Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Dai Lloyd.

Our vision is to have 1 million Welsh speakers who use the language by 2050, and we have consulted on a draft strategy in order to achieve that.

Thank you very much for that response, First Minister. Of course, like the rest of the Chamber, I’m very pleased to support your ambitious objective of securing a million Welsh speakers by halfway through the century. That’s an increase of somewhere in the region of 400,000 Welsh speakers across Wales, or an average increase of 18,000 for each of our current counties. Of course, the education sector and its Welsh in education strategic plans are crucially important to this, and, in light of that, do you believe that enhancing the capacity of Welsh-medium primary schools by some 20 places over the next three years, as is suggested in the Bridgend WESP and in those of other councils in south-west West, is sufficient? Is that small number sufficient in order to reach your target and, if not, what will you do to ensure that local councils understand the crucially important role that they will play in supporting you in achieving your target?

Well, local authorities, of course, are duty bound to publish their strategic plans on supporting the Welsh language in schools, and they have to present those plans to us in order for us to approve them. If there is any scheme that is not adequate, then the Government will not approve it.

Would the First Minister acknowledge the continual importance of the Urdd eisteddfodau to the Welsh language, and would he therefore congratulate those people who organise these events and are fundraising for the Bridgend Urdd Eisteddfod in May and June of this year on the Pen-coed college site? This work is undertaken by many volunteers who help to maintain the language amongst our young people and in some of the communities where the Welsh language isn’t perhaps the first language. Of course, I’m sure you will be warmly welcomed in the Green Hall in Cefn Cribwr this Friday to enjoy the ‘twmpath dawns’, or the ceilidh, and to fundraise too.

Well, thank you very much. I hope to always receive a warm welcome in Cefn Cribwr, because, at one time, that village was in my constituency, before it was moved into yours. As one who has worked hard to raise funds for the Urdd Eisteddfod—I’ve organised with my wife two quiz nights in order to raise funds—I’m very supportive personally and, of course, I support everyone who supports the Urdd in the area in order to ensure that the eisteddfod is a great success this year and that there is further growth in the number of people using the Welsh language in the county.

At a recent meeting with Swansea council, officials suggested that their focus during this cycle of the WESPs would be on promoting the Welsh language. That is a step forward, but it doesn’t respond to demand. I got the impression from the cabinet member that she thought that the current vocalised demand for provision came from a specific section of Swansea society, and my belief that there should be at least one person with good Welsh language skills in each Flying Start scheme was met with some doubt. Do you believe that early access to both of our languages will enhance opportunities for children from more deprived backgrounds?

Well, yes, of course. We must ensure that there are more places available in nursery schools, but we must also ensure that children at nursery schools then remain in the Welsh stream as they enter primary and secondary schools in order to ensure that they don’t lose the language skills that they’ve acquired as they go through the school, by changing the language medium of their education.

First Minister, the Welsh Language Commissioner said that, in order to increase the number of Welsh speakers, we need radical change to our education system. She has suggested we should consider teaching all primary schools through the medium of Welsh. It has been compulsory for every schoolchild in Wales to learn Welsh since 1999. Yet, despite this, the numbers of Welsh speakers has fallen.

Rwy’n dysgu Cymraeg.

Polls suggest that the majority of people are opposed to compulsory teaching. Is it time that we accepted that maybe the stick approach is not working, and rather than dictating that everyone should learn Welsh, can we maybe instead make it easier for those who really want to learn? Diolch.

I’m not sure what the Member was trying to say. She did give me the impression that she was suggesting that every primary school should be Welsh medium. I think there are issues surrounding that, particularly practical issues in terms of recruiting teachers. I firmly believe that it’s right that our national languages should be compulsory until the age of 16. There are issues about the way in which Welsh is being taught in English-medium schools, particularly through the short course. I don’t think we can say, hand on heart, that we have created confident Welsh speakers in our English-medium schools. Clearly, that’s not the case. This is why the new curriculum will be important and why moving away from the idea that Welsh is solely an academic area of study, and moving more towards it being seen as a vocational skill—. For those, of course, who want to study it academically, that’s important, but seeing it as a vocational skill that is required through school is going to be important in the future. I think that would be a good way of improving the way in which Welsh is taught and learned in the English-medium schools.

Question 2 [OAQ(5)0402(FM)] has been withdrawn. Question 3, Julie Morgan.

I have raised the issue of replacement funding, which is needed to finance regional policy. I raised that at my very first meeting with the Prime Minister last June. And we have been very clear about all our priorities, including regional policy, at each Joint Ministerial Committee since.

I thank the First Minister for that response. When he next meets Prime Minister Theresa May in the context of the Brexit negotiations, will he be certain to stress how vitally important regional economic strategy is to Wales? Would he emphasise that replacement funding from the UK Government must be at least equal in size to lost EU funding, and, finally, that it must be under the Welsh Government’s control?

A promise was made by some in the campaign last year that Wales would not lose out a penny if Wales left the European Union. I expect that promise to be honoured. If not, then the people of Wales have every right to ask why they were, if it is the case that this is true, misled. Secondly, it’s hugely important that the economic policies that we’ve developed here, the lowest unemployment for many, many years, lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the best foreign direct investment figures for 30 years, are fully within the control of the Welsh Government to deliver those benefits for the people of Wales.

First Minister, this morning I attended the annual Farmers Union of Wales’s farmers breakfast in the Pierhead building, hosted by Paul Davies—an excellent event, as ever. Farmers were understandably eager for clarity on the system of farm payments to be created in the wake of the UK leaving the EU, when that eventually happens. Can you update us on your Government’s discussions with the UK Government on the best way to safeguard future support for the Welsh farming industry?

I heard the comments of Mr Roberts, the FUW’s president, last week, when he expressed his concern about a perfect storm, and he is right to do so. At the moment, we have no clarity beyond 2020. There are some within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who suggest there should be no farming subsidies at all. That is not something that we would support as a Government. And there are some who suggest that the European market is not important for farming—90 per cent of our food and drink exports go to the European market. It cannot be replaced easily as a market for our goods, so we must ensure that, as the UK leaves the EU, nothing interferes with the ability of our famers to sell on the same terms as they do now to by far their biggest market.

Pre 1979, UK regional policy had three elements—grants through the regional employment premia, but also fiscal incentives through the selective employment tax, and cheap loans. In his discussions with the UK Government, in the new ministerial forum that was announced earlier this week, will he ask that all of those levers will be available for us to ensure that Wales can develop its competitive advantage?

I think we are in very new territory in terms of what will be needed in the future to attract investment into Wales. For example, there are issues such as tax incentives, which I think need to be further developed. Should there be the ability, for example, to look at tax incentives for research and development, and see them devolved? Air passenger duty—a great driver, not just for Cardiff airport, but for Valley and other airports in Wales as well. It was refused for no good reason other than the fact that they see that it was a mistake to devolve it to Scotland, so, therefore, it doesn’t come to us. But, I think it is important that, as we look at the next few years, there is an innovative way of looking at the way tax incentives are used across the UK, rather than taking the view that one size fits all.

First Minister, would you welcome the fact the Prime Minister has announced an industrial strategy? It’s better late than never. I’m encouraged that one of the sectors the UK Government intends to prioritise includes robotics and automation. The Bank of England has estimated that there are 15 million jobs across the UK at risk from automation; 700,000 jobs in Wales. And would you work with employers in Wales to make sure that they futureproof their workforce to meet this huge challenge for us?

Well, I think there are two issues about the industrial strategy. I mean, there’s little in it that could be disagreed with, but, of course, it’s a bit of a mishmash, because some of the pillars are actually devolved—they’re not the responsibility of the UK Government. Some of them are, some of them are mixed, so there needs to be greater clarity there.

Yes, I think there will be a temptation to automate further, which is why we need to focus very, very strongly on raising the productivity of workers across the UK, to make sure that employers are not tempted to replace human beings with machines because of a productivity issue. And that is something, certainly, that we will want to focus on very, very strongly—raising productivity levels, for example, to at least the level of Germany, to make sure that our working people in Britain are not disadvantaged because of those productivity levels.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. First Minister, you’ll be relieved to know I’m not going to ask you about the European Union today, as I don’t wish to appear typecast. And, anyway, I had the opportunity to do so yesterday, and will do later on today.

I’d like to ask about the health service, in particular in relation to GPs. He will know that GP numbers are broadly static, yet there’s a rising demand for their services. And, in fact, in 2014—the latest figures for which I’ve been able to find—we had the lowest number of GPs in Wales per 1,000 people in the UK. Some 17 per cent of GPs have sought guidance or advice for work-related stress in the last two years, 84 per cent worry they may miss something serious in a patient due to workload pressures, and 56 per cent plan to leave general practice or reduce hours in the next five years. Does he accept there’s a growing crisis in morale amongst GPs in Wales?

No, we’ve been funding GPs, and, indeed, other health professionals who work in primary care, at a level that we think is right and appropriate. For example, if you look at social care, we fund social care at 6 per cent per head higher than England does, which is why we’ve not had the ‘humanitarian crisis’, to use the words of the Red Cross, that England has had within its NHS. We are also committed to recruiting additional GPs. We have more GPs in Wales than ever before, and that’s why, of course, we have the recruitment campaign that was launched last year.

I’m relieved he’s not asking me about Europe, because he did appear at the press conference that was held yesterday with myself and the leader of Plaid Cymru, as a member of the audience. I do thank him for the fact he is such a fan he cannot bear to be away from the two of us even for a day. [Laughter.]

Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing, but, in the case of the First Minister, I’m happy to say that isn’t so. [Laughter.]

But it’s no answer to the question I posed a moment ago that things are worse in England than they are in Wales. It is true that there is a pincer movement here of increasing demand on GPs, and with GP numbers not keeping pace with those rising demands. NHS funding on GPs in Wales, as part of the Welsh Government’s budget, is down since 2004, from 10 per cent of the total to 7.5 per cent. The Royal College of General Practitioners say that more GP spending could actually save the NHS £90 million a year by 2020 if we reprioritised GPs within the Welsh Government’s NHS budget. So, is that something that the First Minister is prepared to consider?

Well, our £43 million primary care fund is supporting that, with the emphasis on new and improved ways of delivering services. That involves delivering services, and developing the services of nurses and pharmacists, physiotherapists, and social workers, to work alongside GPs. The answer lies not simply in increasing the number of GPs; it lies in ensuring that there are sufficient professionals available in a particular setting—we see it, for example, in Prestatyn—so that people can be referred to the appropriate professional, rather than piling all the pressure onto GPs, when people could go somewhere else.

The First Minister will also know that, in some areas of Wales, patient pressure, in terms of numbers, on doctors’ surgery sessions is now excessive. Can he give us any idea what he thinks is the maximum number of patients that a GP can reasonably deal with in a working day? Particularly in relation to home visits for patients who are housebound, the Royal College of General Practitioners tell me that, in certain instances, people are having to wait up to 20 hours for a visit, which is clearly unacceptable. Some doctors are dealing with 120 patients per session instead of 50 or 60. Exactly how many does he think is reasonable for doctors to see in a session and how does he expect the Welsh Government to meet its six-hour target, which is currently being breached left, right and centre throughout the country?

It depends on the patients who come through the surgery on that particular day. For some people, they can be seen in five minutes; for other people, it takes longer. It depends on the nature of the patient. GPs will have a good idea of the communities that they work in and the patients that they’re seeing during the course of that day. But the point is, the last thing we want to do is to funnel more and more people towards GPs. We say to people, ‘Choose well. Go and see a pharmacist first. If not, then go and see a community nurse or a GP practice nurse. Then, and only then, is the GP somebody to go and see.’

There are issues of consistency in GP services across Wales. That much is true. Some offer broader services than others, they offer longer hours than others, and that’s why it’s so important to work with the royal college and others to make sure that we see greater consistency in terms of service delivery in the future.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, I’m not going to ask you about article 50 or the White Paper that we jointly launched yesterday because there are statements on both those matters coming later. Instead, I’d like to ask you about matters relating to public services, for which you are responsible. Do you accept that many rail commuters on the Valleys lines in particular are facing a touch-and-go situation when it comes to getting to work on time?

She says ‘services that we are responsible for’, but we’re not responsible for rail services. We will be from next year and we welcome that. We want to make sure that the Wales and borders franchise properly serves people with decent quality rolling stock—they don’t have that at the moment—more frequent trains and reasonable fares to pay. Those, amongst other things, will be our guiding principles as we look to let the franchise from next year onwards.

So, it’s nothing to do with the Government then? First Minister, it is a touch-and-go situation for many workers, and I know that because I face regular delays, as does everyone else who uses the service. We never know when there are going to be delays or cancellations. In fact, there was a delay to my train coming to work this morning. It’s a daily occurrence. People are feeling as though they’re not getting value for money and, more importantly, that those trains can’t be relied upon. For years, Arriva has tried to make the service work by pushing the current trains to the max and those trains, as you will know, are very, very old. It looks to those of us who use the service like that service is at breaking point. If it does break, First Minister, you will have to do something. Is it acceptable to you that the overcrowding situation in the south of Wales is the fastest growing in the UK outside of London?

I’m glad that the growth is increasing, but the leader of Plaid Cymru doesn’t mention the metro. The whole point of the metro is to make sure that we have more frequent services and better rolling stock, that we don’t have 40-year-old refurbished stock running on the Valleys lines with no air conditioning, and that we don’t have a situation where the track operators and the stock operators blame each other for delays. So, yes, when we get control of this from next year onwards, we do want to see a metro system, one that’s extended in the future and one that offers a far better service than has been available so far. She will have seen the comments from the economy Secretary in terms of his views on the profits that Arriva have made, despite the below-par services, as she rightly points out, that have been on offer so far.

First Minister, we can’t afford to wait for the metro; it could be years before we see the metro coming on stream. My predecessor as Plaid Cymru leader, Ieuan Wyn Jones, was a strong critic of the current rail franchise contract for Wales. He said that the way it had been drawn up—yes, by an agency of the UK Government—had led to a decade of overcrowding, and that verdict still stands today.

Last Friday, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee said that new trains would be needed and they described the 2003 contract as a huge mistake. Commuters are not prepared to put up with another poorly negotiated franchise. Your Government will be responsible for the next franchise and we already know that the planning for that is under way, but, to date, you’re yet to make clear to this Assembly what rolling stock will be provided, and I’m talking quantity here as well as quality. We’ve not been told if there are going to be new trains or carriages, if they’ve been ordered yet, if they’re going to be new trains or if they’re going to be second hand or even third hand. Will you tell us today what trains are going to be available for the next franchise and will you give a cast-iron guarantee that the mistakes of the past contract won’t be repeated?

We have no intention of repeating the mistakes made by the UK Government with regard to the last contract. She rightly refers to what the former Member for Ynys Môn, Ieuan Wyn Jones, said. He was in charge of transport for four years, but there was little that he could do because of the fact that it wasn’t devolved. His frustration was shared by me. Better trains, more frequent trains and more modern rolling stock.

One of the problems that we have now is that, actually, it’s almost impossible to procure diesel trains—they’re seen as ancient technology. So, we have to make sure that we see electrification. We have to see the commitment, for example, from the UK Government that it will electrify from Cardiff to Swansea to keep the promise that they made and which they are now reneging on. We have to see the electrification of the north Wales main line as well. That’s hugely important.

In terms of what the trains will look like in the future, at the very least they’ll be hybrids—diesel-electric. But, we have to make sure that that electrification is taken through. [Interruption.] They won’t get ordered—. The franchise is part of the negotiation. The whole point is that you have the negotiation on the franchise, and, as part of the franchise negotiation, you specify what stock the operator has to actually use. That’s part of the franchise negotiations.

She asks a question—a fair question: ‘Will the service be better?’ The answer I give is ‘yes’. I’ve said that, and I’m sure she’ll hold me to account on that over the next few years.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. When you come third in the leaders’ rankings to ask questions, you normally assume that the topic of the day will have been asked by one of the other two, so I also give the health warning that I’ll leave my European questions until later on in the afternoon. I would like to ask you, First Minister, specifically about the Estyn inspection report that has been brought forward today. You not unreasonably said when you first became First Minister in 2009 that you were going to make education your priority. Just before Christmas, we had the Programme for International Student Assessment results that showed no progress at all in Wales’s rankings when it comes to international statistics. Today, the Estyn inspection report shows a damning indictment of failure of leadership and, in particular, excellence in teaching, especially in the secondary sector, where, if you choose a secondary school in Wales, you’ve got less than a 50 per cent chance of going to a school that’s got excellent or good teaching practice. Do you think that’s acceptable after nearly seven years of being First Minister?

There are two things here to bear in mind. First, teachers’ pay and conditions have not been devolved yet—they will be next year. That gives us the opportunity to put in place a proper training package with pay and with conditions that will attract good teachers to Wales and improve the training of teachers in Wales. We needed that package. Scotland has done it—there’s no reason why we should not be able to do it.

Secondly, the report makes the point—which is correct, because we saw it in PISA, actually—that not enough is done to stretch those at the top end of the academic league. That’s exactly what PISA showed. The reason why the PISA figures were disappointing is pretty much because we don’t do well at the top end. Other countries do better at the top end. If you look at the middle bands, actually we’re very comparable, but it’s the top end. So, that report has actually said to teachers, ‘Look, you need to do more to make sure that those who are the higher achievers academically are pushed more to do even better’. I’m glad that the report has actually shown that to make sure that teachers and politicians understand that that’s what needs to be done.

I heard in your answer, First Minister, that you talked about pay and conditions in Scotland. Actually, Scotland’s results in the PISA rankings collapsed, and that is no example to follow, I’d suggest to you, First Minister. You’ve had initiative after initiative since your tenure as First Minister, and, indeed, since Labour have been running education, since 1999. We’ve had teacher workload initiatives; we’ve had the regional consortia that have come in for special criticism today from Estyn, showing that there’s poor performance there with collaborative working. The secretary of the National Union of Teachers has said that there are significant barriers to improving teachers’ performance in schools and access to best practice. Do you recognise these significant barriers, First Minister? In particular, I go back to the point again: we’ve had initiative after initiative under your leadership, and yet we’re still getting Estyn reports seven years into your tenure as First Minister and you’ve set education as a priority. You’re failing, First Minister.

You know, to be lectured by somebody who stood for election on the basis of cutting education spending by 12 per cent—by 12 per cent—is unbelievable. To be lectured by somebody whose party is failing to build schools in England—failing to build schools in England—while we are building schools in Wales; to be lectured by somebody who wanted to bring back grammar schools—grammar schools—chucking most children onto a scrapheap; no, no, no I’m not going to be lectured by him.

Of course there are issues in the education system. We see improvement and we’re seeing it. Why? GCSE results are improving. A-level results are improving. We’re seeing more schools that are coming out of a category of being underperforming. We’re seeing the support that teachers need. Estyn has pointed out the good practice as well. It’s not all bad. It’s not a ‘damning indictment’—what a load of nonsense. It’s shown that there are particular weaknesses that need to be focused on, and they are being focused on, but we know that our schools are going in the right direction, with proper funding, and not being starved of funding by his party as elsewhere in Britain.

Well, you always know when you strike a nerve with the First Minister: he brings up statistics that don’t stand up to any scrutiny at all. We’re talking about the here and now and the Estyn report that was delivered today, which is a damning indictment of your stewardship here in Wales. If you take one local education authority—Cardiff—nearly 50 per cent of headteachers have left their posts in the last three years—50 per cent. Nearly 50 per cent have left. Initiative after initiative have I highlighted you’ve brought forward, and you are failing to drive up standards here in Wales. Kids get one chance to go to school, First Minister. You said education is the priority; you have failed to deliver. It’s about time you accepted some accountability for this and, instead of rehearsing the arguments of yesterday, start mapping out a vision for tomorrow and the success that we all want to see in our education system here in Wales.

There is, I believe, a vacancy as Donald Trump’s press secretary for the leader of the Welsh Conservatives by his presentation of alternative facts. It is a fact indisputable that GCSE results have improved over the last three years; it is a fact indisputable that A-level results are improving; it is a fact indisputable that his party wanted to cut education spending by 12 per cent. They boasted about it. They produced a mini manifesto that included that figure in the mini manifesto—or is that an ‘alternative fact’? The reality is that if his party had come anywhere near education in Wales, they would have destroyed the education system through cuts, they wouldn’t have built schools, they would have kept children being taught in schools that were falling apart. We have never done that. Education is moving in the right direction, with improvements across the board, and that’s exactly where we will take education in the future, not backwards to the days when education was underfunded by the Conservative Party in London—a party that truly does not care about education for all and does not care about the opportunities that are available for youngsters in Wales. That’s what we stand for. They will never understand what it means to get a good education and good opportunities, because they’ve never had to fight for it themselves.

Yes. We continue to support health and social care organisations through our quarterly national seasonal planning meetings to inform the development of their seasonal plans, which include preparedness for the winter period.

Thank you. Well, in 2015, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, published its public health guidance on tackling excess winter deaths, morbidity and the health risks associated with cold homes, outlining a number of recommendations and how health and social care practitioners could reduce the risk of death and ill health associated with fuel poverty and therefore the pressures on the Welsh NHS. Given that Age Cymru said last September that fuel poverty is a significant cause of excess winter deaths, how will your Welsh Government respond to the call from the Fuel Poverty Coalition Cymru for these NICE guidelines to be implemented by your Government in Wales?

Well, look at Nest and look at Arbed; they are schemes that have helped so many people, particularly older people, to actually get homes that are warmer, to ensure they can afford to heat their homes, to have heating systems and boiler systems that are more efficient than they once had and thus keep them out of hospital because they are in homes that are underheated. So we believe we’ve a good record on that, in terms of the money we’ve allocated over the years to help so many people across Wales to live in warmth and to be able to afford their heating bills, and that’s something we’re proud of.

Does the First Minister agree that what the latest figures on accident and emergency waiting times published last week—especially those waiting more than 12 hours—what they show is that it’s a year-round capacity issue that we face with, on average, around 3,000 patients waiting longer than 12 hours month after month, after month, after month? Isn’t that evidence of a systemic problem with the delivery of emergency care in Wales, with excellent staff being asked to deliver the impossible, rather than something that can be blamed on poor weather?

What happens in the winter is that, even though numbers in A&E actually drop, for the people coming in, their conditions tend to be longer term respiratory conditions and they’re older. In the summer, actually, A&E admissions tend to be higher, but they tend to be injuries, for example, which don’t need as much time in A&E. The issues that we face are these: we need to make sure, as we have done, that social care spending is kept high—and it is higher than it is in England. They’re reaping an unfortunate whirlwind in England on that at the moment. It is true to say that the demand is high and I do pay tribute to those who work in the service for the services that they provide. But every consultant in A&E will tell you—and, indeed, it was said again today—that there are too many people going into A&E who don’t need to be there. And so what we say to people is: ‘Go to see the pharmacist, go to see a GP, and there’s out-of-hours GP cover. All these are alternatives—don’t just default to A&E simply because A&E can’t turn you away’. People are triaged when they get to A&E. If people are not urgent cases, then they do wait longer—that is the reality of it; the urgent cases get treated first. So, yes, people need to make their own choices, their own proper choices, and we will continue to make sure that we fund our hospitals and A&E departments to meet a demand that has been increasing at the rate of 7 per cent a year.

Natural Resources Wales is the environmental regulator responsible for modifying Aberthaw’s environmental permit so that it gives effect to the court’s judgment. We, as a Government, of course, continue to closely monitor the progress of both NRW and RWE towards delivering compliance.

The court case was last September. RWE and the member state, which is the UK Government, were found guilty of allowing illegal levels of pollution from Aberthaw power station. Since then, there’s only been one letter by NRW to the company, and that hasn’t been responded to. There’s been no change to the permit for this pollution and Public Health Wales confirmed to me last week that 1,150 early deaths take place annually in Wales because of nitrogen dioxide pollution, which is the pollution emerging from Aberthaw power station. Why are we allowing such a situation, where there is this pollution coming from a power station that breaks all the rules and it is allowed to happen months after a court decided that this needed to be tackled?

This is a matter for NRW, but what they tell us is that the emissions of nitrogen oxide have been reduced from Aberthaw itself, and to a level that isn’t far from the limit that exists now, because of what the court said. So, although it is a matter for Natural Resources Wales, it does look as if the emissions have been reduced and now it’s a matter of seeing whether it’s possible to permit the place to proceed.

