National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

The first item on this afternoon's agenda is questions to the First Minister. I have received notification, under Standing Order 12.58, that the leader of the house, Julie James, will answer questions today on behalf of the First Minister, and the first question is from Dai Lloyd.

Older people with care and support needs deserve to have those needs fully met. That is why we have allocated an additional £10 million this winter to social services to drive service improvement and deliver better outcomes for older people across Wales.

Thank you very much for that response. Naturally, tackling loneliness and isolation is one of the stated goals of your Government. However, financial cuts made by your Government to local authority budgets mean that councils the length and breadth of Wales are finding it more and more difficult to safeguard front-line services, such as social services for older people. We hear about the closure of day centres, individuals facing higher payments for services, reductions in meals-on-wheels provision, and a reduction in befriending services. When will your warm words as a Government, therefore, on tackling loneliness become firm commitments in the form of funding for our local authorities?   

The Member makes a very important point. And that is why, next year, local authorities' social care services will receive an additional £50 million—£20 million of that as part of the local government revenue support grant, and the remaining £30 million as a specific grant from the health and social services budget. Specifically, as well, we've looked at digital inclusion issues around older people, and we've announced a £6 million programme specifically to look at healthcare service needs to ensure that we do get better digital skills amongst older people, as there is definitely a role to play for digitally enabled citizenry in that regard. 

Leader of the house, concerns of recent reports from Betsi Cadwaladr health board that one of the key risks to the delivery of their winter resilience planning is the ability to secure a sufficient number of domiciliary care staff, particularly over the Christmas and new year period, to support the delivery of their own contingency plan are very worrying indeed. Now, we all appreciate the health and social care staff who work tirelessly to care for our nation and those who put their own family life on hold over the festive period to staff our services. However, considering that there are already workforce pressures in these areas, it is likely that the existing workforce will experience even greater pressure, which could have a direct impact on the quality of care people receive and on those delivering the care. Now, it is vital that services are staffed safely to support our vulnerable people at home and to reduce avoidable hospital admissions. What work are you doing, or your Government, exactly, with the Betsi Cadwaladr health board, and our local authorities, to ensure that there is resilience built in these areas to ensure services are safely staffed across the festive period and that we do not see anyone actually falling through the net at this particular time of year?

As I just said, despite the austerity budget that we've had, in the ninth year of austerity so far, we have been able to put an additional £50 million in—£20 million through the local government revenue support grant, and the remaining £30 million as a specific grant from health and social services—in order to ensure the sort of resilience that the Member discusses. Also, the Cabinet Secretary recently made his statement on winter resilience in this regard, and we do work very hard indeed to make sure that, given the austerity that we've been suffering all this time, we have sufficient resource to put in. That's why we fund health and social care at a higher per capita rate than England does, for example, for exactly the reasons that she outlined. 

Leader of the house, last week, the Welsh Government announced an additional £15 million funding to help increase joint working between local authorities and health boards to support adults with care needs in their homes. Leader of the house, what difference will this additional money make to avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions, returning patients back to their homes, and to aid the quality of life for carers throughout Wales?

The Member is quite right; that's exactly what the additional money is for. Just to give you two examples, in Western Bay, a £5 million investment has supported a range of intermediate care services. So far this year, over 900 hospital admissions have been avoided and 10,000 bed days saved, resulting in over £1 million in cost avoidance. And, in Cwm Taf, for example, over £1.8 million to continue to develop the 'stay well at home' service. As a result of that service, emergency admissions for patients aged 61 and over has significantly reduced. Last year, for example, 13,000 bed days were avoided, which equates to £1.6 million in financial savings. You can see that the investment pays dividends all round, and that's why the Welsh Government is committed to that kind of dual care.

Yes. Sheltered housing is a well-established housing model for older people in Wales. It's important that all accommodation continues to meet people's needs, demands and aspirations, and, to support this, we are making record investment in housing of £1.7 billion, including providing affordable homes specifically for older people.

Thank you, leader of the house. Bron Afon community housing are currently consulting on the closure of three sheltered housing complexes in my constituency—Glanwern House, Pen-y-Bryn, and the Beeches. As you can appreciate, this is causing a huge amount of anxiety for the residents in those complexes and is a particular worry in the run-up to Christmas. Would you agree with me that, although housing associations have a duty to plan for future housing need, their paramount duty is to their current tenants? And what steps will you take to ensure that the needs of the older people affected by this consultation will be properly protected?

I understand the Member's concern. We do absolutely agree that tenant well-being and security is of paramount importance. I understand that that's your primary concern, as you've just said, and that was the reason for your meeting with Rebecca Evans, the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, about this issue last week. We are being assured by officials that the 73 potentially affected tenants are being kept at the heart of Bron Afon's process in consulting on the matter. I also am told that no final decision has yet been made by Bron Afon's board, but, if the preferred option of closure and redevelopment of the three sheltered schemes was to be opted for, for example, then a full tenant consultation would then continue to take place. I think the Member's absolutely right—we have to make sure that tenants are at the front and centre of any such consultation and that their needs continue to be robustly met throughout that process. We're advised that tenants will be rehoused within the local area, wherever possible, identifying suitable alternative accommodation, and so on, should that option go ahead, but I understand that no final decision has yet been made.

Cabinet Secretary, can I commend the Welsh Government for commissioning the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University to look at housing needs of older people and other general care needs? They found that 18 local authorities in Wales expect an increase in the general housing needs of older people; 16 local authorities expected an increase in demand for extra-care housing for older people; 14 local authorities expected an increase in demand for age-designated housing; and then eight local authorities expect an increase in demand for sheltered housing for older people. What we need is really good, deep data and a coherent housing strategy for older people. So, I commend you for doing the research; now we need to really see some sort of action plan for the future.

I don't disagree with the Member. Sheltered housing, as he says, is a well-established approach to older people's housing, but it is one of a suite of interventions and accommodations that are possible. One of the purposes of doing the research is to do just that. And, actually, more generally in the Government, we are looking across the piece at what our data sets are able to tell us in terms of using them for better service planning, and that is very much a part of the approach going forward.

Leader of the house, good-quality sheltered housing can play a vital role in ensuring older people remain independent and can help tackle loneliness and isolation. Providing good-quality sheltered housing can also help ensure that family homes become available as older people downsize. Recent studies have also found that utilising sensors in sheltered accommodation can help predict and avoid falls, reducing reliance on our NHS. So, leader of the house, what steps are your Government taking to ensure that we have sufficient sheltered housing to meet future demand and that such accommodation utilises the latest health technologies?

The Member makes a series of good points there. Since 2002, with the support of £187 million, 43 extra-care schemes have been completed, providing over 2,000 homes for older people, where they can maintain their independence and avoid the need to move to residential care or admission to hospital. We're also investing £105 million capital in the integrated care fund to develop accommodation-led solutions to health and social care. That will support older people to remain living independently in their communities, and, every year, we invest £106 million to support local authorities and housing associations to improve the quality of the social housing stock in Wales through the Welsh quality housing standard.

In particular, though, the Member mentions technological advances that are of interest. We have a number of schemes around Wales, which I've had the privilege to go and see, using something called LoRaWAN technology, which allows you—obviously, with the tenant's permission—to collect data around things like whether the lights have been turned on or whether a kettle has been boiled and so on, and allows you to be alerted to the fact that the person's pattern of movement has changed and, therefore, somebody can call much more speedily than if you were just doing that as a routine check. So, I'm very impressed so far with some of the schemes that we've looked at, and we've been supporting them from our digital budgets, actually, in taking forward such innovative schemes. We're looking forward to being able to mainstream some of that technology in the very foreseeable future. 

Questions now from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, a month ago, you told us that a meaningful and binding vote on the 14-mile M4 relief road would be taken here this week. Yet, hiding behind the inspectors' report, which your Government received in September, you remain paralysed by division among your backbenchers, by the opposition of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and by the First Minister's seeming inability or unwillingness to make this call. Doesn't this prevarication over the biggest investment decision your Government has ever had to make typify the gridlock at the heart of your Government? 

On the contrary, I think your question shows a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of a quasi-judicial decision. Llywydd, I have outlined to this house the constitutional position on this matter several times. I'm more than happy to do it again. It is absolutely paramount that the legal advice received at the same time as the local inquiry is what any First Minister making that decision takes into account. That advice is not yet ready. It is important that the advice is prepared correctly. Speed is not of the essence; accuracy is of the essence. When that advice has been prepared, the First Minister will be able to take that preliminary decision on the traffic Orders and the acquisition of land Orders, and then, after that, we will be able to look at the affordability issues, and it will be at that point that a vote can take place in this place. This is not now going to happen under this particular administration, but I said only last week that I would be recommending to any successor of mine that that commitment should be honoured, and I've been assured by all three candidates that it will be.

Leader of the house, are you able to say now, if you feel comfortable, that the by-now £1.7 billion investment proposed for the relief road will largely benefit England? Let me quote you some statistics—they're contained in your own Government's wider economic impact assessment of the M4 corridor around Newport, published in 2016. It predicted that, by 2037, the relief road would have the biggest extra annual impact on GVA within Wales, as we might expect, in Newport and Monmouthshire—£12.3 million. However, for Somerset and south Gloucestershire, the impact was larger—£13.5 million. For Cardiff and the Vale it was only £1.3 million. Even for the Gwent Valleys it was only £1.3 million, and for the centre of the Valleys it was a paltry £0.8 million. Yet, for Bristol, it's £7 million—more than all of those put together. Are you proud that the biggest investment you will ever make, and for which Welsh taxpayers will be paying decades into the future for, by your own Government's admission, will benefit England more than Wales? 

As I said, this is not the point in time at which the Assembly should make any of its opinions known on those or any other issues. There is a process that needs to be gone through. There is a very strict statutory process for what can be taken into account in making the Orders. I've outlined it, I think, ad nauseam, it's fair to say, Llywydd. I can do it again, if you want me to. This is not the time to discuss the issues that the Member raises. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. 

The decision you're referring to is a planning decision. I was asking you simply whether you think it's right that we are saddling future generations in Wales not just with a huge massive negative legacy in terms of the environment, but whether we should actually be using our own money to give a competitive advantage to the nation next door. Now, leader of the house, can I suggest a rather neat and exceedingly cheap solution to the whole problem? That's simply to partially close the junction 26 High Cross interchange next to the Brynglas tunnels. This would mean closing the eastbound slip road and the westbound exit slip road. At one stroke, it's estimated this would reduce the traffic through the tunnels by as much as 40 per cent. At the same time, we could use some of the money saved to help Newport become a less car-dependent city. Do you agree that an up-to-date study into this idea, and, indeed, complementary changes to the road network south of Newport, and, crucially, investment in our public transport network would be a good way out of the M4 impasse in which you are clearly stuck?

So, again, I don't think we are at an impasse. We're at a particular point in a decision-making process that is extremely complex. The Member's pointing out some of the complexities. I have not seen the report of the local planning inspector. That report needs to be accompanied by the appropriate advice. That needs to be taken by the appropriate decision maker, and, at that point, I'm sure that Members will be able to put forward a number of points. He's raised some of them today. There are points from across the Chamber, I'm sure, that will come forward in the debate at the appropriate time. Now is not the appropriate time. 

Leader of the opposition—Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, is Wales building enough homes?

So, as you know, we have a large number of commitments on housing that the Government is extremely proud of. We've taken steps, for example, to prioritise social housing, support for the most vulnerable, and protecting our existing social stock. I, personally, am very proud that this is a Government that took steps to end the right to buy, ensuring we do not lose any more precious affordable housing in Wales. I come from a council estate in north Swansea that has largely turned from social housing into really very poor private sector housing. That is a step that I abhor, and which the Conservative Government foisted on Wales. I'm very proud we've been able to turn back that tide. 

Well, clearly, Wales is not building enough homes, leader of the house. Let me remind you that your Government has been responsible for housing policies since 2006, yet what you have done so far is completely inadequate. The new housing completion rate consistently falls short of the targets set by the Welsh Government with just 6,000 homes being built in the last 12 months: 19 per cent fewer than the year before, as opposed to the target of 8,700. Now, according to Professor Holman, a leading expert on housing who your Government commissioned to look into this issue, Wales needs an additional 12,000 new homes per year between 2011 and 2031 to avoid people living in unsatisfactory housing.

Now, in 2015, the Federation of Master Builders argued that Wales needs 14,000 more homes a year to keep up with demand. Whatever projection you take, it is quite clear that the Welsh Government is falling very, very far behind anything like an adequate rate of house building. As a matter of fact, the last time any Government met the real demand for new homes in Wales was in the mid-1990s by a Conservative Government. You've been responsible for housing policy for the last 12 years. Do you agree that you are failing to build enough suitable homes to house our nation now and in the future? 

Well, I couldn't disagree with him more. We've committed to deliver 20,000 affordable homes during this term of Government, and we're confident this will be delivered in partnership with the housing sector. That investment includes our support for Help to Buy, through which our £460 million investment has thus far helped over 17,800 applicants to access home ownership. We recognise the potential of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to build more if they have access to the finance needed, and, therefore, the Development Bank of Wales provides £70 million for SMEs through our property development fund and stalled sites fund.

I will say to him this: if you think that the solution to building more homes is to have a bonfire of development control regulations across Wales, then I could not disagree with you more, and it's very obvious, if you look at the evidence, that your Tory colleagues on local planning authorities also agree with me and not you. 

Leader of the house, you're not just failing on home building; your anti-aspirational policy to scrap the right to buy has removed a vital rung from the property ladder for many families here in Wales. Even for first-time buyers, very few will actually benefit from your land transaction tax relief policy because the average house price in Wales now is higher than the £180,000 threshold. You have failed to bring into use Wales's 27,000 or more empty homes, 4,057 of which are social homes, and you are failing to unlock the potential of Wales's small and medium-sized construction firms, with just five companies in Wales building 80 per cent of our new homes. Now, yesterday, my colleague David Melding put forward an ambitious plan for home building here in Wales: to see 100,000 homes built over the next 10 years in Wales, to give the housing crisis the priority it needs by creating a Cabinet Secretary for housing and planning, and to scrap the land transaction tax for first-time buyers on properties up to £250,000. Leader of the house, will you now endorse these proposals and work with us to truly reignite house building and home ownership here in Wales?

I read with interest the proposals. They seem to me to—. The red tape that was mentioned therein is, of course, the precious protection for our green belts around our cities, and protection for our beautiful countryside. I do not think that scrapping planning and development control is the way forward. I do think, as I said, that maximising the number of homes that can be built through investment means access to decent finance, which your Government, at UK level, has singularly failed to be able to deliver through any of the means that it's tried.

I do also think that—. You didn't mention anything about social or affordable housing—no surprises there. I can tell you now that the large majority of people who have bought their own homes, certainly in the area that I come from—those homes are now in the hands of private rented landlords. That is not a route onto the housing ladder; that is a route down into poor-quality housing, which this Government has fought very hard to maintain throughout the sectors. I don't think you're on good grounds here, because a Government, at UK level, that failed to say that houses should be fit for human habitation is not a good look for any party.

Leader of the UKIP group—Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. A few weeks ago, I tasked the First Minister with some questions on the issue of working from home. I think it's a valid issue for us to be talking about here in the Assembly, because there is the ever-increasing problem of congested roads, which, of course, is part of what Adam was talking about earlier. So, we do have to look at ways of getting traffic off the roads. Now, you have a personal input into this, leader of the house, in your role overseeing the digital broadband roll-out across Wales, although, of course, you're here in a different capacity today—I understand that. But, thinking about those things, are you optimistic that your digital broadband roll-out could lead to much greater numbers of people being able to work from home in the near future?

Yes, absolutely. We've got superfast broadband to over 733,000 premises across Wales—that's broadband at over 24 Mbps for around 60,000 of those and over 30 Mbps for the vast majority. The average speed in that roll-out is around 80.5 of fibre to cabinet and up in the three hundreds for fibre to the premises. Wales now has the largest penetration of fibre-to-the-premises properties anywhere in western Europe. We have a good strategy for getting to the remaining properties, including our excellent community strategies, one of which has just won a pan-European award for the community effort that they put in, backed by the Welsh Government's ultrafast voucher scheme. So, the simple answer to his question is: yes, I'm very pleased that the broadband roll-out is happening.

It needs to be accompanied with rather more than just the infrastructure, though, and we follow it with a business exploitation programme, which has been hugely successful in getting SMEs to exploit the connectivity that we've provided to them. A recent report by a well-known university of ours shows SMEs very startlingly the difference in their bottom line if they take full advantage of that new access and if they don't, and we have a business exploitation programme specifically to allow that. We've also been pushing, via the Fair Work Commission, a series of twenty-first century working practices based on outputs and not hours worked, and those will all contribute to people being able to work more frequently from home. 

There are a range of other measures that can be put in place to assist people to work from home. I think the Llywydd is going to be impatient with me if I start to enumerate them here, as it would take me about an hour.

That sounds encouraging. I may give you another opportunity. Now, obviously, the point you made was, of course, not just infrastructure, so I was glad to hear about your business exploitation programme. Thinking specifically about the issue of getting companies to encourage more flexible working, and particularly working from home, are there ways in which you believe the Welsh Government could be offering incentives, such as financial incentives, for instance, to companies in Wales to encourage more working from home? Could the Government set targets for this and offer incentives to companies to reach those targets?

Yes, we've explored all of those options for twenty-first century working as part of our economic action plan, underneath our 'Prosperity for All' overarching strategy. We're in close communication with a large number of our anchor and regionally important companies around different working practices. I have to say, I've seen some excellent examples of that around Wales, and we have some real flag wavers for that kind of practice. We also have a scheme for the Welsh Government of distributed offices and working from home. We've invested a considerable amount of money in modern IT kit to enable that, and I'm very pleased that in this we're a very serious role model.

Thank you for the details of that initiative. Now, another thing I know that you have been involved with in the past is travel plan co-ordinators, who were supposed to be working with employers across Wales to encourage sustainable travel, and they were supposed to be encouraging things like car sharing and video-conferencing as well as flexible working and working from home. I have struggled to find much information on these travel plan co-ordinators. There does seem to be a lack of information in the public domain on the success, or otherwise, of this scheme so far. So, could you do anything to enlighten us on this, either today or, failing that, perhaps on a date in the near future?

Yes, we're looking at regional co-ordinators across Wales to work with clusters of companies to make sure that we get the best economic impact for Welsh Government spending, and indeed for the spending that the companies themselves put in place, and that has a range of items associated with it, including, for example, for some tourist industries, sharing back-office functions, because it's clear that an HR function is very difficult to sustain in a lifestyle company. So, we've had extensive conversations around Wales with different clusters of companies about taking forward twenty-first century working practices. I'm happy to provide the Member with more—if he wants to write in and tell me exactly what he wants, I'm happy to provide him with more information, but there is a very large range of initiatives in place.

Yes. Consideration of the inquiry report is ongoing, to inform a decision as to whether to make the statutory Orders for the scheme. A final investment decision would follow on from any making of the statutory Orders.

But consideration isn't ongoing by the First Minister. You refer to his following a strict statutory process, but where in that statutory process does it say that the inspector's report should be intercepted by lawyers and officials in Welsh Government, and withheld from the First Minister for a period, now, of two to three months? Doesn't that suggest there is something wrong with this process? The statute requires the First Minister to take the decision, and to do so on the basis of the inspector's report. Why has he not done so?

Because, as I have said ad nauseam in this Chamber, we are waiting on the legal advice to go with that, to ensure that we get that process accurate. Timing is not of the essence here; accuracy is. I really don't know how I can make this any clearer. I have repeated it until—. Well, I can't believe that anybody hasn't heard me saying it. So, there is a process we're in. We need the legal advice to go with the inspector's report. When that legal advice is correct and accurate to the satisfaction of the lawyers giving it, it will be put to the decision maker to take the decision, taking into account relevant considerations and not taking into account irrelevant decisions. I've said this—. I don't, Llywydd, know any other way of making it any plainer.

Given the fact that you feel that the Government doesn't have a role in making any comment on the delay, can you make any comment on the work that your officials can do behind the scenes, as it were, whilst there is this delay, in order to look at alternative solutions?

Well, I don't think there is a delay; I think they are going through the process. When the process is completed—. The process is what it is. People can use all kinds of emotive language around it, but in the end, we're in a very quasi-judicial process. It inexorably takes its time to get there. I just do not know what else I can say to make that more plain.

Yes. The First Minister recently visited Pontypridd and witnessed the significant progress being made in regenerating the town. These are important town centre schemes, which continue to benefit from Welsh Government support and investment.

Well, thank you for that answer. Over the past few years, Welsh Government resources have enabled the Taff Vale precinct to be purchased, support for the business bid in Pontypridd town centre to allow the regeneration of businesses and give them a greater say in the operation of the town, the work with the European funding, the lido, the pedestrianisation, the bypass, and crucially, I think, the decision to move Transport for Wales in there—the town is now regenerating at a pace, and there are further plans for that regeneration. Now, it seems this is partly based on the actual partnership of Welsh Government, the local council and local representatives working together for regeneration. Bearing in mind the issue around the regeneration of our town centres, what lessons do you think there are that can be learned from the way in which Pontypridd is now regenerating and beginning to become a very vibrant, modern town with all sorts of new businesses and opportunities, for other towns in Wales?

Yes, I think it’s an excellent example. I had the privilege of being there when the first bulldozer arrived on site, with the Member himself, and we had one of those delightful photographs, Llywydd, where we're all wearing unsuitable personal protective equipment for the purposes of the photograph. The Member, I'm sure, looked lovely in it; it's not a good look for myself. [Laughter.] It’s been a phenomenal success since then. At that point in time there was an eyesore in the middle of the town, and it was a very poor-looking centre. But now, it’s completely different. I think that that's absolutely right.

And the Member's right to say that this is largely because we've had a targeted regeneration investment programme, which commenced earlier this year—a £100 million capital investment programme running for three years to support regionally prioritised regeneration projects such as this. Pontypridd is identified as a regional priority area, and officials are working very closely with the local authority on a number of projects. So, I think that collaborative approach is essential to understand the place, if you like, because one size certainly doesn't fit all, and you can see that in Pontypridd and other areas that have been successful.

I'm very fond myself of the BID initiative—Swansea was one of the first business improvement districts. It's been very successful in pulling small businesses together across the piece, and they're to be recommended for town centres that don't yet have them.

We've got a town centre loans fund of £27.595 million currently supporting town centre regeneration in 17 different areas of Wales. Rhondda Cynon Taf has got £1.8 million from the fund for the towns of Pontypridd and Aberdare. And we’re also supporting investment in public libraries via the museums, archives and libraries division’s capital programme. RCT got a transformation fund grant, for example, for the new Taff Vale library in Pontypridd.

What’s nice about that is that it’s a mixed development. So, you have some office buildings there, you've got some regeneration, you've got a nice feeling of buzz around the city, you've got some public services, you've got a nice feeling of life coming back into the town centre. So, I think the Member’s absolutely right: it is a very good project to show what can happen when you take into account the particular character with a place-based approach.

Leader of the house, in the Chancellor’s recent budget, he made available £900 million to alleviate business rates in England. In Pontypridd and other town centres across my electoral region, business rates come up time and time again as being an obstacle to regenerate those high streets and give confidence to people to invest in them. The Chancellor’s initiative of £900 million will see businesses with a rateable value of up to £51,000 benefit from this money over two years. What assessment has the Government taken here of the consequentials that will flow from that announcement, and will it make that money available to businesses here in Wales to alleviate the burden of business rates that are so cumbersome on the development of town centres the length and breadth of South Wales Central?

Well, we agree that business rates are one of the main levers that you can use as a Government to make sure that SMEs take their rightful place. We have a series of made-in-Wales schemes for that, which are very generous. And I don't think that one size fits all, so what we need to do is look in Wales, as I say, at a place-based approach, and we need to give local authorities the discretion to ensure that the rateable regime in their area fits the place that they're looking at. So, for example, what might be okay in the centre of Cardiff or Swansea will certainly not be okay in Taff Vale or Pontypridd, just to use two examples. And so, I'm very keen that we look to see what discretion we can have in the rates system in order to build the place-based approach that we know works.

The First Minister continually assesses the performance, successes and challenges of delivering health services across Wales. In north Wales, we've made significant investment to deliver improvements and we are clear on the further work needed to deliver services fit for the future.

Well, I hope that you are clear as to what needs to be done, because the service is in special measures, and has been for some three and a half years now, under the direct control of the Cabinet Secretary. In that time, we have seen the Tawel Fan scandal and mental health services in north Wales. We have seen the C. difficile scandal and a number of people dying from that condition during that period. We have seen community hospitals closing. We have seen A&E on its knees across north Wales. We have also seen a crisis in GP services, and we've seen the Government taking far too long when it comes to training more doctors and nurses. With a record like that, why should the people of north Wales have confidence in the ability of this Government to plan the service that they deserve? 

Well, under special measures we've provided significant investment and support, which has resulted in progress being made in a number of areas, including maternity services being de-escalated as a special measure concern in February. There's been continued investment to ensure improved access and healthcare for people across north Wales. These include, for example, £17.9 million for the SuRNICC that was opened in September 2018, following a recommendation from the Royal College of Paediatricians and Child Health that there should be one centralised site for neonatal intensive care in north Wales, and, for example also, the emergency and urgent care department at Ysbyty Gwynedd has received £163 million for significant refurbishment work. There are a number of investments made across the piece, and we've continued to support Betsi Cadwaladr as it comes out of special measures. We've made sure that the investment is there, and we've supported the board in order to ensure that we support the board in providing for the health of its population and in providing care closer to home where at all possible.

Despite years of warnings by the North Wales Local Medical Committee, general practice in Wales received the lowest percentage share of the NHS budget of any part of the UK last year. That's the key reason why so many practices in north Wales have closed. How will you address that share of funding gap, as opposed to funding gap, and divert provision to deliver services, bringing people who require care and support and the people who provide support closer together, to provide social, emotional and medical care for people at the point of need, such as the Quay to Well-being co-operative led by Dr Anthony Downes in Connah's Quay, and the Community Care Collaborative community in trust company hub in Wrexham led by Dr Karen Sankey?

Yes, the Member's right: there are good things happening, and as I've said, I've read out a few of the good things that are happening. For example, over £14 million has been provided to develop integrated health and social care centres at Flint, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Tywyn—sorry, Tywyn Memorial Hospital; I should have put my glasses on, Llywydd—providing a range of integrated, co-located health, social care and third sector facilities.

All local authorities in north Wales have seen increases in life expectancy between 2001-03 and 2014-16. For example, the number of full-time equivalent staff directly employed by Betsi Cadwaladr university health board has increased by 5 per cent since 2008, and medical and dental consultants increased by 17.1 per cent. Nurses, midwives and health visitors increased by 3.9 per cent. The most recent statistics show that, at the end of September 2018, there were 6,291 patient pathways over 36 weeks, which is a decrease of 1,000 or 14 per cent compared to August 2018, and a decrease of 2,691 or 30 per cent compared to September 2017. So, we're headed in the right direction and the support is clearly making a significant difference.

Yes, the Fair Work Commission is currently testing the evidence about fair work in Wales. Its recommendations will inform our thinking about how best to take forward our ambition for Wales to be a fair work nation.

Thank you. The Bevan Foundation has described the gig economy in Wales as a triple rip-off that hurts workers, drives up the benefit bill and deprives the state of tax revenues. I know that good-quality work is a key aim within the Welsh Government's economic strategy, and in particular I welcome the establishment of the Fair Work Commission. How will the work of the commission contribute to tackling the most harmful effects of the gig economy?

Yes, the report is an excellent one. The commission has been engaging with a large number and wide range of organisations and individuals as part of its evidence gathering, including the Bevan Foundation that Vikki Howells has highlighted there. We recognise the pernicious effects of the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. For those who earn a living through the gig economy, the uncertainty, instability and insecurity under which they work can weigh heavily on their lives. There was a terrible report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently around what can happen to people's mental health when they suffer from pernicious debt, and the campaign—I hope everyone in the Chamber has seen, Llywydd—about being careful about the cost of Christmas and telling people where to go for debt advice if they get into some of those difficulties is a very important one as people approach a festival season in which they might struggle to have even the basic necessities of life.

We've asked the commission to very seriously consider all aspects of unfair work and the use of zero-hours contracts, in particular for those very real reasons that the inability to plan or bank on any particular income can have really serious consequences in terms of mental health and debt and anyone's ability to just live their lives as they wish to do. We've asked the commission to report its recommendations in the spring next year, and we expect those to shape our thinking about how we encourage and drive the fair work agenda right across Wales.

Leader of the house, I've just heard your answer, but can you outline what is the working relationship between the Fair Work Commission and the Welsh Government's economic contract and calls to action? 

Yes. We've asked the Fair Work Commission to take into account all Government strategy in their work, but they're acting on their own. They're taking evidence at the moment. They're supported by a small secretariat from the Welsh Government, but we've asked them to look across the piece and to say how best that piece can meld together with our current set of priorities and strategies, and what we need to do in order to make that jigsaw best fit.

Yes. Our 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and economic action plan set out the actions we are taking to support economic development across the whole of Wales. 

Thank you. Leader of the house, it is an extremely sad fact that our 100-year-old historic Conwy mussel industry is now on the brink of collapse. Your Government and its decision to enforce the provisions of the Sea Fish Licensing Order 1992, requiring all vessels used to have a costly licence as of 1 September 2017 without any phasing in and without any notice, has now effectively placed those without licences out of employment immediately. And in doing so, there's a huge threat to our mussel industry.

Currently now, there are only two gatherers left and that's now making sure that the purification plant is very close to closure. Putting this into context, there were around 30 vessels in the 1960s and we do have the best beds in Wales in Conwy. Conwy Town Council, thankfully, have decided to offer some financial support, and in a special Conwy County Borough Council meeting last month, the cabinet resolved to explore and support an application by the Conwy Mussels company for a several order.

Leader of the house, this fishery is managed by your Government and is a historic industry. Can you please state what support you will provide to this struggling industry and will you give assurances that if an application for a several order is made, it will not take three to five years? That would be too late; the industry will go. So, please, will you work with your Cabinet and your Government and please save this fishing industry and support that several order for Conwy? 

I'm not familiar with some of the statistics the Member has just set out, so if she wants to write in to the Cabinet Secretary, we'll make sure that you get a detailed answer to that.

Yes. We have focused on the NHS as a priority at a time of austerity impacting on public services. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, 'Reviews of Health Care Quality: United Kingdom 2016', found quality at the heart of the Welsh health system and highlighted that we prioritise high-quality and patient-centred care.

Leader of the house, many people will disagree with the statement that this particular Government has given sufficient priority to the national health service. Under the leadership of this particular First Minister, the number of individuals that are waiting longer than 36 weeks to receive treatment has increased from zero back in 2009 to 13,500. In that period, the four-hour target for emergency departments has never, ever been met, and the 12-hour target, the number of patients who are breaking that has increased by over 4,000 per cent.

This is not a record of which to be proud and, alongside that, the fact that this is a First Minister who has been the only First Minister or only leader of a Government anywhere in the UK to cut a health service budget is a lamentable performance. Can you, as the leader of the house, assure us that in the next First Minister's in-tray, there will be a note asking for investment in our NHS, not this sort of performance that we've seen in the past? 

Well, I think that the Conservatives' ability to divorce their support for an austerity driven political choice at UK level from the effect on the budgets of the Welsh Government is absolutely extraordinary. Llywydd, in terms of our record on the NHS, we continue to see very high reported levels of satisfaction with the Welsh NHS. Our last fundamentals of care survey, for example, showed that 99 per cent of patients felt they were treated with dignity and respect, and 96 per cent were satisfied with the overall care they received. Ninety-three per cent of patients rated their overall care positively in the 2016 cancer patient experience survey, for example.

One of the most crucial outcomes when diagnosed with cancer is survival, and I for one am one of the people who have survived. I've just had my letter saying that I'm five years free of cancer. I'm extremely grateful to the doctors and nurses who worked with me, two of whom were not born in the United Kingdom, and I'm extremely grateful that they chose to come and live and work in Wales. I owe my continued survival to them. I'm pleased to note the continued improvements in one and five-year survival for all cancer patients in Wales. We're very proud of that, and rightly so.

We're leading the way internationally with the Welsh ambulance clinical response model. Ambulance services in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Australia and Canada have now replicated the clinical response model approach pioneered here in Wales. More people are starting the treatment they need within the target time. Over 86 per cent of patients have been waiting less than 26 weeks for treatment in September 2018—3.2 percentage points higher than in September 2017, for example. The number of patients waiting over 36 weeks on an RTT pathway was 31 per cent lower in September 2018, compared to September 2017, and 52 per cent lower than the high of August 2015. On its own measures, England is reporting its worst waiting time on record—18 weeks' performance in England in September 2018 was the worst on record.

