let's start with the 26 policy areas where Westminster will now hold all the cards. The Tories in Westminster will, thanks to Labour, be able to decide the framework of farm payments, support and all manner of other agricultural regulations, without any substantial consideration of what Wales wants. Now, my colleague Llyr Gruffydd will outline the implications of this deal for farms in more detail, but I'd like to ask some questions of the First Minister. Does he believe that it is the barley barons of England or the hill farmers of Wales who will win Westminster support? When trade deals require our food markets to be prised open, what does he propose that we do, knowing that we have lost all the powers to stop it from happening? 

Let's look at it another way. In this deal, we have the question of public procurement. Whether it's steel, state aid or our NHS, public procurement is critical to the Welsh economy and our community institutions. Now, powers over public procurement will sit at Westminster. Do they trust the Tories not to open up our NHS to private companies? Of course, the Welsh Government is doing this already in Wrexham, but now you've emboldened Westminster with powers you could have had, what hope do you have of stopping them prising open our NHS to more private companies? Whether it's a transatlantic trade and investment partnership-style agreement or some other trade deal, the Tories' eagerness to justify Brexit with new international agreements puts our NHS at risk, and this Government has now given the powers to the Tories to wreck our health service in this futile pursuit.

Devolution offered us a better way, a different way, and you have chosen to give that away. Over the past days, my party has spoken to constitutional experts, legislators and lawyers. They all decry this as a dodgy deal. Our leadership has gone, our leverage is lost, and our Assembly weakened, and I'm not even convinced that this Government fully understands what it has done. 'No' now means 'yes'; two devolution referendums now mean nothing; and Westminster regains its dominance over Wales. We are truly through the looking glass.

We have always accepted that frameworks and mechanisms will be needed to ensure a functioning statute book, but not like this. Tonight, we will vote on this dodgy deal, and to conclude I want to make a plea: if you believe in devolution, if you believe in a better Wales, if you believe that decisions about Wales should be made in Wales, then join with us. The law is on our side and history will be too. Assembly Members, your choice tonight is simple: join with the Brexit believers and vote through this dodgy deal or stand up for Wales and vote against this stitch-up.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies?

Last week, the UK Government and Welsh Government confirmed that they had reached an agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for subsequent tabling in the UK Parliament. This means that the Welsh Government will now recommend that the National Assembly for Wales pass a legislative consent motion for the Bill. So, let me repeat the thanks and congratulations I gave to Mark Drakeford and to David Lidington, Minister for the UK Cabinet Office, for the measured, mature and pragmatic way they've conducted negotiations to secure agreement when we discussed this here at length last week.

Once again, having done an issue to death one week, Plaid Cymru seeks to follow it into the afterlife the next. Trapped in an ideological straitjacket of false perceptions and divisive prejudice, they just can't help themselves. The agreement reached required compromise on both sides, where each recognised the need for UK-wide frameworks in specific areas to avoid disruption to the UK's own internal market. It is regrettable that Plaid Cymru seem not to share that recognition.

The proposed changes to the Bill will mean that the vast majority of EU powers that intersect with devolved competencies will go directly to the devolved Parliaments when the UK leaves the EU. Whilst powers over devolved policy will continue to lie with this National Assembly, the UK Government will be given temporary powers over a small number of returning policy areas, so that UK-wide frameworks can replace the EU rule book in order to ensure that no new barriers are created within the UK for consumers and businesses.

I therefore move amendment 1, which proposes that this Assembly welcomes the agreement between the Welsh and UK Governments on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, welcomes that this will protect the UK internal market and ensure that no new barriers are created within the UK for consumers and businesses, welcomes that this means that the vast majority of EU powers that intersect with devolved competencies will go directly to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies when the UK leaves the EU, welcomes the duty placed on UK Ministers to seek the agreement of the devolved legislatures each time they propose to make regulations to put a policy area into the so-called 'clause 11 freeze', welcomes the time limit introduced on the temporary constraint on devolved competence, and welcomes that this means that the Welsh Government will now recommend that this Assembly pass a legislative consent motion for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. 

The agreement between the UK and Welsh Governments means that, although UK Ministers will be able to specify through regulations policy areas where devolved competence would be subject to a freeze whilst new frameworks are agreed, they must seek the agreement of the devolved legislatures each time they propose to make regulations to put a policy area into the clause 11 freeze. Although the UK Parliament will be free and able to approve the regulations creating the freeze if a devolved legislature's agreement is refused or not provided within 40 days, this will be subject to UK Ministers making a statement to UK Parliament explaining why they've decided to make regulations despite the absence of a devolved legislature's agreement, and laying any statement from the Welsh Government on why consent was not given by this Assembly. Members will then be free to debate and vote that in the UK Parliament.

Contrary to Plaid Cymru claims, Assembly lawyers informed the external affairs committee on Monday that the UK Parliament will be unable to assume that the Assembly has consented when its consent decision was to refuse consent. That was the advice from Assembly lawyers. We have long called for a time limit or sunset clause on any temporary restriction of devolved competencies, and this agreement delivers a time limit of two years after exit day on the regulation-making power if not brought to an end sooner, and of five years after they come into force on the regulations themselves if not revoked earlier.

Quoting the First Minister here both yesterday and again today, Leanne Wood asked who is to say that a sunset clause wouldn't be extended ad infinitum in the future. In reality, this inter-governmental agreement means that although a sunset clause cannot be extended, it can be shortened. As Labour's amendment also states, any UK-wide frameworks to replace the current EU frameworks will be freely negotiated between the Governments, will be subject to the Sewel convention, and, while these frameworks have been negotiated, no Government, including the UK Government in respect of England, will be able to introduce legislation that departs from the status quo. I am pleased, for the first time in 15 years in the Assembly, to actually quote in support of a component of a Labour amendment. Thank you. 