I was very interested, First Minister, by that answer because I’ve not seen the data, and I thought that some level of investment would be required to reduce these emissions, which were over twice the actual agreed European limit. So, I’m sure if you could put that information in the Library or circulate it to Members, we would be very, very grateful. But the thing is you do have to act quickly so that the public can be assured they will be protected. This power station will survive through to the medium term, albeit for peak demand, but, you know, its emissions go over Cardiff, Bristol and parts of the west country; this is a serious matter.

Yes. The information, as I say, we have from NRW is that emissions have reduced from the plant itself. On 6 January, NRW wrote to RWE setting out their intention to begin the process of modifying Aberthaw’s permit. That letter was accompanied by a formal request for an explanation of RWE’s compliance plans, and the deadline for responding to the information request is 17 February. I think it’s fair to say that RWE have invested in the plant to reduce emissions but, of course, they must be brought within the limit in order for them to be able to get a permit from NRW in the future.

We have consistently pressed the National Grid to ensure that its proposals for the new line across Anglesey are fit for purpose and sensitive to the environment through which it will pass.

Last Wednesday, the National Assembly for Wales made a very clear statement that it’s our democratically expressed wish in this place for the National Grid to seek alternative methods of making new electricity connections in Wales instead of putting in place new pylons for any new developments here. That’s particularly pertinent to us in Ynys Môn, of course, where we face seeing a new line of pylons being erected over the next few years.

Now, in light of the fact that this Assembly has demonstrated its democratic will a week ago, will the First Minister give a commitment to contact the National Grid again to put pressure on it and Ofgem to convince them that they should listen to the democratic voice of our National Assembly and reconsider their proposals after all? Every voice representing Ynys Môn apart from one UKIP regional Member, and I include here myself as the Assembly Member, the MP, parish councils, town councils, and the county councils, have all expressed our opposition. The National Assembly has supported that, and we would appreciate the support of the First Minister to urge Ofgem and the grid to listen.

Well, of course, the Assembly’s position is very close to the Government’s standpoint, which is that we wish to see the cables being undergrounded. That’s our preferred position in terms of our standpoint on this. I’m very happy again to tell the National Grid that that is the view of the Parliament of Wales and therefore is a view that they should take into detailed consideration.

When I discussed this with National Grid a while back they told me they get paid for what they do whether pylons go over ground or underground, but Ofgem require best value for the customer, and this will ultimately be paid through customer energy bills. Given that best value means quality value as well as price, what dialogue will your Government have with Ofgem, given the concern raised by town and community councils across Anglesey that the pylon option has been chosen ‘on the basis of cost alone’?

Bear in mind, of course, that the rules are put in place by the UK Government, not by us. But he asks would we reinforce our previous position—we will continue to do that. Our preferred position on new grid infrastructure is one of undergrounding, because we know the environmental sensitivities across much of Wales with regard to that. It’s right to say that price is not the sole determinant of whether a contract is awarded or not or whether work is carried out or not. I share his view that it’s hugely important to look at a wide range of factors when we look at the overall costs, both environmental, economic and social, when it comes to laying out new grid infrastructure. It’s why we take the view that the preferred position, the default position, should be undergrounding.

We are in regular dialogue with the UK Government on these matters due to the current arrangements for managing the Wales and borders franchise, and, of course, we are leading the procurement of the next franchise, which will improve services.

Thank you. Tonight on BBC Wales’s ‘Week In Week Out’, Nick Servini goes behind the scenes of Arriva Trains Wales as it investigates the worst overcrowding on commuter trains for years. My constituents in Islwyn continually raise with me overcrowding on Arriva Trains Wales, but the focus of Arriva Trains Wales has made a profit of £133.88 million in dividends for its parent company since taking over the UK franchise to run the Wales and borders train services. It also had £70 million in the bank at the time it filed its last accounts and, as stated to the leader of Plaid Cymru, the existing franchise does come to an end in October 2018, an agonising 20 months away. My constituents are fearful that during the forthcoming six nations they will again be stuck on railway stations in Newbridge, Crosskeys, Risca and Pontymister as the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff service is already at capacity. And, as electrification is so deeply delayed from the UK Government, can I ask that the First Minister calls on the UK Government to do its job and act, and for the UK Government to call on Arriva Trains Wales to find an interim solution before the new franchise is awarded? And can he outline what investigations have taken place into the capacity for Arriva to hire contemporary railway carriages that could be pulled by older diesel engines?

The difficulty we have is that we work with Arriva, that’s true, but, in terms of having levers—well, no, they won’t arrive until next year. Why this wasn’t devolved before is a good question, but at least from next year we’ll have this opportunity. I know in the past that Arriva has obtained locomotives to pull locomotive-hauled trains. They did it in the Rhymney valley for a number of years and those trains were popular, actually, with commuters. There is no reason to my mind why they couldn’t seek to do that again. But what my colleague the Member for Islwyn has neatly outlined is the frankly barmy situation where we pay a subsidy to rail operators to provide a substandard service while they make enormous profit. This, apparently, was the wonder of privatisation back in the early 1990s. My view is that we should be in the same position as the Scots, where we’re able to look at having a public sector not-for-profit agency running the railway lines for the benefit of the people of Wales, and not by paying a subsidy in order to pay shareholders.

The House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee has said recently that there is an urgent need for new trains on Wales’s rail network. It went on to say that passengers were tired of old and cramped trains, with some rolling stock in use being over 40 years old. Some locomotives are still running after their sell-by date. With the Wales and borders franchise coming up for renewal, First Minister, what discussions has the Welsh Government had with regard to providing modern trains to improve rail services for passengers in south-east Wales, which has been promised for a very long time now?

These are all part of the franchise negotiations. We’ve already, of course, very publicly produced our plan for a metro, which will see an improvement in journey times and, indeed, in facilities and rolling stock, as far as passengers are concerned. For the first time, it will be the people of Wales who are able to determine what their train services—not InterCity, but what their train services actually look like. We had this bizarre situation at one point where it was said that the Wales and borders franchise would only cover trains that began their journeys and terminated their journeys in Wales, which would mean, effectively, the Conwy Valley line and nothing else north of Merthyr. I’m glad that that rather odd situation seems to have been vacated by the UK Government, but we are determined to provide a far better level of service, not just, in fact, for our own people, but for those people who live on the other side of the border but who use trains from the Wales and borders franchise.

I declare an interest in that my sister works for Network Rail. First Minister, I’ve had correspondence from people who are frustrated at insufficient public transport links in Blaenau Gwent at night time. Currently, the last Cardiff train stops at Llanhilleth, with no public transport links to get further up the valley, leaving taxis as the only option, if any of those are available. So, can he update us on plans to open a new station at Abertillery? But importantly, what steps and what intervention will the Welsh Government take, and partnership working with the local authority, to provide adequate bus links before a new metro comes on stream?

I do feel the Member has made himself the font, or the recipient, rather, of all rail-related complaints in the Assembly as a result of his declaration, but he makes an important point. Abertillery, of course, is included in the metro plans as an area of expansion. The railway tracks were last used when the Rose Heyworth mine was still in place some 30 years ago now, nearly. But it is a community that needs to be linked in. Where there are no existing heavy rail lines, then light rail clearly is a preference; it’s more easily extendable and we want to make sure that communities that lost their rail links some years ago do regain them as part of the metro plans.

Given the integrated nature of the internal control measures designed into systems and processes for the purpose of identifying potential fraud, it is not possible to measure what percentage our spend actually is, but there is, of course, a counter-fraud unit in the Welsh Government, headed up by a retired police officer.

Diolch. Do you not think that it’s ironic that your leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was talking about a rigged system this month, because, in Wales, it’s Labour that’s rigged the system? You shipped in David Goldstone, a Labour donor, to stay in the Hilton as an adviser. You splurged millions on Kancoat; it had a weak business case, but just happened to be next to the former Minister’s constituency. Kukd.com got a massive grant and is now being investigated by HM Revenue and Customs for tax irregularities—again, the company providing the guarantee to them gave a donation to the Labour Party. Cardiff Aviation doesn’t pay any rent, and yet your party are throwing people out of their homes if they can’t pay bedroom tax. Are you happy with all this? Are you happy, First Minister, with all this?

The Member is probably wise in not repeating those allegations outside of the Chamber, I expect. He has an unhappy history of libel trials, as we know. From our perspective, all we got—it was just a stream of consciousness as far as I can tell. In terms of appointments, they are done openly. He has criticised, for example, the appointment of the ombudsman; the ombudsman was appointed with a Plaid Cymru Member on the board that appointed the ombudsman. The appointments are made by the Assembly, not by Government, in many, many cases. We have had instances where we’ve investigated fraud; that is inevitable, I suppose, whenever you get a large organisation in being, and those investigations are taken forward regardless of who is the subject of those investigations. If he’s suggesting that, somehow, Welsh Government advisers have been involved in fraud, which is the tone of his investigation, then he needs to make his allegations known to the appropriate authorities, or provide evidence to back that up. This is not the current US Government that we’re talking about here; this is Wales.

First Minister, in the allocation of Welsh Government funding grants to our businesses and our organisations, one hopes that there are sufficient checks and monitoring process on the use of our taxpayers’ money. Now, questions have arisen recently over Kukd, Kancoat and the AWEMA scandal, and I am aware of £900,000 in north Wales where two directors of a bus company faced criminal action, actually. I’m also aware of 10 to 12 cases under investigation now on how the money has been used—funding that they’ve had from this Government. How can I reassure my constituents in Aberconwy that you do take these matters very seriously, and that in all financial transactions between you and any organisations or businesses, they can feel confident that you will always maintain strict financial probity at the heart of Welsh Government funding and the use of our taxpayers’ money?

That’s a perfectly fair question, and the answer I give is this: as I said, we have a counter-fraud unit headed by a retired police officer with experience of leading economic crime and proceeds of crime recovery units. He’s also a member of the organising committee for the Wales Fraud Forum. It’s also supported by administration staff. The unit is not a big unit, but it does play a leadership role and draws on considerable support from all audit, assurance and finance professionals. Is it possible to prevent all crime? No, clearly. But what is important is that that crime is detected, investigated and prosecuted, and the fact that there have been instances of investigation is a sign, I hope, that the Member can see that we do take all allegations of fraud seriously, and they are investigated and indeed prosecuted where that’s appropriate.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement. I call on Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, I have several changes to report to this week’s business. Immediately after this business statement, the Counsel General will make a statement on this morning’s Supreme Court judgement on article 50, after which the First Minister will make a statement on ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ and the transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe. In order to accommodate this, I have postponed the debate on the equality annual report until next week, and the oral statement on safer communities until 7 February. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement announcement, found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Diolch, Lywydd. Minister, can I call for two statements please? The first is from the Cabinet Secretary for health and social services in relation to the use of consultants by the national health service. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that, over the weekend, concerns were raised in the media regarding expenditure of over £1.5 million by the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board over the past three years. Of course, a great period of that time it has spent in special measures and under Welsh Government control. In fact, this was an issue over which concerns were raised by the auditor general during a structural assessment in 2015, with a recommendation to actually reduce its over-reliance on external consultants, which appears not to have been delivered upon. I think taxpayers in north Wales, and indeed elsewhere across the country where external consultants are being used, want to know what value that is adding to the national health service.

Can I also ask for a statement on problem gambling from an appropriate Cabinet Minister? You’ll be aware that I’ve been concerned, along with other Members of this Chamber, about problem gambling and the prevalence of problem gambling in Wales. Will you join me in congratulating Beat the Odds, which has been organised by Living Room Cardiff, who are encouraging people to take a flutter-free February in order to address problem gambling concerns, and to stem the tide of it? Can I put on record how much I agree with Jo Stevens, for a change, in the contributions that she has been making in the Houses of Parliament this week in relation to the need to devolve further powers over gambling to this National Assembly in order that we can deal with this issue in the future?

Well, Darren Millar, of course, in order to deliver in terms of pressures, particularly at this point of the year, in our health services, then, at times, health boards do have to make use of consultants to ensure that we are responding and providing the best service to our patients.

On your second point, yes, we all welcome initiatives such as the one that Jo Stevens drew attention to in her constituency in Cardiff Central. But, of course, problem gambling is a serious social issue that the Welsh Government is taking responsibility for, within the powers and remit that we have got, particularly in terms of supporting those initiatives that can make a real difference and address that need.

There are two matters I’d like to raise with the leader of the house. Firstly, can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy on what the Government is doing to intervene when local community assets and landmarks are at risk? In my region, the iconic Market Hall cinema in Brynmawr has been closed since November because of asbestos problems, and there’s a growing concern in the community that it may not be a temporary closure. So, I’d be interested in a statement from the Cabinet Secretary to see what action the Government is taking to intervene to protect and defend community assets.

Can we also have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy on what the Government is doing to tackle unfair bus fares? There is rightly a lot of concern about rail fares and the inflation of rail fares, but it’s been brought to my attention that a weekly bus ticket in Merthyr costs £10 and the equivalent ticket issued by the same company in Ebbw Vale is £25. This seems an unjust discrepancy, and I think it warrants a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for the economy to this Assembly.

I think, Steffan Lewis, your point on the threat to—well, indeed, it was closed, unfortunately—that community asset, that cinema in your region, is very important. The ownership of that cinema, I’m not aware—I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will be and, indeed, the local authority, I’m sure, will be aware of this. This is something where, if it’s in the private sector, it’s more difficult, but clearly it is a community asset that is very important to your constituents.

On your second point, I think it’s very important that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure held the first ever bus summit yesterday. I’m sure that many of these issues came forward in terms of ticketing, particularly the disparities and contrasts that you identify in terms of levels of fares. Where we have and where we will have more power, of course, in relation to this and regulation will be very important.

We regularly have debates in this Chamber on health. I would like to ask the Government to hold a debate or make a statement on the effect of lifestyle on health and how to improve health outcomes by lifestyle choices, promoting things such as healthy eating, smoking cessation and exercise, especially in some of our poorest communities.

I think we’ve had a lot of useful debates recently, Mike Hedges, particularly looking at the, as you say—. This is something where we’re looking across mental health, obesity, and physical activity. I think the chief medical officer’s report was very important. Healthy living has to be a Welsh Government priority. You’ve always drawn our attention to this in terms of wanting a health service, not an illness service, in terms of lack of opportunity to prevent ill health, but we’re increasingly working in a joined-up way across Government on these issues, and it is about changing health outcomes.

Could I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on the local government settlement for Newport, please? A public consultation on Newport City Council’s budget proposals following a poor 0.1 per cent increase in funding from Welsh Government has recently closed. Concerns have been expressed to me about the effect of the proposed cuts in spending, particularly on education and children’s services. Proposals include withdrawing funding for support centres in Newport’s eight secondary schools, cutting jobs in the council’s team supporting vulnerable children and families and cuts to age-weighted pupil funding. Could I ask for a statement on why Newport City Council has received such a poor deal from the Welsh Government, please? Thank you.

Well, of course, I’m sure you would join me, Mohammad Asghar, in decrying the continued anti-austerity policies of the UK Government, which result in tough, tough budget decisions that we have to make. Of course, that does have an impact on our local authorities as well. You draw attention to some of those impacts and the difficulties in terms of priorities. I know that you will also recognise, in terms of our allocation to local authorities this year, the support that we are giving, and also the importance, for example, of the funding that we’re providing to pilot lunch and fun clubs, which, of course, is going to be very important in terms of school holiday enrichment for our children and young people.

I know that the leader of the house and all Members are aware that Friday is Holocaust Memorial Day, when we acknowledge all those who were killed or suffered in the Nazi concentration camps. Romany Gypsies were the second largest group of people killed on racial grounds in the Holocaust, and their deaths were largely ignored until the 1980s. So, on Thursday—a day Members are here in the Assembly—the cross-party Gypsy, Roma and Traveller group are organising a vigil on the steps of the Senedd to commemorate all those who suffered in the Holocaust. Would the Cabinet Secretary urge Members to attend this vigil and to encourage the Government Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers to come along as well? In future years, might it be possible to have a statement around the time of Holocaust Memorial Day?

I thank Julie Morgan for drawing that to our attention this afternoon across the whole of the Chamber. I’m sure that there will be support, as there was last year, when you organised this event—a very moving and important memorial vigil—on the steps of the Senedd, and the fact that it’s paying particular tribute to the Gypsy and Roma victims of the Holocaust. I think this is something where that particular group is often forgotten when these dark events are remembered. In this particular Holocaust vigil, we will remember them. I think also—I met many signing the Holocaust memorial book that the Holocaust Educational Trust has brought to the Senedd. I think it’s going to be available again tomorrow. It’s certainly been available for us all to sign today. There are very powerful images, again—and the work that young people have undertaken in this field. I know that there will be young people as well joining us at that vigil on Thursday. I also would hope then that we could table a statement or debate next year to make sure that we do remember this together, as we all want to stand together in remembering those who faced this most horrendous persecution. Holocaust Memorial Day provides us that opportunity.

I appreciate that we’ve had a written statement on NSA Afan in my region, but I would like to ask for an oral statement on how exactly the Welsh Government is conducting its inquiry into allegations of financial irregularities at NSA Afan. Not one substantive allegation has been put to them, according to NSA Afan and what they’ve told me, but let me make it absolutely clear that I’m not wishing to discuss the ins and outs of this investigation, but merely the way it’s been carried out. The Welsh Government is obliged to audit those organisations in receipt of Communities First, and this it did with NSA Afan during the years of the incidences of the theft now alleged against the former financial officer that was supposed to have taken place. Each time, the Welsh Government gave NSA Afan a clean bill of health. So, I’m trying to understand, if that audit process took place, and if governance issues were not outlined as severely as they are now, how the Welsh Government can effectively investigate itself when many of the people who may be in the Minister’s department are carrying out those investigations—and they would have been involved in financial setups with NSA Afan. I’m also concerned to learn that a written assurance of funding for services provided during December was made by the director for communities and tackling poverty, who wrote, and I quote:

‘We wish to point out that the contractual relationship between us is unaffected’.

End quote. However, when NSA Afan met with your officials yesterday, they were told that this wouldn’t be honoured and this leaves the organisation now in a position where it cannot pay the salaries, so they tell me.

I’d like to have an oral statement here in the Chamber because I think this warrants an oral statement considering the problems that some Communities First schemes have had in the past. We don’t want to have another potential problem in this area when the Minister is minded to discontinue Communities First, and I think it would be sensible for the Government to have that conversation in the open.

Well, I think you will be aware, of course, as you said, of the written statement that the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children issued this afternoon in respect of the termination of Welsh Government funding to NSA Afan and also that written statement on the action that’s been taken to safeguard the delivery of services, which you raise. Of course, Bethan Jenkins, the Cabinet Secretary did answer your urgent question last week.

I think the Cabinet Secretary will want to come back and clarify the outcome of this, but, as you’re aware, there are discussions ongoing, not only with the local authority on safeguarding the services but also discussions with the police. So, at this point in time, it’s limited what can be said beyond what’s in the written statement and beyond the answer to your question last week. But the Cabinet Secretary will certainly be ensuring that the full outcome of this can be shared when appropriate.

Could I ask whether time can be found for a statement on any discussions with UK Ministers on the number of properties being excluded from flood insurance in Wales, following the move to the Flood Re agreement with insurers? I ask this because following the recent flash flooding in Ogmore, I started to find that properties within 200m of a river were often being excluded from flood insurance. You can get house insurance, contents insurance but nothing to do with flood, even if the river is way away from you—200m—. If it’s 199m, or if it’s 50m below you and has never caused flooding you can still be excluded.

The reason I ask this was our excellent research unit here in the Assembly—I commissioned them to find out how many properties in my constituency were within 200m—triangulated this from three publicly available sources, and out of 33,880 homes in total in my constituency, the amazing number of 21,158 are within 200m of a river. This sounds like a remarkable cop-out for the future of this insurance industry, which advertises on the Flood Re site as, and I quote, ‘affordable premiums and excesses’ to all. Well, surely, perhaps as well as a statement we should be asking Paul Lewis of BBC’s ‘Money Box’ or MoneySavingExpert.com’s Martin Lewis to investigate whether the insurance industry is giving value for money to our constituents.

I thank the Member for drawing that to our attention this afternoon in the business statement. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs is away. You’ve, of course, raised this with her and she’s aware of the case and has also written to both the Association of British Insurers and the British Insurance Brokers’ Association. It is a private dispute, obviously, at this stage between the homeowner and the homeowner’s insurer, but I think the ombudsman, I understand, has been notified.

You draw attention to this and I think we have to be very clear in terms of flood insurance. It should be available to all homeowners, regardless of how close they live to a river, and the Flood Re subsidy system does enable high-risk homes—and many of us represent constituents and communities in that category—to obtain insurance at affordable premiums in such instances, and it is actually operating with over 90 per cent of the market offering it for homes at high flood risk. But it is critically important that we get the message over to the insurance industry and to those who are affected that living within 200m of a river shouldn’t preclude you from obtaining flood insurance. We need to take note of the incident and the case that you’ve raised today.

Cabinet Secretary, I am proud to be a member of a party and an institution that has led the way on the importance of the representation of women in political life, but as always we can always do more, and it’s important that we continue to do so, to ensure that voices of over half of the population are not only heard, but are actively and fully represented in our democracy. Therefore, can I ask if time can be given for a debate to mark International Women’s Day, on International Women’s Day itself, on Wednesday, 8 March?

Hannah Blythyn, thank you very much for raising this issue. The fact that we do—. The Welsh Government has marked, year on year, International Women’s Day. I believe, in terms of Government day—. Well, Wednesday is the eighth, isn’t it, and Government day is on the seventh? Certainly, this Welsh Government would want to mark International Women’s Day, and I thank Hannah Blythyn for raising that today, as the Chair of our Labour group in the Assembly.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Counsel General on the Supreme Court ruling on article 50. And I call on the Counsel General, Mick Antoniw.

As Members will be aware, the Supreme Court has now handed down judgment in this case. As I made clear to the Assembly when announcing my decision to intervene, I consider that these proceedings raised issues of profound importance, not only in relation to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, but also in relation to the wider constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom and the legal framework for devolution.

Giving notification under article 50 will result in the modification of the competence of the Assembly and the functions of the Welsh Government, as set out under the Government of Wales Act 2006. We said in our submissions to the court that the prerogative cannot be used to dispense with provisions of a constitutional statute in this way. And, as we also argued before the court, there can similarly be no prerogative power to short-circuit the Sewel convention. This would deprive Parliament of the opportunity to enter into dialogue with the devolved legislatures about changes to the devolution frameworks.

I am naturally, therefore, delighted with the outcome of the judgment, both with the ultimate outcome and with the court’s recognition that the Sewel convention plays an important constitutional role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. For those who are not aware of the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court found against the UK Government by a majority of eight to three. So, the court has been very clear in ruling that fundamental constitutional changes can only be made by the UK Parliament, and not by Government Ministers. The UK Government has said that it will respect the ruling, and that it will, in the next few days, introduce a Bill that will recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and place the responsibility for the ultimate decisions on the terms of exit where it properly lies.

So, we welcome the prospect of a full and frank debate in Parliament about this most significant of moments in our constitutional history. Notions of locking the Bill down and making it unamendable must give way now to a more commonsense approach and respect for the people. Members of Parliament have already voted to support the triggering of article 50 by the end of March, so there is no excuse for attempting to artificially constrain debate on these fundamentally important issues.

As the article 50 Bill proceeds through Parliament, we would expect the UK Government to respect the Sewel convention, so that Parliament has the opportunity to listen to the Assembly, and to the other devolved legislatures. We also expect the UK Government to honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister to work with the devolved administrations to get to a position that all four nations in the UK can unite behind.

As we determine our future relationship with the EU, the UK Government must engage with us in good faith, and in the spirit of sincere co-operation. It is politically and morally bound to ensure that it understands the concerns of all nations and regions in the UK, and those are all carefully considered. Appropriate respect must be shown to the views of the devolved legislatures. The Prime Minister has said that this country is facing a negotiation of tremendous importance, and that it is imperative that the devolved administrations play their part in making it work. The Welsh Government stands ready to do so. We will continue to do all that we can to protect Welsh jobs, and investment in Wales, and we will make sure that Welsh interests are taken into account, in accordance with the correct constitutional process, which the Supreme Court has now confirmed.