Over the last three years, we've invested an additional £130 million, we've significantly cut waiting times across the country, we continue to lower our delayed transfers of care figures—they're lower than the historical levels ever seen in Wales—we've prioritised health spending to ensure the NHS in Wales and the wider care system have the resources necessary, while planning for a long-term and sustainable future. Investment in the NHS in Wales is at a record high. We spend more per head on health than England, with more staff than ever before providing high-quality healthcare across all parts of the NHS. Over the last year, more than 1 million patients attended accident and emergency departments across Wales. Despite pressures in October, eight out of 10 patients had been assessed, treated and discharged from A&E departments within four hours. The typical waiting time in October was two hours and 18 minutes from arrival until admission, transfer or discharge. 

Llywydd, I think we have every right to be very proud both of our First Minister's record and of our record as a Welsh Labour Government here in the last nine years, and I look forward to the future Government with great pleasure. 

With one health board in special measures and three health boards, including Abertawe Bro Morgannwg in my own region, in targeted intervention, the picture is not rosy, however. Despite talk of moving care into the community and of prudent healthcare over the past 10 years, do you not agree that your Government's workforce planning over the past 10 years has simply not been up to scratch?

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think that there's been a strong focus on recruitment and planning. Llywydd, I won't test your patience by reading out statistics yet again, but the statistics are plain for all to see. We are clearly doing very well indeed We've done extremely well with the recruitment of doctors, for example, this year. The health Secretary has made many statements to that effect and answered questions to that effect in the house on many occasions. 

Yes. The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services set out the next steps for strengthening local government in his oral statement on 17 July.

Thank you for that answer. Leader of the house, in March, your Welsh Government proposed three options for the merger of local authorities. The Cabinet Secretary stated at the time that radical change is needed. Yet, he has failed to drive this forward due to pressure from the WLGA. Leader of the house, do you believe that radical change is needed, and if so, when?

I think it's clear that there's an appetite amongst local government to work well together and to collaborate. Members across the Chamber today have mentioned things where collaboration has worked extremely well. Unlike in England, we've protected local government in Wales from the worst of austerity imposed by the UK Government, and we've ensured that vital services can continue to be delivered. Our local authorities collaborate well together and should be very proud of their ability to withstand the onslaught of austerity.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item, therefore, is the debate on the European Union withdrawal agreement and political declaration. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Brexit is undoubtedly the most serious political challenge to face the United Kingdom since the creation of this Assembly and it is a challenge that has been turned into a full-blown crisis as a result of the inept and divisive way in which it has been managed by the current UK Government. The motion before the Assembly sets out the Welsh Government's position on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, and why these do not deliver the sort of Brexit that can secure Wales's future. 

For the avoidance of doubt, let me say right at the start that the deal that is before us is unacceptable to the Welsh Government, and one which we believe should be rejected. I hope that the National Assembly for Wales will agree that position, so that those who are ultimately responsible for passing a verdict on the two elements of the deal struck by the Prime Minister, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, are left in no doubt of the views of this Assembly. 

Llywydd, the UK Parliament is about to embark on its five-day debate. Our discussions this afternoon have been deliberately timed to ensure that the Assembly's consideration is able to influence the meaningful vote in which that debate culminates. And this Assembly also needs to influence what happens if, as now seems inevitable, the House of Commons rejects the Prime Minister's deal. The final part of the Government motion before the Assembly points ahead and sets out the options we believe ought to be considered if that proves to the case. 

Llywydd, I want to be clear at the start as well that the advice that the Welsh Government gave to the people of Wales in the run-up to the referendum of 2016 would be unchanged if we were asked to provide advice today. On the basis of all the economic evidence, Wales would be better off remaining within the European Union, and our prosperity is neither so deep-rooted nor so widely shared that we can readily volunteer for an act of economic self-harm. Yet, it remains the fact that Wales and the UK as a whole voted to leave the European Union. And, Llywydd, no matter how strongly we may feel as individuals on either side of the Brexit debate, that is not the focus of this afternoon's consideration. Rather, we are asked to come to our conclusion on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. 

I begin with the withdrawal agreement, because it is very obviously the more developed of the two, and also the closer of the two to the position of the Welsh Government. Indeed, if I contrast the withdrawal agreement with the content of 'Securing Wales' Future', jointly agreed with Plaid Cymru in January of 2017, and the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech of the same month, it is striking just how much closer the agreement comes to our position than that of Mrs May. It contains a set of protections for citizenship rights. It provides for a transition period, so essential to avoid a massive dislocation of our economy, and allows for it to be extended if needed. It contains a commitment to pay our bills. It offers regulatory alignment for goods and agricultural products. It even, buried in the depths of obfuscatory language, provides for a customs union. But, Llywydd, part of the reason why we are unable to support the withdrawal agreement this afternoon is because of that very obfuscation, because the agreement demonstrates that even at this very last moment, the Prime Minister remains unwilling to spell out the realities of our situation. Instead, she tours the television studios repeating mantras that convince nobody and, rather, succeed in persuading people of entirely opposing views that they are united at least in this—that they will not support the Prime Minister. 

So, the failure of the withdrawal agreement is political as well as practical, but the practical flaws are real as well. Here are just three ways in which the withdrawal agreement fails to deliver an outcome that the Welsh Government could support. Firstly, in terms of so many of the level playing field issues, a technocratic description of things that really matter to Welsh citizens, such as environmental standards and workers' rights, the UK is committed only to non-regression—not, in other words, to keeping pace with evolving European standards. We believe strongly, and have consistently argued, that where the EU moves ahead in such matters, the United Kingdom should do so too. We cannot and will not support anything less.

Secondly, the agreement fails to deal with issues of the services sector, the largest part of our economy, and the one in which the UK has a clear surplus in trade with the EU. It continues to declare a separation of the services sector from goods, with no guarantees that the access to the EU single market will not be seriously restricted. The withdrawal agreement perpetuates an unworkable distinction between goods and services that will damage Welsh businesses, and we cannot support it.

And thirdly, and practically, Llywydd, the prospect of a regulatory border in the Irish sea, with unknown consequences for the economic relationships of Great Britain with the island of Ireland, remains a sticking point for us. Now, we accept the absolute priority of ensuring that a hard border does not return to the island of Ireland, but the backstop as it has been constructed remains worrying and potentially injurious to Wales.

Llywydd, our anxieties about the backstop issue could have been allayed entirely through the political declaration to which I now turn, because the political declaration could have contained a firm commitment from both the EU and the UK to the combination of a permanent customs union and full participation in the single market, which would ensure that we needed no new barriers between any part of the UK and the EU-27, the solution, of course, advanced in 'Securing Wales' Future'. Instead, the political declaration manifestly fails to contain robust commitments from both sides to develop a future relationship that will provide the greatest possible continuity of our economic links with the EU, compatible with no longer being part of its political construction. Rather, it is a cobbled together, back-of-an-envelope document that tries to pay lip service to some of the language used by the UK Government in its White Paper, while moving not a jot from the EU's insistence that you cannot be part in and part out of the single market.

The UK Government has had to admit that it was not able to persuade the EU to make commitments to frictionless trade, and that salutary fact means that it is inevitable that the political declaration leaves us exposed to a dramatic reduction in access to markets compared to that enjoyed by Welsh businesses today.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary. I understand that the Cabinet Secretary's favoured means out of the current impasse would be a vote of no confidence passing and a general election following. If that general election happens, will the Labour Party be committing to offering a people's vote?

Llywydd, I plan to return to that set of issues at the end of what I say, and I'll do my best to respond to some of the points the Member has made at that point in time—

Will the Cabinet Secretary—?

I've answered the question in—

It's up to you whether to take the intervention or not, Cabinet Secretary.

Llywydd, thank you very much. I heard the question the first time; I don't need to hear it a second. [Laughter.] What sort of security does that provide—[Interruption.] What sort of security does the political declaration provide to Welsh employers and Welsh workers, particularly those in industries reliant on just-in-time supply chains or whose business model is based on embedding services in their offer, that, at the end of the transition period, their investment and their jobs are safe.

The political declaration contains less than a page on mobility, Llywydd—that fundamentally important issue to Welsh businesses, public services and our universities. It confirms that the current UK Government has unilaterally decided to end the current freedom of movement rights, simultaneously hobbling vital access to skills for our businesses and public services, removing rights for British citizens to live and work in other parts of Europe and dealing a fatal blow to full and unfettered access to the single market.

Llywydd, if the withdrawal agreement has serious flaws, the political declaration would need to be rewritten wholesale if we as a Government were to consider supporting its approval. Instead, the motion we have put in front of the Assembly this afternoon responds carefully and clearly to the rapidly changing circumstances in which we find ourselves. The second amendment, tabled by Plaid Cymru, basically covers the same ground as our own. There is little in it with which we might take issue, and we will not oppose it this afternoon. 

Let me turn now to what should happen, if, as we believe it should, the House of Commons votes down the Prime Minister's deal. First of all, we entirely reject the Prime Minister's view that it is her deal or no deal. In our view, there are at least three credible ways in which such a position can be resolved. Firstly, it is still not impossible that this or an alternative Government could negotiate a very different deal, one which meets Labour's six tests and the prospectus set out in 'Securing Wales' Future'. Then, like others, from Nicola Sturgeon to Arlene Foster, we would consider lending our support to a renegotiated deal, based clearly on full participation in the single market and a customs union. This is a form of Brexit known today, in the shorthand, as Norway plus, which would provide the long-term certainty our businesses and people need. 

Secondly, Llywydd, there remains the prospect of a general election, as Adam Price said. A general election would give a new Government a clear mandate to renegotiate, to stage a second public vote, or, if today's opinion of the EU's advocate general is confirmed, to withdraw the article 50 notification. 

And, thirdly, of course, there is a new public vote itself. I want to repeat the First Minister's clear assurance that this Government would campaign vigorously for such a vote, should there be neither a general election nor a renegotiation, and that such a vote must have the option of remaining within the European Union on the ballot paper. But, Llywydd, we cannot support the third amendment in front of the Assembly, which seems to demand a people's vote in any circumstances, and which implies that it is the only future possibility, when, plainly, it is not.

So, Llywydd, to conclude, I hope this National Assembly will send a clear message this afternoon that the deal that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister is unacceptable. It fails to meet the fundamental interests of Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole, and it should be rejected. 

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I agree, but from a completely different perspective, with much of what the Cabinet Secretary has just said. But we need to understand that the background to this is the result of the referendum that was held two and a half years ago. And, without any kind of qualification, the people voted to leave the EU. They didn't vote to give the UK Government a mandate to negotiate, nor, indeed, to bring back to them the terms of the results of that negotiation. What this agreement does not do is deliver on that vote. In fact, it is, in political terms, a national humiliation, a capitulation, which has given the EU everything, and, actually, given the UK nothing. It doesn't take back control of our laws, take back control of our money, or take back control of our borders. As I've said previously, there is no rational explanation to what Theresa May has achieved, except some kind of deliberate sabotage strategy on her part, whereby, in the two years allowed under article 50 to negotiate a deal with the EU, we do absolutely nothing to prepare for the failure of those negotiations, the result of which is we now have a dog's breakfast of an agreement, so-called, with the EU, and a gun placed at our head, saying 'Take it or leave it.' And the 'take it' proposal basically means that we don't leave the EU in anything other than a formal sense. 

Everything that the EU wanted out of these negotiations it's got in the withdrawal agreement, which is legally binding. Everything that the UK might want is in the political declaration, which is not. And the transition period that has been agreed, under article 32, keeps us in the EU for an indefinite period, because article 32 says, in effect, that this agreement shall terminate in the year 20XX. So, there's no means by which we can extricate ourselves from this agreement without the EU's approval. It leaves us with no voice, no vote, and no veto in the EU. Theresa May has achieved what I think anybody would have thought at the start of this process was the impossible of producing an outcome that is even worse than staying in the EU itself. It consigns the United Kingdom to a period of purgatory, when we will have to try and expiate our anti-federalist sins at the EU's behest, whilst actually achieving nothing in practical terms from leaving the EU. This negotiation has been completely bungled, and the best outcome now that we can expect is that, on 29 March next year, I hope that this agreement will be rejected by the House of Commons and we leave the European Union, not without a deal, but on the same terms on which we deal with the rest of the world—the World Trade Organization's terms.

Once the protocol to this agreement is in force, it is quite clear that the UK cannot leave except by a joint decision of the UK and the EU. And why would the EU want to put us in a position where we can leave at that point? Because they will have locked us into a permanent arrangement with them, whereby they have free access to our markets—and, of course, the reciprocal is that we have free access to theirs, but the imbalance in trade is £95 billion a year in the EU's favour—but, on the other hand, we give up our right to negotiate trade agreements with the rest of the world, which is one of the great advantages of Brexit in the first place. Eighty-five per cent of the global economy is outside the European Union, and it's the rest of the world that is growing, whilst the EU is sclerotic. And with another euro crisis in prospect in the course of the next year or so, then the problems of the European economy are going to become even greater. All that the European Union has agreed to in these negotiations is to use its best endeavours to negotiate a permanent trade agreement with us. But why would they want to do so?

The transition agreement provides that any permanent trade arrangement that we have with the EU shall be based upon the existing single customs territory, so that, even if we were able to arrange a deal with the EU, that would in itself preclude us from doing deals with the rest of the world, because an essential element in any free trade agreement is that it provides for free trade between goods that are made, produced, in the two contracting parties' countries. And then there are rules of origin rules to apply to avoid third party countries getting around trade agreements by routing their goods through a territory that they are entering without the normal restrictions, if there isn't one. So, the consequence will be that, as article 24 of the GATT agreement requires rules of origin arrangements, where information is collected about the origin of the goods that are passing through, then we won't be able to satisfy any other country in the world about the origins of the goods that we are selling to them. And that undermines the very principle upon which free trade agreements are based.

So, if there's a dispute that arises about the meaning of the agreements that the Government proposes, how is that going to be decided? Well, there's going to be an arbitration panel that is set up, but, under article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, the disputes are ultimately settled not by the arbitration panel itself, but by the European Court of Justice. And the consequence of that is, in effect, that the control of our laws will continue to be at the behest of the European Court of Justice. Carl Baudenbacher, who was the president of the court of justice to the European Free Trade Association, EFTA, says that this is not a real arbitration tribunal—behind it, the ECJ decides everything. And this is taken from the Ukraine agreement. It's absolutely unbelievable that a country like the UK, which was the first country to accept independent courts, would subject itself to this.

So, this is vassalage in its true sense, whereby we have to take the rules and regulations that are decided by the European Union and we just have to abide by them. We have no voice or vote in how they are made—[Interruption.] I didn't argue—[Interruption.] No, no, I said—I argued for a free and independent sovereign Britain, whereby our own elected representatives, like we are in this place, should make our laws, and we don't just become rule takers via the EU, which is not only able to direct the terms upon which we trade with them, but also the rules under which we trade with the rest of the world. That is the reverse of Brexit—that is the reverse of what the people voted for in June 2016.

When we went into the common market back in 1973, it was presented as purely a trade deal. It was not presented as part of a journey to a federal centralised European superstate, which is the journey that we are still on. Angela Merkel was talking only two weeks ago about a European army, and that's, of course, a very dangerous prospect indeed, and there is significant opposition within the federalists to NATO as an institution. They want to become a big player themselves on the world stage. That is something that could never be acceptable in my view to the United Kingdom Government, but, ultimately, we would have no control over it.

If we are to deliver on the result of the Brexit referendum, we are going to have to face now a prospect that is more difficult than we could have imagined two years ago, and indeed much more difficult than was absolutely necessary. Theresa May has abjectly failed to play the good cards that were in her hand, which are of, course, the massive trade deficit that we have with the EU, the £10 billion a year that we have contributed net to the EU budget for the last 40 years, and our ability to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world. If she were a bridge player, then she's deliberately chosen to be the dummy in these negotiations, laying out her cards on the table for others to see, whilst the EU has played its cards close to its chest. What she has done in this trade agreement is not to throw out the baby with the bath water, but actually to throw out the baby and keep the bath water.

I call on Steffan Lewis to move amendments 2 and 3 tabled in the name of Rhun ap iorwerth. Steffan Lewis. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I only wish that the Cabinet Secretary's rhetoric in his opening remarks were reflected in the motion, because Plaid Cymru had hoped today to be in a position where it could support a Government motion on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. But I'm disappointed therefore that the consensus between our two parties from the time of the publication of 'Securing Wales' Future' has not endured. 'Securing Wales' Future' set out Wales's terms and conditions, if you like, in terms of what a future withdrawal agreement would have to contain to be acceptable and, of course, it sets out in great detail a vision for a future relationship between Wales, the UK and the European Union. It called for continued participation in the EU single market and customs union and robust guarantees in respect of workers' rights, human rights, equalities legislation and citizens' rights. Theresa May's deal falls far short of these in every respect. 

I'm especially disappointed though that the Government motion, as presented, does little more than note recent developments, rather than suggest a particular view that the Assembly should take on those developments themselves. The motion makes three statements: that the withdrawal agreement and political declaration exist; that a transition period forms a part of the deal and that this will prevent a 'no deal' scenario; and that the Assembly will, in future, decide on whether to give our final consent to the withdrawal agreement Bill. But the Government's claims that the transition period prevents a 'no deal' scenario are simply inaccurate; it's not true. What avoids a 'no deal' scenario is a deal or remaining in the European Union. I wonder was the motion meant to say that the transition period avoids a cliff-edge exit, which, of course, would be true. But can the Cabinet Secretary please clarify what the Government's thinking is on this point, because it's not clear to me, anyway? 

The Government is also incorrect to note that there will be for certain another opportunity further down the line for the Assembly to vote on the withdrawal agreement. Whether or not there is an LCM depends on the nature of the withdrawal agreement Bill. So, there's nothing to say for certain that this won't be our one and only opportunity today, this afternoon, to vote and to take a firm view one way or another on the withdrawal agreement, and that is why I urge Members  today to do more than simply note the existence of the withdrawal agreement and to say flatly that this National Assembly rejects it. Otherwise, Wales risks becoming the only legislature in the whole of the UK to offer implicit support to the withdrawal agreement, even though, as the Welsh Government motion explicitly points out, Wales is not mentioned once in the 585-page document. The Welsh Government motion then goes on to state that the political declaration falls short of the model future relationship set out in 'Securing Wales' Future'.

Although it's not clear, it appears to me from the wording that the Government would be willing, under some circumstances, to consent to the withdrawal agreement if changes are made to the political declaration, but, again, that didn't seem to tally with what the Cabinet Secretary said in his opening statements. So, can he clarify whether, again, I've misread the motion or whether there's been a change of view, or what exactly the position is? Are there circumstances where the withdrawal agreement would have the support of this Government, provided the political declaration is changed? There is no change as far as Plaid Cymru is concerned that can be made to the political declaration that would make the withdrawal agreement any more acceptable. The withdrawal agreement is what it is. It takes Wales out of the single market, it takes Wales out of the customs union, it takes Wales out of EU programmes, it doesn't guarantee workers' rights, and it has the potential to be hugely damaging to the Welsh economy.

Llywydd, Plaid Cymru's first amendment replaces the observance of facts—or perceived facts—and in their place provides for this Assembly an opportunity to take a clear position if it chooses to do so. It rejects both the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement because they fail to deliver on the commitments set out in 'Securing Wales' Future'. It also calls on the UK Government to seek membership of the EU single market and EU customs union, and it calls for the extension of article 50. Article 50 could be extended in order to negotiate a different Brexit arrangement whereby we stay in both the single market and customs union permanently, and if we were to do this, there would be no need to have a transition period where we'd be outside of the EU, needing to negotiate a new, long-term relationship from the outside.

I know that UK Labour's stance on the single market and customs union membership is that we should leave them both and negotiate a new deal, which, of course, is also the position of the Conservative party. So, I understand that some Members may be unable to support our first amendment on that basis, but I hope Members will seriously consider supporting our separate, second amendment, which replaces point 6 of the Government motion. Point 6 of the Government's motion calls for a general election or a public vote, while our amendment simply says that there should be a people's vote that should include the option to remain on the ballot paper. Last week, John McDonnell said that securing a general election would be very difficult, and I agree with him. It's impractical, and it wouldn't deliver a different outcome for people in Wales or across the United Kingdom because both the leading parties in that general election would be campaigning for UK withdrawal from the single market. So, we would still have the parliamentary impasse in Westminster that we have under this shoddy Government now. There is now growing support across the political divide for a people's vote, and much of that is because Parliament simply cannot sort this out. Only a fresh referendum can end the political impasse. So, I'm genuinely hoping an amendment for a people's vote will command a cross-party majority here today.

Llywydd, now and then, as parliamentarians, we are asked to search our consciences before casting votes on truly historic events and decisions. My conscience tells me that the deal on offer is so potentially damaging to the communities we're elected to represent that neither the withdrawal agreement nor the political declaration deserve the support of this Parliament, and that they should not simply be noted but that they should be rejected by this Parliament. I honestly believe that allowing the people to decide the way forward from here is democratically sound and also essential if the political gridlock is to end in Westminster. So, I ask Members to support Plaid Cymru's amendments so that our Parliament actually expresses a position on these fundamental matters and so that we can also clearly endorse the people's right to a final say. Diolch yn fawr. 

Llywydd, the referendum on leaving the European Union saw passionate arguments and strongly held opinions on both sides. The decision to remain or leave saw families, communities, political parties, this Chamber and, indeed, the country sharing opposing views. Forty seven and a half per cent of the electorate voted to remain while 52.5 per cent voted to leave. And each individual will have had different reasons for voting the way they did. Healing these divisions and building a brighter future for Wales and the United Kingdom family will not be easy. Reaching an outcome in negotiations that has the approval of 27 EU countries and which satisfies the conflicting demands of the 33 million voters who took part in the referendum is surely nigh on impossible. But Theresa May's job is not about satisfying both sides—leavers and remainers; it's about honouring the result of the referendum and securing the best possible deal for Wales and the UK as we embark on a new future outside the European Union.

I believe the deal negotiated by the UK Government will honour the referendum result. It will bring back control over our borders and end free movement. It returns sovereignty to the parliaments of the United Kingdom. Iit will protect jobs, enable the UK to secure a free-trade deal with the EU and enable the UK to strike trade deals with countries around the world. It will enable the Governments of the UK to properly invest in our public services in the future as we will no longer be sending significant contributions to the EU. We will be able to continue to maintain close co-operation with our EU neighbours on the fight against crime and terrorism. And it is a deal that not only protects the integrity of the UK, but strengthens it with eventually more powers being transferred to the devolved governments, including here in Wales.

Now, like all negotiations, it is a compromise, so I appreciate that it will not at the same time satisfy hard-line Brexiteers and staunch remainers. But I believe it is a deal that those who respect the referendum result can unite around. As a compromise, the deal may not be perfect, but surely it is better than the alternatives of no deal or no Brexit at all. If we fail to secure a deal with the EU—

Will the Member give way?

In a minute. If we fail to secure a deal with the EU, we will crash out in March 2019, threatening chaos for our economy. Business leaders have already warned that the biggest barrier to economic growth right now is uncertainty due to Brexit. A 'no deal' scenario would only exacerbate that uncertainty, threatening investment, jobs and the household income of hard-working families. And it wouldn't be big business that would suffer most, it would be small and medium-sized businesses, the suppliers for larger firms, small manufacturers that export goods with skilled workers on average earnings; their jobs could be put at risk.

Holyhead is the UK's second busiest roll-on, roll-off freight port in the UK, and a 'no deal' could risk the free flow of traffic through the UK's airports and ports, including Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock.

I give way to the leader of Plaid Cymru.

I'm very grateful to him. Is it his view that Wales will be better off, compared to the current position, remaining in the European Union if the Government's deal carries the day?

It's important that we honour the referendum result, and I think that this deal will respect— [Interruption.] Llywydd, this deal will respect the referendum result, and, at the same time, it will enable our businesses to continue trading with the EU.

Now, the Welsh economy is more dependent than other parts of the UK on exports to the EU. These businesses need certainty to plan for the future. Farmers too need certainty on the future of their industry once we leave the EU. John Davies, NFU Cymru president, when he met the Prime Minister at the Royal Welsh Winter Fair, said this:

'I commended the fact that the deal she has agreed is as close as possible to the free and frictionless trade conditions for agricultural and food products that we have been lobbying for over the past couple of years.'

Indeed, Glyn Roberts, president of the FUW has also said, and I quote:

'The Withdrawal agreement agreed by the Cabinet and the EU contains almost 600 pages of details regarding what would happen during a 21 month period, and those pages contain many important assurances for agriculture and other industries.'

It is therefore clear that the farming unions welcome this deal as a step forward in protecting our agricultural industry.

The other alternative to this deal is no Brexit at all. Senior representatives of the EU have made it abundantly clear that this is the deal on the table and that no other agreement will be negotiated between now and the end of March next year. This is what—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I'm not.

Didn't think you would.

This is what the EU has said time and time again, and Brexit was, in many ways, a vote against the political establishment in Westminster and Cardiff Bay as much as in Brussels. For the establishment to respond to that vote by completely ignoring the will of the people would be a dangerous act, and, as we get closer to 29 March 2019, the clock is ticking and this is the only deal on the table.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I will not.

The only two alternatives: either gamble with the jobs of the people we represent or ignore their decision to leave.

Llywydd, this motion from the Welsh Government tells you all you need to know. You only really need to read the last five words:

'whether it wishes to remain'.

Wales was asked on 23 June 2016 whether it wishes to remain and the verdict of the people of Wales was clear. On a turnout of almost 72 per cent, at nearly double the turnout of past Assembly elections, over 850,000 Welsh voters voted to leave—the biggest popular vote for anything in over 20 years. Seventeen of the 22 Welsh council areas voted to leave and, apart from Members representing Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, every Labour Assembly Member represents a constituency or region that voted to leave. Over half the Plaid Cymru group represents an area that voted to leave. For our Liberal Democrat Member, Powys voted to leave. Yet, today, it seems to me that these Members are trying to undermine democracy by seeking—[Interruption.]

I can't hear the leader of the opposition.

You're not missing much.

I want to hear the leader of the opposition.

Thank you, Llywydd. The mandate for Brexit amongst the electorate is only surpassed by the Welsh popular vote for Tony Blair and New Labour in 1997. Of course, Members will not be surprised that I was extremely disappointed by that election result in 1997, but I respected the mandate of over 800,000 voters in Wales and certainly I did not call for that election to be re-run because I disagreed with the result. The irony, of course, is that Brexit has a greater legitimacy and a bigger mandate from the public than this Welsh Government, which, it seems to me, is trying to overturn it. Many 'leave' voters were motivated by a sense that they were being governed in part by a failing, distant, out-of-touch organisation that wasn't listening to them. Does that sound familiar to this Welsh Government? To seek another referendum to overturn the result of the first would not only take us back to square one, but would betray the 17 million who voted to leave. It would ignore the will of voters in Blaenau Gwwent, Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Rhondda, Wrexham, Newport and Swansea. And, if a new referendum overturns the first, then should we have a best of three or even a best of five to make sure?

The Welsh Government's motion also says that it should instead be focused on securing a long-term relationship that provides for participation in the single market and a customs union. But, of course, the Welsh Government knows full well that negotiating our future relationship with the EU will take place after March next year and extending the article 50 period would harm our economy, bringing greater uncertainty and leaving businesses and employers in limbo.

To seek a general election now would be political self-indulgence at a time when our country needs its leadership to secure our country's future relationship with the rest of the world. Instead of trying to undermine the referendum result, the Welsh Government should be working with the UK Government to secure the best possible deal for Welsh farmers, to exploit potential investment and keep Wales at the forefront of research and development and to maximise the opportunities for Welsh businesses to help make Wales a more prosperous country.

Llywydd, the Brexit referendum was undoubtedly divisive. If this division and uncertainty goes on unchecked, it threatens our economy and public services; it risks distracting us from the bread-and-butter issues of public services that matter to the people whom we represent. The people have spoken—the people of Wales voted to leave. It is time now for politicians to unite on that instruction, to honour the result of the referendum, to bring back powers from Brussels to Westminster and to Cardiff, and to deliver on the promise and the potential of Brexit. We need to bring an end to the division and uncertainty, and we need to carve out a new, brighter future for Wales and for the United Kingdom.

Can I be clear at the outset that I will be voting in favour of amendment 3 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, and have received dispensation from the Labour group to do so? 

Llywydd, I will not be voting to endorse in any way Mrs May's Brexit. Like many in this Chamber, I represent some of the poorest people in Britain, and I won't vote for anything that makes them poorer, and that is what all of us know this or any other Brexit will do. It is an individual choice for every one of us, but at heart, it is a fundamentally moral decision. I don't think anyone here, even people I disagree with about so many things, came into politics and public life to make people worse off. But if we vote to endorse Brexit, that is exactly what we will be doing. Some Members may disagree. That is their right, and I respect them far more than anyone who says we have to vote for Brexit because of the previous referendum. No vote removes our moral culpability, and we should remember that and be brave—now more than ever. 

Llywydd, the debate on Brexit has been dominated by false choices, false choices that are too often exposed when it is too late to do anything about the falsehood on which they are founded: falsehoods like, 'We should vote for Brexit to bring £350 million a week to the NHS'; falsehoods like the claim that staying in the EU would put our borders on the edge of Syria and Iraq; falsehoods like the idea that we held all the cards in the negotiations, and that getting a good deal would be the easiest thing ever. All of those were empty claims made by people who should have, and in many cases did know better. Today, we have another one, that we have to back the Prime Minister's deal, or else we are staring into the abyss of a 'no deal' Brexit. So, let me make it clear: if the choice ever was between Mrs May's Brexit and a 'no deal' Brexit, that moment has passed. The choice today is between whatever sort of miserable Brexit deal the UK Government, UKIP, the European research group ragtag and bobtail managed to unite behind, and, instead, staying as full members of the European Union: full members with all our rights; full members with a say, a vote and a veto; full members with the influence that a country like the United Kingdom can and should have, rather than being reduced to somewhere that has to beg for crumbs from Donald Trump's table. A people's vote is the way to settle this, and I believe it will come. Like a boulder that has been rolling down a great distance from the mountaintop, we still cannot see it, but now everyone can hear its rumble.

Would the Member care to remind the Assembly how her constituency voted?

Yes. I'm absolutely well aware of that, but I'm also well aware that democracy is not a finite thing that freezes in time, and my constituents are worried about the future that is facing them with this deal.

As a patriot, never afraid to be both Welsh and British, and intensely proud of both, I will be arguing in the campaign to come for the only option that is right for our people, whether in the Valleys of Gwent, the terraces of Cardiff or the farms of Ceredigion—to stay. To stay as a great country that is not afraid of its place in the world, to stay proud of our values of internationalism and openness, to stay true to our sense of self as a place where people matter more than ideology ever will. That is my Wales, my United Kingdom, and that is what I will be defending with my vote. I urge everyone in this Chamber to join together to make a stand with the people against this Brexit mess.

You know, I'm quite amazed by the way in which the leader of the Conservative Party is now dressing the clothes of his party up in the banners of the people, you know. This party that at almost every stage since the reform Act of the nineteenth century voted against the extension of the vote is now apparently—. They voted against the extension of suffrage to women, and indeed to adult men in 1918. Now, they are claiming they are the people's party. Well, I say the people certainly are not convinced by that any jot. Look, when the Chartists marched in favour of democracy, what was their sixth demand, the one that’s never been met? It was for an annual Parliament. Because, they said, the people have the right to change their mind. To quote the economist John Maynard Keynes, when he was asked about changing his mind:

‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do…?’

The people can see laid bare the economic and social consequences that are going to come from your policy if your Government is allowed to prevail. And I for one, and others in this place, will not allow that to happen. And this is the call to this place now, isn’t it? We were discussing moments ago, in the excellent speech by Lynne Neagle, the call for us to make a stand, you know? Parliaments are about binaries. We have to plant our flag and decide where we are. At this point, one of the greatest decisions, one of the most significant decisions that is going to be made in these islands, that will cast its shadow for decades, calls for us to be clear and unequivocal. It calls for us to make a stand for the people, and for them not to have this kind of economic dislocation thrust down their throats. What we’re asking for is for democracy, is for the people to make the decision, because none of them voted—[Interruption.] None of them voted for this policy that your Government are now proposing.

I give way to the Member.