Thank you. Can I now ask the First Minister to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James? 

Formally, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Diolch. Llyr Gruffydd. Come on, wake up.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, it says it all, doesn’t it? For the first time in 15 years, the Conservatives are pleased to congratulate the Labour Government on their actions, but they will be known through their actions, of course.

A week, of course, is a long time in politics, but in this case, a week and two days have passed since the finance Secretary visited the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee at this Assembly, claiming there that the Welsh Government hadn’t been able to reach agreement with the UK Government on amendments to clause 11 in the EU withdrawal Bill. But, less than 24 hours later, we had a personal statement from the Cabinet Secretary confirming that the Government had reached agreement. Since that point, of course, the implications of that agreement for rural communities particularly, which will be the focus of my contribution over the next few minutes, have emerged.

Since the result of the referendum in June 2016, of course, the Welsh Government has made a number of policy statements relating to the future of agriculture, including ensuring that Welsh farmers would receive every penny that they currently receive following Brexit. Just a fortnight ago, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs said that the Government has a unique opportunity to reformulate our agricultural policy in relation to a unique and integrated Welsh approach to our economy, our society and our natural environment. But of course, following this agreement, well, there’s total confusion about that now, and the ability of the Welsh Government to deliver the ambition that she has been espousing.

For example, the Minister of the UK Government for agriculture, George Eustice, confirmed yesterday at the Welsh Affairs Select Committee that it’s the UK Government that will decide how much funding will be available to farmers, reliant on the comprehensive spending review of the Government, including, of course, how it will be distributed across the United Kingdom. Now, immediately, farmers have made it clear that they are concerned that if that happens, we may be moving to a three-year cycle rather than a seven-year cycle, as was the case under CAP. There are questions as to their ability to plan in the long term for an industry that is reliant on substantial capital investment and an industry whose strategic management is reliant on the seasons; you can’t change direction overnight or in a cycle as short as three years, very often. And if it is reliant on the CSR, then that funding will compete with all of the other priorities. We’ve already heard the question asked as to how high on the agenda of the UK Government Welsh hill farmers will be when it comes to these issues. Farming, of course, represents a larger proportion of the Welsh economy than that of the other nations of the United Kingdom, and therefore, the risk is greater of being adversely affected.

There is nothing in the agreement between Labour and the Conservatives that gives me confidence that the Welsh voice will be strengthened in these negotiation processes on the future of the agricultural industry. And if we are in any doubt as to what has happened here, then the letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I wasn’t going to try and translate that—has made it entirely clear that unless consent is given by the devolved Parliaments or Governments, then the UK Parliament will approve them in any case. It’s in black and white, so there can be no confusion about this. This Government is gambling with the future of rural Wales in order to assuage its unionist tendencies, in my view.

The question I would ask is: what assessment has the Government made of the impact of this agreement on the well-being of future generations Act? As someone who was involved in the scrutiny of that Act, this is a central organising principle—that was the line—for the public sector in Wales, and policies such as agriculture, the environment and public procurement are expected to meet the requirements of that piece of legislation. There are questions in my mind as to where we go, in that regard, and perhaps we can have some clarity from the First Minister. Where does that leave us in terms of anti-GM policy, in terms of hormone-pumped beef that could be imported into this country; chlorinated chicken, following a possible agreement with Donald Trump; and changes to animal welfare regulations and so on and so forth?

Finally, as the clock is ticking, it’s not just Labour who are part of the administration that has come to an agreement. Unfortunately, the Cabinet Secretary for Education isn’t in her seat, but I would like to know what the view of the Welsh Liberal Democrats is on this issue. Are they, as Labour are, siding with the Conservatives and UKIP, or are they with the Liberal Democrats of Scotland? I think we need to know exactly where they stand.

And to close, Labour knows—you do know—that when UKIP and the Conservatives are queuing up to congratulate you on doing something, you know that you’ve either been conned, or you’ve made a mistake. The sad truth here is that it’s the people of Wales who will pay the price.

I want to start my contribution this afternoon, actually, by giving recognition to the work undertaken by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. Everybody in this Chamber should recognise the commitment that Mark Drakeford has given in that work. But not just to Mark Drakeford, but also to his officials because many people will not appreciate, perhaps, that it's the intensive discussions that have been taking place between Welsh Government officials and UK Government officials that have allowed the opportunities for where we are today to be reached. We must give recognition to all the work done by those officials, led by Mark.

But also, the approach taken by Mark Drakeford and his counterpart in the Scottish Government, Mike Russell, have been constructive and focused. They've been making sure that the position of both Governments have been presented to a series of Secretaries of State within Westminster because we must remember there have been various chairs, and it's only latterly that we've seen chairs who have started to listen to them.

As a consequence of this determined negotiating position, we've seen the UK Government move away from their ridiculous initial position of prevarication to a position that now offers a workable solution that will be considered in detail when we debate the LCM in less than two weeks, and that's when we will have the meaningful vote on the agreement and the amendments.

I hope to avoid any technical aspects in my contribution this afternoon because I'll put those forward perhaps during that debate when I think it's more meaningful to have the debate on technical aspects. But unfortunately, there are a couple of points I wish the First Minister to perhaps clarify for me as soon as possible. There's no doubt that the clause 11 that emerges today, if those amendments are passed in the House of Lords today, is far different from that which currently exists in the Bill. And the continued question from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, along with the committees from their respective Parliaments, have been able to influence that change. The question to be answered before we vote on the LCM on 15 May, not today, will be: have those changes gone far enough to allow Members to support the amended Bill? That's the question we will all have to answer on 15 May. Again, not today. However, I do seek clarification on a couple of points from the First Minister. 