Although the people entrust sovereignty, being the authority of the state to govern itself without interference from outside sources or bodies, to a Prime Minister and Government, and although the Prime Minister confirmed last week that the UK Government will put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force, we respect the Supreme Court’s decision that an Act of Parliament is required before article 50 is triggered, and we note that the UK Government has said it will set out its next steps to the UK Parliament shortly.

But, of course, we also note the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that the UK Government is not legally compelled to consult the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly or Scottish Parliament before triggering article 50. But, of course, the British people, including the Welsh people, voted to leave the EU, and the UK Government will deliver on that, triggering article 50, as planned, by the end of March. And today’s ruling does nothing to change that—the indications from the UK Parliament are that Parliament will pass this.

It’s important to remember that Parliament, the UK Parliament, backed the referendum by a margin of six to one, and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit, to the timetable set out by the UK Government. And I welcome the fact that the UK Government is championing now a confident, outward-looking, inclusive and global-trading UK, but the Prime Minister has been very careful to make sure that reference to the involvement of the devolved Governments and Parliaments is included in that process.

Now, given that the Supreme Court said that relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and Parliament, not the devolved institutions, and that the Sewel convention scope and operation is not within the operational remits of the courts, and that the devolved legislatures therefore do not have a veto on the UK decision to withdraw from the EU, how do you respond to their statement that withdrawal from the EU will alter the competence of the devolved institutions, and remove the responsibilities to comply with EU law, again in that context? Do you therefore, in that context, agree now that, when I said to you in November—after you announced your plans to seek representation at the appeal into the High Court decision that Parliament must vote on the process taking the UK out of the European Union—that the matters you raised were outside article 50 negotiations with the EU on EU withdrawal, and are instead matters for negotiation with the UK Government and the other home nations on a bilateral and quadrilateral basis? At that point, what is your view on how the Sewel convention might apply, or is it your legal opinion—or the legal opinion of those advising you—that these matters, once coming out of Brussels back to UK, will come straight to the UK Government, where they cover devolved matters? And if so, how do you propose, bilaterally or quadrilaterally, to move forward on framework arrangements that might address that across all four UK Governments and Parliaments?

And my final question relates to cost. The outcome seems to validate the concerns that were raised here in November, following your written statement, and then your oral statement, to the Assembly. The court seems to have upheld those concerns raised. We know that the public cost has been announced at something around £85,000, but we understand that there have been a number of visits to London, and, obviously, not only involving yourself and Welsh Government officials, but external legal advisers. So, could you provide the Assembly with a figure for the total cost of this failure to secure Supreme Court endorsement for your view that this Assembly should have a veto?

I thank the Member for the questions. Can I first start by actually saying what were the two key points that were the subject of our detailed submission to the Supreme Court? Why did we actually intervene? One was the fundamental importance of this major constitutional change taking place in Parliament, guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty not being taken by use of a royal prerogative. We need to understand what that royal prerogative is. The royal prerogative is those powers that kings and queens used to have to basically do whatever they wanted, until, effectively, Parliament and development of parliamentary democracy put constraints on it and we started to develop our democratic system. So, it was fundamental that any change that took place to the legislative status, the devolved status, of Wales and the other devolved administrations had to be within the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. That's why it was fundamental that that issue was before the court.

And the Supreme Court regarded this as fundamentally important as well. This is the most important constitutional decision for over 300 years. That is why every single lord justice was actually present, and the actual outcome, the 8:3, is an endorsement of the strength of that argument. Had any football team won 8-3, I think we would say that is a magnanimous victory, and I think this was a magnanimous victory—a victory for democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.

Where does Sewel come in? Our argument on Sewel is that we have never argued for a veto. It was never part of our case, and I’ve said that in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The importance of Sewel is that Sewel is a parliamentary process, and Sewel could not kick in, could not become effective, unless these key decisions were being taken under the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. So, it was the matter of our fundamental democracy that if we were to have a voice in these fundamental issues, we had to succeed with this decision, and I'm delighted that we have succeeded.

On the issue of what happens to those powers that are in Brussels at the moment, well, it is very clear to me that that will become the subject of a further piece of legislation in due course, which will also require the engagement of Sewel, which will almost certainly require the engagement of this Assembly and a vote in this Assembly, and, as has been said on numerous occasions, those areas that come within the devolved areas of responsibility clearly should come to this Assembly—to the Welsh Government and to the Welsh Assembly.

With regard to the cost, could I say I have every sympathy with what the Member says about cost? I didn't want to be in the Supreme Court. I don't think many of us wanted to be there, with all the costs that were incurred, but I have to say that reason we were there—

Counsel General, you're not in court at this point; you do need to stay within reasonable distance of your microphone. [Laughter.]

I do apologise.

The reason we were in the Supreme Court was that the UK Government decided to appeal a very credible decision by the High Court. That is why we were there, and this Assembly and the Welsh Government have been totally open and honest about the cost. We've answered numerous freedom of information requests, setting out the £80,000 to £85,000 that our intervention has cost. And, as I said this morning, what price democracy? Democracy is priceless. But I would say to the Member: it would be of great assistance now if the UK Government would actually answer those same freedom of information requests and tell us how much they've incurred, because I suspect that what they have incurred is massively above anything that we have spent, and, also, it is their action that has incurred all the other costs of the devolved administrations.

Can I welcome the Counsel General’s statement and also commend his hard work hitherto, obviously, in matters pertaining to the Supreme Court? I'm reassured by the Llywydd that we’re not at present in a court, so that provides us with a positive way forward, but I do welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling that the UK Parliament should play its full role and have a vote on triggering article 50. Much has changed, obviously, in governance terms in these islands since 1973, since the UK entered the European Union. As the Counsel General outlined, much has changed in succeeding centuries as regards the royal prerogative. So, we’re building on all that. However, legally, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not require the consent of devolved administrations.

I’m taken with your comments on the court’s recognition that the Sewel convention plays an important constitutional role—yes, and that is as far as it goes. It’s a political convention, not a legal requirement. Having said that, though, I hope that the UK Government listens to that political convention, because the Supreme Court was not giving the UK Government licence to ignore the Sewel convention. However, it is saying that the courts cannot decide disputes; the matter is political rather than legal. I’m just putting that out there so that nobody runs away with the idea that the Sewel convention is not important at all.

However, I would temper your natural delight in that paragraph with a bit of realism as regards ‘it’s not a legal requirement’. Further, just to develop the argument, obviously, we’re all aware that Wales is an exporting nation with a substantial trade surplus with the EU—200,000 jobs are tied into the single market, and the customs union and all the rest of it. That’s why it’s important that Wales has its say here. Yes, we voted Brexit, but we didn’t vote to lose 200,000 jobs.

Obviously, the Plaid MPs at the Westminster end of the M4 will be submitting amendments in due course as the article 50 legislation proceeds through the Houses. But I’ve got to say, here in Wales, if Assembly Members are given no opportunity to have a say on triggering article 50—as I said, legally, we cannot, I know, and I hear what you say about the moral point emanating from the UK Government to understand our concerns and hopefully to involve us—but, if it seems as though there’s no opportunity for Assembly Members here to have a say, in view of the importance of this article 50 triggering and the whole EU debate to Wales, as I’ve outlined, Plaid Cymru will seek to table a legislative consent motion in the National Assembly to give us a voice.

It’s a simple matter of democracy from our point of view that devolved legislatures should have a role in commencing the process of leaving the EU. As I said, governance arrangements have changed in these islands over the last 40 years and there needs to be a recognition of that. In the absence, therefore—not to labour the point, but we will move that legislative consent motion if things are not happening—of a formal legal requirement for the UK Government to consult with devolved nations, what confidence does the Counsel General have that that Wales voice can be heard, given there’s no legal reason for the UK Government to listen to us at all? Diolch yn fawr.

The Member raises very important points and they’re points that have been considered and have been raised in discussions on these issues over the past month or two. I’d say there is every likelihood of a vote because a trigger Bill will impact on Welsh legislation. It is within the Standing Orders of this Assembly for a legislative consent motion. On the issue of a veto, I’ve already clarified the position on that, and, of course, it would’ve been rather contradictory to be arguing for the sovereignty of Parliament and a veto as well—that is not the nature of the constitutional arrangement we had. Of course, the same would apply in respect of the subsequent legislation, which, as we look at it, grows more and more complex by the day.

We also need to think very carefully about the fact that the content of such a trigger Bill—. I think it would be premature to say too much about that, because until it is laid, we don’t know precisely what we’re dealing with and what sort of outcome we would actually like, although I think that a lot of the matters and views have already been expressed over the last couple of months in this Chamber.

It is worth also emphasising some of the finer points of the judgment. Of course, we’re still going through this rather lengthy judgment, but I think there was a lot of important commentary on Sewel within the judgment and within the summary that was given by Lord Neuberger this morning. For example, Lord Neuberger said this morning:

‘As to the application of the Sewel Convention to the decision to withdraw from the EU given the effect on the devolved competences, the Convention operates as a political constraint on the activity of the UK Parliament. It therefore plays an important role in the operation of the UK constitution.’

He went further in the actual judgment itself, to say that:

‘In reaching this conclusion we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures.’

Those were exactly the points that we were making in the submissions on behalf of the Welsh Government to the Supreme Court. I think they are very important statements of intent, and ones that we would hope and expect that the UK Government will implement, not just in terms of the wording but in terms of the spirit, because it is the harmonious constitutional integrity of the UK that is at stake and dependent on that.

I welcome the Counsel General’s statement, in particular the paragraph where he talks about respecting the people in this context and a ‘full and frank debate’ taking place in Parliament on the issues, as if we haven’t already debated all of these issues to death. Nevertheless, will he confirm, therefore, that respect for the people in this context means that we should respect the result of the referendum, which was to leave the European Union? In which case, because article 50 is merely the trigger for achieving the outcome that the people have said that they want, we should do all in our power to facilitate the decision that the people have made. In which case, I struggle to see what the point was of this titanic legal struggle in the first place.

The length of the dramatis personae of distinguished lawyers at the beginning of the judgment shows that virtually half the bar has been involved in this case, one way or another. What was the point of all this if the decision to leave the European Union triggered by article 50 has already been made and a debate in Parliament is merely a rubber stamp for that? When he replied to Mark Isherwood a moment ago, he seemed to be characterising the exercise of the royal prerogative as an act of tyranny, as though Charles I were still on the throne. Does he not accept that there is a qualitative difference between the attempts of the King in the seventeenth century to impose taxes on the people without parliamentary consent—that it is qualitatively quite different from a decision following a referendum of the British people, which the Government of the day is seeking to facilitate? The use of the prerogative in this case is not to frustrate democracy but actually to enhance it—to bring it into effect.

I also think that the statement that the Counsel General has made on the effect of this judgment perhaps is a little liberal, because if you read the judgment—we’ve all had a very short time in which to do so—in paragraph 86, Lord Neuberger says that:

‘the Royal prerogative to make and unmake treaties, which operates wholly on the international plane, cannot be exercised in relation to the EU Treaties, at least in the absence of domestic sanction in appropriate statutory form.’

So, this judgment applies to the EU treaties. It doesn’t necessarily apply to any other treaties or any other act of the prerogative affecting our relations with other countries in the world. It’s because the EU legal system is unique, in the sense that it creates legislation that is directly applicable to this country and to each individual, and gives rights to people beyond the parliamentary context that the judges in this case have come to the decision that they have. And it may not, therefore, be as the Counsel General says, that the prerogative power in constitutional cases is constrained as a result of this decision.

As regards the particular decision in this case, will he also accept that leaving the European Union, as the judges said in paragraph 130, could actually enhance the powers of this Assembly? So, far from actually being a threat to the powers of this Assembly and the Welsh Government, it’s actually an opportunity that we should grasp with open arms. Lord Neuberger says,

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.’

Should we not all welcome that with open arms? And I fully accept what the Counsel General said about the Westminster Government not grabbing powers from this Assembly, and in that respect he will, I think, have the unanimous support of all the Members of this Assembly. It certainly cannot be the case that, as a result of devolving powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom, we should actually find that the devolution of powers from Westminster to Cardiff should be diminished. Therefore, he will have the full support of my party—his Government will have the full support of my party—in anything that needs to be done in order to make that absolutely clear.

I thank the Member for those questions and the points that he raises, which are very similar to the points he’s raised consistently over the past couple of months. Let me say, first of all, it has been very clear in everything I’ve said, and what the First Minister has said, that we respect the outcome of the referendum; the question is how Brexit takes place—that it takes place within the proper constitutional and lawful environment. That is what the case has actually been all about. Just to refer to the point with regard to EU treaties only, that is not correct. The fundamental point was that the prerogative, or a prerogative, cannot be used to change laws passed by Parliament or to take away rights from individual citizens. And that would apply in other circumstances as well.

I’ll try and deal with the point the Member makes about what was the point of all of this. It was a fundamentally important point. I am very disappointed that he has still not grasped it. The point is the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. That is the point. Because there are two streams of legal approach: one is that we operate by the rule of law. That is, a law that is based on fundamental principles and rights. The other is an approach to law where the sole purpose of law is to implement popular demand by Government, irrespective of the rule of law, principles and rights. And we see how those two have developed in history. Every dictatorship that has taken place has sought to undermine the rule of law. The approach he adopts is the approach that was adopted by Germany in overthrowing the rule of law in Germany, in Chile, and in Stalin’s Russia, and that is why the rule of law is so fundamentally important: laws based on principles. The approach he adopts is the approach that’s adopted by dictators, those who want to bypass fundamental rights, and that is not an approach I would ever advocate that we adopt within this Assembly or within the UK. That is why those rights are so important, and that is why the decision today in the Supreme Court was fundamental, because it was establishing very, very clearly the rights of the people of this country. It was underlining our parliamentary democracy and our system of fundamental rights, and that is something to be defended.

The UK Government, of course, were within their legal rights to lodge this appeal to the Supreme Court, but I do think it reflects very poorly on them that they wanted to take every step available to them to put this decision outside the consideration of a directly elected Parliament. I’m grateful for the statement that the Counsel General has made, and I’m pleased that he intervened in the proceedings. I think that the outcome has reflected well on that decision. Would he agree with me that nothing that the court has said about the Sewel convention is, in a sense, out of the ordinary? In fact, it’s helpful to have the highest court in the land underline the political significance of this convention. A few Members have quoted Lord Neuberger’s speech when he says:

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced.’

Does he agree with me that the implication of that is that the UK Government would need to take positive legislative steps, not only if it wished to limit the powers of the Welsh Assembly on Brexit, but also if it wanted to prevent the automatic extension of those powers as a consequence of coming out of the EU? And also, despite the comments on the Sewel convention, this Chamber will not have an opportunity to vote on the article 50 decision. It’s the Welsh Government’s position that any deal in due course comes to this Chamber for consideration and approval at that point. What steps will be open to the Counsel General if, at that point, the UK Government, in defiance of that convention, chooses not to seek the consent of the Assembly?

It seems to me that the important point is that this is a major step forward. It opens the door clearly and constitutionally in a way that we have always argued for the interests of Wales within the Brexit negotiations, within the treaties in which we, like other devolved administrations, have specific interests in terms of jobs and in terms of investments to ensure that the sort of negotiations, the sort of treaty, is one that actually protects the interests of the people of Wales. We will be following this with a debate where we will go into that in some quite considerable detail.

I think this judgment is very timely, because what it does is say that, one, Parliament must now engage and assume that responsibility but, secondly, that automatically means that Sewel is given the status that we’ve always argued it should have and, in fact, it will have. So, it gives us that voice in the process, and that is absolutely fundamental if we are to fulfil our role, which is defending the interests of the people of Wales, and no doubt Scotland and Northern Ireland will do the same, and no doubt the regions of England will also do the same. What format that will take—what format the trigger Bill will take—remains to be seen, and I’d be cautious about waiting to see what it is before we start thinking about the process itself, because I think we’re on a long constitutional road, not just in terms of the trigger Bill, but also the negotiations, the engagement and the institutions that are set up. One would hope that the ultimate objective of the UK Government is to seek an endorsement and the consent of all the devolved institutions, because our ultimate interest has got to be a cohesive United Kingdom with a common purpose. And that is why our unwritten constitution is not only important, but also why this decision within that process was so important.

I have to say, Counsel General, that I’m not surprised by either of these judgments. I was expecting the judgment laid down by the High Court and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the most senior Welsh member of the judiciary. That judgment has been upheld, and the various arguments that we might have—or the Scots might have, anyway—had a veto, always seemed to me to misunderstand the nature of an emerging federal system where, inevitably, the treaty-making power does lie at the centre or the state Parliament.

I think we should reflect on the fact that we don’t have a Welsh representative on the Supreme Court. I think that will continue to be problematic if we are having to resolve various constitutional issues. I know we still live in this slightly paradoxical situation of having Welsh law that extends to England and Wales but it is only applied in Wales, and that means we don’t have our own jurisdiction. But I do think that when you consider the matter today, it does make this a real practical point and not something that’s abstract.

Can I say, I think the focus from the start for the Welsh Government should’ve been exclusively on the inter-governmental approach? In fairness to the Welsh Government, it has always had this on the agenda, but I think rather than the more legalistic parliamentary route, it was likely to be better to talk up the Joint Ministerial Committee, which I’m pleased to see is done in the White Paper that will be discussed next. The old JMC Europe had an excellent record on getting a common position between the Governments of the UK when arguing things like the common agricultural policy and environmental issues, when they came before the European Council of Ministers.

That, it seems to me, now needs to be the common approach because when historians write the history of this whole process and certainly what’s happened in the seven months or so since the actual referendum, the most significant thing will be that the arguments presented to the people of Britain then were predicated on the world becoming more and more open to global free trade. What has happened since is that the principal protector of global free trade has dramatically changed its policy and is now pursuing what many call a more protectionist approach, which is even going to amount to—we hear, anyway, from certain sources—a renegotiation of the World Trade Organization. This will require the most deft negotiation of future trade deals by the British Government, in which we will have a very direct interest, because what’s good, for instance, for livestock farming may not be what is in the best interests of cereal farmers in England.

These are going to be really, really tough issues, especially if farming is a much more dominant part of our industrial make-up than it is in England. So, I think the inter-governmental structures are absolutely what we focus on, and it’s also what is going to be focused on, surely, if we’re going to keep the Scots confident that a British approach to these questions is the best way forward—because the narrow point on the Parliamentary right or the right of the Scottish Parliament has now been dealt with—but we surely need a common approach where there’s the maximum level of agreement between the various Governments in the UK. If we don’t get that, then the union of the United Kingdom will be further damaged, as it was, I’m afraid, by the fact that the Scots voted by a nearly two-thirds majority against the way the rest of the UK voted.

I think many of these issues will now be tested in the great reform Bill. I notice that UKIP are urging a maximum position from the Welsh Government in arguing that all powers should be repatriated to Cardiff and Edinburgh. It’s probably the best way to start, although I think some UK frameworks are probably going to be needed and, again, I thought the White Paper was quite skilful in this respect.

So, Sewel, I think, will have to operate very effectively in the political context and I do hope there will be goodwill and good judgment on both sides—both the UK Government and the Welsh Government and the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments.

Well, I think, as ever, the Member raises very, very important points. He’s clearly given these matters a lot of thought and I think the comments that he makes are incredibly valuable and ones that I think there is a lot of agreement with because the whole point about Sewel is all very well getting to this stage, but it has to then be implemented practically, not just in terms of legislation but, as he says, in terms of the actual Joint Ministerial Committee and whatever other structural processes there are in terms of ensuring that there is genuine engagement. That is why I think the comments by the Supreme Court about the importance of Sewel and its role within our constitutional structure are so important and why it is so important, therefore, that the issue of an objective of achieving consensus and agreement between the devolved administrations and with the UK Government is such a fundamental part of that and what it requires, as it does within an environment where we do not have a written constitution as such, is a lot of goodwill, a lot of trust and a lot of common political objectives. That is obviously what we must seek to achieve and I’m sure that is exactly—well, I know that that is exactly—what Welsh Government’s position is and it is seeking to achieve.

I welcome the Supreme Court judgment insofar as it goes. As somebody who has served in both Parliaments, I think it was the correct decision. A parliamentary Act took us into the European Union—the European Community—confirmed by a referendum. The reverse process is now under way; we’ve had a referendum advising Parliament what to do and Parliament now must pass an Act in order to take us out of the European Union. That’s the best way and most constitutional way forward.

But there is a constitutional elephant in the room, which I think we should mention, which is the ridiculous and absurd idea, in the twenty-first century, that we’re reliant on challenging a royal prerogative, that we’re part of a royalty, that we’re part of somebody not elected, but inheriting powers—exercised by a Government, it has to be said, but, nevertheless, in theory, inheriting those powers to exercise them over us. That is a constitutional iniquity that must be swept aside sooner or later. And, since Charles I has been mentioned, let’s remember what Oliver Cromwell did: the first thing he did was march into Parliament, take away the mace—the fool’s bauble as he called it—and there was no royal prerogative after that mace had gone, I can tell you. So, let’s at least acknowledge that we’ve moved a little way onwards since then, but not an awful lot, not an awful lot. If we’re challenging at the Supreme Court our royal prerogative, we haven’t come very far in 400 years, have we?

But it does leave us with some real questions. It leaves us with some real questions around the Sewel convention. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is a political convention, not a constitutional arrangement. Now, that is very dangerous for the future, I think, of Welsh democracy. How does the Counsel General see us being able to take this forward when we thought that by embedding the Sewel convention in the Wales Bill, already in the Scotland Act, this does make it part of the UK constitution? The Supreme Court doesn’t agree; it’s a political arrangement. And the Supreme Court calls or prays in aid, as part of its argument for this, a case from the 1960s, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, a case from southern Rhodesia. Well, that’s putting us in our place. It’s colonial rule that tells us the Sewel convention allows the powers to rest in Westminster to tell this Parliament what we decide for the people of Wales. Again, until we can ensure that the Sewel convention becomes a proper constitutional relationship between the four Parliaments in these islands then we will not have a settled constitution and we will be continually arguing these points.

I regret that the Supreme Court couldn’t make that decision for itself today, but I think that’s one of the key things that the Welsh Government now has to take forward in the terms and context of the constitutional arrangements—which the First Minister has consistently talked about, to be fair to him, but that now needs to be embedded and taken forward, perhaps, in the joint ministerial committee, as a way forward.

‘Convention’ itself is a dangerous and slippery term. It’s only very recently that we’ve had a convention that we have a vote in Parliament before war, one which Robin Cook sacrificed his political life over. Before then, the royal prerogative could be exercised to go to war. That’s a convention. We need to get away from conventions and into the proper constitutional relationship between all Parliaments on these islands. Until we do that, we will, in fact, be exercising colonial powers. Now, I’m not suggesting we declare a unilateral declaration of independence, but I do think that we need to move further forward on these relationships.

The second point that I’d—. Well, I’d like him to answer something about the Sewel convention and how we can embed that. The second point I’d like him to answer is a confirmation from the Welsh Government that it will bring forward an LCM. It’s almost inevitable that the Act that Westminster will be debating will impinge on our powers, so let’s just have the confirmation today that an LCM is appropriate, so that we can know that we’re going to debate and decide on that.

The third and final point is one that we’ve raised several times before, which is around the idea and the principle that there should be some form of continuity Bill debated here in the Welsh Parliament around the powers retained following the decision to leave the European Union. Several Members have noted that the position is there that, as powers are returned from the European Union, we may get more powers—that’s true. But if they just stop in Westminster, then we won’t be getting those, and we’ve seen already talk by many people, including in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as regards agriculture policy and as regards environmental policy, of keeping the powers in London and not, in fact, allowing them to flow here to Cardiff bay. So, wouldn’t it be a positive response to the great reform Bill that’s being produced that we have a continuity Bill here in the Assembly, so that we can debate and ensure that the powers are retained?

Thank you for those comments, and I’ll try and deal with them as best I can. With regard to the last point, the issue of the continuity Bill and so on, we now have the judgment. We have to analyse that judgment very carefully. We will have to analyse very carefully what happens in respect of the trigger Bill, what processes are then set in place, what happens then with regard to potentially a great repeal Bill, and he’s certainly correct that we are on a constitutional rollercoaster in some ways. The calls by this Assembly for a constitutional convention have never been more important. There are all sorts of erratic issues and dysfunctional issues with regard to the constitutional structure of the UK as a whole, so those do have to be dealt with, and I’m sure many of them will be emerging over the course of the coming months.

