National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

I have received notification under Standing Order 12.58 that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, will answer questions on behalf of the First Minister. The first question, therefore, is from Siân Gwenllian. 

Diolch. Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board is currently implementing changes to vascular services that were publicly consulted on and agreed in January 2013 as part of its service change programme. There have been no changes made to this decision. We anticipate the service will be operational from 8 April 2019.

I, today, am discussing the process, not the principle, of removing emergency services from Bangor—but the process itself—and how the decision was reached. In the spring of last year, the health board gave its stamp of approval to retaining emergency services in Bangor, and all the GPs in the area received a letter stating this. The board hasn’t reversed this decision, and in numerous statements, unfortunately, it has become apparent that the emergency vascular services are to be removed from Bangor. I’ll ask again, therefore: when was the decision changed? You talk about 2013, but in 2018 there was a change of mind. When was that original decision of 2013 returned to, and can you show me where the record of that is in the board papers?

Diolch, Siân Gwenllian. A paper did go to the board on 1 March 2018, which stated that,

'Patients with diseases of the lower limbs related to the circulation will be managed at both Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and the limb salvage unit at Ysbyty Gwynedd with provision for elective and emergency admissions and in-patient treatments at both sites.' 

I think it's that sentence that has given rise to the confusion. The paper should have made it more explicit that the provision for elective and emergency admissions to Ysbyty Gwynedd related to diabetic foot and non-arterial cases. Arterial cases will go to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd—you're aware of the new centre that's being built there—but those are the complex, specialist cases. That will amount to about 300 cases, and they will go to the new centre.

You ask about the letter that was sent to GPs, and, again, the same letter went with the same wording, and, hence, I'm guessing the same confusion might have been caused. There was no decision to rescind anything. Eighty per cent of vascular services will still take place locally. It will be about 20 per cent of all vascular activity that will occur in the new centre at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. 

The concern remains about the other problems that patients can suffer, even if they access vascular services, and that the first point of contact is Ysbyty Gwynedd. Last February, the health board told us that emergency vascular services without qualification would remain in the three district general hospitals in north Wales, supported by a petition signed by over 3,000 people, and questions raised in Prime Minister's questions, as well as in this Chamber. What consideration has been given to doing an impact assessment, particularly given the rurality of the population affected, to establish the actual needs of this population if they now have to travel further and if their conditions could expose them to other consequences that may not be available to them unless they can get to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd?

So, as I said in my answer to Siân Gwenllian, 80 per cent of patient care will continue in the other two sites—Wrexham Maelor Hospital and Ysbyty Gwynedd. It will only be the complex cases that go to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. So, where the new centre has been built, that's attracted consultants and doctors, whom I don't think would have ben attracted to north Wales unless we had that specialist centre. But in cases where it's in patients' interests to be treated for an emergency in either Ysbyty Gwynedd or Wrexham Maelor Hospital, as happens now, there will be a new, robust service, which will allow an on-call vascular specialist to advise and, where appropriate, attend, so the patients could still have the treatment in Ysbyty Gwynedd or Wrexham Maelor Hospital. 

Thank you. We are disappointed with the UK Government’s recent investment decisions in Welsh infrastructure projects. The Swansea bay tidal lagoon, electrification of the Swansea main line, and a failure to secure the Wylfa Newydd project are three recent examples of the UK Government’s failure to invest in non-devolved infrastructure in Wales.

I thank you for that, and I share your huge disappointment, as I know lots of Members in this room do. It's very disappointing to learn how much the Welsh economy is losing out because of backtracking from the UK Government on those projects that you've just mentioned. But I'm also concerned about how the withdrawal of the UK Government from those proposed investments in Welsh infrastructure will impact on apprenticeships and graduate training roles in Wales. It is, after all, this week, National Apprenticeship Week. If I compare the withdrawal of those to the delivery of our project, the Newtown bypass, it was a really good example of creating apprenticeships. And I went to speak to them, and there were 18 of those apprenticeships and graduate training posts created as a consequence of us going further. So, First Minister, can I ask if you will look at, and the Welsh Government will look at, how we can move forward and prompt the UK Government to invest in Wales and the infrastructure in Wales, so that we can give hope to those people whose futures we should be securing?

Thank you. I think you're quite right—the loss of these very significant infrastructure projects to Wales is going to be a huge blow for many young people, because I think the three projects I mentioned would offer significant career opportunities to young people. However, we are committed to supporting our young people across Wales to enter employment, education, and training opportunities. You mentioned it's National Apprenticeship Week this week. Obviously, we have our 100,000 target of apprentices this Assembly term, and we're well on track with that.

You ask about what we can do to prompt the UK Government. Well, the First Minister is, I think, frequently writing to UK Government Ministers; I know he wrote to Greg Clark about energy infrastructure. We are continuing to look at ways of resurrecting plans for the Swansea bay lagoon. Wylfa Newydd, obviously, has been paused, and we're continuing to seek assurances from the UK Government in relation to that. And also, around Swansea electrification, I know Welsh Government officials continue to meet with counterparts, as well as having ministerial engagement, to try and get that moving forward also.

The Cardiff capital region city deal was agreed by the UK Government, the Welsh Government and 10 local authorities back in March 2016, and I hope you would agree this is a good example of the Welsh and UK Governments working together to deliver major infrastructure projects. In the coming years, the UK Government will be providing hundreds of millions of pounds of funding to growth deals throughout Wales, including in my own area of mid Wales as well, and, in turn, that funding will be used to provide new infrastructure and transport infrastructure for projects going forward as well. Will the Minister today acknowledge the UK Government's financial support for growth deals and welcome the contribution that this funding will, in turn, make to the long-term improvement of transport infrastructure throughout Wales?

I think it's very important that we get the money that's intended for those growth deals. I know up in north Wales there are certainly concerns about that. But both the Cardiff capital project and Swansea have the support of both Governments.

The impact of a series, a catalogue now, of failures of investment in Wales are many—the large projects that have been mentioned by my colleagues, but they also have local impacts. Within the Bridgend and Ogmore constituencies, the investment that we need in the mainline rail, but also in signalling, and so on, is a measure of, year after year, underinvestment by UK Network Rail. Now, we need the UK Government and the Department for Transport to step up to the mark on those projects as well, and put the money in that will free up capacity on our mainline rail, that will allow more passengers and freight to be carried, that will shift people off those roads. So, it's not only the big projects. And I would suggest to the Minister, in her discussions with the First Minister, perhaps in discussions with the Prime Minister, Theresa May, an appeal could be made to her—the old-fashioned title of the Conservative and Unionist Party—if they want to maintain it as the union of the United Kingdom, then actually invest in the union.

The Member makes a very pertinent point. Despite Network Rail's Wales route having 11 per cent of the route length, 11 per cent of the stations and 20 per cent of the level crossings across England and Wales, only an average of around 2 per cent of money spent on network enhancements across England and Wales since 2011 has been spent here. We should have been allocated well over £1 billion in the last five years alone. Imagine what we could do with that.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Your Government's targets for people waiting more than 12 hours for treatment in accident and emergency is zero. In Scotland, they have the same target and have managed to come within touching point of it. With a larger population, they achieved a figure of fewer than 200 with unacceptably long waits in the latest figures. But, in Wales, that same statistic has to be counted in thousands. In January 2014, the number was 1,277, and since then it has been getting steadily worse: 3,006 in 2015; 4,048 in 2017; 5,099 last year. In the latest figures, for January this year, it is worse again: 5,264—the second worst figure for Wales since records began. And I should point out that over 700 of these cases were at Wrexham Maelor, in your own constituency. So, my question is simple, Minister: do you accept that these almost unprecedented and unacceptably long waits at A&E now constitute a fully fledged crisis? I'd be grateful as well if, in your response, you could place on record the reason you are deputising for the First Minister today. 

The reason I am deputising for the First Minister today is he's in London representing Wales at an event there.

In relation to A&E waiting times, I am aware obviously of the number of cases in my own constituency. The problem is we have seen an unprecedented number of people attending accident and emergency, and I think we need to look at why that is. And I think there is more work to be done in relation to out-of-hours as well. But certainly we should also accept that we're seeing very high reported levels of satisfaction within the NHS and work is being done in emergency departments across Wales. I should say more than a million patients attended A&E departments across Wales last year. 

I know the First Minister has said he doesn't look forward to First Minister's questions, and he once reportedly stood up the Prime Minister to attend a party, but do you think it's in order for him to prioritise a reception in Buckingham Palace over answering questions here in the Senedd?

What I would have asked him, and now we'll ask you instead, is if you are running out of excuses for the crisis in A&E. For instance, on 12 February, the Minister for health, Vaughan Gething, told us that, over the past months, we've seen the highest number of flu cases in hospitals since 2009 pandemic, yet the Public Health Wales influenza surveillance report shows flu is circulating at medium levels below that for the year previously. Vaughan Gething also claimed that winter stomach bugs were putting an additional strain on the NHS. Well, we've researched this with FOI requests. Some local health boards told us this information for this winter wasn't available yet, but the ones that have provided us with data have shown that this year's numbers are not noticeably different from last year. Indeed, Betsi Cadwaladr, the worst performing health board for A&E, is treating fewer cases of winter stomach bugs this year than in the previous two years.

It cannot be claimed either that the NHS is being overwhelmed by patient numbers this winter. In his statement on 12 February Vaughan Gething said, 

'Hospitals have admitted fewer people over the age of 85 as emergencies this winter, compared with the previous two winters.'

So, when all these excuses are stripped away, surely there can be only one of two reasons for your failure to get to grips with worsening waiting times: one is that you simply have no idea what to do to tackle them; the other can only be that you know what to do but you're simply not doing it. Which is it?

So, to go back to the First Minister, I think everybody would want the First Minister to represent Wales in the way that he is doing. [Interruption.]

Last month was the busiest January on record for emergency department admissions. Emergency admissions in January 2019 were 9 per cent higher—[Interruption.]

Let's hear the Minister respond to the questions please. A bit of quiet from Plaid Cymru. Minister, carry on. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Emergency admissions in January 2019 were 9 per cent higher than in January 2015 in major emergency departments. There was also an increase of 16 per cent in attendances at major emergency departments when compared with January 2015. I have to say I unfortunately had to attend A&E in the Heath hospital about a month ago, and talking to the staff there I was very interested to know about admissions et cetera, and one of the consultants was telling me that, over the weekend, they'd had over 10 people who were near the age of 100—over 90 years of age, but nearer 100, and she was saying that was unprecedented. So, clearly, the ageing population is also having an impact.  

I have to say to the Minister—maybe we have different values, but I think that the priority for the First Minister is to be here to answer questions from the elected representatives of Wales. Surely, that's the purpose of having this Parliament in the first case.

Now, across the UK, the monthly target for people waiting more than four hours for treatment in A&E is 5 per cent. Again, the Scottish performance outstrips Wales and England as well—

Now I can't hear Plaid Cymru because everybody else is making a noise. So, Adam Price, please.   

In Scotland last December, just 10 per cent had to wait more than four hours. In England, it was significantly worse, with 24 per cent waiting more than four hours, but in Wales it was worse still. Our figure was 28 per cent. It is significant that colleagues of yours—Labour MPs at Westminster—consider the waiting times statistics for England in A&E so bad they have called for an independent inquiry. Given that the figures for Wales are even worse than in England, will you join with Jon Ashworth, Labour's shadow health Secretary at Westminster, and demand that an independent inquiry should be held in Wales as well? Would it not be hypocritical to fail to hold yourself to the same standard to which you are holding the British Government in opposition here at home in Wales, where the Government is you? 

I go back to some figures that I have in front of me. In January 2019, 14 of 24 emergency care facilities reported an improvement on January 2018, or the same level of performance. That includes seven of our 13 major emergency departments. Four of the seven health boards reported better performance in January 2019 compared with January 2018. I think we have to accept that the majority of people who access A&E are seen within the time, are receiving the best treatment. Some don't, and those are the people that we need to continue to support. 

Leader of the Opposition, Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, what plans are in place in Wales to fund the recovery of substance misusers in residential treatment? 

Sorry, could you repeat that? 

What plans are in place in Wales to fund the recovery of substance misusers in residential treatment? 

I'm sorry; I don't have those details to hand. 

Well, let me give the Minister some figures, because figures from last year show that only a shockingly small percentage—13.5 per cent—of substance misusers who underwent treatment on the NHS were substance-free by the end of their course. Now, my visit to the excellent Brynawel rehab centre recently, the only centre of its kind in the country, showed me how desperately help is needed for some of the most vulnerable in our society from centres like this. Just last month, the Minister for Health and Social Services dismissed calls to address the need for residential care here in Wales, but despite pledging to ring-fence £50 million for health boards to back substance misuse services, centres similar to Brynawel have closed across the country. And, when tackled on the subject last month by a member of your own party, the Minister failed to commit to support what he described as merely a 'useful facility'. Can you therefore clarify here today, Minister, what specific resources are going to be available from the Welsh Government in the coming years to provide specialist residential care to help those in need to get their lives back, given that money has been ring-fenced for substance misuse services?   

Thank you. I too have attended Brynawel residential centre; I think it was with Huw Irranca-Davies's predecessor, Janice Gregory. I'm very well aware of the excellent work that is done there. I don't think the Minister for Health and Social Services dismissed the matter in the way that you addressed and certainly the funding—. You will be aware that we've increased our funding significantly for health and social services by nearly £0.5 billion in 2019-20, and that's an increase of around 7 per cent. And then health boards can obviously use that funding in the way that they wish. 

Well, I would ask the Minister to check the record and check last month's debate because, unfortunately, the health Minister did dismiss calls to address this particular issue. Let me remind you as well, Minister, that previous figures have shown that half of people referred for substance misuse rehabilitation in Wales are treated in England, and at Brynawel clients wait months for a space due to high demand, often at a time when their lives are in danger and they've turned to crime as a way to gather money or even to seek shelter in prison. Not for the first time on the topic of healthcare here in Wales, we are hearing that there is a postcode lottery across the country for people in need. Healthcare Inspectorate Wales reported last year that access to services across Wales is inconsistent and limited in rural areas; people found it difficult to get the treatment they needed because of long waiting times and a lack of capacity in services. And yet hundreds—hundreds—of people die every year from substance and alcohol misuse here in Wales. Minister, what is the Government doing to stop this postcode lottery and to stop people in need being put at risk of being forgotten, just because of where they live?

I think it's very important that we do address postcode lotteries, and you mentioned that half the people who need support and help are treated in England. You'll be aware that there are specialist centres that we don't have in Wales and vice versa. I know, representing a border constituency, certainly it's a two-way traffic between England and Wales in many of these areas.

You ask about substance misuse and also alcohol. You'll be aware that we've always said that minimum unit pricing for alcohol is part of our wider strategy and approach to reducing substance misuse and we will continue to use all available levers to reduce the harms that are caused by excessive consumption of alcohol and other substance misuse.

Leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Lywydd. Minister, the Welsh Government is currently working on a new scheme of payments for Welsh farmers after Brexit. Obviously, you know a good deal about this in your ministerial capacity. Now, I'm glad that you've adopted an overall tone that there are opportunities that can be taken after Brexit, but, of course, we also have to be mindful not to try and bring about unnecessary change and unnecessary volatility in a climate in which we already have a fair amount of uncertainty.

There is a proposal from Welsh Government to move to a new payment system, where direct payments for farmers, as we currently know them, will disappear altogether. Now, without disagreeing with the need to develop other payment schemes, we do have to face up to the hard economic reality that, here in Wales, 80 per cent of farm incomes are derived, on average, from direct payments. Is there not a strong case that this is a valuable safety net for Welsh farmers that should be left in place at least for the foreseeable future?

No. I don't think the common agricultural policy does that. It certainly hasn't made our farmers more robust, more productive; it doesn't reward the active farmer either. You'll be aware that we had a lengthy consultation last summer. I've committed to bringing forward a White Paper before the summer agricultural shows, but I've been very clear that the basic payment scheme will go. It will be replaced by two other schemes, and we want everyone to work together to bring forward those schemes. But you mention—you know, 80 per cent of funding, on average, for farmers. I don't think that's something to be proud of, 80 per cent. I think it shows that CAP has not worked in the way that we would want it to.

Yes. I certainly don't disagree with you on that point, and I did state that we do need to move away from that scheme. I'm just flagging up the possibility that, in the short term, we may need to commit to some form of direct payment as part of payments to Welsh farmers in the interim, before we develop longer term schemes. And, of course, they must be robustly modelled—[Interruption.] They must be robustly modelled before we move to new schemes. So, clearly, if we are serious about going towards new schemes, we have to have a look at the modelling. There have been concerns about the pilot schemes that you are going to get, some of which are up and running. Now, do you think that these pilot schemes are moving quickly enough? Are they robust enough and are they in a wide enough area of Wales so that we can move ahead with your planned timetable to the new payment system?

Well, the Member knows more than me, because I don't think there are any pilot schemes up and running. We are looking at which farms will do it. There'll certainly be a geographical spread; there'll be different types of farms used. I think modelling and impact assessments and those pilot schemes will be very important in forming the direction that we take, but the worst thing for the agriculture sector at the moment is the uncertainty around leaving the European Union. You will have heard the farmers' union state that to leave with a 'no deal' would be catastrophic. I also should say that all the funding at the moment comes through the European Union and I cannot get any assurance out of the UK Government that that funding will be there post 2022.

Yes. I appreciate the factors that you mention; of course there is uncertainty. It seems to me that the very nature of the uncertainty may demonstrate the need to move towards a slower transition when we bring in a new payment scheme. Another issue that arises is that, under the Welsh Government's current proposals, the move from payments to active farmers to a broader category, which we are calling 'land managers', may also result in many thousands more people being eligible for payments from the Welsh Government. So, are you entirely confident, given also the uncertainty that you've mentioned today, that you will have enough resources to deal with the payment applications when they do start to come into your department?

I think you have to accept that the majority of land managers are farmers—I do prefer the word 'farmers'—and I don't think we will see these thousands of people applying for the funding. I've heard that people with allotments will be able to apply, for instance; that's completely incorrect. What I want to make sure is that UK Government gives us every penny that we would have had as a country from the European Union. That's what I'm holding them to, and then we can make our decisions following the White Paper consultation, and I've said all along the new schemes must be in place before we remove the basic payment scheme.

Thank you. A range of measures will be used. These will include key indicators, such as employment data, as well as those relating to impact on health, well-being and aspirations. The taskforce is taking forward a number of key commitments within Caerphilly, and their impact will form part of the evaluation.

It has to be said, the Deputy Minister for the economy has long championed the everyday economy. That was before he was Deputy Minister, and indeed before he was an Assembly Member, when he was plain old Lee Waters. One of the critiques I've had of the—[Interruption.] Well, there's nothing plain about Lee Waters. One of the critiques I've had of the Valleys taskforce is that the focus of the delivery plan has been in areas that are central and accessible in my constituency, which is good, but I would say we need to be growing and developing the everyday economy in areas that are harder to reach, like the Aber Valley, Nelson, Senghenydd and Bargoed. Can you give the assurance that the Welsh Government will focus on that, and, particularly, that that will be a key task for the Deputy Minister?

Yes. Thank you. I am aware you have recently written to the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport in relation to these issues, and I know he's offered to meet with you formally to discuss the matter further. The Deputy Minister is doing a great deal of work around the Valleys taskforce at the moment. I know he's had discussions with members of the taskforce itself. He's meeting with each of the Valleys local authority leaders, with a view to looking at how the taskforce can better align with the foundational economy and Better Jobs Closer to Home. He's also asked the local authority leaders for some examples of best practice, so that that can be spread right across the Valleys areas. So, for example, Rhondda Cynon Taf's approach to regenerating empty homes through property improvement grants—that has the potential to bring about 1,000 homes back into use. And he's also looking at how we can learn from the twenty-first century schools model of funding. So, again, we can apply that approach to examples of good practice across the Valleys. I know the Minister has also spoken to the Deputy Minister about the need to ensure that the foundational economy is absolutely embedded into the Valleys taskforce, and I think the taskforce has been really important in bringing a focus on the Valleys within the Welsh Government.

Minister, do you agree with me that the best way to evaluate the work of the Valleys taskforce in Caerphilly and elsewhere is to set clear objectives and targets so that the progress of the strategy can be measured by Government, organisations and the public in the interests of transparency and accountability? But that is not the case at the moment. Would you please explain why?

Well, we are using 16 of the national well-being indicators, which we will be able to use to measure at a Valleys level. They will be assessed over time. They may need to change over time. So, that's what we'll be doing. We'll also be having a Valleys citizens survey. That's examining people's attitudes towards the south Wales Valleys region, specifically the area covered by the Valleys taskforce initiative. Those research findings will build on our understanding of the views of the people in the Valleys. They will be able to help us measure the ongoing progress of the Valleys taskforce. We're also collating information on the data sources currently being used by policy areas across Welsh Government to track progress and outcomes across their respective Valleys taskforce delivery plan actions. It's completely cross-Government. 

We're also working very closely with partners in Caerphilly—that's to deliver a number of commitments within 'Our Valleys, Our Future: Delivery Plan', which will include strengthening the strategic hubs. So, we've got a great deal of monitoring going on to make sure that we are on track.

Thank you. Since 2013, the Welsh Government has provided local authorities with £25 million a year to support local bus and community transport services across Wales, including south-east Wales. Towards—. Sorry, I'm on the wrong question. I do apologise, Presiding Officer. 

No one noticed.

I know. [Laughter.] I apologise.

We recognise the vital role youth services play in supporting young people. An interim youth work board has been appointed to develop a new youth work strategy to improve these services. In supporting this, the youth support grant will increase by 188 per cent in 2019-20, particularly to support youth homelessness and mental health.

Thank you very much for that response, Minister. I think youth services are rightly greatly valued by the general public, obviously by young people themselves, and by a range of organisations, including the police, because they do provide so many different activities and opportunities for young people because of the social aspects, because of the range of encouragement and advice that's available—very important encouragement and advice. We all know that local authorities are under great pressure in terms of the funding available to them, Minister, and there have been a range of cuts to youth services, so I just want to very much welcome the new funding that's been announced for 2019-20 from Welsh Government and to ask you whether you could give us some idea of how that funding will be used to ensure quality and availability of youth services right across Wales.

As I said, it's a 188 per cent increase in the funding for next year. I'm sure the Member's aware of the snapshot inquiry that was undertaken by the Children, Young People and Education Committee under the chairmanship of Lynne Neagle, and that report came forward with many recommendations that Welsh Government have taken on board. I mentioned the interim youth work board that has been set up, that was appointed back in October 2018 and it's already met five times. I understand it's in discussions with Lynne Neagle to make sure that the recommendations brought forward from her committee are brought to fruition. The board's remit included the development of a new youth work strategy for Wales, so that will be right across Wales. It's going to recommend a new sustainable model for youth work and certainly we'll be working with all our partners. 