The original Bill allowed the UK Government to change aspects of the Bill without going before Parliament, and this would have included the opportunity to extend the sunset clause—I think that's been highlighted already by several people in this afternoon's debate—possibly indefinitely, by keeping the powers within Westminster, amending the Bill time after time after time. If that's the case, that is obviously wrong.

Now, I understand that the agreement will now require the UK Government to go before both Houses of Parliament, including the House of Lords, before such changes could be made, which therefore puts a stronger safeguard in place to ensure that continuation of an indefinite possibility is no longer a reality. So, therefore, can the First Minister provide the Chamber with any further clarification on that particular point? Because—my personal view, five years is still too long; it takes us into the next Assembly, and actually into the next UK Government as well. That's if it doesn't go sooner. But it does hinder us perhaps in having a discussion as to what we can put in our manifestos, as to what policies we can apply, when we go for the Assembly elections in 2021.

Secondly, I am disappointed that the agreement does not actually provide a requirement for Welsh Government to lay reports or regulations before the Assembly as soon as it gets them from the Westminster Government. Now, the 40-day period, I understand, is initiated when UK Ministers give their counterparts in Wales those reports or regulations, but there's no requirement for you to actually lay them immediately before the Assembly; there's the possibility of a delay. I would seek reassurances that that's the intention of the Welsh Government, to lay any report or regulations before the Assembly—and I'll give you some time—no later than 48 hours after you've received them, so it gives us as much time as possible to scrutinise what comes before us.

Now, other technical matters, Dirprwy Lywydd, I will leave until the debate on the LCM, but, moving forward, we also want to focus upon the frameworks and ensure that these work for the people and businesses in Wales. That's what this is about: working for the businesses and the people in Wales, making sure that continuity exists, making sure that we can continue operations and we can grow our economy.

But we must also pay attention to other Bills that will come through—let's not just talk about the EU withdrawal Bill. The Trade Bill is another one that has similar issues and we need to ensure that that is amended along the same lines, so that we do not allow one Bill to actually change something that another Bill has—and if you need to look at that, check it up—and that's the important aspect of that. We also addressed the aspect of the JMC. We talked about the agreement, how is it governed, how is it adjudicated, how do we ensure that things happen: there are still issues on the JMC to address.

I'm conscious of the time, Dirprwy Lywydd, so I'll leave it at this point, but I will just stress that I'm disappointed with the contribution at the start of the debate from the leader of Plaid Cymru, because it felt to me much more like another example of what is termed 'project fear' than actually looking at the aspects of this agreement and where we can move forward. And that is what we all want to do. No-one in this Chamber wants to see things going backwards; we want to move forwards. That's why we put the amendments in that we suggested beforehand. Let's make sure that we get the best we can.

Donald Trump yesterday extended his decision deadline over whether or not to continue the exemption of EU countries to his 25 per cent steel and aluminium tariffs into the United States. Let's not play down the business and market uncertainty that tariffs and trade barriers can bring to industries across the board, but particularly export-reliant industries such as steel. This is crucial to Wales's largest industrial centre and one of Wales's largest private employers at Tata in Port Talbot and elsewhere in Wales. 

It's also no secret that the UK Government is desperate to prove it is handling the result of Brexit, and the long-term economic decline it looks set to usher in, by promoting the idea of trade deals across the world. Of course, these will have to be bespoke deals, and, contrary to the economic fantasy world that UKIP and Tories seem to inhabit, where Britain is still a global trading empire, other countries are clearly not queuing up to develop free trade deals with the UK. Theresa May came back empty-handed from India, I think I saw recently.

So, what is of grave concern to me and others, particularly those who work in industries such as steel, is what exactly is going to be given up by the UK Government in order to get some trade deals under their belt. We're all familiar with the prospect of cheap, chemical-filled US food flooding our markets, but what about the insistence by other countries that we sacrifice other areas of our economic base and strength in order to facilitate trade deals? Given that President Trump—to continue to use the example—has shown a propensity for making policy decisions that are entirely related to appeasing his base and little else, it isn't unrealistic to assume that UK steel and other industries could be placed on the table as part of future trade deals. 

It is therefore beyond reckless, in my view, to surrender state-aid and procurement powers as part of this Brexit deal on powers. One of the very few silver linings, I must say, of exiting the EU is that there is a freer hand in terms of state-aid rules and public procurement, which the Welsh Government should have grabbed with both hands, but instead it has been given away. There may well be a sunset clause, but how much power and influence is the Welsh Government truly going to have when it comes to consent arrangements where the decision of the Westminster Tories is one of a UK trade deal? Are they really going to prioritise elements of the Welsh economy so crucial to maintain the fragile economy we have here in Wales?

Let's not forget that, when Tata Steel was faced with the serious threat of closure or major job losses in 2015 and 2016, it was the Welsh Government that committed to state aid as part of a wider package of measures to save the industry here in Wales. Will that power be changed? There were state-aid announcements for steel as part of the most recent budget, as we know. That power will no longer technically reside with the Welsh Government as a result of the EU withdrawal Bill deal—this at a time when many Labour Members are still wearing 'Save Our Steel' badges.

To many people watching what has transpired in recent weeks, it will seem very clear that Labour has decided that key economic intervention powers are better exercised by Westminster, rather than here by themselves and their own Government.