In respect of the issue of a legislative consent motion, I will leave that to the First Minister to respond to in due course. But, in terms of the points that you raise with regard to prerogatives and Sewel and so on, perhaps the best way to summarise it is that I think we share a lot of common views in terms of the importance of this particular decision. Perhaps, taking his earlier analogy, I suppose what I would say is: roundheads 8, cavaliers 3. [Laughter.]

I’d like to congratulate the Counsel General on his great efforts on behalf of us and on behalf of Wales in the Supreme Court. I think his presence was absolutely justified and was very significant in reaching the decision that was made. I welcome his statement. I think it’s absolutely, vitally important that such a momentous decision is decided on in Parliament. He said in his statement that we now must go forward and have full, open debate, and there must be no talk about unamendable motions. I’m sure he would agree that it is so important that the motion can be amended, because that can enable full debate. Is he confident now that we are moving forward to a full, open debate?

Most of the questions I had about the Sewel convention have already been asked and answered, but I agree very strongly about the importance of the negotiation between the four countries, and how important that is and how crucial it is that we do reach a consensus. But would the Counsel General agree that there must be at least a possibility that a consensus may not be reached with all four of the nations, and what does he think would be the result of that situation?

Can I just say that the judgment, obviously, sets the foundations that enable us to move forward? As I’ve said, it now opens the door and establishes a clear framework, and hopefully there will be consensus and agreement in respect of all the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom, and achieving consensus and endorsement should be a fundamental part of that. In terms of the implications as to a lack of consensus, well, I’m a real optimist, because I think most people—and across parties—do want to see us get through this, and to succeed in respect of common interests. It is the responsibility of everyone to play their part within that, so I think that is achievable. But what I think has been important about our role to date is that we had a very specific Welsh voice in these processes. Without that, without this Assembly, without a Welsh Government, we would not have had that voice. We would not have been able to make those representations, and we would not be able to stand up in the way we are doing. That doesn’t mean that things ahead are easy, that there aren’t going to be considerable difficulties, that we don’t have to be alert, because, as I’ve said, we’re on a constitutional helter-skelter, we are in a process that is changing, and there are going to be challenges we have to face up to. But I’m going to be an optimist on this, because I think that is our role and I think it is our role to achieve the best we can for the Welsh people. I think the White Paper that is going to be discussed shortly is going to be a major contribution to that debate and to that process.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I also thank the Counsel General for his statement this afternoon, which has more than explained to us the constitutional and political importance of all that he has been able to achieve? I would briefly refer to three elements: first of all, that the devolved nations and the devolved Governments have spoken with three voices but almost singing from the same hymn sheet, namely, that the arguments put forward were arguments that clearly demonstrated the nature of the UK constitution. That has been a key contribution.

I also think that the door that’s been very clearly opened in this judgment by the Supreme Court as to what will happen when we exit the European Union and how competencies in the devolved institutions may be changed—that that window is clearly now open to us. In this context, if I could assist Simon Thomas in his understanding of these issues, in that situation, that is where the Sewel convention is so crucial, because, as we discuss these issues, the Sewel convention is now in the Scotland Act and will be in the Wales Act. The process on those two Bills is completed, which means that the constitutional practice of not legislating in a contrary way in Westminster or in Wales in relation to each other is now enshrined in legislation. What is important, I would suggest, Counsel General, is that that principle should extend to European legislation as it is disapplied in its impact on the UK, and that the appropriate competencies should come to this place.

Therefore, I think your analysis of where we stand justifies the work undertaken by the Welsh Government, and all power to you in the future.

Thank you for those comments. Perhaps if I just deal with the point that the Member made about the Sewel convention being incorporated into the Wales Bill—what will become, hopefully, the Wales Act—that issue was addressed, albeit in respect of Scotland, but this is what the Supreme Court said:

‘it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”)’.

So, it becomes a permanent feature. It is a feature that cannot disappear or be undermined. It becomes a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. With an, effectively, unwritten constitution, what may start off as a political convention can become, over a period of time, a fundamental part of the operating constitution. That is the nature of unwritten constitutions.

He’s right that the door is open. He is right, also, that there are issues in respect of the return of powers that should be within the devolved areas. Those are issues that the First Minister has commented on, that others have commented on from time to time, and that we are very alert to. The fundamental point that he also makes, of course, is this: we have actually seen a hegemony amongst the devolved administrations that I don’t think existed. That doesn’t mean we don’t have disagreements, or have disagreements in terms of perhaps what the longer term agenda may be, but, in terms of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, there was absolute harmony on those particular points, and that is very, very encouraging.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item on our agenda’s the statement by the First Minister on ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Well, we’ve now published our detailed policy statement on the UK’s exit from the European Union. Our position has been drawn up jointly with Plaid Cymru, through our liaison arrangements, and, therefore, carries substantial support in this Assembly—and I hope that there is much in this document that will command the support of other Members too. The wider the consensus that can be established in this Assembly, the more powerful will be the message from Wales in protecting our interests.

Llywydd, the paper makes six main points. The first is that we should continue to have full and unfettered access to the single market. According to HM Revenue and Customs, two thirds of Welsh exports go to countries in the single market, so why on earth would we voluntarily surrender access to it? Currently, we have full integration between the UK and the single market. After we leave the European Union we should aim to retain that integration fully, or as much of it as we possibly can. There are different ways in which this could be done, but the essential point is clear: our businesses need continued participation in the single market so they can continue selling their products without competitive disadvantage in Europe.

We also believe that the UK should remain part of the customs union, at least for the time being. This enables free-trade arrangements with more than 50 other countries beyond the EU and there is no good reason to turn our backs on that. The possibility is mooted that the UK may, over time, form new trading relationships with other major economies such as the US, India and China. Such agreements might be worth having, but subject to detailed consent. We might welcome them, but the content of such agreements would be absolutely crucial. But at this point, we must be pragmatic about Wales’s interests. All the available evidence shows that developing new trade agreements is painstaking and requires long-term effort, certainly between five and 10 years. And that’s when things progress smoothly and new governments continue the same line as their predecessors, which is by no means a given. So, while we support the exploration of new trade opportunities for our businesses, we want to protect the markets we already have. If better opportunities arise in future, let’s look at them with an open mind, but we see no advantage now in dismantling clear current benefits in favour of a wing and a prayer.

We do accept that concerns about migration were part of what motivated some to vote ‘leave’, and this is our second point. I want to be very clear: EU citizens play a very positive role in Welsh life, and I want their status to be clarified urgently. In future, we will still need to recruit from Europe for jobs in shortage areas and this is the key point: migration from the EU must be domestically managed and linked explicitly to work. We need clearly enforced laws to ensure that migrant workers are not exploited or used by unscrupulous employers to drive down wages or to lower terms and conditions for workers. We believe this is the basis for a balanced approach that links migration to jobs and good properly enforced employment practice that protects all workers whatever their country of origin.

Thirdly, Wales receives some £680 million annually from EU funds. During the referendum, voters were assured by ‘leave’ campaigners that Wales would not be one penny worse off as a result of leaving the EU. This Government intends to hold the UK Government to account for that promise and I trust we’ll have the backing of the whole of this Chamber in that mission. The people who sent us here will expect no less.

We will, of course, be leaving the major EU programmes and responsibility for managing agriculture and the countryside, and for regional economic development, will fall to us here in Wales. It is vital that those responsibilities are properly resourced and we look to the Treasury to maintain our spending at current levels. There are some smaller EU programmes that contribute significantly to our well-being for which we may potentially remain eligible outside the EU. These include Horizon 2020, money to stimulate research and innovation and Erasmus, which enables student exchanges.

Wales shares a maritime border with Ireland and the ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock are crucial and at the front line of any changes. We are particularly keen that we remain eligible for the Wales-Ireland strand of the EU INTERREG funding source. The sums of money are quite small in relative terms, but the programme helps to create dynamic co-operation between the maritime border regions of Wales and Ireland. This co-operation will become more important, not less, in the future. We enjoy excellent relations with our Irish neighbour and we attach a high value to building on our mutual and neighbourly interests in the years ahead. As I and others have said many times: we are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.

Our fourth point is on devolution and the future of the UK. Powers that have already been devolved to this Assembly and this Government must remain devolved. Let us not forget that our powers are also the result of two referendums of the Welsh people and we will oppose any attempt by the UK Government to grab such powers to itself. We recognise very readily that some areas of policy will require agreement across all four governments to ensure that, when we are outside the EU, we do nothing to inhibit the internal market or the single market of the UK—the free flow of trade within the UK. This will require mutual respect among the four governments and willingness to develop the machinery that will enable us to form such agreements, including independent arbitration. Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to renew and reinvigorate democratic practice in the UK and that opportunity must not be squandered on a leaden centralisation that will only serve to foster resentment and undermine the long-term strength of the union.

The decades of EU membership have produced a legacy of benefits covering many aspects of life, and this is our fifth point. Workers enjoy a range of employment protections and the quality of our environment has been greatly improved. As we leave the EU, we aim to protect these improvements to everyday life in Wales, and we will oppose vigorously any attempt to cut corners and create worse conditions. Our Wales is a country that values people and we want to enhance the quality of life for all our citizens.

The final point we make in our document is the need to negotiate a period of transition, so that current arrangements can apply for a period after the UK actually leaves the EU, presumably around the spring of 2019. It is not yet clear whether agreement on the UK’s forward relationship with the EU will be fixed according to the same timetable as agreement on our departure from the EU. But there are many variables here and we will have to see. But, in any case, businesses, public bodies, farmers, universities and many others will need time to assess new realities as they become clearer. For this reason, we believe a transition period is necessary, so that everyone has time to prepare for the new circumstances, and we believe this should be an early negotiating priority for the UK.

Llywydd, I believe that this White Paper represents a coherent and detailed position towards EU negotiation that protects Wales’s interests and provides a sound and plausible framework for the UK as a whole. I hope all Members will consider it in detail. It is my intention to schedule a debate in a couple of weeks’ time, which will provide an opportunity for us to demonstrate support for the Welsh national interest. We are leaving the EU—that debate is over—but I urge all Members to approach the terms of EU exit with Wales’s interests clearly in mind.

Finally, Llywydd, we have already heard from the Counsel General this afternoon in response to today’s Supreme Court judgement. It is right that the National Assembly should have an opportunity to debate the trigger legislation for article 50, and it is our intention to timetable such a debate in Government time at the appropriate time.

First Minister, thank you for your statement today. I do believe that your last comments in particular about reflecting on the contents of the White Paper are correct. It is a point to debate, it is a point to discuss, and I do hope that each Member will look at it constructively and either offer an alternative, or, obviously, support some of the sentiments in the paper. I make no bones about it; on this side of the Chamber, there are pieces of this White Paper that we will find common ground over. It cannot be right that we end up at loggerheads debating and discussing such important issues, and if we can reach a consensus, Wales’s voice is far greater for that consensus.

That brings me to the top of the statement, where the First Minister talks about the wider consensus that can be established across the Assembly, which makes for a more powerful message from Wales. I do bitterly, bitterly regret that the First Minister chose not to even enter into any discussions whatsoever with this side of the Chamber. I accept that those discussions might have hit a quagmire and might have gone nowhere. Equally, they might well have progressed, and there could be have been a set of principles—[Interruption.] It’s all well and good the nationalists over there going on, and I’ll deal with your comments later, but it could have been very beneficial. As the First Minister’s statement points out, when this Chamber speaks with one voice, that voice is far greater, it is stronger and it is clearer. So, regrettably, I do regret that the First Minister didn’t choose that course, certainly in the early days, to explore some of those options. And I would be grateful to understand why the First Minister did not choose to explore those avenues when the offer was made to him to explore what assistance could be had, as in my message to him on 24 June about exploring the possibility of working together to find solutions to some of the problems and issues that could be thrown up by the result of the referendum.

I’d also like to ask the First Minister in particular—. When we’re talking about the single market, and access to the single market, no-one want to see restrictions on trade, whether that be on a global platform or on a European platform. But it is a fact that the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. And by being a member of the European Union, you were entitled to be a member of the single market. Now, some of the tenets that underpin that single market around immigration are problematic if you’re looking to invoke access to the market, or participation in the market. I’d be grateful to understand how the First Minister sees either membership, participation, or access, because the document talks of all three when it’s speaking about the single market and the ability for Welsh companies and Welsh opportunities within that market.

It moves on then to define about jobs and, in particular, how one of the solutions that the First Minister and Plaid Cymru put forward to get over the immigration question that, for some people, was central to their vote in the referendum, was the ability to control immigration. Now, the First Minister has put the proposal forward about people should have a job or they should be allowed into the country for a period of time to find a job. I’d be grateful to understand what the First Minister would determine classifies as a job to allow access into the United Kingdom. Because this is really important when deciding if this option actually stacks up or not.

Then, it goes without saying that we will all fight within this Chamber to secure Wales’s share of resources, to make sure that our higher education sector, our rural economy and, indeed, structural funding can benefit from that money coming into Wales. There is no argument there, and we will work tirelessly with anyone in this Chamber who shares that sentiment. It is vital that a positive message is put forward that, when that money is allocated, we will start to use that money to move us off the bottom of the league tables, which has blighted the Welsh economy on so many fronts. But what is important is, actually, if we are to secure a fair share of that money—and maybe even an increased share of that money—that, on these areas, we do look at a UK-wide framework in debating and discussing how that money can come to Wales, and, indeed, to other parts of the United Kingdom. I’d be grateful if the First Minister could reply as to what his views are on a UK framework when it comes to agriculture, when it comes to structural funds and when it comes to HE funding, because I think, again, that’s a very important area to consider as to how we actually get the money recycled around the United Kingdom.

I do believe the paragraph on constitutional arrangements is most probably the most important paragraph in this statement. There is a huge amount of work to be done to work out how the United Kingdom will govern itself and will run itself post the Brexit negotiations. I endorse the comments that David Melding and others in this Chamber have talked about, and, actually, there is a direct impact that we can have here, if we actually engage positively and seriously in this really important area of post-Brexit negotiations.

I can understand the passion and I can understand the commitment that many in this Chamber have to try and discuss things that reside outside of this Chamber, but, actually, on constitutional arrangements, we can make a massive impact. Again, I would like to hear from the First Minister how, running in parallel with the negotiations on Brexit, he sees the Welsh Government and, indeed, this White Paper, informing how we might be able to get to the point where those arrangements would be robust, would be long term and, above all, answer the question in a post-EU United Kingdom—that we have those arrangements in place. We’re only talking 730 days once article 50 is triggered—it is a very short period of time.

The other point that I think is a really critical point in this statement is the transitional arrangements. Now, we can focus on the transitional arrangements around leaving the EU, but it is important that we reflect on transitional arrangements within the UK itself. So, we look at what transitional arrangements might be needed to be put in place, not just with the EU, if that’s what’s required, but how those transitional arrangements would work in a devolved United Kingdom. And, again, little or no time—from what I can see in the paper, and, indeed, in the wider discussion—has looked at that particular aspect of how it might or might not need to work, depending on how those negotiations will work out.

As I said at the top of my statement, I do bitterly regret that the First Minister shut the door on co-operation. But, from this side of the house, we will continue to work with colleagues in Westminster, who are on point in these negotiations, to make sure Wales’s best interest is served. And I welcome the access and I welcome the commitment from my colleagues to work with Welsh Conservatives in this Chamber to secure what is in the best interests of Wales once these negotiations are concluded.

I listened carefully to the comments of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Can I say that it didn’t strike me that there was much in terms of common ground between us? I don’t know what his view is in terms of the future of the UK, apart from the fact that he says that the UK should look outwards. We all agree with that, but beyond that, we’ve no idea what his view is on transitional arrangements, what his view is in terms of access to the single market, and what his view is on what kind of relationship we should have with the EU. I’m interested in those views, but I’ve not heard them. It is unfortunate, given the constructive tone that he’s adopted today, that he described on Twitter the publication of the White Paper as the publication of the latest copy of ‘The Beano’. Now, he can’t, on the one hand, say that and then, on the other hand, suggest that this is a serious discussion—[Interruption.] They didn’t know that on his backbench. I can see that—that’s what he said. [Interruption.] Now, let’s have a mature debate about this because I don’t—[Interruption.] I don’t think it’s compatible with a genuine desire to work together when that kind of use of phrase is in place, but, you know, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt to see what ideas, indeed, he comes up with over the course of the next few weeks.

With the single market—[Interruption.] No. With the single market, one thing he has said, which troubled me, is that he implied, or he said in the article that he wrote for ‘The Sunday Times’ that we are over-reliant on the European market. Now, I’ve never known anybody to say, ‘We need to sell less in a market.’ Far from it—we want to make sure we sell more into the European market, and, indeed, other markets around the world. So, I cannot agree with him that we are over-reliant on a market that we sell 67 per cent of our products into, and 90 per cent of our food and drink as exports. We should be looking to increase our share of that market, not decrease it.

He has talked about freedom of movement. I believe that the model that Norway has adopted provides an interesting model, as far as we are concerned. That is a freedom of movement to work—we are already have it—and they are participants in the single market. So, it is possible to have that model of freedom of movement and yet still be part of the single market.

He also talks, as others have done, about access to the single market and how important that is. His own Prime Minister said that she was looking for the fullest possible access to the single market. I agree. That is hugely important. So, she’s left herself enough room there to develop an argument on both sides of the fence. The one thing I have to say to her—and Members fall into this trap every time about people being allowed into the UK—the UK will not have a border. How many times have we got to investigate this? When I raise this with Whitehall Ministers, they have no answer. The reality is that if you wish to enter the UK, get into Ireland, and then you can get in without any check at all. So, the idea that the UK can introduce borders, which was suggested at the time of the campaign last year—I don’t want to re-fight that; that’s finished—is not true. It’s just not going to happen, because unless you have the co-operation of the Republic of Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland having the same immigration policy, which it will not do because it will be part of the EU and will have freedom of movement, then, actually, it’s not possible to monitor who comes into the UK and who doesn’t. So, there needs to be co-operation with other countries. There needs to be co-operation with the EU, ironically, for the UK to control its own borders; otherwise it can’t control its own borders. So, that will be an important consideration as we go forward.

In terms of resources, it is important that the resources that we currently have are retained. It is also important that those resources are controlled by the people of Wales, through their Assembly and their Government, and not controlled elsewhere. It is a fair point to say that, in some areas, a UK-wide framework would make sense. Animal health is one area, and state aid is another. If there are no state aid rules, it’s a free-for-all. There would be nothing to stop us throwing money at Cardiff Airport to try and shut Bristol down. I have no doubt that Bristol would complain about that, and, from their position, quite rightly so. So, there will still need to be some kind of framework across the UK when it comes to dealing with issues like state aid. But the key issue is this: those frameworks are not there to be imposed by Whitehall; they are there to be agreed by the four Governments. If we look at agriculture, DEFRA will look after the interests of farmers in England. They always have done because they have the biggest voice—that means the cereal farmers, it means arable, it means large-scale dairy. They aren’t as interested, in the main, in hill farmers, and I say that as somebody who has dealt with DEFRA for many years under both parties. I’m not making a party-political point. I think that is a mindset in Whitehall that is difficult to avoid. I would not trust DEFRA to produce an agricultural policy for the whole of Britain. So one, possibly, that could be agreed as a framework: yes. One that is imposed: absolutely not.

So, the next question is: how, then, do we create such a mechanism constitutionally to get that agreement? Well, actually, it has already existed in the past. When I was in my first tenure as agriculture Minister, we would meet every month, in London, the four Ministers, to agree the UK's line at the forthcoming European Council of Ministers. We were not all of the same party, and yet we were still able to actually agree what the position should be, and that model has continued. Now, that worked for agriculture. With a mature approach and with sense on all sides, there is no reason why that can't be used as a model for the machinery of the UK.

The JMC doesn't work. It's not going to be fit for purpose in the future. We cannot have a situation where, for example, if there is a dispute between a devolved Government and the UK Government, the UK Government is the ultimate arbiter. That can't be right. If we have a dispute with the Treasury, it's the Treasury that decides that dispute. There must be an independent process of dispute resolution. Now, to me, that means not having a JMC, but a council of Ministers, a British council of Ministers, where the four Governments look at common areas of interest and policy and look to get agreement. That is the way to ensure that we conserve the internal single market in the UK and yet protect the position of the three smaller nations within the UK itself, and ultimately protect the union, because let's not pretend that the UK itself is not under pressure as a result of Brexit, because it is. We've seen what's happened in Northern Ireland. It's not unrelated to the Brexit issue, I can assure him of that. We're seeing what's happening in Scotland. We must be careful to make sure that old ghosts of the past do not come back to haunt us as the UK leaves the EU.

On his final point, on transitional arrangements, I entirely agree. I've spoken to people who’ve been involved in trade negotiations, and they all say to me that it takes two years to agree to start the negotiations, let alone get to a position where they are agreed. And those transitional arrangements will be hugely important to enable our exporters, not just to access the European market, but the 50 countries that the EU has free trade agreements with, all of which would fall if we have no transitional arrangements, leaving us, effectively, on our own.

Ultimately, my great fear is this: that as the UK talks about free trade and globalisation, the rest of the world is going in the other direction, America particularly, and these are issues that we have to consider very, very carefully. I'm echoing the point that was made by David Melding, and I think it's absolutely right; this will require very, very skilful handling, given the fact that what was correct in June last year is no longer correct as far as some of the world's biggest economies are concerned.

I was pleased and encouraged to launch this White Paper with the Government yesterday, and whatever differences the parties here have on public services and the day-to-day business of scrutiny, on the matter of leaving the European Union, it's essential, in as far as we can, that Wales speaks with one voice and creates a position that reflects the Welsh national interest. This is too big a question for one party to decide. For us in Plaid Cymru, the opportunity to influence and shape this White Paper was one we were keen to take. Through a process of negotiation, we've been able to raise the profile of a number of our key priorities.

Before asking some questions, I'd like to outline some of those points from the First Minister's statement. I welcome that there is now preference for continued single market participation and a range of ways that this can be achieved. There has been a lively debate about this, but the preference that has emerged is that we need to protect those two thirds of exports that go to the single market and that we need to avoid tariffs and other barriers.

I welcome the continued principle in favour of the free movement of people. I'm pleased that there’s a commitment to have current spending levels for EU programmes protected, not least the vital agricultural funding that sustains our farming communities, our rural life and our Welsh language. There’s also a strong message that there must be no rollback whatsoever of devolved powers. There must be no downgrading of workers' rights and environmental protections. And on the question of devolved powers, we've already heard today how the issues around the Sewel convention are seen by the courts as political rather than legal, and this would suggest to us that, following the passage of the Wales Bill, we need to start the debate on the next constitutional phase as soon as possible. As Simon Thomas said in the last discussion, let's bring an end to this colonial rule.

First Minister, I'm pleased most of all that Wales now has a plan. In the absence of anything concrete from Westminster, in the absence of any idea at all from those who led the ‘leave’ campaign, Wales now has a plan based on evidence. And I’d say to those of you, especially those Brexiteer politicians who were critical of this campaign—produce your own plan. If you don’t like our solutions, then produce your own.

I want to focus my questions on the implementation of the White Paper and the negotiations. My understanding is that the next JMC is in February. Is that meeting a forum for European negotiations? Will you be holding bilateral meetings with the relevant devolved Ministers ahead of that meeting? And if we are to take the UK Government’s commitment to engagement in good faith, will there be opportunities to work directly with UK Government Ministers?

On a wider level, as the process around article 50 unfolds, Plaid Cymru wants to see as much co-operation as possible between Wales and the other devolved countries. There will be shared interests on a range of matters, particularly on the issues of EU regulations and protections. It’s central to our belief that the detail as to how we leave the EU should not be made in London or made in Westminster, but that there should be a genuine four-country approach. The Welsh voice has been strengthened significantly by the multiparty support of this Assembly, but to strengthen that voice at a UK stage, there should be close co-ordination with those other administrations. Can you therefore confirm that you will be working with the other devolved administrations and could you please tell us what form that will take?

