Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon. I call the National Assembly to order. 

The first item this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and the first question, David Melding.

I thank the Member for the question. Additional funding for credit unions and the discretionary assistance fund has been included in the local government and public services budget for 2018-19. When the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill completes its passage through the UK Parliament, we anticipate a transfer to Wales of responsibility and funding for debt advice.

Can I thank the Cabinet member for that answer? You may know that it's national Stress Awareness Month, and according to the Debt Support Trust, of those in serious debt, around half of the people in that situation have mental health difficulties and contemplate suicide. It's a terrible, terrible strain on people. In 2017, citizens advice bureaux across Wales helped 28,500 people with debt problems, and many of those were cards and loan debts. So, I think it's really important that we look at how much we can bring into this area of advice and support. I know, in the last Assembly, £4.4 million was identified for front-line services, and now we're getting the primary responsibility for debt advice in the near future, I do hope this will be a high priority in the Minister's considerations. 

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. We're making nearly £6 million available this year to support organisations such as Citizens Advice, Shelter and Age Cymru to provide advice across Wales on social welfare issues, including maximising household income and managing household debt. Between April and December of last year, citizens advice bureaux helped 43,000 people in that category and helped to bring £28 million in additional income to those families here in Wales.

I completely agree with the Member that debt is inevitably associated with high levels of stress and difficulties in other parts of people's lives. I am involved in discussions with local government in Wales about council tax debt. Council tax debt is meant to include an identification of whether a household is vulnerable for other areas. Some local authorities in Wales do this very well. Some local authorities in Wales have no policy at all on vulnerability, so there is certainly ground to be gained not simply in funding, but in the way that these services are discharged on the ground. 

One thing that’s likely to cause more people to get into debt is the period that they will have to wait for their first payment under universal credit. Receiving payments on a monthly basis after that first payment will also create major debt problems for many people. I can’t understand why your Government is so reluctant to take control of certain elements of administering the benefits system and the funding framework that would come about as a result of that. Wales could then move towards a system of making universal credit payments every fortnight, alleviating some of the debt problems that local authorities in Wales are going to face as a result of universal credit.

Well, I hear what the Member is saying and, of course, I agree with her about the impact that benefit problems have on people who are dependent on benefits. The question of whether it would be best to transfer responsibility for the payments to Wales is broader than the question that we are considering today and there are many other issues, beyond the point that the Member raised, to be considered if we’re to go down that path. At present, I don’t believe that the case has been made sufficiently strongly to go down that path.

Will the Cabinet Secretary comment on the fact that one of the main reasons for rising debt in the UK is as a result of the adverse impact of further cuts by the UK Government to working-age benefits from 1 April? These are the second largest cuts to the benefits budget in the past decade. They affect around 11 million families, with £2.5 billion cuts to working-age benefits, and working-age benefits frozen, for this year, and the withdrawal of the family support element of support for new tax credits, and universal credit claims from families with children, costing them up to £545. Will he also comment further on that beneficial role that's been expressed today that can be played by advice services, credit unions, and the adoption of the real living wage, supporting people in debt, with the support of the Welsh Government?

Can I agree entirely with Jane Hutt? I said in my original answer that, of course, the Welsh Government wants to go on investing in advice services. But it is an absolute disgrace that we are having to provide those services to people whose income is being knowingly and deliberately reduced by the UK Government, when those people live at the very margins of poverty.

A number of women Members in the Assembly yesterday tried to get a discussion of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report that was published during the recess, including the leader of Plaid Cymru, because the figures contained in that report are absolutely stark and ought to be of concern to every Member of this Assembly. An extra 50,000 children being pushed into poverty in Wales not by accident, not because somebody has lost their job, not because there's been a downturn in the economy, but because of the deliberate decisions by the UK Government to freeze the benefits of those families who have the least to live on of all. And those impacts will fall not simply on children, but they will fall disproportionately on women as well. Estimates in that report suggested that women will lose on average £350 a year from these benefit cuts, while men will gain around £15. The Member is absolutely right to point to those underlying causes of the need for debt advice in Wales, and to point to those remedies, such as the real living wage, which would have a genuine impact on the circumstances of those families who live in the direst of circumstances, whose poverty is increasing, and whose prospects for the future are under such threat.

Thank you, of course, for the question. Early indications suggest a successful start to the administration of devolved taxes since 1 April. Earlier today, the Welsh Revenue Authority published the first of what will be a regular series of statistical releases. It shows that 1,100 organisations have registered with the WRA for land transaction tax.