I think we need to reflect on where we started from in this process. Clause 11, as originally drafted, was, effectively, a recentralisation of powers Bill, driving a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. It was the product of a UK Government mindset that has still not attuned itself to devolution, and it continued the sort of thinking that has resulted in a total failure to honour all the promises that had been made to engage with, to involve and to consult with the devolved Governments.

What we now have is, indisputably, a very different clause 11. It is clear the UK Government has moved substantially from its original position, and I believe this is due to a number of factors: the robust rejection of the original clause 11 model, the strength of the common position with Scotland on an area of common interest, and the leverage of the continuity Bill. The effect of all this has been to put the constitutional importance of the Sewel convention at the forefront of negotiations as a matter of principle, in addition to the principles of shared sovereignty underpinning the devolution settlement. The influence of the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the article 50—the Miller—case on Government thinking and, in particular, the political importance of the convention should also not be underestimated. In addition to this, the statesmanship and leadership of the Cabinet Secretary Mark Drakeford in what were intensely difficult and complex negotiations have also proved decisive. The skill that he has shown in these negotiations needs to be recognised.

As in any negotiation, the agreement we have does not give us absolutely everything we wanted. The simplest solution would have been the removal of clause 11 in its entirety. I'm still of the view that this would have been the best solution, but I repeat that compromises in these complex inter-governmental situations are inevitable. Governments do not have the luxury of intransient and indefinite opposition. The question before us is whether the compromises and concessions made by the UK Government are sufficient. Have we achieved enough change to protect Welsh interests? Ultimately, that is a matter of political judgment.

What has been achieved is a transformation of clause 11. It is a reversal of the UK Government's original position. Devolved areas remain devolved. Certain powers that we all recognise as being essential to the development of mutual interest frameworks are to be frozen and subject to an enhanced Sewel consent process, a sort of superaffirmative Sewel. The amendments allow some restrictions on Welsh powers, but, at the same time, impose restrictions on the UK Government and English Ministers. This is not only a constitutionally innovative approach to overcoming the fairness argument that was outlined by the First Minister, it is also a constitutional first, a landmark precedent, of a federal nature—a recognition of an English ministerial function in our constitutional settlement that places Welsh Government in a position of parity for the purpose of the development of the frameworks.

It is also a constitutional first in that, were the UK Government to seek to override consent, it can only do so with the explicit permission of both Houses of Parliament and with the explicit right of the Welsh Government to present a statement outlining its objections—as I have said, a sort of superaffirmative Sewel, which raises the constitutional status of Sewel, putting it into a formal and justiciable parliamentary process.

Now, in judging the success of the Welsh Government’s negotiated position, we need, of course, to consider the consequences of not giving consent. That would, as we all know, result in a serious constitutional crisis that would be damaging to Wales, and also damaging to the UK. So, the question is: have we achieved sufficient to give consent? I am of the view that we have.

This, however, is not the end of the matter. Moving forward, this new clause 11 enables us to proceed with the development of the frameworks, which are vitally important to Welsh business and the Welsh economy. It also sets the parameters for the Trade Bill and other consequential legislation. It also enables us now to focus on the issue of the customs union and Welsh interests in tariff and regulation free trade, and it enables us to proceed with the development of inter-parliamentary procedures and reform, which are vital for the post-Brexit Britain and the development of more federal constitutional relations. We have little to gain by a constitutional war or stand-off, and much to lose, and I believe that, by supporting the agreement, we are putting the interests of Wales and the Welsh people first.

Now, I have to respond to what I believe were the fairly insulting comments made by the leader of Plaid Cymru referring to capitulation, white flags and so on. I say this: I look forward to the day when Plaid Cymru will put the interests of Wales first rather than Scotland. It is with great regret that Plaid Cymru is unable to stand up for Wales, preferring subservience to the Scottish National Party in pursuit of their narrow separatist ideology. Our obligation is to promote the interests of Wales, not Scotland. Welsh Labour will always put Wales first, because we are the real party of Wales and of the Welsh people. 

Can I now—[Interruption.] Can I now call—[Interruption.] Thank you. Can I now call the First Minister, Carwyn Jones?

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. If I could deal, at the outset, with the issues raised by David Rees and Bethan Sayed, first of all, in relation to the agreement situation, he's correct about that. We will look at how the Assembly receives reports as quickly as possible. I think that's in everybody's interests. Of course, there are issues that have been raised today that are more properly dealt with when the Trade Bill is looked at, and are outside the purview of the withdrawal Bill. And, of course, more work will need to be done on inter-governmental machinery, but the fact that there is an inter-governmental agreement now, for the first time ever, is a sign that that machinery can be shown to work.

In response to what Bethan Sayed said, I can say that state aid we do not agree is something that should be reserved to the UK Government. There are two outstanding issues that are not yet agreed: one is the nature of state aid, and whether that is devolved or not; the other is food geographical indication. So, we are not in agreement with the UK Government that state aid should be something that sits entirely within their purview, or something that necessarily should sit within the larder, freezer, call it what you will.

Well, Llywydd, can I say, first of all, that reaching agreement with the UK Government to protect devolution from the juggernaut of their Brexit policies was always going to require determination, as well as give and take, but I do sometimes wonder whether there is a full understanding of what this agreement actually says. In essence, it deals with all the problems that were identified with the original withdrawal Bill. As others in this Chamber have said quite properly, originally, the UK Government was not prepared to concede anything on clause 11, and all 64 policy areas would have sat in Westminster, with no guarantees as to when those powers would have been released to the devolved administrations, and what would, in effect, have been an indefinite sunset clause.