Turning to the process of EU transition at home, here in Wales we need to ensure that the different interested sectors in our economy are informed and fully briefed on the Welsh negotiating position. The UK Government is likely to take much more notice of our position if business, farming, higher education and all of those other sectors affected by this are communicated with and invited to publicly support this plan.

The plan needs to go wider than the Welsh Government or Plaid Cymru. It needs to be understood by the whole of Welsh society, including those who voted to leave the European Union but who might well prefer continued participation in the single market. Will you therefore ensure that the different interested bodies and firms in Wales are informed and briefed on the negotiating position and that they’re invited to show their support for it in a public way? Diolch.

Can I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for her comments? Good work was done between our parties in terms of developing the Government White Paper. I can assure her that the next JMC plenary meets on Monday, 30 January. As part of what takes place around the JMC plenary, it’s quite normal to have bilaterals. I last spoke to the Scottish First Minister just before Christmas, but I fully expect to speak to her over the course of the bilateral over the course of the next week. Also, of course, it’s quite normal for bilaterals to be held with UK Government Ministers as well. I had a meeting, by phone, with David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, last night.

We will, of course, work with Scotland. Scotland will have a different end point to us, but many of the interests we have are in common. Northern Ireland is more difficult—it was difficult even before the events in Northern Ireland because of the fundamentally different views held by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Now, of course, there are no heads of Government in Northern Ireland we can actually meet with. There may be opportunities to meet with Northern Ireland Ministers; we’ll see what representation they bring with them to the JMC plenary.

She’s right to say that the detail on how we leave must be worked through by all of the four nations of the UK. That is something the UK Government has said, so far, will happen. We have to wait and see whether that will indeed happen as a result of their words.

In terms of EU transition at home, there is a council for economic renewal on Thursday. There will be the opportunity there, of course, for questions to be asked at that forum by those who are members of it, in terms of the White Paper, and then, of course, consideration will be given as to how we disseminate the contents of the White Paper as widely as possible.

The White Paper itself is a genuine contribution, I believe, to the debate. It doesn’t seek to attack anybody or any Government. This is the most fundamentally important issue that the UK has faced for many, many years. It is hugely important that the White Paper forms a central part of the thinking not just of the UK Government, but the central thinking as to how Wales can prosper in the future with the circumstances that we face.

Can I welcome the statement and, in particular, thank the First Minister for the amused courtesy with which he greeted my presence at his press conference yesterday? From the thunderous look on the face of the leader of Plaid Cymru, I don’t think she was quite so pleased to see me. It was important, I think, that I should be there, because it was an opportunity in addition to today to probe the First Minister on parts of the plan, in particular in relation to migration.

I have to say that I echo the sentiments of the leader of the Welsh Conservatives earlier on that neither his party nor mine has been involved in any discussions with the Welsh Government on how to help take Wales forward in the context of the new reality of Brexit. Particularly in respect of migration, the statistical annex shows that 86 per cent of the people of Wales think that immigration into Britain should be reduced—86 per cent—and yet the leader of Plaid Cymru yesterday, at the press conference, said that she didn’t think immigration was a problem at all. [Interruption.] So, the section of this plan about migration, which the First Minister acknowledges in his statement was the reason why many people voted ‘leave’, is hobbled from the start by his alliance with a party that is in denial about the whole process. It seems, therefore, rather quixotic that he should give such importance to a party that is in denial about the reality, yet he ignores the parties on this side of the house that, after all, were on the winning side of the argument.

I hope that he will agree that although the advanced billing for the arrival of my colleagues and me in this Assembly was that we were going to be disruptors and beyond the pale, we have done our best to play a constructive part in the proceedings of this institution and want to play a part, so far as our political differences allow us to do so, in the process of getting the best outcome for Wales from this process. Therefore, going forward, if he will involve us, insofar as it’s not inconsistent with what the Welsh Government’s political objectives are, I hope that he will do so.

As regards the section of the plan on migration, he did say to me yesterday that he thought that the Norway model was the way forward, but that doesn’t address any of the concerns of the public about uncontrolled immigration from the EU. There are 450 million people outside Britain in the EU who have a legal right to come here for work and residence. If we adopted the Norway model, that would be completely unchanged, because Norway is actually in the Schengen agreement, of course, and therefore has even less control over its borders than Britain has at the moment. Under current EU law, which is applicable in Norway, EU citizens not only have the right to accept offers of jobs in Norway, but also the right to go there in order to look for work. In effect, they can take their dependents with them; therefore, that aspect of his plan is no plan at all, because it doesn’t even begin to address the problem of control of our own borders.

As regards the statement in relation to the customs union, I find that rather bizarre at a time when the President of the United States, our largest individual national trading partner in Wales—yes, the United States is a nation, and it’s our largest single individual nation trading partner—that we rule out the prospect of doing free trade deals with the rest of the world, which is 85 per cent of the global economy. Considering we’ve already had approaches from Australia, New Zealand and many other countries to explore trade deals— other countries that have existing free trade or favourable trade arrangements with the EU, and we are part of those arrangements now—why should we find it so difficult to be able to continue them? The talk of five to seven years of negotiation may well apply to the EU, where you have to get the agreement of 28 countries to a document, but when we’re negotiating bilaterally, everything becomes much simpler, especially when we’re negotiating with countries that are far more spiritually in tune with us and our view of the world than many of those to whom we’ve been shackled for the last 40-odd years in the EU.

I’d like to ask the First Minister one question also about the unremitting gloom of his plan and the statistical basis upon which many of his assertions are based. On page 9 of the document, it says that there is strong consensus among mainstream economic forecasters—which I wouldn’t agree with—that

‘replacing Single Market participation with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 – 10% smaller than would otherwise have been the case’.

I can’t understand how that could possibly be the case, because if we had no exports whatsoever to the EU, then that would take out 11 per cent of our GDP. So is he actually predicating his plan upon the likelihood that we’d be doing no trade with the European Union at all? Is he expecting there to be a wall built down the middle of the English channel? How could it possibly be the case, given that half of our trade under WTO rules would not be subject to any tariff at all with the EU, and the average tariff under WTO rules would be 3.5 per cent, how could this statistical basis possibly have any credibility?

The last point that I have to make is in relation to the future and the UK Government ensuring that Wales should have every penny of what we currently get of British taxpayers’ money through the EU. In this respect, I am 100 per cent in support of the Welsh Government’s position, and we will do everything we can to ensure that Wales does get its fair share of the proceeds and benefits of Brexit, which include not only the money that we get at the moment via Brussels, but also the Brexit dividend of the £8 billion a year of British taxpayers’ money that is currently being spent in other parts of the EU. So, in that respect, again, there’s everything for us to play for here, if we advocate our cause in the most persuasive way, and the best way to do that is to establish the consensus that the leader of Plaid Cymru claimed that she wanted to see across this Chamber and to involve all the parties that are represented here in this process, so that we can, as far as that is possible, and surely in this aspect at least we can all agree unanimously that Wales must get as much out of this as it possibly can.

Well, the leader of—. Well, let me start at the end. I welcome his support for us ensuring that Wales does not lose out on a penny of funding. As I say, he did turn up yesterday at the press conference. I think he thought that I was going to have him thrown out; I did not do that. He tried to ask a question. I think he thought that I would ignore the question; I did not do that. I take the view that it’s better to have people in there and pull their leg, rather than throw them out. But I do appreciate the fact that he came. As I said, he didn’t have far to come—we know that—but nevertheless his support was noted.

First of all, it is right to say that there is a perception in our country that immigration is too high. The reality is different. We know that 79,000 EU passport holders are resident in Wales. Even though we don’t know the figure, I suspect that a substantial number of them are actually Irish and, as a result, are counted as EU passport holders. Seventy one per cent are working here, the other 29 per cent are not. Most of those are students, in reality, and we don’t, surely, want to see fewer students coming into Wales and the UK. They provide our universities with a substantial amount of both brainpower and money, and effectively they subsidise the system for those who are from Wales.

Now, nobody said to me on the doorstep, ‘What we need are fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer students from other countries.’ No-one—no-one—said that at all. And so the freedom of movement to go to a job, I think, is a perfectly rational, sensible position to take. It’s operated in Norway: if you do not have a job in Norway within three months, then you have to leave. Now, those are actually what the rules say, we believe. The UK has interpreted the rules more liberally than other countries, but that is the case in Norway, and that is a system, I believe, that most people in Wales would see as sensible and would support.

He talks of free trade deals. Now, to me, replacing a free trade arrangement with the EU with one with New Zealand is not a fair exchange. The EU has 500 million people, New Zealand has 4.8 million. It’s not a big market. What New Zealand does have is the capacity to wipe out Welsh farming. So, any free trade deal with New Zealand that takes away quotas or tariffs kills Welsh farming, end of. I do not trust Whitehall to even recognise that point, apart from one or two Ministers. Australia is not a big market. Of course, they’d like to have a free trade deal with the UK; the UK is much larger than them, so of course it’s going to benefit them in the longer term. I don’t blame them; that’s exactly what I would do if I was in their situation. Bear in mind the UK has no experience of this; it’s been over 40 years since the UK negotiated anything. New Zealand is far more adept and far more experienced at negotiating free trade arrangements and agreements than the UK is. So, we have to be very careful that we don’t end up negotiating with people and getting the raw end of the deal because of our own inexperience. And so, that is something we must consider in the future.

He talks of the US. Did he not listen to what the US President said? He said America first, America first. America is no longer interested in free trade. It’s only interested in protecting its own interest. That’s where America is in this period in its history. I do not believe for one second that any kind of free trade agreement with the US would lead to anything other than a benefit to the US and a disbenefit to the UK. How else could Donald Trump possibly sell it to his own people otherwise? And so, we must be very careful of what the US would want. Would it want—? His party was dead against TTIP, but now he’s advocating a free trade agreement with the US. He was dead against it at the beginning of last year. What’s changed? Are we to see a situation where, for example, public services like health and education are to be privatised and US companies allowed to run them? I saw Nigel Farage endlessly campaigning against TTIP—‘Don’t have a free trade agreement with the US’, he said. So, what’s changed? All of a sudden, the US is flavour of the month. There is a certain lack of consistency in terms of what UKIP has said.

He asks the question about the shrinkage in the economy through tariffs. He forgets that through our current membership of the EU, we have a free trade agreement with 50 other countries, not just the EU, so we have access to those markets as well—very, very big markets of which China is one. So, actually, we lose that free trade arrangement with China unless it’s renegotiated in record time. That’s why our economy will shrink. Surely, nobody can argue sensibly that the imposition of tariffs is a good thing. What would that mean? It would mean, for example, that our food and drink would face a tariff possibly of up to 50 per cent going to its main market. It would mean, yes, that tariffs would be imposed on goods coming into the UK, but who pays those tariffs? The public. He does. I do. All of us in this Chamber. It’s not businesses that pay tariffs; it’s members of the public. It would see inflation go up. We import half of our food necessarily; we could never be self-sufficient in food because of our climate and our geography. We would see many, many things become more expensive for those who can least afford those things. And it’s from our position—. Well again, you see—. Dear me, trying to talk to UKIP—. Does UKIP not understand that if there is no deal with the EU, WTO rules apply? That’s it. Okay? There’s no question about it; they’re automatic. The UK wants to join the WTO according to UKIP—fine—whereas at the same time saying you’ll ignore the rules of the WTO. It doesn’t work that way. If you’re going to say you’re going to ignore the rules at the beginning, you’re not going to get in in the first place. And so, let’s have some realism about the debate as well.

So, on the basis of what the leader of UKIP has said, I don’t think there is much common ground that we could have agreed on at this moment in time. But, nevertheless, I echo what the leader of Plaid Cymru has said: we’ve put our cards on the table, let’s see the other ideas; let’s see detail on what the other ideas might be. It’s no good the leader of the Welsh Conservatives saying, ‘Our position is what the UK Government’s position is’. Develop your own position. You’ve got plenty of people on your backbenches who have enough brainpower to actually be able to do that. Develop your own position. Let us know. Let’s see you argue the case. Put forward a case rather than saying, ‘It’ll all be all right on the night.’ The same for UKIP: put forward a detailed plan of your own so we can see it and we can debate it. There is no detailed plan. The detailed plan is basically this: ‘It’ll all be fine. We don’t need to do any work. It’ll all be fine. The EU will come running to us.’ The same as the German car manufacturers. We saw what happened when Owen Paterson went out to Germany last week. The German car manufacturers and businesses stared at them and wondered what on earth they were talking about. Realism. We have to have realism and we have to have contributions to the debate.

There comes a time when people have to step out onto the pitch and actually make sure that people understand what they can do. It comes down to others to get off the sidelines. ‘Get off the sidelines’, I hear the crowd shouting, ‘get on the pitch and show us exactly what you want to do.’ You earn the right to criticise when you develop your own position. You haven’t earned that right yet.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement? I warmly welcome this White Paper and I’m also very pleased that the Welsh Government has worked with Plaid Cymru to develop this. I think that the threat of Brexit is so immense that it is going to be essential for all of us who want to put the interests of Wales and our communities first to work together. I’ve got two particular questions. As the first Minister knows, my constituency is very dependent on manufacturing, in particular on automotive. I welcome the commitment in this document to maintain the widest possible access to the single market, but can I ask what other steps the First Minister intends to take to ensure that the automotive sector is protected, including how he intends to raise the needs of the automotive sector in his discussions with the UK Government?

Last week, I attended a conference at Swansea University to look at the implications of Brexit on children and young people in Wales. Concerns were expressed at that conference that so far there seems to have been fairly little consideration at Government level of the implications for children and young people, and I’m sure that you’re also aware that many young people feel very angry that a decision so crucial to their futures was taken for them by others voting in the referendum. I welcome the commitment in this document to ensuring the views of children and young people are listened to, but can I just ask for some more detail, please, on how the Welsh Government intends to make this a reality going forward?

Well, firstly, in terms of automotive, automotive is particularly dependent on the European market—particularly. So many automotive operations in the UK are part of a European operation: Ford is one, Toyota is one, Nissan is another one. It’s been said that we should look for alternative markets. The Ford engine plant doesn’t have an alternative market; it can only export to the EU. It’s got nowhere else to export engines to apart from the EU, so anything that interferes with its ability to export can only be bad for that plant because it’s got nowhere else to go, in reality. It’s the same for others who provide components, seats for cars—these are integrated European operations. We must make sure that the UK isn’t seen as an offshore island, divorced from the main market, rather than as part of the main market but perhaps with different arrangements.

As far as children and young people are concerned, I think there’s quite a dangerous divide in society at the moment. We all know it, but it’s particularly stark between older people and younger people, whose views are very, very different on Europe. My 16-year-old, she was quite stunned by it all, thinking, ‘Well, this is normal; why would we leave the European Union?’ Her view reflects—she’s not particularly political, despite her father, but she and many other children expressed that same view; youngsters expressed that view. It’s hugely important, then, that they are able to do that through the forums that we have. We have, of course, the commissioner, who can also represent the views of children and young people, and it might be something the commissioner might want to look at: how do you engage children and young people in this debate in the most effective way possible?

Thank you, First Minister, for the White Paper and your responses to questions today. I’ve a couple of questions for you myself and the first is your comment that in future we will still need to recruit from Europe for jobs in shortage areas. I absolutely don’t disagree with you that people need to come into the UK, into Wales as well, to meet those job shortages—you named some in your earlier answers—but I wondered whether you can clarify whether you think EU citizens should have preferential treatment in meeting that need. I think there’s an argument to be made that they should, but I’d like to hear what your argument on that is.

Secondly, I just want to add my voice to those who’ve regretted that this wasn’t a fully inclusive process in preparing this document. More than any other party in Wales, I think we represented the views of the Welsh people, insofar as we represented a range of views; we were not representing a single view. As such, perhaps we would have been a useful partner at the table in these early discussions, and I think it is worth remembering that, in terms of popular vote, both ourselves and Plaid Cymru had roughly the same amount of votes and, in excluding us from the table, you have excluded in these early stages those people who voted Conservative in the Welsh Assembly elections. Having said that, there are things in this White Paper that I think that we can agree with and I’m glad to have the opportunity now, even though we should have had it earlier. Having said that, as the Welsh Government is later than the other nations to the table in bringing forward a position, I wonder whether it mightn’t have been worth your waiting just another couple of days until the report of the external affairs committee was produced. That is a cross-party group that has taken and scrutinised, through cross-party means, evidence from third parties, and, as a result, produced a cross-party agreed report. That would’ve helped you, I think, persuade others in this Chamber that you have been more inclusive than you have been, because that report has not been used in an attempt—you’ve not had the opportunity to use that report to influence what you’ve put into the White Paper. Thank you.

In terms of preferences given to EU citizens, if you look at medicine, for example, it’s the same regulatory environment, so people would be used to working in the UK environment, because they’re used to working in a common EU environment, so I suppose they would have an advantage in that sense. The fact that there’s common recognition of qualifications is important. Now, one of the issues amongst many that have to be resolved is: will there be that common recognition in the future? Will UK doctors be able to work in Europe? The others, of course, the small ones, the ones that appear small, that we have to look at, are things like: will you be able to drive abroad on a GB licence? Will you be able to drive abroad on GB car insurance? Will you be able to drive abroad and enjoy European health insurance card cover? And, if not, will your premiums go up? There’s a lot of yapping from behind on the UKIP benches, but that’s the way it used to be. That’s the way it used to be: you couldn’t drive outside the UK unless you had a different international driving licence. I remember it. Secondly, your car insurance didn’t cover you if you drove outside the UK: you had to ring up the insurance company to get the cover. Now, unless these things are sorted, we’ll just go back to that and these are things that they don’t even think about in terms of the detail.

But, anyway, in terms of the other issues that were raised by the Member, Suzy Davies, can I suggest that, before we seek consensus across this Chamber, she might want to seek consensus in her own party? Because I know that, within her party, there are widely different views as to what the future should hold. And here’s my challenge for the Conservatives: come together, have a consensus in your own party, and produce your own document. Then, once you’ve produced your own document, we can talk. At the moment, it’s like talking to several headless chickens all at once. We have no idea what your position is. We have some of you who are even beyond UKIP, others who are very much in favour, or would’ve been very much in favour, of EU membership. My challenge to you is: why don’t you actually get together and sort out your own problems and your own tensions, before complaining that you’re outside of the process? And then you’ll have a situation where you can be listened to better.

The other point is this: nobody—. One of the things that—[Interruption.] There was a man on the touchline in Bridgend years ago, and all he did in games was shout out, just once a game—‘Ydy buddy bar’, he said. No-one knew what he was saying; no-one knew what he was saying at all. He was a character; no-one knew what it meant, but everyone could hear him. That’s the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. No-one knows what he’s saying; all they can do is listen to the clanging of an empty vessel. I say to him again: there’s no point him sitting there, having a go at everybody else when he hasn’t got off his behind to produce a Brexit plan himself, drawing on the people he’s got in his own group. Then, we can start, perhaps, to take him seriously.

The other issue, of course, that we don’t see here or don’t listen to—hear, rather—from the Conservative benches is criticism of the content of the White Paper itself. We’ve heard criticism of the process, but no-one has said—. Points have been made about migration, but, actually, what do you disagree with in the White Paper? What do you disagree with? Now, there’s a challenge: if you can come up, in the consultation on the White Paper, with areas where you disagree, then let’s hear it, rather than chuckling, shouting, and not actually contributing to the debate. So, my challenge to you is: yes, we’re more than happy to work with other parties, but it’s incumbent on other parties to work out what their own position actually is amongst themselves, rather than arguing amongst themselves, in order for them to present a united front in working with other parties. I’m afraid the Welsh Conservatives are nowhere near that at the moment.

I welcome today’s statement and I’m very pleased that Wales has a clear, reasonable and creative voice on this vital issue. I’m very pleased that Plaid Cymru has played a central role in this. Could I also agree with the comments of the Torfaen Member? This is such an important issue that it’s vital for us to come together for the benefit of our nation.

Of course, at the core of this is our economic benefit and interests and our constitutional interests as well. In the very brief time today, I’d like to focus my questions on the aspects of the White Paper where the Government and the Assembly have the authority to act immediately. For example, page 26 mentions creating a constitutional convention to redraw the British constitution to be a more federal system. Is it the intention, therefore, of the Government to propose this formally in the joint ministerial committee on Monday, or perhaps in the future? Or is the First Minister considering going further and having his own summit and inviting the other Governments in order to start the work on the constitutional convention?

Page 28 broaches the issue of this Assembly legislating if the great repeal Bill in Westminster does interfere with the Welsh constitution. We had evidence yesterday in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee by the Cabinet Secretary for finance, who said that the Welsh Government lawyers were discussing the process with the Westminster lawyers at present on the great repeal Bill. When does the First Minister believe that we will see political intervention, or political collaboration, between the two Governments?

Page 23 notes the importance of renewing our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I’m pleased that the First Minister mentioned this in his statement as well, and drew attention to the future of our ports, and the INTERREG project between the two nations. When does he intend to start the process of renewing our relationship with the Republic of Ireland? The Assembly has powers, and the Government has powers, already to have that kind of relationship. Is he intending to meet the Taoiseach in the near future to achieve this? In the same section, on page 23, there is a wish to strengthen Wales’s profile on the international stage. Could I ask the First Minister to publish a draft international policy that is comprehensive so that we can discuss it in this Assembly? It could focus on trade and attracting investment to Wales, but also a vision for a broader, outward-looking Wales, drawing attention to the political context as we leave the European Union.

Finally, many objectives in the White Paper are to do with keeping Wales part of projects that are open to non-EU member states, and many of them are to do with issues that are devolved. Therefore, what discussions is the First Minister intending to have in the near future to keep Wales, for example, a part of schemes such as Erasmus+ and Euro-Plus?

Could I finish by thanking the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for finance for their collaboration and co-operation over this recent period so that we could come together to create a national White Paper and, by doing so, project a clear, national voice at this very important time for Wales?

In terms of the White Paper, arrangements will be made to present the White Paper officially to the UK Government. That’s something we’re looking at at present. In terms of collaboration with other Governments—well, with Northern Ireland that isn’t possible at the moment because of the current situation there. With Scotland, historically the Scottish response has been, ‘Well, we’re considering an alternative pathway, namely independence, so there’s not much point collaborating on a constitutional convention’. We hope things will change, but that was the situation in the past.

In terms of what happens in the JMC, well, of course, the JMC itself is the place where discussion happens, or will happen, on projects such as ERASMUS+, Horizon 2020 and INTERREG, ultimately. We’ve already signalled that these will be something that we would wish to remain part of. In terms of Ireland, I will be going to Ireland in the next few weeks to meet with the Taoiseach. We have a close relationship with Ireland itself, and we must ensure that that relationship remains in place. I will also be visiting the United States at the end of next month. I always tend to go to Washington on St David’s Day, and that will be the case this year as well. The United States is a crucial market for Wales. They are the biggest investors in the Welsh economy and it’s crucial that that investment continues, bearing in mind the comments made by President Trump last week.

In terms of things having to change, at the moment it’s very difficult to attract investment from any company that wishes to be involved in manufacturing because they’re not sure what kind of access they will have to the European Union or the European market. There are some companies where that isn’t a factor—engine maintenance companies, for example, or companies working in parts of the market where it isn’t necessarily crucial to them. That, of course, is where we have to look, at the moment, in order to attract investment, because of the fact that there is that uncertainty as to what the nature of the relationship between the UK and the European Union will be in future. But the point I’ve always made is that Wales is still open for business, and we still visit countries. A number of Ministers will visit a number of nations on St David’s Day to sell Wales. One of the things we want to ensure is that people don’t get the impression that our doors are closed in terms of investment. Although there is uncertainty at the moment, we still welcome investment that creates jobs of the highest quality here in Wales.

Yesterday, the First Minister described his White Paper as balancing the message that the Welsh people gave us with the economic reality. It implies that the Welsh people don’t understand their economic interests or reality, that they somehow suffer from some false consciousness and must defer to the First Minister for their better economic interests. He says that, together with Plaid Cymru, the Welsh Government will speak for Wales, but on this issue, they don’t speak for Wales. Do they not understand—[Interruption.] Yes, we do. Fifty-three per cent of Wales voted to leave the European Union and are ignored by the First Minister, who prefers to team up with Plaid Cymru in a coalition of losers who told the Welsh people to vote ‘remain’ but were ignored by 53 per cent of those people who better understand their interests than he does.