The people voted to leave the European Union. The Member does not agree with what the people voted, so he's trying to reverse it, and unlike the Chartists, who expected the annual Parliament to be installed before they were overturned, he wants to ignore what the people decided.

I'm asking for the opposite of that. I’m asking for the people to cast their judgment on a policy that was never put before them, because there wasn’t even a scintilla of information put in front of them in terms of what you’re actually proposing. And what about those 16 and 17-year-olds then that didn’t have the vote, upon whom this decision will cast a greater future, because it’s their future that we're talking about? Don’t they have a right to vote? Aren’t they people as well? And will you deprive them of the opportunity to make their voice heard on the greatest decision that their generation has faced?

Now, I turn—[Interruption.] I will give way to the Member.

The Member is making an eloquent case for having a second referendum, but was he in favour of the first referendum? And if we have a second referendum, why shouldn't we have a third, a fourth, a fifth, et cetera on an annual basis?

Well, look, you know, I’ve always been of the view that this should have been a two-stage process. I called, within, I think, 36 hours, for a second referendum. So, I have been consistent about this, because it always should have been a two-stage process, because it was always going to be the case that the actual realities—not the unicorns of an impossible, undeliverable Brexit of fantasy, but the actual Brexit proposal, that would never have been laid out in the first referendum. It wasn’t a whole host of different possibilities. Now we have a definite proposal, or whatever emerges from the mess that is Westminster at the moment; that should then be put to the people. You yourself are against this deal as well. Surely, the way out of the impasse is to go back to the people and ask for their final say.

I appeal to Members on the Labour benches. We need clarity at this moment. The problem with the Government’s position is, to quote Jeremy Corbyn,

‘This is a vague menu of options, not a plan for the future.’

It’s commentary, not actually a policy. It’s not enough to say, ‘Well, if not a general election, if not a renegotiation, then maybe a public vote.’ That’s not what this moment is calling for. The Government needs to rise to the level of events. We have a historic opportunity. It is in our hands. It's not enough to say ‘either/or’. And I appeal to Labour Members on the backbenches, because, obviously, there’s not much hope; the Government’s position has been set in stone, unfortunately.

We tried, by the way, to get a cross-party agreement. I’ve been trying at Westminster. That kind of approach is what will lay the foundations for success, if we work together. That hasn’t been possible here, and that’s a great source of sadness. In the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government took a different approach. They went to the opposition parties, and they managed to create a cross-party coalition around this issue, including the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Greens. That’s the kind of approach that we need. That’s the kind of approach we’re trying to build at Westminster: a coalition against chaos. Unfortunately, we have a motion here that pleases no-one, and unfortunately we're not able to support the motion as it currently stands. But there is an opportunity here for Labour Members to back—the opportunity, the historic opportunity, to pull the emergency cord on the train that is hurtling and taking us over a cliff edge. Let's work together, demand a people's vote, stand up together and prove this Parliament's worth.

I do believe the PM's deal is a good one, and it reflects the situation produced by the referendum result, which was 52 per cent in favour of leave, 48 per cent for remain. It's a nuanced position we now find ourselves in: an ongoing relationship with Europe, but also removal from its political structures. I think that is a fair reflection of where we are as a people at the moment.

Above all things, the danger of a disorderly Brexit is removed. This is an important achievement, and it's to the credit of the UK Government and the EU that it's been produced. The business sector has welcomed the agreement and the political declaration. Dow Silicones UK wrote to me this week—I think they wrote to all Members. Many of us would have visited their plant in Barry; it employs 553 people. I quote from their letter:

‘The Government's publication of the long-term economic analysis of leaving the European Union rightly identifies the chemical sector as one of those most at risk of no deal.’

It goes on,

‘We recognise that the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration are not perfect. However, if secured they do ensure some much needed certainty through the transition period, enabling our business to plan investment decisions with a greater degree of confidence than has been the case for the past two and a half years. During that transition our industry will also work with the Government to help achieve the most appropriate future relationship with the EU.’

I think it's about time we had someone reading from the business sector what they think, and we should reflect very carefully on that.

If Mrs May's deal is rejected then two possibilities obviously come to the fore: a 'no deal' Brexit, greatly feared by business, as I've just referred to, or a second referendum that might cause deep damage to our democratic culture. It seems to me that a second referendum is not a reasonable course of action unless there is an overwhelming and visible demand for it, and whatever the likes of Adam Price think, there just isn't at the moment. Secondly, an expectation exists for a decisive outcome, and that means 60 plus per cent one way or the other, and that certainly doesn't exist at the moment. There seems to be hardly any movement from where we were two years ago.

Otherwise, I believe the most democratic thing for remainers like me is to accept Brexit, allow it an opportunity to reach a final agreement, and then start the work to rejoin the EU, because I do believe that is definitely in our long-term interests. It is essential to think strategically and for the long term. The project I've outlined, of remove and then return, will probably take a generation, just as our current plight has taken a generation to develop. We have to win over the leavers. That's the most essential thing for those that want us to have a future in the EU to achieve, and we're not going to do that by rubbing their noses in it and saying they got it wrong last time and we'd better have another vote until they realise what is good for them. We have to inspire them with a new vision for the EU, and the EU needs to reform itself as well. Let's not forget the importance of that type of democratic renewal. Are we all blind to the protests that are occurring in all sorts of European states at the moment? Come on. Let us read the signs of our times, because they are shouting very loud at us, and in the UK we also need to refresh our democratic culture.

I think probably this has been the most shocking part of the whole Brexit experience, to suddenly realise what a lot of our citizens think of us all in all the established political parties. We clearly need to be fairer to citizens for all sorts of reasons. The social contract developed after the second world war is weaker and, in parts, has broken down. We need to come up with a new version of that to win over all our citizens and to make them feel that they have a genuine place in our national life and prosperity.

We need to be fairer to the home nations of the union. This will be one of the biggest tests of Brexit—how we have inter-governmental relations within the UK and deal with those pressures. The situation in Scotland, where they voted so firmly to remain, ought to be a dire warning to all unionists who want to see the United Kingdom hold together. That is something that we as Conservatives need to remember—we are also a unionist party—and the various options that face us should be measured by how they affect the whole union as well as how they may affect various versions of purity on a particular policy.

We need a closer connection between citizens and politicians—that's clearly important throughout the western democratic world, but it's really pressing on us now. If we overturn Brexit by a small majority, we will be more deeply divided than we are today. Why? Well, unlike remainers today, leavers would lose all hope and confidence that the UK's political system can ever deliver their wishes on this most foundational issue. As least us remainers have a chance to return to this matter and work for an attempt to re-join the EU in the future.

Even that attempt to overturn the referendum result will shake the confidence many have in our democratic culture. I do warn Labour Members that you risk an axial shift away from you in the Valleys if you go back to them—and I found Lynne's comments very powerful. But just look at the Liberal Party between 1918 and 1923 to see what can happen and how quickly it can happen. In many western democracies those who are most deprived vote for centre-right parties. They always have in great numbers in the Irish Republic. Look what's happened in Ohio, Pennsylvania, the states of the south. How many Democrats are elected for West Virginia at the moment? This is the sort of thing that you could be facing.

And I say to fellow Conservatives who are not going to support Mrs May's deal that we would risk losing support on the right if we force through another referendum. And we would probably see some form of strident English nationalism develop that would eat away at much of our core vote as well. 

Will the Member take an intervention?

I'm reaching the end, but I will take the—.

Very simply, would he agree that you don't beat the far right by pandering to it?

Well, as a liberal Conservative, I think that's been the mission of my life so far, so I certainly do agree with you. But I know that in a democracy, you've got to be able to accept a decision that you profoundly, bitterly disagree with—that's what a democracy is all about. It's not about just having it easy all the time or losing for five years then your party gets back in—it alternates. It means, sometimes, you have to accept a decision that you profoundly disagree with. It's as simple as that.

We had a vote. We knew the rules of the referendum. I believe they were quite flawed, but they had near unanimous support across all political parties, including the Liberal Democrats. Now is the time to accept the reality of our departure from the EU, however difficult it is for those of us who see Europe as so essential to our national prosperity. We need to move on, then we can get back in.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate as a member of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee for the past year and chair of the women in Europe network Wales. And you'll be aware of our committee's work preparing for Brexit, including the report published last week on the preparedness of the healthcare and medicines sector in Wales. Access to medicines is causing particular anxiety. Our report raised key issues of concern including the continuous supply of medicines, arrangements for reciprocal healthcare, and alarming prospects relating to the health and social care workforce after Brexit. This is just one example of independent evidence that we've taken revealing the concerns about the adverse impacts of Brexit. And as we recommended in the report, we need to maintain continued regulatory co-operation between the EU and the UK in terms of access to medicines and clinical research after Brexit. Would this be delivered by the withdrawal agreement? Patients and healthcare professionals need to know.

Cabinet Secretary, you've spoken about the economic impacts of all Brexit scenarios, as has HM Treasury and the Bank of England, making it quite clear that all Brexit scenarios involve self-inflicted economic damage with a 'no deal' being a lot more damaging than others. As Mark Carney has said, any form of Brexit is guaranteed to make the country poorer. I also received a letter, like David, from that major company in Barry with a large workforce, pointing to the sheer volume of activity—quoting from them—in terms of exports and imports, complexity of supply chains and multiple border crossings, with any disruption impacting on the potential for future trade and investment. I'm a strong backer of the 'Securing Wales' Future' Welsh Government White Paper, which makes it clear that we need full and unfettered access to the single market and participation in the customs union to protect companies like this one in my constituency. It's not clear that the withdrawal agreement would deliver this.

The Cabinet Secretary knows that I'm particularly concerned about the impact of the withdrawal agreement on equality and human rights. As the First Minister said in his written statement on 27 November, maintaining social and environmental protections, including workers' rights, has been one of the Welsh Government's six priorities, laid out in 'Securing Wales' Future'. In his statement last week, the First Minister pointed to the failure to commit the UK to progressive alignment rather than just non-regressive arrangements with EU standards and rights, as the Cabinet Secretary has said this afternoon, in terms of the environment and labour market. Non-regression obligations are not good enough. I know the Welsh Government believes strongly that the UK should commit to a dynamic relationship, to progress and not stand still, rather than simple non-regression when it comes to equalities and human rights. So, I fully support point 4 of the Welsh Government motion on the withdrawal agreement, which 

'fails to provide robust guarantees in respect of future workers' rights, human rights and equalities legislation.'

In the summer, I brought together a group of equality and women's organisations to discuss the impact of Brexit on women in Wales. It's been widely supported as an informal network for women who want their voices to be heard in decision making around Brexit. That's why I continue to focus on equality impacts in the external affairs committee. 

Finally, Llywydd, our constituents do want to know where we stand today on Brexit. They know I voted to remain. I'm ready for a general election if the vote fails next week, and I'm also ready for a second referendum. It would be the biggest test of our political lives, but we would fail the people we represent if we don't stand up for them and with them now. I do agree with David Melding that this is about a new vision that we would have to share and discuss with people on the doorstep, but I do believe that point 6 of the Welsh Government motion does encompass this. 

Like other AMs, I've received a number of messages over the past few days, and many have raised their deep concerns about the future Brexit will bring, calling for a second referendum. A deeply worried constituent wrote that she was alarmed at the position of the country, with a divided UK Government and industry and the whole of society in a state of uncertainty. Another, an 87-year-old grandmother was profoundly alarmed at the prospect of the catastrophic future that Brexit will bring. Llywydd, the current agreement doesn't meet the six priorities of 'Securing Wales' Future'; it doesn't go far enough and I oppose it. The UK Government should embrace the future relationship with the EU as we laid out in 'Securing Wales' Future'. We must take responsibility in this Senedd as events unfold to play our part to safeguard Wales, our economy and our people.

At this crucial time in our history, we all here have a duty to show leadership. From my point of view, and on these benches, that means to reject Theresa May's withdrawal agreement; it means to extend article 50; it means to stay in the single market; it means to stay in the customs union; and it means to push for a people's vote, including the option of remaining in the European Union. That's what the Plaid Cymru amendments are about and I exhort you all to vote for those, because what a mess we're in.

Two years since the Brexit referendum, now the reality of what Brexit actually means is starting to become clearer. Brexit means Brexit—or breakfast, notably, at one time. But, actually, Brexit means the economy taking a big hit. Brexit means businesses under pressure. Brexit means the future of key international business in Wales is in huge doubt. Brexit means prices on the high street are increasing. Brexit means stockpiling goods, stockpiling medicines. Brexit means, 'What future for farming in Wales?' Brexit means universities losing research funding. Brexit means students cannot access Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 and other innovative European learning. That's what Brexit means.

And, in addition, the leave campaign is under investigation for potential illegality of funding, constituting electoral fraud. The proposed deal is worse than being in the European Union. 'No deal' is worse than being in the European Union. There are no sunlit Brexit uplands. People were lied to in 2016. There is no scenario where the economy is going to get better. There is no—[Interruption.] 

You were saying people were lied to in 2016. What about the lies that took us into Europe? Are they nothing to them? We would never surrender our parliamentary sovereignty. We would keep full rights over all our fishing. We would never be asked to go into a single currency. There would be the supremacy of British courts. They are the lies that took us into Europe, David, and I fell for them because I voted for a free trading agreement with the European Union. It's morphed into something entirely different to that. We were never told that that was what was going to happen. So, who's told the lies? Not the people trying to get people to come out of Europe; it was those who told the lies to get us into Europe.

I can remember a big red bus: £350 million a week for the NHS. That is one massive lie, admitted to by Nigel Farage on the day of the vote. What shocking campaigning. David Cameron will go down as one of the UK's worst Prime Ministers ever. Mind you, it's a crowded field. [Laughter.] There is no deal that is better than the one we currently have as members of the European Union. Labour's vote of no confidence and trigger of a general election is also a completely irrelevant distraction as well, as Labour are equally divided on Europe. 

In this Chamber two weeks ago, in trumpeting ditching what I still call the continuity Act, and conceding powers by way of a non-statutory inter-governmental agreement, Labour here said they had full trust and respect in the Westminster Government, and said Wales was trusted and respected too, despite all evidence to the contrary, and the Cabinet Secretary's own experience in being sidelined. Now, if the bad deal from Theresa May is rejected, Labour want a vote of no confidence in a Government that, only two weeks ago, they had full trust and confidence in, with Wales's fledgling powers gleefully conceded without a second thought.

So, we face a choice between a bad deal, a 'no deal' or a pointless general election. The people spoke in 2016—yes, they did. The people were lied to in 2016. The people deserve a second chance to vote when the full gravity of the mess that the UK has got itself into has become crystal clear to everybody. And it is obvious that it is beyond the wit of politics to sort this mess out. Vote for a people's vote, and the option—[Interruption.] Mandy, so polite.  

A lot of you ask for a people's vote when you know Wales voted to leave. How can you go for a second vote—a people's vote—when the first vote has not been implemented yet? Secondly, if you did get a second referendum—a people's vote—and it produced Wales voting leave again, would you honour that result? 

The facts have become clear. We honour results. David Melding was saying we've stood in elections, some of us, we've lost in elections—I've lost more elections than I've won. Of course, I respect the result and no wittering on about what a sad failure I am—I just get up, dust myself down, and stand again—much like David Melding would do, no doubt. But in terms of a people's vote, the facts have changed. The facts, in fact, have become clear. People were lied to. They deserve to have a vote on the facts as now presented, and the fact that Westminster cannot sort this out. There is not a better deal in leaving. It is obvious that any deal from Westminster is worse than being a member of the European Union. So, that's why I exhort people to vote for a people's vote and the option of remaining in the European Union. Diolch yn fawr. 

The Prime Minister has the horrendous task of reconciling many conflicting opinions and priorities, whilst also seeking to honour the referendum result, deliver a new comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement, protect people's jobs and security, and maintain the integrity of our United Kingdom. As the UK international trade Secretary said this summer, there had to be compromises, but Brexit had been backed by 17.4 million, and legislation implementing that decision had been approved by MPs. It is regrettable that some on both sides of the debate are now promoting worse-case scenarios only, rather than reflecting upon the potential of the withdrawal agreement to deliver the referendum result and take back control of our borders, laws, money and bilateral trade, whilst also delivering a mutually beneficial future relationship with the EU. 

Almost two years ago, Brexiteers and remainers on the Assembly External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee united in calling for a post-exit transition period after having taken detailed evidence. Quoting Mr Drakeford himself, our January 2017 report said:

'There must be no cliff edge to UK membership of the EU. The complexity of Article 50 negotiations means they will inevitably focus on how the UK will extricate itself from current arrangements. Future relationships with the EU and the rest of the world will have to be developed and agreed over a far longer period. Transitional arrangements which remain as close as possible to the existing position will provide the most stable platform for future negotiations',

exactly as this agreement does. 

Our August 2017 report included: the Road Haulage Association told us that transitional arrangements may be necessary to ensure supply chain efficiency for the UK and EU; the Freight Transport Association drew a comparison with the phased way in which the tariffs were harmonised when the UK entered the European Economic Community, and argued that a similar phased process may need to be agreed for Brexit. In a similar vein, the Road Haulage Association warned that the absence of transitional arrangements, or an outcome that results in no deal, could have serious negative consequences for Welsh ports. So, negotiations have followed a staged process that was known and understood and agreed from the outset, but some choose to misrepresent this as time wasted. 

Future negotiations have to fit into the political clock, with EU elections in 2019. And even when the detailed future relationship is then agreed, time will be needed to put the new trade and customs arrangements in place. Last December, the European Council agreed that sufficient progress had been achieved in phase 1 of the Brexit negotiations. On that basis, they adopted draft guidelines to move to the second phase of negotiations, where both parties started discussions on a transition period and the framework for the future relationship. The UK and the EU agreed the transition period that will lead to the orderly withdrawal of the UK in March. In May, UK Ministers accepted that once the future relationship with the EU has then been agreed, there would have to be an extended period of customs union membership for the whole of the UK, while technology was developed to monitor the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland without imposing more permanent structures. 

Some are therefore choosing to use what was agreed and accepted seven and eight months ago as an excuse for opposing the withdrawal agreement now. The legal text is clear: that both parties want to avoid the use of the backstop and that article 50 cannot establish a permanent relationship. And the EU themselves have made it very clear that they do not want a post-Brexit UK to remain in extended customs union and single market membership. However, we now see the grotesque chaos of Labour MPs in north Wales saying that they will vote against the withdrawal agreement because the UK would remain subject to EU rules for a period beyond our membership, when, from the outset, Welsh Labour's joint Brexit White Paper with Plaid Cymru called for the UK to remain subject to these rules forever. So, even within Wales, the Labour Party seems unable to sing from the same song sheet.

Wales voted to leave the European Union, not the United Kingdom, yet Plaid Cymru tries to keep Wales in the EU, and drag it out of the UK, despite the UK being Wales's biggest single market, by many, many multiples. Plaid Cymru complains that Wales is not mentioned in the withdrawal agreement, but neither is Scotland, and nor, except in the Bank of England, England either. The only EU referendums to be rerun are those treaty referendums in both Denmark and Ireland, which went against the EU. They severely damaged public confidence, they severely damaged the reputation of the EU. We don't want to see that sort of activity repeated here. UK funding to the EU is double the funding it receives back. This will in future be retained in the UK, and we all recognise that Wales should then receive the same quantum of funding as now.

As Paul Davies said, when the NFU Cymru president met the Prime Minister at last week's Royal Welsh Show's winter fair, he said:

'During this positive meeting, I commended the fact that the deal she has agreed is as close as possible to the free and frictionless trade conditions for agricultural and food products that we have been lobbying for over the past couple of years.'

And the UK can also negotiate trade agreements with third countries, ready for implementation after the transition period. At the G20 summit last week, the Prime Minister discussed trade with a number of countries—with Japan looking forward to being able to discuss the UK's possible membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for a trans-Pacific partnership. No small players there.

So, instead of rejecting this deal, creating uncertainty and damaging jobs and investment, let us be big enough to build towards an outward-looking Wales, within a global UK, by acknowledging the arguments made by Paul Davies, and recognising that this is a compromise for us all. I was a leaver, David was a remainer, but we recognise that, without compromise, the whole of the United Kingdom—Wales, not least of all—will be severely damaged. Thank you.

This afternoon, I'll put my contribution into two parts, and the first part will be based upon my role as Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. And I'm pleased that we've already had comments from Jane Hutt and Mark Isherwood, reflecting upon some of the work we've done since we were established, following the 2016 referendum, with the purpose of considering the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union. Since that time, we've attempted to consider the implications across a wide range of sectors, and where we've considered it necessary, we've sought to influence the Brexit process, both in London and in Brussels, having the Welsh voice heard as much as possible. And I will try and consider this bit of my contribution balanced as much as possible, reflecting the committee's work.

We've spent two and a half years gathering this evidence—we haven't just done this over a short period of time—so we were able to respond quickly to the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration, and the analysis of that, and we came across seven broad areas. And we've published a report, which I hope Members have had a chance to look at. Seven areas: economy and trade with the EU; ports and transport; agriculture, food and fisheries; energy and environment; healthcare; equality and human rights; institutional arrangements—all critical to the future of Wales. And we also, in that short space of time, managed to get the expertise of an external adviser—Dr Tobias Lock from Edinburgh Law School—who provided a legal analysis of the withdrawal agreement and its implications. That's why that paper is so important for you to read—it is not our view, it is an external's view, without any bias whatsoever, and it is crucial to this debate. I also want to put on record, Llywydd, the excellent work of the Assembly Commission staff, in turning around, in such a short space of time, the work that we've been able to read. Because you've had 10 days since the publication of the draft agreement and draft political declaration, and this work has been produced by the staff, and it's tremendous work. So, please, I think they should be credited for that work.

Llywydd, referring to the seven areas of policy, our analysis suggests that, in the short-term at least, the agreement will offer some much-needed stability for the Welsh economy—it's been reflected in some of the comments—due to the arrangements of the transition period, which we've all accepted and acknowledged. However, Mark Isherwodd also highlighted the timescales that are facing us during that transition period—European Parliament re-elections, a new Commission to be appointed, and if we want an extension—to be done by 1 July. So, the reality is you won't start negotiations until around about October, and you have to, by 1 July, come to a situation on an FTA of whether you want to extend the transition period or not. Everyone knows that you will not get an agreement in 10 months. So, the reality is we will be either seeking an extension or going into the backstop. That's the truth. Now, we'll have to accept that, and whereas Neil Hamilton marked 'XX', we all know it's 2020 or 2022—those are the dates we've been quoted. So, those are the dates that we've been quoted, and those are the dates that we know, because it says one or two years, and it says 2020. We will continue to operate under existing laws. So, businesses do have that reassurance. They will work as they are today. We can offer the Welsh economy a far less disruptive outcome than if the UK had failed to reach any form of agreement. However, let's not forget something else: during that transition period, we've lost all our formal routes of influence over EU law and our democratic representation in the EU. Our MEPs will be gone. We'll no longer have control over any of these aspects. We'll have lost our position on the Committee of the Regions, we'll have lost our position on other committees—we are losing our influence. 

And the backstop—let's not forget the backstop coming to force, and that's part of the agreement, to prevent a hard border. We all don't want a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, but it will possibly, and probably, come in if we can't get an agreement by 1 January 2021, and then it looks less good for Wales, because then we will probably have a regulatory alignment down the Irish sea and we'll have to address that. We've always highlighted the issues on ports and freight movement as a consequence of that. And the asymmetry of the devolution settlements will also become more pronounced raising questions about the power dynamics between the nations of the UK when it comes to managing the UK common market. By the way, we've had no reference to the UK common market post Brexit either, so where will our position be? They've just focused on the political declaration of the EU. So, what is the political declaration for the future of the UK and the nations within that?

So, moving on to the political declaration, it's clear the Government aspires to a position where we will be outside the single market and customs union but no certainty. You're talking about certainty for 2020, for the transition period—there is no certainty post 2020. We do not know where we will be, we do not know whether the cliff edge will actually occur on 31 December 2020, or not. It's just disastrous. 

Llywydd, I did say I wanted to put my backbencher's position on this, because I think it's important that I have an opportunity to speak, not just as a Chair, but as a Member of this Assembly. And my remaining contribution will be in that position. I respect the loyalty of Paul Davies, Mark Isherwood and David Melding to their party. But we are in a position of debating a poor deal because this Tory UK Government cannot agree on what it actually wants to achieve. It started with the term 'Brexit means Brexit'. Anyone yet worked it out? [Laughter.] I haven't. And it ends up with the shambolic position of 'Brexit means staying in the customs union with no voice'. That's where we are—a total failure after two years of abysmal negotiating. 

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has actually voiced already the strong reflection on the withdrawal agreement, so I won't repeat that. But on the political declaration, it's also clear that this has actually been an afterthought. Mark Isherwood said they were in a position back in December last year to start talking about the future, because they'd already agreed certain parts. May came, they were in an able position. It's an afterthought, it is not a future relationship with the EU. The initial six pages were a wish list. It's been beefed up in a week to 26 pages, and it doesn't give us any confidence that it will secure the economy or the future of businesses in Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary also highlighted the weaknesses to have equivalence in workers' rights—I use the word 'equivalence', because the UK Government here likes the word 'equivalence' a lot—equality legislation and human rights. It's not there, just 'no regression'. That's what is says. It doesn't say, 'We will keep pace with what's going on with our colleagues in Europe.' 

Llywydd, I think it's important, since we have a deal on the table, to reflect upon one thing: the PM has embarked on a charm offensive. She's going around the country trying to persuade the public to convince her rebellious MPs to support it. Well, if she wants the public to support it, she should go to the public. Simple as that. She should go to the public and ask the public whether they agree with this deal or not. Now, is that a people's vote? Is that a public vote? Go to the public. Is it a general election? Go to the public. Now, I actually acknowledge the wording of amendment 3 by Plaid Cymru, but whilst that will delete point 6 of the Government's motion I think it offers the same principle: go to the public one way or another—a general election or people's vote. That's what it offers. And that's what we want to do.

Will the Member give way?

Of course, I was waiting for it. Yes, of course I will.

I respect the seriousness with which the Member is approaching this issue, but would he not accept that the reason we're having this debate is that we want to send the message to that other Parliament, which, in a matter of days, will be voting on a series of subject-specific amendments? The amendment that will be laid down will not say 'either/or'—either a general election or a people's vote. There will be an amendment just on the people's vote, and it's not clear, based on the Government's motion, what position this Parliament is taking, unless it supports Plaid Cymru's amendment.

I accept the point he's trying to make—you know, do you want to make a specific point or do you want to actually say, 'Well, actually, there are options available to get a public perception on this', and I think point 6 makes those options available. However, I am going to share colleagues' view that I doubt very much whether the Prime Minister will accept any of the options, because she knows that she will lose that as well.

Llywydd, I'll finish by saying this: the deal is shoddy; it fails to protect the Welsh economy; it will see a decline in our economy of 3.9 per cent—even the UK Government's figures say that—and that's if we do not consider the impact upon Wales being worse because of our manufacturing and cultural sectors; and it does not give long-term assurance to businesses or our citizens. We must leave all our MPs who will be making that vote clear that we do not accept this deal.

It is a pleasure to speak today to the Plaid Cymru amendments and in favour of those amendments, of course, and I do so on behalf of the Arfon constituency, one of the constituencies that was most robust in its support for remaining within the European Union, with over 60 per cent having voted to remain. And, according to a recent opinion poll, 71 per cent of the people of Arfon would now vote to remain, should there be a second vote—and the only way out of this mess is a second vote, a people's vote. There is no purpose in having a general election. Jeremy Corbyn would not campaign to remain in the single market. Therefore, you would have more confusion, more uncertainty, if he were to win a general election. So, I urge you on the Labour benches who know that in your own hearts—do support amendment 3 in the name of Plaid Cymru. That's why we have tabled it here today.

The people of Arfon have come to the conclusion that remaining in the single market and customs union is the best possible solution for everyone living there. Therefore, on their behalf this afternoon, I state that I am rejecting the Theresa May withdrawal agreement. The economic argument is clear. The Arfon constituency is part of west Wales and the Valleys, and gross domestic product is low, and as a result it receives funding from the European Union—similar to southern Spain, Portugal and the former communist states within Europe. Arfon also receives INTERREG funding to promote connections with the Republic of Ireland, and there is some concern locally about the lack of detail, the shocking lack of detail, as to what will replace those funding sources for the future.

Bangor University and Ysbyty Gwynedd are in the Arfon constituency, and both institutions have a high number of staff from other EU nations, as well as students at Bangor University, of course. One of the largest private sector employers in Arfon is a German company working in medical technologies. Arfon is a tv production centre that works with other broadcasters within the European Union, and Arfon is one of the areas where the Welsh language is strongest, with 85 per cent of young people having benefited from bilingual education provision. Speaking two, three, four languages is normal within the European Union at an official, social and cultural level, which gives us confidence that the Welsh language will survive within that European context. Outwith that union, the future is less hopeful. That partially explains the substantial support in Arfon for remaining within the EU. Sustaining people's rights and equality legislation is crucial to that too.

Turning now to the second part of my comments this afternoon, it's a privilege for me to work with the MP for Arfon, Hywel Williams, who is part of an active and very effective Plaid Cymru team in London. Wales is fortunate in the four who are battling for our nation in the corridors of power in London. Hywel has taken a full part in the discussion on Brexit, has introduced numerous amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill, and has contributed eagerly as a member of the EU withdrawal select committee. He and Plaid Cymru have been entirely consistent in opposing withdrawal before the referendum, and we are in favour of remaining within the single market and the customs union. That is why Hywel, along with others, took part in a case in the European Court recently.

Today, there was confirmation of what Plaid Cymru has been arguing. The senior adviser of the European Court of Justice has stated today that he is of the view that the UK could abolish article 50 and remain within the European Union without the need for the consent of the other nations of the union. This is contrary to what Mrs May has been saying. This, in my view, is a game changer, and enables the Government—not the Westminster Parliament—to scrap the process if they want to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit, or if a people's vote demonstrates that public opinion has shifted since 2016. We're expecting confirmation of this decision in the European Court of Justice before Christmas and, believe you me, this could be of huge significance for my constituents in Arfon, for the people of Wales, and for the future of our nation. So, today, I do urge you to join us on these benches in sending an unambiguous message from our national Senedd, and I therefore ask you to support the Plaid Cymru amendments.

The Cabinet Secretary opened this debate by saying we were voting before the House of Commons, that he wanted to influence MPs, that Welsh Government believes the House of Commons should vote down the withdrawal agreement, and he concluded by saying he hopes this National Assembly will send a clear message that the withdrawal agreement is unacceptable and should be rejected. Inspiring words, but they aren't reflected in his motion, and Steffan Lewis drew attention to this, and I must admit I'm equally perplexed. I just don't understand what you, Cabinet Secretary, or your team of Welsh Ministers or—aside from sort of venting their fury with the electorate for not agreeing with them—what backbenchers on the Labour side want to achieve through this motion today. It merely takes note of the withdrawal agreement. It notes a couple of particular, less controversial parts of it; it then notes that we'll have a further opportunity to debate the withdrawal agreement, apparently, when we're to give legislative consent to the withdrawal agreement Bill, yet the Cabinet Secretary then goes on to say that it's inevitable that the House of Commons is going to vote down the withdrawal agreement, and I think we all know in this debate, which makes it slightly surreal, that the House of Commons is going to vote down this withdrawal agreement and is going to do so by a very substantial majority.

So, what next? It seems that, for the Labour Party, and I think for Welsh Government, there is a sort of gamble that, by voting against the withdrawal agreement—at least in the House of Commons, while we merely take note of it here—that will somehow lead to a general election or to a so-called people's vote, notwithstanding that we've had a people's vote that they don't want to implement. What I don't see is how that's going to happen. John McDonnell says that there's not going to be a general election and that isn't going to work, and then how are they going to get this so-called people's vote? You need legislation for a referendum, and legislation needs (a) Government time and (b) a money motion, which only the Government can put down. So, how, given that they're not going to get this general election, are they then going to get this so-called people's vote? And I don't know the answer to that. It may be that Jeremy Corbyn is happy to take that gamble, because he is content to leave the European Union without a deal. That may well be. 