The Bill originally reserved to the UK Government a whole raft of devolved matters after we left the EU, and the original Bill would undoubtedly have been the most fundamental attack on devolution since the establishment of the National Assembly. But the agreement has removed that threat. It represents a major step forward, which anyone who believes in devolution should embrace. It protects devolution as fully as possible as we grapple with the endless and chaotic consequences of Brexit, and I'll spell out the key reasons, including the protections we have secured.

Firstly, and hugely importantly, what we see now is an agreement that confirms the inversion of clause 11. I don't think anyone can underplay how significant a change that is. It shows the UK Government has come a long way from its original position, that clause 11 was something that could not be interfered with in any way. It confirms that everything is devolved, except for a specific category of matters—it's a reserved-powers model, effectively, in its inversion—where we agree that UK frameworks are needed.

Now, the original proposal would have retained all EU powers over devolved policy areas at Westminster. Ministers of the Crown would then release them as and when they alone determined. That was the original proposal. That's now reversed. Powers over devolved policy areas will be held in Cardiff and Edinburgh, except for framework areas, which will be covered by a set of detailed restrictions that apply to all governments. That is important, and I will return to that.

In short, the agreement is wholly consistent with the reserved-powers model embedded in the Scotland Act and the Wales Act 2017, and in some respects it strengthens that model, as I'll explain. The second point to make is that frameworks will be identified and agreed through a collaborative inter-governmental process, underpinned by Sewel. Originally, Members will recall, the view of the UK Government was that frameworks would be drawn up and determined entirely by the UK Government. Again, we see an enormous move away from the position they originally adopted. This process will now develop the draft regulations that specify which EU powers will be frozen. And let me be absolutely clear: we have not agreed to any restrictions on devolved competence. So, it would be wrong to claim that the current EU powers over the 26 policies in the annex to the agreement will now sit in Westminster. The reality is that the Bill and agreement themselves do not give anything away. It's the draft regulations, which have yet to be developed, that will propose preserving the existing EU restrictions in relation to some elements within those 26 areas—some elements, not all of them in their entirety.

Now, crucially, those draft regulations will come to this Assembly for our consideration, and to decide whether we give our consent to these restrictions before they are laid before the UK Parliament. That agreement then applies the same principle as currently applies to primary legislation affecting devolved matters. In effect, what Lord Callanan's amendments do is to extend the Sewel convention to secondary legislation in a way that's not happened before. So, in fact, it's an extension of devolution. It means the UK Government will not normally proceed to put the draft regulations before Parliament if the Assembly has refused consent. Now, some will say, 'not normally', but that is simply what the current devolution arrangements say. That's what the Acts that provided devolution to the people of Wales following the vote said—it's expressed in exactly the same way in the Scottish devolution settlement. So, all that does is simply use the same approach and language that has already been established as part of the devolution process. Whether that should continue in the future is a debate that I think needs to be had, but that is where, constitutionally, we are. So, it takes Sewel a step forward. Sewel, remember, is something that applied originally to primary legislation. It has, in effect, been extended now to secondary legislation as well.

Now, if, in extremis, the UK Government wished to press on with regulations in the absence of consent—which it can do legally, we all know that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, whether we agree with that or not; I happen not to agree with that, but that's for a different day—well the UK Government can't just present its own views, but the views of the devolved legislatures are put before the UK Parliament. The fact that this legislature would have refused consent is considered by the UK Parliament. So that puts the UK Parliament in a position where it doesn't just have to listen to the view of the UK Government.

The third point: of course, what will happen now is that, on the face of the Bill, sunset clauses will be there, yes, in terms of the power to create regulations two years from Brexit day, and any regulations made for a maximum of five years. So, any restrictions on competence therefore are temporary. Now, Members asked the question: can the sunset clause be extended? Well, in the sense that the UK Parliament can do what it wants, theoretically that's possible. But there is an agreement now, and something that is far more tangible and real, that that will not happen. In fact, there's also another pressure on the UK Government that provides us with the comfort that we need that we will not see an extension of the sunset clause, and it's this: the agreement places further important restrictions on the UK Government in this way, because it gives an unequivocal guarantee that UK Ministers will not bring before Parliament any legislation for England making changes to retained EU law in framework areas. It means we're all on the same level playing field, and one of the issues I argued strongly with David Lidington in the negotiations I had with him was that it is not fair that England should have freedom that is denied to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This removes the freedom. So, actually, there's every incentive now for the sunset clauses to be shortened, because it's not in the interests of the UK Government acting in relation to England to be restricted in the same way as we would be, but in a way that they wouldn't have been without this agreement. They could have done whatever they wanted, whereas there'd have been restrictions on the other Governments in the UK, and that's an important change. It establishes a level playing field in order to retain, yes, the current EU frameworks—we need that—but until such time as new frameworks are negotiated and agreed. So, we see there a strong incentive for the UK Government to agree frameworks long before the five-year maximum term, because otherwise they can't make changes in England, for example to reform agricultural policy in England.

Can I deal with the point raised by Llyr Gruffydd? It's a very important point. There are two important things here: first of all, where the powers lie, and secondly, where the funding is. That is something that hasn’t been resolved yet. My view is that what the UK Government should do is to ensure that there is funding put to one side and that that should be provided to the Governments and Parliaments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at the same level as is currently provided. In my view, it cannot be Barnettised. If it is Barnettised, then the formula would ensure that we would lose 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the funding that we currently receive. That is something that we have to continue to discuss and to resolve. It would be entirely unfair to Wales if there were less funding provided to Wales and to Welsh farmers, and that would never be something we would agree to. But that is something that is part of other negotiations, rather than discussions on this Bill, I would argue.