Not all youth service funding comes through the local authority route. In 2016, the children's commissioner recommended that the Welsh Government ensures that health-related advocacy for under-18-year-olds is available and accessible to all those who need it. However, in her quarterly update published in January this year, she noted that she is not aware of any changes to provision of advocacy in health settings for under-18s, nor has the patient information been updated, with services remaining ad hoc. It's March 2019 now, that's three years since the commissioner made her recommendations, I understand that her officials met with Welsh Government officials in December, so I wonder if you can help us understand what speedy action will now be taken in this regard, bearing in mind that meeting has taken place. Thank you.

The Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services will have heard that, and I'll ask her to write to you.

Thank you, I'll read it again. Since 2013, the Welsh Government has provided local authorities with £25 million a year to support local bus and community transport services across Wales, including south-east Wales. Towards the end of 2017-18, we provided an additional £3 million to support the bus network, in addition to other specific grants allocated to support public transport services.

Thank you, Minister. Bus services are an integral part of our national transport infrastructure. However, in Newport, recent news that the NAT service in Brynglas will finish operating later this month has caused concern amongst my constituents who rely on this service. Sadly, this is not an unusual situation. It's affected all operators across Newport, and I'm still being contacted by many constituents about the decline of the other bus services. For example, the X18 service from Maesglas to Pye Corner train station ended in 2017. No operator has taken over that service, meaning one of my constituents has a trip of over two hours to visit her mother in Ebbw Vale, and this isn't the integrated transport system that we are all trying to achieve. To encourage people to use public transport, it needs to be affordable, reliable and regular, so what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that sustainable bus services are maintained in Wales?

Thank you. Obviously, you mentioned an individual case, and I will ask the Minister for Economy and Transport to ask the south Wales bus co-ordinator to look into that, and then to write to you.

In relation to what Welsh Government are doing, you're, I'm sure, aware of the significant funding we've put into bus services over the years. I know the Minister's officials meet regularly with Newport council and the bus industry. Obviously, neither the Welsh Government nor a local authority have the powers to require a bus operator to run a particular service. I think that's achieved through local authority contracts, and that obviously includes the public subsidy.

We're really keen for local authorities to be more proactive in planning and co-ordinating local bus services. They do have some powers to exert over bus providers. Obviously, they can have ticketing schemes, for instance, voluntary agreements with bus operators to co-ordinate investments, and they can make statutory, enforceable bus quality partnership schemes.

You'll be aware the Minister also launched a White Paper consultation back in December. It closes on 27 March, and that sets out proposals for improvising the legislative framework in Wales. I would urge all Members to respond to that consultation.

I thank the Minister for substituting today. I don't know if the First Minister used south-east Wales bus services to help him get to Buckingham Palace, but I'm delighted that he's at that investiture celebration after 50 years. I think it would be awful if he hadn't gone, so thank you.

Newport Bus have brought in a demand-responsive transport approach where they're at least trialling the idea of allowing people to contact them and book a bus the day before. Paying a normal fare, the bus then goes round and picks up only from the bus stops where it's needed. Does the Minister think that approach is a sensible, more flexible one that can ensure financial viability when it wouldn't otherwise be there, and would she support its extension elsewhere?

Yes, I absolutely do. I think it's actually the future, and I know that that is actually contained in the White Paper, so, again, it would be good if we could have as many consultation responses as possible to enable the Minister to make decisions such as that.

Educational funding remains a key priority for this Government, in spite of continued austerity. Working with our partners, the budget reflects our desire to raise standards for all, reduce the attainment gap and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and confidence.

Thank you. As a member of the Welsh Government Cabinet, then, you'll be fully aware that it's widely acknowledged that there is a classroom cash shortage and funding crisis in our educational system across Wales. For example, in Conwy the education budget is to be cut by 3.6 per cent as a result of such a poor Welsh Government settlement on funding. Now, this is leading to more serious money saving measures that we're now seeing in Aberconwy, and there's no point shaking your head. A letter has gone out to every parent in Conwy County Borough Council, such is the concern, signed by seven headteachers. We're seeing larger classes, we're seeing staff being made redundant, and we're seeing a reduction in support for additional learning needs and well-being needs. The actual numbers of schools in Wales in deficit: 146 primary and 79 secondary.

Now, we also know, through evidence taken in the CYPE committee, that there's a wide variance across Wales in terms of per-pupil spend, by as much as £1,000. We also know that pupil funding in Wales sees our pupils receiving £607 less in Wales than they do in England. At what point—? What actions are the Welsh Government taking to address this cash crisis for our schools, and what plans do you—[Interruption.] It's all right the Minister for—

Don't get diverted by another Minister seeking to answer on behalf of the Minister. Please ask the question.

Llywydd, the Minister appears to be in denial. I hope this Minister responding isn't.

What steps are you taking to address the funding cash crisis that we have in our educational system in Wales, and will there be any consideration of an emergency pot of money that will see schools in Aberconwy be able to continue to function?

I think I'll start by reminding the Member of two things: we're in year nine of austerity from your Government in London. The second thing to remind you of is that no local authority in Wales will face a reduction of more than 0.3 per cent in their core funding for 2019-20. So Conwy council's decision to cut the education budget by 3 per cent is a matter for Conwy council. Welsh Government provides funding to local authorities through the local government revenue settlement and it is up to—[Interruption.] Somebody's shouting, 'It isn't fair'; it's done on a funding formula with local government and Welsh Government. And can I just remind you that the Tories would have cut education funding by 20 per cent?

The hypocrisy of the Tories on the issue of funding public services is staggering. Years of austerity, imposed by the Conservatives in Westminster, are bleeding our schools dry and undermining the attainment of our children and young people, but there is no doubt that the Welsh Labour Government need to take action and stop putting their heads in the sand. For example, we need to co-ordinate the support for schools more effectively to avoid wasting money on duplication and bureaucracy, and allow more funding to flow down into the classroom. So, what work are you doing in that area?

I agree. We certainly want to cut bureaucracy, and I know the Minister—I'd certainly never accuse this Minister of burying her head in the sand and I know she's taking steps to ensure this doesn't happen. We don't want to see duplication, we don't want to see additional bureaucracy. 

Janet Finch-Saunders, in her original question, said that the funding difference was £607 per pupil; that is simply not true. How much an authority sets aside for school budgets is a matter for each authority. And then the schools obviously work with the local authorities to ensure that they have the budget that they require. 

Thank you. We are three weeks away from the point at which we are due to leave the EU but no closer to a deal. We have long said that, if Parliament concludes that a public vote is the only way to break the logjam and move forward, we would support it.

Thank you. Minister, do you agree with me that it is both essential to rule out the disaster of a 'no deal' and to ensure that the logjam in Westminster is broken? So, does she therefore agree with me that the Prime Minister's deal, which, whatever its gross inadequacies, is the only one on offer, must be put to the people with the option of accepting that deal and proceeding with Brexit, or keeping our current deal with a voice, a veto, full membership of the single market and customs union and complete participation in the crime-fighting and security mechanisms of the EU?

Thank you for that supplementary question. We have constantly said a 'no deal' would be catastrophic for Wales, and certainly we do not support the current deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated. 

In relation to a referendum, I think we've consistently said we should let the UK Government and Parliament do their job—I think we've been very patient—and negotiate a deal in the national interest, capable of commanding a majority in Parliament. If they can't do that, the decision should be handed back to the people in a referendum. 

It is a fact, obviously, that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, and I very much hope the Welsh Government will respect the referendum result. But, if you do consider a people's vote as an option—and I, for one, do not—what analysis has the Welsh Government made of the time it would take to instigate a people's vote? I've heard figures of six, 12, 18 months. Surely, that would just add to the uncertainty if the Welsh Government was to put its weight behind such a proposition, however foolish that might be. 

We've always respected the decision of the Welsh people. We know they voted 'leave', and I said in my answer to Lynne Neagle I think we've been incredibly patient. We've tried to influence negotiations as best we can. As Ministers, we've all taken part in discussions constantly—I think you'll probably find every week we are in discussions with our counterparts in Westminster. So, it's not about not respecting the decision, it's about making sure that we don't have a 'no deal' and that we have a deal that is acceptable and, as I say, commands a majority in Parliament. That doesn't seem to be forthcoming. The Prime Minister just seems to be running down the clock; she seems to be kicking the meaningful vote into the long grass, and now it's going to be next week. We are now, what, 24 days from when we leave the European Union. 

So, in relation to your question around a referendum, obviously there are a lot of discussions to be had. Back in June 2016, as a Government, we were supportive of staying in the European Union. I don't think we've seen anything that would change that, but there's going to be a lot of discussion about what the specific question is, and once we know what that question is, if there were to be a people's vote, then we would, obviously, give our advice on that.

It's very clear that the reason we're in the constitutional paralysis we're in is because we have a Government that is only capable of hanging on to power by bribing 10 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. It's also very clear that a further referendum or a further vote will take at least six months. So, do you agree with me that, really, one of the key objectives at the moment has to be an extension to article 50? We cannot complete the legislative programmes that need to be completed, and the trade negotiations are in an absolutely desperate mess. Anyone looking at the national interest—putting politics to one side, just looking at the national interest—would come to the conclusion that an extension to article 50 of at least six months is absolutely vital.

Certainly, yes. We've said that, and this Assembly, obviously, voted for that back in January. I think you're quite right about Northern Ireland. I know the finance Minister has just yesterday, I think, written to Liz Truss about the extra £140 million that seems to have appeared in the Northern Ireland budget, and it's not that we're opposed to Northern Ireland getting more funding, but it should be right across the UK, and we, too, should have additional funding, as should Scotland.

I thank the Minister. 

The next item on our agenda is the statement—. No, apologies. The next item on our agenda is questions to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister in respect of his law officer responsibilities.

We both got it wrong at that point, I think.

So, the first question to the Counsel General is from Helen Mary Jones.

The Welsh Government engages regularly with the Lord Chief Justice’s office to inform them of matters of policy and legislation affecting the judiciary. These include any proposals that affect the administration of the courts, the criminal law, or the operation of the judicial system.  

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for that response. Of course, we do have a peculiar anomaly, do we not, in that we have a Parliament that makes laws but we have no distinctive judiciary to enforce those. I believe, in fact, that we're the only Parliament or regional Parliament in the western world where that is the case, and, obviously, the Counsel General won't be surprised to hear me say that we believe, on these benches, that the long-term solution to that is the full devolution of the justice system.

But with regard to the situation currently, the Counsel General will be aware that, already, incorrect decisions have been made as a result of judges not understanding the difference between English and Welsh law. He will be aware that there were a couple of cases last year, for example, relating to the provision of care services. Can the Counsel General assure us today that he will remain vigilant in ensuring that particularly new members of the judiciary receive appropriate training as part of their core training to ensure that they do understand that they are now delivering two separate, distinct types of law in many fields—in all the devolved fields—to ensure that we don't go through the costly and, in the case of those care cases, very distressing process of incorrect determinations being made as a result, frankly, of ignorance on the judges' part?

Well, the Member identifies a very serious question and it is a challenge that arises by having primary law-making powers but not a separate jurisdiction and not having the justice system devolved to Wales. The Government has agreed a protocol with the Lord Chief Justice's office, which involves providing early notice of the content of legislation and the anticipated date of it entering into effect, and the impacts of that on existing legislation, and there are monthly meetings between the office of the Lord Chief Justice and Welsh Government officials in order to ensure that information flow remains current. The statutory responsibility for training the judiciary has been devolved by the Lord Chief Justice to the Judicial College, and our hope, of course, and our aim, is to ensure that the Judicial College has sufficient advance notice of the content of the legal changes that we make here in Wales in order for that training to be deployed.

There is a continuing debate about who should be financially responsible for the training of the judiciary in areas of law where there is divergence, and our position as a Government is that, as justice is not devolved, that is a responsibility of the UK Government. However, on a practical basis, clearly in some areas, for example housing law, where there's been significant change, there have been pretty extensive discussions between officials and the Ministry of Justice on how that can be translated into practical changes to core procedure, and so on. So, that does happen from time to time when there are particular issues of significant change.

The Legislation (Wales) Bill commits future Governments to keep the accessibility of the law under review and to take action to make it more accessible to all. We intend to develop consolidated codes of Welsh law as well as improving the way that legislation is published.

You may have answered my question there. But, in this Chamber, we have the honour of creating legislation that impacts significantly on the everyday lives of people across Wales. Sadly, however, whilst Acts can be easily accessed online, it is true that many of the constituents that I meet are unaware of all that we do here in terms of the laws that we pass. Last term, of course, there were 25 separate Bills created here. Now, as you might be aware, there has been very good publicity around the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, and the impact of that has seen significant promotion by the Welsh Government. So, what steps could you take, perhaps, Counsel General, to actually run a campaign or build greater public awareness of each piece of legislation that has passed here in Wales?

Well, I thank the Member for that supplementary. I hope I can count on her support for each stage of the Legislation (Wales) Bill as it passes through the Assembly because it's partly intended to tackle the sorts of issues—the important issues—that she has highlighted in her supplementary question.

Our devolution settlement is complex. It has a particular impact on how we legislate as a result. Despite 20 years of devolution, much of our legislation—most of it, in fact—is still based on Acts of the UK Parliament—most of our law—and so there's a task to rationalise that. But she identifies a particular supplementary but important issue: having done that, how do you then communicate that to the public? And that is at the heart of what that legislation is intended to achieve. Yes, the consolidation, yes, the codification, but then how is it published online in a way that is current, authoritative, bilingual and easily accessible? Can we organise it in a way that makes it easier to find, not just by the date of the law but by subject matter? We're working on that quite separately, in fact, from the proposals in the Bill. So, I hope, as the Bill comes through the Assembly, we can discuss those issues further.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has statutory powers to assess the extent and manner in which a public authority in Wales has complied with the public sector equality duty. The Welsh Government works closely with the commission on monitoring arrangements and on the Welsh Ministers’ report on equality.

As you are aware, under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person in the way they deliver their services. However, I am aware of an example where a local authority has refused to install a disabled access gate at a public park. Now, this seems wholly unreasonable and clearly prevents wheelchair users in the area from enjoying the use of the park. Do you agree that local authorities should be providing disabled access to public parks in order to comply with this legislation?

I absolutely believe that local authorities need to take their duties, under the Equality Act 2010 seriously, including the one that he has just identified. I know that the publication of the local government settlement, which provides the core, unhypothecated funding, local authorities are reminded by letter from my colleague the Minister for Housing and Local Government about that requirement to comply with the general equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. There are, of course, in addition to that, additional duties under that Act—the public sector equality duty in particular—which it's incumbent on local authorities across Wales to comply with.

The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 Part 2 code of practice states that,

'the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires all public authorities to have due regard to protected characteristics when exercising their functions',

and that,

'The Equality Act 2010 requires that reasonable adjustments are made to ensure that people have equal access to information, advice and assistance services. Local authorities must also ensure that people have the appropriate support to enable them to access the service.'

I routinely represent constituents to local authorities on issues ranging from disability support services to British Sign Language, to autism, to wheelchair access—even access to employment. The Equality Act and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act are never mentioned until I mention them, and then it's damage limitation time.

So, what action are you taking to ensure, for example, that the weaknesses identified in the Wales Neurological Alliance report on behalf of the cross-party group on neurological conditions published last November, following a survey of people living with neurological conditions, which identified a lack of information, advice and assistance, with people with neurological conditions not being signposted to review or to have a voice—? The key point is: how is the Welsh Government monitoring local authority understanding and implementation of the codes under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act, because too often, by accident or design, this is not being done as it should? 

The Member identifies an important question in his supplementary. The public sector equality duty is fundamental, of course, to the operations of local authorities. We were the first Government to bring in specific equality duties in order for public bodies to better perform their duties against that broader set of duties.

He may know that the EHRC has commissioned a piece of work to inform it in relation to compliance of local authorities generally, and to inform its own work about compliance across a range of duties, using that to drive forward action on ensuring that public bodies are complying with their equality duties at large. He will also know that the Welsh Government publishes a report periodically on public sector equality, and that will be published in the forthcoming weeks.

The regulations for planning hearings and inquiries have recently been reviewed and already provide for a fair and equitable hearing. 

I'm sorry, I have to disagree on that one, and I think there are probably about 1,500 objectors, many residents and locally elected councillors in Aberconwy who would disagree with that, simply for the fact that I, along with many democratically elected members, have spent a lot of time and have worked to oppose controversial housing developments in Aberconwy. These were where applications came forward for land not designated to be in the local development plan, subjected to an inquiry, and yet, before a decision was made, at the eleventh hour, when 'Planning Policy Wales—Edition 10' came in, despite us being able to contribute to the original application and the hearing, we were not allowed, nor were the 1,300 others of us, to make representations. Only the local authority and only the developer were invited to come forward with new evidence.

Now, that is contrary to other parts of the UK. The reason given for this is that the evidence was Welsh Ministers' policy. Clearly, that is unfair and unreasonable, when subsection 47(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Referred Applications and Appeals Procedure) (Wales) Regulations 2017 allows representations to be invited when there is any new evidence. But, in this instance, Welsh Ministers have decided that that isn't correct.

So, I'm going to ask you again whether you would look again at this, as the Counsel General, because I think it is—well, it is—a flaw in our legislation here in Wales, and whether you would perhaps work with the Welsh Government, in particular the Minister for Housing and Local Government, to look at reviewing this situation. Because we need a system in Wales, as regards our planning system, where there has to be fairer planning inquiries, because it's a very expensive procedure, and it's one that, in this instance, on two very weak applications, but very strongly fought applications by the developer, we saw legislation in Wales that has actually really disadvantaged us in my constituency. So, it's something that I will continue fighting on until I see that legislation changed, but I would ask you, in your position, whether you would support us on that. 

I'm aware that the Member has been in correspondence with the Government in relation to that matter. I'm obviously not in a position to comment on the specific application that the Member has described in her supplementary question. But the appeals procedures have been reviewed and updated in 2017, and, obviously, were subject to extensive consultation before coming into force, as is change in Welsh Government policy. So, whenever Government policy changes, including planning policy, that is itself subject to extensive public consultation, and so is excluded from that specific obligation to reconsult.

The planning inspectorate in Wales has acquired a reputation for excellence and it significantly outperforms the planning inspectorate in England, to which she alluded in her question, in terms of accuracy and timeliness, and that within a framework that allows planning inspectors the ability to go above that legal minimum in the legislation. And, given that reputation, we don't intend to constrain that. 

Counsel General, you'll have heard it said before that access to justice is a bit like owning a Rolls Royce—everyone can have one. And I think our planning system is a bit like that at the moment. I've recently had inquiries where large development companies, represented by QCs and a host of expensive experts, are stood against the Ramblers' Association and local citizens. And it seems to me—. Why are they paying those vast amounts of money? Well, the first thing is they can. Some of our housing development companies are robbing the population, exploiting the shortage of housing. The fact that one particular company is recently reported as making £66,000 per house as a profit—no wonder they're able to pay their chief executive £32 million per annum. So, it seems to me that we have a system that is being bought up by those who stand to make enormous profits out of it, and the issue is not about the procedural fairness of the process, but the ability of people to be fairly represented and to have a fair say within that process. And I think those of us from all parties who engage in this process will see a gross injustice. The planning system has been bought up by the incredibly wealthy corporate companies, and what I'd ask is not so much the fairness of the process, but perhaps the mechanism of representation. Why isn't it the case that one of these big housing development companies, who stand to make tens of millions of pounds out of their developments, should also pay into a fund to enable local representation of local communities and local groups, because, until something is done, we have a gross unfairness within the system?

The Member identifies a very important point of principle and a question of access to justice, which I know he has pursued in this and other contexts. The question is: without control over the levers which best deliver access to justice in that context, what can we do as a Government to ensure that the points at which that advantage can be exercised are minimised as far as possible within the constraints that we face? And the plan-led system that we have relies on adopted current development plans, which have been subject to consultation, and community consultation before adoption, and that community engagement in the development of the local development plan obviously is welcomed, encouraged, to ensure that it contains policies that reflect the aspirations of the community.

But I recognise the point that he makes that that imbalance in representation is a challenge to the fairness in that system.

With regard to public bodies at large, it is the Information Commissioner's role to monitor and enforce public bodies' compliance with access to information law. I have no role in monitoring other bodies' compliance. As regards Welsh Government specifically, information requests for Welsh Government are handled by civil servants, in accordance with well-established internal procedures. The current compliance rate is above the Information Commissioner's target.

Thank you for that.

But I've received representations from individuals who have expressed concerns over the quality and timeliness of several organisations in dealing with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Even after referring the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office, the wait took so long that, by the time the information was received, it was no longer required or events had overtaken. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon. Do you therefore believe that the Information Commissioner's Office is sufficiently resourced to deliver against its objectives, and can you outline what discussions you have had on this matter to bring about improvement?

Well, I'm afraid I'm not in a position to comment on the resourcing of the Information Commissioner and his office; that is a reserved matter. The sponsoring department of the ICO is the UK Government's Ministry of Justice. Plainly, though, the statutory regime, which does provide via section 15 a mechanism to seek redress, as he outlines, and he identifies in his question some of the obstacles to that—. But it does provide a system for seeking further information and for escalating that to the High Court, ultimately, if redress isn't solved. But, plainly, delivering that system in a way that gives meaning and effect to the statutory obligations, as with any statutory obligation, requires an adequate level of resourcing.

Thank you, Counsel General.

The next item now is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd to make the statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are several changes to this week's business. Later this afternoon, the Government will propose a suspension of Standing Orders to enable the Assembly to hold a debate on European Union withdrawal negotiations. In order to accommodate this, the statements on apprenticeships, investing in skills for the future, and flood and coastal erosion risk management have been postponed until next week. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, can I call for two statements from the Welsh Government today, the first on funding for Welsh schools? I listened to the exchange earlier on during First Minister's questions regarding the situation in Conwy. But of course this is a Wales-wide problem, which has been the cause of concern for a number of unions, so much so that they issued a statement just yesterday saying that Welsh schools are at crisis point. I think that what people want to understand is why it is that, under the current fiscal framework, Wales receives £1.20 for every £1 spent on a child in England in a school, whereas, actually, we're spending less than is currently being spent per year on our pupils. People find that very difficult to understand, and I think that we need some clear transparency from the Welsh Government on what is happening in terms of our funding situation. It's quite clear that our pupils here have been falling behind—we had some of the worst GCSE results last year in a decade. Fewer of our children are getting into the best universities across the United Kingdom as well. And, of course, we've got this ambitious reform taking place in our education system at the time when the finances are in a fairly parlous state. So, I do think that we need to understand how the Welsh Government is going to deal with the crisis—and that's the word that has been used to describe it by the education unions—in order that we can get on top of the situation and make sure that our young people are getting the investment that they need.