I first met Jeremy Corbyn in the 'no' lobby; we were one of 13 MPs voting against the establishment of the European External Action Service, and I met him on numerous occasions thereafter on various EU matters where we were of the same view. I hope he still is of the same view, because I think, once this withdrawal agreement is voted down in the Commons, I don't accept that the alternative is no deal. Yes, there will be WTO trade rules, but I wouldn't put an overemphasis on that; I accept they don't fully allow for frictionless trade, and there are some problems and issues with them, but a hard border in Northern Ireland is not one of them. But what there will be is a series of sectoral deals to mitigate particular issues that arise and to smooth our exit from the European Union in the interests of both sides. They may not be called withdrawal agreements, it's not clear that they can pass the vote in the House of Commons, but there will be agreements of some sort, and we will, I trust, then leave the European Union.

Now, I think in some areas of this withdrawal agreement—and I don't want to take a different approach from the relatively consensual debate we've had at least on these benches so far, and I have huge respect for the position articulated by David Melding, who spoke with great passion in favour of the European Union, but understands that, when you have a referendum, and when you promise to implement the result, when the vast majority of MPs, including the vast majority of Labour MPs, voted to trigger article 50, and neither that motion nor the referendum itself said, 'subject to there being a particular deal that we later like with the European Union', then what you have to do is you have to implement that result. It's all very well to say, 'You have another election', but, before you have another election, the people who are elected at that election go to the legislature and legislate for a term; the result of the election is thus respected. The result of this referendum was to leave, and we need to leave. I would prefer it was with a deal; I would prefer it was with a better deal than this one. But, in some areas, this deal delivers on things that at least some 'leave' voters wanted: broadly, on freedom of movement—it does provide for the end of freedom of movement—and also, after the transition period, which, unfortunately, might be extended, it would then provide for at least less money, and probably not great sums of money, continuing to go to the European Union. So, in that sense, there are some positives, but, for me, the negatives are overriding, and they are, first and foremost, that we can't get out of it. At least with the European Union, there is article 50. With this, we cannot get out of it without the agreement of some other body, and I do not think that, as a sovereign United Kingdom, we should be putting ourselves in that position.

And also in terms of trade. Now, there was some debate in the referendum as to whether we should leave the single market, and I think the 'leave' campaigners were clear that we should, and particularly Michael Gove. There was not the same debate about the customs union, because it was taken as a given we were leaving the customs union—the customs union was the founding project of the European Union. The arguments for the customs union are much weaker than the arguments around the single market. We pay much more in customs duty than other EU countries because we import more from outside, and, broadly, those customs duties hurt the poor, both in other countries who can't sell to us as well, and here because the poor, proportionately, spend more of their income on the goods to which the tariffs are applied. If we stay in a customs union, as proposed in this withdrawal agreement, and certainly within the backstop, then the European Union will decide our trade policy without our having any say in it. They will be able to use our UK market and go to third countries and say, 'Hey, give us a reduction in your tariffs for EU exporters, and, if you do, as a bonus, we'll give you access to the UK market on better terms.' Yet, in return, those markets will not have to open up their countries to UK exporters. It is that unfairness that just makes no sense. It is a hugely unattractive thing to do, and I'm just perplexed that Labour Members in the House of Commons, or potentially here, do not seem to understand that.

The single market versus the customs union—people here may take a different view, but, in Westminster, perhaps they just don't like the sound of it being a market and they like the sound of it being a union. But, actually, if you think about it, from first principles, the idea of being in a customs union, where you have absolutely no power there and can be used by others in their trade negotiations, is a deeply unattractive one. It is what we're offered in the backstop and we can't get out of it without someone else's agreement. So, for those reasons, I oppose this withdrawal agreement, but I welcome the tone of the debate we have had on the Conservative benches, and because, for reasons I don't entirely understand, the Welsh Government say it's terribly important to send a message that we're against the withdrawal agreement, while not actually offering us an opportunity in the motion to do that, I look forward to opposing their motion, as well as the amendments.

It is right that this Chamber represents the very passionate and strongly held views of the people we represent. They deserve no less, but they also deserve far more, as we approach the most pivotal point for our citizens and our economy.

The deal negotiated by Theresa May is bad for Britain, it is bad for Wales and it is bad for Islwyn. It is often repeated these days that contemporary politics is so unpredictable, well, let me give the Chamber two facts that are clear. The Welsh public are fed up with Brexit and the way that the UK Tory Government have ineptly handled the matter, from Cameron to Boris and to May. The majority of Members of Parliament from across all sides of the Palace of Westminster oppose Theresa May's Brexit plans. So, how did the UK Tory Government end up with a deal that pleases no-one and nobody? It is not often that I quote Tory politicians in this place, and I'm sure Mark Isherwood AM will forgive me if I get shouty, but I must accurately quote Michael Heseltine, who is the boy from Swansea who became, as you know, the Tory UK Deputy Prime Minister, interviewed on the Sunday Politics Wales show this weekend. When asked what advice he would give the strong and stable Prime Minister, he stated

You can't expect to change your mind on the most important issue of peacetime politics in my lifetime and have credibility talking about unifying the country.

Michael Heseltine, the man who brought down Thatcher, goes to the the heart of the matter, I think.

Do you remember Theresa May's contribution, as Home Secretary, to the 2016 Brexit referendum, because I, frankly, don't? We know that Theresa May was nominally campaigning for 'remain', and I suppose we know from the 2017 general election that the Prime Minister is, even if she has had her chips, no natural campaigner, so, is it any wonder we are where we are with May in charge? Even after Cameron and Osborne's rapid nosedives from their listing ship, I do almost feel sorry for her, but I don't.

In contrast, the Labour Party have been clear throughout the negotiations that the deal must meet our test for a jobs-first Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer actually have been very, very clear that any deal would have to include a permanent customs union, with the UK having a say over future trade agreements, a strong single market deal and guarantees on workers' rights and consumer and environmental protections.

I, as a democrat, respect the decision of the people in 2016, and that is why I have supported the process of negotiation with the European Union. However, I will not stand idle and allow the people of Islwyn to suffer further economically, through the Tories in England, who have a Victorian utopian fantasy of creating a low-tax, low-regulation economy, even after the last crash, ably supported by Osborne's Mansion House speech. For the working class people I represent, I know what that type of economy means—misery as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, as they continue to give tax breaks to the rich and prosecute and persecute the poor. Ask the UN.

So, the message from the communities of Islwyn is loud and clear to the Prime Minister, 'If the House of Commons votes down your so-called deal on 11 December, do the honourable thing: dissolve Parliament and call a general election.' Michael Heseltine summed it up succinctly when asked what practical advice he would offer the Prime Minister, and I quote, 

You have to move over, it's all over.

And I support the motion proposed by Julie James AM. Diolch.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing us today's debate on Brexit. Thanks also to David Melding, who I thought made many pertinent points—he often does. Now, if I can look first at the wording of the Government's motion, it states that the Welsh Government 

'regrets that neither Wales or Scotland are mentioned'

in either the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU. End quote. Now, why do Wales and Scotland need to be mentioned? They are both regions of the UK. The vote was a vote of the UK as a whole, and, as we know, the UK voted to leave. Whatever we think—[Interruption.] Whatever we think about the proposed Brexit deal, surely we can agree that it is the UK that is the nation state that is rightfully negotiated with in these circumstances. Foreign policy is not a devolved matter. In constitutional terms, therefore, Brexit is nothing to do with Wales or Scotland. In any event, if the Government really wants to—[Interruption.] No, I won't. If the Government really wants to push this point, then it is faced by the rather large, inconvenient fact that Wales voted to leave—the same as the UK as a whole did.

The Government motion then talks about citizens' rights, by which what is largely meant is EU citizens' rights. I would pose the following question: is the UK Government running the UK for the benefit of British citizens or for the benefit of non-British EU citizens? Obviously, the rights of the British people are paramount here. The rights of foreigners are well down the list, and the vote to leave was itself, in part, a declaration of that very fact by the British people.

Now, can I look at the issue of workers' rights? By leaving the EU without a deal, and at the same time ending the free movement of cheap labour from the EU into the UK, you would actually strike the biggest blow in favour of workers' rights in Wales for 30 years. So, you would expect Labour to be in favour of that, but no; Welsh Labour want to allow big business to continue to flood the job market with imported cheap labour from the EU. The overall effect of this is to push down wages, to lower working conditions, and to disincentivise industry from investing in workers' training and development. This would increase productivity, because the real problem of British industry lies in the productivity gap, which could be at least partially addressed by ending the free movement of people. But, of course, the Welsh Labour Government have wedded themselves to big business and to cheap foreign labour, and still Welsh Labour—or should I call them 'cheap Labour'?—has the audacity to talk in this useless motion today about workers' rights. Message to the cheap Labour Party from the Welsh working class: get real.

A final phrase from Labour's motion:

'either a general election or a public vote'.

A general election fought on what basis? What did the UK Labour manifesto say last time we had a general election? It was in favour of respecting the referendum result and leaving the European Union. Has the UK Labour Party policy changed since then? Well, who can say? Of course, the tragicomical element in all this is that we have a First Minister here—although he's not here today—who berates the leavers for having no plan, and he suggests that he does, but his own party leader in Westminster, Jeremy Corbyn, has a policy position on Brexit that nobody even understands. What is Corbyn's position? Has it changed? Nobody knows. What an absolute joke Labour is on Brexit.

Now, what do Plaid say in their amendments? Well, they explicitly call for a people's vote—that strange phrase, 'the people's vote'. What does it mean? What do they think we had in 2016—a monkeys' vote? What's the point of having another people's vote—so called—if you aren't going to take a blind bit of notice of what happened in the first one? So, can we just take Plaid's amendments and put them where they belong, which is also in the bin? [Interruption.] No. What motivates Plaid here is their own sectarian—[Interruption.] All right, Mark, go on.

I wonder if he might also just address his own amendment, which says that the UK will effectively stay in the single market. Isn't it actually Northern Ireland that that would happen to? And he then says that the UK Government has frustrated Brexit. Actually, to date, we're to leave on 29 March, and I hope and believe that will still happen, and doesn't he agree with that?

Thank you, Mark, and thanks for your contribution earlier, but I find it difficult to agree that the Government is preparing to leave when we don't any longer have a leave date. We have 29 December 20XX—we have no leave date at all now. We're in an even worse position than when we started. [Interruption.] I'm sorry, no, you've had your chance now, thank you. 

Can we just take—? I've done that bit; I've lost my place now. What motivates Plaid here is their own sectarian objectives. Plaid want Welsh independence—[Interruption.] I was using your joke from two weeks ago. Plaid want Welsh independence within the comfort blanket of the EU. So the UK leaving the EU does nothing to help their cause. There is no point in Labour and Plaid Cymru calling for another referendum, because they don't want to respect the result of the first one. Paul Davies was right on this point. The people of the UK have spoken. The people of Wales have already spoken. Today, both Labour and Plaid Cymru are showing their utter contempt for democracy, and their contempt for the intelligence of the British people. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Holyhead is closer to Dublin than it is to Liverpool. There's only half a mile or so in it, but in terms of trade, it's far more important, of course, and when I grew up, I felt that I grew up in a European frontier. I remember popping over to Dún Laoghaire for a curry on a Saturday night, and many weekends spent in Dublin. That was so much fun but, of course, the advantages of having that close link run far deeper than those evenings I spent on the emerald isle.

Now, what we're discussing today, this withdrawal agreement, is very different to what was promised back in 2016, and the fact that we have arrived at this point now shows to me the mistake—if you want to be kind—or the fraud, as I would see it, of not having proposed a plan for people before the referendum, because now we're discovering the reality of trying to withdraw from a relationship that has worked so favourably for us throughout my life. Now, I'm a proud European. I always have been because, as a nationalist and an internationalist from Wales, I want Wales to be part of wider networks. So, I'm happy to confirm what Gareth Bennett said: small, independent nations such as Wales do benefit from being part of international networks. I want an independent Wales to be part of British and European networks in future, for my children and for their children.

They're not intangible networks. They're genuine, real networks that do have a real impact. I've mentioned Holyhead already. I don't have to talk about the importance of that port in the context of the economy of Anglesey but, of course, it is a vital crossing in terms of the relationship between Britain and the European Union: the second busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the British isles, second to Dover. The trade traffic through Holyhead has increased by 694 per cent since the single European market was created. Now, easy movement throughout Holyhead is vital to the economic health of the port and that town, and we don’t have to imagine the impact that a hard withdrawal from the European Union would have. We have no certainty under what is being proposed in the agreement at present. Yes, there's mention made of a backstop agreement, and that there will be no change for now and so forth, but I'm not happy to take a risk with that kind of uncertainty. We know that a hard border would be very damaging, but we know that there are ferries—not ideas and threats—but ferries that are being built to make that direct crossing from Holyhead to the European continent.

If I can turn to agriculture, it's so important to Anglesey economically, socially, culturally and linguistically. We already see the impact of Brexit before we withdraw in the 'Brexit and our land' consultation, which does lay the foundation for eradicating direct payments to family farms, and to farms in general. And, there's the threat to markets used by our farmers. The farming unions say that, perhaps, yes, this agreement is better than no agreement at all, and the total uncertainty that that would cause. But, there is room to halt this entire process, and that's the only thing that can provide some certainty for farmers.

Then, there's the whole Brexit narrative. Undermining Europe is not the only aim here—I have no doubt about that—but making Wales more British and less Welsh. We saw it in the Royal Welsh Show, with Welsh food being branded as British food. This week, I saw pictures of lamb from Wales being sold in Morrisons with the union jack stamped on it—that's not something that's happened before. The chief executive of Hybu Cig Cymru has referred to a study that shows that the Welsh brand is a far more effective and stronger brand than the British brand when selling to markets such as France and Germany, and Italy as well, I think.

And, it's not just meat that I'm talking about here. Ninety-seven per cent of mussels from the Menai straits go to EU markets, and they have to arrive within that golden hour of being harvested. That's the threat to them. And salt: Halen Môn—the best salt in the world, without a doubt—is very proud of being a Welsh and European product, and has benefited significantly from having that European protected status.

There's so much more that we could refer to in terms of Anglesey's relationship with the EU. SEACAMS, the department at Bangor University that innovates in the field of technology with regard to the sea, which has contributed much on marine energy, has benefited greatly from European funding. Orbital, a company from Scotland, has this week signed an agreement with the Morlais energy park, and Orbital has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020.

I will draw this to a conclusion—time is against me. Young people in Anglesey are the cohort that I'm concerned about. The opportunities that are lost to them: the opportunities in education; opportunities to work. This pride in shutting off the free movement of people once and for all is something that is alien to me as a father of three children, who sees the world as their oyster and sees the opportunities in that regard. And do you know what? Young people understand. We know that as many as 70 per cent of young people, if not more, between 18 and 24 voted to remain in the European Union. We are sacrificing their futures in the name of some kind of perverse democracy that rejects giving people a second vote.

There are two reasons why I give my support to a people's vote: one, isn't it a worth making a decision on the basis of genuine evidence, and therefore looking at what the barriers are? Secondly, isn't it important that democracy is something that is as contemporary as possible? That's why elections are held every few years, because people do change their minds. The reason that people lose faith in one idea, one party, is that they see new evidence and they change their minds. The evidence has changed. The evidence is clear to us. Let us take a contemporary vote and show that we, as the National Assembly for Wales, are serious about democracy here today—not democracy based on the lies of a few years ago.  

I rise to speak with a dispensation from members of my group in recognition of my consistent call for a People's Vote, and I will, therefore, be supporting amendment 3.

And what I want to say here is—. I'm going to quote a politician that I would normally be loath to quote, and that politician talked about the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. And that, I think, is where we are today with this whole Brexit scenario. We have more unknown unknowns than ever before. And we all know that the next few days and weeks are critical, but the legal, the political, and the constitutional permutations are all unknown. So, I think it's incumbent upon politicians to make known their views and their intentions and to be honest about what they believe is best for Britain and best for Wales. And that is why I will be supporting amendment 3. I will call for a people's vote on the final agreement between the UK and the EU, including an option for the UK to remain a member state of the European Union. I will also be supporting that on behalf of the young people who never had a chance to vote because they weren't yet of voting age, yet they expressed their view and their wish for their futures to become secure without that power.

I think and I understand full well and do respect the vote that was returned, but let's be absolutely clear about the vote that was returned. First of all, we had a referendum, and this was supposed to be the referendum that was brought about by a party to actually quell and finally put to bed their internal argument about being members of the European Union. So confident was the then Prime Minister that he was going to get a vote to remain in the European Union, he actually didn't bother to do any work whatsoever to promote that idea. When he finally woke up, it was too late. When he lost the biggest gamble that this country has ever had, he left. He left the country to its own devices. And when the lies that are now coming out persuaded people to vote to leave, exactly the same happened the other side. Farage has left the country. Where did he go? Germany. That's where he's gone.

So, let's be clear about what's happened here. Let's be clear about what people really thought they were voting for—and those buses. We've all seen the lies emblazoned on those buses. None of them will be delivered. None of them will be delivered. So, when we know what it is that people have really voted for, when we know what that is, then let's go back to the people if you've got such confidence—I can hear you shouting over there. If you've got such confidence that people are going to support what the reality is, then give them a chance to do that. Because that is what people do. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way. I've heard enough from you, because you were part of that process that led us to where we are today. 

We're all going to be better off, are we? You tell that to the young people who might not be able to take part in knowledge exchange for the future, to learn what is out there beyond the boundaries of the UK. You take that to the people that I was talking to who are very proud—and Wales is extremely proud of being a leading partner in the innovation in medicines. You tell that to the doctors who were pleading with me when I was at an event the other day that we don't throw all that away. You tell that to the workers whose rights were not given to them in this country. I don't know how many of you actually understand that part-time workers had no entitlement whatsoever to paid holiday pay—I don't know how many of you know that—but I know one thing: my mother knew it, until she managed to get that when the Labour Government decided to implement that change here. So, you need to wake up when you're talking about the rights. You need to wake up when you think about the consequences. 

And what about human rights? We hear it from the side over there, 'Don't let them have rights', but I'll tell you one thing now, when you remove rights from people, you remove your own rights, and you don't know what rights you need until you need them. You don't know what protection you need until you're in that position. I am a little bit fed up also of hearing about removing human rights as though you can somehow allow them for some people and not for others. I hear it all the time. If anybody really believes that there aren't gaps between the current status that we have now and the bill of rights, what I suggest is that they mind the gap, because I'm really concerned that people are going to fall through that.

So, I clearly want to put it back to the people. I want them to have an opportunity, so that when they fully understand what this is going to mean to them—not the lies and the innuendos that we've heard, but the real choice of what they will be letting themselves in for—then I think that we can all get on and move forward, and at least give people a real chance to say, 'Now we know what we voted for, now we've made our choice.' 

After listening to so many good speeches, I don't think I will have much to say, but the fact is, I will say a few things. 

When the first election happened—devolution for this Chamber in 1997—there was only a 6,721 majority and we are here, and the majority for the UK to leave Europe was 1,269,501. So, actually, there was a clear majority for people to leave Europe. There is no quarrel. I met a lot of people before May 2016, and met so many constituents, including from farming communities. I can't explain in this Chamber the language they used when I went to Raglan market to meet so many farmers, and there were so many that were anti-Europe. I met so many teachers, so many doctors, so many taxi drivers, so many shopkeepers—there's a long list, Presiding Officer. They were, actually, totally against Europe. I do not know why, but I can blame one or two people—one on that side of the Chamber and the other is our media.

You've probably forgotten what happened on the BBC and ITV, the channels that people watched, saw and agreed upon. We are not talking about those areas where people were guided in a different direction. Brexit means that in that referendum in 2016, people voted to bring our EU membership to an end and to create a new role for our country in the world. We need to deliver Brexit now that respects the decision of the British people; a Brexit that takes back control of our own borders, our law and our money; and a Brexit that sets us on course for a better future outside the EU as a globally trading nation in charge of our own destiny, seizing the opportunity of trade with some of the fastest growing and most dynamic economies across the world. Don't underestimate Great Britain. We were before 1973, without Europe, a great Britain, and we have the name. There are more than 200 countries around the globe, and 27—[Interruption.] Mike, go on. 

If things were so good in 1973, why did Prime Ministers in 1959 and 1973 all attempt to join the European Union?

Mike, you forgot the swinging 1960s. You probably didn't enjoy the time when Great Britain was actually in the lead in everything, and they were leading the world in all walks of life. [Interruption.] Wait a minute. We will control, after Brexit, Presiding Officer, we will control our own borders and free movement, once and for all. That isn't Brexit. We protect our jobs in this country, whether in Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland or England. We will control all of it. We will no longer send vast—. Money has been mentioned—£300 million a week will be stopped. And we'll probably use that money for our social services here, or the different areas. Our Government will use it, and we will be able to trade freely around the world with TWA. The thing is: Europeans are only 27 countries, not 200 countries. So, remember: we will be growing bigger. [Interruption.]  

Dawn Bowden. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Can I—

I've just given way. 

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I thought that was your flourish and your finish. I am sorry, Mohammad Asghar. Giving way to Steffan Lewis. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I think we were all getting rather excited that maybe the Member had reached his climax at that point. It certainly looked like that from where I was sitting. [Laughter.] The Member has just said that the UK will be free to trade with the rest of the world. At the moment, I keep hearing Brexiteers on the radio telling me that our biggest trading nation is the United States of America. How on earth does being in the European Union prevent us from trading with the rest of the world?

Listen: wait till Brexit on 29 March next year. We will be trading with China and other nations—Japan and others, Brazil. Don't forget—you're talking about Welsh lamb. We have the best commodities—Welsh water, even, we can sell to Arabs. You forget these areas. Look—[Interruption.] Go on.

As a journalist, I once accompanied a former First Minister on a trade mission to China, because Welsh businesses are already doing business with countries the length and breadth of the world, as well as being part of a single totally open and transparent market of over 0.5 billion people.

I'm glad to know that, but when I went there 10 years ago, I and Plaid Cymru leader at that time, Ieuan—ask him—do you know what the Chinese told us? 'What is Wales? Where is Wales?' I'm glad this Chamber has promoted our part of the world. London has promoted Wales, and now we are—. And don't forget there is over a billion population there, and we are like a little village for them, and the trading they will do with the United Kingdom, not Wales alone. Remember this. And Wales has an opportunity—don't forget that. We will keep ourselves safe—[Interruption.] We will be safe against crime and terrorism, don't forget, after this Brexit. People are staying in France and everywhere, crossing all of Europe to come into this country. Why? Because—[Interruption.] No, no, no, no. Because there are people like you—'Come over, do nothing, and we'll still pay you.' That is not the right way to do things. All the right people must come in. The people must come the right way here. And also the referendum means—in our language we say—[Interruption.] In our language—I'll translate in a minute: Zaban-e-khalk ko nikara khuda samjho. It means, in Indian: 'When people speak, it's the word of God.' So, remember this: when people decided Brexit, you must, must agree it—. We are all here as elected Members because, whether we won it by one vote or 1,000 votes, you are elected. You must respect Brexit. There is no way out.

And listen—[Interruption.] And listen to what your leader is saying. He—Mr Corbyn—[Interruption.] Mr Corbyn—he himself—do you know what he said? He's not acting in the interest of Brexit. He said he was opposed to the deal before he even read it. That is your leader. And also Jeremy Corbyn promised to respect the country's decision to leave, but has now opened the door to rerunning the referendum, which will take all of us back to square one. So, there is uncertainty and also uncertainty and division if we listen to Jeremy Corbyn. That is, Presiding Officer—. Our Prime Minister is actually—I wish her long life, and everything—she's virtually as equal to or better than Joan of Arc. She will be doing a better job for the United Kingdom, and she's doing it, and you're forgetting it.

We have achieved a deal. We have achieved a deal with the European Union to deliver the referendum, a deal the nation can unite behind. One Parliament should be back. Also, we will control our own everything—every political area and businesses the British will control. The economy—I'll come to this. We have delivered—[Interruption.] We have delivered a commitment to provide appropriate analysis to Parliament through robust objective assessment how exiting the EU may affect the economy of the UK sector by nation and region in the long run. This analysis shows that our deal is the best deal available for jobs, our economy, while allowing us to honour the referendum and realise the opportunity of Brexit. 

Presiding Officer, our unemployment, our wages, our—[Interruption.]

No. The Member is already out of time. He's not taking an intervention.

Basically—. I'm on the last few lines now. This economy is going to grow. Brexit is only the answer. What Theresa May has put in black and white—please read. That is in the interest of the nation and the interest of our next generation. This people's vote I think is a nonsense and a non-starter, because we already had one, so there is no need for that to be had and to endorse another one. It would never end. So, I'd be grateful if you—. We will, anyway, be opposing this whole lot, but thank you very much for listening. 

Well, thank you, Llywydd, and after that speech, I'm going to change my vote. [Laughter.]

Anyway, can I be clear from the start? This current deal—it fails us, it simply isn't good enough. It's unclear, it risks our safety and security, and it puts our economy at risk. Now, I spent many years as a negotiator, and in that time, I've seen lots of so-called 'final offers', but I always found that when Members say that the final deal's not good enough, you go back and you talk some more, and we end up getting a final deal, don't we? So, that's what you do. Now, I also know that people will be saying, 'Well, time's running out', and 'Where are we going to get this time to go back and speak some more?', because I also don't believe that a 'no deal' is any kind of realistic option, and the clock is ticking. So, where is the time going to come from? Well, in this Chamber, some months ago, I did ask whether it was time to pause the clock. I felt it was necessary then. I feel it even more now. And the legal advice—which I think Siân Gwenllian touched on earlier—that the UK Government now appears to have indicates that there's no impediment to seeking this. So, we should do that, and we should allow more time for those discussions to continue because Brexit is unchartered waters for everyone, including the EU-27, and the issues at stake are just too big to be rushed. So, before we set out to sea, let's at least try and be agreed on the map that's going to guide us to this new destination.

Now, Llywydd, I've always thought that our position in the EU was something to be proud of—our ability to influence and shape the market and the policies of the great continent of Europe. We had standing and we had respect. We are now being consigned to the status of bystander and observer. Now, I've always been—as others have said—proudly European. I'm a remainer. I'm proud to say that I campaigned vigorously for us to stay in the European Union because, as a socialist, for me, being part of the EU met my aspirations of active collectivism, pooling resources, working together, avoiding isolationism, and it's also why I am committed to a United Kingdom, because I believe that we are always stronger together.

But having heard Neil Hamilton's contribution earlier and the wringing of his hands about where we are and the poor deal that we have in front of us being worse than actually staying in, I can't help but reflect on what brought us here, and I'm going to repeat some of the things that Joyce Watson has said. What brought us here were the political divisions over Europe that have been the Achilles heel of the Conservative Party for more than 40 years. That internal division led David Cameron to putting the interests of the Tory party above the greater interests of this nation. It forced him to promise a referendum that we didn't need, to appease the hardline Eurosceptics in the Tory party. It was that Tory self-interest that brought us to where we are now. [Interruption.] No. He has to live with that for the rest of his life, and as Dai Lloyd quite rightly said, David Cameron, as a result of this, will, without doubt, go down in history as the worst Prime Minister of our time: the man who put the political interest of his own party before the future economic, social and political interests of an entire nation. Shame on him, and shame on the Conservative Party for allowing it to happen.

But despite all of my reservations, anger and sadness at what brought us here, I have sought to respect the outcome of this referendum, and even though I recall Nigel Farrage saying that if the vote had been 52 to 48 the other way around it was not over. Well, I'm telling you, comrades: this is not over.  I had hoped beyond hope that the UK would be able to negotiate a deal that helps to avoid the disaster that I currently feel beyond any doubt is coming our way. But this withdrawal agreement is not such a deal. We've heard this before I know, but it's worth repeating—there are companies in my constituency that share my fears. Companies who have trading arrangements deeply embedded with the EU, companies already disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit, companies dependent on tariff-free trade for their future business and retaining jobs in the local economy. They are not encouraged by anything that we have seen, and I genuinely fear that if we get this wrong, this will be the greatest act of self-harm that any nation has ever inflicted on itself. And it's our children who will have to live with the consequences of that, and it's the poorest in our society who will pay the biggest price for it. And as an elected representative, I can't vote for that outcome. As an elected representative, the easiest thing for me to do is to vote for the populist option. The hardest thing to do is to vote for the right option.

Llywydd, for a moment, let me also reflect on an issue that's also always been very close to my heart, and that's workers' rights—workers' rights that we have established through the European Union over many years; workers' rights, underpinned by European legislation, embodying that fine principle of an injury to one is an injury to all, which has mitigated some of the worst excesses of Tory attacks on workers' rights in this country. And no, Gareth Bennett, it is not EU migrant workers who drive down wages, it's unscrupulous employers, and it's our failure to deal with that that has been a national disgrace. So, I've read with interest the information about labour standards in the withdrawal agreement, and guess what? It's inadequate in that regard too. It does not provide the certainty that is required to avoid what can best be described as a race to the bottom. Clearly, many will base their fears for the future around the loss of access to the single market, and that, without doubt, is a huge consideration in this debate, and one that concerns me greatly, too, for all the reasons I've already mentioned. But I have equal fears about losing our place amongst the social policies of the EU, for, surely, our aim is that economic stability and social progress are linked together. And I'm just going to quote from one trade union legal firm that might be familiar to one or two people in this Chamber, and they've said:

'It is therefore abundantly clear that the commitments on non-regression of labour standards and compliance with International Labour Organisation and European Social Charter obligations will be ineffective'.

So, there's no reassurance in this agreement around so many aspects of our lives that we rely on for our future prosperity and security, and there's a deafening silence in the political declaration about protecting workers' rights. For me, that does not meet the test set either within the withdrawal agreement or the political declaration. So, our role today is clear: do we, as a National Assembly for Wales, give our agreement to the current withdrawal plan? And my answer is 'no'. Now that we know the extent of this folly, people must have the opportunity to vote again and decide whether the deal on the table is now really what they voted for. And I have to say, Paul, contrary to what you were saying earlier on, all of the indications now are that Wales no longer supports Brexit because now they know what it means—now they know what is actually on the table, they have changed their minds.

I hope that that's going to be done through a general election because I don't just want us to change direction on the EU, I want us to change direction on a whole host of domestic policies. The Government motion contains that vital call for a general election, and that's why it will receive my support and why I can't support the limitations of the Plaid amendment. But, somehow, after the last catastrophic election miscalculation for the Tories, I don't think that they're going to be making that same mistake again, and I don't believe that these particular turkeys will vote for an early Christmas. But the people must have their say, so if the Tories run away from another general election, then there must be a public vote that decides our future. Thank you.

Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I thank every Member who has contributed to this debate and to apologise because I don't have enough time to reply to every point that was made? What I'm going to try to do is draw some themes out of the debate, which has been broad-ranging, serious and, as we've heard, very vibrant and lively too.

Llywydd, there are five themes that I would like to just draw out of the debate this afternoon before turning to what individual parties have said. Can I begin by picking up a point that Paul Davies made very early on in the debate and to which Rhun ap Iorwerth and Joyce Watson both returned? It is a very serious point, which is about the divisiveness of the debate and the intergenerational tensions that it has thrown up in our country and the obligation that any one of us in public life ought to feel about healing those divides and using language and an approach to this debate that has a chance of healing, rather than dividing, the divisive fissures that this whole business has opened up.

A second theme that I think you can hear in everything that has been said this afternoon is that of complexity—how quickly the promises that we were told in the beginning of how easy it all would be have evaporated, as, every time you explore the process of separating from a relationship in which we have a 40-year stake, the complexity of doing that. And that's been a theme in many contributions this afternoon.

Certainly, in a third theme, a whole series of Members, and, not unexpectedly, members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee—in particular Jane Hutt and Dai Rees, its Chair—have pointed to the seriousness of what is at stake in this whole debate and the deal that we're asked to pass a judgment on: the flow of medicines into the United Kingdom, the impact on supply chains, on prospects of economic growth, the impact on equalities—whether that be for workers' rights, as Dawn Bowden said, or the impact on women, as Jane Hutt pointed to—on ports, on energy, on environment, on our standing, our security and our respect in the world. All of those matters are at stake in this debate.

And there's a wider context to it beyond our direct membership and the deal, which Siân Gwenllian pointed to—our membership of INTERREG, our membership of Creative Europe, those other networks from which we have gained so much and contributed to so much as a nation during our time in the European Union—and, beyond the European Union, the point that David Rees and David Melding both made about the future of the United Kingdom itself beyond the European Union as well. These are profoundly important matters, and this wide-ranging debate has touched on them all. But, in the end, Llywydd, what we are voting on is an expression of the views of this National Assembly in advance of a meaningful debate in the House of Commons on the deal that Mrs May has struck, the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.