The fifth point is that the agreement guarantees that Sewel will apply to any parliamentary legislation that is used to put in place UK-wide frameworks. That ensures, of course, that there's no prospect of anyone suggesting that, as matters are temporarily beyond our competence, Sewel doesn't apply—in other words, 'While powers are in the freezer, don't worry about Sewel, because these powers are not yet powers that are wholly within the role of the devolved administrations'. And it means then that the Assembly will have to give consent to any such Bills.

I see, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I'm way out of time. And so, I hope I've given Members the answers, whether they accept them or not. What I can say is that we have come a long way through a process of negotiation and we have made sure that Wales's interests are protected as we are buffeted by the waves of Brexit.

Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'll begin on that point: we have come a long way. It's an argument that Mick Antoniw also made, and certainly when it comes to clause 11, we certainly started off in a very dodgy station on this particular journey, and there's no doubt that as the journey moved on, we moved to a better place. But I cannot feel any other way than to see that the Government has decided to get off this train just as it's parked at the top a cliff. And I would rather be continuing now to see how much further we could be going on this journey. And it may well be that the clock is—[Interruption.] It may well be that the clock is against us, but we do see, whatever your thoughts are on what's happening in Scotland, that there is a relevance, and that the finance Minister for Wales has sat alongside Scottish Ministers as part of these negotiations, and they, with the support of Labour, of course, in Scotland, have decided to continue to fight. I would rather we were continuing to try to make a stand to protect Wales's interests, because you're right; we don't agree that we have got the best deal possible for Wales.

What happened to make the Labour finance Minister change his mind so fundamentally last week? I'm still not sure, because we know that that change of mind happened in a very short period of time. What we do know, though, is that the climb-down, as we see it, will have long-term implications for devolution and for Wales. Government was defiant to the last minute: 'Would you accept the sunset clause?', 'No, it's a matter of principle, give us real assurances that only when consent is given here in Wales can UK Ministers make regulations in areas devolved to Wales.' What we have now though, bizarrely, is an agreement that UK Ministers can legislate in devolved areas once a consent decision has been made, because a consent decision could include a rejection of consent. And that is something that our lawyers again confirmed to us this afternoon. It may be a point on which we disagree, but that is our analysis of what that means.

Picking up on what David Rees said—that we somehow are continuing project fear that was related to European referendum in the eyes of some, or the Scottish referendum—we're not objecting to UK frameworks here. We're not objecting to UK frameworks and the need to work pan-UK on a number of issues. We simply believe that those frameworks should be the result of working consensually and collaboratively across these islands, and we think that what we have in this agreement—that the other parties in the Assembly are about to sign up to—is a threat to devolution. 

I'll very quickly pay tribute, if I can, to Steffan Lewis for giving us the seeds of the continuity Bill that today, I think, should be forming the basis of a continued stand to protect Welsh interests. It's thanks to that that the negotiations were able to go on as long as they did. Devolution is still young. Neither processes nor events can happen overnight. I know, as many of us here know, that devolution still has its enemies. We here have all been trusted to nurture Welsh democracy and not to bow to pressure or underhand UK Government tactics to give it away. You may have a limitless trust in the UK Government, but we here feel that Wales deserves a more cautious approach on that front, and so did you on the Labour benches until very, very recently. But also, we think we need a bolder approach in terms of protecting Wales's interest. So, let's stand up and be counted and support our motion today.

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I'm now going to declare voting time. Okay. Thank you.

So, we move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on the European Union withdrawal Bill and devolution. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion seven, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We now go to vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be de-selected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 14, no abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, seven against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 39, no abstentions, seven against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed. 

We now move to the short debate, so if Members are leaving the Chamber, can you do so quietly and quickly, please?

So, we now move to the short debate and I call on Rhianon Passmore to speak on the topic she has chosen—Rhianon.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I'll be giving a minute of my allocated time to my colleague the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, Bethan Sayed.

Members of this Assembly will know that this is a profoundly important issue for me, but it is also a matter of significant importance to Wales. My passion as a child was music and my profession as an adult was teaching and performing music, and I'm determined as the Assembly Member for Islwyn, at the heart of the Welsh Valleys, to do all I can to ensure that Wales's musical future leaves no child behind. Wherever in Wales a child is born, they should be able to have access to music education and funding; it should be available to ensure that this transpires.

I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for Education for her continual willingness to listen to my urging of the Welsh Government to find ways to do more, to go further and to challenge the assumptions that, in an age of politically motivated austerity, there is little we can do in Wales to arrest the decline of support for music education, and in particular the decline in music support services across Wales. Despite the cuts to Wales since 2010, the Welsh Government have announced already in this fifth Assembly additional funding, including the endowment fund for music and the Cabinet Secretary's musical amnesty. The national endowment fund for music, with £1 million of seed funding given to the Arts Council of Wales, is aimed specifically at extracurricular activities, and this fund is aimed at encouraging further donations, with an aim to raise a further £1 million per year in the future. These are very welcome initiatives and useful spokes in the wheel, but we need, as I have stated previously, to be both more radical and more ambitious. 

The Economist in March published an article entitled, 'The quiet decline of arts in British schools'. They used a Welsh case study of a local authority impacted by funding cuts. It was reported how the music service budget had recently been reduced by an eye-watering 72 per cent. The then head of the council's music service put it succinctly—'Many will give up'. And, of course, he's referring to instrumental tuition and the instruments that they provide. 

If Wales is to retain its worldwide reputation as the land of song, then we need the Welsh Government to develop a national music strategy, a plan, and, in particular, a national education performance music strategy for Wales, outlining the steps and requirements, and a consistent and core offer for the pupils of Wales. The principles of universality of provision across Wales are key if we want to ensure opportunities for all are guaranteed. 