Can I also call for a statement on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder services for adults here in Wales? You'll be aware that, as a result of the pressure that was brought to bear by my colleague, Paul Davies, with his autism Bill, the Minister for health has taken action to develop an integrated autism service—or certainly that's the Government's ambition. Now, I welcome that there's been a step in that direction. One of the reasons that that integrated service is required is because there are behaviour issues, emotional issues such as anxiety and anger, issues developing social and daily life skills, which are all problems not just for children with autism, but also for adults. Now, exactly the same situation applies to adults with ADHD as it does to children with ADHD, and yet there is no integrated ADHD service proposition in Wales. I do think that this is a gap that we need to address, and I'd be very grateful indeed if we could have a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services on what he intends to do about it. 

Thank you very much for raising that, and I'm more than happy to provide the clarity on what is happening with our funding situation, because, of course, the UK Government's sustained austerity agenda has led to a cut of nearly £1 billion to Wales's overall budget. But, in spite of this, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has explicitly stated that school funding per pupil has fallen faster in England than it has in Wales, and we recognise that to continue to raise our standards our schools and teachers do need additional support. And that's why we recently announced the single biggest investment for teachers since devolution—a £24 million package of professional learning to support the new curriculum. We've also directed all of the £23.5 million to local authorities to fund the schoolteachers' pay award and also provided an additional £15 million on top of this. So, I hope that does provide the clarity that the Member is seeking. 

In terms of the question on ADHD, I do have to say that the integrated autism service long predates your colleague Paul Davies's introduction of his proposed Bill, but I will certainly ask the Minister to write to you with an update on ADHD services. 

Trefnydd, you will be aware of local concerns in Swansea over a planned consultation meeting by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which was due to take place next week on 12 March. The meeting was due to discuss the potential siting of a nuclear geological disposal facility. Such were the protests in Swansea that the meeting has now been cancelled—it appears online. But what has become clear over recent weeks is that the Welsh Government position on the potential siting of a geological disposal facility in Wales is unclear. Now, Labour-run Neath Port Talbot Council and Labour-run Swansea council are against siting such a radioactive dumping facility in their areas, but the Minister for the environment has previously stated that:

'The Welsh Government has not identified any potential sites or communities to host'

a geological disposal facility in Wales, and that a geological disposal facility—AKA a nuclear dump—

'can only be sited in Wales if a community is willing to host it'

and receive money for that pleasure. However, we find that another Government Minister, Vaughan Gething, is sponsoring a meeting with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority next week, here in the National Assembly for Wales. Now, at a packed public meeting a couple of weeks ago, people in Swansea were rightly asking, 'What is the Welsh Government's position on this?' There was disappointment that the Welsh Government has not taken a more robust line and followed the strong line propagated by Labour-run local authorities against siting such facilities in Wales. Now, in light of the concerns raised in south-west Wales, will the Welsh Government agree to bring forward a statement on geological disposal facilities in Wales? 

Thank you very much, and I am very happy to be very clear on this matter: the Welsh Government has no intention to bring forward any proposals for disposal sites in Wales. 

Can I return to job losses at Virgin Media in Swansea? In January, you said:

'The first tranche of those staff did leave in November, and there will be a further two phases planned for this year. Virgin Media's out-placement support team has taken on responsibility for providing staff with on-site access to key partners of our Welsh Government's taskforce, including Careers Wales, the DWP and local employers. The jobs fair in October took place on the Virgin Media site, and there are further jobs fairs planned to coincide with the additional tranches of staff who will be leaving. So, those further jobs fairs will be timed in relation to those further tranches, as I say, of people who will be leaving the company.'

Can I ask for a Government statement outlining the date of the next jobs fair, how many people have found alternative employment, how many people seeking employment have left without alternative employment? 

Can I also return to another issue I've raised before? I would like to ask for a statement on the increase in public sector employer pension contributions, and how it is going to be funded. There is concern amongst a number of public sector organisations, especially schools, regarding the effect of increased costs of the employer contributions for teachers' pensions. There have been warm words and a promise that the Welsh Government will pass the money on that they get, but the new financial year starts in April and budgets are having to be set. An indication that the money is going to be provided will save a lot of worry, and possibly job losses. 

Thank you very much for raising both of these points. With regard to Virgin Media, I can confirm that a jobs fair was held at the end of February to coincide with the March tranche of people leaving the company. The remaining company—the remaining workers, I should say, will be leaving the company in June of this year, and our partner the Welsh contact centre forum has been leading on those jobs fairs. We're currently gathering the information on the success or otherwise of the redundant staff in securing alternative employment, and this will very much inform the way forward. But when I do have a date for a further jobs fair, I'll be more than happy to share it with you. 

With regard to the public sector pensions, it's been extremely frustrating trying to get the information that we need from the UK Government on this. We were due a response back in November, I recall, but it's only very recently that the UK Treasury has provided details of the Barnett consequential for Wales as a result of additional funding for public sector pensions in England. It doesn't meet the full 100 per cent of that cost. We've sought some further detail from the Treasury about its calculations, working through now what it means for public sector bodies here in Wales, but I do hope to be able to make a statement very imminently on that. 

Organiser, can I seek two statements off you, please, one building on the answer that you've given to Mike Hedges around the pensions situation with public sector workers and, in particular, the lobby that was held this afternoon by the teaching unions? They were very clear that they believed a commitment had come in January to you as a Welsh Government about the money to meet the pension liabilities. And I appreciate you might have some fine balancing to do over numbers or some clarifications, but an assertion from you as finance secretary to indicate that that money, whatever the quantum of it will be, will be passed on would put a lot of peace of mind in place for headteachers in particular, because at the moment they have no assurance whatsoever that that money will be with them as of 1 April. I appreciate you might have a balancing act to do, but an assurance that whatever money comes will be passed to the front line, I think, would go a long way to alleviating some of the issues that they did face and, certainly, they amplified in the lobby that we all attended this afternoon. 

Could I also seek a statement from the Minister for sport in relation to the discussions that are ongoing about the reform of regional rugby here in Wales? I appreciate it's not a direct Government responsibility, but I find it hard to imagine that the Welsh Government a) don't have a view, b) have not been approached to seek some form of help and support, especially as, if the proposals are taken forward, there's the prospect of establishing a region in north Wales, and to have no comment on this very topical issue, I would suggest, would be somewhat alarming, because I would hope that the Welsh Government do have a position on what is going on. And I'd be grateful if you could confirm that a statement would be coming because, obviously, as I said, it's very topical at the moment.  

And if I could just on the rugby front update the Assembly, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer, the Assembly rugby team had a stonking win against the Houses of Commons and Lords two weeks ago—46-14 it was—which, in fairness, on tallies—that's the biggest victory we've had for some years; but also the charitable aims of the club as well, raising money for bowel cancer and other local charities; and just put on record my thanks to everyone who participated—spectators and players—and wish the team well for their Scottish excursion this weekend. Because, for the first time we'll be playing the Holyrood Parliament, which does seem to be an increasing feature of club activity, that the various Parliaments and Assemblies around the UK and, indeed, in France, are seeking fixtures with the Assembly, and that is something that I would hope all Members would agree is a positive step.    

Thank you very much for that, and for building on the issue raised by Mike Hedges regarding pensions. I can confirm that we only had the information regarding pensions just before the finance quadrilateral that took place in the middle of February, but I do intend to make a statement—hopefully, a written statement—tomorrow with the kind of clarity that the Member is looking for. 

With regard to regional rugby, I'm sure that there will be views in terms of the proposals. I know there are certainly strong views at both ends of my Gower constituency about those proposals. In terms of what's appropriate from a Welsh Government perspective, I think that any restructuring plans do need to be sustainable and to support the future development of rugby, and to continue to attract the support of the public across Wales.

I'm certainly pleased that it was a successful match—'a stonking win', as you call it—and I do wish the team well as they head to Scotland.

The state of our environment is the most pressing issue of our time. A United Nations report has found that climate change, pollution and changes in water and land management have combined to ensure that we are fast approaching irreversible collapse for biodiversity. And this would mean the irreversible collapse of food production too. The global grassroots organisation Slow Food said that

'Time is running out, we must turn things around within the next 10 years or risk a total and irreversible collapse.' 

It's timely, therefore, that Democrat representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and fellow party members have unveiled a green new deal that would usher in huge reforms to dramatically reduce United States carbon emissions while adding millions of jobs and investing in infrastructure projects. Cortez and her colleagues have correctly identified that the time for tinkering has passed, we need fundamental change if we are to save this planet for future generations. Will this Government recognise the climate emergency that we face and introduce a radical plan to address this issue? We need a fundamental rethink of our economy. Is the Government prepared to act on that?

I'd like to raise the matter of the support that veterans receive when they return to civilian life. This is a matter I've raised before and there has previously been some exemplary campaigning work undertaken by my Plaid Cymru colleagues in Westminster on this. A constituent contacted me recently to share with me his experiences of accessing mental health services after leaving the army. Whilst in service, this man completed two tours of Iraq and three tours of Afghanistan. He subsequently suffered from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and extreme anxiety, as well as drink and drug problems. I'm pleased to say that he has come out on the other side, but he says that that was not as a result of the overstretched mental health services that he tried to access. In his own powerful words, he said,

'I feel the army and the Government completely leave veterans to crash and burn, especially in our area, once service has been terminated. I'm proof of this. The aftercare is pretty poor and therapy for me used to consist of questionnaires that would ask, ''On a scale of one to 10, how are you feeling today?''.'

When are we likely to see real change on the ground for Welsh veterans and are you confident that the 10-year strategy for our veterans, unveiled last year, will deliver for people like the man from the Rhondda who contacted me?

I want the Government to reconsider the threshold for free school meals. This is something that I've called for before and I will keep calling for it until we have parity with the north of Ireland, which has a threshold twice that of Wales's £7,000. Many of my constituents in the Rhondda are in work, yet they remain in poverty. They fall just outside the threshold for free school meals and they are the type of people who the children's commissioner, Sally Holland, identified in her report released this week. She said that children's basic needs in families like these aren't being met, with families struggling to afford school uniform, equipment and sanitary products. She also said that we need this Welsh Government to, and I quote,

'show real ambition and leadership in helping the thousands of families across Wales who are really struggling.'

Do you believe that that much needed ambition and leadership are forthcoming and can we please have a debate about the children's commissioner's findings in Government time as soon as possible?

Thank you for raising those issues. Certainly, the first that you mentioned related to the pressing environmental and climate change challenges that we are all more than aware of. Certainly, our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 does compel us to not only think differently but very much act differently in terms of the decisions that we take as a Welsh Government, but also that the public bodies beyond the Welsh Government take. Of course, the Minister will be making a statement in due course on the 'Brexit and our land' consultation, which certainly looks at the important role that farming has to play in terms of protecting our natural resources here in Wales, and farming in a responsible way, because, of course, the question was about food production when you asked it.

In terms of veterans, I'm really pleased to hear that the Ministry of Defence has now begun to issue veterans with an ID card and that will certainly recognise the time that they have spent in the services and enable them to access some of the services that we have specifically for veterans. Veterans should be able to have priority access to health services if their condition is as a result of the service that they've given to our country, and that certainly applies to mental health services as well as meeting physical health needs. So, if there are particular issues in the case of the gentleman you describe that you would wish to raise with the Minister, then I'm sure that they would be keen to respond.

In terms of the free school meals issue, I know that we have consulted widely on proposals and provided significant additional funding to enable us to take the steps that we are with regard to the future of free school meals and the way that we address the needs of children in those families. The decisions we have taken will actually increase the number of children who are able to benefit from it. But of course, our concern is about those families and those children who are on the cusp of receiving services and support. So, I will ask the Minister to write to you with some further information on our approach there.

Trefnydd, I recently had the opportunity of discussing the potential of the financial transaction tax—the so-called 'Robin Hood tax'—with representatives from Unison Cymru Wales. We also heard from the Robin Hood tax campaign about the potential for such a tax to transform our public services. As we've had no evidence of austerity ending any time soon, I'm sure there'd be support in several parts of this Chamber for the opportunity to debate this issue, as it would raise significant funds for public services. In light of the First Minister's existing support for this tax, can I ask you if the Government would consider bringing forward a statement on its potential implications?

Thank you very much for raising that, and congratulations for holding a successful event here in the Assembly to raise awareness of and seek support for the Robin Hood tax. I can certainly confirm that the Welsh Government supports the principle of the tax that you describe. We recognise that this isn't within our devolved competence, and we would certainly encourage the UK Government to explore it further. We do recognise that a tax of this type would be most effective were it to be introduced globally, but certainly, if that were not possible, to do it within the tax jurisdictions of all leading economies, at a minimum, would be an excellent way forward.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for Education on the continuing problems caused by Newport City Council regarding Gwent SenCom? The Minister may be aware that on 11 December last year I called for a statement on Newport City Council's decision to withdraw its funding from this service, which supports children who have vision, hearing and communication problems. In her reply, the then Minister said she was sure the Minister for Education would report back to the Senedd once her discussions were completed. The council subsequently put its plan to withdraw funding on hold until 2020. However, the continuing uncertainties over the future of the service is putting considerable pressure on staff, and plans have been already drawn to shed 16 jobs. Please, can we have now a statement from the Minister for Education on what actions she will take to intervene to remove this uncertainty and safeguard this vital service for children in Newport? Thank you.

Thank you very much. I know that the Minister has been very clear that she does welcome the decision to push back any final decision in terms of a way forward in order to be able to have some further discussions. I think that having this space now to find an appropriate way forward is certainly a positive move.

We're in the middle of lambing season, of course, and, at a time such as this, one becomes more aware of the problem of dogs attacking sheep and lambs. Indeed, research by NFU Mutual has shown that attacks like this cost £1.2 million for the livestock sector in the UK last year. What causes concern particularly for me is that these cases are reducing in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are increasing here in Wales. It cost almost £300,000 to the sector as a result of losses last year, specifically in Wales, and that, of course, doesn't include the impact on the welfare of animals that are attacked, and the anxiety caused to those farmers affected by those attacks. It has become apparent now that the time has come to change, to review and reform the 1953 dogs Act, because it is dated.

The police can't take a dog following an attack if they know who the owner of that dog is. The police don't have the power to take a DNA sample from a dog suspected of carrying out an attack. The courts can't ban the owner of any dog that's attacked a sheep from taking ownership of another dog, even if that owner has been found guilty of a criminal act.

Now, North Wales Police are clear in their call for a need for reform of the legislation, the agricultural unions agree, as do I, and I call on the Welsh Government and the UK Government to amend this legislation. So, can we have a statement from the Government and from the relevant Minister on what the Welsh Government's intentions are in relation to this legislation? It's almost 70 years since the legislation was passed and it's clear to everyone now that it’s not fit for purpose and that the time has come to take action.

Thank you very much for raising that issue. Certainly, dog attacks on livestock are a real area of concern for Welsh Government. I know that work does go on with North Wales Police in particular, but also the police across Wales and with the farming unions, to explore how we can better promote responsible dog ownership in all kinds of areas, but with a particular focus on preventing attacks on livestock. I'll certainly ask the Minister to write to you with an update on her views as regards the reform of the 1953 dogs Act in the way that you've described.

Trefnydd, I was alarmed to hear a few days ago that women going through miscarriages at less than 20 weeks term are being accommodated in a ward at Singleton hospital where there are no en-suite facilities. Worse still, this is a mixed ward where women in the throes of miscarrying are expected to walk past men to get to the toilets and showers, which it is claimed—I'm not sure about this—are also shared by men. This is a serious claim being made by more than one constituent, and I think it deserves being raised in this Chamber rather than through a letter. So, I'd be grateful if you would ask the health Minister if he will investigate this urgently and report back to us in a statement confirming Government policy on this. 

Thank you. I'll certainly discuss with the health Minister in terms of the way in which he can explore this particular issue that you describe with the health board, and he will report back to you.

I was very pleased today to meet representatives from the miners' pension campaign. I know that many of you will know that they've been campaigning for many years because the UK Government has been taking half of their pension surplus from the fund, which they've been doing since 1994. Billions of pounds that should have gone to the miners has instead been pocketed by the Treasury, and that's truly appalling. Some of the miners who are affected by this have been getting by on as little as £84 a week.

The campaigners have now succeeded in getting the 100,000 signatures that they need for there to be a debate in Westminster and they're taking the petition to 10 Downing Street tomorrow. I would like to put on the record that none of this would have been possible without the tireless work of my predecessor Steffan Lewis, who campaigned side by side with the miners for many years on this issue and I know that they are incredibly grateful to him for that. 

On 15 January, Adam Price asked the First Minister to commit to supporting the endeavours of the former miners and to meet a delegation of them in order to offer the Welsh Government's full support. Mark Drakeford had said that he would do that. I therefore ask for the Welsh Government to give a statement please on an update on this and how it intends to support the campaign now that it's nearing the endgame. 

Thank you very much for raising this and for paying tribute to Steffan's work in this particular area. Of course, Welsh Government has also been a long-time supporter of our mineworkers here in Wales, and I know that the First Minister has met with the NUM in order to look at the progress that's been made with regard to this particular campaign and to discuss how we can best support the 22,000 people in Wales who are amongst the nearly 140,000 people who are affected by this. 

I know the First Minister has also written to the UK Government and to the scheme trustees to ask them to review the scheme and to consider revising the approach to the division of the surpluses that you describe—surpluses of over £2.5 billion, I understand—to agree a new and fairer distribution of those surpluses, and thus improve the pensioners' benefits and reflect the true level of risk, actually, that's involved in that particular pension scheme. We hope that the UK Government will respond to the issues raised in the report and undertake to work with the NUM to deliver a positive outcome for the scheme's dependents, and the First Minister will be making a written statement on this particular issue today. I think it's actually just arrived in everybody's inboxes.

I'd just like to return to the issue of the children's commissioner's report on protecting Welsh children from the impact of poverty. We know that this affects somewhere in the region of a third of all our children, so this is a really major challenge for all of us. I think that, on the one hand, in primary schools we know that many children who need that free school breakfast are not getting it, because the places are quickly filled by those who are using the school breakfast as free childcare, and that's a big challenge for headteachers—to ensure that the right people are getting priority for that. But in our secondary schools, the picture painted by the children's commissioner is very concerning, because there we have a cafeteria system of school meals where, frankly, the catering companies are endeavouring to maximise the income from children. This is impacting not just on those on free school meals, but those who are struggling financially because of low wages. I know, because I have seen it myself, that some schools actually do not provide tap water in the dining room and they are promoting these drinks in plastic bottles. I cannot understand how this has any place in the 'Appetite for Life' guidelines.

I would like to call for two responses immediately from the Government, prior to us debating this report. One is that I would like to ask if the Minister for local government could write to all local authorities and ask that they monitor exactly what's going on in each of their secondary schools. There are fewer than 20 schools in Cardiff, which is the largest local authority, so this is perfectly doable. Either they are ignorant or they are complicit in what is going on in terms of promoting products that will maximise income as opposed to what nourishes children.

Secondly, I'd like a statement from the education Minister to clarify exactly who is supposed to be monitoring the standard of school meals, which in my view does not meet the nutritional requirements for children. We are seeing children on free school meals who are simply using it to buy chips with curry sauce on a Friday, and that is not a nutritional meal.

Thank you very much for raising these issues relating to the children's commissioner's report. I can hardly believe I have to say that, yes, schools should be providing opportunities for children to drink free, fresh drinking water at any point during the school day, should they wish. Schools should be signposting water stations throughout the schools, providing younger children with a cup or glass of water, or allowing them to carry water bottles, and ensuring that dining room supervisors are encouraging children to drink available water at school times and promoting water right throughout the school—and certainly making the pupils aware also that things such as taps in the toilet areas aren’t an appropriate source of drinking water. These are all things that you could think would be basically understood by schools.

Certainly with regard to the standards, we have the Healthy Eating in Schools (Nutritional Standards and Requirements) (Wales) Regulations 2013, which apply to all food and drink served to pupils at breakfast, break times, lunchtimes, afternoon break or in after-school clubs. But I will certainly ask the education Minister to write to you with regard to the monitoring of those regulations and how we can be satisfied that those regulations are delivering healthy food and drink to children throughout the school day.FootnoteLink The Minister for local government has indicated that she would be happy also to write to local authorities regarding the quality of the food that is being presented to children in schools and how the local authorities themselves are satisfying themselves of that requirement for healthy food and drink.

Trefnydd, yesterday I, Jenny Rathbone and, indeed, the day before,  Mohammad Asghar were part of the Public Accounts Committee trip to Wrexham in north Wales—a very useful meeting. And it was made possible by a very pleasant train journey there and back, courtesy of Transport for Wales. That journey went very well, but, as I'm sure many AMs are aware, that experience is not universal, and I've received a number of concerned e-mails from constituents who've had problems with that train service, one in particular from a constituent whose daughter travels to Hereford Sixth Form College on a regular basis to study. Her exams are coming up and she's concerned that a large proportion of services are either cancelled at short notice or are delayed by varying amounts and she can't plan her studies effectively. Now, I remember the Minister for transport telling us, I think a few weeks ago, that partly these issues are due to poor maintenance from the previous franchise and that we should bear that in mind, and I think that there is an argument there. However, that's not really relevant to my constituents or people using these train services at the moment. So, what assurance can we give to my constituents and other passengers on Transport for Wales that, whatever the reason for these current delays and problems with the service, these are being dealt with by the Welsh Government and normal service can resume as quickly as possible?

Thank you very much. As you indicated, we have very recently had a debate on railway services here in the Assembly Chamber, led by the Minister, Ken Skates. Certainly, Transport for Wales is working very hard to improve the situation and to deliver the kind of investments now that we have agreed with them. I'm sure that Ken Skates would be happy to bring forward another statement in due course so that Members will have the opportunity to reflect on their constituents' experiences of the new franchise and also to quiz the Minister on delivery. 

My constituent Hannah Evans has been diagnosed as having a rare hereditary genetic condition, Ehlers-Danlos type 3 syndrome—I hope I've said that right—and has developed secondary complications as a result of mast cell activation disease and systemic mastocytosis disorder. Hannah has to travel to London to see a private specialist as there is no specialist in Wales to meet her complex medical needs, and that's put a lot of pressure on the family because they've had to pay for this private treatment and they have been turned down by the specialist services here in Wales. So, they've asked me to raise this with Welsh Government, calling for a statement on how you could potentially look to fund these types of conditions in the future, given the fact that the cost of private treatment is so high and may push people out of being able to seek that treatment as a consequence. 

The second question I wanted to ask followed on from Andrew R.T. Davies's in relation to the situation with regard to rugby. The first question is: why are they doing this in the middle of the six nations, for one, because it's really distracting everybody when it should unite a nation? And the other question is: I heard your answer earlier, but I don't think it's as easy as Welsh Government looking from the sidelines. At the end of the day, the WRU will be applying to the Welsh Government for a new region in north Wales. A potential merger is one thing and, as you said, there are different opinions, but this will affect livelihoods, this will affect the job conditions of the rugby players and where they are settled at the moment, uprooting them from their communities. Can you tell us what discussions you are having with the Welsh Rugby Union and how you will be engaging with them to find a solution that will be sustainable and viable for the future, because we've seen this happen before in Pontypridd and we don't want to see the same mistakes repeated again? So, please give us reassurances. We would appreciate a statement. 