Neil Hamilton said that, for UKIP, there would be a rejection of the deal for very different reasons from all the others that have been aired across the Chamber. For the Conservatives, I heard Paul Davies do his best, I thought, to set out the case for Mrs May's deal. I began to wonder why he hadn't put down an amendment so that his party could vote for that position, but, of course, I soon realised why not: because, with Paul having said that this was a compromise around which we can all unite, I heard David Melding say that he would fight for a generation to overturn it and Mark Reckless point to the inevitability of its defeat. So, I suppose we know why there was no Conservative amendment to the motion.

The two points on which I thought Paul Davies's argument were weakest was when he tried to say to us that this was a binary choice between Mrs May's deal or no deal at all. He couldn't even answer Adam Price's simple question of whether leaving the European Union would leave Wales better off. And I seriously say that the argument we've heard in the Chamber that to ask for a second consideration of this most serious issue is somehow to undermine democracy—it is the weakest argument of all. the weakest argument of all. I'm with Dai Lloyd on this. I've spent a lifetime voting for causes on which I've been defeated. Does that mean that I say, 'Well, in that case, democracy has made its decision and I can never speak up for that cause again'? Well, of course I don't, because, if you are really a democrat, then you understand that arguments are always there to be had and to be had again.

Will the Secretary give way on this point? Isn't the real issue that we haven't implemented the result, and did he not listen to David Melding and what he said? However strongly you back 'remain' or the EU, first of all you have to actually do what the referendum said, which is leave.

Well, I did listen very carefully to what David Melding said, of course, and he made a very important point, that, as a democrat, you have to sometimes accept decisions with which you profoundly disagree. But I've never seen it as a rule, Llywydd, that says that you have to wait for a generation in which to fight that good fight a second time, and I don't agree—I absolutely do not agree—with the argument that says that you have to implement a disaster before you can attempt to avert it. If you believe, if you believe—. And of course people have different views, but, if you believe seriously that this will be a disaster for our country, then of course you're not going to say, 'Let's have the disaster first and then we'll argue against it.' Of course you are going to try to avoid the disaster in the first place, and, in many ways, that is what divides parts of the Conservative Party here this afternoon from Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party here. I thought Plaid Cymru had to strain quite hard, Dirprwy Lywydd, to find differences between what we say in our motion and what they have said in the debate. We agree on the fundamentals here, and I say again we are at our most powerful and influential as an institution when we send the most united message we can.

Here is clarity for you. This is what our motion is intended to convey. I said it in opening the debate—that I hope that this National Assembly will send a clear message this afternoon that the deal that has been put forward is unacceptable. That's clear for you, I hope. It is unacceptable. It fails to meet the fundamental interests of Wales and the UK as a whole and it should be defeated. We have an opportunity this afternoon to send exactly that message to the UK Government. I hope that we will do our best to take it together.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we defer voting under this item until voting time.

We now move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There are no changes to this week's business. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could I seek two statements, or clarification at the very least? The first one is a letter received from the First Minister in relation to the environmental impact assessment that was promised on the Barry incinerator by the Minister for Environment back in February of this year. I received this letter on 21 November from the First Minister, and he says in this letter that the decision will be made by the end of November 2018. That decision has not been forthcoming. When I looked at the calendar, the date of the end of November was Friday of last week. I've had numerous residents contact me wondering why there's no decision in the public domain at the moment. So, in the first instance, could I have clarification whether the decision has been taken? And, in the second instance, could I understand when that decision will be relayed to Members and to constituents? I'll happily share the letter with the Minister, because I see she's indicating that she's had no sight of this letter, but this letter was sent to me by the First Minister on 21 November, which is only two weeks ago, and he was quite categorical that, at the end of November, that would be in the public domain—that decision would be made. So, some clarification on that would be gratefully received.

The second point I would like to understand is the interaction between senior civil servants and special advisers within the Welsh Government. Last week, at the inquest that was held in north Wales, there was a point of evidence given that the head of the Cabinet division took instruction from the senior special adviser—Jo Kiernan, at the time—to look at Carl Sargeant's diaries. I have that here as well, and it's part of the record that was in the inquest. It was my understanding that special advisers were not in the position to instruct civil servants to undertake work on their behalf, and that civil servants worked exclusively to Ministers or Cabinet Secretaries. Could I seek a point of clarification as to exactly what role special advisers have in instructing civil servants to undertake specific pieces of work? Because I do believe that's a breach of the civil service code.

On the first one, the Minister's indicating to me that the decision hasn't been taken, and that she's proposing to take it as soon as possible. I'm sure it was said to you in good faith; it turns out not to have been accurate. As soon as the Minister knows when she'll take the decision, I'll make sure that that information is conveyed as rapidly as possible.

On the second one, Deputy Presiding Officer, I have no intention whatsoever of commenting on any of the processes going on at the inquest, since it's adjourned and not completed.

Leader of the house, you'll be aware—.

Sorry, I got tangled up.

You'll be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services last week published a written statement on the role of town and community councils in Wales in future. Clearly, when considering local government provision and any reforms in Wales, this sector, which is the level of government closest to the people, is vital. Many would argue that the sector has been ignored over the first 20 years of devolution in Wales, with scant focus given to it and scant changes made in it. Now, the independent review panel has proposed a set of recommendations, some of which are potentially far reaching, particularly with regard to powers, engagement and accountability. I believe that we need a further debate on these proposals in this place. With that in mind, would the Cabinet Secretary for local government make an oral statement on this issue, which would allow us time to discuss and develop a way forward?

Thank you for that. I think that will be part of any piece of legislation that goes forward on local government, and is not going to be the subject of a separate oral statement.

It's an unfortunate reality that over the past near-decade of UK austerity, a shrink in local government budgets has resulted in a cutback to non-statutory services provided by councils across the UK. I therefore would like to request a statement from the Welsh Government on the status and health of music support services across Wales. As Members will be aware, this is an issue very close to my heart, and I do not envy the tough choices that our councils are forced to make, but I do firmly believe that access to music should be a right for our youth, not just a privilege for those who can afford it, and it is right that Wales considers as a national priority the development of a national strategy or plan in funding music support services. Therefore, I would request a statement that also includes an assessment of schools that are currently unable to access music support services and on the equality of access for our very poorest students to access music performance education in Wales.

I commend the Member for her constant passionate support for music services in Wales. She will know that we share the ambition to provide high-quality universal access to music education for learners in Wales. She said in her remarks that she knows that local government has a direct responsibility for this, not the Welsh Government. I know she's aware that the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee inquiry on funding for and access to music education, 'Hitting the Right Note', set out 16 recommendations focused on improving music service provision across Wales. We're currently taking forward work to address the recommendations made in the report, 'Hitting the Right Note'. That includes undertaking work to identify and assess options for delivery of music services and to ensure any future plan is sustainable. Officials have met with key stakeholders very recently and are currently evaluating the feedback to plan the next steps.

We recognise current pressures facing music services, as she's acknowledged, and the need to take action as soon as possible. That's why the Cabinet Secretary for Education has made additional funding of £3 million over 2018-19 and 2019-20 available for music provision across Wales. The grant for this year is due to be released, and that announcement will be made very shortly.

May I ask for a statement, leader of the house, from the Welsh Government on what it is doing to promote the use of electric vehicles by public sector bodies? Last week the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee heard complaints that Welsh Ministers had not given clear signals on that issue, and that leadership was desperately needed. The view is reinforced when you consider that all 72 vehicles owned by the Welsh Government, including 12 ministerial cars, all use diesel. The committee was told targets needed to be set by Welsh Government for public bodies to adopt electric vehicles to cut emissions. Please can we have a statement on this important issue?

Yes. The Welsh Government has been looking very carefully at accessibility for electric and hybrid cars in Wales, including across the public estate. We are already investing £2 million in electronic vehicle charging points to supplement existing capacity, but the Member will know that there are issues around range and sustainability for electric vehicles.

We are looking to invest further in the electric vehicle charging network. It's not helped by the fact that there is no common standard as yet for electric cars and their charging arrangements. It would be very helpful, were we to stay in the European Union, for example, to have a European-wide ability to solve that problem, Clearly, investing in the wrong network would result in a wasted investment. So, we are looking carefully to see what the best way forward for that is. The Member makes a fair point, but I think we're not yet at the point where the technology supports his argument.

I heard what you said to Andrew R.T. Davies earlier, but, of course, last week, we did have the inquest into the death of Carl Sergeant and it was well publicised for good reason. We heard details—some of them hard to hear—regarding the events leading up to Carl's tragic and too early death. Given the strong public interest in this case and the clear question marks that have been raised again recently, will your Government now, finally, publish the report from the leak inquiry in full, as we have requested previously, so that we can assess it and we can know exactly what that particular inquiry said?

My second request is—we know that the Welsh Government has committed to Healthcare Inspectorate Wales investigating the Kris Wade scandal here in Wales. Healthcare Inspectorate Wales has been conducting a report over the last year into what happened, talking to key stakeholders. They did promise that this would be able to be released before the end of this term. But what I wanted to raise here today was to ensure that we get access to that report before the end of term, by which I mean by Tuesday or Wednesday next week, so that we can actually scrutinise the health Secretary, instead of him putting something out on a Friday. I don't doubt that he may have reasons to do so, but we would want to have access to that report before the end of term so that we can scrutinise him here because of the severity of the situation. What I don't want is an opportunity missed for Assembly Members to be able to hold the Welsh Government and Healthcare Inspectorate Wales to account by virtue of not having had access to that report. So, that's my request to the Welsh Government.

Well, I'm not willing to comment on the inquest, other than to say that everybody in the Assembly and its estate has been affected by the issues raised. Carl was a good friend and colleague of all of us, and we all share the sorrow and the opening wounds from the inquest, but I'm not going to comment on any of the processes there, since the inquest stands adjourned and is not yet complete, nor on any of the other peripheral points until the inquest reaches its proper legal conclusion.

On the other matter, the Welsh Government welcomes scrutiny of that sort. I'm afraid I don't know, Deputy Presiding Officer, whether that report can be released in the very short timescale now available to us. If it can, I will make sure that it is. If not, then there will be opportunities to question whoever the Cabinet Secretary for health is in the next term about any content of the report, should it be released over the Christmas period.

I would like to make two requests for Welsh Government statements. The first is one that the leader of the house is quite used to me asking about, but I make no apologies for continuing to do so because it's hugely important to my and her constituents, and that is an update on Virgin Media job losses and the Welsh Government support for those who are losing their jobs, and it's getting very close now to the time when everybody will be losing their jobs.

The second is a Welsh Government statement on the Planning Inspectorate, including planning inspectors giving permission for houses in multiple occupation against the wishes of the council and local people. I'm sure that's something that the leader of the house knows a great deal about. And if I say Brynmill, well, St Thomas and Port Tennant have now become the new Brynmill. As you know, I do not believe that there's a role for the planning inspector in a democracy. Councils should decide, and an unhappy applicant should go to judicial review. Someone coming in who knows nothing about the area, making decisions that have catastrophic affects upon the lives of individuals, I think, is anti-democratic, and it certainly causes huge problems in my area and, as I know in the past, it has in yours.

Indeed, yes. On that one, obviously, we don't have any direct control over the Planning Inspectorate, which is a separate organisation to the Welsh Government acting on its behalf. However, we do, from time to time, issue guidance and policy documents around understanding the issues, and I've had conversations with the Cabinet Secretary about whether, for university towns, it's beneficial to do that. I certainly share his concern in that regard and the enforceability of any density policy that any local authority would want to put up and what effect that might have on subsequent appeals. 

In terms of Virgin Media, the first tranche of redundant staff left the company in November, as I know he's well aware. There are two phases planned for next year as well. Our placement support team has taken on responsibility for providing staff with onsite access to key partners of the taskforce, including Careers Wales,  the Department for Work and Pensions and local employers. The Welsh contact centre forum is a key partner in our taskforce and has arranged job fairs in October at the Virgin Media site and brought recruiting employers to the site as well as providing careers advice for those staff seeking alternative employment. It's too early for me to provide specific details of those who have been successful in securing alternative employment as a result of the job fairs, but we are holding further job fairs to coincide with the additional tranches of staff leaving the company next year. So, our involvement continues in order to make sure that all of the staff who are affected by this have the best possible outcome.

Leader of the house, can I ask for a statement from the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on woodland and forestry management in Wales? As I understand it, felling licences can be issued in Wales but cannot be refused on wildlife protection grounds. I understand that that is also the situation in England. In Scotland, they've recently changed the law so that considerations in respect of wildlife can be considered prior to felling licences being issued. Of course, this is adding to the protections of a variety of species, including the red squirrel, which I'm the species champion for. So, I wonder if we could have a statement on whether the Welsh Government has any plans to improve protections for wildlife in that regard.

Can I also ask for clarification from either the Counsel General or an appropriate Government Minister in respect of the extent of legal indemnity for Ministers and indeed former Ministers of the Welsh Government? I've had some recent questions that have emerged in my inbox in recent days regarding the extent of legal indemnity that is afforded to Ministers. I would be very grateful for a statement clarifying the situation, and particularly whether that indemnity applies to former Ministers. Thank you.

On that last one, I think you need to write in with the details of that. Legal indemnity is a very wide-ranging piece and has lots of different, very specific ramifications, so we would need to understand the exact circumstances in which you're making the inquiry. So, if you want to write in to the Counsel General, we'll make sure that that gets an appropriate response.

In terms of the woodland wildlife protection, Darren Millar makes a very good point. I don't actually know what the situation is at the moment. I will take that up with the Cabinet Secretary and come back to him. 

I'd like to pick up on the issue of mental health, which is something that the leader of the house will rightly know that I've raised on many occasions since being elected earlier this year. Last month, business leaders across the UK urged the UK Government to make provision for mental health first aiders mandatory in the workplace. I completely agree with campaigner Natasha Devon, behind the letter to the UK Government when she says employers have a duty of care to staff. She quite rightly highlights that success will also ensure that all employees everywhere can access a trained member of staff to receive initial support and guidance if they are dealing with mental health issues at work.

So, firstly, is this something the Welsh Government would consider for workplaces in Wales? And secondly, there has also been a lot of attention recently in the media on the role of the wider community in tackling the epidemic of mental ill health and the prevention of suicide. An example of this is the Cornwall-based Wave Project charity, and they provide surf therapy to young people suffering with mental health illness. A little closer to home, I recently was able to experience and visit Hounds the Barbershop with my colleague Jayne Bryant in Newport, and, just like that shop, my own barber Sam—from Sam's barbershop in Flintshire—is a brilliant example of a barber who helps those suffering with mental ill health, like myself. So, I praise people like Sam in Flintshire and Paul in Newport, those people have taken it upon themselves to provide pastoral care to those in need or simply those who are feeling blue, and, again, for reinforcing that message that it is okay not to be okay.

Finally, the second statement that I would like to know, is: would the leader of the house join me in paying tribute to those people and every single person out there who aren't counsellors, but believe that they are in a fantastic position of trust to look after others and one another throughout their difficulties in their daily lives?  

Jack Sargeant, as usual, makes a series of very good points. It does take a whole community to ensure that people feel supported enough within it, and we all know that having somebody to listen to us, whether they're a trained counsellor or not, can be very, very helpful in terms of our just general feeling of well-being and, obviously, mental health. 

We have reconfimed our commitment to providing mental health, generally, by positioning it as one of the six priority areas in the national strategy, 'Prosperity for All', and we take every opportunity to raise awareness of mental health issues, even when they might seem at first to be tangenital. So, Members will have heard me, for example, talking about the This Is Me campaign, which is anti gender stereotyping. Unfortunately, sometimes, it's thought to be aimed at women but, actually, of course, it's aimed across the piece, because we know that men suffer very badly from having gender stereotyping, feeling that they have to live out the role of breadwinner or family support, or whatever, and they can find it very difficult when that isn't working well for them. So, I absolutely agree with Jack Sargeant that we need to have a holistic and whole-society approach to this, and it's something, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we all need to take account of in our everyday interactions with another, to make sure that we also listen to what other people are saying to us.  

Leader of the house, hopefully, you will have seen some of the current campaign work being undertaken by Housing Women Cymru to highlight the need for the end of sex for rent. As we know, any arrangement involving sex for rent is illegal—no grey areas. We now know that that's been confirmed. Can I thank the housing Minister for her statement on the support for the campaign that was issued yesterday? But in light of the campaign, can I please ask that the Government bring forward a statement in the new year to update the Assembly regarding their actions on this issue, including any discussions with the Advertising Standards Authority, the police, the housing sector and other devolved Governments? 

Yes, I couldn't concur more with the campaign. I thought the housing Minister endorsed it in a very clear statement. Somebody asking for sex instead of rent is not a landlord—they are a criminal. It could not be any more straightforward than that. And, of course, we share yours and many other people's concern that vulnerable people are put into this position, driven there by some of the debt issues that I discussed earlier. And in the run-up to Christmas, people are particularly vulnerable to that. I think it is very important to send that very clear message: any landlord who thinks that that's okay is fooling themselves. It is not okay. It is a criminal act, and I think we cannot be any clearer than that. 

I know that we're working very hard to make sure that any advertisements are picked up, although that's not devolved to us. I know the housing Minister has this concern very much at the heart, and we certainly will be taking forward a range of measures to see what we can do to stamp out this really absolutely vile practice.   

Leader of the Chamber, I'm asking for a Government statement to support Safia Saleh and her family. Safia was unlawlfully abducted as a child, and is trying to get back to Wales. I know her mother, Jackie Saleh, would be very grateful for a statement. The public has been really generous in supporting the Crowdfunder to buy flights for the family, but the one roadblock is bureaucracy. Safia is a UK citizen, she has a birth certificate, but she does not have a UK passport, and nobody seems able to help with this. The Home Office is not devolved, but communities are devolved. The distress caused by a Welsh girl from Ely stuck abroad is a matter for everybody in this Assembly. Will the Welsh Government speak up for Safia and her family in here now, but also outside, making representations in the corridors of power? Safia Saleh needs a passport to get here, and she's fully entitled to one, so how can you help?     

I'm very happy to say that the Welsh Government supports family reunification where at all possible in all of the circumstances where families are divided. It's amongst the worst and most pernicious effects of some of our more draconian immigration rules. If Neil McEvoy wants to write to me with the details and the contact details of the family, I'm very happy to make representations to the immigration Minister on behalf of the family.

Thank you. And finally, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Leader of the house, could I ask that the Cabinet Secretary for Education makes an oral statement to the Siambr regarding your Government's plans to tackle bullying? I am aware that the Welsh Government is consulting on draft guidance on bullying, but I would question whether guidance is sufficient, and I am not the only one. The coroner in the Bradley John inquest has queried whether we need a specific law on bullying. We have seen such terrible incidents of bullying in recent weeks, such as the Syrian refugee waterboarded by school bullies or the incidents of racist bullying at a Cardiff primary school, which shocked Estyn inspectors.

In my own region, I'm currently dealing with a constituent who was knocked unconscious by school bullies. He is only 11, and he is now away from school and has ADHD. His mother has informed me that he does not sense any danger and he thinks that everyone is his friend. This little boy was beaten unconscious for reasons unknown, which causes anguish to all concerned, particularly his family. Thank you.

Yes. The Cabinet Secretary is very, very firm that bullying is not to be tolerated, of any sort, in our schools, but we are particularly concerned about racist bullying, especially with the rise of hate crimes across the UK. Actually, we've got a group called EAST working very hard on a set of guidelines for schools, and we're currently looking at putting a new project into schools exactly on that point. As soon those proposals are fit to be shared with Members then I or my successor in the equalities portfolio will bring forward a statement saying what we're doing.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 4 on the agenda is a statement by the Counsel General on the Legislation (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a great pleasure to be introducing the Legislation (Wales) Bill for the National Assembly for Wales’s consideration. This is a significant moment in the evolution of our legislature because, for the first time, we are introducing legislation that relates to the law itself.

The purpose of the Bill is to make Welsh law more accessible, more clear and more straightforward to use. The nature of the Bill is such that I as Counsel General am introducing it—something that has not happened before. This is an opportune moment, therefore, for me to pay tribute to two of my predecessors, Theodore Huckle QC and Mick Antoniw AM, who both played an important part in the development of the Bill. I would also like to thank the many others who have contributed to the process so far, by responding to the two consultations that we have held as a Government or by making submissions to the Law Commission. The Law Commission’s report, 'Form and Accessibility of the Law Applicable in Wales', provides the rationale for one part of the Bill and, again, I am grateful to them for their work.

Part 1 of the Bill is novel. It seeks to put in place a system that will commit future Governments to keep the accessibility of the law under review and to take action to make it more accessible. Concerns have been raised for many years about the complexity of the law in the United Kingdom and the disorganised state of our vast and sprawling statute book. Much of the complexity derives from the proliferation of legislation made over recent decades within the UK. As a result, the UK statute book is now vast and unmanageable. This in turn means that that part of the statute book that we have inherited is equally inaccessible, perhaps even more so given that Acts of the UK Parliament are being regularly amended to make different provisions for Wales and for England. This problem becomes even more acute set against the wider context of a highly complex and incoherent devolution settlement, the unorthodox arrangement under which Wales and England share a legal jurisdiction, and our responsibility to make laws in both of our languages.

The long-term aim is to create a well-organised Welsh statute book that will categorise the law by codes on specific subjects, rather than simply by reference to when acts and statutory instruments are made. The Bill, therefore, places duties on Government because the scale and nature of the task is such that this must be done systematically and over the long term. This means that the consolidation of the law and the other related initiatives in making the law more accessible have to be a priority for all governments. 

Reaching the goal of a fully codified statute book will take a generation and more. So, before starting that journey, we must understand the purpose of the journey. As a result, also, today, we are publishing a draft taxonomy for codes of Welsh law, and this is to illustrate how the statute book may look in future. Although this is a working document, I nonetheless hope that it will provide Members with a helpful insight into our initial thinking.

We will also be working with the national archives to improve the way existing legislation is published, most notably by organising what we already have by reference to its subject area. This will help pave the way for the consolidation process that is required, while being a useful tool for the users of legislation in the meantime. Once complete, this service will be available through the Law Wales website, a website that we will be improved as another part of the work of making the law more accessible. 

While Part 1 of the Bill is innovative, Part 2 of the Bill follows a long tradition established by the UK Parliament in the nineteenth century when it first passed an interpretation Act. Statutory interpretation is the process of determining the meaning and effect of legislation and how it operates. This can be a complex process, so Acts prescribing rules on how laws are to be interpreted are now a typical feature of legal jurisdictions across the common law world. Their purpose, essentially, is to shorten and simplify legislation and promote consistency in its language, form and operation. In the UK, there are currently three acts of this nature: one for the United Kingdom, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. Welsh legislation is currently subject to the UK Act, something that we intend to change by making this bespoke provision for Wales.

The proposals in the Bill have been subject to a policy consultation exercise and the publication of a draft Bill. Introduction of the Bill, however, now marks the beginning of the most important part of the scrutiny process, and I'm anxious to hear the views of Members and to listen to any concerns that you may have. Like any other Bill, it is, of course, subject to change, and I have no doubt that it could be improved.

One particular issue that I would like Members’ views on is whether, and how, to make specific provision about the process for interpreting legislation that is made bilingually. At present, section 156(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that the English language and Welsh language texts of legislation have equal standing. This may be sufficient, subject perhaps to restating that provision in this Bill, but it's an important issue that needs further analysis and thought. It's an issue that was aired in consultation, but I hope that the responsible committee will feel able to consider this issue carefully.

Finally, it's important to bear in mind that this Bill forms only one part of a wider initiative. Although it is intended to underpin much of our future activity, Part 1 of the Bill will not of itself deliver the reform that we desire. That depends on the detailed and painstaking work of consolidating the law; rationalising it into a structure of codes. We will in future, therefore, start to see the production of Bills designed not to reform the law, but to bring order to it by remaking existing legislation afresh for Wales in a modern, bilingual and accessible form. Once enacted, these laws will then need protection from any future political desire to make law that does not fit structurally within the new established codes. While, clearly, there is no desire to impinge upon the content and effect of the law, and the instinct to reform the law, we have a collective responsibility to constrain how that is done so that the impact upon the accessibility of the statute book is always taken into account.

The wider initiative also involves us, both the Welsh legislature and Government, taking more responsibility for our laws. It involves accelerating the process of developing a body of bilingual Welsh law, a body of law that is identified as such rather than being intertwined with laws that have effect also outside Wales. This Bill, as well as facilitating that process, will contain rules about how that law works and how it is to be interpreted. Regardless of where we end up in relation to the question of a legal jurisdiction for Wales, the Bill will, I hope, form an important part of our legal infrastructure in Wales for many years to come.

Thank you, Counsel General, for this statement, and also the comments towards the end there that this Bill will stand alone, regardless of political differences of view about jurisdiction and so forth, so that we don't get sidetracked by that during the course of the passage of this Bill. Also, I hope you won't mind, but I'm not in a position to answer the very question you've asked us as Assembly Members, about what advice we can offer you on how to restate bilingual legislation, but once this has been through the committee stages, I'm sure we will be able to assist you on that.

Yes, you're quite right to say that the UK statute book is vast and unmanageable, and I agree with you, and it's why I, and other Assembly Members in the past, have been very keen on Welsh law that consolidates, even if we haven't had our way on a number of these occasions—I'm thinking of park homes and the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016. But we've also failed in the past as well to persuade Welsh Government to reference other statutes within its own Bills, where such references are necessary to understand those Bills. So, for example, a definition can be included in a Welsh Bill by referring to its existence in a different Bill. In fact, we've got a situation arising tomorrow with the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill where that's a possibility of solving a problem.

So, I'll start with a question of definitions, if I may, both of codification and even consolidation, because to me, codification means the embodiment in statute of common law that's been created through judicial decisions. But it seems to me to mean something else in this context, a little bit more along the Roman law lines of, quite sensibly, filing law under subject headings, if you like. So, do you agree with Bangor law group that the Bill should—that's not Bangalore, that's Bangor law—that the Bill should contain a definition of codification and consolidation just to avoid the kind of uncertainty that I've already fallen foul of?

I absolutely support the remaking, or the restating as well, of existing law in modern bilingual and accessible form. This does mean restating existing law, interpreted under older legislation of 1978, I think it is, is it? And, of course, it's not the intention of this Bill to affect or undermine anything and the way it's already interpreted. So, how can you reassure us that if we're going to be—excuse me for characterising like this—but if we're going to be cutting and pasting from other laws and putting it into our own law, how can we be sure that the meaning and understanding will not be lost or changed as a result of coming into our bespoke Welsh law, which I welcome? Because words and phrases could have acquired different meanings over time, and if you've got two interpretation Acts sitting side by side, I'm sure it's an issue that you've already identified and thought about, particularly as our new Acts would probably be taking precedence in those circumstances. And then, conversely, if it's not going to be cut and paste, how can we be sure that the original meaning and original interpretation will be successfully recreated in any new Welsh statutes using the new Welsh interpretation Act?

You say in your statement that Part 2 of the Bill is about shortening and simplifying the law, and, of course, I see the argument for that: it promotes accessability, and we should use modern language where it doesn't confuse. I think this is your chance, for example, to clarify the meaning of the word 'may' in modern drafting. You do refer to it in part of the draft, but not this specific problem. But do you also accept that the word 'simplification' has got more than one meaning and that we must be cautious about balancing the easier to understand with the potential problems of lack of precision? How do you expect to manage that?

The Learned Society of Wales in evidence told us that the duty for Welsh Government to keep Welsh law under review is not clearly prescribed in the draft Bill. It doesn't say what Welsh Government must actually do to keep that under review, and it also has a question about what 'codification' means. It says—and I'm quoting here—that it is not and should not be the purpose of legislation to signal good intentions. I would like that statement on T-shirts, posters, mouse mats, screensavers and on the foreheads of your beloved—anywhere, really, that the Cabinet Secretaries in this place might see it, because this is your chance, Counsel General, to improve the quality of our statutes as well as their accessibility. So, will you be using this opportunity to ensure that Welsh Government moves away from a routine choice of Swiss cheese Bills that express policy intention, but require a significant cadre of regulations, subject to much less scrutiny, of course, in order to make them function as legal instruments, and ensure that accessibility includes the concept of clarity about what affected parties are supposed to do in order to comply with various laws? I was very glad, of course, to see the provision on sunset clauses in the draft Bill, which helps accommodate that.

Two more questions, Presiding Officer. Your closing comments on the structure of codes: what exactly did you mean by

'these laws will then need protection from any future political desire to make law that does not fit structurally within the new established codes'

and

'we have a collective responsibility to constrain'—

and you did say 'constrain'—

'how that is done'?

I appreciate that it's about impact on accessibility, but that really does need further explanation, because no Government should be seeking to constrain the legislature. For me, it's completely foreseeable that statutes we make in the future might cross your taxonomy lines and fit under more than one heading, so I just want confirmation that any opposition amendments brought forward to future Welsh Government Bills will not be rejected on the grounds that they're outside of a particular taxonomy heading.

Finally, any statute is out of date the day it's made—we're all familiar with that—so what are your thoughts on how we need to deal with what used to be the old Noter-up—but I think it's now LexisNexis and Lawtel—updates, for any changes that are made to legislation, even affected by this Bill? How will they be fitted into your series of codes, if that makes sense? Thank you.

I thank the Member for a wide-ranging number of questions there. I hope I manage to respond to most if not all of them. On the question of the definition of codification and consolidation, the basic point of the legislation is to secure more accessible law, and I think one of the key principles there is to allow definitions to have their dictionary definitions as far as that is possible. So, I think, in the context of consolidation, my view is that that is probably well enough understood. On the question of codification, the Member mentioned the codification of common law as being the kind of paradigm that she might have in mind. We're not, generally speaking, talking about codifying the common law here. There might be, at the margins, some examples of where statute has taken on a particular meaning very well established in common law, but that is absolutely not the intention here. This is a question of codifying statute law. 

She mentioned the taxonomy, which is a sort of work-in-progress document at this point just to give a snapshot of what those subject headings could look like, but the basic point of a code within any of those headings would be to consolidate the primary legislation and then to publish that, together with consolidated secondary legislation and soft law and guidance within each particular subject heading. So, the code, if you like, doesn't have a separate legal identity in law; it is the culmination of a process of consolidation and co-publishing, if I can put it like that.

The point that she made at the end is very important, and I'll take that opportunity that she has provided to clarify what I'm intending there. The act of codifying is the first stage. It's a big task in itself, but, clearly, if a code is to maintain its value, it needs to be maintained as a code, so that when when legislation is brought forward to amend a particular subject area, the expectation would be that that would happen within the code. Now, ultimately, that is a question for the Standing Orders of the Assembly, and work is under way in relation to that. And to go back to the point of definition, there will need to be some clarification within the Standing Orders of what sort of legislation goes through any consolidation provision here in the Assembly. Essentially, that's a matter for Assembly process, really, rather than anything above and beyond that, but I think it's really essential for us to have in mind the fact that codifying is the first step, and maintaining the code is where the value accrues over time.

You mentioned the interrelationship between the 1978 Act and what is proposed in this Bill. The cutting and pasting that you referred to is not something that we are proposing. I hope we will be able to secure a point in time for the second part of the Bill to become law that is easy to remember, so that Members and users of legislation in the future will know clearly that Assembly Acts passed after that date are subject to the new interpretation provisions, and ones passed before that date are subject to the 1978 Interpretation Act. So, it should be very clear which of the two Acts applies. I think that's important from an accessibility point of view.

She talked about the learned society's points in relation to the duty to keep Welsh law and the accessibility of it under review. There are two duties, of course, in this Bill, and the interrelationship between the two is the important thing. There's a broad duty on the Counsel General to keep Welsh law under review, and that will provide opportunities to embed that in the process of developing legislation, developing policy within the Government as legislation is being brought forward. But then the second duty, which has a much broader application, applies both to the Counsel General and to Welsh Ministers, and that's where the meat of the duty lies in bringing forward a programme in each Assembly term to take specific steps to consolidate, codify, and make law more accessible. So, I hope that the interrelationship of those two duties together will provide the meat on the bones, if I can use that term.

She spoke about legislation being more than good intentions. That's absolutely what this Bill has at its heart. She will know there is existing activity around consolidating law, which happens, if I can use the term, on a piecemeal basis, really, and the point of the duties in this Bill is to move from a piecemeal set of arrangements into one that imposes a duty that brings with it, obviously, an obligation to meet that duty and to attract resources in order to be able to make that a reality. So, the whole point of the Bill is to move beyond good intentions into something concrete and dynamic, which builds up its own momentum over successive Assemblies.