Thank you for that update, Cabinet Secretary, and I’m sure we’re grateful to the WRA for their work, and for what appears to be a successful start, as he says, to a new period in the constitutional history of Wales. You will be aware, of course, that these things are a process rather than an event. As part of the process, you’ve also set out in the taxation work programme some ideas on new taxes, or the development of taxes, in Wales, including working with the UK Government on a plastics levy possibly, and working here in Wales on a vacant land tax. So, can you give us an update on that, and that work programme, and how you have discussed these issues, or not, with the Westminster Government in terms of these new taxes?

Thank you, Simon, for that question. Just to say, the success that the authority is having at present comes from the hard, preparatory work that was done over the past years, including the work of the committee, which has been part of preparing the authority for the work that they are now undertaking. As regards the new taxes, we are continuing to work with the United Kingdom Government on more than one aspect. We are talking to them about what they are doing in the field of a plastics tax, and we’ve agreed to take the lead on this debate in Wales and to feed into the call for evidence— I've forgotten the Welsh word for 'evidence'. 'Tystiolaeth', of course—that the Treasury issued in March.

We also want to start to talk about Gerry Holtham’s work with them and what he has suggested in the care sector, but I have written—and I have shared the letter with the Finance Committee—officially to the Treasury to initiate the process in the field of vacant land. This is the one that we wish to use to test the new system that we have in the 2014 Act. I have written to the Treasury and we are preparing on an official level the work that we need to do with them. I’m looking forward to receiving a positive response from them and to begin this work in the Assembly—the more detailed work on the policy—and to see whether it will be possible to bring forward a Bill to the floor of the Assembly in order to create the first Wales-only tax through the process available to us.

In his latest spotlight on Cardiff offices, Ross Griffin, the director of UK investment at Savills, says that the increase in stamp duty to 6 per cent on a significant office development will deter investment by making Wales more expensive as investors target English regional cities instead of Cardiff, cutting the flow of capital into the Cardiff market. He concludes that this will limit future growth of the Cardiff office market and future employment growth in the city. How is this going to help my constituents and others who look to work in Cardiff? 

Well, Llywydd, we will now be in the business of collecting evidence rather than trading speculations. This National Assembly has made the decision on the levels of taxation in non-domestic property for this financial year. Ninety per cent of commercial transactions in Wales will enjoy the lowest rate of taxation anywhere in the United Kingdom, because 90 per cent of commercial transactions happen at the level of £1.1 million or below, and we have the lowest tax rates for that part of our economy of any part of the United Kingdom. I've heard the case made by Mr Reckless and by those who make it. I've met with those companies and individuals myself. My officials have met with them subsequently. The analysis by Bangor as part of our preparations did not suggest that those would be the outcomes, but I will look very carefully at the evidence, and if the evidence suggests that the outcomes that are suggested in that article are something that ought to concern this National Assembly, then, of course, I will take that into account in decisions that will be made for future years. 

Can I welcome the answers that the Cabinet Secretary has given to Simon Thomas? Can I just add my voice, yet again, to the calls for a plastic tax, which the Cabinet Secretary has heard me say on probably more occasions than he would have liked to have listened to them?

My question is though: has the Welsh Government produced a profile of expected tax receipts from the devolved taxes so that we can check, in the Finance Committee or in the Assembly as a whole, how the profile works against the expected? 

Llywydd, yes, we have produced such estimates. We published them alongside the final budget in December of last year. They showed, for example, that we anticipate landfill disposals tax to bring in £26 million in the current financial year, falling as that tax is intended to do to £20 million in the year 2021-22. Our forecasts are supplemented by the work of the Office for Budget Responsibility. They published updated forecasts for the two Welsh devolved taxes and Welsh rates of income tax in March of this year. They are broadly comparable with the figures that we produced in December, and both sets of figures will be available to the Finance Committee for them to scrutinise the actual performance of these taxes as that information becomes available during this year and beyond. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP's spokesperson, Neil Hamliton.  