Now, one thing we do learn from this paper is quite why the First Minister’s position has been so incoherent. From going from immediate demands for maintaining free movement to reversing that, what we see is that he’s been trying to nail down a common position with Plaid Cymru, but that joint position has the consistency of blancmange. He refers to full unfettered access to the single market and then goes on to say that that is referred to in the document as ‘single market participation’. But ‘single market participation’ is a weasel phrase: it is meaningless. It should be taken no more seriously than ‘The Beano’.

In her comments, Leanne Wood, initially refers to continued participation in the single market. Yet, she then goes on to extol the paper because it upholds the principle of freedom of movement and, therefore, full single market participation. We saw this in the motion that Plaid Cymru had last year calling for us to remain in the single market, on which the First Minister whipped his troops to, with us, vote down as inconsistent with the message of the Welsh people that freedom of movement had to end. He then, more recently, signed up to their amendment supporting membership of the EEA and/or EFTA—frankly a pathetic formulation that is utterly meaningless. It’s carried on in this document—and he wants us to refer to the document. In this paragraph, he says there are various options that

‘might involve UK membership of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), of which the UK was a member prior to joining the EU, and through this continuing to form part of the European Economic Area (EEA)’.

It is not through EFTA that Norway and Iceland are members of the EEA. They are members of the EEA because they joined it. Switzerland is in EFTA but it is not in the EEA. That is because the EEA is a very, very different thing from EFTA. EFTA is a free trade agreement. The EEA implies accepting an entire body of law and the ECJ’s determination of that law and it also implies going to our domestic economy. He talks about EU regulation, and yet when we export to the EU we must obey their regulation. But should we also obey all that regulation over our entire domestic economy of people who don’t export and should the ECJ have the final word over our laws? Those are the key questions, and a reference to ‘participation in the single market’ or ‘joining the EEA and/or EFTA’ is, frankly, a joke.

The opposition leader referred to ‘The Beano’. It was actually Keith Vaz, as a Labour Minister for Europe, who first referred to ‘The Beano’ in the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights—it would have all the potency of ‘The Beano’—until actually it was interpreted to apply directly to all our laws. He cannot decide either what a common position is with Plaid Cymru, and has this pathetic phrase ‘participation in the single market’ to cover up those gaps—or is it to cover up his own lack of understanding? He’s unaware that Britain is a member of the WTO. He refers to the EU having a free trade agreement with China. Where on earth has he got this idea from? Does he not understand that TTIP is not a free trade agreement? It is agreement behind closed doors with corporate interests for a single regulatory space in which it’s illegal to sell anything unless it follows that single regulation set transatlantically without reference to our democratic Assemblies and Parliaments. He needs to determine what his own position is, rather than seek simply to cover up the position through a desperate desire to hug Plaid Cymru as close as he can on this issue. Actually, the only people left out of that are those who used to vote for his party—the 53 per cent of Wales who voted to leave—and many, many of those, instead of voting for his party when their opportunity comes, will vote for ours.

How grateful we all are to Mark Reckless for coming to Wales and telling us all, we poor people, what we didn’t know before. How marvellous it is that we have his wonderful brain power to tell us that we are all wrong and he's absolutely right. It’s beyond parody, the position that he took. Let me just quote two things at him. First of all, the Norway model that he disparages: ‘The Norwegian model is the preferred model’ said Arron Banks—Arron Banks, the money man behind UKIP. That’s what he said. They’re not my words; they’re the words of his own party. Daniel Hannan said the same thing—the Norwegian model. I remember the debate. I remember the debate in the referendum when people were told, ‘Don’t worry, we can have the Norwegian model,’ and the myth has been perpetrated that, somehow, this was a vote for a hard Brexit. It isn’t.

His party has no councillors in Wales at all. I can promise him that if he thinks Labour voters are going to follow a former Conservative MP into voting UKIP, then he needs to rethink his position, despite his obvious intellectual superiority. Can I remind him that the UK begged to join the European Community? It was desperate to join, and I don’t want to be in a position ever again in the future where the UK is desperate to join anything. That’s why it’s so important that we manage this process properly and effectively.

He said that the position we’ve taken was like blancmange. I have no idea what that metaphor means, but what I do know is that the position he’s taken is full of holes, like a Swiss cheese—that’s a better metaphor. It’s all basically this: ‘We will leave the EU, and the EU will fall at our feet.’ Can I suggest to him that that is the most naive position that any politician could possibly take in this Chamber or elsewhere?

Can I also talk about some of the other issues that he raised? This is the fundamental problem I have with the point that he makes on EU regulation. He is right: if we sell to the European market, we follow Europe’s rules, but if we sell in the UK market, we don’t follow them. So, in other words, the UK market will be provided with goods of less quality—shoddier goods—because the standards in the UK will be lower than the standards anywhere else in the world. That means that UK exporters won’t be able to export and the UK would be back in the position it was in in the 1970s when much of UK industry had the reputation of producing rubbish. We don’t want to be back in that position again. We want to make sure that the UK and Wales are an economy where people see we produce goods of the highest quality, priced fairly and, of course, goods that are produced at a premium for those premium markets. What he suggests is a future where the UK sits on its own—a protectionist future—and seeks free trade agreements with countries that have no interest in free trade agreements.

I beg him: show some realism. Show some realism. If you want to criticise, you have a perfect right to do so, but produce your own plan. Don’t just say, ‘This is all wrong, and what we say is all right.’ I have seen no plan from UKIP at all. He chucked the brick through the window; we’ve got to pick up the pieces. At least help to do it, rather than stand on the pavement on the other side criticising the people who are trying to do it. Now, I’m sure we are enlightened by the vast superiority that he displayed to us in the Chamber, but I say this to him: we will, as ever, as will Plaid Cymru, through this White Paper, defend the national interests of Wales, and I’d urge him to do the same.

I’m not going to dwell on the wider issues that have been discussed ad nauseam here today. Some of the differences have been quite wide. I want to focus on an area where there may just be scope for some more agreement. In saying that, as I open these remarks, can I welcome, in this respect, the considered tone of R.T. Davies in this regard? In referring to chapter 7—it’s the area of constitutional reform post Brexit—it’s one that clearly has piqued the interest of the committee that I chair. In fact, First Minister, I’ve got no doubt that an invitation will be winging its way to your office to come and speak to us, both about the proposals and the practicality of taking them forward, and perhaps, as well, the possibility of gaining some wider consensus on what are some quite bold proposals within there—not all of them are new; we’ve seen some of them reiterated by the Welsh Government and by other parties here before—but to bring them together in this document, and to suggest, actually, that there may now be not only a necessity of taking some of these proposals forward, but also the opportunity in taking them forward to heal some of the divisions that have—as we have just heard, and are still remaining out there in the country at large—arisen because of the EU referendum. Now, that’s an interesting area that I think we might be able to develop some consolidated thinking, some collective thinking, and maybe some agreement on.

You refer in chapter 7 to those deep divisions and that one way of taking this forward might well be to revisit the issue of a constitutional convention that would look at the relationship amongst the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and the relation of the devolved administrations to the UK Government and the UK Parliament. You say quite clearly that, in your belief and the belief of this White Paper, the UK should be remodelled around new, more federal structures.

You put forward the idea that you want to play an active part in taking forward the right structures to exist in this post-Brexit framework, and you recognise that there will be a need for a UK-wide framework, but in so doing you set out clear principles. I’d like to ask you perhaps for some more detail in respect of that. Your principles are the free consent of the three devolved legislatures and administrations to participate on equal terms with the UK Government. You see the UK Government representing the interests, in this respect, of England. And you see a model that retains at least the current levels of flexibility for those devolved nations and regions. Finally, the third point is that there needs to be robust and genuinely independent arbitration mechanisms to resolve any disputes.

Now, those are clear principles. I think it is worth all Assembly Members considering whether we can explore those and whether there is a degree of consensus around support that goes beyond the White Paper itself, because I think that would help take forward the right framework.

A couple of other points. In respect of international trade negotiations and competition policy, you note that

‘managing these policy areas will require much more serious and intensive inter-governmental mechanisms and…structures than those currently in place’

and that you look to proactively seek to develop those with a new political and constitutional landscape.

You refer to the Joint Ministerial Committee and the need for a complete overhaul in the view of this White Paper, and you propose there that it should be rebuilt into a UK council of Ministers, covering aspects of policy for which agreement of all four administrations is required—again, on that equality; on that parity between those.

Finally, the other point that is of great interest, of course, is your proposals here on the great repeal Bill and what that could do in terms of areas of devolved competence and why this—looking at the structure post Brexit, and in the transition period—is so important. So, there is plenty of constitutional meat in this White Paper. We would welcome, as a committee, the opportunity to quiz you more on this in addition to what you’ve been able to say today, and to appear before us at the earliest possible opportunity, and to see whether these measures that you propose are practical, are workable, are achievable, and could indeed have a wider consensus within this Chamber as well; because, surely, that is in the best interests of Wales.

I thank my colleague for those comments. At the heart of this is the issue that will face us over the next few years, and that is that Brexit must not be done in such a way that, as Britain leaves the EU, in future Britain no longer exists because the UK is fractured. We must make sure that those divisions are healed. There is no better way to make things worse than for Whitehall to try to take powers from the devolved administrations or to interfere in the internal devolved affairs of Wales. I do not believe the UK will survive that kind of approach.

So, we do need to make sure that the UK's machinery adapts to the reality of the twenty-first century. That does mean submitting to a system of independent arbitration where there are disputes. The point’s been made that, well, if we're within the single market, we may be subject to the judgments of the ECJ, but the reality is that we will still be subject to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. We will certainly be subject to the World Court. If we enter into a free trade agreement with any country, then we surrender an element of sovereignty, because we will surrender that sovereignty to an independent arbitrator. The ECJ is simply, in many ways, an arbitrator in a series of agreements. And so, if the UK has 50 free trade agreements, it will have 50 different arbitration mechanisms for dealing with those agreements that would override the UK Parliament. Again, it's not something that's been thought through as far as free trade agreements are concerned. And so, for me, what we need to work on is: to establish what is in effect a UK council of Ministers; to strengthen or build on the existing machinery of the JMC; for Whitehall to accept that, in fact, there are many areas in the future where there will need to be agreement not imposition—in farming and fisheries. Fisheries access is a major and complicated issue in terms of where access is granted, how much quota Wales will have, and, indeed, what sort of boats will have that quota, because Welsh fishing interests are entirely different to Scotland's and, for example, the north-east of England’s. All these issues will have to be resolved. They can only be resolved through a proper mechanism where resolution and agreement can be achieved, where there is an independent arbitration system outside of the UK Government and the Treasury, and in doing so, I believe that will help not just to preserve the single market of the UK, but help as well in terms of good relations between the nations of the UK itself.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on reducing infant class sizes and raising standards, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Since becoming Cabinet Secretary, it has been a privilege to visit schools and meet teachers, pupils and parents right across the country. A particular highlight was the opening of the new school at Llandysul. Like colleagues across this Chamber, I’m always impressed by the dedication, the enthusiasm and the ambition expressed by the vast majority of the teaching profession, not just for their own school and pupils, but for young people everywhere in our education system. As I have stated in this Chamber before, I am clear that no school or education system can be stronger than its teachers and their teaching. That is why we need to give teachers and school leaders the tools they need for the job. This includes transforming initial teacher training education, launching new professional standards, a national approach to professional learning and development, and incentivising new and mature graduates into the profession.

Time and time again, parents and teachers tell me that they are concerned about class sizes. We have listened to these concerns, looked at the international evidence, and are today announcing the details of a new £36 million fund to address infant class sizes. This investment, linked to our other reforms, will improve early years attainment, have a significant impact for poorer and disadvantaged pupils, and support teachers to be innovative and to increase pupil engagement.

Now, too often, discussion concerning class sizes contracts to a false choice between smaller classes and other education improvement policies. I don’t accept this narrow view of class sizes as an irrelevant factor in the performance and the well-being of our young people. But, Deputy Presiding Officer, nor do I offer it as a magic bullet for our education system. It is not a policy that will be delivered in isolation. Having reviewed international research and evidence, it shows that the effects of a reduction in class sizes are greatest in the youngest age group. We also know that the impact is stronger for pupils from poorer and/or minority-language backgrounds. And, a reduction has the largest effect when accompanied by changes and reforms to teaching and pedagogy.

Therefore, based on the evidence, our investment of both revenue and capital funding will target schools with the largest class sizes, where teaching and learning needs to improve, where there are high levels of deprivation and where English or Welsh is not the first language.

The most significant UK-based research into class sizes was conducted by the world-leading Institute of Education at the University College London. Tracking over 20,000 pupils in over 500 classes across 300 schools, the research concluded that there was a very clear effect of class sizes on academic achievement during early years and that pupils from lower-attainment groups benefitted in particular from smaller classes. These results are comparable to similar projects and policy interventions conducted in North America.

In 2003, Estyn reported that, for certain groups of children—in particular, youngest children, those with special needs, those being taught in a language other than their first, and those who live in areas of high social and cultural disadvantage—there were benefits to be gained from being taught as part of a small group. Estyn recommended then that if it was decided to pursue a policy of further reduction in class sizes, these groups of children should be targeted.

We are taking a strategic view of what can be achieved through this investment. In bidding for funding, to ensure that it reaches the front line and where it is most needed, the criteria will include: schools with class sizes of 29 or more; high levels of free school meals; below-average outcomes, and where a school is judged to be red or amber in our national categorisation; high levels of additional learning needs; high levels of where English or Welsh is not the first language; and possible co-location and integrated delivery of the foundation phase with our Government’s childcare offer.

Local authorities, via consortia, will bid for funding to support schools against this criteria. In doing so, they would need to submit a business case for each proposal, which would also include details of what additional help is going into those schools and the current focus of PDG and education improvement grant. Each business case would also have to include specific outcomes in relation to improvements in performance, attendance, teacher-pupil ratios and sustainability. Bids will need to take into account a wide range of data, including school capacity, teacher-to-pupil ratios, attendance, performance—including the performance of children on free school meals—categorisation, school action and the number of SEN-statemented pupils.

Additional teachers secured through the reduction in class sizes would support compliance with foundation ratios and, importantly, it would also provide additional qualified teacher time, which is crucial for the effective implementation of the foundation phase pedagogy. There is a clear link between my announcement and the development of our childcare offer. I will expect bids to consider joint working and efficiencies on capital projects where there is a need for additional childcare facilities, as well as additional infant classrooms to deliver foundation phase.

Deputy Presiding Officer, to conclude, our education reforms seek to raise standards, reduce the attainment gap and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and national confidence. Today, we are responding to the concerns of parents and teachers, delivering a ‘made in Wales’ policy shaped by international evidence and guaranteeing £36 million of investment that will reduce infant class sizes so that we raise standards for all.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement? I know that she’s got some long-standing views on this issue, and it’s probably the hook by which she cornered Carwyn to get into his Cabinet—it surely helped to broker their deal. But when it comes to evidence-based policy making, I really cannot understand why the Cabinet Secretary is pursuing this particular issue.

We heard evidence, as an Assembly, from Professor David Reynolds, an eminent education expert and adviser to the Welsh Government, just six months ago, and the evidence suggested that a focus on reducing class sizes to 25 was not the way to improve standards, and in terms of delivering results on investments, there were much more productive ways of spending money in primary education. It’s not just David Reynolds—you’ve got Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools at Estyn also saying that classroom size, and I quote,

‘doesn’t seem to be a big factor in our inspection outcomes’.

In fact, he says that reducing classes to 25 or under is going to make little difference.

And the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which has been the subject of much debate in this Chamber recently, particularly since the Programme for International Student Assessment results were published, has also said, and I quote, that

‘the size of the class is unrelated to the school system’s overall performance’.

So, you’ve got many voices—a chorus of voices—that are saying, ‘Look, if you want the best bang for your buck, spending cash on reducing class sizes, whilst very attractive and no doubt may make managing classes easier, is not the best way to invest that money.’ In fact, the Sutton Trust, a formative education charity, dedicated to improving social mobility—an aim that we all share in this Chamber—through education, has said that it is one of the least effective ways of improving school performance.

Of course, there have been many on the Government backbenches who have expressed concerns about this policy. None of them are here today—I wonder whether this is why there’s been a bit of an exodus from the Chamber on the Government backbenches during your statement.

So, I just wonder, Minister, what advice you sought and what advice was given by Government officials in the development of this particular policy, or was this something that you were determined to steamroller through, regardless of the advice that you might be given by officials? Can I also ask, because you didn’t make any reference to them in your statement, what advice was sought from the regional education consortia in the development of the policy? I’m sure that they would have many other priority areas that they might wish to spend £36 million in had they been given the option.

I also wonder about the arithmetic and how you’ve worked out that it’s £36 million that’s required in order to deliver the aims of your policy. We know that you’ve split this cash now over a four-year period, and you’ve split it in two between capital expenditure and investment on the revenue side, but, surely, if there’s going to be investment on the revenue side, there are going to be continuous costs beyond the four-year window, which you appear to have been committed to. Can you tell us how you expect those schools—? Do you want to just pull the plug on any additional revenue costs and any additional staffing that they’ve put in place in order to achieve this policy post that four-year period? I mean, how are you expecting them to be able to cope?

And what rationale do you have for the £20 million? It looks to me as though you’ve just put a finger up in the air and said, ‘I think it’s about £20 million that we’re going to need to invest in school buildings.’ I’ve seen no evidence anywhere in Wales that that is the sum of money that would need to be given and invested in our school system in order to achieve this particular policy, and I can’t see either any evidence that it’s £16 million that would be required in order to reduce class sizes across Wales to make sure that they’re all under 25. So, I’d very much appreciate seeing some more evidence around that from you.

In addition, I just wonder if you could tell us about the rationale behind effectively making the call for more teachers, and putting further pressure on teacher recruitment, at a time when we’re beginning to see the unfolding of a bit of a crisis when it comes to teacher recruitment here in Wales. We know that for certain subjects in secondary schools there are problems, but there are also problems on the primary school end as well, particularly in the Welsh-medium sector, where we’ve seen evidence that has just been published very recently showing that the number of students completing teacher training through the medium of Welsh has been falling—in fact, it has almost halved over the past three years. That’s a big concern to me, and I just do not know how you’re going to achieve these additional teachers, who need to be going into the system anyway to refresh those who are leaving—who are departing sometimes because they are discouraged and sometimes because it’s a job that they don’t feel that they want to do anymore, or because they’re retiring. How are you going to recruit these additional staff in order to plug these gaps and realise this particular policy?

I don’t know what assessment you’ve made of local authorities’ ability to be able to construct extra classrooms on particular school sites either. I see no evidence—no evidence whatsoever—that this is the right way forward.

Can you tell me as well, given the Estyn report’s publication today, which identified the quality of teaching and leadership as being the two big issues that it found through its inspection processes as being the problems and challenges in Wales, what proportion of this cash, if any, is going to be invested in leadership and is going to be invested in continuing professional development? I note in your statement that you make reference to some of the other actions that the Government is taking, but you didn’t mention the national leadership academy, you didn’t mention some of the other incentives that you might want to give to bring new people into the teaching profession, but those are things that I believe are more pressing and need to be addressed. So I just wonder what you are doing to address those problems as well, because they, to me, seem to be far more pressing than trying to reduce class sizes to 25 when the evidence just isn’t there to support your claims that this is going to be the big game-changer. I also have to say, Cabinet Secretary—

Can you come to a conclusion, please?

This is my final, final point. I have to say, Cabinet Secretary, I’ve been an Assembly Member for 10 years now and not one person has ever, on the doorstep, and not one teacher, either, has ever spoken to me to say that class size is the pressing issue that we need to address in Wales. And I have to say, I agree with Julie Morgan on that: no-one has spoken to her, either, in the years that she has been an MP or AM. So I wonder where this pressing issue is in your postbag, because there’s no evidence of it in mine.

Thank you very much, and can I thank Darren for his questions this afternoon? If I can try to get through them all, he began by quoting the evidence of Professor David Reynolds, and I would note that Professor Reynolds made those comments without any detailed knowledge of the policy announcement. In fact, those of you who watched the ITV news last night would have seen Professor David Reynolds supporting wholeheartedly the policy and the approach that was announced by the Government. So, Professor Reynolds fully endorses the approach that I am taking.

You then moved on to the issue of Estyn, and I addressed that in my opening comments. Estyn did say in 2003 that, if a policy of class-size reduction was to be engaged in and pursued, it had to target specific learners where Estyn recognised that the benefit was greatest. Those are our youngest children, those are our poorest children, and those are our children who are in our schools for whom Welsh or English is not their first language. I am following the advice that Estyn provided in 2003 and am targeting the resources in such a way.

Now, then, you also quoted the Sutton Trust. The Sutton Trust said that using the pupil premium in England and the pupil deprivation grant in Wales to cut class sizes was not the optimum way to use that resource. And I am not using PDG money to reduce class sizes. So I am, again, following absolutely the advice that was supplied by the Sutton Trust. And then Darren went on to talk about the OECD. Can I tell you what the OECD said only last month with regard to class sizes? It said this in its full report:

‘On average across OECD countries, students in smaller classes reported more frequently than students in larger classes that their teachers adapt their instruction to students’ needs, knowledge and level of understanding.’

Only today, in Estyn’s report, we have seen that we are not doing enough for our more able and talented children. The ability of a teacher to differentiate in the classroom to meet the needs of all students—all students: those who are falling behind, those with additional learning needs or who are more able and talented, and I must say we need to find a better way of expressing that particular group of children—. We are better able to do that if teachers have fewer children in their classroom. Teaching does not exist, teaching does not happen in a vacuum. The quality of teaching, Darren, is influenced by its context—any teacher will tell you that—such as class sizes, the opportunity to innovate in the classroom, to employ different ways of teaching because you have fewer students in your classroom, as well as pupil interaction and class behaviour. It does not operate in a vacuum. And I don’t know what teachers you’re talking to, and I don’t know what teaching unions you’re talking to, but can I remind you that, not so long ago, teachers in England were on strike and their primary reason for doing so was concern over class sizes. So, I don’t know which schools you’re visiting, I don’t know which schoolteachers you’re talking to, but, believe me, this is an issue for our teaching profession.

You say, ‘Where are we going to get these teachers from?’ Well, again, evidence shows that reducing class sizes is a crucial element in the recruitment and retention of teachers. Maybe we won’t be losing some of our teachers if we address these concerns. Maybe we can attract more people into the profession because they will know they will be practising their craft and their skills in an environment that allows them to do that, not in an environment that confines their ability to be the professionals that they want to be.

You talked about who we have discussed this with. Now, believe me, Darren, I would have liked to have got this policy out of the door on day one, but the reason it has taken us this time is because we have been discussing at length with local authorities and with the regional consortia the best way of addressing this issue. We have been studying the evidence. We have been refining our ability to influence this agenda and working with our partners—because it won’t be us that’s delivering this, it’ll be coming from the sector—on how best to do it. Therefore, the approach that we’re taking is fully informed, and the figures that we have been able to put together are fully informed by feedback that my officials have had from talking to regional consortia and talking to individual local authorities.

Now, you’re quite right, and I said so in my statement, that on its own, this is not the silver bullet to address the issues that we need to address in the Welsh education system, and I don’t minimise what those issues are, Darren; you know I don’t. I am fully aware of the challenges that we face, but as I said in my opening statement, this policy is not the only policy we are pursuing. With regard to improving teaching and teaching standards, we have already announced and we are already part of a huge reform programme for initial teacher education. Only yesterday, I was meeting with Trinity Saint David to hear about the changes that they’re making now, and the changes they will continue to make to make teacher training better than it has been.

We are working now with Professor Mick Waters to develop a new set of professional teaching standards and headteaching standards that will be published in the spring. You know that I am establishing my leadership academies so that we get leadership right. To say that this is the only thing we’re doing is to completely misunderstand the reform regime that we are currently developing, implementing and driving forward, of which this will form a part.

Thank you. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to ask a few questions, if there’s any time left to do so.

I too start with this issue of evidence, because some quotes have been provided—and some of them I intended to refer to—but you did admit that this was no magic bullet, and I understand that. But we are in a situation where resources are scarce and therefore we have to prioritise resources where we’re confident they will have the greatest possible impact. Therefore, the weight of evidence, in my view, suggests that there are far more magic bullets that you could be firing with £36 million.