Thank you very much. You'll recall that the health Minister made a statement on the new treatment fund just a few weeks ago here in the Assembly, but certainly if you wanted to write to him with the details of your specific case, I know that he would be interested to explore the issues that you've raised in greater detail.

The question regarding rugby, on why, I think that's probably a question for the WRU, but I know that Welsh Government officials and the Minister—the Deputy Minister, I should say—will be having regular discussions with the WRU on a whole manner of aspects relating to the sport in Wales. And as soon as the Minister has some kind of update in terms of the Welsh Government's role in terms of the future of the sport in Wales, I know that he will bring it forward, but certainly today I think the response really is very much about ensuring that the future of the sport is sustainable across Wales, and we would be keen to work with the WRU to ensure that's the case.

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Could I say to Andrew R.T. Davies, and to Bethan Sayed, if there was a mood to take forward an individual Member's debate on the future of rugby in Wales, include grass-roots rugby as well? Because the importance of the regional structure is also not to just the Welsh team, but it's downwards to grass-roots rugby as well.

But could I ask for two debates, please? And I'm giving the Trefnydd plenty of time to consider this as well. In Westminster, we used to have an annual fisheries debate. Now, I'm not suggesting we should have that here, but we do have a proud story to talk about what we've done within the marine environment, but we also have to challenge what more we could do as well. Now, I'm very interested in the idea, based on what we've already done in Wales, and what more we have to do, on the idea of an annual marine or marine and fisheries debate—marine sustainability—because it doesn't get enough airtime here in the Chamber. There is more for us to do, and I think it would focus on what we've already achieved and show what more we could do. Now, as it happens, 28 July to 12 August is National Marine Week UK. It falls just outside, but, in the week leading up to that recess, that would be an ideal time, perhaps, for an annual debate of that type.

Could I also flag up the possibility, please, and a request, for a debate, now that we have a Government Minister with responsibility for co-operation and co-operative principles within Government—social enterprises, social economy and so on—on co-operation? Now, could I suggest, again giving time—? We have Co-operatives Fortnight on 24 June to 8 July. It would be an ideal time for Government to bring forward a debate on how they can embed co-operative principles, and I declare my interest as a Co-operative as well as Welsh Labour Member in that, and the chair of the Co-operative group of Assembly Members.

Finally, could we have a statement on the issue of through-ticketing, from grand themes to great detail? Through-ticketing is an important issue for my constituents. It would allow us, if there was a statement, to ask the Minister about Transport for Wales's approach to through-ticketing, when, for example, if you buy a Bridgend to London single advance ticket, it costs £25; if you buy that same ticket from Maesteg, which, as the Minister will know personally, is just up the line on that branch line going up to Maesteg, it is £50.60—it is 124 per cent more expensive—when, if you buy a single from Maesteg to Bridgend just to catch it, it's £2.60. What is going on? And this is just one example of many I have. So, if we could have a statement on through-ticketing and the approach, because there's clearly an inequity there and it's discouraging people from actually joining on our branch lines to join through-trains to London or Bristol or anywhere else when they have such a price premium.

Thank you very much for raising those issues. I can confirm that the Minister will be going out to consultation on 'Brexit and our seas' later this month, which will explore the future of our fisheries in Wales, and I know that there will be an opportunity in due course then to discuss the marine environment more widely with the Minister. I think that I recall that we tend to have an annual statement on marine and fisheries in the Assembly, and I think that we've been doing that over recent years.

With regard to co-operation and co-operative enterprises, of course, the Deputy Minister will have heard your call for a statement there.

And, with regard to through-ticketing and Transport for Wales, the particular journeys you've described do demonstrate very clearly the issue there, and I will ask the Minister to write to you in the first instance to describe Transport for Wales's plans in this particular area.

I thank the Trefnydd. 

The next item, which is item 4, has been postponed. 

Which brings us to item 5, a statement by the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip on International Women's Day. Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'm pleased to make this statement celebrating International Women’s Day, marking the twentieth anniversary of this Assembly, established under the Government of Wales Act 1998, which also placed duties to have 'due regard to equality of opportunity' in our statute book. Equality is enshrined in the DNA of the Welsh Government through the legislation that underpins our existence.

Equality and human rights are central to the work of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government and our vision for Wales. We believe in fair treatment of every person, especially those who are most marginalised by socioeconomic factors, prejudice and discrimination. We work towards a more equal Wales and to ensure fairer access to services and support opportunities for all.

International Women’s Day provides the opportunity to reflect on achievements that have been made during the past 20 years, including pioneering policies and leading legislation on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It also provides the opportunity to take stock of the distance we still have to go to achieve equality in Wales. The World Bank has reported that there are six countries in the world where women enjoy an equal legal footing to men, and Britain is not one of them. We know that this is the case from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Chwarae Teg's 'State of the Nation' report, but we can take, and are taking, steps to put Wales ahead in our four nations, and, indeed, in the world, if we make this a priority of the Welsh Government.

The theme of International Women’s Day this year is Balance for Better. From grass-roots activism to worldwide action, we're entering a period of history where the world expects balance. We notice its absence and celebrate its presence. The Welsh Government now has more women than men in Cabinet, addressing previous gender imbalance. The work of the Welsh Government gender review will contribute to this balance by looking at areas where we can make improvements and become a leader in advancing women's equality to eradicate the stubborn inequalities that still exist. The review is considering the added impact of having another protected characteristic, for example, disability, race or sexuality, has to gender equality. This consideration will enable us to embrace an intersectional approach to policies and priorities. Consultation and workshops steered by Chwarae Teg's expert advisory group have resulted in a vision for Wales to proclaim today: a gender-equal Wales means an equal sharing of power, resources and influence for all women, men and non-binary people. This is a vision where the Government aims to create the conditions for equality of outcome for all. We want a Wales where all women can have economic independence, and paid and unpaid work is valued, diverse women are fairly represented in positions of influence and empowered to play a meaningful role in society, all women are free from discrimination and free to live their lives as they choose, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence stops, existing power structures that disadvantage women are challenged, and all women, men and non-binary people enjoy equal rights and protections and equality of outcome.

I've begun meeting with Cabinet colleagues to discuss progress on the gender equality review and to identify pathfinder policy areas where there is scope to take early action. Chwarae Teg will continue to consult widely with stakeholders to develop the road map for gender equality in Wales, with events planned throughout the country in the near future.

I have ministerial responsibility for equalities, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence and public appointments. My responsibilities within the First Minister’s office for crime and justice enable me to progress action with the female offending blueprint to work with the UK Government on the stark findings of the Cardiff University Wales Governance Centre report on sentencing in Wales.

Without a strong vision and principles, it's felt that inequality between genders will not change, and we will carry on as we are. Some have reflected that we have talked about equality of opportunity for some time, and we're still living with entrenched inequality, so a step change is required. For example, the gender pay gap in Wales was 13.6 per cent in 2018. Without a focus on the underlying issues, future generations will continue to be subject to continued inequality. We must focus on equality of outcome to encourage people to look beyond just preventing discrimination, and instead look for ways to advance equality for all. The recommended vision for Wales therefore includes equal sharing of power, resources and influence to ensure the playing field is levelled. This focus on equality of outcome would bring Wales in line with other world leaders for gender equality, such as Sweden and Canada.

Welsh Government officials and I recently met with a Nordic delegation to learn from their best practice and to consider how some of that could be used within the Welsh policy and legal context. I would like this to represent the beginning of a fruitful relationship with other nations who are striving for gender equality.

Following the public announcement of the gender review by the Welsh Government last year and the report on the seminar of human rights and socio-economic duty, which we will commence in Wales, there is, rightly, raised expectation the Welsh Government will improve equality for women. Our vision and principles set out our commitment. There is an expectation of action to bring about that change. To be meaningful, in agreeing the vision and principles, the Welsh Government is recognising the need and desire to be committed to action. 

I'd like to conclude by paying tribute to the women of Wales who fought to secure the vote 100 years ago and continue to organise and campaign for women’s rights in their workplaces, trade unions and communities. Let’s celebrate their achievements, listen to their calls for action, respond to their manifestos and use our agency and leadership to create a fairer and more equal Wales.

Thank you. I ask every speaker today to take account of the fact that we have three quarters of an hour for this statement. There are a number of speakers, and I start with Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank you, Deputy Minister, for this important statement and take this opportunity to give a special mention to some events in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney this Friday, International Women's Day? We'll have the great honour of hosting only the second purple plaque in Wales, marking the contribution of remarkable women to Welsh public life. I look forward to seeing you and the Deputy Minister for health, Julie Morgan, there as well. The plaque will be dedicated to Ursula Masson—born, raised and educated in Merthyr Tydfil—who went on to become instrumental in founding the Women's Archive Wales, was a committee member of the south-west group of the Women's History Network and co-edited the journal Llafur of the Welsh People's History Society. It was Ursula, as you know, who put forward the idea of holding a series of Wales women's history roadshows, where people would be invited to bring material relating to social histories of women's lives. Some of those items later became part of the People's Collection Wales.

As if that wasn't enough, Ursula also established the Centre for Gender Studies in Wales department at the University of South Wales, and undertook seminal research for her doctorate on women in Liberal politics in the early part of the century in Wales. I could go on about Ursula, but suffice it to say that she was an inspiration to so many, particularly working-class women, who found new direction and access to education that had never been open to them before. 

Ursula's home town of Merthyr Tydfil has a number of statues to boxers, plaques and memorials to men. Due to the wealth of the ironmasters, we do know a bit about the legacy of the Crawshay and Guest women, but the stories of our remarkable working-class women, like Ursula Masson, are perhaps less well known and celebrated, and certainly not 'balanced for the better', as the theme of International Women's Day is this year. 

So, would you join me, finally, Deputy Minister, in thanking Merthyr Women's Archive Wales member and activist Ceinwen Statter, who has been instrumental in getting the work of Ursula Masson commemorated and recognised in Merthyr Tydfil, culminating this Friday, when we will unveil the purple plaque as a celebration of that remarkable woman's life? 

I'm very pleased to thank Dawn Bowden for that tribute to Ursula Masson and to thank her for all the pioneering work that you've done, Dawn, since you became Assembly Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. Because I know also, last year, during the centenary year, you actually brought to our attention and public attention—and particularly local attention—some of the important historical figures in your constituency.

Certainly, in terms of the opportunity now to celebrate one of Merthyr Tydfil's most distinguished activists, feminists—as she liked to call herself—campaigners, academics and inspirational teachers, I think Ursula Masson, who, actually, was nominated by a whole range of people from across Wales, because of her work with the women's archive—. But, particularly, also I thank Ceinwen for what she has done, because she actually then brought it to our attention. 

I think this also shows that the purple plaque initiative is now building momentum. I have to, just at this point, draw attention, of course, to the first purple plaque, which we unveiled a year ago, which is outside on our Senedd walls. Val Feld, former Assembly Member for Swansea East—obviously, another pioneering champion of equality.

But I think this Friday we will be—. It will be on the Carnegie library, which—. Again, many thanks to Dawn Bowden and all the colleagues and activists in the town who've enabled this to happen, obviously with the local authority's support as well. Julie Morgan and I will be pleased to be there, because we were initiators of the purple plaques initiative, but, indeed, many other women—and it is across this Chamber—have brought this to fruition. So, it's the second purple plaque that we're unveiling on Friday. It's a fantastic way to celebrate International Women's Day on Friday. I think it will raise awareness, not just on Friday but, certainly, in Merthyr and further afield about—. And people will want to then look at the life of Ursula Masson, and I'm sure it will be a key feature for the schools locally in terms of recognising this remarkable woman and her unwavering contribution to our nation. So, we do have more plaques to come, and I think the presence of those plaques on our streets, our public buildings, will be a very simple and significant way of highlighting the outstanding achievements of Welsh women who many people may otherwise not have heard of. And what is most important, and Ceinwen has shown us this, is that you need the local support and champions, with an Assembly Member like Dawn Bowden alongside, and, of course, the volunteers who play their part in the steering group for the purple plaques initiative to take this forward. 

I thank the Deputy Minister for her statement today. It's a great day, International Women's Day, which is not only celebrated here but by the United Nations since 1996. Women have made and continue to make significant contributions in all aspects of life in Wales. Even with greater equality and legislative rights and impressive female role models, women still face challenges today here in Wales, Minister. Many of these are in the workplace. It is a sad fact that the gender pay gap in hourly earnings, excluding overtime, for both full-time and part-time employees in Wales was nearly 15 per cent in 2017. So, can I ask the Deputy Minister what plan does she haves to close the gender pay gap in Wales? I'm concerned that, all too often, career advice tends to guide women to apprenticeships that are paid less than those for men. Can I ask what Welsh Government is doing to ensure gender equality is promoted in the workplace?

It takes tremendous courage to come forward and report incidents and domestic abuse. We must do more to encourage such victims to report abuse and to recognise the signs of domestic violence. Some years ago, the then First Minister gave a positive response to my suggestion that all public sector organisations should have a workplace violence against women policy in place. This would identify and assist employees who are the victims of violence. I wonder if the Deputy Minister can advise if any progress has been made in this regard.

The exploitation of women in and around Wales is becoming far more acknowledged. A breakthrough regarding the way human trafficking is perceived is resulting in more and more exposure of its hidden nature and various guises. Apart from the sexual exploitation of women, there are issues of forced labour, of services slavery, servitude, and even the removal of organs. Female genital mutilation is a scandalous breach of human rights, with potentially life-threatening consequences. I also call on the Minister to assure us that the Welsh Government will remain at the forefront of the campaign against these abuses.

In 1897, Susan Anthony, an American activist, actually said, and this is a wonderful quote:

'There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers.'

Since that time, we have witnessed significant progress toward women's equality and emancipation. Deputy Minister, like life, I believe that peace begins with women—peace in the world. They tend to be the first to form lines of life and calibration across areas of conflict and division around the world. As the world moves towards International Women's Day 2019, on 8 March, it is important for all of us to recognise the contribution of women across all walks of life—women such as Theresa May, Angela Merkel, our Presiding Officer, Margaret Thatcher, Sheikh Hasina, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi, Julia Gillard, Golda Meir and Helen Clark. These are only a few I can count who have all broken through the glass ceilings and led their nations in the world. Every woman who ran a country never had a war with their neighbours, or any other nation. Those were the most peaceful times. All created a change, they all have done something out of the box, and they all have been a driver of progress within their work and family life. I believe it is imperative to recognise famous women whom we all know, as well as those women who strive to provide a roof over her family's head, those women who juggle multiple jobs to put food on the table, those women who play the role of mum and dad, and those women who spend their lives taking care of others. I always say the world is a black and white photograph, or a picture—with women, it becomes colourful. For today, for the day of women's day, I would like to say from this side of the Chamber, thank you very much all of you, ladies, around the world.

Thank you very much, Mohammad Asghar. I do also thank you for your support, and the support of the Welsh Conservative group, for International Women's Day, and also for the recognition of the role of women in Wales. I think that was a key point in my statement. And indeed we have been acknowledging, particularly, significant women in Wales who have had an influence. We will on Friday—Ursula Masson, Val Feld. I was asked the question today, and I also talked about one of the first Welsh women Labour MPs, and that was Dorothy Rees, in my constituency. So, I think we all will be honouring and remembering women today.

You mentioned two or three very important points. The gender pay gap. Now, I've already mentioned the fact it's unacceptable we have this gender pay gap, and that is across all sectors. But we do now, through the Equality Act 2010, have the opportunity to monitor the gender pay gap, and also to ensure that we extend that monitoring to companies, not just in terms of the 250, but below. We need to look very carefully at how we are addressing the gender pay gap. We have our robust public sector equality duty, as a result of the Equality Act 2010, and all public sector employers now, as I've said, report annually on their disparities in pay. They are then expected to have plans to address employment or pay differences. But also, looking at issues like the different distribution of men and women between grades, occupations, working patterns, we need a fair work Wales, which we will move towards. I think the socio-economic duty, when we adopt that, will also help us. But we need to ensure that we understand the gender pay gap differences, and address the causes of that.

I think the issue around work, and enabling women to move forward, is addressed by many employers and initiatives now, but the Agile Nation 2, managed and delivered by Chwarae Teg, does aim to promote gender equality, and support career advancement. Of course, that has been supported by European funding, and I think the latest development of the project, women exploring business, well-being integrated support hub, which is coming through LIMITLESS, an initiative that is across five local authorities—. And that project will assist women to progress in employment, women who are so often constrained into the lower paid echelons of the workplace. That's why we have to link this, of course, not only to the real living wage, which we need to adopt, and the socio-economic duty, but also our economic contract. And I am, as I said, having bilateral meetings with all our Ministers; tomorrow, it will be the turn of Ken Skates, the Minister for economy, and we will be talking about women in the workplace, and how we can progress in terms of moving that forward.

Now, you also raise important issues in terms of our national strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. And part of that strategy, of course—objective 1 of our national strategy—is to increase awareness and challenge attitudes on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, across the Welsh population. And that, of course, includes tackling slavery. Although it's not a devolved responsibility—many of the levers do rest with the UK Government—we are committed to tackling slavery, and in many ways we are leading the way in the UK. We are the first and only country in the UK to appoint an anti-slavery co-ordinator, appointed in 2011. And I'm sure Joyce Watson, if she doesn't raise this issue again—we pay tribute to the role she has played in that.

And, of course, we're much more aware now of issues relating to sexual harassment, and that has a debilitating and discriminating effect, a harmful effect on women, particularly in the workplace. Public sector organisations are, as I said, subject to the public sector equality duty, and we have the duty and they have the duty to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation. 

Sticking with the theme of Balance for Better, there's a great deal that we all need to do to combat climate change on behalf of our sisters in other countries, which are much more likely to be threatened by climate change, including seeing their communities disappear. We know that the easy wins have been achieved in terms of reducing the amount of coal being used for power generation. We now need to look at the much more challenging issues of reducing vehicle emissions, which means improving public transport and active travel for short journeys.

I want to remind us all that women should be able to space their children to comply with the World Health Organization recommendations that note that women should wait two years before having another child, and this is lacking in so many countries.

I'm sure the Deputy Minister will support the Fairtrade Fortnight request for a living wage for women cocoa farmers in the Côte d’Ivoire, where they currently only get 74p a day, and £1.86 is the amount they need to earn in order to be able to live a decent existence.

Lastly, I just wanted to point out the efforts for peace in Israel-Palestine that are being led by women through an organisation called Women Wage Peace. On Friday, which is International Women's Day, thousands of women from all different communities across Palestine and Israel—Arab, Jewish, Druze, Israeli Palestinians, settlers, as well as women affected by the nation state legislation, which means that Filipino women, for example, who've worked in Israel for many, many years are at threat of deportation, members of Parliament and musicians, will be marching from the museum to Rabin Square erecting a mother's tent in Rabin Square which will stay up until election day on 6 April. Given the really acute situation that is being faced by Palestinians, both on the West Bank and in Gaza, I hope that women will lead the campaign for dialogue, which is the first step to resolution of conflict, which has been going on for far too long in that area.  

I'd like to thank Jenny Rathbone for those important and wider questions, which will be the theme of many events and discussions across the world, in terms of International Women's Day on Friday. I'm particularly interested—. I met my bilaterals in terms of the gender review. I met with the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language earlier on, and we were talking about the prospects of developing pilots around how we can support women through our powers and initiatives that we're supporting, such as Wales for Africa, where there is a huge threat in terms of climate change in sub-Saharan Africa, but also recognising that fair trade today was brought to our attention in the canteen when we were able to taste the chocolate, and recognise, remember and learn about those women cocoa farmers. I look forward to holding a spring breakfast in my constituency to which I've invited children from schools who, as part of Fairtrade Fortnight, will be thinking and learning about, particularly, women farmers, and it's important that we play our part. Let's remember that Wales was the first fair trade nation. In fact, this was the first trade nation, which was launched by Rhodri Morgan, our former First Minister, and we have a commitment to that, but women play such a role internationally and, of course, that point has already been made.

This includes the role that women play in the prevention and resolution of conflict. So, it's also interesting to hear about Women Wage Peace and the movements across the world, and we must welcome that and look at the UN resolutions, which are very clear in terms of how we must move that forward. But it is also very important that we look at this in terms of the opportunities we do have with the well-being of future generations legislation. We have got pioneering legislation, we have got the chance to look outwards as well, and with a Cabinet Minister for international relations as well, of course, as our First Minister. But the points that you raise in terms of women's role in terms of peace and resolution of conflict and supporting movements across the world, and particularly, I'm sure, following our visit last week—Women Wage Peace, clearly a great deal to learn from that. 

I thank the Deputy Minister for her statement. She will, of course, remember the hard fight we had to have included in our founding statute the specific responsibility for this institution to have due regard to equality of opportunity in 1998. It's nice to hear her refer to it in her statement, and I would also like to remind us all that that was led by our former colleague Val Feld, who brought many interests together, and I'd like to pay my respects to Val for that today. We have, of course, seen some progress since 1998, but I know the Deputy Minister has acknowledged today that we still have a great deal more to do, and knowing that time is short I just want to briefly raise a couple of specific points, if I may.

First of all, I'd like to ask the Deputy Minister about the provision of services to women survivors of domestic and sexual abuse and their children. Now, I'm sure the Deputy Minister will agree with me that those services—and we know this from research—are best provided by local women-led organisations that are answerable to their service users. We know that these organisations across Wales are losing tenders to provide those services to larger commercial organisations. Often, no children's services are provided in those tenders, and, if they are, they are an add-on, there isn't adequate time. Where they are provided, they're often provided by volunteers—provided on a shoestring. Now, I know the Deputy Minister will agree with me that we will never break the circle of domestic abuse unless we support the children who have witnessed those atrocities in their own homes. Surely, this has to be a priority for the Welsh Government, and can I ask the Deputy Minister today what more she can do, in partnership with local government in Wales, to halt and reverse this trend of local organisations losing out to the big commercial people who are there to make profit, not to look after our children?

The next issue specifically I'd like to raise is the issue of period poverty, and I do welcome the recent Welsh Government investment, but we've seen further evidence again this week that we still have girls missing school because they can't have access to appropriate sanitary products. We still see women and girls using inappropriate things, like having to use socks, having to wash things, and I congratulate the National Union of Students—I'm sure the Minister would agree with me—on the campaign that they've kicked off on these issues this week. I'd specifically like to draw the Deputy Minister's attention to research published by the British Medical Association in Wales this week—last month, rather—showing that no consistent approach is taken across the NHS to the provision of sanitary protection in hospitals for women and girls who are in-patients. There are places—there are some of our hospitals where people cannot even purchase those supplies for themselves, let alone have them provided for free. No health board in Wales has got a specific policy, according to the BMA, on how these services should be provided. So, can I ask the Deputy Minister today, as part of the discussions she's referred to in her statement that she's having with ministerial colleagues, to discuss this matter specifically with the Minister for health to ensure that all women and girls receiving in-patient treatment in all Welsh hospital settings are provided with sanitary products free of charge as a matter of course? We do not expect our patients to bring their own lavatory paper into hospitals; we certainly should not be expecting them to provide their own sanitary products.  