The last point she made is important as well, in relation to how the activity and the product envisaged by this Bill relates to the availability of commercial publishers' services at the moment. The truth of the matter is that the users of Welsh legislation passed in this place and statutory instruments by Welsh Ministers will be disappointed if they go online to look for a current, comprehensive, up-to-date, consolidated, bilingual version of the Acts that we pass and the statutory instruments that Ministers bring into law. The position, despite significant effort, is nowhere near where it needs to be, and I'm in discussions with the National Archives about how that can be improved and what we can do as a Government to deploy, in particular, Welsh language resource to move that forward, and we will, I think, be taking on more responsibility for some of the publication of the product of this institution. The other proposal that is under way at the moment—and I mentioned this when I launched the consultation, as you may recall—is inspired by the DefraLex plans in the UK Government, which are being rolled out in Northern Ireland as well, which is to co-locate statutes and law and SIs when they're published, rather than to publish them by date, which is in some ways a very unhelpful way to publish legislation. To do it in subject headings I think is much more intuitive and I hope to have something to say about that at some future point. 

May I welcome the direction that we're travelling in here, as the Counsel General presents this statement today on the Legislation (Wales) Bill? Of course, the intention is to strengthen the legislature here for Wales. Of course, we have been in this place before as a nation. We remember Hywel Dda's laws, of course, in the past. David Melding always reminds me—I think he was around at the time, in the year 950—that of course we had innovative laws at that time, and rights for women for the first time, around 1,000 years before rights appeared in any other legislation. So, we do have a history of creating innovative legislation, and that's what we have here today, to be fair to you. Of course, there are several challenges, and those challenges will become clear as we scrutinise all of this during Stage 1 at the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. We will be looking at this, and part of the evidence has already reached us at the committee, and that's what Suzy quoted from.

But, of course, there is a challenge—we'll forget about Hywel Dda for now—the challenge now is that there are some Wales and England laws, and there are new Wales-only laws, and of course the fact that there are two languages. You outlined the challenge here—anything that is meant to appear in Wales is meant to be in Welsh and in English, and sometimes we have those challenges appearing before us in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee when things that emanate from Westminster don't appear in the Welsh language. So, I would hope that this legislation would make it clear that, if Westminster legislates on our behalf, there's an expectation for that legislation to be in Welsh and English, because, of course, we are a bilingual nation.

Having said that, the next point that I have is about interpretation. Naturally, I welcome this new arrangement—that you say that the legislation will be codified according to subject area. I think that that's a positive step forward and makes sense. But in this issue of interpretation, particularly in two different languages, you will understand that not all languages are an exact translation of another language, and so there's a challenge, not just in terms of the words that will be used, but in that the sense can be slightly different in English as compared to Welsh. I understand what you say—that the Welsh and English languages are equal—but if we can imagine that the sense is slightly different in English as compared to Welsh, then what language is given priority when you come to a decision? I know it perhaps seems like a difficult point, and an esoteric one, but it is important when you come to interpretation in a law court, particularly because, as you'll be aware,there are several thousand square miles of Wales where people speak Welsh as a first language, and so they would quote this different arrangement in the Welsh language. But you are aware, and you've outlined, that the work of codification means a great deal of work in reorganising how legislation is presented. It means a great deal of work behind the scenes to achieve that, and, of course, there are implications then in terms of staff and resources and so on, and I very much hope that the Counsel General will look at that particular issue.

Then, two points to conclude: of course, we are under the auspices of the Wales and England legal jurisdiction at present, but that, of course, looking to the future, as you mentioned, and as you've mentioned before, jurisdiction arrangement makes no sense at all now, given that we are developing an individual corpus of law here in Wales, and yet we're under the jurisdiction of a Wales and England arrangement. So, how do you see this aspiration of seeing a Wales-only jurisdiction proceeding. Because if we don't take major steps forward to achieve that aspiration, we'll continue with the same arrangement that we have at present, which is always that of England and Wales. 

The final question is in terms of accessibility. Of course, with an increasing number of people, because of financial cuts, having to represent themselves in law courts, what you say about access to legislation is vitally important, because you're talking about the person on the street being able to understand where to find things and what the wording means. So, what practical steps are you taking, rather than this just being a highbrow discussion between different lawyers? For the person on the street, or the layperson, what kind of practical difference, on the ground, is increasing accessibility going to make? That is, how are you going to ensure that there is better accessibility for our people with regard to accessing our legislation?

Thank you to Dai Lloyd for those questions. On the first question, on language, the proposals in the Bill could have a positive impact on the use of the Welsh language more generally in our law. That is, through codifying, it restates existing law as Welsh law. And as so much of that is still available in English only, the fact that it will be restated in both languages does create a corpus of law in both Welsh and in English, and that act in itself will therefore be a catalyst for the use of the Welsh language in law. But the question that he emphasised on that very complex point that he referred to, well, it's a centrally important aspect of this: how do you interpret in two languages, when both have the same authority? This is a challenge that isn't unique to Wales, of course. It's also true in Canada, within the European Union, and so on and so forth. So, there are a number of conventions as to how this could work.

In the Law Commission work, there is a full chapter on this topic, if the Member would like to read it. But that's exactly the kind of discussion that I hope to have with the committee as to how we ensure whether more needs to be done than just to accept what is currently in devolution law in this regard—do we need to take further steps? So, I will be interested to discuss that further with the committee. He referred to the importance of resources. Well, clearly, I agree with him on that point. The point in having responsibility through this Bill is to ensure that that accessibility is there for the future and that those resources are available in the long term, which is essential in order to deliver the objectives of the Bill.

In terms of a separate jurisdiction for Wales, well, that is one of the things that the Justice Commission is looking at at the moment. The Member will be aware of the evidence provided by the Welsh Government to that commission. I want to emphasise that the proposals in this Bill are separate to the issue of jurisdiction. I referred to that in my opening remarks, although the fact that you are restating Welsh law is relevant to the broader discussion on that topic, of course.

Then, finally, he mentioned accessibility. Well, accessibility is central to what this Bill has in mind, and the Bill, in a way, is an issue of social justice as well as democratic accountability. I know, having discussions with advice services, for example—those services that provide advice to the public, that is—that they see the accessibility and clarity of law being an asset in the long term for the important work that they do. Ultimately, we will have a task in terms of how we communicate that to the public. But, I do hope, in looking at the draft taxonomy, that that suggests the kind of accessibility that we have in mind in the longer term.         

Thank you very much, Counsel General. 

Item 5, the Carbon Accounting (Wales) Regulations 2018, and then the Climate Change (Carbon Budgets) (Wales) Regulations 2018, the Climate Change (Interim Emissions Targets) (Wales) Regulations 2018, the Climate Change (International Aviation and International Shipping) (Wales) Regulations 2018 and the Climate Change (Net Welsh Emissions Account Credit Limit) (Wales) Regulations of 2018. Unless Members object—. Unless any Member objects, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, that the following five motions I've just read out will be grouped for debate. Good.

Therefore, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move the motions. Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Climate change is one of the greatest global challenges we face. The regulations that have been laid before the Assembly for consideration today are the climate change Wales regulations 2018. They are a set of five regulations that establish an emissions reduction framework and trajectory towards the 2050 target contained in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. These regulations are being introduced under powers contained in the Act and they show the world we are playing our part in this global challenge. 

The Act established the Committee on Climate Change as our independent advisory body, and, in developing these regulations, we've obtained and accepted advice from the committee. In preparing its advice, the committee ran two calls for evidence and we hosted joint events attended by stakeholders from many different sectors, including industry, business, the public sector, third sector, academia and civil society. I'm grateful to the committee and stakeholders for their contribution to these regulations.

The interim emissions targets regulations create targets for 2020 at 27 per cent, 2030 at 45 per cent, and 2040 at 67 per cent. The carbon budgets regulations set our first two carbon budgets for 2016 to 2020 at an average of 23 per cent reduction, and 2021 to 2025 at an average of 33 per cent reduction. Taken together, the targets and budgets map out our decarbonisation pathway towards 2050. Due to the make-up of our communities, our trajectory is different from others. The key is to ensure we transition to a low-carbon economy and society at the right scale and rate to ensure we can maximise the benefits to Wales.

In terms of our accounting framework, we've decided to take a different approach from the UK Government and we'll be accounting for all emissions in Wales with no complicated reporting process, as we believe it's the most transparent way. The international aviation and shipping regulations include the Welsh share of these emissions in the net Welsh emissions account. The carbon accounting regulations define what type of carbon unit or offset credit may be used in the net Welsh emissions account and how they will be administered. We've gone for those that are considered robust and recognised by international reporting guidelines.

Whilst our focus is on our domestic action, the credit limit regulations place a limit on how many carbon units or offset credits may be used to meet the first carbon budget. As recognised by the Committee on Climate Change, Wales's emissions are vulnerable to yearly changes due to the dominance of our industrial sector. The 10 per cent limit provides sufficient flexibility. Deputy Presiding Officer, I commend these regulations to the National Assembly. 

Thank you. Can I call the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, Mike Hedges?

Thank you, Deputy Lywydd. These are very significant regulations. They are the first regulations to arise from the Environment (Wales) Act, which the Assembly passed back in 2016. As such, the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee felt it was important that we should look at them in depth to ensure that the requirements and the spirit of the environment Act are being taken forward. The committee has published its report on the regulations, which has been laid and is accessible via today's Plenary agenda. Our report contains seven recommendations for the Welsh Government, and I look forward to receiving a response in due course.

The environment Act placed a requirement on the Welsh Ministers to deliver emissions reductions of at least 80 per cent by 2050. The regulations we are considering today are significant because they put in place the pathway to the 2050 emissions target. Within these regulations, there is a new framework for how we tackle emissions levels in Wales. They introduce a concept of five-year carbon budgets, which will, in turn, contribute to achieving 10-year interim targets. They will all be supported by delivery plans, which will set out in detail the actions the Welsh Government will take. All of this will, we hope, help the Welsh Government to reach the 2050 target.

In the time available, I will focus on three aspects of the committee's report: the 2050 target and whether it is challenging enough, the complexities around devolved and non-devolved emissions, and the Welsh Government's first delivery plan. 

The 2050 target: we need to look at the Paris agreement and the recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its aim is to hold the increase in global temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees. The Welsh Government target of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050 will not be enough to meet the 2 degree aim. If we continue on this trajectory, Wales will not meet the aims of the Paris agreement. As a committee, we were very disappointed by this. However, we were pleased to hear from the Cabinet Secretary that she is prepared to rethink. We have an underlying concern in relation to the Welsh Government's approach to setting its 2050 target. Why has the Welsh Government set a target that won't be enough to meet the aims of the Paris agreement? We know that we need to act urgently, we know we need to demonstrate leadership, and we know that we need to be ambitious. Why set a target that does none of these things? In 2015, Welsh emissions had fallen by 19 per cent below 1990 levels; across the UK as a whole, they had fallen by 27 per cent. We have not made good enough progress on this agenda, but we must not lose ground from now on.

The second area I want to cover is the question of emissions in devolved and non-devolved areas. The Welsh Government decided to include all Welsh emissions in their targets. However, the risk of counting all emissions means that it'll be much less easy to identify the Welsh Government's progress in devolved areas. It could be that we're making progress because the Welsh Government has done a lot, and we were held back by the UK, or the other way round. So, I think it really is important that we do ensure that what the Welsh Government is achieving we can actually see, rather than an overall what is being achieved. To address this, we have recommended that Welsh Government should ask the UK Committee on Climate Change to include in its report on progress a breakdown of the emissions reductions according to those policies that are devolved and those that are not.

The third area I want to cover is the Welsh Government's first delivery plan. For each carbon budget, the Welsh Government publishes a delivery plan that explains how it'll meet the carbon budget. We have yet to see the first delivery plan, but we have been told by the Cabinet Secretary that it'll be published in March. The delivery plan will be informed by a recent Welsh Government consultation, 'Achieving our low-carbon pathway to 2030'. The committee has heard serious concerns from stakeholders about this consultation—that it was underdeveloped, there was a lack of detail, and there was an overall lack of ambition. The Welsh Government has told us that this was an early-stage consultation, but, given that the delivery plan will be published three months from now, we're concerned that there will not be sufficient time to turn the results of that consultation into an effective plan. We have recommended that the delivery plan should be accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of the cost and anticipated impact of each intervention. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Government has given a commitment that this will happen.

Conclusions—in conclusion, these regulations are a welcome step forward following the passage of the environment Act by the Assembly in 2016. The regulations will provide a pathway to meeting the Welsh Government's 2050 target, but that's all—it's a framework. We will still need effective and ambitious policies to reduce emissions and improve our public health. This is arguably the greatest challenge this and future Welsh Governments will face. They will need to rise to meet these challenges if we are going to fulfil obligations and duties to the rest of the world.

Obviously, the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the regulations that are laid before the Assembly this afternoon. If you look at the comments of David Attenborough yesterday at the climate conference that is being held by the United Nations in Poland—. And it most probably is appropriate to focus maybe on the climate conferences that have periodically happened, because the First Minister next week will be standing down, and one of the first acts that he undertook when he took over as First Minister was to go to Copenhagen with the then environment Secretary, Jane Davidson. We've seen various degrees of failure and success at international conferences. I think Copenhagen was regarded as a failure; Paris was regarded as a success. And I think we all wait to see what the outcomes in Poland will be over the coming days to see whether we move any further forward to meeting what is a moral obligation on countries such as Wales, the United Kingdom, especially in the developed world, to actually put new technology to best use and reduce our carbon usage, especially when you look at the prophecies that, potentially, by the middle part of this century, could have dramatic implications for people in low-lying areas not just in Europe but across the globe, and the disappearance of countries. 

And this report that the climate change committee has put together I wholly endorse, in particular the way the Chairman of the committee brought forward its conclusions. It is worth noting that, obviously, the report does identify the Welsh Government potentially missing its 2020 target and, very often, it's easy maybe to set some of these targets that are very much in the future, thinking that there'll be someone else who'll have to deliver that. It is a fact that we all need to put our shoulder to the wheel from an opposition perspective, and put pressure on Government to be ambitious in the way it wants to meet these targets, but also to work with businesses and work with communities and individuals to make sure that we all play our part and people do not feel as we've seen in France now, where environmental action has provoked mass unrest because people have not been taken along with the proposals that the Government in France has delivered.

And so we will continue our position of monitoring this. We will continue our position of support where that support can help advance the cause of environmental improvement in Wales. But the round-table discussion, I think, last week that the committee held was a good sounding board for many of the organisations that came in, and if we can map out a route that shows that this is actually a profitable and beneficial way for business to engage in adopting new technology to reduce their carbon output, and, in particular, as individuals focus on what their output is as individuals, collectively we can make a big difference. But my word of caution is: when you look at what has gone on in France over the last couple of days, we need to take people with us when we're bringing forward these measures, rather than just some sort of academic exercise that plays out on paper but which in reality is very, very difficult to deliver. And I do look forward, as the Welsh Conservatives look forward, to looking at and scrutinising the delivery plan that, obviously, the Cabinet Secretary has committed to bringing forward in March of next year, because that would be a critical pathway to making sure that what is in the regulations that we are discussing today and the report that we have put forward as a committee can and will be delivered.  

I want to return to 2016, when the environment Act was passed, from where the need for these regulations emanated. Now, I have to say that the long-term target of cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 was dated at that point when the environment Act was passed in 2016, because the basis was the UK Climate Change Act, which has just celebrated its tenth birthday, and there was no new research for this legislation in Wales in 2016. And that was acknowledged at the time, and I know because I proposed amendments as the Plaid Cymru spokesperson scrutinising this Bill in order to strengthen the targets and to change that date in order to reflect the urgency and the need for swifter action, as has now become even more apparent in the latest report by the IPCC. So, as a result, the carbon budgets and the pathway to 2050 and the targets for 2020, 2030 and 2040 are all on the wrong track. The fact that the target for 2020 has reduced from 40 per cent to 27 per cent demonstrates a lack of action and also demonstrates why we need to look at this anew.

Now, the Act says, of course, that there is a responsibility on Government to introduce regulations that have considered international agreements such as Paris, of course, and the latest scientific evidence as well as our duties to be a nation that is responsible on an international level, which comes under one of the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Not one of these has been taken fully into account in the advice and recommendations of the UK Committee on Climate Change, but, again, the Welsh Government has accepted these inadequate recommendations in their entirety.

Now, the IPCC report in the autumn is a clear warning that we have just 12 years to avoid disastrous climate change, but the targets proposed here for Wales's contribution in 12 years, by 2030, is just a 45 per cent cut in emissions. The route towards decarbonisation should be on a different trajectory—there should be greater cuts happening sooner, not the gradual approach that the Government is taking. Yes, there is a cost to that, and I appreciate that and we need to be sensitive to that, but the cost of having to do more in future will be far higher.

Of course, the preparatory work for these regulations was done before the publication of the IPCC report, and in light of this we need a clear commitment from the Government that they will introduce updated regulations not only following the advice commissioned by the UK Committee on Climate Change but also following an assessment of what Wales's fair share is on a global level, bearing in mind our international responsibilities and our historic contribution to climate change as one of the first nations to industrialise. I'm therefore asking the Cabinet Secretary in this debate today to confirm that we will have a clear commitment that the Government will update these targets next year in light of the latest information available.

I also want to touch on the process. The process and the lack of opportunity that there has been for real scrutiny of these proposals is something that is unacceptable, in my view. There's been no consultation on these specific regulations and no opportunity for the climate change committee to be part of their development. We've had 20 days under Standing Orders to look at these—just 20 days to look at targets that will be in place for almost 40 years, or certainly 30 years. There should have been draft regulations laid so that we could have that meaningful debate. But what's happening, to all intents and purposes, is that the Government is forcing this Assembly to accept these regulations as they are because they do have to be passed, according to the legislation, before the end of the year, and to pass them before we have seen the decarbonisation delivery plan, which won't be available until March, as we've heard. But we're expected to decide that these targets are appropriate without having fully understood how the Government intends to deliver the targets and to achieve them. There's an irony that the Government is asking us to pass these regulations on the very day when hundreds of people were on the steps of the Senedd protesting against the environmental damage and the carbon emission impact that the new M4 will have in the Newport area.

To conclude, therefore, Plaid Cymru is willing under protest to vote in favour of these regulations in order to avoid a situation where the Government is in contravention of the environment Act, but only on the basis of a clear commitment by the Cabinet Secretary that there will be more ambitious targets adopted within 12 months.

I agree with a lot of what Llyr is saying, that we, to some extent, are being bounced into this, and I think, in the light of David Attenborough's powerful speech, as already mentioned by Andrew R.T. Davies, what he said in Katowice really does force all of us to look deep into what we ought to be doing and what we're not actually delivering on. Because we've just had a discussion about Brexit and the importance of that to future generations. That's as nothing compared with this debate. There simply will be no world for our children and grandchildren to inherit unless we change our ways. As Attenborough said in Katowice,

'the collapse of our civilisations if we don't take action, and the extinction of much of the natural world, is on the horizon.'

These are really strong words, and whilst I agree that we have to take people with us, it is not encouraging to see the populist position taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in failing year after year to raise the climate change levy on the fuel duty in order to reflect the amount of pollution that's involved in driving.

So, do these regulations deliver on the commitments we entered into in Paris in 2015? Probably not, but they're a step in the right direction. We're told by the experts that we're currently on target for a disastrous 3 per cent warming. Therefore it is beholden on the industrialised world, which has benefited from all this consumption of the world's resources, to do more than the less developed countries in the world.

I note that the UK Committee on Climate Change observed that progress remains a long way short of the Welsh Government's existing target to reduce emissions to a level of 40 per cent below the 1990 levels by 2020, in two years' time. I think we need to really seriously look at the status of Aberthaw, the coal-fired power station, because it presented 51 per cent of Welsh power emissions and 14 per cent of total Welsh emissions in 2015. So, therefore there has to be a win from that. That seems to me an easy win. Of course we have to ensure that we have alternative ways of generating electricity, but clearly coal is not it. It's no use to say, as they have done in Poland, 'Oh, that's what people's jobs rely on'. We have to change the jobs and use technology to get people doing different things. So, I would suggest to the Government that we need to close Aberthaw much sooner than 2025, and that would start to get us back on track, because we're clearly not where we need to be.

I want to see an immediate revision of Part L of the building regulations. Relating back to what Andrew R.T. Davies said on taking people with us, we're never going to take the mass house builders with us. They're always going to want to go on producing the same old, same old not-energy-efficient housing until we instruct them not to, and that is the role of government—to ensure that people are delivering using the world's resources in the most effective way. We know that there is already the technology available to ensure that we have zero-carbon housing, and that is what people want and need, because, at the moment, they're spending far too much of their hard-earned money on trying to heat their homes in constructions that are inadequate.

Although agriculture emissions have fallen by 15 per cent since 1990, they have risen slightly since 2009 and we need to do something about that, too. It isn't just the size of the land-use sink having decreased because more land is being built on, but it's also a reduction in tree planting. Also, we need to start looking at what food we're eating and how we're producing it. If we have intensive factory farming, it produces far more carbon emissions than if we have less intensive farming. All these things need to be looked at.

I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on being honest in admitting that, when a climate change analyst challenged the Government, the look on every Cabinet Secretary and Minister’s face was one of absolute terror. It's not just the Government's job; it's the job of all of us to change our ways, but the Government must lead the way, and I suggest that we need to work towards 100 per cent by 2050 and, hopefully, we'll come back with some more challenging targets, because I don't think these are challenging enough.

While setting tough emissions targets sounds very laudable, the unfortunate reality is that UK carbon emissions are dwarfed by those emanating from countries like Germany, France, Australia, the United States and, of course, China. Action to reduce global emissions can only effectively be taken at a global level and must involve binding legislation severely restricting the polluting impact of these large-scale polluter nations.

Reference has been made earlier to the 2008 UK climate change Act. The total cost of this legislation across the UK as a whole is estimated to be an eye-watering £720 billion over the next 40 years. UKIP would scrap these climate change laws, because every British household is effectively paying over £300 a year to cut carbon emissions, which is unrealistic as an objective in any event. They're also—

No, I've nearly come to the end, but thank you.

They're also effectively a regressive tax, which will hit the poor hardest, so we won't be supporting the Government's motions today.

Thank you, Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to this debate. The intergovernmenal panel on climate change recently reported that current rates of warming could see the global average temperature rise hit 1.5 degrees centigrade as soon as 2030. Following that report, I did write to Members to highlight our joint request for advice from the committee on climate change regarding how the Paris agreement and the evidence in the IPCC report may affect our long-term emissions reduction targets. However, I think what really came out very clearly from the report was the need for urgent action now. The regulations set the framework for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and we've already achieved reduction in emissions from waste, from buildings and from industry, but, of course, I absolutely accept that more needs to be done.

In March, we will publish our plan for the first carbon budget to get us to the 2020 target. We'll set out the action that we'll take, but also, importantly, what we expect others such as the UK Government to take, especially given that nearly 60 per cent of our emissions are outside our control. We know that our emissions profile is significantly different from the UK as a whole because of our past and this makes our emissions more volatile. The decarbonisation pathway established by these regulations is the best balance between ambition and achievability.

If I could just turn to particular points raised by Members today, the people of Wales need access to good-quality jobs that are resilient for a changing economy. The people of Wales also deserve to live in a clean and healthy environment, and it's about getting the balance right. I think Andrew R.T. Davies made a very important point about taking people with us and also about us all playing our part. Jenny Rathbone said, when I chaired the first ministerial group on decarbonisation—I'm not sure the word 'terror' was used, but absolutely, everybody realised, right across Government, that we all have to play our part.

Mike Hedges, as Chair of the committee, raised some very important points. I know, Mike, you think that the targets may not be ambitious enough. I have to say that an 80 per cent target by 2050 isn't within the scope of these regulations today, but the framework we have doesn't stop us going even further. The CCC did suggest an 80 per cent reduction for the UK implies a 76 per cent reduction in Wales. So, by adopting the 2050 target of at least 80 per cent, I think we're arguably making a proportionally greater contribution to the Paris agreement than the UK as a whole. But of course, we need to keep those under review. 

Llyr mentioned that it's hard to agree targets and budgets before seeing the plan. Right across the UK, that is the usual process. You do set the target or the carbon budget first, and then publish a plan to meet the budget. You raised the point about revisiting the targets. I can't revisit the target for the 2020 budget because that would be going against due process of the Act because it wouldn't give us sufficient time to have the robust analysis that we would need to underpin our decision, but I absolutely commit to revisiting the target for the second budget and certainly when we're setting our third carbon budget, which will be at the end of the first carbon budget in 2020. I think we'll then be able to get some really appropriate, detailed analysis, and that again would link with wider UK pathways. 

Mike Hedges also raised the question about not sharing the low-carbon delivery plan, but I did agree to share it with the committee a few days before we publish it next March. We're working to very challenging timescales in terms of finalising both the statutory framework and the first low-carbon delivery plan. 

Andrew R.T. Davies raised the issue of—obviously, the Conference of the Parties is happening at the moment. I chose to go to the San Francisco global climate action summit in September, but officials are there representing Wales. I've certainly visited COP and I know other Ministers and predecessors before me have visited and it's certainly very good to share best practice, and I think, as a region, we really do punch above our weight and people are very interested to hear what we're doing to reduce our emissions. 

Presiding Officer, the regulations demonstrate to people and businesses in Wales that the National Assembly and the Welsh Government accept climate change is a serious, dangerous problem and one that we simply cannot ignore. The regulations provide certainty and clarity and show international markets Wales is open to low-carbon business. They demonstrate to people and to governments around the world we are determined to play our part in tackling this global crisis, and I think they show the people of Wales we are committed to improving their social, environmental, economic and cultural well-being. But, ultimately, they demonstrate to young people and our future generations we value their lives and livelihoods as much as our own. Diolch.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 5, does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we defer voting on this item until voting time. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 6, does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting under this item until voting time. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 7, does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting under this item until voting time. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 8, does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time. 

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 9, does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Item 10 on the agenda today is the debate on the draft budget, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to open this debate on the Welsh Government's draft budget.

The debate takes place in accordance with the protocol agreed by the National Assembly last year. This is the second time we will have followed this procedure, ensuring that our budget process reflects our new fiscal responsibilities. My aim is to cover three main areas this afternoon. Firstly, I will set out some of the inescapable context in which today's draft budget was developed. Secondly, I hope to set out a series of changes that I intend to make to the draft budget published on 2 October. These changes will be reflected in the final budget, which will be laid on 18 December. Where there are changes to plans for the current year, these will be reflected in the second supplementary budget for 2018-19. The changes to plans are largely the result of the scrutiny process that has followed since the draft budget was first laid. I'd like to thank the Finance Committee and the other Assembly committees for their work in scrutinising the draft budget and for the reports and recommendations that provide the foundation for today's debate. Dirprwy Lywydd, my third intention will be to provide a first response to that scrutiny process, focusing in particular on the report of the Finance Committee published last week.

To begin, then, with context, this budget marks another milestone in our devolution journey. For the first time, the budget contains revenues raised directly from the Welsh rates of income tax. Members will be aware that, in line with my party’s manifesto, it is not my intention to raise income tax levels in Wales next year. As well as Welsh rates of income tax, the budget reflects the income expected from land transaction tax and landfill disposal tax. Altogether, more than £2 billion-worth of the revenue used next year to support Welsh public services will be raised as a result of decisions made here in the National Assembly for Wales.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the budget takes place against the twin assaults of austerity and Brexit. As Members will know from the debate we held earlier this afternoon, it is this Government’s view that any form of Brexit will leave people in Wales worse off than if membership of the European Union had continued. In a catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit, our economy might shrink by up to 10 per cent. The short and long-term implications for the Welsh budget and the funding available for public services in such a situation would be profound. That assault would be all the more damaging because it would come on top of the damage done by eight years of austerity.

Members know the facts, but members of the official opposition particularly need to hear them again. If our budget had simply retained its 2010 value, if we were not a penny better off in real terms, the budget in front of you today would have £850 million more to invest in front-line services. If spending on public services had just kept pace with the growth in the economy since 2010, not taking any greater share than David Cameron and George Osborne inherited, then this afternoon, you would be debating a budget with an extra £4 billion to attend to the urgent needs of Wales. If today’s UK Government had managed to match the longer term trend in public spending, a longer term trend sustained in Governments led by Harold Macmillan, Edward Heath, Margaret Thatcher, John Major, then our budget would be some £6 billion larger than it actually is today. Instead, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have a Chancellor in Philip Hammond who said in his budget on 29 October that austerity was over, and then shamefully left the very worst-off managing on breadline benefits, with their incomes frozen or declining for the third year in succession. A Chancellor who said that his was a budget to unleash investment to drive future prosperity, and then gave this Assembly just £2.6 million extra capital to address every unmet investment need we have the next year. This is the inescapable context in which today’s budget has been crafted, and nobody should forget it, even if, like the annual appearance of Scrooge at Christmas, we see the dusting down of the annual Conservative amendment to the budget, which once again we will oppose.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I turn to the second main part of what I want to put on record this afternoon: the changes I plan to see reflected in the final budget, to be published later this month. At the start of October, both the First Minister and I made it clear that if any further resources became available to us over the autumn, then further funding for local government would be a key priority. I’m grateful to the Welsh Local Government Association for the detailed and constructive discussions since October, and for the result we were able to reach. The package of additional funding measures for local government next year reaches a total of £141.5 million. That includes a settlement that is at least cash-flat in revenue terms for local government again next year—the third year in a row, Dirprwy Lywydd, in which we have been able to protect Welsh local government from cash cuts.

Once again, I will find the money centrally for for a funding floor to be set now at no lower than -0.5 per cent so no local authority in Wales faces reductions above that level. And we will be able to boost the capital funding available to local authorities in Wales by a further £100 million over three years, over and above the additions to capital investment that I was able to announce in the budget on 2 October.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that Members across the Chamber are interested in support for rates paid by small businesses. Three quarters of businesses already receive help with these costs from the taxpayer here in Wales. In his budget on 29 October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he intended to introduce a scheme of high street relief, a scheme, of course, that we have had in place in Wales for the last two years. The introduction of a scheme in England, however, brings with it a funding consequential for this National Assembly. I confirmed to the Finance Committee last week that I intended to apply the full £26 million consequential to support businesses in Wales next year.

Today, Dirprwy Lywydd, I can go further to inform Members that I intend to use the bulk of that money to provide an expanded and more generous development of the existing Welsh scheme, retaining the basic parameters, which I agreed at the outset with the then finance spokesperson of Plaid Cymru. I expect to be in a position to announce the full details of the scheme very soon. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, because I recognise that any national scheme may leave some anomalies at a local level, I also intend to increase the funding to local authorities further to boost their ability to respond to particular needs of ratepayers in their localities through the discretionary rate relief scheme that local authorities operate in every part of Wales.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, in this part of what I have say, to note a further element in the agreement we have with Plaid Cymru in this second year of the two-year budget agreement we reached on a package of measures last year, where we have mutual policy interests. The draft budget of 2 October contained an additional £2.7 million to upgrade both Urdd camps at Glan-llyn and Llangrannog. 

Today, I can let Members know that I intend to double the amount of capital funding set aside in next year's budget to take forward the results of feasibility studies agreed between our two parties, from £5 million to £10 million. I do so because of the progress made in producing those studies. The culture Minister last week updated the Assembly about the feasibility studies for a new contemporary art gallery for Wales and a new football museum. The feasibility study for a national archive for Wales will be available by spring next year. Both our parties want that work to be able to be taken forward and this significant additional capital, which I announce this afternoon, will help to make that happen.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, to the third part of what I'm going to say in this part of the debate and, particularly, to provide a preliminary response to the recommendations of the Finance Committee. I will, of course, provide a formal written response to the committee in advance of the vote on the final budget in January next year. This afternoon, I wanted to say immediately that I accept the first of the recommendations of the Finance Committee's report that we retain the current practice of a two-stage budget process for next year. I intend, additionally, to follow the committee's advice in relation to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and will be pleased to provide the committee with any renewed memorandum of understanding in relation to independent tax forecasting as the committee's report suggests. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, much attention has been given during the scrutiny process across Assembly committees to preventative spend. I hope the definition of prevention, arrived at in consultation with third sector bodies, Public Health Wales, the fire service and others, has helped in this year's round, and I look forward to further refinements of it in discussions with committees and others. It is certainly not intended to be the last word on this matter, and I'm confident that the scrutiny process will allow us to take that definition further. The future generations commissioner has taken a particular interest in prevention, alongside other aspects of the budget, and I thank her and her team for the advice provided on the application of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to the budget-making process, and therefore to the Finance Committee for their recognition of the additional steps taken this year to bring about the cultural change necessary within the Welsh Government to embed the Act in all we do.