Now, I was going to quote Estyn, and this is very timely bearing in mind the report that we’ve seen published today, with an emphasis on improving standards as a strategically important issue. But, of course, I am slightly shocked that you have to rely on an Estyn report from 2003. That was almost in another age. I was still using a fax machine in those days, and the world has changed since then. Certainly, that report wouldn’t be the basis for the proposal before us today. If I recall correctly, in 2003 the Liberal Democrats were responsible for education in the Welsh Government, so if it was such an issue at that point, then it is regrettable that they didn’t decide to tackle it at that time. They were certainly in Government in 2003. [Interruption.] Well, it isn’t my debate; you can respond when your time comes.

The Labour manifesto committed to spend £100 million on improving standards. Can you confirm once and for all that the £36 million that you announced yesterday, but you are informing us of in the Chamber today, will come from that figure? I ask because we know what the view of some Labour Assembly Members is about the prospect of using those funds to this end. It is something that was criticised harshly by many of them last year.

Now, there is some evidence that states that if you do get the class size down to 20 or fewer, then you will possibly see some impact, some real impact. Now, according to your manifesto, of course, as a Liberal Democrat, you set a target of 25 for class sizes. It isn’t explicit in this statement, I have to say—can you confirm that that is still the target? Can you confirm that you won’t support bids, for example, unless they actually lead to an outcome of a class smaller than 25? Can you also tell us that it is your intention to roll this out ultimately across Wales and by when you would expect or hope to achieve that?

You also say in your statement that the evidence suggests—and it’s evidence according to you—that an investment such as this does have the greatest impact on enhancing attainment in the early years. I don’t see this statement being explicit that the funding available is specifically for the early years. Certainly, it isn’t one of the elements in the criteria. I assume that you would want to confirm if you are targeting the early years only; otherwise, of course, you are admitting that you are not using the funding to its most effective purpose.

There is a bare figure of £36 million in the statement. It appears as though there have been some press reports as to the profile of that expenditure. It is certainly not included in the statement, and it’s not in any information that I’ve received as an Assembly Member on this issue. I understand that there is a capital-revenue split; reference has been made to that, and I think you were asked on what basis that was done, but I’m not sure if I heard an answer to that. And there is this question as to the sustainability of the investment, which is another issue where we need greater clarity. The word ‘sustainability’ appears in the statement, but aren’t you saying that you’re expecting the schools to pay, ultimately? Shouldn’t you say that clearly if that’s the case? It appears to me that this funding is for a specific period and, after that, that investment will ultimately become a cut, and we will lose the value of the investment unless the local authority or the individual school can continue to make those payments themselves.

Finally from me—and I’ve raised this with you previously in the committee—is there a risk that you will see not smaller class sizes, but more teaching assistants? I know of some examples, and I know that there’s an element of capital spend here, but I know that there are a number of schools where they simply don’t have the space for provision beyond the classes that they currently have. I don’t think that the capital sum put forward here is sufficient to meet the needs—you may agree with that—and I would like to know whether there is any strategic relationship between the capital funding you refer to here and the twenty-first century schools programme, because in the majority of schools, I believe, where there are such limitations, it is capital problems that account for them very often.

Thank you very much to Llyr. Llyr, all I can say is if you want to argue for larger classes alongside the Welsh Conservatives, that’s your prerogative; that’s not what this Government is about. You ask, ‘Why are you referring to an Estyn report in 2003?’ That’s the last time that Estyn did substantive work on this issue. But can I tell you, there have been a number of international studies carried out over a long period of time up until now—I’ll send you the details of the exact studies—and only three out of over 100 studies actually did not find the evidence? So, the overwhelming conclusive evidence from international studies is this makes a difference. I would say to the Member, examples of education systems that have undertaken class-size reductions and smaller class policies in recent years include Denmark, Finland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Tennessee in the United States, Wisconsin in the United States, California, Ontario province in Canada, as well as other parts. The examples of institutions that have produced positive research include universities across the world.

The Member said that the Liberal Democrats were in charge of education when we were in the coalition. I’m trying to remember back, but if my recollection is correct, we were never in charge. Arts, culture, libraries—yes. Economic development and rural affairs—yes. Actually, if I could remind the Member—and you can go back and have a look—there was indeed, as part of that coalition, an infant class size reduction policy that was pursued by that Government and there was dedicated funding that was made available by that coalition Government to implement that policy. What is perhaps more curious, Llyr, is what happened to the commitment in the One Wales Government, to which Simon Thomas was a special adviser—and you can look up the document on the internet—that said that that Government would reduce class sizes? I’d be quite interested to know what action actually happened in the One Wales Government. Hmm—maybe not so much.

The Member is quite right to quote the Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment at me, and, if he did it in full, he would know it said we would start with the largest classes first. I would love to reduce class sizes for all of our children, but I have to do that in the context of the budgets that are available to me, and the Member says I need to use best value for money and that is why we will target those classes where the evidence says it will make a difference. So, we will start with the largest classes first, and I will say quite clearly again, if I didn’t say it clearly enough: this money will be available for infant class sizes, because that’s where the evidence tells us, if we’re to get best value for money, then that’s where we need to target our support.

The Member is quite right to talk about sustainability; that’s why it’s mentioned in the statement. I don’t want to create problems for school budgets, and I’m sorry I did not answer Darren Millar’s question about what happens after four years. I don’t know what’ll happen at the end of this period of Government, in four years’ time. I can only talk about what this Government will do for the next four years. What happens after that will be the preserve of a different Government, a different education Minister—who knows? All I can do is talk about what I will do and what this Government will do while we’re in office. That’s why it is for four years. I can’t commit beyond that, because there’ll be an election and who knows what’ll happen after that?

The Member has asked about the £100 million; £6 million of this policy will come out of the additional £100 million that has been made available for school standards and the rest of the budget—the £30 million—will be out of the education budget that I am in charge of.

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the announcement from the Welsh Government of the new £36 million fund to address infant class sizes. Nobody can seriously argue—apart from one or two Members present—that it is desirable that 7.6 per cent of infants school pupils in Wales are in classes of more than 30. That is 8,196 young children vying for the attention and support of their teachers and teaching assistants in a packed classroom. Estyn have been categorical that this is a policy that most benefits the most disadvantaged pupils and pupils whose first language is not English or Welsh.

The Welsh Government is to be commended on following the evidence to ensure that this money is targeted properly to raise standards for all of our pupils. I’m heartened that the new fund will also have at its heart targeting schools where there are high levels of deprivation. For a constituency like mine, it is imperative that we seek to tackle the cycle of poverty that limits the educational and life opportunities of young children, especially within the communities of Islwyn.

I would ask for clarification, however, on the process of bidding that is required to access this funding. Your statement references that local authorities, via consortia, will bid for funding to support schools against the prescribed criteria. Those criteria include business cases being made that take into account a wide range of data, including school capacity, teacher-to-pupil ratio, attendance performance, including free school meals performance, categorisation, school action and the number of special educational needs statemented pupils. What reassurance, then, can the Cabinet Secretary give me, and can you give to, as well, educationists, practitioners and local authorities that have expressed concern at a potential extra tier of bureaucracy acting as a barrier between getting the money from Welsh Government into the classroom? Thank you.

Could I thank Rhianon for her welcome of the initiative? I think if you look at the statistics about where we have particularly large class sizes in the infants sector in Wales, in constituencies such as yours, but also here in the capital, we have some of the highest proportion of young children being taught in classes over the size of 30.

The international evidence, and one of the studies that took place in Ontario, and the university in Ontario, recognised that this policy, alongside other policies, was particularly beneficial to more deprived children. We have to recognise that children coming into our education system do not all have the same advantages. Therefore, I believe there is a legitimate role for Government in its education system to try and address the differences, and to address that disadvantage. I think that is a legitimate role of the state, and, as a liberal who doesn’t like too much intervention of the state in things, for me, this is one legitimate role of intervention of the state to try and redress that balance for those children. Because sometimes, through no fault of their own, those children have got nobody else to fight for them, and that’s our job here.

Now, there is a balance to be struck between making funds available but also making sure that they’re used for the correct resources. We will try and get the money out to the front end as quickly as possible via, as I said, working with our local authority partners and our regional consortia. If they find that the current process that we have in place for the first round is too bureaucratic, then I’m always willing to look to refine that as we take the grant forward. So, if there are concerns about the level of bureaucracy associated with the grant, then I’m always very happy to look at that, but there’s a balance to be struck between satisfying yourself that it’s being used for the proper purposes and making sure we have the evidence to carry the policy forward. Because we’ll be looking for outcomes and differences that this investment is making, because we constantly have to test ourselves that the decisions we’re making are leading to outcomes that we would want. So, we need to evaluate our own performance in making these policy decisions.

To answer Llyr Griffiths’s question about capital, there is a split between revenue and capital, because I recognise very much what Llyr said, that sometimes there is an issue around sheer space that causes problems. What I’m particularly interested in doing is looking at that in the context of the childcare offer as well. We know the childcare offer will be rolled out in the years to come, and there is a great opportunity to have synergy here between our foundation phase offer as well as our childcare offer. If we can do that on the same site, that’s also got to be beneficial for parents as well if they can access all the interventions and support for their children in one particular area.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. You’re quite right that class size is a relevant factor for the educational attainment of children, and the Cabinet Secretary is also correct when she admits that class size isn’t the only factor that needs dealing with. What I wonder is why this initiative only attempts to deal with the issue of class sizes to improve education for infants. What will the Cabinet Secretary do to reduce class sizes at primary school level?

You’ve told us that other steps will be taken, but there are no details of any, and as yet no funding proposed for them. Can you also give us some more details on what exactly is meant by high levels of additional learning needs, and specifically what you mean by ‘high levels’? At what point will the Cabinet Secretary consider a school to have high levels of additional learning needs, or free school meals, et cetera?

Finally, you talk about local authorities having to bid for the money and make a business case. I think the parent of any child at a failing school that doesn’t get any of the new funds won’t be satisfied with the explanations that their child’s school, and therefore their needs by inference, failed to reach the Cabinet member’s business case threshold. These are children, not business assets or liabilities, and I’m sure you’ll agree with me that all children have the right to a decent education, whichever school they’re in and regardless of the school’s circumstances or status. How are you going to improve performance at a failing school that doesn’t present a sufficiently good business case to reduce class sizes? With those concerns in mind, will you bring any proposals as to how funding will be awarded back to this Chamber for endorsement by the Assembly Members before the criteria are implemented? Thank you.

I thank Michelle Brown for her questions and her recognition that this is a live issue for parents and for teachers, and I agree with her. Michelle asked about why this is only being used for infants. As I’ve explained, I would love to cut class sizes right the way across the education sector, but I have to do it in a way that is cognisant of the budgets that are available to me, cognisant of the fact that there are other programmes that we need to fund to improve education in Wales, and to follow the evidence. This is where the evidence says this money will make the biggest difference. Michelle asked about classes with large numbers of additional learning needs. We do know that some schools do have a higher than national average proportion of children with additional learning needs in that classroom, and that, again, is an area where we know that this money will make the biggest difference, so we will be looking at whether certain classes, where they have large numbers of pupils in them, but also have a significant proportion or a higher number than average of children with additional learning needs—at whether they can benefit from this.

The Member is quite right that there are other things that we need to do, and I am perfectly cognisant of that. Again, if I can quote the work that was done by the University of Toronto, and I will quote directly from them,

‘the full gains of class size reduction cannot be achieved if it is implemented without paying attention to other factors that support innovative practice. Some of the most important factors include the ways in which teachers and students work together; the curriculum in use; and teachers’ opportunities to learn new teaching strategies.’

Of course, that’s exactly what we’re doing. When you say you wanted other details, you are aware—and I know, because you’ve met with Professor Donaldson yourself, I understand—of our curriculum reform changes. I’ve already outlined in my statement that we are undertaking a radical reform of initial teacher training. We will publish new teaching standards later on this year. So, this isn’t being taken alone. This, again, is following the best international advice, that this policy is being delivered in conjunction with all the other steps and reforms that we know will make sure that this policy is a successful part of our reform programme. And there are budgets associated with all those programmes. I know you know that because you asked very difficult questions about that when I came to the committee—about how I was spending money on the curriculum. So, I know that you’re aware of what the budget allocations are, because we answered questions in committee on that. Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement here today. As a former teacher myself, just like my colleague Rhianon Passmore, the Member for Islwyn, I know first-hand that this is a key issue for my colleagues in classrooms across Wales. I also know that class size is a really important issue on the doorstep in my constituency, and I’m sure in constituencies across the country too. I particularly welcome the extra detail that you’ve provided here in the Chamber this afternoon around the way that the policy could work with our childcare offer across Wales, too. That was an issue that was actually raised with me on a visit to Craig yr Hesg school, which is a really good pathfinder school in my constituency that actually trains up other schools with excellent practice.

My question for you this afternoon, Cabinet Secretary, is very much in line with the question from my colleague Llyr Gruffydd, and it’s around the practical way that the policy could be implemented. I, too, was concerned about some possible issues around the physical space that would be necessary to split classes in order to deliver the policy and I wonder whether you’d considered how that could possibly be resolved by working with the twenty-first century schools programme that the Government is currently offering?

Thank you for that. I am always very conscious, Deputy Presiding Officer, when answering questions from either Rhianon or Vikki, that they have a professional expertise and experience in the classroom that I’ve never had and I’m always in danger of teaching grandmas to suck eggs, and I wouldn’t want to do that. But, like Vikki says, for many teachers this is an issue, because we know that, if class sizes are smaller, that gives that teacher the ability to introduce new pedagogical approaches to teaching a class that may be cut off to them if their class is of a certain size. So, that is the basis and many of the reasons why we’ve decided to take this forward.

I would be delighted to visit the school that the Member has mentioned. I don’t think I’ve had the opportunity to visit a school in your constituency since taking up this offer, and I’m always very particularly keen to meet schools that are willing to go above and beyond for the pupils of their own school. We need a self-improving school system where people are able to work across schools to drive standards forward. I welcome very much the commitment of teachers in those schools that are willing to do that. What strikes me is that they recognise that not only do they have a responsibility to their children but they have a responsibility to the education system of Wales. If the Member would be good enough to arrange an opportunity to visit, I would be very pleased to go with her to look at the good practice that is on offer there.

You’re quite right; as Llyr Huws Gruffydd mentioned, sometimes the issue around class sizes has arisen because of the sheer physical constraints of a building. The people there know it’s not ideal, but they don’t know what else they can do. That’s why we have listened to that. This budget has a revenue line, as well as a capital line. It will work in conjunction with the twenty-first century schools programme, but we also recognise that some of those projects may have to sit slightly outside, but we will be again looking to make sure that there is sustainability built into that. We don’t want to be putting in classrooms if that school is shortly to be replaced by perhaps a new build. Even more importantly, we build this in conjunction with the childcare offer. We know that’s coming. It’s not a surprise to anybody; and therefore we need to use the resources to build facilities that will help us achieve both policy objectives in a way that is helpful, reinforces the good pedagogical standards that we have in the foundation phase, that they can be replicated and built upon in the childcare offer, as well as providing sites where parents have ease of access so that they can take advantage of both the foundation phase and childcare.

Cabinet Secretary, I do find the criticisms of the lack of an evidence base coming from Plaid Cymru rather ironic when they’ve used the budget process to insist on £50 million for a road scheme with very low benefit to cost ratios to shore up their political base. Any concerns I had about this policy have been assuaged by the changes you’ve made, and I very much welcome the extra targeting that you put in place, and I warmly welcome extra funding for schools. In my constituency, schools have been having to make redundancies last year, and again this year; a £3.7 million cut by the Plaid Cymru council, and a potential 135 members of staff losing their jobs. So, what safeguards can you put in place to make sure that the money that’s going to be targeted at class size reduction isn’t swallowed up by softening the blow of Plaid cuts in Llanelli?

Thank you, Lee, for that. I’m grateful to you, because the constructive challenge that has been referred to in a negative way by some people in this Chamber around the attitude of some people like yourself and Jenny Rathbone has made me go back and absolutely test the evidence about this. It has led to a refinement in the policy, because we want to make sure that we’re getting it right. As I said, I would have loved to have been able to make a big sweeping announcement from day one, but we have taken time to reflect on people’s concerns and to really delve deeply so we can find out where this money will make the difference. I’m grateful; I’m absolutely grateful. A government can only be as good as the challenge it receives, and it is not just the job of opposition parties to challenge the Government. There is an honourable tradition in politics of backbenchers from the governing party providing that challenge, and I welcome it. I don’t see it as something that should be derided by other people around this Chamber. I think it’s good for the political process in Wales that we develop that culture. I think it’s something that has been missing from this Chamber. I don’t see it as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing, and it helps develop better policy. I want to put that on the record, Deputy Presiding Officer.

With regard to what’s happening in individual local authorities, the vast majority of money for education is delivered via the revenue support grant in the local authorities. Previous administrations—the previous Welsh Government—had a target of trying to protect school budgets by 1 per cent. We, in this budget round, have tried to protect local government. Local government themselves have admitted that they had a better settlement than they had been expecting. My expectation is that they deal fairly with schools in their local authority area. I know things are tough for local authorities—I don’t pretend that they’re not—but education has to be a priority for them, and they have to deal fairly with their schools. I would expect to see evidence from local authorities doing just that. This should not be used to plug any gaps. This is additionality, and this should not be used to plug any gaps—that local authorities think that they can pull a fast one by using this money to then be able to cut somewhere else. That's why we'll have a very strict process in looking at how the funds are allocated.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on to item 8 on the agenda, which is the debate on working with communities to create better local environments, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This debate is about how we can deliver vital improvements to people's quality of life and to their well-being. I want to highlight the links between multiple local environment issues that combine to make places depressing and unhealthy. These issues can also have an impact on community cohesion, investment prospects and access to services.

In the past, we've addressed poor waste management, litter, fly-tipping, graffiti, dog fouling, poor air quality, noise, local flooding, along with the need for green space and urban trees, and the need to better recycling as single issues. However, the connections between them all are obvious, and people in communities across Wales suffer from their combined effects. In some areas, such as the management of waste and recycling, we are making excellent progress. Wales leads the UK and is fourth in Europe in terms of recycling performance. This achievement follows effective engagement with the public and, for most people in Wales, recycling is now second nature. However, we need everyone to recycle, which means finding out how to influence the people who currently don't. I've asked my officials to look more closely into the behavioural change aspects of tackling this and other local environmental problems.

I've heard the various calls to ban certain food or drinks containers, apply levies, or bring in a deposit-return system for drinks containers. I intend to look at this in the round as we review and update our waste strategy, ‘Towards Zero Waste’, as I do not want to apply piecemeal solutions. I've asked for a study on the potential for new legislation to extend producer responsibility in Wales, to make the producer of products and packaging more financially liable for the end-of-life management of the waste, including litter. On takeaway paper cups, we're exploring with the drinks industry what more can be done to recycle cups in Wales, including the provision of recycling bins and the potential for the cups to be redesigned.

We all recognise the benefits of clean streets, quiet green spaces, urban trees and clean air. However, in some communities, such conditions are a far cry from people's current experience. We know from our debate last June the scale of harm that can come from air pollution. We must tackle poor air quality from all possible angles, from national and local action plans and transport measures to urban design and tree planting. My officials are engaging with transport and health colleagues on the multiple benefits of active travel, in particular its contribution to reduction in air pollution and carbon emissions. Electric car developments and improved public transport are also important measures.

Our recent consultation on local air quality and noise management sought answers to important questions on how we can tackle these issues more effectively through such things as improved reporting arrangements, more integrated action and more collaborative and effective use of resources. I will issue a statement to Assembly Members on the outcome of the consultation before the end of March, explaining how we will be changing the local air quality and noise management system in Wales in light of the responses received.

Then there are the things that are in people's line of sight every day: dog fouling, littering, fly-tipping and the poor handling of waste, which destroy people’s pride in, and care for, the communities where they live. Some residents exist in a kind of paralysis, unable to see any point in trying to improve the place where they live, and often suffering adverse effects on their health. It is also clear these problems can lead to more antisocial behaviour and crime. I'm particularly keen to see the crime of fly-tipping tackled more efficiently across local authority boundaries, and we’re currently consulting on the introduction of fixed penalty notices for small-scale fly-tipping. People who live in a poor-quality environment are more likely to suffer from anxiety and depression through staying in the relative safety of their homes to avoid dirty streets and anti-social behaviour. They’re also more likely to get insufficient exercise and suffer from health problems such as diabetes, heart attacks and strokes.

Children suffer, too, from a lack of clean, safe places to play outside. This is where access to green spaces and active travel routes are so important, and, of course, those too have to be kept free from litter and fly-tipping or people simply will not use them. Green spaces and trees are also important for tackling local flooding, poor air quality and noise. This is a good example of how the best and most cost-effective solutions to local environment issues are those that address more than one problem. My department’s single revenue grant to local authorities is specifically designed to encourage the delivery of such multiple benefits.

The effect of a poor environment quality on a local economy is clear. Infrastructure suffers and the general poor condition of a place deters investment. There are also costs associated with constant clean-up activities by local authorities, which are a drain on scarce funds. So, the need for prevention must be a driving force behind the action we take. It is increasingly clear that neither national nor local government can be effective without the involvement of individuals and communities.

We can of course look to strengthen legislative and regulatory measures and I’m always prepared to examine strong cases for doing so. However, as local authorities often remind us, legislation costs money to administer and enforce. Effective early prevention is always preferable to chasing people for fines they’re not always able to afford. Our new Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is legislation of a different kind, however, encouraging us to focus on prevention, to involve people in well-integrated measures and to collaborate across organisations as we work for long-term sustainable solutions.

Collaboration across all sectors will be essential to effective prevention, involving the third sector, landowners and local businesses, who have a vested interest in improving local environment conditions. Problems occur in both rural areas and urban areas and, in every place, the people who live and work there are vital to developing effective local solutions. I believe people are probably more strongly influenced by the opinion of their fellow citizens than they are by Government. We need to help caring citizens find a voice and a platform from which to influence in practical ways the behaviour of others in their areas.

A lady in north Wales who’s been an active anti-litter campaigner for many years recently wrote to me asking for points to be added to the driving licences of people who allow litter to be thrown from their cars. In my reply to her, I explained that we don’t have the powers in Wales to make that happen, although I will raise her idea with DEFRA and the UK Department for Transport. In her letter to me, this lady spoke very passionately about her litter-picking work with children and about the need for stronger measures to prevent the problem. Her words struck home with me very strongly. She said, ‘Can’t we work together and make it happen?’

We all know people like this lady in every community—willing and determined. If we can help them to join forces with Government, national and local, to tackle the problems blighting their lives, with the right help and encouragement, they can be an even stronger force for good in their communities.

Of course, litter isn’t all down to the behaviour of an anti-social group of people. It can also be a result of the careless handling of waste and recycling by residents or by those who collect and transport it. So, care and thoughtfulness are needed on the part of everyone.

So, Deputy Presiding Officer, I’m very keen to hear the constructive thoughts of all Members in the Chamber on any measures that will help build pride of place and empower people and organisations to bring about real improvements in 2017. Thank you.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on David Melding to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say that we welcome this debate and that we will be supporting the motion? With the concentration that we’ll have this week on, broadly, liveability issues, combined with our debate tomorrow—the minority debate the Conservatives have put down on the urban environment—I think it’s right that we spend a lot of time on these quality-of-life issues. I welcome the approach to stress the need for various agencies and players to combine and, above all, citizen involvement, which is also—we didn’t talk to each other when these motions were put down, but it does appear that a call for neighbourhood and citizen involvement is key to our debate as well.

I was also pleased to hear about the upcoming statement on the responses you’ve had to the air quality and noise pollution strategy. I think we all agree that that strategy needs updating. The consultation document you put out, I think, was an interesting one and there were many things in there that indicated a way of progressing that would find support right across this Assembly.

Anyway, I’m going to concentrate on air quality and really to underline what I’ve just said, the need to improve air quality and do that with concerted action I think is accepted both at a Wales level and a UK level. Indeed, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last autumn called on the UK Government to, I quote,

‘act now to tackle this public health emergency’.

I think that many of us now do view it as such. Indeed, the High Court last year also ruled that the UK Government does not currently meet all its legal requirements on air quality, so I’m not picking out the Welsh Government in particular.