My last specific point is to highlight the plight of the 1950s women whose pension rights were reduced without consultation—referred to as the WASPI women. The UK Government has, of course, now acknowledged that thousands of these women were never contacted about the proposed changes, and that this condemns many of them to poverty towards what they expected to be the end of their working lives. Now, obviously, this isn't a devolved matter, but I'd like to ask the Deputy Minister to agree that the Welsh Government will make further representations to the UK Government in this regard, in the light of the fact that the UK Government has now acknowledged that they did not notify all the women affected. 

And, finally, I'd like to very briefly make a general point relating to the use of language when we discuss this matter. Acting Presiding Officer, if we, as legislators in this Chamber, know anything, we know that words matter; they have very specific meanings. And, if we do not accurately describe a problem, we cannot appropriately address it. When referring to discrimination against women, the Equality Act is clear in its language: it makes sex discrimination unlawful except in certain specific circumstances. Yet, when we discuss these matters, we tend to use a much more imprecise term. We talk, for example—and the Minister has done today—about the 'gender' pay gap when what we mean is the 'sex' pay gap. The Deputy Minister refers in her statement to the Government's own 'gender' equality review, and talk, of course about gender equality is common practice, but it's a practice that needs to be brought to an end. There seems to be some sort of squeamishness about using the legally correct term, which is 'sex', and this matters. It matters because policy reviews and frameworks and policies should correctly reflect the legislative frameworks on which they are based to ensure that they appropriately comply with legislation. It also matters because the use of the term 'gender' could lead to confusion between actions needed to tackle sex discrimination and the important but distinct agenda around protecting and promoting the rights of people who identify as trans.

The Deputy Minister and I are both too old to be squeamish about the use of the word 'sex', and I would like to ask the Minister to undertake a review today of the language the Welsh Government uses with regard to this matter to ensure that, in future, it is fully compliant with the Equality Act. I completely accept that this conflation of the terms 'sex' and 'gender' is common; things that are common are not necessarily correct or useful, and I hope that the Deputy Minister will be able to take a look at this so that we can use the right language when debating these issues in future.

Thank you very much, Helen Mary Jones, and can I say that I think you are one of the key champions who were, at that time, probably working with Val Feld in the Equal Opportunities Commission? I also want to mention the fact that we wouldn't have that due regard to equality of opportunity if it wasn't for Julie Morgan, who was an MP at the time in Westminster, getting it through the Government of Wales Act, and today's the time when we can actually remind ourselves that we're part of history, and, in future, some will remember that there were those women down there in the Senedd who actually played their part to move this forward. But you've made very important points, because, having that due regard, we now have to deliver on it. In terms of the violence against women national strategy and how we are now supporting and funding refuges and Women's Aid groups, I have every sympathy with what you say. And, of course, I know from my local Women's Aid groups, and across Wales, that these are issues that they are struggling with as a result of different commissioning arrangements.

I want you to, hopefully, be reassured about the fact that we've got a sustainable funding group. That's actually chaired by the national advisers that we have: Yasmin Khan, who, I hope that Members—many Members have met our national advisers, appointed as national advisers—and Nazir Afzal as well. They are advising on the development of a sustainable funding model and what is important, of course, in terms of making sure that there are collaborations between third sector groups in this area. So, it's working with them; they're part of the sustainable funding group to take this forward. But I also think it's very important that we do recognise that, at a local level, we do have the Supporting People grant, and we've kept it in Wales, and that's paid to local authorities; that's administered to 22 local authorities, as you know. They are working with regional collaborative committees for advice on planning and commissioning, but that is a crucial way that refuges, particularly, are supported. In fact, looking at the Supporting People grant, which we've all protected it across this Chamber—despite austerity, we've kept it going—over £9 million was spent on domestic abuse services last year in terms of Supporting People. But we take your point in terms of those issues.

Now, your second point, very quickly, well, yes, the health Minister today has announced—which you probably have seen—that there will be free sanitary products offered in every hospital in Wales to all in-patients in the NHS in Wales. It's unacceptable to have patchy provision. As of today, the health Minister, Vaughan Gething, has made this announcement, so there should be no issue. International Women's Day—sometimes it takes something like this to say, 'Right, well let's get on with it; let's grab it.' Certainly, it was the first question I asked when I saw the headline on Sunday, that this was a—. I said, 'Where are we in Wales?' It's happening in Wales. And let's remember also the £1 million that we put into period—. What we're trying to promote is period dignity, and I did have my meeting with Kirsty Williams yesterday to talk about schools, because this is really where we need to develop period dignity, and that also links to a whole range of other issues in schools, which we talked about and which we're addressing. So, that is a key point as well.

Yes, in terms of Women Against State Pension Inequality and the women who have campaigned so hard in terms of the impact of the changes in pension age, and the fact that we've just seen that the High Court has granted permission for judicial review of matters arising from the Government policy of equalisation of women's pension ages, and the impact of those changes on women born in the 1950s—. So, that's as a result of campaigning, which, again, many of us have been involved in; we've had support across this Chamber for this. The case is due to be heard on 24 May, and we must again look at ways in which we can deal with the complaints, because at this stage we have to wait for that, in terms of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who could deal with complaints from a decision of the independent case examiner. But that is—. We're making some progress, I think.

Just finally, on your point about language, well, I think many of us are learning about language, but we are quite clear: we have legislation—we have the Sex Discrimination Act, we have the Equal Pay Act, we have the Equality Act. And we have to be mindful of the protected characteristics, which, in terms of the Equality Act, have made us much more aware of intersectionality, which, of course, I've mentioned in my statement, in terms of the fact that you can be a woman but you can also have other protected characteristics. So, it isn't just about your sex or your gender; it is about a whole range of other issues. But we take note, and, of course, we'll have due regard to the points that you make in terms of language.

Thank you for your statement, Deputy Minister, updating us on your Government's activities to try to address gender inequality. I join with you in wanting all women to have economic independence, for their paid and unpaid work to be valued, for women to be empowered, and those other excellent objectives you have summarised in your statement. I also share your vision that Wales should be a place where there is equal sharing of power, resources and influence between the genders. But none of these very laudable objectives can be achieved without a top-class education system that not only gives girls the academic and social skills needed to excel in life, but gives them the confidence to take up positions of power and authority and challenge the outdated condescension of some men in their midst.

It takes a lot of strength and confidence to withstand the put-downs, condescension and dismissiveness with which some men treat female colleagues. So, at the same time as giving girls the tools to deal with such caveman behaviour, society needs to get it through to boys that this behaviour is unacceptable. And, whilst I'm on the subject of attitudes to women, I'd like to ask the Deputy Minister where the Welsh Government stands on the anti-woman messages to be found in some forms of pornography. How is the Welsh Government also combating the gender stereotyping of toys by retailers operating in Wales, or the gender stereotyping that is found in teen magazines? The Deputy Minister's quite right to draw attention to the continuing gender pay gap and aim at its elimination. This is a disgrace that has been ongoing for decades, and the pace of progress is positively glacial. But the gender pay gap will never be eradicated here whilst the school system in Wales is failing children. The ones suffering most from these failures are likely to be girls, condemned to low-paid, intermittent and insecure work in adult life, or to playing catch-up in adulthood, because the Welsh Government is being too proud to admit its mistakes or learn from schools that far surpass the state system in terms of academic and other achievements. Everywhere else in the world, it's recognised that education is the key to gender equality. How many times do we see adverts for charity donations saying that girls in the third world just need education to put them onto a level playing field? So, will the Deputy Minister let us know which discussions she has had with the Minister for Education about fixing our shamefully performing education system so that girls can excel as they should?

Just as everyone here will say they want girls to be engaged in education, we would also want women to be involved in politics. Women can stand for public election, that's true, but what happens to them when they're elected? The social media are currently trolling women who are against Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, which is disgusting and disgraceful. It also exemplifies the treatment too often meted out to women public figures, whether elected or not, simply for expressing their views in an attempt to silence them. Will you ask the First Minister to set an example by making sure that anyone from his own party who has trolled a female elected representative will be thrown out of Welsh Labour for their harassment of women? 

Finally, how can the Government claim that it wants women to be empowered and equal when its own First Minister could not bring himself to agree with people on all sides of the political spectrum, including those in his own party, that rapists should not be given access to any child born out of their rape? The answer is it can't, because if your First Minister, on behalf of your Government, is unwilling to take a stand against such men being given an ongoing means to control and emotionally abuse their victim, then your statement made on behalf of that same Government rings rather hollow. Thank you.

I will respond to some of the positive points that you've made about the importance of International Women's Day. I think it is important that you raise issues about gender stereotypes. In 2018, Welsh Government launched the This is Me campaign, which challenges gender stereotypes in a positive way and encourages conversations about gender and gender inequality, particularly recognising that this can be a cause and consequence of violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence.

We have got to improve women's representation in political and public life and support them in those roles. It's important that we're looking, in the local government and elections (Wales) Bill, at ways in which we can require political party group leaders to promote high standards of conduct among their group members, and local authority standards committees to monitor ways in which women particularly are being treated. I support the Electoral Reform Society's 'New Voices' report, and that has recommendations around social media and developing across all parties a joint code of conduct on intimidatory behaviour. 

I think you have made an important point about education and the role of education and I think it's the new curriculum that will help address this, particularly in relation to relationship and sexuality education across all six areas of learning and experience. 

Finally and briefly, Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Deputy Deputy Llywydd. I'll keep this very short, but I'm very pleased to hear throughout this statement today references made to the violence against women Bill, the well-being of future generations Act, and also the statement and announcement today by the health Minister with regard to period poverty and free sanitary products. I know that Jenny Rathbone worked closely with dad before his sad death on this issue to see what he could do in the portfolio. 

Deputy Minister, would you agree with me that we need to continue promoting and acting on these pieces of key legislation to truly deliver the equal Wales we all want to see? Also, would you agree with me that this is not just a women's issue, this is everyone's business, and it's pleasing to see men in the Chamber today too? Deputy Llywydd, I'd like to place on record my admiration for the new First Minister of Wales ensuring that the Welsh Government now has more women than men in the Cabinet, addressing the gender imbalance from issues raised in previous Governments within the Senedd.

Finally, I'd like to pay a personal tribute to my mum, actually. She has supported me all my life through all the decisions I have made, and she continues to be there for me and many others, even through the worst hurt of her life after losing dad. Finally, Members of the Chamber, Deputy Llywydd, the future is exciting, but let's make a pledge in this Chamber today to build a better, gender-balanced and kinder one. Thank you.

I think there's very little I need to say in response to Jack Sargeant's very powerful statement. As Jack Sargeant has said, this is everyone's business, and I have to pay tribute to Jack, and how proud your dad would be of you here, and how you have stood up for women, equalities and social justice, but particularly for a kinder politics. That is what we seek to achieve, and I know the First Minister will recognise that this is a very significant contribution that you've made, Jack, on behalf of this Assembly in terms of International Women's Day and what it should mean to us all.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, and apologies to those I was unable to call this afternoon. 

The next item, item 6, has been postponed.

We turn, therefore, to the legislative consent motion on the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill. And I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Chair. I move the motion.  

Thank you for the opportunity to explain the background to today's debate on the LCM on the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill. A private Member's Bill, the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Oliver Heald MP on 18 June 2018, and is supported by the UK Government. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce increased protection for service animals by amending section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It addresses public concerns about the application of section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the 2006 Act to attacks on service animals, where a defendant accused of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal could claim they were protecting themselves. This could arguably be used to justify the use of physical force against a service animal, potentially causing it unnecessary suffering.

The Bill comes following a high-profile campaign mainly focused on the UK Government, known as Finn's law. Finn, a police dog, was savagely attached while assisting a police officer to apprehend a suspect. While Finn's attacker was subsequently prosecuted and convicted for the attack, the case highlighted public concerns about the application of section 4(3)(c)(ii) of the 2006 Act.

I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, who considered the Bill in readiness for today's debate. Its members asked for reassurance the Bill does not affect the rights of civilians who are not engaged in or suspected of criminal activity. The proposed Bill does not detract from the common law defence of self-defence, nor does it apply in instances where innocent bystanders are attacked by a service animal. The use of the animal must be reasonable, and the animal must be under the control of a relevant officer, as described in the Bill. I am therefore satisfied there are no human rights issues associated with this Bill, and I hope this allays any concerns Members may have.

I would also like to thank members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their consideration of the LCM. I've noted Members' disappointment that the proposed protection for service animals has not been implemented in Wales via a Welsh Bill. The need for legislation for Wales to be made in Wales does have my full support. However, I must also be mindful of the unprecedented pressures the Welsh Government is facing with regard to Brexit, and whether introducing a Bill on a different timescale to England would be in the best interest of the animals this seeks to protect. There is no Welsh Government Bill currently before the Assembly or planned to be introduced in this Assembly year that would be a suitable vehicle to contain the provisions of the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill. Indeed, as the committee has highlighted in its report, animal welfare is a priority of the Welsh Government, and because of this, I am in no doubt the most appropriate and timely route to protect animals in service has been taken for reasons of timing and coherence. The provisions of the Bill align with the Welsh Government policy objectives regarding the promotion of animal welfare. Taking them forward in this UK Bill will mean that service animals in Wales will be afforded the same level of protection at the same time as those in England. I ask Members to support this LCM.

I call on the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee—Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm speaking on behalf of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. The committee considered the LCM for the Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill at our meeting on 13 February. Our considerations focused on the Bill's policy objectives as set out in the memorandum. We found no reason to object to the Assembly agreeing the legislative consent motion before us today.

I hope, having listened carefully to what the Minister said, that she is providing assurance from the Welsh Government that the proposed changes will not lead to a reduction in the rights of citizens to protect themselves from harm in the case of unwarranted attacks by a service animal. I hope she will confirm that in her response.

Llywydd, I would like to raise a broad issue about the LCM process within the context of today's debate. During the committee's recent scrutiny of several LCMs, we have found it difficult to see a consistent rationale for the Welsh Government's view that the UK Parliament, rather than the Assembly, should legislate in an area of devolved competence. The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill includes a narrow provision about a non-contentious subject. However, other Bills we have considered will make fundamental and wide-ranging changes in key areas of devolved responsibility. There does not seem to be any principle other than convenience underpinning the Welsh Government's approach. We know that the Assembly will be asked to consider other LCMs in due course, and for that reason I have written to the First Minister to seek clarification on the Welsh Government's approach to legislating via the LCM process, and I'll ensure that response is made available to all Members. Diolch, Llywydd. 

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee—Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. We considered the Welsh Government's legislative consent motion in respect of the Bill at our meeting on 4 February and, as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, of course, we look at the technical and constitutional aspects of the Bill per se, rather than the specific policy objectives. 

We've noted the Welsh Government's reasons as to why, in its view, making provision for Wales in a UK Bill is appropriate. However, we also express our disappointment that the Welsh Government did not see cause and opportunity for bringing forward its own legislation, particularly as the Minister has stated that animal welfare is a priority of the Welsh Government. In respect of the point raised by the Minister that it is only by taking provisions in the Bill that service animals in Wales will be afforded the same level of protection at the same time time as those in England, we do not believe that this reason per se is sufficient not to have pursued a Welsh legislative route. In our view, the legislative processes within the Assembly and UK Parliament could have facilitated scrutiny of respective Bills within similar time frames. Conversely, nations within the UK have already legislated at different speeds on other matters, including minimum unit pricing for alcohol, charges for single-use carrier bags, and so on. We believe, and we reaffirm our view, that legislating on a Wales-only basis would also have supported the Welsh Government's aim of developing and supporting a bilingual body of accessible Welsh law. 

Plaid Cymru will support this LCM, but I too am having some difficulty in understanding how the Welsh Government decides when it’s appropriate for the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas, because there’s no reason in my view why we couldn’t have legislated ourselves on this issue. And as a member of an opposition party who’s a spokesperson on this issue, it’s very frustrating for me to see Welsh Ministers and Ministers in Westminster presenting us with some fait accompli in the Senedd that we can either accept or reject. Now, I would have liked to have tried to influence the content of what’s being discussed here, but, of course, it is a fix agreed by Ministers rather than us as Assembly Members here having a right, as we should have, to scrutinise these proposals in the detail that they deserve.

Now, the Welsh Government has said that legislative pressures emerging because of Brexit mean that that has to be prioritised before some domestic legislation. I understand that issue, but there’s no evidence of that kind of legislation coming before us here in this Senedd as yet. And we hear Ministers and the Counsel General saying that he’s eager, and the Government is eager, to build a co-ordinated body of Welsh law, and the Minister herself has said that she wants to see Welsh legislation made here in Wales, but then we don’t do that when the opportunity arises. And if we can’t legislate ourselves on this issue—it’s a short Bill, it is a two-clause Bill, it includes narrow provisions that are non-contentious—under what circumstances will we ever legislate on an issue such as this?

The Minister to respond to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you to Mike Hedges, Mick Antoniw and Llyr Huws Gruffydd for their contributions. I do understand Members' disappointment and concerns, and I had hoped that I had explained why we were doing it this way. We do have to consider proportionality and prudence in our decision making when we bring forward legislation. As I say, there's no Welsh Government Bill before this Assembly or planned to be introduced in this Assembly year where we could hinge on this. I didn't want to have a different timescale to England either. So, I thought this the most appropriate way. But I do want Members to understand that I do understand their concerns on this. I think it's really important that we offer greater protection for service animals in Wales whilst maintaining relevant protections for innocent bystanders, and I hope that, and what I said in my opening remarks, does reassure Mike Hedges that the Bill does not encroach on human rights, as the common law defence of self-defence remains, and an animal must also be acting reasonably and under the control of a relevant officer as absolutely described in the Bill.

So, what this Bill does is—. By taking the provisions forward in the UK Bill, it means that service animals in Wales will be afforded the same level of protection, at the same time, as those in England, and I do think this legislation really represents a strong step forward for Wales—a clear indicator that animal cruelty will not be tolerated, and I do ask Members for their support.

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

The next item is the debate on the second supplementary budget 2018-19, and I call on the Minister for finance to move the motion—Rebecca Evans. 

Thank you. This second supplementary budget is a standard part of the annual financial management process and provides a final opportunity to amend budgetary plans for the current financial year as previously approved by this Assembly. I would like to thank the Finance Committee for their scrutiny of this second supplementary budget. I will respond to the committee's recommendations in due course. This budget is primarily a vehicle to codify the changes required as a result of in-year financial management. It aligns available resources with Government priorities, and the majority of changes to plans are primarily administrative in nature. It details adjustments as a result of transfers within MEGs; transfers between MEGs; allocations from reserves; changes to the overall departmental expenditure limit, including consequentials and other adjustments resulting from HM Treasury decisions; revisions to forecasts of devolved taxes; and the latest annually managed expenditure forecasts agreed with HM Treasury. The majority of the allocations formalised by this supplementary budget have already been announced by portfolio Ministers, and Members will have had the opportunity to scrutinise them.

The NHS remains a key priority for this Government. This budget includes revenue allocations of over £138 million from Welsh Government reserves to support the Welsh NHS. This includes funding for the NHS 'Agenda for Change' pay award and for doctors' and dentists' pay. A further £4 million of revenue has been allocated as part of the local government funding package announced last November to help relieve winter pressures for social services. This is a top-up to the £10 million that was provided in the previous year's draft budget. Extra resources are also allocated to alleviate some of the budgetary pressures being faced by local authorities implementing the teachers' pay award, and £16.2 million is allocated this year from the reserves in this respect.

Four million pounds revenue has been allocated for the Public Sector Broadband Aggregation to improve digital connectivity, linking more people with more jobs, goods, and services, and supporting the sustainability of rural communities.

Additional capital funding for local authorities of £100 million over three years was announced in the recent draft budget. Fifty million pounds of that funding is allocated in this supplementary budget. This funding gives local authorities the flexibility to spend as they deem appropriate to deliver Welsh Government and local priorities. Local authorities will also receive additional capital funding of £20 million in this supplementary budget to support road refurbishment as part of the £60 million package announced in the draft budget. This will help repair the damage caused by a series of hard winters and the very hot summer of 2018. Eighty-seven million pounds of general capital funds are allocated to the economy and transport portfolio. This includes this year's commitment to the local transport fund and expenditure on the M4.

Over £115 million has been allocated to support expenditure that is eligible for financial transaction funding. This includes £30 million to support a total £40 million investment to establish the Wales self-build scheme. This will offer a route into home ownership for people who want to stay in their local area, and provide opportunities for local SME construction companies and trades.

With tourism as a key economic driver in communities across the whole of Wales, I've allocated a total of £50 million, £40 million of which is financial transactions to establish a Wales tourism investment fund. This will help the continued growth of the industry in Wales and support the change to the investment model from the issuing of grants to a funding mix of repayable and non-repayable business finance.

This budget is also the first to make in-year changes to our devolved tax forecasts. As was reported, alongside the final budget, expected revenue from land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax for this year is £286 million—an inrease of £10 million since the first supplementary budget.

Llywydd, supplementary budgets are mainly administrative in nature. This budget details the various other adjustments to be made to our budget in this financial year, including changes to the Welsh block, revisions to forecasts of annually managed expenditure and other transfers between, and within, ministerial portfolios. I would like to thank the Finance Committee again for their scrutiny of the supplementary budget, and I ask Members to support it. Diolch.

The Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I am pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the Finance Committee. The committee met on 14 February to consider the Welsh Government’s second supplementary budget for 2018-19. In consideration of this supplementary budget, the committee was relatively content, however we have made several recommendations that we would like to see taken forward and implemented. First, the committee recognises that it is an ongoing and long-term process for the Welsh Government to achieve the ambitions of the well-being of future generations Act. However, the committee is disappointed that there appears to be little evidence as to how the Act is considered at the heart of all Welsh Government decisions. Therefore, we recommend that the Welsh Government provides a comprehensive objective-setting plan, outlining how it intends to deliver the requirements of the Act, particularly in terms of budgeting, and to do that by the end of this Assembly.

Turning to the possible M4 relief road, this supplementary budget commits £27.8 million to the project, and we recognise, of course, that a decision has yet to be made on whether or not to proceed with the relief road. However, the committee was surprised to hear, given the funding that’s already been committed to the project, that there has not been any discussion between the Finance Minister and the First Minister in terms of planning for a possible M4 relief road. Should a decision be made to proceed with the relief road, we recommend that the Minister and the First Minister should commence discussions on a long-term financing plan imminently.