Indeed, Wales's foremost orchestral conductor, Owain Arwel Hughes, has attributed a crisis in Welsh music to cuts in music services. These cannot be divorced from the ongoing squeezing of the Welsh budget, and the pressures, therefore, on Welsh local government and non-statutory services, despite Welsh Government protections. Nobody is more passionate in Wales, the land of song, than Owain Arwel Hughes, but we need to listen and we need to listen hard.   

I recently attended the launch of the Welsh Proms. This year, to the obvious dismay of many, Welsh Government financial support was withdrawn. The rationale was that the money had come from the Welsh Government's economic development funding, and could no longer be justified. I believe we have to be careful that we do not fall into the trap of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

As a member of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, I know how passionate also our Chair, Bethan, is about this issue. Her passion is shared by the Welsh public. Our committee's inquiry into funding for and access to music education is due to report soon. This was an inquiry inspired by the Welsh people. When asked in 2016 by the committee what the priorities of the committee should be, the public consultation found the most popular was funding for and access to music education. And the Welsh public are ahead of us as politicians. They know the value of music education to the life of our nation, our future artists and culture. They are rightly concerned that Wales faces the danger of a postcode lottery of provision without a national vision and a national approach to a national music education performance strategy. 

Earlier this year, I commissioned Professor Paul Carr from the faculty of creative industries at the University of South Wales to complete a report to look at international best practice in music performance education models, and associated learning outcomes for Wales. Professor Carr chose 12 stakeholders who were chosen either for their detailed knowledge of the Welsh context, their evidence and expertise and evidenced knowledge of UK and international offers. These stakeholders included the chair of National Youth Arts Wales, the artistic director of BBC Cymru Wales, professors of music education in University College London, managing directors of the European Music School Union and, of course, Welsh arts council. 

This report will be launched later this month at a celebration of Welsh music at the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama, an important scoping piece with a further outcome report to come. And, as a little plug, I hope that many Assembly Members will be able to attend alongside key stakeholders and international artists. But he gave us a stark warning, and I quote:

'If something is not done to turn this current publicised decline around, one of Wales's most famous maxims, the land of song, will unquestionably be under threat in the years to come, because it will simply not be true'.

In Wales, we cannot accept the consequences of austerity imposed from London since 2010 destroying the musical fabric of our nation. Wales needs capital investment similar to the music development fund, introduced by the Labour Government in 1999. This would provide a newly modelled music support service with necessary sustainable finances to make instrumental-based musical activities accessible for all, replacing reduced access to music, accusations of elitism, and the postcode lottery maxim with a clear statement for the nation. 

The then Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Michael, introduced the music development fund in 1999, with £8 million being distributed to local authorities' music services. And despite the context of cuts and the many competing priorities of Government, I say to this place that this debate today is about more than just music. It is about the very type of nation that we wish to be. It is about our place and identity in the world, our culture, our heritage, our creative industry and economic growth. And it is also very much about equality—equality of access, irrespective of wealth, to the well-being, self-esteem and progression pathways and careers in the wider world of music, and it's about equality in the classroom, so that the world of music is not shut to those who can play but not pay. Now, Cabinet Secretary, I believe is the time to commit our nation to a national music strategy, a plan to commit investment to underpin the strategy and support the music support services in Wales.

To conclude, Deputy Llywydd, let us speak truth to power: the alternative is a continuing fragmented access to music education and funding across Wales, with a great diminution of opportunities for the poorest in our society, unable to engage in and enlarge Wales's music landscape and that beyond. We will all be poorer for that, and our nation's proud claim of being a land of song will echo with diminishing strength, and that diminuendo will be on an unprecedented scale. And I believe that we in this place cannot let that happen. Diolch. 

Obviously, as Rhianon has outlined, we have a report being announced soon on music in education, so I would want to keep my powder dry on that, but I do know that it has been a productive piece of work and something that the public have been entirely engaged in because this is a really important topic. I don't need to tell AMs here my passion for this, being a viola player myself, my brother a cellist and my sister Niamh currently in the education system playing the cello in the Glamorgan valleys orchestra. I recognise as well what the Cabinet Secretary has done in relation to her role and her interventions, and I think that, while this has been a long time coming, we should give praise where it's due, and I hope that this is something that will emanate in future decisions from the Welsh Government.

I will say something negative now, though I don't want to. I've had communication from those in the music service over the last few days telling me that they're despairing of the situation across Wales. In fact, one of the messages I received was that he was fearful that this was a race to the bottom in relation to music services here in Wales. In Wrexham, for example, cuts are taking place as we speak, and they tell me that they're being forced into different models of delivery because of the fact that they are losing their jobs as we are having this debate here today. I'm also being told that some of the national ensembles are not actually taking place this year due to the lack of people auditioning. I really don't want to be negative because, as Rhianon said, we care passionately about the retention of music services, but if we don't support what is there now then we may not have them for the future. So, I think we need to be putting our heads together now and supporting this industry. I would like to see more investment again, and I would like to see a strategy that would ensure that it's at the core of what we do across Wales. I think that, in some areas, we have seen some local authorities doing amazing work, but others see it as an add-on and something that is not necessary for them to promote.

For me, I don't think I would be in politics if it wasn't for music teaching me life skills, getting involved in discipline, being able to work as a team, and I hope that that would reflect for younger people in Wales who now want to take up music and that it won't be for just the privileged or for those who can afford it but for everybody here in Wales, so that we can remain a nation of song and a country that can promote ourselves on an international footing, as a country of song and a country of culture.