But as the Welsh Government itself, in fairness, acknowledges, the position in Wales does, to some extent, mirror that in England and the rest of the UK, and also common approaches are needed to ensure that we do have the maximum effect on reducing pollution.

Just to remind Members that pollution levels in Wales—I’m using 2015 figures—were low for 204 days, moderate for 137 days, high for 16 days and very high for eight days. What we must remember is that there are many people in our community who are particularly vulnerable, especially the young and older people who are frail. The impact of poor air quality can really be very, very considerable. We heard, Minister, last week in the environment committee some very powerful evidence from the Public Health Wales, and I do commend them for the work that they’re doing—there’s great rigour there, and I think that the quality of the evidence that we heard from them, and also from the British Lung Foundation, was very, very high and very helpful.

So, we really do need to focus on this, in terms of its impact on our most vulnerable people and, as the Minister did point out, people in some of our poorest areas. That brings me on to our amendment, which focuses on the 40 air quality management areas. The way these are managed is part of the consultation, so I’d be interested in hearing some of the Minister’s, perhaps, initial views on this.

Of those 40 air quality management areas, only four have ever been revoked, and most have been in place for many years. So, I think we need to bear that in mind. I’m not saying that improvement and then revoking those orders is particularly easy—they are very challenging and there are often deep-seated infrastructural issues involved—but I do think we need to ask ourselves if 10 per cent have ever been revoked whether the action plans that we put in place are sufficient.

I also think—this is part of the consultation—there’s a need to base a strategy more on a general approach to air quality, because most of the harm actually occurs outside the high-risk areas. But I think to complement that, you then need intensive work on top of that general approach in those high-risk areas, because that is really crucial to see them improve. I think that one approach would be to list the practical measures required to improve air quality in the high-risk areas. Sometimes, it does come down to some pretty stark choices, but I think at least they should be on the agenda so that then we can have a proper debate and effective citizen engagement.

Can I just finish, Deputy Presiding Officer, by pointing to the recent Norwegian example in Oslo, where they will close diesel traffic to Oslo when the pollution levels rise above acceptable standards? I’m not saying we should follow that, necessarily, but that is an example of taking very, very effective action. Thank you.

I also welcome this debate, and I welcome as well the content of the Cabinet Secretary’s speech. I think the motion could have had a bit more detail to it, and I think the Conservative motion tomorrow, to be fair, has got more detail and more ideas, so we’ll be supporting both—let’s have a consensus to take this forward.

I want to pick up where David Melding concluded, actually, on air pollution, which I think he rightly described, as I would, as a public health emergency now in the Welsh context. We had another day today when the Mayor of London said that he advised people not to take exercise outdoors. When you think about it, it’s that kind of emergency around the environment that created the Clean Air Act back in the 1950s, which cleaned up London. It didn’t clean up the community I lived in, because we had the coking plant, which created the smokeless fuel. So, there are issues to read across from here, and it often is a richer against the poorer area in terms of achieving air quality. So, social justice in this is something that we also need to bear in mind.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary in her opening remarks made much of the voluntary approach, or rather getting people to work together and, of course, talked about the cost of regulation. But it is also, I think, vital that where we do have regulation we must insist and ensure that those regulations are implemented. And so I don’t apologise for returning to the question I asked the First Minister today, which was about Aberthaw power station.

That power station was found to exceed, in great numbers—twice, I believe—the emissions levels for nitrogen dioxide back in September. And the UK Government was instructed by the European Court of Justice to take action. Now, the regulator in Wales is not the UK Government, it’s Natural Resources Wales. And so we were told by the First Minister earlier today that they’d written to the company, demanding some sort of action, and the letter had to be replied to by 17 February. And I was thinking, ‘Well, the decision was in September. They have a letter they’ve got to reply to by 17 February. Any link there to the fact that I raised it on 17 January, and they’ve been given a month to reply to it, I wonder?’ I do wonder what Natural Resources Wales has been doing here. It certainly hasn’t taken any action around the permit. That certainly means we still have excessive emissions from the power station, as the First Minister confirmed earlier on today, and that feeds in, as David Melding said, to that very powerful evidence from Public Health Wales’s very accurate and well-evidenced work that particulate matter causes 1,300 avoidable early deaths in Wales, and nitrogen dioxide itself is responsible for 1,100 avoidable deaths annually. And if we look, therefore, at the role of regulation in both dealing with emissions and greenhouse gases and climate change, then clearly we need to see more action from the Government and, if necessary, instructing organisations such as Natural Resources Wales to take those right steps to protect our environment and to protect health in Wales. It’s not just about what we see out of the window, it’s about what we breathe and the way we live our lives. So, there’s a real issue there for action from this Government on Aberthaw and the wider question of air pollution, which David Melding dealt with.

I’d also like to see, making a link to the more local environment, more work go on on the role of trees and tree-planting in urban environments to deal with this. There’s plenty of evidence, which again the committee heard last week, about how trees—if they’re planted correctly, because the wrong sort of trees in the wrong way can actually trap particles in an urban environment, but if they’re planted correctly, they actually naturally scrub particles and gases out of the local environment. And, of course, they look good as well. They raise the well-being sense, they make it easier, as the Cabinet Secretary said, for people to go out for a walk and feel that they are part of an environment they want to be a part of and then, in turn, respect. So, there’s a win-win in all respects when you plant trees: you clean the air, but you make the environment better for those who use it.

And it is important to emphasise there’s a real link between deprivation, litter, crime and what people think about their urban environment. The DEFRA report in 2014 found that 28 per cent of sites in the most deprived areas fell below an acceptable standard for litter, and that’s nine times worse than the least deprived areas. And it’s a vicious cycle. We all know that, once you start to see all the cups and all the fast food accumulate on the local green bit outside the houses, that the people are then more reluctant to treat that with respect and it attracts litter. It’s a kind of force field for attracting litter and antisocial behaviour in turn.

I very much welcome what the Cabinet Secretary said about examining the need for possible further regulation in terms of plastic, glass and can deposit schemes in Wales. I think we really need to go down that path. Anyone who has done a beach clean or a local environment clean will find that these are the items that turn up time and time again. And in Germany, where they have introduced a mandatory one-way deposit system, 98.5 per cent of refillable bottles are being returned by consumers. We led the way in plastic bags, we can lead the way on plastic bottles as well.

Can I join with Simon Thomas and David Melding in welcoming this debate? The environment people live in is hugely important to them. The state of our environment is important for how we live now and the legacy we will leave for future generations. Whilst Brexit dominates discussion at the Assembly, it’s the state of the environment that my constituents talk to me about—not just in surgeries, but when I walk down the road, go to my local shops, in the supermarket, in the club and on the sport field. It’s the state of the environment. People will quite often point out to me where things have been dropped, where there’s dog mess and a whole range of other things. That really comes down to the concerns—it’s litter, it’s fly-tipping, it can be noise, especially when people engage in that very late at night. My constituency has knotweed, which seems to create a huge problem that not everybody has the disadvantage of having.

Long-term empty houses and empty properties—buildings that have been left until they fall down. Would you like to live next to a house that had been left empty for 10 or 15 years, with overgrowth from probably whenever those houses had been left empty for the last 10 or 15 years? Dog mess, which is a perennial problem—despite the hard work of Swansea council, which has done a tremendous job in getting dog-mess bins, I often worry that dogs can’t read very well and fail to put their mess in the bins, and their owners obviously can’t read at all. And there’s air quality.

I will start with one of the great success stories in recent years—recycling and the reduction in landfill. According to figures I have recently seen, waste sent to landfill by local authorities has reduced by over 70 per cent from its peak. The Welsh Labour Government, and most of my constituents and I want to see zero waste in Wales. That will not be possible because you’ll always have some residual waste, but we really do need to move towards as little waste as we possibly can. A zero-waste nation is a wonderful ambition. Recycling rates have increased more than anywhere else over the UK in the past decade, and Wales now leads the UK in the recycling of municipal waste. If we were a country in our own right, we’d be fourth in the European Union.

A lot of the credit for this should go to local authorities—their council leadership who are promoting it, and those working in refuse and recycling who are making it happen. The problem of waste crime—or, as it is better known, fly-tipping—is a significant cost to local authorities. Unfortunately, fly-tippers tend to go to some of the most inaccessible places—down lanes et cetera—which also creates a huge problem in collecting afterwards. It can be dangerous to the environment, potentially threatening to human health, it can also be dangerous to animals, but it is always an eyesore—wherever it goes, it’s an eyesore—whether it is dangerous at all, it is an eyesore and it’s a problem. I always ask the question, ‘Would I like to live in an area where substantial waste was being dumped?’ If the answer is ‘no’ from me, then it’s got to be ‘no’ for the rest of my constituents as well.

The Welsh Labour Government has used new powers to strengthen Natural Resource Wales’s ability to take speedier and more effective action to tackle the small fraction of poor-performing and illegal operators in the waste industry. We’re looking at the current Bill that is making its way through, and, hopefully, that will, with the suggestions of the Minister, Mark Drakeford, involve people who do set up their own illegal sites having to pay twice, and that should bring it to an end.

Fly-tipping is the scourge of communities. A fixed penalty fine to me cannot come quickly enough. Get people and fine them, rather than having to go through the whole process of taking them to court. Let’s get a fixed penalty fine. Let’s get these fly-tippers picked up. It’s not just people dumping the odd bag—sometimes it’s organised fly-tipping where whole lorry-loads are dumped, often in areas that don’t have very many houses around them, where people try and avoid paying a price for disposing of the waste they’ve got.

I’m going to join everybody else now in talking about traffic congestion, carbon emissions and the state of air. Some communities, such as Hafod in Swansea, are impacted by high levels of pollution from road transport. It is important that Welsh Government works with local authorities to help them to implement their local air quality management responsibilities, and to target problem areas through local air quality action plans. Sometimes, this can be achieved by getting more people walking and cycling. Other times, we need a bypass to ensure cars are not stationary or moving slowly through our communities. There are major roads—the Neath road going through Hafod is a major road—that are slow-moving and that are in a valley with air movement in such a way that particulates are held close to the ground. There are those who will say that an additional road is not the answer. Well, I welcome the Morfa distributor road that is soon to open, and that will reduce traffic in the Hafod. For those who do not believe such road work, two suggestions: try living there and ask the people who do. New roads are not the solution everywhere, but they cannot be discounted as an option.

Finally, as someone born and who spent their early life in the lower Swansea valley when it could have been used for any film that wanted to show an urban landscape scarred by industry, I want to leave a better environment to my children.

The debate today covers a wide range of areas, so I will concentrate on one aspect, which is air quality. Air quality matters to everybody, so it is right that we take what steps we can in the Assembly to improve it. We in UKIP support the Government’s motion today. We also support the Conservative amendment, which tackles the issue that the Welsh Government has the ability to impose AQMAs—air quality management areas—in places where air quality is particularly bad, but these AQMAs are only supposed to be temporary measures until the air quality improves, whereupon the AQMA is revoked. However, in reality, as we’ve heard from David Melding, only four out of 42 AQMAs have ever been revoked and, in two of these cases, they were quickly replaced by other AQMAs covering the affected areas. So, in truth, only two out of 42 have ever effectively been revoked and a success of less than 5 per cent can hardly be construed as a breath of fresh air.

So, what can we do to improve air quality? Well, problems that can cause a decline in air quality would include a proliferation of extractor fans in a relatively small area. These are often used in premises where there are kitchens. But when I consider how two areas just outside Cardiff city centre have developed in recent years, that is Cowbridge Road in Canton and City Road in Roath, there have been more and more licences granted to restaurants, cafes and fast food outlets. Many of the fast food shops also use delivery vehicles. These developments in such intensity can only worsen air quality in those areas. So, one question is: how does the Welsh Government co-ordinate its air quality drive in its dealings with local councils in their role as licensing authorities and how effective are these measures?

Another significant factor in air quality decline is increasing traffic congestion. Now, I also observe that several major organisations are due to relocate to Cardiff’s Central Square from outlying suburbs, notably the Inland Revenue, BBC Wales and MotoNovo Finance. Now, I know that parking spaces are being restricted in Central Square, but I’m also fairly sure that many employees of these organisations will nevertheless choose to drive into town to work, thereby increasing traffic congestion and worsening air quality. So, these air quality worries haven’t done anything to prevent the Central Square development, which is being pushed by a Labour council, and it is a scheme that has been enthusiastically endorsed by the Welsh Government. So, how important really is air quality to the Welsh Government? How do air quality concerns factor into these kinds of planning decisions?

A final significant impact on air quality is increasing housing supply in a relatively congested area, yet Cardiff has a local development plan, hatched by its Labour council, which plans for large increases in house building on the green belt. This will clearly impact on air quality. So, what measures can the Minister take to protect air quality from these kinds of environmentally damaging local development plans? Thanks.

I think I agree with absolutely everything that everybody’s said. I think, on this issue, it is important that we do have consensus because tackling air quality is a fantastically important subject. There is no such thing as safe levels of particulates and, frankly, some of the things that we’re going to need to do will require us to tackle the holy motorist, and that will obviously be quite controversial with some people in our community.

I think some of the issues that have just been raised by Gareth are very important, and whilst there is a role for parking for a BBC cameraperson who is carrying thousands of pounds worth of equipment—they have got to go by car—it is obviously not the case that those who are doing a desk job need to come into the city centre by car. That’s something that needs to be reflected in the Cardiff development plan.

I mainly wanted to concentrate on other aspects that are much less controversial but nevertheless extremely important. I represent the most urban and built-up constituency in Wales, I think, in Cardiff Central, and therefore making more green spaces is absolutely essential to improving the quality of air. Simon’s already mentioned the importance of trees, and I would just like to highlight one fact, which is that one tree can remove 26 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year, which is equal to 11,000 miles of car emissions. Two thousand five hundred square feet of turf releases enough oxygen for a family of four to breathe. These are really important figures, and it really should be concentrating our minds on the way that we approach our town planning, because all communities need to benefit from this. In terms of tackling climate change, if we have green spaces, it counters the warming effects of paved surfaces, recharges groundwater supplies, and protects lakes and streams from polluted run-off. It reduces soil erosion—a dense cover of plants and mulch holds the soil in place, keeps sediment out of storm drains and roads, and reduces flooding, mudslides and dust storms. These are fantastically important issues for all of us, whichever part of Wales we are in.

A healthy sodded garden will absorb rainfall six times more effectively than a wheat field and four times better than a hay field. I think that these are really important issues, because water is the new gold; we cannot survive without it. Green spaces reduce stress and boost children’s attention span. There’s other research that has found tha, attention deficit disorder symptoms in children are relieved by contact with nature. Greenery in a child’s everyday environment, even views of green through a window, reduces their ADD symptoms. As that is an increasing presentation amongst pupils, this is, potentially, a very important finding and something we should be thinking about in all our schools.

So, what are the levers that Government can use to do more of this sort of thing? I was interested to recall the community grown food action plan, which was launched in 2010, I think by the Presiding Officer, to promote, support and encourage community-grown food in Wales, and to improve food security by increasing the availability of locally grown horticultural produce, connecting people to the food chain, increasing the number of people interested in growing food, and improving health and well-being in the process. I recall that lots of excellent LEADER projects were funded by the previous EU programme, which really transformed some of our most disadvantaged communities, but were never mainstreamed into other disadvantaged communities, which was really a lost opportunity.

I recall that, sometimes, there are lengthy waiting lists for allotments, and, in any case, they’re often inaccessible to people without a car. So, finding land for new growing projects is a challenge that I feel we all need to rise up to. I pay tribute to some of the organisations and communities in Cardiff that have helped overcome these difficulties and got more people growing their own. We’ve got the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, which has 49 community growing projects across our city. And the Riverside community allotment project, an integral part of which is the Community Market Association’s activities, has a growing space just north of Cardiff, where people can learn how to grow food in a sociable and supportive atmosphere.

Farm Cardiff is a community-led mapping process, which has identified over 400 public spaces for growing food and other plants. I recall that the Welsh Government funded the Cynefin project, which led to herb planters being put on Albany Road, which is the town centre for my constituency and probably the most urban environment anywhere, in that there is almost no green space immediately around. There’s a strip of land called the Mackintosh community garden, also in Plasnewydd, which started very modestly and is now developing growing tunnels and helping to educate whole cohorts of school children whose school is a concrete jungle, about where food comes from. My office is working with schools in Llanedeyrn and Pentwyn, which, in contrast to Adamsdown and Plasnewydd, are well endowed with sizeable plots of land, but, to date, there’s not much growing going on on them.

I’m pleased to say that one school has agreed to set aside a piece of its land for a community garden. My ambition is that all schools will be doing something along these lines to inspire people across this mainly quite financially challenged community to start to grow their own in their own gardens, or in easily accessible collective spaces. This is a fantastically important subject in the face of many challenges that are buffeting our communities, and I hope we’ll have cause to reflect in depth on the benefit of greening our environment in all our communities.

Could I first mention, as many have, air pollution in terms of emissions from vehicles, and particularly diesel engines, which, as we know, are very damaging to human health. I’ve mentioned before in the Chamber that I met with Calor, as an organisation, who talked about conversions from diesel to Calor gas, particularly perhaps for taxi fleets, but this could be applied more generally and more widely. The cost, apparently, can be recouped within a two-year period—the cost of the initial conversion work. Of course, it’s very beneficial to public health, by greatly reducing the particulates content of emissions from those vehicles. So, I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could say a little bit about what Welsh Government’s thoughts are on supporting those conversions, which could do something very practical and very timely to help contribute to reducing these very damaging emissions, and before perhaps we get onto more permanent solutions such as electric cars and electric vehicles more generally.

I would also be interested in how strongly the Cabinet Secretary is working with other Cabinet Secretaries and other Ministers on agendas that are important to creating a more doorstep-friendly environment for people—those on some of our ex-council estates and current council estates in Newport, for example on the Ringland estate. It’s been the subject of a stock transfer to Newport City Homes. Newport City Homes are looking at the wider environment, having done a lot of work to the fabric of the buildings, and I think they are amenable to ideas as to how they produce the best quality environment for local people. It’s about working in partnership, I think—Welsh Government, local authority and some of our registered social landlords—if we are to achieve the best solutions. One of the issues as well, for example on Hendre Farm Drive on the Ringland estate, is traffic speed. There’s some traffic calming in place, and, on some parts of the road, there is a 20 mph limit in place, but it’s not along the whole length of the road. There’s lots of double parking and lots of children play, but some parents are reluctant to allow their children to go out and enjoy the outdoor environment because of the dangers from speeding road traffic. So, I think that’s one example of how we need to look widely and work together within Welsh Government, and with other partners, if we are to produce the environment that will get our populations in Wales more active, more connected with their local environments, more appreciative of them, and then, hopefully, repaying that thought and work by more responsible attitudes, whether that comes through taking part in recycling schemes, not littering, not fly-tipping, or enjoying the wider environment.

The third matter I’d like to mention, again in terms of connecting local populations with their local environments, is, I think, long-planned circular routes connecting local communities with the coast path. I think this was one of the original ideas when we talked about developing the coast path, that we would encourage these circular routes. I’m not aware of that many being in place in Wales, but certainly I’d like to see those developed in Newport, which would connect estates like Rignland, which are not that far away from the coast path, with that coastal route. So, I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could say a little bit about whether thought, and hopefully action, is imminent to achieve those circular routes, which I think would be very beneficial, and obviously it could be developed right across Wales.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Lywydd. I thank Members for the very constructive debate, and it’s good to have everybody’s support. I have to say that, since I came into post, probably air quality is the one heavy part of my postbag from Assembly Members themselves. Just turning to the Welsh Conservative amendment first, I’m very happy to support that. Gareth Bennett mentioned AQMAs, and I should say it’s local authorities that declare AQMAs, not Welsh Government, and just because they haven’t been revoked doesn’t mean that the air quality isn’t better than it would have been if that hadn’t been declared. So, we’re very happy, as I say, to support that.

I’m very keen to crack down on underperforming local authorities, and, certainly, we’ve had the consultation now on air quality and noise. We had about 50 responses, so officials are analysing those responses at the moment and, as I say, I will report back via a statement to Members by the end of March. But, certainly, I want to issue guidance, direct regulations—I can do all that—but I need to also be able to act, I think, much more robustly with local authorities.

If I can just turn to some of the points that have been raised by Members, and, as I say, I think everybody referred to air quality. I think air quality in Wales is generally good, but there are some significant challenges, particularly in the vicinity of busy roads, that we need to address. I absolutely thought it was right to have a consultation when we did, and I’m very much looking forward to how we can improve things.

David Melding mentioned Oslo, and Members may remember when I came back from Marrakesh, I’d met the deputy mayor of Oslo and we talked about that. As you say, we shouldn’t necessarily follow there, but I think it was very interesting to see what Oslo are doing around transport.

Simon Thomas mentioned public health and social justice together, and I absolutely agree with you. We are going to have to take tougher measures on air quality, particularly, I think, in relation to high-polluting vehicles. John Griffiths mentioned LPG, and I have asked for advice around that to be developed, because you’ve raised that before in the Chamber, John, with me.

Simon Thomas also mentioned Aberthaw, and there is a great deal of work going on between Natural Resources Wales and RWE around modifications to the environment permit. I’ve met both sides following the court judgment to talk that through with them. Officials are in regular contact and also monitoring the modification of the permit. RWE have invested substantially in pollution abatement, and we have seen a significant reduction, but, obviously, we do need to make sure that they come within the environmental limits that have been brought in.

Several Members mentioned tree planting and the importance of tree planting correctly. Again, I met with NRW just yesterday to talk about this, because you’re quite right, Simon Thomas, they can scrub out particles, but they have to be planted in the right way.

I think Mike Hedges raised several points that fill all our postbags from our constituents: dog waste, fly-tipping—and, again, we’re out to consultation on small-scale fly-tipping because council leaders, in particular, have told me that they need to deal with the one black bag of rubbish that’s been dumped. So, again, we’re out to consultation at the moment.

Mike Hedges is also right about the good story we have to tell on recycling. We had a very good debate last week around recycling, and we are leading the way in the UK—fourth in Europe. But the ambition to have a zero-waste country is absolutely right. I mentioned, in my opening remarks, that we need to take the people who aren’t recycling at the moment with us, and that black bin bag that’s still got 50 per cent of materials that could be recycled.

Jenny Rathbone talked about green spaces, green infrastructure and trees, and I had a very interesting meeting with Julie Morgan, just last week, because Julie had raised in questions some community gardens that she’d seen in New York. Every space in New York that can be converted into either a flower bed or for planting trees or fruit and veg is being used. So, again, we’re looking to see what can be developed there. I think there’s an initiative in Swansea that we can look at to see if we can spread that best practice around.

In relation to planning policy, Gareth Bennett mentioned planning policy, and we are reviewing planning policy to see if we can have a stronger focus on well-being and health, and that would fit in there.

Just returning to the importance of shared responsibility for these important issues, I think we do need the energy and commitment of everyone in Wales to help us tackle these problems. I think it is down to people in communities working with us, private landowners, small businesses, large businesses, developers, house builders, third sector organisations and also all public bodies.

John Griffiths asked about cross-government working, and I think it is clearly a cross-portfolio responsibility. It’s really important that we have that joint action across all policy areas. I mentioned that I’m working with Rebecca Evans in relation to active travel, and clearly with Ken Skates in relation to transport.

Small changes, which can be simple and affordable, can really make a big difference. So, going back to placing more waste bins, more recycling bins and dog waste bins, I think, is really important out there.

Simon Thomas spoke about plastic bottles and recyclable cups. Last week, I met with a very well-known high-street coffee shop.

Starbucks.

Starbucks, yes. [Laughter.] They were telling me about a pilot that they’ve got in London, where they have bins where people can tip it if there’s something left in the cup, and then, in the next bin, they can recycle their cup. So, there is work going on out there. I said that we’d be very happy to have a pilot here in Wales, going forward.

So, I think it’s very clear, from the consensus in the Chamber, that the economic, the social, the environmental and the cultural benefits, in relation to this issue, are there for everyone to see. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Y cwestiwn, felly, yw a ddylid derbyn y cynnig fel y’i diwygiwyd. A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? Felly, derbynnir y cynnig fel y’i diwygiwyd yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 12.36.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.