The supplementary budget allocations include £9.5 million, with the objective of reshaping the workforce within the Welsh Government. We heard evidence that the Government is looking to bring in new skills and possibly create posts to support Brexit, but there were no figures available on savings or actual costs. We would expect a scheme of this value to result in some savings to the organisation. Therefore, we do recommend that the Welsh Government provides an update to the committee on the outcome of the voluntary exit scheme, showing how that funding was used and what savings will be achieved in the longer term.

Moving on to health and social care, we heard evidence that £20 million had been set aside over the previous winter to alleviate expected pressure on health boards. We recognise that winter pressures may vary from year to year, however, in the UK, we believe it’s possible to predict these sorts of pressures to a large degree. And the committee recommends that future financial planning for health boards accounts for predictable spend on winter pressures and that this is done as early as possible in the budgeting process. This would avoid the requirement for significant in-year funding, whilst also alleviating the committee’s concerns that the health main expenditure group could act as a reserve in its own right for providing additional health funding.

Turning to Brexit, the committee supports the Welsh Government in using full consequential funding relating to Brexit for preparations for leaving the EU. However, there is concern that uncertainty around the nature of the UK’s exit from the EU at a UK level places significant risk on the Welsh Government’s planning. We support the Welsh Government’s comments that it would look to the UK Government in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario to secure any relevant funding and that it would expect to be kept informed of developments should this scenario transpire.

Finally, the committee welcomes the opportunity to consider the explanatory memorandum provided by the Assembly Commission prior to it being laid. The Commission is, for the first time, returning underspend from the remuneration board’s determination to the Welsh consolidated fund, and we welcome this.

The committee is also content with the explanatory memorandum provided by the public services ombudsman. However, we would hope that, in preparing future estimates and supplementary budgets, the ombudsman will reflect on the Finance Committee’s recommendations about how his budget should be presented and what information is provided in support of his requests in order to ensure transparency. With those comments, this has been an opportunity for me to convey the committee’s perspective, and I look forward to the Government’s positive response to our recommendations.

I'm pleased to contribute to today's debate on the supplementary budget before us. Can I thank the Minister for her willingness to meet and engage during the process of laying this budget? I've had many useful discussions with your predecessor, and I'm pleased that that spirit of co-operation has continued. I'm also pleased to be taking part in the Finance Committee's work on the supplementary budget and I will be referring to some of the committee's recommendations and conclusions during my remarks today, although many of those have been touched on by the Chair.

The committee's lead recommendation, recommendation 1, calls on the Welsh Government to provide a comprehensive objective-setting plan to align the budget with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. We come back to this again and again. It's one thing to have a piece of groundbreaking legislation like the future generations legislation, welcomed by all other parts of the UK and other parties, but it's another thing to ensure that that legislation takes into account all aspects of policy and budget setting, and that it's taken into account by all departments in the Welsh Government. Steffan Lewis used to constantly question, on the committee, whether this was happening in practice and what it meant for the Act, and, indeed, the whole act of legislating. Now, I appreciate that it's no mean feat to try to achieve this, but we do have to have greater clarity on how it can happen to make the legislation worth while in the future. In-year announcements of activities cannot be a

'replacement for a comprehensive narrative of the budget in the round'.

That's a quote from the report.

Turning to some of the individual changes, and some of the transfers from MEG to MEG, as was eloquently put by the Minister—not the talk of clubs and pubs across the country, I'm sure, but we all know the importance of the MEGs and the DELs—. Turning to some of those individual changes, and, first of all, the important one—the health and social care budget—any additional funding for the health budget is, of course, to be welcomed. My party has been calling for that extra funding for the health budget for a long time, and the £5 million that's been announced—part, I understand, of the £15 million promised last summer—is to be welcomed.

But, you do have to ask, as the committee has: is this the most efficient way of doing things? I think, as Mike Hedges has said in the Finance Committee, winter does have the habit of coming most years—every year—and the Welsh Government knows there are going to be pressures each year, and local health boards know there are going to be pressures each year. They might not know exactly what those pressures will be, but we know that they will come each year, yet there's always this kind of surprise in the committee by the Government that suddenly winter's upon us and there have been all of these kinds of problems out there, which, of course, could and should be predicted, at least in a general way. So, can we look at the way this is done in future so that we know where we are earlier in the year and that sustainability of funding is ensured? That ties in with previous recommendations from the Finance Committee regarding the need for longer term rolling budgets within, admittedly, the political cycle.

The funding of health boards continues to be a sore point. They do seem capable of absorbing ever larger amounts of money that are poured into them. They are, of course, required to break even by law over a three-year period, but that hardly ever happens, certainly not with all of them. We need a far earlier assessment of the impact of winter pressures, instead of providing this funding in-year, or at least not relying all the time on this funding in-year, so that LHBs are given every opportunity to plan ahead and, indeed, the Welsh Government can better liaise with them on that planning. 

Turning to transport and, yes, we did, Llyr, have some interesting discussions on financial preparations for a solution to the M4 congestion around Newport—amazing what a fresh pair of eyes on the committee can do, isn't it? We were surprised that limited discussions had taken place between the finance Minister and the First Minister. There will obviously be implications for expenditure from such a large project if it goes ahead, and the Welsh Government's borrowing capacity. There are questions about the amount of money that may have been spent since the decision was originally going to be made in December, and I think we need clarity around that. We know that a large amount of money has already been spent on preparations for the M4 if it does go ahead. What has actually been spent since December when we were expecting, or most of us were expecting the original decision to be made? That needs to be known.

Without going into the ins and outs of it, we need to have clarity as soon as possible on whether that road is going ahead. If it's not going to be going ahead, then we know what preparations are in place for an alternative solution, whether that be an alternative route or public transport funding, or a mixture of the two; it's for the Welsh Government to look at that and decide what's best, but the public do expect that.

It is, of course, not possible to discuss budgeting at the moment without touching on Brexit, and I fully understand the Welsh Government's position that it needs greater clarity on where we are going to be in a relatively short time now, but recommendation 8, Llywydd, calls on the Welsh Government to provide a full narrative on activities relating to the UK's exit from the EU. Yes, we are looking at the UK Government to come forward with plans, but we also need the Welsh Government to be prepared to get off the mark very quickly when we do have clarity to make sure that we can make the most of the new political situation within the UK and in Wales after March, or whenever Brexit happens. 

The supplementary budget is a relatively technical issue, so I won’t speak for long, but it’s worth noting that this will be the final supplementary budget, I think, as part of the two-year compact that my party had agreed with the Labour Government, and we have delivered a lot, of course, as part of that agreement and we celebrate that, particularly during this recent period. I’d like to refer to two things that could create foundations for the future and could, in due course, be foundations that we could build on when we are in Government.

I’m referring, mainly, to the Arfor scheme, which has been announced in recent weeks, that sets out an initial framework for tackling long-term problems that we’ve faced in the west, the south-west and the north-west, in the Welsh-speaking west, then, and the economy there that not only is important in terms of economic development policies, but the basic viability of those communities, with that affecting our ambition in terms of ensuring a viable future in terms of the Welsh language in those core areas in terms of its prosperity.

That programme is an experimental one and an innovative one, because we have to do things anew—we can’t carry on to doing the same things with the economic policy that has failed those communities. That’s to be seen in the lack of attainment or achievement in terms of economic performance in those areas. So, it’s good to see recognition of that by the Government. The starting point is to recognise where you’re going wrong. The first step is to do something different, and although it’s a relatively small investment—we’re only talking about £2 million, initially, at least we’ve been able to create the foundation for thinking anew, and I hope, in due course, it will be possible—it's only through forming a Plaid Cymru Government that we’ll be able to turn this initial programme into a transformative programme for these areas.

In the same direction, on a national level, there is the programme relating to the foundational economy that recognises also that there has been a fundamental deficiency in terms of the direction of the economic policy of the Government. That is, a lack of emphasis on small and medium-sized companies rooted in the local economy in Wales—grounded firms in the terms of that approach. But also, trying to use those levers available to us in the economies that Hefin David mentioned—some of the areas of the Heads of the Valleys, which haven’t had a sufficient focus in terms of sustainable job creation in the long term, that are established, with high value and high salaries in those areas. The same pattern is to be seen across Wales, and at least there is some recognition—and we saw that in the comments made by of the Minister with responsibility, Lee Waters, over the weekend—that there has been a vacuum in the Labour Government’s economic policy for many years. Well, hallelujah. When a sinner repents, the first step is to admit failings, deficiencies and that there is a need to do something different.

So, we welcome the fact that at least a seed has been sown here, and, ultimately, of course, in order to ensure that we have prosperity, we have to turn these pilot schemes and these small investments, compared with the budget in its entirety, to be the root or the hub of the economic policy, rather than something at the margins. I'm sure that we will need to see a political change in due course, in order to ensure that, but, at least we’ve been able to make some kind of contribution to create a foundation that will be useful for us in two and a half years when we will be taking the reins of Government.

I have a number of comments to make on the second supplementary budget. It's always a disadvantage to follow Llyr Gryffudd and Nick Ramsay, who serve on the same committee as I do, because an awful lot of the things I was going to say, they've already said, and I don't think people want to hear them a second time.

I'd like to reply to something Adam Price said about small and medium-sized enterprises—something I've been making a fuss about for a very long time. One of the weaknesses we have in small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales is that when they become medium sized, far too many of them sell out to much larger companies. And we've seen in the last 12 months Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd being taken over by a much larger company and in Carmarthenshire, we saw Princes Gate being taken over by a much larger company. So, we grow to medium sized, then somebody else takes over and that's a problem with our economy that really does need addressing.

The other thing is—we talk about these hundreds of millions of pounds as if they're trivial sums. They're not trivial sums; they're of great importance to the Welsh economy. If we look at the increase in additional financing from the UK Government—a consequential of £155.3 million and the extra £138.6 million for health and social services, which I'm going to go through in some detail, because I want to raise something at the end of it: £47.3 million in NHS pay; £24 million in doctors and dentists' pay; Welsh risk pool—£30 million; additional funding to develop and implement sustainable plans for orthopaedics and ophthalmology at Betsi Cadwaladr university health board—£24 million; winter pressures funding for social services—£4 million; and transitional costs associated with the Bridgend boundary change—£3 million. So, can, perhaps, people give some thought to the fact that merging things is not cost-neutral and there are certain expenses to it? People seem to talk as if mergers will save lots of money. If that were the case, this would be cost-neutral, because it's only moving from one health board to another. It hasn't been cost-neutral; there are further costs in change.

The point I want to make, though, is that only £4 million of the health and social services budget has gone to social services, or just over £1 for everyone living in Wales. To be added to that, £15.6 million for teachers' development support, including £8.1 million to fund additional costs of the teachers' pay award from nursery to year 11; £7.5 million to help local authorities meet educational cost pressures; £50 million for the first installment of a £100 million three-year capital package; £20 million for the first installment of a three-year £60 million public highways refurbishment package; and £26 million for the local transport fund. So, add all those up now; local government has again come out of the second supplementary budget badly. Local government comes out of most budgets badly. We talk about the foundation economy; everybody talks about the foundation and how important it is. There is nothing more important in a foundation society than local government services supported by local government expenditure. I think that we really do need to get back to thinking that if we want to improve our economy, getting better educated people will help us, improving the number of people with skills will help us, and undertaking a huge number of things that local authorities do, including improving the transport links, will help us. 

On the M4, I share the committee's concern about the level of funding being committed to a project where so much uncertainty exists, and I support the recommendation that the Welsh Government provide additional details on the planning for the M4. Would the additional funding have been needed had a decision been made at the time it was originally intended in December? And how much additional money may need to be committed before a decision is taken? It appears to me that not taking a timely decision is an expensive option, and costs appear to be incurred if the final decision is to not proceed. My position has not changed. I'm a convincible sceptic—although, for the record, no attempt has been made to convince me that the M4 is a good idea.

On the student loan fund, I'm going to be told this is non-Welsh Government cash, it's non-fiscal reserves; it doesn't really matter, because it doesn't affect the Welsh Government's ability to spend. What I will say is this: this is coming out of the Westminster total expenditure, so every time money comes out of this, then we end up with less money being available for our Barnettised proportion of the amount coming out. I mean, we see every year that this increases. I make a fuss about it every year; the First Minister will remember from when he was finance Minister. Although it's non-cash, it does have that effect. And I say it happens every year; the student loan programme is not working. People need to come to grips with that. At some stage, it's going to have to be written off, or written down or whatever way the accountants want to do it, but somebody's going to have to do something about it. It's becoming increasingly costly to the Westminster Treasury, and it's almost like having another Trident.

Finally, I think we do need a discussion at some stage on transaction capital, which gets mentioned in every budget—normally fleetingly—and I think we do need to discuss where it's going, how it's being spent, and how it's going to be paid back.

The Minister for Finance to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to everybody who has contributed to the debate this afternoon. I'll do my best to respond directly to some of the points that have been raised in the Chamber today, and I will be responding formally to the committee's recommendations in due course.

There was a great deal of interest in committee scrutiny regarding the well-being of future generations Act, which the Welsh Government is very much committed to ensuring is at the heart of our budget decisions, and there are a number of key allocations within the budget that progress our commitments in 'Taking Wales Forward' and 'Prosperity for All', which, of course, are very closely aligned to those future generations goals, and those will include: additional funding for the local transport fund, for example, and minority ethnic and Gypsy/Roma/Traveller learners, together with funding for free school meals.

I met with the future generations commissioner just last week to discuss our approach to setting budgets, and I'll be meeting with her again, alongside a senior team of officials, to have a round-table discussion on lessons learned from the last planning session for the budget, to explore how we can go about ensuring that we continue to ensure that the well-being of future generations Act is brought to life through our budgetary process. Certainly, I'll be having discussions with each of my Cabinet colleagues as we go about setting the budget in the next year, in terms of how the financial allocations to those departments will be bringing to life the well-being of future generations Act.

I did acknowledge, in my response to the Finance Committee, that embedding the well-being of future generations Act is an evolutionary process, and that the cultural change required won't happen overnight. But we are absolutely committed to ensuring that those five ways of working are very much the foundation that guides all of our activities. We've certainly, since 2016-17, improved the way that we reflect the way that the Act is involved in our spending decisions in every draft budget narrative, and I would certainly seek to ensure that that process continues, and the improvement continues as we move forward.

Several references were made to the spend on the M4, which is referred to in the second supplementary budget—£27.8 million has been made available for the completion of the statutory process and to support essential activities and investigations in the consideration of the project, such as environmental surveys, for example. It will also cover potential activities that will provide value for money contingent preparations should the scheme proceed. So, examples of that type of expenditure, which I was able to give committee during scrutiny, are ecological survey data, which must be continuous for a number of years prior to construction, for example, and utility diversions that involve materials with long lead-in times and pose high levels of risk to the construction programme, and the halting of those contingent preparations with utilities would incur significant costs and programme implications should the scheme proceed, as the resultant time required would delay those works and other subsequent project works that rely on it. Expenditure also covers matters like the planning inspectorate and legal costs to complete the statutory process required on Network Rail interface agreements, reimbursement of NRW costs and necessary support for affected businesses to develop measures to mitigate impacts should the scheme proceed. 

I can confirm that I have had the necessary discussions that you would expect me to have with officials in terms of understanding the project, exploring issues of affordability and value for money, for example, and issues relating to profile so that I am completely au fait with the options should the decision be made for the project to go ahead. 

In terms of the voluntary exit scheme that was discussed during committee, I was able to give only limited detail of that in committee because this is a process that is currently under way, but I will certainly be sure to update committee in due course. 

On winter pressures, this is a discussion that I will certainly have with my colleague the health Minister in our upcoming bilateral, but I would say that, given the nature, timing and duration of winter pressures, they can vary year by year and by health board area, so there does need to remain that element, I think, of flexibility in terms of allocating additional funding to respond to those pressures. But, again, this is a recommendation from the committee that I will be responding to in due course. 

I really do welcome the committee's support for the Welsh Government's position with regard to a potential 'no deal' Brexit and the expectation that we would have on the UK Government for additional funding to come to Wales. I'm disappointed by the lack of clarity that there is from the UK Government in terms of its position. Of course we have the spring statement next week and the Chancellor has said previously that that could become a full fiscal event, but then I had discussions at the finance quadrilateral recently with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who said that the spring statement would be a purely administrative event. So, there are different messages coming out from the UK Government, but I do welcome the committee's support for our position. 

Finally, Adam Price did say that this is the final budgetary event in our two-year agreement with Plaid Cymru, and I just put on record my thanks for the constructive way in which Plaid Cymru have engaged with us in terms of our shared priorities that we have identified through the budget-setting process, and again thank Members for their contributions. 

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

That brings us to the motion to suspend Standing Orders in order to allow the next item of business to be debated. I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move that motion.

Formally moved. 

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Which enables us now to move to the debate on EU withdrawal negotiations, and I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to move the motion—Jeremy Miles.

Llywydd, for the first time in 20 years of devolution, two Parliaments—our Parliament here and the Parliament in Scotland—will discuss and vote on the same motion simultaneously. This in itself is significant, but it's more than that. It signals just how grave the threat facing Wales, Scotland and the UK as a whole is, namely that the UK Government has led us to the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit after almost two years of a clueless approach to negotiation. We hope that we and our colleagues in Scotland can send a clear message that we can avoid this threat and that we must do that. 

Llywydd, it is clear that the Prime Minister has lost the trust of Parliament. She's been careering from one side of the road to the other, appeasing first the Brexiteers then the remainers in her own ranks instead of setting a steady course. The road on which she is driving us still leads to a cliff edge.

First we had the delay to the meaningful vote in December, then a historically unprecedented defeat of the Prime Minister's deal. Then, instead of genuinely reaching out on a cross-party basis, the Prime Minister is seeking to placate the hardcore in her own ranks, and pursuing a strategy of running down the clock. Most disastrously of all, she agreed to the Brady amendment, in effect reneging on the deal she had reached with our 27 EU partners—a deal that she had repeatedly and solemnly told the House of Commons was the best available. When the First Minister was in Brussels last week he was left in no doubt that this volte face had hugely undermined not just the Prime Minister's personal credibility, but goodwill towards the United Kingdom as a whole. Then, last week, faced by a revolt from some of the more rational members within her Cabinet, she again threw sand in the eyes of her MPs, promising a binding vote on an extension to article 50 at the eleventh hour only if her deal is yet again rejected, and if Parliament repeats its crystal clear view that 'no deal' is unacceptable.

Llywydd, is it not telling that, despite the Prime Minister giving her word on this series of votes, MPs still felt compelled to vote on an amendment saying the exact same thing in order to press the Prime Minister to honour her promise? And isn't it even more telling that, despite both Government and opposition front benches supporting this amendment, 20 Conservative Brexiteers voted against it, and over 80 Conservative MPs and all but one of the DUP Members abstained. If further evidence were needed that these extremists stand ready to pull the rug from under the Prime Minister at the moment of their choosing, that is it.

And yet the Government still won't rule out 'no deal'. The Prime Minister could give that commitment and she has refused to. How can the Prime Minister justify the statement that the Government will ultimately make a success of 'no deal'? This on the same day as the UK Government published their assessment of what 'no deal' means—an analysis that makes it abundantly clear that the UK Government is not even remotely prepared for such an outcome. By their own assessment, only two thirds of the UK Government's most critical 'no deal' projects are on track. Fewer than a quarter of the businesses that currently export to the EU have applied for the documentation they will need to continue to do so in a 'no deal' situation. On trade, the trade Secretary's assurances that all existing EU trade agreements would be in place by 29 March lie in tatters. Agreements will not be in place for some of the key trading nations outside the EU, including Japan and Turkey. We are still waiting, with three weeks to go, for the Government to publish its proposals for UK tariffs in the event of 'no deal'. Without parliamentary backing for these, not only will UK companies be faced with new tariff and non-tariff barriers as high as 87 per cent on frozen beef exports, at least 45 per cent on lamb exports, and 10 per cent on finished vehicles in the car industry, they could also be hit by competition by tariff-free imports of all types of goods from all over the world.

It is no wonder that all the UK's business organisations have called for the Government to rule out 'no deal'. To quote Adam Marshall of the British Chambers of Commerce, 'It is time', he said,

'to be honest. Government and its agencies are not prepared for a "no deal" exit on 29 March. Neither are many businesses.'

He goes on:

'The overriding priority must be to assure businesses, employees, investors and communities that an unwanted "no deal" scenario will not be allowed to happen by default on March 29.'

But the motion before us today does more than just call for 'no deal' to be put off. It insists that 'no deal' must be ruled out as an acceptable strategy at any time. Because 'no deal' damage is not only about the risk of short-term chaos at our ports, disruption to supplies of medicines and food, to just-in-time supply chains, not only about overseas healthcare problems for holiday makers, the loss of pet passports or automatic insurance coverage for drivers in the EU, not only about short-term economic shocks, substantial as those may be; the threat of 'no deal' is one of long-term structural damage to our economy. All credible economic analysis shows that there will be major long-term economic damage from a 'no deal' Brexit, with the economy around 10 per cent smaller than otherwise it would be. The scale of this impact is comparable to the kind of fallout we saw following the financial crisis, but this time, incredibly, it'll be the result of a conscious choice by the UK Government. 

And a smaller economy is not about statistics and models and graphs, it is about jobs and livelihoods. People's incomes will also be lower than they would have been—around £2,000 per head in Wales. There will be less tax revenue to fund public services, compounding the effects of the lost decade since the recession. And, if we are driven off a Brexit cliff-edge, we risk the long-term undermining of our economy and a decimation of industry at a scale not seen since the de-industrialisation that we know savaged communities right across Wales in the 1980s.

And this cannot be averted by parliamentary tactics and manoeuvers, as the Prime Minister hopes. It requires leadership. It requires a change of strategy. It is little comfort to avert 'no deal' in three weeks only to be hit with it in three months. And while no-one in the EU will want a 'no deal' outcome, such a scenario will be less damaging to the EU-27 after the European elections than it would be before. So, our demand is for the Government to rule out 'no deal' full stop. And this is urgent. The effects of anticipating 'no deal' are already being felt, with investors pulling out of the UK or cancelling investment plans, and the impacts will get worse every day the uncertainty is allowed to continue. By failing to rule out 'no deal', the UK Government is acting recklessly with the livelihoods of households in every corner of the UK. 

An extension of article 50 is not, on its own, sufficient, but it is necessary to ensure we don't have a 'no deal' Brexit by accident in three weeks' time, and the time to prevent that is now. The EU-27 are clear that, while they would support an extension, the UK Government must give a clear reason for it. Extra time for obfuscation and ambiguity will not persuade our partners and it will not serve the UK. What the Prime Minister must do is clearly signal her intention to take decisive action, either to rewrite the political declaration and make a statutory commitment to the closest possible economic relationship with the EU that is compatible with no longer being a member state—a position that we believe can command a stable majority in the House of Commons and the support of the EU-27—or, failing that, to hold a public vote on the way forward. 