Llywydd, the final recommendation of the committee returns me to where I began this debate this afternoon, by noting the need for budgetary flexibility in response to Brexit, and of course I agree with that recommendation. The next few weeks could see decisions made that will have a deep and lasting impact on the resources available to this National Assembly to discharge the responsibilities devolved to Wales. That uncertainty has hung over the whole of the budget process this year, even as we in the Government remain committed to doing everything that we can to help our public services meet the very real challenges of today, while acting to improve the prospects for Welsh citizens in the future. That's what this budget does, and I ask Members to support it this afternoon.

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

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Members will know, of course, that I was appointed Chair of the Finance Committee earlier this year, so this has been a new experience for me, and scrutiny of the draft budget has been a fascinating introduction, one could say, to the work of the Finance Committee. 

Of course, the way that the draft budget is scrutinised was changed last year, and this is the second time that the Finance Committee has undertaken a more high-level, strategic scrutiny, looking at overarching spending and revenue-raising plans. As part of our scrutiny, we considered the timing of the draft budget, as we've already heard in the opening remarks of the Cabinet Secretary. The committee recognises that publishing the Welsh draft budget before the UK budget can cause difficulties. Once the UK budget is published, this can result in allocation changes between the draft and the final budgets, and more in-year funding changes. However, we agreed that the current practice of publishing the Welsh draft budget prior to the UK autumn statement is preferable to delaying scrutiny. I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary accepts our recommendation but, of course, we will continue to review the arrangements as we go forward.

Our report makes a series of recommendations, and I'll briefly cover some of the more prominent ones in my contribution to this debate this afternoon. This is the first draft budget after the introduction of the Welsh rate of income tax, which is an exciting and historic moment in devolution. We heard from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs about the work being done to ensure they are ready for 1 April and, in the main, it seems that work is on target and is progressing well.  Everyone here today should by now have received a letter informing them of their Welsh taxpayer status, but we do recognise at the same time that Wales has a dynamic border, with around 100,000 people migrating back and forth each year. So, effectively monitoring Welsh taxpayers is going to be crucial, and we recommend that the Welsh Government clearly monitors progress in that process of identification of Welsh taxpayers as we make progress. The Cabinet Secretary assured the committee that this work was being paid for, and as such he was clear about his expectations of the service expected of HMRC.

The subject of forecasting future tax revenues was also an area of concern for the committee. In Scotland, we heard that there was an overestimation by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the OBR, and the Scottish Fiscal Commission of £700 million and £500 million respectively. We asked the OBR whether this could happen in Wales, and it was said that more will be learnt when the first survey of personal income is available, whilst the Cabinet Secretary told us the reasons for the overestimation in Scotland are still unknown.

Whilst we were reassured that the Cabinet Secretary is working with his Scottish counterpart to learn from what's happened in Scotland, and although we recognise that the fiscal framework provides protection for us in the first year, this work needs to be done correctly and done well, or there will be serious implications for us in Wales from not getting this right. 

Last year, the OBR told the committee that the timing of the Welsh budget in relation to the UK autumn statement is 'challenging'. Well, the OBR will now be formally forecasting Welsh tax revenue, and the committee recognises the benefit of this being undertaken by the OBR, but we remain slightly concerned. We believe it is vital that taxpayer identification and forecasting is undertaken thoroughly for Wales, and we have recommended that the Welsh Government ensures that all work undertaken by the OBR and HMRC is given the same priority as the work they undertake in a UK context.

Last year, the Finance Committee scrutinised tax forecasts, and made recommendations in relation to the provision of Welsh specific data. We received evidence again this year raising this issue. Whilst the committee recognises that there are resource implications to creating additional data, we believe that, as time passes, improved Welsh specific data is crucial to informing both Welsh tax policy decision making and Welsh tax forecasting. 

When considering this draft budget and the prioritisations given, the committee were mindful that this budget, as we've already heard in the opening statement, has been produced in the context of 10 years of constrained public finances, with evident pressure from an ever-demanding health service. However, the committee also recognises the impact of the continual prioritisation of the health main expenditure group—the MEG—over other portfolios. The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales suggested that additional allocations to health should only be made with the proviso that they are for preventative activities, and that funding is spent in partnership with other stakeholders. The committee does believe that there is merit in this suggestion, and we have recommended that the Welsh Government give this consideration.

The future generations commissioner gave evidence on the links in the draft budget with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The commissioner felt that progress was being made, but that there is still change needed to ensure that the Act is embedded in the culture of the Welsh Government. We have recommended that the Welsh Government should engage as fully as possible with the commissioner to create this cultural change that we want to see, and the cultural change that the Cabinet Secretary referred to earlier on.

Stakeholder feedback and repeated concerns voiced by Assembly committees about the quality of impact assessments led to a new cross-cutting approach to this year’s budget scrutiny. The Finance Committee, the Children, Young People and Education Committee and the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee met jointly during this budget round to scrutinise the Welsh Government's approach to assessing the impact of its budget on children, on future generations and on equalities. The three committees have agreed to consider the evidence gathered in this specific session, and to report jointly in the new year, with a view to influencing, hopefully, future budgets.

This year, the work of budget scrutiny was set against a long-awaited definition of preventative spend, as we heard earlier, and we heard that this definition was created in partnership with stakeholders. However, we didn’t see extensive evidence that allocations were being considered in light of the definition, and it appears that spending decisions are too often being made in isolation.

The committee does believe that effective preventative spending requires an integrated approach, and time will be required to embed prevention into the budget process. We accept that. We also recognise that the definition of preventative spend will be updated in light of experience, and the committee looks forward to seeing improvements in how the budget allocations link up with the definition of preventative spend in future budgets.

The committee heard positive evidence with regard to the economic action plan. However, evidence also identified that it was difficult to identify spending on specific areas within the budget tables and that it’s difficult to align policies within the budget. The committee believes that the budget should be more explicit, ensuring increased transparency to enable stakeholders to track investments in the economic action plan to the budget tables. The committee would also like to see further consideration being given to how tackling regional inequality across Wales can be prioritised in decision making in relation to infrastructure investment.

The Cabinet Secretary announced that the consequential from the UK business rates relief scheme would be used for the Welsh rate relief scheme. And we’ve heard a few additional details on that this afternoon and we look forward to having greater detail in due course.

The continued uncertainty around Brexit meant, of course, that it was difficult to effectively scrutinise specific plans by the Welsh Government to respond to Brexit. The evidence we did receive showed concern not just on funding plans, but with regard to wider issues, such as healthcare arrangements and economic stability. We hope that these issues will be considered by the Welsh Government. The Cabinet Secretary said that flexibility was needed to respond to Brexit and the committee supported this approach. However, we would also be keen to see details as to how the Welsh Government responds to Brexit in the first supplementary budget next year, of course.

This year, the committee benefited from the expert advice of Dr Ed Poole from the Wales Governance Centre. Interestingly, Dr Poole also gave evidence to the committee on the draft budget. This is a rather unusual dual role, but for me this shows that we need to broaden the availability of finance experts across Wales. As fiscal devolution progresses, we need to ensure that we have a civic society that is fully willing and able to engage in that process.

To conclude, I would like to thank everyone who contributed to all stages of the scrutiny process: committee members of course, the research team, the clerking team, and also those who attended the stakeholder event or provided formal evidence. We are extremely grateful for the work of all of our stakeholders in helping us to shape our findings, and I look forward to seeing or hearing the Government’s formal response to our report. Thank you.

I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on Darren Millar to move that amendment. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd, and can I move the amendment, which is tabled in my name?

The Cabinet Secretary started his speech with a reference to the context around this budget and the context in which he has had to set it. He referred a great deal to austerity and the challenges that the UK Government has had to face, and, as a result, the Welsh Government has had to face as a result of the pressure on public finances, but he didn't mention at any time the fact that the reason that we were having to cope with austerity in recent years has been as a result of the disastrous state of public finances that were left by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling during the Labour Government's time in office.

Now, let me give you a little bit more detail on the context in which this budget has been set, because whilst you have heard that austerity is continuing, nothing could actually be further from the truth. The Welsh Government has a budget in excess of £16 billion next year. It's a record-breaking budget, the largest budget the Welsh Government has ever received, and actually the budget will have increased over the period of the spending review, over and above inflation, between 2015 and 2020.

This year is the biggest budget in the history of devolution, and the current funding arrangements between the Welsh Government and the UK Government mean that for every single pound spent on a devolved area in England, Wales receives £1.20 to spend here. On top of that, the recent spending decisions announced by the Chancellor in his autumn budget mean that the Welsh Government's revenue budget is going to increase by £550 million—that's over £0.5 billion by 2021. And in addition to that extra cash, the UK Government is scrapping the Severn bridge tolls, expected to give £100 million a year boost to the Welsh economy every year. It’s already committed to supporting the development of a mid Wales growth deal, and it has pledged, unlike the Welsh Government, £120 million for a north Wales growth deal, and I think that it’s about time you put your hand in your pocket to put some money on the table too.

So, you've got a rising budget from Westminster and you've got new flexibility in terms of the taxation powers that have been devolved by the UK Conservative Government and that, I believe, is the context in which you are setting your budget and I believe it gives you an opportunity—[Interruption.]—to do things differently. I'll happily take an intervention.

Do you accept or believe that the budget now is not 5 per cent lower than it was in 2010-11? Do you not agree with that?

I agree that this is the largest budget ever received by a Welsh Government.

That's not answering my question—

That is the situation.

Now, from April, as we've already heard, the Welsh Government will have new tax levers—more tax levers than ever before in order to generate some wealth for the Welsh economy, but instead of seizing the opportunity that those tax levers represent, to give our economy a shot in the arm, the Welsh Government has succumbed to the traditional Labour temptation of tax and spend. Let’s take the new 6 per cent supertax, for example, which you impose on commercial land sales of over £1 million—a move that the Welsh chartered surveyors labelled as, and I quote, ‘crazy’. They warned, and I quote, that it would make Wales a less commercially attractive place to invest and would damage the economy. That’s the sort of punitive tax-and-spend ideology that you’d expect from a party that has, time and time again, absolutely trashed our public finances. This budget could have helped to address those concerns and helped to attract more businesses to relocate into Wales, but it hasn’t, because instead, Cabinet Secretary, you’ve ignored them. This is not the sort of twenty-first century socialism that you claim to represent; it’s the sort of socialism that stifles opportunity, holds Wales back and strangles the life chances of the next generation.

And what about these other tax levers at your disposal? The Confederation of British Industry has rightly warned you about raising Welsh income tax, saying that it should be last resort and not a first response. And I’m very pleased to see that, in your budget, there are no proposals at present to increase Welsh income taxes. But, of course, what you didn’t guarantee was that they’re not going to rise in the future—you’ve only mentioned the next financial year.

You’re a member of a party that committed itself in a manifesto before the 2016 Assembly elections that you were not going to increase income tax. Will you give us personally that commitment here again today from you, Cabinet Secretary? We’ve only got a small proportion of the UK’s higher and additional rate taxpayers and I think it’s extremely likely that these highly mobile individuals would be relocating from Wales, resulting in a loss of revenue for the Welsh coffers and also resulting in investment from those individuals going elsewhere. And it’s true, of course, of other taxes too.

I’m very pleased to hear that you’ve had a belated conversion to the need to do something extra on business rates, because, as we know, at present, we have the least attractive business rate regime in the United Kingdom, as a result of the current situation with the multiplier.

I’m looking forward—you’ve shown us a bit of leg in terms of your plans to use the £26 million consequential that you’ve received from the UK Government to support the situation with business rates, but you haven’t given us more detail about that, and I’d like to hear more detail in your response to the debate today.

You see, we Conservatives know that when you support businesses, you’re actually helping to stimulate the whole economy and you’re helping to support public services because it’s private businesses that create the wealth, that pay the taxes, that employ people who also pay their taxes, and it’s those taxes that pay for the public services that we enjoy in Wales, and the staff who work in them.

So, this budget is a let-down in many respects, not least for Welsh businesses. It’s also a let-down, of course, for first-time buyers. It does very little to accelerate house building, the house building that we need and was referred to during First Minister’s questions today. It doesn’t do a great deal extra in terms of helping people to get their foot on the housing ladder either. And you could have taken further steps to support people through extensions of the allowance in terms of the land transaction tax in order to help people onto the housing ladder. But you haven't. You haven't. It's another missed opportunity.

Turning to the NHS, we've welcomed the additional investment that your Government has put into the national health service, but I have to say that it's a little bit too little too late. Let's not forget that Wales has the accolade of having the only Government ever anywhere in the United Kingdom that has ever cut a national health service budget. And the legacy of your savage cuts in a previous administration to the NHS budget live on with us today, because as a result of those cuts—[Interruption.] You were talking about how budgets change over a period if they keep pace with inflation. Well, let me tell you, if you hadn't cut the national health service budget in the year that you cut that budget, with the support of Plaid Cymru I might add, the national health service budget—if you had kept pace with the spending increases in England—would be £1 billion healthier today in Wales than is currently the case. Because the truth is that, over the past six years, the budget has risen more than twice as fast in terms of the health service in England than it has done in Wales, and it's very clear—[Interruption.] It's very clear—these are facts. You don't like the facts—[Interruption.] You don't like the facts—[Interruption.] You don't like the facts, but that is the truth. It's very clear that it's this Conservative Party that are championing the national health service, not the Labour Party here in Wales. I'll happily take the intervention.

I just want to say: do you regret the votes you made last week and the week before when you were asking for more money for further education and more money for local government, which could only have come out of the health service?

We are happy to champion the needs of our national health service and to campaign for more cash. You might like to defend cutting the national health service budget. I don't.

Now, I was pleased to hear your references to the need to take a look at the way that we invest in preventative spend, because we do know that it's not just about funding for the national health service, it's also funding for those services that prevent people from needing to access the national health service as well. And I'm pleased that you've listened to the calls of the future generations commissioner to take that situation more seriously, because we know that our councils in particular are facing significant additional pressures. They've got changing demography in their areas, and there's increasing demand for social care. Yet we're still seeing you cut cash. You're talking about a flat budget. The reality is that many local authorities are seeing their budgets significantly decrease as a result—[Interruption.]—as a result of your budget.

And those cuts are also hitting our schools. School funding in Wales, as we already know, according to the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers, is £678 per pupil per year lower than over the border in England, and that's in spite of you getting—[Interruption.]—an extra 20 per cent on top of every pound—[Interruption.]—that's spent over there. Don't argue with me. Argue with the NASUWT—[Interruption.] The Welsh Government's decisions to cut things like the education improvement grant this year and next year are only going to widen that gap.

Now, this is a budget, which you've presented to this house, that delivers real-term cuts yet again in the education budget, with schools set to receive £12 million less next year than in the current financial year. We already know that 40 per cent of schools are already operating with a budget deficit, and that looks only likely to rise. Is it any wonder that Estyn have concluded today that half of our secondary schools have shortcomings? Is it any wonder, when schools are facing that sort of pressure? And this is from a Government whose First Minister pledged to increase investment in our schools when he became First Minister back in 2009. The reality is that all he's done is cut, cut and cut in terms of their budget. In fact, we've had real-term cuts of almost 8 per cent in the gross budget expenditure for education from 2010-11 to date. What an absolute travesty.

I could say more, but the clock is ticking—[Interruption.]

No. You do need to bring your comments to a close.

Frankly, as has been the case in previous years, the detail of the budget is so opaque and difficult to unpick and drill down into that it's very difficult to know what other horrors lie beneath the surface.

So, in conclusion, this budget represents a missed opportunity for Wales. We have record levels of funding, rising budgets coming to the Welsh Labour Government, and they could have taken the opportunity to back businesses, to invest in the next generation and to do more to support those in need. But instead we've got a budget before us that is going to stifle businesses, which is cutting funding for our schools and failing to invest in the preventative services that vulnerable people need. It's a budget from a Government that, after 20 years, has run out of steam and run out of ideas. We'll be voting against it and we hope others will too. 

This is an austerity budget. Twice over, all of us can see the impact of the Tory UK Government's austerity agenda, which has depleted the overall spending power of Welsh Government significantly, and no Darren Millar smoke and mirrors will hide the reality of that callous Tory Government at Westminster. But the double whammy in this budget, of course, is the fact that Labour has made political decisions here that deepen the effect of long-term UK Government cuts, especially in the context of local government budget allocations. And this in the context of an increase, actually, in the overall budget for next year.

Now, yes, there's been a tweak since the publishing of the first draft budget, with the allocation of new UK budget consequentials that does slightly loosen the stranglehold on Welsh councils, but it's still a stranglehold, nonetheless, and this budget was an opportunity to put a fresh injection of resource into local services that could have knock-on benefits for public services more widely, and I regret that that opportunity hasn't been taken.

Of course, this Government commands a majority, now, so our powers, as opposition parties, are limited. That's the reality; we're collectively not in a position to vote it down, and the way we vote on these benches has no bearing, sadly, on the overall ability of the Government to pass its budget. We're bound, with a budget agreement that is nearing its end, to abstain today, but as much as we consider a budget agreement to be something to be taken very seriously indeed, I must say that we are under intense pressure, including from Labour colleagues of the finance Minister, to vote against. But my hope is that, in the spirit of the positive dialogue that there has been between the finance Minister and me and my predecessors, as Plaid Cymru finance spokespeople—and I do thank him for the mature and constructive manner in which discussions have taken place—he does give further thought between now and the publication of the final budget to giving local government a break. We can't continue with the real-term cuts that have a direct impact on education spending and on social services, leading to damaging indirect impacts on health budgets. Your room for manoeuvre is limited—I understand that—but what that means is that the manoeuvring you do do has to be with pinpoint accuracy, and, unfortunately, local services are taking a hard knock, as it stands.

It’s not just Plaid Cymru Members who have been expressing concerns about the Government’s failure to recognise the pressures on local government. We heard Barbara Jones, the deputy leader of Caerphilly council, saying recently that we can’t now place all of the blame on the Conservative Government in London. It hurts her to say, as a staunch socialist, that the Welsh Government hasn’t treated them fairly. That’s the view across local government in Wales. It’s not a matter of complaining or of making unreasonable demands by councillors. We can’t discount them, as the Cabinet Secretary for local government did, comparing councillors to Oliver Twist. That is not acceptable. They are caring for their constituents, for people the length and breadth of Wales—that’s what our councillors are doing across the nation. This is a matter of realising the real implications of our ability to provide fundamental services within our communities. And, as I’m explaining, this is Labour’s austerity this time.

But this budget also reflects broader problems within Government and its failure to think and to act holistically when it comes to budgetary decisions, and a failure to take preventative steps now. Cutting funds from crucial preventative services provided by local government is of course going to increase the pressure on our health service. We see this in the response of the Royal College of General Practitioners to the budget too, which notes the huge pressures on primary care services, therefore, because of a lack of long-term planning and a lack of investment in preventative services. We need to change the way in which we plan budgets across all areas and how they come together. We need greater ambition, we need a longer term view and more collaboration between the various levels of government and public services. And we certainly need—and I would want to support this—far more focus across the budget on tackling poverty. Victoria Winckler from the Bevan Foundation told the Finance Committee that she couldn’t see an anti-poverty strategy that was sufficiently rooted within this budget. In her words:

'It needs to be embedded in the priorities and embedded in the focus.'

It isn’t, according to her.

Further education—a fortnight ago, the Senedd voted in favour of increasing the funding available to further education. The Government needs to respect the views of the Senedd in this decision. That was my message to the Cabinet Secretary in a letter following that vote. I’ve received a response yesterday noting that additional funding for salaries is available, but I don’t think that that is sufficient, and neither does it reflect the spirit of the vote taken here a fortnight ago, so I would ask him, therefore: what is the Government’s intention in terms of taking clear action on that vote, and how much additional funds can FE expect?

There has been an agreement in place—there was a two-year agreement, and this will be the last time that Plaid Cymru will collaborate with the Government in this Assembly, I’m sure, so I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on those agreements. We’re very proud of what we have delivered through those budgetary agreements—£0.5 billion in financial commitments for priorities from our 2016 manifesto, more than any opposition party in the Assembly has ever delivered. It includes an additional £40 million for mental health services. It does mean that medical education will be introduced in Bangor from next year on. There is greater support for Welsh businesses in preparing for Brexit. There’s significant funding for the Urdd camps, thanks to the agreement with Plaid Cymru. And I’m pleased to hear confirmation this afternoon of additional capital funding to develop proposals for a contemporary art gallery and football museum, which were the result of a feasibility study that came about as a result of our budgetary agreement. This is what delivering as an opposition party looks like. That is what it means to be responsible and to work in a mature manner in order to secure improvements to people’s lives—those people who we represent. But, as I said, this is Labour’s budget, and it’s Labour who will decide whether it is passed as it is or not.

We’re moving to a new period now in our history as a nation—in the history of devolution too. The devolution of taxation powers is entirely right and will lead to greater scrutiny, more detailed scrutiny, of our processes and the budgetary decisions taken by the Welsh Government. The Government is not only a spending body now and we are evolving to a period where that balance of receipts into the Welsh coffers will be balanced and jointly scrutinised alongside the expenditure decisions, and that’s how it should be. But it does mean a very real responsibility on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and that’s why getting that balance and ensuring that the priorities are right is so important. And that’s why we’re so disappointed with the draft local government settlement specifically, and why we’re asking for a reconsideration of that, even at this eleventh hour.

Some taxes have already been devolved, and it’s fair to say from our work as the Finance Committee that, to a great extent, it is too early to assess the impact that those new taxes are having on the expenditure of the Welsh Government and the decision that the Welsh Government needs to take. Now, taking responsibility for a percentage of income tax will be a key and substantial step forward, and it is a step that I and my party have supported in the long term. There are elements of risk, of course, as Scotland has experienced recently, but I have no doubt that the incentive will be there now for the Government to innovate and to raise the bar in terms of economic performance targets, to raise the bar in terms of what the Government is seeking to deliver through its budget. It’s also clear that it’s not the Labour Government that will deliver the necessary ambition for us.

Thanks to the Finance Minister for bringing today's budget debate. Of course, we agree with some aspects of the Government's draft budget. The news we had—. Mark Drakeford said today that the full amount from the consequential of the UK Government's high-street relief scheme—the full amount will be spent in Wales. That's welcome news. Although, as Darren Millar added in his contribution, we will need more detail on that.

The agreement with Plaid—Mark Drakeford again made this point, which was just referenced by Rhun. There are the feasibility studies into two interesting and promising projects—the national football museum and the modern art gallery. Of course, we could well support those schemes; they sound highly promising. Again, we'll have a look at the detail as we go forward.

Onto broader points, we are now moving more and more into a situation where health spending is swallowing up approaching half the Welsh Government budget. Of course, health is the major spending area and one that is surrounded by a large degree of public concern. The problem is that health spending is inflating at a greater level than overall Government spending, which, obviously, can't carry on forever; it's not sustainable. So, at some point, we do have to be cognisant of points that have been made by the future generations commissioner in the past, now supported by many others from various political parties, and move to more effective preventative spending, which will save us money in the long run. It's good that there is now an agreed definition of what actually comprises preventative spending, but, of course, this is still a complex issue. We've heard that the definition is liable to change. The whole situation does need to be monitored, and we hope that the long-term issue will now start to be at least addressed. But we are going to want to see a cross-cutting approach from the Welsh Government and we will need to closely monitor this going forward to see if the preventative spending principle is being adhered to in future years.

Overall, we see good things in it, as I said, although there seems to be a lot of pessimism. Mark Drakeford said that the budget had been set beneath the twin shadows of austerity and Brexit. I don't want to get too much into those areas because they're always given a lot of leverage by other parties and we've had the Brexit debate today already. Darren Millar referred to horrors lying beneath the surface. Surely, it can't be as bad as all that—maybe we do have to slightly lighten up.

Overall, we oppose the Government's draft budget and we do support the Conservative amendment. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

In preparing my Christmas message to my constituents this week, I was pleased to report on the uplift to local government announced by the Cabinet Secretary on 20 November, which came as welcome news to Welsh local authorities, securing an additional package of £141.5 million in revenue and capital over the next three years. And the uplift to the draft budget secures these additional allocations of funding where they're most needed, where our public services are delivered in local government, despite the deep and unnecessary cuts to our budget by the UK Government over the past eight years, and the loss of £850 million for our public services as a result, with our budget 5 per cent lower in real terms. So, no wonder I welcomed a letter in my local paper The Barry Gem from a constituent in Barry with a headline to the council leader to stop denying political reality. My constituent had read a letter from the leader of the Conservative-controlled Vale of Glamorgan Council asking for more financial help from the Welsh Government. My constituent wrote, 'Is Councillor Thomas aware of which political party he's a member of and from where the financial starvation of local services is ultimately directed?'

Austerity's reckoning has been made clear by the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, laying bare the facts of the past nine years of cuts and austerity. He said:

'Damage is being done to the fabric of British society, to the sense of community…soon there will be nowhere for people in the lower-income groups to go.'

He cited the disappearance of sport centres, recreation spaces, public land, libraries and youth clubs. We welcomed Professor Alston to Wales and we accept his finding. It is the Welsh Government and local authorities that have had to mitigate against austerity.

In 2010, after the so-called emergency budget—that first budget of that coalition Government, when I was finance Minister—we were told to make cuts to revenue and capital. We refused to make those cuts. I recall speaking about providing a shield against those cuts. We didn't know that eight years on we would be still in that position, with even tougher choices to make to maintain and strengthen that shield. This week, we have yet more evidence of the adverse impact of austerity from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which found that a third of children in a typical classroom of 30 are now living in poverty, as more working parents cannot make ends meet. So, I also welcome the vital commitment in this draft budget to double the pupil deprivation grant, to fund free school meals for 3,000 more pupils, £200 million for the council tax benefit scheme, scrapped in England, to mitigate against the cuts, to tackle poverty. And I welcome the measures taken by the Cabinet Secretary to secure fairer funding via the fiscal framework, and the use of our Welsh reserve and your ongoing commitment to our Welsh NHS. You've used all the tools and levers at your disposal. 

Now, I visited Cowbridge High Street on Small Business Saturday—Cowbridge was the rising star in the recent Great British High Street Awards—and told the chamber of trade chair, Kate Thomas, that £26 million for additional business rates relief was being allocated by the Welsh Government on top of the Wales-only targeted rates relief and transitional relief announced last year. And I do look forward to discussing with her the announcement you've made this afternoon, Cabinet Secretary, about expanding that targeted, bespoke Wales rates relief scheme for high streets. But I also praise Kate for her role in the high street as a community pharmacy, providing vital services to the local population of all means and circumstances. I took the opportunity on Saturday, as I do today, to praise the Welsh Government for keeping our free prescriptions, free breakfasts, free bus passes, helping to meet everyone's needs and reduce the inequality gap widening in the UK, but being addressed here in Wales. 

So, Cabinet Secretary, I'll back the draft budget and thank you for exercising your political will and determination to mitigate, provide a shield and use our new tax powers effectively and responsibly. And can I use the opportunity today to highlight a study by the University of Cambridge, which shows that austerity cuts are twice as deep in England as in the rest of Britain? The Cambridge study found that devolved powers have allowed Scottish and Welsh Governments to mitigate the harshest cuts experienced in parts of England where there is multiple deprivation. Maybe it's time for us to remember the line from the 1999 Catatonia song 'International Velvet', where Cerys Matthews sang, 'Every day when I wake up I thank the Lord I'm Welsh.' She said at the time:

'Hopefully by now people realise that Wales is brimmed full of talent and we're great people with massive brains.'

So, we need to continue our vigilance to protect our public services, to tackle poverty, and do what we can with our powers, our political will, and our brains, to continue to make that a reality. That's what I believe this draft budget will achieve. 

I want to speak about housing, and I think it's a fairly sobering experience to look at the record going back over the last 20 or 25 years. I don't want to make a particularly partisan speech. I want us to look at how we can forge a new consensus, and, happily, we have a lot of flexibility in improving the planning system, adapting some of our spending, but a lot of what we need to do could come through the cap being lifted on local authorities' borrowing powers and other flexibilities that we'll have. It is very much a capital approach that we need to take, as well as ensuring that we have a more efficient planning system. 

And I also think that, after this afternoon's debate on Brexit, it's appropriate for us to look at something that really goes to the heart of the foundational economy. House building is something surely that can unite us all in terms of its economic worth, the social good that is promoted, the skills that we need to develop for our young people, giving really good jobs and opportunities. And much of the economic activity it generates does stay in local communities. 

Can I first of all say that, should the Cabinet Secretary win the election, the result of which will be announced shortly—? It has taken nine months to get this far, but I think, over the next day or two, we will actually hear the result. But I know that, should he win and accede to the important and high office of First Minister, he would create a Cabinet post of housing Secretary. And I warmly welcome this, because I believe that is really important. And can I urge that it's housing and planning, because I think it's highly dysfunctional at the moment, the way those portfolios are divided? So, that would be a start; there's no doubt about it. That would send a very powerful signal to all our stakeholders out there.

But I do believe that it requires all parties to see the importance anew of housing. After the war, housing and health marched together, really, as the two great social causes. And I think that's the type of priority we need to see housing acquire again, and we will start to rebuild some of the trust, I think, that the younger generation need to have in their political system, because, at the moment, there are key areas where it's not serving them well.

Let me just go through the figures. I must say that the record in England has not been great either; I think that has to be conceded. We've had a real problem in the United Kingdom since the 1990s and the number of homes we are building compared to our historical trend. We are now barely building 6,000 homes a year; a historical trend of between 10,000 and 12,000 in Wales since the second world war. So, we are barely half our historical trend. That's historical trend; that's not what we need to build at the moment. We need to go beyond historical trend, at least for a sustained period, one could argue. The Welsh Government has the evidence. It commissioned an excellent report from the late Professor Holmans, and I think it needs to act on the data that that report produced. The UK Government has had a change of heart, I think, in the type of ambition we need for housing. I don't know whether they've had an equivalent work to that produced by Professor Holmans, but they have set new and more ambitious targets for house building in the 2020s, and that's what I think we should match or even exceed.

I think the challenge of building 100,000 new homes between 2021 and 2031 would be an appropriate and ambitious target for us, in what is likely to be the first Brexit decade. I think it will send also a powerful message to our key partners, the private sector, housing associations and local authorities. We need very flexible working—local authorities to use their borrowing powers, and to work with the private sector and independent sector through housing associations. I think some local councils will start to build at greater scale council houses. I have no problem with that; I think we just need the homes. And it may be that some councils will develop particular specialities and be able to do that for key areas. But I think our key partners in the social sector will be housing associations, and I'd like to see them get even more flexibility, longer term budgets, so they can plan effectively and also drive up through this social building standards, the design quality and create new eco-friendly modular homes. In the 1950s and 1960s, the great improvements in house building were often set by the standards in the social sector, and that's the type of thing that we can see the private sector then emulate, particularly with low-carbon homes, I think.

We need to see a revitalised small and medium-sized enterprise sector and a skills base, working through further education authorities, to allow that. We cannot increase from 6,000 to the 12,000, 13,000, 14,000 that we will need in the next 20 years or so quickly. That's why I think a 10-year target of 100,000 is realistic. It will give us time to, first, recover to historical trend and then, if necessary, go further. And I can say this: if the First Minister makes that sort of pledge—or the new First Minister makes that sort of pledge—I think they will find warm endorsement around this Chamber. It's the sort of pledge we need to give the people of Wales.

I intend to make some general comments on the budget, followed by more detailed ones as Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. On the budget, this is set against continuing austerity. We should, as the Cabinet Secretary said, be receiving at least £800 million more. But to the Conservatives at Westminster, austerity is not an economic policy, it's an ideology—a twin-track approach of cuts and privatisation. We currently have a situation where Jeremy Corbyn has more in common with the post-war Governments of Churchill, Eden and Macmillan than Theresa May does. On revenue raising, income from income tax has first-year protection, and we will see how the income relates to the predicted, as Llyr Gruffydd discussed earlier.

We again see an increase in the health budget as a percentage of the Welsh budget. This cannot continue indefinitely, if only because, at some stage, it will reach 100 per cent of the Welsh budget. Also, the share of the health that budget primary care gets is a cause for concern—when we say 'health', we mean hospitals, and that cannot be the way to make for a healthier nation. For good health, you need good-quality housing, a good diet and exercise, to not smoke and not consume large quantities of alcohol. We desperately need to do more on health improvement and lifestyle—one of the things that Communities First used to do before it was closed down.