That was a very long minute there—

Sorry.

—but it was a good subject. 

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Education to reply to the debate—Kirsty Williams. 

Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to begin by thanking Rhianon for bringing forward this debate today. I'm sure that all Members would recognise her determination and her passion for the subject, and I'm sure we'd all agree that the same is true of Bethan also.

Acting Presiding Officer, one of the joys of being the Cabinet Secretary for Education is visiting schools the length and breadth of Wales, and whenever I do music is involved, whether that's a samba band in Llandeilo, an African drumming band in Hay-on-Wye just this week, steel bands in Cardiff, the violin group in Wrexham, and, I have to say, my particular favourites, the ukuleles in Pembrokeshire—and, of course, there is always a choir—I am always blown away by the musical talent that I see throughout our nation. I'm very happy to confirm that music forms an important element of the school curriculum. It's a statutory subject for all learners at both key stages 2 and 3, and the place of music is secure in the development of our new curriculum. 

As Members will be aware, there will be six areas of learning and experience, including one for the expressive arts, and I'm confident that this ensures an even more prominent position for the arts, including music, as we go forward. Music education contributes to the development of engaged and informed citizens by ensuring that all of our young people, from whatever their background, can develop their talents and skills through study and participation, whether individually or collectively.

Since taking up the role of Cabinet Secretary for Education, I have worked hard alongside Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we're supporting schools in delivering quality music education. We have taken forward the issues highlighted in the 2015 report by the music services task and finish group. This year, I am providing additional funding of £1 million, with a further £1 million in 2019-20, to enhance the delivery of music services, and this is on top of existing moneys provided to local authorities to deliver music services. I and my officials are working closely with the Welsh Local Government Association on this topic, and I am confident that we will be able to agree an approach to further enhancing support for music services.

I'm also committed to ensuring that young people who want to progress to individual music tuition have the chance to do so. Access to these opportunities not only develops learners musicality, but also contributes to the acquisition of wider skills and benefits, as outlined just a moment ago by Bethan, such as discipline, perseverance and general well-being. That is why I made £220,000 available last year for local authorities to purchase musical instruments so as to ensure that those most in need of access to an instrument had it.

We also instigated a national musical instruments amnesty. This resulted in over 80 good-quality instruments being donated and redistributed to young people and orchestras. Indeed, only this week, somebody arrived at my constituency office with a trumpet—a little beyond the amnesty, but we're very grateful to receive it. This followed the successful pilot at the Welsh Government and National Assembly that saw over 60 instruments being donated by Government and Assembly staff, as well as a number of Assembly Members here as well who donated instruments.

Musical ensembles, as we've also heard this afternoon, play an essential role in supporting our young people to access performance opportunities and providing a career pathway to becoming professional musicians. I believe that all young people, no matter what their background, who are talented enough to gain a place on one of the ensembles, should be able to participate. Therefore, I welcome the establishment of National Youth Arts Wales, who, in 2018-19, entered their first full year of managing and developing the six national youth ensembles. In addition, last year, I provided £280,000 to local authorities for their contribution to national performance ensembles.

I've also supported the establishment, as we have heard, of a music endowment for Wales to support additional musical activities for young people—an exciting and innovative initiative, which is the first of its kind in Wales. Launched in February as 'Anthem' and founded on close collaboration between the education and culture departments here at the Government and the Arts Council of Wales, the endowment is our long-term and sustainable approach to funding. It is aimed at increasing musical opportunities for young people across Wales into the future—not to replace existing music services, but to enhance them. We have allocated £1 million to help set up and provide moneys for the endowment, which we hope will be built up by charitable donations from a variety of approaches and public and private stakeholders. It is essential we give young people access to these experiences out of school, just as the new curriculum will give them greater opportunities within school. I believe that the endowment will be a genuinely innovative and groundbreaking initiative, and one that is made in Wales.

The creative learning through the arts plan, founded on our partnership with the arts council, and supported with funding of £20 million, is recognised internationally for its visionary approach to supporting creativity across the curriculum. The positive evaluation feedback on this programme shows clearly that it's supporting schools in utilising creativity and the arts, including music—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course. 

I appreciate what you say about the creative learning in schools programme, but what we heard from evidence in our committee was that it had no link whatsoever with the music services and that, in fact, they weren't able to bid for any part of that scheme. So, I was wondering, in future, would you be able to look at amending how that works so that it could be something that the music services could tap in to?

What's important to remember about how that scheme operates is that it's up to the individual school to work with the arts council to identify creative partners to deliver the project. So, it's for the school to identify the type of practitioners who they want to work with. I wouldn't want to take away from the autonomy of head teachers to be able to plan that provision and to work with a variety of professional artists, but I'm always willing to look to see what we can do to ensure that as wide a variety of professionals as possible can work within our schools. 

What's really important about that programme is that it is raising attainment and aspirations and it's helping us shape our new curriculum. Only last week—and I was really disappointed that commitments here prevented me from attending—at Tate Modern, 32 lead creative schools from Wales had the opportunity to take part in projects and showcase their work. Our focus on creativity in the curriculum was shared to a wide audience outside of Wales with over 1,000 visitors seeing that exhibition at the Tate, and I think that's fantastic.

In conclusion, I want to say that I'm looking forward to seeing the recommendations from the culture and Welsh language committee, which has been undertaking a review of music provision in Wales. But I hope that you can see from the overview that I have given this afternoon that I value and support music education through a range of approaches, and that I'm firmly focused on ensuring that we continue to build upon and enhance music provision for all of our young people—for its own sake and for the sake of our nation.

Thank you very much, and that brings today's proceedings to a close.