We will not be supporting the UKIP amendment and, for different reasons, we will not be supporting the Plaid amendment. Supporting this motion in no way undermines our position as a party and as a Welsh Government on a referendum. We are on record as a party and a Government as supporting a referendum as a way of resolving this. This motion, however, is drafted in a way that enables us to send a simple and united message between Scotland and Wales that we do not want a 'no deal' Brexit and that the threat must be removed now. 

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Gareth Bennett. 

I think the Counsel General was fundamentally misconceived in his speech in treating seriously some of the things that the Prime Minister has said. I don't believe that she has ever wanted a 'no deal'; I don't think she's ever actually wanted to leave the EU in any meaningful sense at all, and all the ricocheting that he described and all the meaningless and vacuous statements that have been eaten as soon as they've been emitted from her mouth are merely ruses to get her through the latest political crisis that her own incompetence has landed her in.

But let's go back to before the referendum in 2016 and look at the document that the Government sent, at our expense, to every single household in the country, this document that conjured up all sorts of horrors of leaving the EU at all, which was designed to try to frighten people into voting in the referendum to stay in. On one page, under the headline, 'Once in a generation decision'—a generation is 25 years—once in a generation referendum, it said this:

'The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.'

And then it says,

'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

The people did decide: they voted to leave the EU, no ifs or buts. There was no prevarication in the question. It was perfectly clear: it was either in or out, and the people voted out. I don't believe that Theresa May actually ever accepted that decision, any more than the Welsh Government accepts it, any more than the Scottish Government accepts it, any more, actually, than 500 remainer MPs in the House of Commons—or the majority of them, at any rate—have accepted that result. And what we have seen in the last two and a half years is a calculated deceit designed not just to undermine the referendum result, but actually to frustrate it altogether.

In the 2017 general election, the Conservative Party manifesto said that,

'under Theresa May's strong and stable leadership, [we] can negotiate the best possible deal for our country....We will make sure we have certainty and clarity over our future, control of our own laws, and a more unified, strengthened United Kingdom...we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union...We want fair, orderly negotiations, minimising disruption and giving as much certainty as possible', 

and,

'we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK.'

Yet now we have a so-called 'deal' from Theresa May that, amazingly, decides to keep most of the costs of EU membership whilst junking most of the benefits. It also requires Britain to cede part of its territory, in effect, to a foreign jurisdiction, Northern Ireland, and it allows Brussels to control our commerce with non-EU states even after we have technically left the European Union. We'll have no vote; no veto; no unilateral power to leave if this deal is accepted. It's an insult to those who believe in parliamentary sovereignty; it's an insult to those who believe in the union of the United Kingdom; and it's certainly an insult to anybody who believes in the principle of free trade.

And, of course, the key to all this lies with the attitude in these negotiations of the EU negotiators themselves—Michel Barnier, who said in 2016,

'I'll have done my job if, in the end, the exit terms are so bad that the British would rather stay in the EU.'

So, what we've seen is a pincer movement in the last couple of years of the EU negotiators on the one hand and the British negotiators on the other. The chief negotiator, of course, is a civil servant in both cases: there's no politician in charge of this process because Theresa May has contracted that out. What we have seen is a pincer movement designed on both sides, actually, to achieve the same result, which is, effectively, to keep us inside the EU.

And the various concessions that have been granted to the European Research Group, of course, are pretty meaningless, because they've had to accept that there'll be a continuing role for the ECJ after we leave; they've had to accept that we'll have non-voting membership of the EU, an absurdly one-sided arbitration mechanism that is created, and we'll have to pay over at least £39 billion to the European Union for absolutely nothing. And that's even without the trade agreement that we're supposed to have at the end of this negotiating process.

In article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, now the Treaty of Union, the two-year period was designed to encompass and encapsulate the negotiating for Britain's future trading relationship with the EU. If this deal is accepted, we haven't actually even started that process yet, more than two years after the people decided that we should leave. There is absolutely nothing on the table in exchange for anything that Theresa May has conceded.

The president of the Irish Farmers Association, Joe Healy, said last week that,

'It is very important that the UK in any deal wouldn't be able to go off and do their own trade deals with other countries'.

That's what this is all about, ultimately: actually tying Britain's arms behind its back in its relationship with countries elsewhere in the world so that we will not be able to take advantage of the freedoms of leaving the EU. And as far as the EU is concerned, the dismemberment of the United Kingdom, quitting the single market for Northern—. The dismemberment of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom is the price that we have to pay for our technical leaving.

So, this is, actually, I think, an insult to the British people and to the decision that they made two and a half years ago. Parliament contracted out that decision to the people, and now you, the elected politicians who were put here by them and their votes, are trying to undermine the British people themselves. I can tell you this, that if we do not actually leave the EU, then people's faith in politics and politicians will be at an all-time low, and, in fact, things may get a good deal worse than that.

Adam Price to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Adam Price.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I do move the amendment in the name of my fellow Member Rhun ap Iorwerth. We, of course, are co-submitters of the motion tabled by the Government, and we welcome the opportunity to work with our Celtic cousins in Scotland. It is an innovative approach that we should also, perhaps, adopt in future in other contexts. We, of course, agree entirely with what the motion has to say about the deal that the UK Government has brought forward and the damage that that would do in terms of Wales's position, but more than that, the calamity that would emerge from a 'no deal' Brexit in just a few days' time.

But, of course, the reason why we’ve tabled the amendment is that we would have wanted to see the motion going further. One of the lessons that I would suggest to Government is that we should have been included in the negotiations that clearly took place in drawing up this motion. I assume that those negotiations happened in Scotland—or that’s my interpretation of the situation—but they hadn’t happened here. So, it’s difficult for us to participate in the process in that sense and create the kind of unity that the Government wishes to see, unless we are included in those negotiations.

And I think that it is incumbent—. We are in dangerous times in all kinds of senses: 24 days out from what I think most of us would accept is a disaster—a disaster for our economy, but also a disaster for our politics and our political institutions. Trust is at an all-time low. Neil Hamilton is right in this regard, at least—not words I would say very often. But it is a result, of course, of the kind of lies that were at the heart of the referendum campaign and then, subsequently, the complete paralysis that we've seen at Westminster.

And the reason that we propose this amendment is: it's not enough just to say we are opposed to 'no deal'—of course we are—but we cannot either be in a position of tacitly facilitating no progress. So, simply arguing—. Indeed, as the Counsel General himself said, the European Union will expect, of course, any application for an extension to article 50 to be associated with a purpose. We have long come to the conclusion that the only purpose, the only realistic resolution of the situation we find ourselves in, is a people's vote. Because time is now pressing we are in a position where the fierce urgency of now has to dictate what we say and do, and that's the reason why we felt that it was incumbent upon us to lay this amendment down, which, unequivocally, calls for a people's vote. And we, of course, made a tentative step in that direction in January in calling for immediate preparations—this amendment goes further than that because we have to. We have to go further than that because we're running out of time.

I welcome the Damascene conversion that we've seen from the leader of the Labour Party at Westminster in the last few days, but I worry because it seems to me we're always in a position of one step forward, two steps back. So, even today, John McDonnell has been quoted, in response to a question, 'What will you do, in terms of whipping Labour Members at Westminster, crucially, in order to support the policy of a people's vote?' He said that they will be treated with the usual 'good humour and comradeship'. Therefore, there will be no consequences whatsoever, and therein lies—. If this is to be a real commitment, then we, all of us, absolutely have to unite, with just weeks to go, behind the only possible resolution of this issue for our nations.

That is why we do invite Members here—. I understand that maybe the leader of the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Labour group are in a different place on this, but in this Parliament, with this additional—it's an 'add' amendment, so we can still have the common text agreed, but let's, actually, in this Parliament say what we all think, I think, in Plaid Cymru and, I think, on the Labour benches as well, and call unequivocally for a people's vote, because that's the only way forward.

Llywydd, Brexit does not have my name on it, but I do accept the authority of the 2016 referendum and I do not believe that you can overturn a referendum. You have to implement it, and then the likes of people in my position can then work to scrutinise it, adapt it and even seek the repeal of that decision—that is how democracies work.

But, I do not underestimate the gravity of our current situation. Hearing Neil Hamilton talk about the dismemberment of the UK being a design of the EU, it is those Brexiteers in the elite who drove us to a situation where two thirds of the people of Scotland voted against secession from the EU and a clear majority of the people of Northern Ireland did likewise—the first time in their history that they've made a fundamental constitutional choice in Ulster that was more in line with the Republic of Ireland than the United Kingdom.

I do now need to turn to Mrs May's deal, because I sincerely believe it is the best option, in that it does, to some extent, I think, and certainly of all of the options that are available, to the maximum extent possible, reflect the 2016 referendum result, in that it was won by the 'leave' side but there was a substantial—a very substantial—vote to remain in the EU. Mrs May's deal is a clear Brexit, in that it ensures the UK leaves the economic and political structures of the EU, ends the jurisdiction of the European court and ends freedom of movement. I don't like any of that, I have to say—that's why I was for 'remain'—but it does honour, I think, the intentions of those who did vote 'leave'.

However, Mrs May's deal also recognises that the EU will be our largest economic partner for at least the foreseeable future and we need to seek a comprehensive trade deal. Again, I say to the likes of Mr Hamilton that at this very moment the Chinese and US Governments are negotiating ways of undermining the dispute-resolution mechanism of the World Trade Organization because they do not like its objectivity. That's the world we're going to live in—these huge power blocs pushing their way around, and even medium-sized powers will have to take the best terms they are given. It is not a happy picture.

Mrs May's deal also avoids the hard border between Northern Ireland and the EU whilst technological innovations are found that make an e-border possible. These technological innovations—this e-border—we were told by the likes of Mr Hamilton would be easy to set up. Now, the transition arrangements that they fear will lock us into the EU are because they realise that those technological innovations are still years away, despite your very casual assurances earlier. You have played politics very loosely with the peace process as a result of not taking this aspect of the decision that we took seriously.

In summary, Mrs May's deal is enough of a Brexit to make it coherent and something that can shape our future trading policy to some extent, however limited, and buttress an ongoing relationship with the EU. On that basis, I fully support it.

If I quickly look at the clearest alternatives, a hard Brexit based on WTO rules and possibly then a free trade agreement with the EU, either initially as a 'no deal' Brexit as some sort of managed break, I do accept is coherent. But the shock therapy and the risk attached to it would be very considerable, and it would create real jeopardy for the poorest in society. And we will have no idea what sort of Britain we are creating—a Singapore-on-Thames, as some have described it—but I don't think the people of Blaenau Gwent and Sunderland voted for that.

Norway plus, however conceived, is an option that would keep us in the single market. We would retain an element of the European court's jurisdiction, and we would also make payments into the EU. This has been summarised as EU membership without voting rights, which I'm afraid probably is an accurate description. I do not think that would reflect the 2016 referendum result. We would only nominally leave the EU, and Mrs May's deal is clearly preferable to that.  

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. You've just mentioned the Norway plus model might actually keep us in the European Court of Justice, but it would actually keep us in the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States, rather than the ECJ, and, as such, it will be a different organisation, a different court and different judgments. 

But they do implement the jurisdiction—jurisprudence, rather—of the European court. That's clearly what they do, but there are technicalities, you're right—they meet in partnership in the way you describe but, in effect, it is the EU court that determines things.

As for a second referendum, what would be gained? Would we get a decisive and different result? Well, that's unlikely according to Sir John Curtice, and it would cause great damage to our democracy, and I'm not prepared to risk that. Mrs May's deal does offer an end to the uncertainty that we face. It allows us to go through that door which then permits us to negotiate the actual arrangements of the EU. The irony in all this is that this deal only gets us to the starting plate, really, and we must remember that that work is ahead of us. But her deal does honour the referendum, and it offers a prospect of a constructive future relationship with the EU, which now should be our task, not this unfortunate motion that disparages the EU considerably in calling what we have before us a damaging deal.    

I hadn't planned to speak today as I think I've made my views on Brexit very clear on numerous occasions in this Chamber, including earlier in First Minister's questions, but I have now decided to make a brief contribution. 

I very much welcome the motion that's tabled by my party and by Plaid Cymru today, and which is being debated in tandem with the Scottish Parliament. It is absolutely right that both Parliaments send a clear and unequivocal message to the UK Government that we are united in our opposition to a 'no deal' Brexit. 

I am absolutely clear that a 'no deal' Brexit would be a catastrophe for Torfaen—for our thousands of manufacturing workers, for our public services who depend on staff from our European partners, and for our young people who have had no say on such a fundamental decision that will affect their future, and they will have to live with for years. 

I also, however, plan to vote for the Plaid Cymru amendment on the people's vote today. I understand the reasons why the Welsh Government is not supporting that amendment, but I am personally not prepared to vote against something that I have repeatedly called for inside and outside this Assembly for months. For me, this is a bigger issue than party politics. This is a big issue for our country that will affect our future for years, and I have to vote on my principles on that. For that reason, I will continue to back a people's vote on the Brexit deal. We know that the promises that were made in 2016 cannot be met. It is only fair and democratic now that people are given the final say on something that will affect their lives and their futures for years to come. [Interruption.] They were given a say, David, on something that nobody was clear on. We now know what is a Brexit deal. We now also see very clearly that the best deal we have got is the one that we have got at the moment that gives us all the benefits of EU membership, with an opportunity to reform it from inside, with a seat at the table. That is why I am pushing for a people's vote and why I will be supporting the Plaid amendment today and also the Government motion to send a clear a message to the UK Government on Brexit.

We are now 24 days away from leaving the European Union and we are as far as ever from securing a solution in terms of the way forward from this point. As Adam Price has already said, there is nothing in this motion that we disagree with, but it's a cause of disappointment that the commitment to a people's vote seems to have been dropped by the Labour Party. That's why Plaid Cymru has tabled an amendment calling for the support of this Chamber to make arrangements to hold such a vote as soon as possible.

It is the only way out of this paradoxical impasse whereby we keep hurtling forwards yet make no progress. If we don't have progress on this matter, and soon, it will have been a missed opportunity. 'A missed opportunity'. We use that phrase a lot. So often, in fact, that I think we've lost sight of what it actually means, its sense of urgency, of loss. Over the past two and a half years, opportunities have gone. Positive improvements that might have happened, have not happened. And that, for me, is the crux of Brexit.

In economics, we talk about opportunity cost—that whatever action is taken has a cost in actions not taken. Every area of public spending a Government chooses to allocate money towards means other areas get less. But how do you quantify this opportunity cost: of all the things not done; of prevarication; of promises not delivered; all the reams of legislation; the funding we might have raised; operations that haven't happened; the drugs we haven't been able to purchase; the lives of European friends who might have lived among us; the kinship, friendships and relationships we might have developed with people who either have left these islands or have chosen never to come; the could and would and should; and the might-have-beens that have not been, because Brexit has taken all our attention?

So yes, it will be a missed opportunity if Westminster does not act on the back of this debate and that being held by our Scottish partners. And the cost of that opportunity is more catastrophic than any hackneyed phrases —'missed opportunities'—can ever convey. If threats of no deal were nothing more than a parlour game for the Conservative leadership in Westminster, shame on them. They've cost us more in resources, time, strain and loss of faith and goodwill than can ever be quantified. 

That is why this Parliament should reaffirm today its commitment to holding a people’s vote as soon as is practical. If we don't, we won't have progressed at all, and what signal will that send? We should do that to put this issue to bed once and for all, and so that we can actually begin the work of dealing with the underlying reasons why this vote actually happened, securing economic regeneration and justice for people living in areas that have been left behind by the decisions of consecutive Westminster Governments. Diolch.

I got involved in the EU debate right at the beginning because, for me, the bigger issues were never the economic issues, the trade issues and so on, but it was because of the contribution that the EU had made to European peace and how inconceivable it would've been, when the Soviet Union broke up and those former Warsaw pact countries began to develop democratic systems, inconceivable that that could've happened without major, major warfare and catastrophe had it not been for the fact that there was a body to which they could align themselves that had established various principles of the rule of law and governance.

Of course, nothing was perfect. I've been a critic of the EU in the past because of its diminishing of the social chapter vis-à-vis the corporate interest, but, as Vaclav Havel once said—one of the leaders of the dissident movements from eastern Europe—if you actually want to change an organisation, you have to be part of it and you have to work with other people to do that. What has been really perturbing about not only the development within the UK as a consequence of the referendum, and around other parts of Europe, has been the growth of a far-right nationalism, and an introverted and quite aggressive and unpleasant nationalism that we see being part-funded and supported by people like Putin through social media, through finance, and we see the links between those organisations such as the Golden Dawn, through Le Pen, and through other far-right and fascist organisations. And it is therefore of no surprise whatsoever that we see UKIP now, with people like Tommy Robinson, effectively becoming now a proto-fascist ideological party, because that is what UKIP has now become, and there is no question about that and the alliances they have as part of that introverted far-right agenda. That is what scares me. That is what is really dangerous. 

What is clear now—. [Interruption.] I won't take any message from Neil Hamilton—someone who has been an apologist for apartheid South Africa, an apologist for the fascist regime with Pinochet. It is on record and it is no surprise you find a comfortable home within what is now a proto-fascist party within the United Kingdom.

The big challenges that affect us now over the course of the coming week are going to be the issue of the 'no deal', and in particular article 50 extension, because one thing is clear, and that is that the UK Government cannot even complete the necessary legislative agenda within the time frame that is absolutely left. And any responsible constitutional Government would want to seek that extension to enable that to actually happen. But, for us, there's an even bigger issue, and that is the 'no deal' scenario because of the economic havoc that will be wrought upon Wales and upon much of the UK if there are not arrangements in respect of trade. What do we say to the 20,000 car workers who want to export 95 per cent of their components to the European Union when there are blocks and there are obstacles, and when suddenly their jobs come under threat because of the inability of Government to negotiate a proper trade deal? What do we say to the EU citizens that Theresa May's deal does not protect—those who have given their lives, paid their taxes, and have worked in this country? And what do we also say in respect of all those promises that were made about the protection of workers' rights, which are fundamental to any particular deal? Those promises were made. Many of those people, many of those workers, voted for—[Interruption.] Intervention? Yes.

I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. If you put in the words 'Neil Hamilton' and 'South Africa', the first thing that appears is an article from The Independent in 1998, when he addressed something called the Springbok Club. The record of the meeting says,

'Mr. Hamilton gave a riveting keynote speech in which he recalled his own fond memories of South Africa during the era of civilised rule. He also expressed great pleasure at seeing the true South African flag'—

that is, the old flag—

'proudly on display…and expressed the hope that one day it would be seen flying in Cape Town and Pretoria once again.'

That's just one hit; I'm sure there are more to come.

Well, I thank you for that intervention and you've put that point very, very eloquently—

There is another intervention. Are you taking an intervention from Neil Hamilton?

I'll take the intervention, yes.

Those were not my words; those were written by somebody else. I never saw them until they appeared in The Independent and I deny absolutely using the words that have just been used.

I think the point is you don't actually need to have written them, because your apologism for apartheid South Africa, your apologism for the Pinochet regime and the tens of thousands murdered and tortured is absolutely well known and on record.

In respect of the motion today, I think the decision isn't, obviously, going to be taken here, but the solidarity that we can express in terms of our concern across Wales and Scotland in respect of 'no deal' is really important. It may be symbolic, but it is fundamentally important to express that unity at this particular time. So, this motion, which is supported by Welsh Labour, the Welsh Lib Dems, the Scottish National Party, Scottish Labour, the Scottish Green Party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome, because it sends a very, very clear message of unity—a bond of unity that has grown out of a common interest, non-tribal, cross-party, but reflecting the common interest in the fact that we have the well-being of the citizens of Wales very much in our mind in every thing and at every step that we take. I think the amendment is a disappointment because it is a distraction, so I for one will not break that bond of unity that's been established. I will focus, as this motion focuses, on the issue of 'no deal', and I hope we will have as strong support as possible for this particular motion, not just this week but also for the motions that we're going to have next week and the following week. I have absolutely no doubt there will be an extension—

I'm being very patient. You've exhausted my patience now. You've had your time. 

—to article 50 and I reject the UKIP amendment. 

It's a shame that we don't have more solidarity and unity with the people of Wales, who had a people's vote and voted to leave. Yet, instead, we see a Welsh Government that purports to represent and govern for them, palling up with the SNP who want to break up the United Kingdom and where in Scotland—the figure was incorrectly given of two thirds earlier—62 per cent of people in Scotland, like 56 per cent in Northern Ireland, did vote to remain. However, over 53 per cent of people in Wales, as in England, voted to leave in the people's vote we had on 23 June 2016. However, too many politicians in this place and beyond think that they know best and think that people should be made to vote again because they don't agree with them.

Then we have in this motion, point 2:

'Agrees that a no-deal outcome to the current negotiations on EU withdrawal would be completely unacceptable on 29 March 2019 or at any time.'

What that point implies is that we should only leave the European Union if the European Union agrees that we should. Moreover, we should only leave on whatever date they choose and whatever terms they choose we must obey. If you're all prepared to walk away, if there are no circumstances in which you would accept 'no deal', then the corollary of that is you must do precisely as the European Union says in those negotiations, take what you are given, because you can insist on nothing else because you've said beforehand you won't accept 'no deal'.

Will you take an intervention?

We've already had seven minutes from you, Mick, and a lot of it was off topic. So, I won't, if you'll forgive me.

Oh, there we are.

Thank you.

I believed Theresa May when she said that we were leaving the customs union, that we were leaving the single market, that we would be leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I took her at her word too when she said over 100 times, just in the House of Commons, that we would be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. The corollary of that is that if she cannot get a deal that can pass muster with the House of Commons, because it's so poor, because it traps us into a backstop, because according to its political declaration it will build on the single customs territory provided for in the withdrawal agreement—a phrase inserted without the knowledge of the then Brexit Secretary, when we had before a Potemkin department that was supposedly negotiating Brexit, but actually the real negotiations were going on behind their backs—we now get to a situation where that deal cannot get through the Commons, so either we leave with 'no deal' or we extend article 50.

Until last Monday, the position of the United Kingdom Government, the position of the Prime Minister, was that we would leave the EU on 29 March with or without a deal. That unfortunately changed on Monday last week with the Prime Minister's statement. Where 'remain' Ministers write articles attacking the central policy of the Government yet remain Ministers, while 'leave' Ministers who disagree with the Government always have to resign, what does that tell you about where the Prime Minister stands? So, next week, despite the law saying that we leave the EU on 29 March with or without a deal—

There is no law. 

Yes, there is, it's called the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and it was passed by the Westminster Parliament. 

Instead of that, we are having a debate and a vote, organised by the British Government in Government time in the House of Commons, as to whether the House of Commons wants to leave with no deal, and then whether the House of Commons wants to extend article 50, and then the Government says it would be bound by those motion, notwithstanding the law that sets out the position. So, instead of having 17.4 million people who voted 'leave' determine the course of the British Government, it is now suggested that 500 remainer MPs will decide, as we see with this motion, those who have never accepted these results, those who have trotted off to Michel Barnier trying to undermine the position of the UK Government in its negotiations with the European Union—and I give way to one of the foremost amongst them.