Local government has had real-terms reductions again. The budget for local government has improved from the draft budget, which I welcome. There is a promise of any teacher pension money received going to local government to fund the increase in pension costs. Again, I think everybody has to welcome that. It does not help that Ministers, instead of supporting basic services in local government, use additional funding for add-ons—nice add-ons; there's nothing wrong with them—but the basic service needs to come first. There is also money in budgets, such as economy and transportation, that can be used to support local government.

Turning to the budget relating to climate change, environment and rural affairs, this year, the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee scrutinised the draft budgets of the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Earlier this year, the Welsh Government decided to add a sixth priority to its national strategy, 'Prosperity for All'. The new, sixth priority is decarbonisation. This is something that the committee welcomes, and we were eager to see the changes in the approach to the draft budget resulting from this change in priorities. However, we have found little evidence of how the inclusion of decarbonisation as the sixth priority has informed decisions about the budget allocation this year.

The Cabinet Secretary has published proposals to replace current systems of financial support for agriculture with two distinct schemes: the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme. The Cabinet Secretary has said that she wants to start the transition to these new schemes in 2021. We think this is a huge undertaking and we were interested in the allocations in the draft budget to prepare for this change. We were surprised, however, to see that there are no additional allocations in the budget to prepare—no additional funding for piloting or modelling and no additional funding for advisory services for the many thousands of farmers who will be affected. We were not reassured that preparations could be made adequately within existing budgets. This is an area where we have made several recommendations.

In terms of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport’s budget, I would like to focus on the economy futures fund and how it links with decarbonisation. Our main concern was the monitoring arrangements surrounding some parts of the fund. In principle, we welcome the fact that businesses seeking investment as part of the economic contract must demonstrate progress in reducing their carbon footprint. We believe that there should be a clear, demonstrable commitment that the business in question has a serious focus on reducing its carbon footprint. This would most likely require more than just a series of conversations. We have also recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should keep under review the operation of the decarbonisation call to action, with a view to encouraging more businesses to make use of the funding to reduce their carbon footprint.

I'd like to reply to some comments. I agree with David Melding that we need to build more houses. Building more houses is very simple: allow councils to borrow to build council houses against the value of the existing housing stock. It would mean a change in the policy of the Treasury, but it would allow a huge-scale building of council houses. Some of us who were brought up in council houses in the 1960s are well aware of the huge number of estates and large number of houses built across Wales at that time. That, I think, was really important, but we need to allow councils to build again, and that can only be done by changing the Treasury's rules.

And those rules are being changed; the borrowing cap is going to be lifted. 

But the Treasury rules on borrowing have not been fully lifted so that you can borrow against the total value of the stock. If what David Melding is saying that, I can tell you we'd have large-scale building of housing taking place in Wales now. There's been a raising of the cap, but not a removal of it. But we can perhaps discuss this in another place.

The other thing I was going to say is that I congratulate Darren Millar's view that Gordon Brown had complete power over the whole of the world's economy. He caused the recession in Spain, he caused the recession in Greece; he caused one in Iceland and he caused one in the whole of North America. The countries that avoided the big problems were Norway, Sweden and Finland, and what did they have? They had a socialist government, working on behalf of the people.

It's a pleasure to take part on this important debate on the draft budget, as Chair of the health committee. And, of course, with the health and social care of around £ 9 billion, there is a huge challenge facing the members of the committee to scrutinise all the details of that major budget. So, I will go through some of the process of scrutinising and gathering evidence. In July, we scrutinised the Welsh Government’s response to the parliamentary review, ‘A Healthier Wales’, which is the Welsh Government’s plan for health and social care. In September, we received written evidence from all health boards, the Welsh Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services in Wales, to add to the whole host of evidence that we’d already received. Then, in November, we scrutinised the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care and the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport. As to the main themes, transformative change was one of them. The Cabinet Secretary has been clear that service transformation must become a mainstream activity for health and social care organisations and that these organisations’ core funding will be used to deliver the relevant changes.

We have deep concerns around whether the NHS and social care services will be able to achieve this, given the demand and cost pressures identified and the continuing failure of the majority of health boards to break even. We welcome the £100 million being made available through the transformation fund for pathfinder projects, but we have sought assurance that the use and impact of this fund will be effectively monitored, particularly in terms of it being used to support projects that are genuinely transformative and scalable, and that mental health is given parity with physical health. We have serious concern about the level of funding for primary care. Given the policy focus on shifting care out of hospitals, we would have expected to see a significant increase in the level of spend on primary care, but the evidence that we have seen shows that this is not happening. We believe that this illustrates the challenges facing health boards in achieving service transformation given the ongoing pressures that they face in the acute sector, for example. Given that the direction of travel for services, as set out in ‘A Healthier Wales’ is towards delivery of services to be undertaken in primary and community healthcare, we are very concerned that the proposed funding for primary care will not be sufficient to support this objective.

Turning to the financial position of the health board, as part of last year’s budget scrutiny, we sought to examine in detail the financial position of LHBs in Wales. We reported our disappointment at the time that the ambitions of the National Health Service Finance (Wales) Act 2014 had not been fully realised by all NHS bodies and that four of the seven LHBs reported a deficit in at least one of the preceding three years. A particular concern was that Betsi Cadwaladr and Hywel Dda both reported a deficit in each of the years between 2014-15 and 2016-17.

We note that progress has been made by particular health boards. However, we are disappointed by the continuing inability of a number of health boards to manage their finances and we seek to understand the reasons behind the enduring difficulties in some health boards. We believe it is of crucial importance to understand the extent to which this may be due to management issues at individual health board level, or how much may be due to their funding allocations.

Turning to mental health, the Welsh Government’s detailed draft budget proposals for 2019-20 highlight that mental health is the largest single area of NHS expenditure. The Welsh Government will spend £675 million on mental health services in 2019-20, and an extra £20 million is being provided in this draft budget for mental health services as part of the Welsh Government’s two-year budget agreement with Plaid Cymru. We know that health boards are already spending more on mental health than the ring-fenced allocation. However, we are mindful of the growing demand for mental health services and we’re persuaded by the Welsh NHS Confederation’s suggestion that the level of need for mental health services may be significantly greater than the current levels of spend.

Turning to the health workforce briefly, while systems and services provide a focus for change, it is the workforce that represents the largest asset in delivering care and in delivering the changes needed. We raised concerns with the Cabinet Secretary about the levels of sickness absence within the health workforce, particularly within the ambulance service. We also asked the Cabinet Secretary whether he recognised the disparity in terms of working conditions and pay, and a lack of parity of esteem between social care and healthcare staff. We believe that there's clear disparity between health care and social care sector workers, as has been raised regularly with us by stakeholders, and this is a significant barrier to successful service integration.

We are in the closing seconds. 

Yes, you are. 

But not according to this generous script that the clerks have provided for me. [Laughter.]

So, do read more quickly, Dr Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, for your patience.

So, just to briefly mention social care. In 2017-18, 23 per cent of local authority gross revenue expenditure in Wales was on social services, and this is the second largest area of local authority expenditure after education. In a statement on 9 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services detailed that the local government settlement for 2019-20 includes a further £20 million to ease pressures on social services. An additional £30 million outside the local government settlement is also being made available for social care to address sustainability issues, including pressures—

The reading isn't quite swift enough, so the Member will have to draw his comments to a close. 

I am coming to a close now. We’ll forget the meagre expenditure of £22 million on sport.

The Welsh Local Government Association calculates that there is a £67 million funding gap for social services, once this additional £50 million is taken into account without any council tax increases. That is a matter of concern. Thank you for your patience, Llywydd.

I am speaking today on behalf of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Budget allocations are one of the most important ways the Welsh Government can evidence its stated commitments to policy areas and population groups. Allocations made to support our children and young people are no exception. One of our jobs as a committee is to scrutinise the priority the Welsh Government attaches to funding services for our children and young people. This is not a one-off annual exercise for us. We seek to build financial scrutiny into all our work throughout the year. We do this to make sure we are as clear as we can be about how much money is being given to support our children and young people, for what purpose, and whether it delivers value for money.

It is no secret that, as a committee, we have some concerns about how money is allocated for children and young people in Wales. We recognise that funding for children and young people cuts across numerous policy areas and portfolios. We understand the challenges this can present when outlining a draft budget. Nevertheless, we believe significant work remains to be done if the information presented by Welsh Government is to be as transparent as it needs to be to enable this legislature to hold Welsh Ministers to account for their decisions.

On this basis, we were very pleased to engage in a new innovation this year. As the Chair of Finance Committee has already said, we met concurrently with members of both the Finance and Equality, Local Government and Communities Committees to scrutinise the Government’s strategic integrated impact assessment. We intend to report jointly on our findings in the new year, to help inform the budget next year, so I won't pre-empt that.

However, at this stage, I will flag that our committee believes firmly that being able to demonstrate how children’s rights have shaped policy and financial decisions from their inception is key. Despite our best efforts in recent years, we remain disappointed that we have not observed more tangible progress in this regard.

I’ll turn now to some detailed areas of scrutiny, starting with our thoughts on education. We welcome the Welsh Government’s reversal of its original intention to cut education resource spending in 2019-20. We further welcome the more recent announcement that additional funding will be given to local authorities to meet the cost pressures of implementing school teachers’ pay. However, we would welcome more detailed information about this additional money, and would seek reassurance from Welsh Government that it is confident that the final budget will be sufficient to fund our schools sufficiently.

In terms of funding for further and higher education, much of the narrative in this area has been shaped by the recent Diamond and Reid reviews. The delivery of the recommendations of both of these flagship reviews relies heavily on the realisation of the so-called 'Diamond dividend'. In 2016, we were told that Diamond would deliver a future dividend for the sector. This year, we heard simply that the sector will not be disadvantaged. While we recognise the Cabinet Secretary’s description of the dividend as a'moveable feast', this apparent change in tone was of concern to us. As a result, we believe projections ought to be made available for scrutiny. We also believe adequate resource ought to be made available in the final budget to enable the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to fully fund its strategic priorities and begin funding the recommendations of the Reid review. After all, research and innovation are afforded a fundamental place in 'Prosperity for All', and require adequate funding if they are to become realistic prospects for our further and higher education sectors.

Turning now to health, social care and children’s services, it will not surprise this Chamber to hear that the emotional and mental health of our children and young people is a key priority for us. Our 'Mind over matter' report presented the evidence underpinning our calls for adequate resources in this area. While we welcome the steps taken recently by the Welsh Government to begin implementing our recommendations, we were concerned to learn that much-needed ring-fenced funding to deliver transformation in specialist child and adolescent mental health Services will be transferred to the all-age mental health ring fence. We believe this funding should be protected for CAMHS until support reaches the levels required and outcomes for children and young people have demonstrably improved.

Finally, Llywydd, I’ll turn to looked-after children, who are some of our most vulnerable young people. We repeat the calls made in our report on targeted funding to improve educational outcomes to ensure that the pupil development grant is funded sufficiently to support both adopted and looked-after children adequately. We also seek assurances from the Welsh Government that the funding available to Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is sufficient to deliver its important work. Thank you.

In my remarks today, I am speaking on behalf of the Welsh Conservative group. In my remarks, I would like to focus on the impact of the Welsh Government's budget in regard to support for businesses and on transport matters as well. Despite what the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said in his opening statement, large investments in this year's budget are only, of course, made possible by additional funding allocated by the UK Government, which makes it all the more disappointing, I think, that the Welsh Government have inflicted real-terms cuts on business support and infrastructure in Wales, which I'll come on to.

The Welsh Government's budget does seem to contradict the strategy for supporting the economy of Wales. We have an economic action plan but no detail on how this budget supports that plan, and no detail on how the budget supports SMEs or will grow employment in Wales. Business rates have been mentioned by Darren Millar and Gareth Bennett. Business rate relief remains the poorest offer in any part of the UK, so I do look forward to the detail that I hope the Cabinet Secretary will be able to bring to clarify how that is going to be rectified.

I am particularly concerned that Business Wales and business innovation have had their revenue funding cut by 41 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively. That's according to the budget as published. We on these benches believe that SMEs in Wales require support to obtain investment capital and advice on how to grow their businesses. The SME sector, I think, will be right to be disappointed that revenue funding for two key SME support bodies has been cut so dramatically. In addition to the 18 per cent real-terms cut in the revenue funding for business development will be a further decrease in confidence that SMEs have in the Welsh Government's commitment to supporting small enterprises in Wales.

Presiding Officer, Wales is also consistently failing to diversify its exports market. Now, that's been something that I have relayed a couple of times in this Chamber, but it was also mentioned by Paul Davies in the earlier debate today. This will have a damaging effect, I think, when you look at export, trade and inward investment being cut in real terms as well by 1.5 per cent by this budget. Following Brexit, the need for Wales to have a diverse set of destinations for its exports is going to be more important than ever before. So, Wales should be positioning itself to take advantage of trade opportunities post Brexit and, within this context, the Welsh Government's cuts to this component of the budget do seem short-sighted to me.

And despite the UK Government's announcement of £120 million for a north Wales growth deal, which Darren Millar talked about, and a commitment to support a mid Wales growth deal, I am concerned that the draft budget has a real-terms cut of 1.6 per cent for funding for city and growth deals. And I hope the Cabinet Secretary will be able to comment on that.

The elephant in the room in regards to the transport budget is, of course, the M4 relief road. That decision will have profound implications for future budgets across a range of portfolios, and this hasn't been covered at all in the draft budget, and I don't recall that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance mentioned it in his opening comments at all, which is very telling. But this is the biggest infrastructure project that we will have seen by the Welsh Government and yet no mention today at all.

Wales's economic development continues to be hampered by an ineffective public transport system. Reducing the funding available for the development of a national transport infrastructure will therefore only worsen this situation. I note that the smartcards have been cut by 1.6 per cent and road safety by another 1.6 per cent.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I'm afraid to say that the Welsh Government has laid a budget that is a major disappointment to us on this side of the Chamber on creating the right economic conditions to drive forward prosperity and productivity across Wales and build the infrastructure that is fit for the future.

Thank you. I also speak today as a committee Chair, Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee.

The resource budgets in these areas amount to £120 million, while the capital budgets total around £19.5 million. Broadly, resource budgets have remained flat, while there has been some increase in capital provision, although overall amounts are relatively small. Clearly, these sums are not as great as those covered by some Assembly committees. Nevertheless, these are significant amounts of public funding and are equally as important.

In relation to support for the arts, this includes funding for the Arts Council of Wales, the museum and the national library, and this funding falls overall by around 2 per cent to £65.9 million, while capital funding increases by £5 million to £10.5 million. This includes £5 million from the budget agreement with Plaid Cymru to take forward the feasibility studies for a contemporary art gallery and a football museum in north Wales, which has already been mentioned today. And in this area the committee is not convinced that the well-being goals required by the well-being of future generations Act are being properly reflected in remit letters to the main bodies funded, and has asked for further information.

The committee was also concerned that the capital investment in the national museum should be shared across Wales and has asked for more information on how capital funding in this area is geographically spread. On the new contemporary art gallery and future football museum, we await the Minister's preferred options so that investment can begin early in the new year.

Support for the historic environment includes funding for Cadw, the National Botanic Garden of Wales and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, where revenue is flat at £13.1 million, while capital funding increases to £6.2 million. Last year, we were told that the Welsh Government had stopped providing grants to owners of listed buildings and monuments, and used this money for capital improvements to the income-generating parts of Cadw's estate instead. The hope was that, this year, more funding could be provided for owners of listed buildings. However, whether this has happened remains unclear, and the committee would like to see greater clarity on this issue, including the extent to which grants will be available, and the steps that will be taken to communicate this policy.

With regard to media and publishing, support for the media and publishing is funded through the Welsh Books Council, the resource and capital funding for which remain flat at £3.6 million and £300,000 respectively. In the Welsh Government's budget agreement with Plaid Cymru last year, £100,000 was allocated for two years for start-up grants for hyperlocal news. The Welsh Government has now commissioned additional research on where funding for hyperlocal journalism would have the most impact and value, and we would really like to receive information as to where that's going soon because we are getting questions from the sector as to how they can actually apply for that funding.

In terms of the Welsh language, the committee noted that overall funding for the Welsh language within the education MEG has remained flat, with £38.3 million allocated within the draft budget. The committee understands the current constraints on funding, however, we are concerned that a cash-flat budget will not allow sufficient progress toward the Welsh Government’s target of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. Specifically, we are concerned that the Welsh Government’s targets for increasing Welsh-medium early years education provision may not be sufficiently ambitious to help achieve the overall target by 2050.

In terms of funding for the Welsh Language Commissioner, the way that the budget allocation for the Welsh Language Commissioner is presented is unsatisfactory, in our view. It wasn't clear whether additional funding had been allocated to cover the handover to the new commissioner being appointed. Similarly, the committee would like firmer undertakings that any costs arising from tribunal activities that the commissioner cannot meet from reserves will be underwritten by the Welsh Government. The process by which budget proposals were agreed with the commissioner was also far from clear, and we have asked for details of the communications between the Minister, officials and the commissioner. In particular, the committee would like to understand the timing and nature of the commissioner’s revisions to her budget.

The committee was also concerned that the proposed new Welsh language Bill may be paralysing aspects of the Welsh language standards arrangements. For this reason, we would like a much firmer commitment from the Welsh Government as to when a Welsh language Bill will be introduced, so that commercial organisations, such as public utilities, do not use the lack of Welsh language standards as an excuse to diminish or stall their Welsh language provision.

Llywydd, we have gone relatively swiftly through all of the scrutiny work that we've undertaken. There are many other things that have caught the committee's eye, but I think it was important for us to present what the committee had done to the Senedd. Even though perhaps not everybody sees the value of the arts and culture with regard to the budget, it is extremely important that that is prioritised to ensure that those things that are inextricably linked to our nation are there and continue to the future, and are supported by the Welsh Government.

I speak as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, and as we've already heard, it was very pleasing for three committees—my committee; Lynne Neagle's Children, Young People and Education Committee; and Llyr's Finance Committee—to meet jointly and concurrently to look at the Welsh Government's approach to single, integrated impact assessments. It was a valuable exercise, Llywydd, and it enabled us to draw on scrutiny from across the knowledge and experience of the three committees, and hopefully the publication of our joint findings in the new year will help inform the preparation of the Government's next budget in 2019 and beyond. I hope it will be the first of many examples of committees coming together to scrutinise issues that cut across committee portfolios. 

Much of our general budget scrutiny, Llywydd, was focused on the local government main expenditure group. That is the second largest MEG after the health MEG, and has been the focus of a great deal of interest both inside and outside the Chamber. The Welsh Local Government Association were clear in their evidence that after a prolonged period of austerity, further funding cuts would now be biting more visibly into statutory services such as schools and social services, and one of the particular challenges for the budget would be the increased workforce costs as the public sector pay freeze is removed. So, we welcome the additional money from Welsh Government to help fund the increase in teachers' pay, but we remain unclear as to whether the additional £15 million being split across the current financial year and next year will be sufficient to cover the full extent of the increase.

As the Cabinet Secretary stated after we had taken our evidence, the Welsh Government announced additional funding to local authorities. We were pleased to see the Welsh Government respond to calls from local authorities to raise the funding floor and to increase funding to provide a cash-flat settlement. But while this additional money is welcomed, we recognise this still means a reduction in funding in real terms, and both local authorities and the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services acknowledge the importance of service transformation, to put services on a more sustainable footing in this prolonged period of austerity. We believe it is important that local authorities are supported to help deliver these new ways of working that hopefully will protect important and valued services.

Llywydd, we also welcome the new definition of prevention in this year's budget round, but it was unclear from the evidence we heard as to how this definition had informed budget allocations. We hope this will be clearer in future budget rounds.

Moving on to housing, we are pleased that, following the evaluation of the pathfinder projects, the Government decided not to merge the housing-related grants into one single grant alongside other early intervention moneys. We note that this decision takes account of the concerns raised by stakeholders.

We also welcome the additional £10 million being made available in this budget round to tackle youth homelessness, but we are concerned that the draft budget only proposes allocations for 2019-20 financial year, and not subsequent budgets. We believe that, in order to eradicate youth homelessness, there needs to be a clear budgetary commitment for future years that, as a minimum, matches the levels of funding in this budget. Llywydd, diolch yn fawr.

I don't believe this budget meets the needs of Wales. This is another budget with a Government just moving money around. This is also a Government content—and in fact, a Labour Party in Wales content—to leave the major decisions made about Wales to politicians elected in England in the Westminster Parliament. 

What we then have here is a Labour Government using Westminster, and in particular Conservative politicians, almost like a get out of jail card in the blame game, because you guys don't want the power, you don't want the responsibility to actually change Wales, yet you're content to blame the Conservatives in Westminster.

I'll declare an interest here now as a county councillor, because I really feel that local government is treated badly—badly by this Government in Wales. There's huge pressure on councils. Real cuts. Real youth centres closing, real jobs being lost. I apologise to Labour AMs looking at their mobile phones and not listening to this debate. Perhaps, Llywydd, we could have a little bit more politeness in this Chamber. 

And attendance. [Laughter.]

Absolutely. There is huge pressure, as I said, on local government. Real people losing real jobs, and what do we have here?

What do we really have, Cabinet Secretary? We have Labour largesse. We have huge amounts of money, some smart comments, but huge amounts of money lost to the public purse. The Lisvane land deal, £39 million; the Circuit of Wales, £10 million; two small shops in Pontypridd, £1 million lost by this Labour Government. Money is thrown at projects that don't even happen. They don't happen. How much money has been spent on the black route? Arup alone, between 2010 and 2015, earned £7.5 million. It's incredible. 

It's incredible.

The bedroom tax. Wales is the only devolved nation where the most vulnerable have to pay bedroom tax. The SNP in Scotland got rid of it. In the north of Ireland they don't pay bedroom tax. And it's shameful. And I say to the Cabinet Secretary: where is your twenty-first century socialism when you allow such an awful tax to be paid by people in Wales? Why don't you abolish bedroom tax in Wales? You could do that by not making bad political decisions that cost everybody so much money. It's costing fortunes.

I just want to put one idea into the mix, and that's the idea of devolving power to local government to bring in a bed tax levy for tourists. If you're a tourist in this city, for example, and you're paying £150 a night, as many do, for a bed, for a room in a hotel, then just £1 or £2 is really not going to make a great deal of difference. And I say to the AMs to my right there—politically to my right, just over there, by the way, the Labour lot—a levy of £2 in Cardiff would raise £4 million—£4 million a year. And what we have here is a Government that has power, and I would tell you to use it and enable local government to raise revenue. One thing that could be done then is the abolition of the bedroom tax.

Overall, this is a really tired budget from a very tired Government. I'll be voting against. 

Finally, Rhianon Passmore. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This year's Welsh Government draft budget marks an incredibly important step in the devolution process. This is the first year that revenue raised from new Welsh rates of income tax will be included in the Welsh budget, following their introduction in April 2019. However, this momentous step in the devolution process is occurring against the backdrop of the bleakest austerity in Government. Labour has done and will continue to do all that it can do to protect Wales from the worst impacts of these cuts, protecting front-line services. This includes the Supporting People budget, council tax reduction schemes, nurse training bursaries, Flying Start and much more in the face of Brexit and the withdrawal of European funds to Wales. This draft budget is no exception.

Despite the severe pressures on the Welsh Government, it is still delivering more than £500 million extra for our health service, £50 million more for social care, £15 million for schools and £12.5 million to help tackle child poverty. But it is right to underscore how very difficult even the protected budgets of local authorities are, thanks to the UK cuts to Wales, and I will continue to welcome consequentials and prioritisation to local government and their front-line services delivery. Nonetheless, the investment of this Welsh Government is continuing to deliver for the needs of the Welsh people, even though we need further fairer funding to Wales, and I will continue to call for this. I believe that my friend, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, has done remarkable work to deliver such vital support across our public services in such trying circumstances.

For the Conservatives, it is indeed a bit rich to sit in this Chamber and demand more for our public services, whilst their friends in Westminster inflict cuts to our budgets in Wales. It is extraordinary. It does flabbergast me that, week after week, they ask us to do more with far less, and that is hypocrisy in the extreme that does not dry up. The Tories appear to have divorced themselves amicably from their own political choice to support the so-called austerity that their colleagues are making in Westminster, and which they bypass, ignore and glance away from here in Wales.

But I want to focus on the positive investment for Wales that this budget delivers, as well as the extra funding that I've already mentioned. I would like to particularly welcome the £7 million invested in the Valleys regional park. This will provide a vital boost to tourism, attracting more visitors to the south Wales Valleys that we are so proud of, including sites like Cwmcarn forest drive in my own constituency.

To conclude, Llywydd, this budget provides much needed support to our public services, and as we celebrate the seventieth anniversary of our NHS, whose creation the Tories opposed, I believe that Nye Bevan would be proud that in Wales we are investing in it here and now. What makes this more remarkable is that we are achieving this investment despite the fact that the Welsh Government's budget will remain 5 per cent lower in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11, equivalent to £850 million—vastly less to spend across our public services in real terms.

And despite the Chancellor's insistence, against all evidence, that austerity is over, I will not ever take lectures or lessons from the Tories on our budget while they continue to underfund our public services and our Welsh Government budget. And as they look the other way and as we govern with less, and as they at the same time find £1,000 million to bung to Northern Ireland whilst ignoring the citizens of Wales, I do commend the work of the finance Secretary to deliver a budget that strives in the very hardest of circumstances to meet the needs of all the people of Wales. It is time that the Tories stepped up to the plate and delivered to Wales what they have delivered to Northern Ireland. I live in hope, and I hope for a general election. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I begin by thanking particularly the Chairs of the Assembly committees for taking part in the debate this afternoon.

It’s a really important moment in the scrutiny of the budget that we get to hear from all our committees, in the way that Bethan Sayed said—a moment to focus on those parts of the budget that don’t often get talked about here on the floor of the Assembly, but which are very important indeed in the wider life of Wales.

I’m going to mention four issues that I think came up repeatedly in what the Chairs had to say. First of all, anxiety about pay, which I share. The policy of the Welsh Government, Llywydd, has been this: whenever we get money from the UK Government to match pay settlements that they have agreed, we pass that immediately on to the organisations responsible for paying that. That’s certainly been true of teachers’ pay, augmented by a further £7.5 million this year and next from our money to make sure that local authorities are able to discharge their responsibilities in that area, and that is exactly what we expect that money to do.

John Griffiths mentioned pensions in his contribution, and of all the things that we’ve mentioned this afternoon, Llywydd, that is my greatest anxiety as your finance Minister. The UK Government has changed the rules as far as pension contributions are concerned, and it will mean that public services here in Wales will have a very large bill that they have to pay over and above anything that they were planning for or were able to influence. The UK Government says that it is providing funding to cover those costs, but we are yet to see how much of that will come to Wales, and we are yet to see the extent to which that funding will meet the bills that we have to pay. Now, I say again this afternoon that the Welsh Government will act simply as a postbox in those circumstances. Any money that we get will go directly to the health service, to local authorities for teachers pensions, to the fire service, to further education, and so on. But if the UK Government does not cover the costs that it has engendered, then I have to tell Members around this Chamber: there is no sum of money set aside in our budget that we will be able to go to to bail out the UK Government in that situation. Indeed, as I explained to the Finance Committee when giving evidence there, next year I will only make our budget balance by taking money out of the Welsh reserve. I’m able to do that because of the careful management that we have made of reserves. But in order to go on doing all the things we want to do, to the extent that we are able, we rely on spending over and above the money that we have on a year-in, year-out basis, and there is nowhere else to go if we are landed with a pension bill for which we have no responsibility and have not been able to make provision.

A third theme in what the Chairs of committees have said is on prevention. I’m grateful to what Members have said about the usefulness of the definition and I agree with what has been said about making sure that we now go on to refine the definition and to make greater use of it in drawing spending down the hierarchy that the definition provides, so that we spend more, in the end, on primary prevention than we do today.

I’m very pleased to hear what the Chair said about joint committee meetings. The leader of the house and I both attended such a meeting, which was scrutinising equality matters in the budget, and I look forward to receiving the outcome of that work.

Llywydd, can I say, in as gentle a way as I can, that everybody in my world wants to talk to me about cross-cutting budgets; everybody is quite keen to make sure that their own budget is protected. I detected quite a bit of that in what Chairs of committees had to say again. It’s understandable—Chairs of committees are responsible for an area, they are passionately committed to that area, and everybody can see that there is more that we could do, but you only get cross-cutting budgets if everybody is willing to give up a bit of what they have in their hands to be able to carry out that wider work.

If I could just turn to the comment made by Llyr Huws Gruffydd, as Chair of the Finance Committee. He referred to the difficulties in our process when the UK budget cuts across the scrutiny process of our own budget here in the Assembly. But as the committee has suggested and we’ve all agreed, it is better for us to deal with those difficulties and to provide the weeks that we are able to provide so that the committees can carry out that important scrutiny work. I thank Llyr for his comments on the work that we have done in preparation for income tax in Wales as Welsh taxpayers. Of course, the process is challenging, as the Office for Budget Responsibility told the committee, but we are doing our level best to prepare the ground for these new responsibilities here in Wales.

Let me turn, if I could, Llywydd, to what the spokespeople of individual parties said. I'm grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for the work that we continue to do together on the deal that was struck between the Labour Party and Plaid Cymru. I'm glad to be able to make some further investments on that joint agenda today. Llyr focused on local government, and other speakers did too. I think I would describe £140 million more for local government as a bit more than a tweak in their budget, although I recognise, of course, that there are very real pressures in our local authorities in the ninth year of sustained austerity. 

Jane Hutt pointed to the Cambridge university work that said, on the day that my colleague Alun Davies laid the provisional settlement, that we have taken a very different approach here in Wales in looking to protect local government from the worst of the impacts of austerity. 

I should turn to what Darren Millar said. I'm afraid it was a contribution riven with contributions that were wide of the factual mark. I provided figures—[Interruption.] I provided figures to his colleague Nick Ramsay—as in, bring back Nick Ramsay—that showed that, in real terms, our budget in 2010-11 was £17,169 million and our budget in real terms next year will be £16,357 million. That's why I said in my opening remarks that the budget available to this budget is £850 million less than it would have been if our budget had simply kept the—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Do you accept that it is the largest budget in cash terms that your Government has ever had to spend ever in the history of devolution?

Darren, just as the budget for local government is the largest ever in cash terms, just as the budget for the health service is the largest ever in cash terms, just as the budget for housing is the largest ever in cash terms—every one of which you told me was a cut in real terms. So, you know and Members around the Chamber know that in real terms our budget is less than it was a decade ago, despite all the extra needs that we know are there in Wales. 

Any Member of this Assembly, Llywydd, is entitled to ask for more money to be spent on any area, but in a time when all our money is committed, those calls only hold real authority when someone is willing to say where that money would be taken from, because there is nowhere uncommitted to go. So, when Darren said to me that we hadn't done enough for business rates, we hadn't done enough for first-time buyers, we hadn't done enough for health, we hadn't done enough for local government, we hadn't done enough for FE—and this is before his colleagues told me I hadn't done enough for housing, I hadn't done enough for transport, and I hadn't done enough for infrastructure—where do they think that the money is to come from for all those things that they would like us to do? Well, I can tell you that it will come from the next Labour Government at the UK level, and then we'll have the budget of the sort that we will be able to use to attend to the needs of Wales.

Llywydd, this is a draft budget that meets the needs of the people of Wales. It's a draft budget that provides a real alternative to the harmful and self-defeating policy of austerity. It's a draft budget that provides stability in the face of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. It is a budget that underscores our aim to create a Wales that is prosperous, healthy, ambitious and united. It's a budget that I hope the Assembly will endorse this afternoon, and I comment the budget motion to you.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore defer voting until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to voting time. The first vote is on the debate on the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration. The first vote is on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, one abstention, 44 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed. 

The second vote is on amendment 2.  I call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 3.  I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote, therefore, on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James, as amended.  

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 34, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Carbon Accounting (Wales) Regulations 2018—that's item 5. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is item 6: the Climate Change (Carbon Budgets) (Wales) Regulations 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Item 7 is the next item: the Climate Change (Interim Emissions Targets) (Wales) Regulations 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next item is item 8: the Climate Change (International Aviation and International Shipping) (Wales) Regulations 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next item is item 9: the Climate Change (Net Welsh Emissions Account Credit Limit) (Wales) Regulations 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the draft budget 2019-20 debate. And the first vote is on amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, one abstention, 33 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

The next vote is on the motion as amended—without amendment—and therefore—. We will vote on the unamended motion, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, seven abstentions, 16 against. And, therefore, the motion is agreed.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.