I'll take that as a compliment, and I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. Does he not accept that democracy is such that the MPs who sit in the House of Commons now were elected after the referendum and are therefore a better indication of people's desires as to what they want in the future?

Indeed I do, and as with your party, they were elected on coming out of the European Union. Yet now you try and have another vote. You promised you were going to respect the referendum. You said in that manifesto that we would be leaving the European Union, yet now, your MPs in the House of Commons—or too many of them, alas—try and block what they promised they were going to deliver at that referendum, following that referendum, and at the general election. And it is that that is eating away at our democracy, eating away at our country. If we have this motion, and if we say that we will never leave except as the European Union tells us, then that will be an abnegation of democracy, of a referendum that is yet to be implemented, and it is not acceptable—not acceptable to Wales, and not acceptable to the United Kingdom. 

Some weeks ago I was watching a television programme. It was a natural history programme about very curious creatures who live in the arctic, and every now and again they migrate in numbers to various different places, and their migration instinct is so strong that they often fall off the edge of a cliff believing that there is a pathway they can cross—apparently some memory that goes back to the ice age. They're willing to jump off that cliff regardless of the consequences because they believe that they are going somewhere better. What better description could we give to those who are hardline Brexiteers than the name that we give to these creatures, 'lemmings'?

Let's say that they are correct, and let's say that gravity does not exist. Let's say that going off the edge of a cliff is the best way forward. Let's say to people, 'Well, we may not know where we're going, we may not see where we're going, but it'll be better than where we are now.' And where have those political lemmings taken us? Well, 29 March is a date that will see us potentially leave the European Union without a deal. It's not a date written in stone. Nobody voted for 29 March to be the date that we leave. That is a date that has been artificially placed there by the UK Government and could be extended by the UK Government and, indeed, the European Union. So, that 29 March date is not something people voted for. Let's not treat it as some kind of holy writ, because it isn't.

And if we look at 2016, I cannot remember—[Interruption.]. Of course.

I think we're talking about our democratic culture here and what most people think. These are axial times. It will determine how people think, and most people, I think nearly everyone who voted for Brexit, thought we'd be out a long time before now. That's the reality. I don't like that, but we've had a long time to make a decision, and alas, that's what really is damaging us at the moment. 

I very much respect, of course, the Member and his views, but I have to say, I saw the way that the Conservative Government operated from 2016 onwards, as did others in the current Government. David Davis, as far as I can see, did absolutely nothing for a year and a half. Absolutely nothing. Boris Johnson: nothing for a year and a half, apart from the odd quip now and again. A lot of time was lost, and I pay tribute to the attitude taken by people like David Lidington and Greg Clark. I may have my political differences with them, but they are far more pragmatic, and far easier to talk to, than David Davis and Boris Johnson ever were, and they actually do things, which the other two did not. 

In 2016 I don't recall any Member in this Chamber or indeed anybody campaigning in the Brexit campaign, on one side or the other, campaigning in favour of a 'no deal'. Nobody campaigned in favour of a 'no deal'. Everybody said on the Brexit side, 'There'll be a free trade deal. It'll be the easiest deal in history. German car manufacturers will step in. They'll force Germany and the EU to come to an agreement with the UK. We'll have 70 free trade agreements replicated, all ready to go by the time we leave.' None of this was true. Liam Fox said to me, 'We'll just replicate the free trade agreements that the EU has with other countries.' That hasn't happened. The Japanese said, 'You must be joking. Why would we have an agreement with you, who are eight times smaller than the European market, on the same terms as the European market?' Nobody campaigned for 'no deal'. 

And there are those, of course, who said that we'll have a deal with the US. Well, those of you who will have read the US's opening gambit for a free trade deal will understand that the US free trade deal involves access to the UK market for American companies but not the other way around, a lowering of our food standards, a lowering of our hygiene standards, a lowering of our regulations to allow American goods in and the ability of the US Government to have a say in the way that our currency operates. So, we exchange what Brexiteers say is EU control for US control, and that is not acceptable. But that is the reality of a free trade deal when you are a medium-sized country, rather than in a big bloc. The more of you there are, the more power you have.

No doubt there will be some who will say I'm arguing against Brexit, I'm not; I'm arguing against 'no deal'. There will be some who will say this is all about project fear—Honda: that's project fear, 3,500 jobs. Nissan: project fear; that's not going to happen, is it? Ford saying the same thing. BMW today saying they may have to move Mini production out of—[Interruption.] In a second. Out of the UK. Are these companies bluffing? Are these companies bluffing when they say they will leave the UK if there is no deal?

Of course, David. 

All those companies said exactly the same thing about whether we went into the euro or did not go into the euro. Every single one of the companies you just said. Now, you know and I know that there's more investment going in to Nissan. They're building the Corolla, which is the biggest selling car. They've just invested that sort of money. Those companies are not going to come out of the UK. 

Honda have said they're closing in Swindon—3,500 jobs. Of course they said they're going to leave. BMW has said it today. Unless you're saying that all those employers are lying, then somehow we are not to take any notice of what they say and it's all smoke and mirrors. Why would you stay in the UK when your market is Europe? Why wouldn't you just manufacture in Europe instead and treat the UK as a much smaller market, because the economy is not that big compared to the EU?

I know I'm running out of time, but I've taken some interventions, Llywydd. 

There are some who say we should have no deal. Have we noticed that those who are the strongest advocates of no deal are rich men? They are rich men. They are James Dyson, they are Jacob Rees-Mogg, they are people like Boris Johnson. They are people who can move their assets out of the UK—and have started doing so—if they think the UK is in trouble. They are the people with the money to go and live somewhere else. They are the people who argue for an unregulated free market economy that people certainly didn't vote for, particularly and not exclusively, in Blaenau Gwent. These are people, some of them, who argue that a deregulated economy is best: a Singapore in the north Atlantic, forgetting of course there would be no workers' rights, no regulations and human beings would simply be bystanders to an unregulated liberal free market economy—a form of economic totalitarianism, frankly, in my view. 

Finally, Llywydd, could I say this: let's send the message out today from here that this debate is not about Brexit, it's about no deal. Let's have a situation where we can sit down and say to each other, regardless of our views on Brexit, that what happens in the future should be governed by sense not speed, by a deal not disaster, and by agreement rather than staring into the abyss. No deal is no good for Wales. 

How can I follow that? 

And you're not getting more time today, even though you're the Chair. [Laughter.]

We can negotiate that. [Laughter.]

Llywydd, what we've heard today is clearly what we've heard before, and Carwyn Jones, the Member for Bridgend, is quite right: this discussion is about a 'no deal' Brexit, and we forget that sometimes. And it's been quoted today by several people who always vote for Brexit that the Labour Party manifesto in 2017 was about actually honouring that referendum result, and I'll quote it, just to remind them of a few things. 

'Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers' rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.'

It also says that it would scrap the Brexit White Paper 

'and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union'. 

Now, before anyone says what went into the manifesto, they are things the UK Labour Party has put to this Government—the five points Jeremy Corbyn put to the Government and the Prime Minister. That's what it says. So, what we are simply repeating, by the way—. Before anyone says we're reneging on it, we are delivering on the Labour Party manifesto of 2017 and putting the interests of the nation before the interests of a party, which is what the UK Government is currently doing. Let's make that quite clear now.

And when we talk about going out with no deal, we are talking about WTO rules, and if anyone here supports it, I gave the offer last time of telling me where WTO rules are better for Wales than what we currently have. Neil Hamilton intervened. He didn't give me an example. He just tried to defend his arguments. If anyone wants to intervene again and give me a single example of where WTO is better for Wales than what we've got, please do so now, I'll take it. Again, no contenders. So, clearly, everyone recognises WTO is not in the best interest of—[Interruption.]

Will the Member give way?

No problem. Thank you. 

The example I would mention is the beef sector. We were told before of a tariff of 87 per cent, but, of course, if we were to have those types of tariffs, there would be a vast opportunity for Welsh farmers to displace some of the dominant Irish beef that comes into our market currently way above world market prices. 

I'll respond to that. Irish beef you mentioned: you didn't mention Argentinean beef; you didn't mention Brazilian beef; you didn't mention US beef. It is damaging to the Welsh economy and those markets will not be open to us under WTO rules. So, it's quite clear no one has yet given indication that WTO rules would be better for the Welsh sectors.

Now, that is crucial when we talk about 'no deal' Brexit, because we talk about the economy of our nation. We're talking about the livelihoods of our citizens; we're talking about the lives of our constituents. That is what 'no deal' will damage. It's been quite rightly pointed out that many who promoted from the high levels Brexit have moved their businesses abroad, have moved their investments abroad. My constituents can't do that. They live day to day in my constituency. Steel: we talk about cars. Well, steel actually delivers the raw material for the car making. Now, steel itself may not have the tariffs put upon it, but the products they sell to do have tariffs on them and that will impact upon the steel industry. The steel industry, therefore, will suffer serious implications. That means thousands of jobs in Wales, plus the supply chain. That is going to damage our economy. Now, if anyone wants to vote for a 'no deal' and damage the economy, please be honest with the people and tell them, 'I'm voting for damaging the economy.' No-one's saying that, and it's about time people were honest and said that that's what they want. If you don't want it, then oppose a 'no deal' Brexit, because that is the only way we can secure our economy to be stronger. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes. 

Your argument brings us on to, really, one of the big arguments that's been put by the Brexiteers, and that is, 'Well, of course, what we really want is a fantastic trade deal with America.' Have you yet started to acquire a wonderful taste for chlorinated chicken?

I thank the Member for the intervention. The Member for Bridgend highlighted some of the issues with the US that he's already talked about, chlorinated chicken, hormone beef, there's already one there. We know—and let's be honest ourselves—Donald Trump has said, 'America first'. Any trade deal will be 'America first', and it's quite right, as a single nation, we will have less bargaining power than as a block, and we will be suffering. And Liam Fox, unfortunately, has not stood up to the US yet to say that is not acceptable. He seems to be wishing for a deal to just simply save his face.

Now, whilst we're also talking about this, we talk about a lot of views, but the committee has actually met and taken evidence from nations across Europe, nations outside of the EU. The evidence and discussions we've had, everybody—everybody—has told us 'no deal' would be catastrophic. They accept it will be catastrophic for the EU, but they also say it will be worse for the UK, and that is the crucial aspect. We are ignoring the implications for our people if we accept 'no deal'. This motion says, 'It's not acceptable. We're not prepared to put that pressure upon our people.' And we should respect that position. That's not rejecting Brexit: that is simply saying, 'We are standing up for the people of Wales', and I can see the Llywydd nodding, so I'll end on that. 

Like many people, I must say, I've found the last few years deeply, deeply depressing. I think Brexit has not enhanced our democracy, David: it's broken our democracy. It's broken our politics, and the crashing irony is that for many of those old-fashioned imperialists who see an imperial future for Britain, I believe that Brexit has also broken Britain. I believe it has broken the solidarity of communities. It's broken the people we are, and it's broken the people we could have been. We walked around the chancelleries of Brussels some weeks ago, and we heard time and time again that the United Kingdom was—in the First Minister's words—tarnished. Its reputation was less than it was and less than it could have been. Where Britain has led in the past, it is running away in the present. And it isn't running away as a United Kingdom, it's running away as a broken community and a broken society.

Let me tell you this—and you listen, David. You listen. I've been in this place for about 13 years and it's only since that band of warriors in the corner were elected that I've heard people in this country differentiated—the word 'foreigners' used in our debates, the word 'immigrants' used to define people contributing to our society. The words used to attack people who make our society better, and I bitterly, bitterly regret it. And let me tell Neil Hamilton—he'll learn this in Newport next month—democracy didn't end in June 2016, and democracy doesn't mean that you're unable to pursue what you believe in, what you hold dear. If you had lost that referendum, you would still campaign to leave the European Union. And I will still campaign not to leave the European Union. And in doing so, I don't decry the referendum or the right of people to vote to leave, but I campaign for what I believe in. I believe in a different version of society, a different view of who we can be. I believe in this country and I believe in our people. And I believe in our democracy, and what we've seen over these last few years has been the breaking of Britain and the breaking of British democracy, and we've seen that in each one of our parties.

Let me also say this: there's no sovereignty in a food bank; there's no sovereignty living if you haven't got a living wage coming in; there's no sovereignty if you don't know when the next wage packet turns up; and there's no sovereignty when the future of your job and your family is determined in the capitals of the world where your own politicians are unable to influence. I'll give way to Mark Reckless.

Thank you. I was in the meetings with those chancelleries in Brussels and heard the Member apologising for our country to those people. And I just wonder: is there any sovereignty for people in Blaenau Gwent who voted to leave the European Union by more than any other constituency in Wales who are being ignored by their AM?

Mark, I'm one of those people; I'm one of them. You're a visitor.

You're the minority.

You're a visitor.

You're the minority. I'm the majority, you're the minority.

You are a visitor to my community—[Interruption.] You're a visitor—not a very regular one, but a visitor. And let me say this—[Interruption.] No, I won't give way again. I won't give way. Let me say this—[Interruption.] We rarely see you, Mark. That's just a reality, it's not a critical analysis; we just don't see you.

Let me say this: what is ripping apart Blaenau Gwent, and what is ripping apart families and lives in Blaenau Gwent? It's austerity, a process you voted for and a process that he doesn't think has gone far enough. Let me tell you this: austerity is at the root of what led the people of Blaenau Gwent to vote for Brexit. Austerity is at the root of what is breaking this country and austerity is at the root of what has driven these communities apart and into conflict.

And let me say this, Presiding Officer, you've been very generous, I won't be voting for the Plaid Cymru amendment today because I don't believe we should be playing those sorts of politics this afternoon. I believe that we should be showing unity with our friends in Scotland. We won't on Saturday, but we will today. And we should demonstrate that we can rise above the temptation to play those games and to vote for the bigger picture and the bigger vision, and to tell the United Kingdom Government that you can walk down the great corridors of Westminster, but if you really want to represent the people of this country, you've got to do more than simply polish up your badges and polish up your speeches. You've got to listen to what the people are saying.

First Minister, I hope—[Interruption.] I hope that we will be able to extend article 50, to call a referendum, and in that referendum, renew our democracy and challenge the snake-oil salesmen we see in this Chamber, the snake-oil salesman who we've seen who sold their lies to the people of this country, challenge them and put them in their place and tell the people of Wales that this is our democracy and you are not going to steal it from us.

The First Minister to reply to the debate.

Llywydd, diolch yn fawr. And thank you to all Members who've taken part in what I think has been an excellent and passionate debate. Brexit has been an engine for constitutional innovation. This afternoon, for the first time, we are jointly, in our different places, debating with the Scottish Parliament on an identical motion placed by the two Governments before the two Parliaments. We're doing that for a very important reason, because by acting uniquely in this way, we hope that our votes tonight will put further pressure on the Prime Minister to do the right thing, to live up to the responsibilities that have been placed in her hands and to act in a way that defends the interests of families and working people in Scotland and in Wales.

In recent months, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have been clear that 'no deal' would be a catastrophic outcome. And as Members have made it clear here this afternoon, that's the proposition that we are debating this afternoon—that is the possibility that we are united in our calls, in Scotland and in Wales, to say to the UK Government to take decisive action to ensure that 'no deal' cannot be the way in which we leave the European Union.

I made a joint statement with the First Minister of Scotland last month. We called on the Prime Minister to take 'no deal' off the table and seek an immediate extension to the article 50 process. Members in this Chamber said, when we debated it on 7 February, that there was no time to waste, but the Prime Minister has done exactly that—she has relied on a tactic of running down the clock to force a choice between her damaging deal and no deal. She has succeeded in persuading even as reasonable an individual as David Melding that that is the choice that we face, but it's not the choice, Llywydd—it's not the choice that we have to face. It is not a choice that whole swathes of Mrs May's own Cabinet are prepared to take—they don't believe that her deal is the best deal and neither do we. 

Now, the Prime Minister says that keeping 'no deal' on the table strengthens her hand in the negotiations. How she is able to cling to that outdated and failed proposition is a matter of amazement to many, and it is certainly not the case that it is doing us any good now. Jeremy Miles, in opening the debate, said that I had been in Brussels and in Paris last week holding St David's Day events on behalf of Wales. I was taken aback by the extent to which people who are friends of the United Kingdom said to me that the Prime Minister's decision to vote for the Brady amendment had punctured whatever credibility she still had. Here was a Prime Minister who struck a deal—who struck a deal—with the European Union and then was prepared to vote against the deal that she herself had struck. Any sense that keeping 'no deal' on the table is somehow strengthening her hand in those circumstances bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation at all.

What is real is that the risk of no deal strengthens. We heard the true voice of 'no deal' Brexit in the Chamber here this afternoon. For Mark Reckless, the decision of people in a referendum in 2016 is so absolute that he would, as Carwyn Jones said, be happy to take us off a cliff in the dark and without a torch.

I apologise to the First Minister for intervening, but there is one point that has disturbed me—something that Mark Reckless said, which surprised me, I have to say, when he said that we should have the opportunity to impose large tariffs on Irish beef. If that is the case, that means tariffs between the UK and Ireland, it means customs, it means a hard border, it means the ending of the Good Friday agreement and the jeopardising of peace on our neighbouring island. Do you agree that that is not a price that is anything remotely worth paying in order to get Brexit through?

I absolutely, Llywydd, agree with what the Member for Bridgend has said. And it is in the recklessness of that sort of proposition that you see what a 'no deal' Brexit would mean: it's carelessness about peace on the island of Ireland; it's willingness to sacrifice whole swathes of the Welsh economy in pursuit of that ideological—

Would he give way?

I think you advised another Member of the number of times that they had spoken in the debate and I think considerably more latitude—

You can't allow that to be said about me and not give me a chance.

—has been allowed there. Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] Instead, Llywydd—[Interruption.] The Member can shout at me from a standing position, but I'm not doing anything to appease him in this debate.

Instead, Llywydd, I agree absolutely with what my colleague Alun Davies said. Democracy is the right to disagree; it is the right to be in a minority and to continue to argue for your cause; it is the opposite of the absolutist view that, in one single vote, the winner takes all and the winner holds all in perpetuity. That is the negation of democracy, but it is—

Will the First Minister give way?

—but it is that absolutist view that means that, in the hands of those who hold those views, we are heading to that cliff, and that cliff-edge only 24 days away from now.

Llywydd, as you have heard, the Government will vote against the Plaid Cymru amendment, not because of the arguments made in favour of it, but because I believe it puts tactics ahead of strategy. The strategic game today is for parties on the progressive left of politics in Wales and in Scotland to vote together in favour of propositions that have already been endorsed here in this Assembly and that become more urgent with every single day. The force of that argument will be significantly strengthened by the endorsement of an identical motion in both Parliaments. That's why we will vote against the Plaid Cymru amendment, because, were it to pass, it would dilute the impact of parliamentary unanimity. It would be used by the Conservative Government to suggest that Wales and Scotland are, after all, not united behind the propositions put in front of the two Parliaments by two very different Governments but Governments of one mind on the matters put before Members here today.

I agree with Lynne Neagle that we need to be clear and we need to be unequivocal. That's why we must not vote for an amendment that introduces equivocation between this National Assembly and the vote that will be held in the Scottish Parliament. I agree with Alun Davies that this is our opportunity to demonstrate a solidarity in the face of a threat that otherwise has the danger of a broken Britain. In Scotland, opposition parties with every bit as much of a belief in a second referendum as Plaid Cymru have been willing to make those points in the debate but not to seek to obscure the force of a single motion through amendment.

Here is what my colleague Richard Leonard said in that debate, when he talked about the path that Mrs May has followed, and said then that, when she fails, then there is no choice but to go back to the people in a public vote, with a credible 'leave' option as well as a remain option on the ballot paper. It's not because we disagree with the sentiments, but because we want to send one single united message on these matters from this Parliament and from the Scottish Parliament too.

Will the First Minister give way? Did the leader of the Scottish Labour Party also not say that his preference is for a revised deal? And is that the position of the Welsh Labour Party?

Well, the position of the Welsh Labour Party is the position that our party and his party signed up to together. That's the position. It is not such an incredible matter that the Plaid Cymru leader wants to shake his head at me, at a set of propositions that his party signed up to in this Assembly when he set out—

Will the First Minister give way?

Yes, will do. One more time.

The question that was put to the leader of the Labour Party was: what is his preference—for a people's vote or for a revised deal? He said a revised deal. We're clear that our preference is for a people's vote. What's your position?

My position is the position that your party and my party signed up to together. That's my position. Now, it's not your position, because you moved away from that position, but my position is that there was a deal to be done, a deal that would have protected the Welsh economy and jobs. It's a deal that you signed up to—your party signed up to it. It may not suit you now, but it suited you then. Today you've changed your mind. That's fine—I don't mind that at all. 

It's called democracy—[Inaudible.]

Absolutely it's called democracy, and you're entitled to change your mind. What you're not entitled to do is to suggest that somehow the position that we take, which was the position you took, is somehow not to be supported. The position I take is the position I've said time after time, Llywydd, and it's why we won't vote for his amendment, because, actually, in the end, what he is interested in is this sort of petty political point scoring—this sort of tactical nonsense that he indulges in here on the floor of the Assembly. My position is this: let a deal be done. If a deal can't be done, then it has to go back to the people—then we're in favour of a people's vote. That's the position we support. I say it again: I've got no difficulty with it whatsoever.

Llywydd, let me move to a close by quoting what my colleague the Scottish First Minister said about today's debate. She said:

'It is worth emphasising that this is the first occasion in 20 years of devolution when the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have acted in unison in this way. We have been brought together by our dismay—which borders now on despair—at the United Kingdom Government’s approach to...Brexit.'

The motion provides the basis, even at this late hour, for a more sensible and less damaging approach. By doing so, it allows us to act in the interests not just of our own constituents but of the UK as a whole—indeed, of Europe as a whole. 'I commend it', Nicola Sturgeon said, 'I commend it'. I hope that Members, both of the Scottish Parliament and our friends in the Assembly, will vote for it this evening. Llywydd, I commend it too. I agree with Delyth Jewell: this is not a parlour game. Let us speak with one voice on one common proposition, and, as the UK Government moves to a set of decisive votes next week, let us leave no-one in any doubt of the views of Scotland and of Wales. Vote for the proposition put by this Government in front of this Assembly, by the Scottish Government in front of the Scottish Parliament, and let us speak in that common voice and in a common cause, because that is the way in which we will maximise our influence and put that pressure we need to bring on the Prime Minister to do the right thing and to ensure that the interests of our people are put at the heart of the deal that she will strike with the European Union.

In accordance with Standing Order 11.15, the Government decided that a vote must be taken on this item, and so I defer voting until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and the first vote is on the second supplementary budget. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, 21 abstentions, one against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is the vote on the EU withdrawal negotiations, and the first vote is on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

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 11, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

That brings us to the unamended motion, which was tabled in the names of Rebecca Evans and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.