Diolch, Llywydd. On 13 February this year, the Cabinet Secretary said that the vacant land tax is to have an impact on behaviour rather than to raise revenue. In the Republic of Ireland, the tax barely covers the cost of collection, which is just something that has got to be borne in mind. I wonder to what extent the Cabinet Secretary is able to say that land banking is a real problem in Wales, rather than just a perception, because Laura Harry, a planning consultant from Barton Willmore, an independent planning and design consultancy, says that

'while in theory a Vacant Land Tax is intended to increase house building, it may have the opposite effect and make Wales less attractive to housebuilders and undermine the Welsh Government’s housing ambitions',

which is something, obviously, that the Cabinet Secretary would not wish to see. So, is this tax perhaps directed at a problem that is more illusory than real?

I don't believe that to be the case. I think there is evidence of land banking happening in some parts of Wales. I've pointed in the Chamber previously to our stalled sites fund, which shows over 400 sites in Wales unable to be brought forward to be put to productive use, because there is remediation work required or the need to provide services for that land means that that land is not in productive use. Our stalled sites fund, with £40 million of Welsh Government investment available for it, is designed to help to remedy that situation.

I think it's very important for me to point out that the purpose of a vacant land tax is not to penalise anybody who is doing their very best to bring that land into active use, but is to provide an additional incentive to people who simply sit on land, hoping that the work that the public have done in providing them with planning permissions and so on will just lead to rising land values and, having done nothing at all themselves, they will be able to cash in on that by selling land in future.

The process, however, Llywydd, is really important, because at this stage we're at the very start of this process and many of the questions that the Member raises and other detailed questions will be part of the work that we will want to do once we know that the power has been transferred to us to bring this idea further forward.

I fully accept what the finance Secretary says there. Obviously, if we are going to have such a tax, we do need to realise that the behavioural effects that it might bring about can also be in the opposite direction—a point to which I'll come in a minute. Although, this is generally thought of as a problem to be addressed in urban areas, there is a potential impact on rural areas too. A rural surveyor for Country Land and Business Association Cymru, Charles De Winton, says that

'Small rural plots may not be viable to develop. A tax which forces them into development will inevitably increase the cost of development—a cost which will passed-on to the end-user. This does not help us tackle the crisis in availability of rural homes.'

The CLA's research in Wales suggested that over a third of the £1.3 billion annually into the economy by rural landowners was already put into residential development. One of the big problems with development sites is, of course, planning permission and the delays that, sometimes, that can bring about. So, potential developers often find themselves unwillingly in a situation where they're sitting on vacant land. We know around us here in Cardiff Bay there are lots of what might appear to be prime sites that still remain to be developed because there are no buyers for one reason or another. So, this is a matter that must be dealt with sensitively and with some delicacy.

All the points the Member makes are important points and ones that we would wish to take seriously. No finance Minister, when the detailed work is done, should that work demonstrate that a potential tax would create more problems than it would solve—nobody would want to take it further forward. So, these are important points and ones we will definitely want to consider.

I recognise the point the Member makes about rural communities and the fact that development often takes longer for specific reasons. But I just repeat the point that I made to him at the very beginning: a vacant land tax is not intended to bear down on those people who are making every effort to bring land into productive use. You've got to design it in a way that makes sure that people who are doing everything they can are not captured by it, while providing an additional incentive for those people—and we do believe that this does exist in the Welsh economy, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anxious that it existed in the London economy—who should be bringing land forward for productive use, but who choose not to do it, in order simply to speculate for a windfall gain.

I'd like to turn to another tax now to explore the impact on behaviour. It seems, in the case of the sugar tax, imposed now by the Westminster Government, that the Welsh Government is due to get £47 million in extra funding over two years because of spending in England linked to that. Forecasts of what the levy would raise have fallen from £520 million to £240 million. The behavioural changes that the sugar tax has brought about already are that Coca-Cola, for example, have reduced the size of their standard regular Coke cans from 330 ml to 250 ml, although that hasn't led to a similar reduction in price in many cases. So, now we could find ourselves in a situation where, instead of buying a third of a litre in a can, people are buying two cans of quarter of a litre. So, they're buying actually more sugary drink than before, at a higher price. So, this would be a perverse outcome for such a tax to bring about. But Wales has a significant problem with obesity—worse than any other part of the UK—with 59 per cent of adults, apparently, overweight—I'm probably one of them—and 23 per cent classed as obese. As to the allocation of the money that is raised, can the Cabinet Secretary confirm whether the Welsh Government is going to allocate this money to solve the problem of obesity predominantly, whilst not regarding it as a wholly hypothecated tax? If it is raised for the purpose of changing behaviour, then the money that is going to be spent from that revenue should be directed towards the problem that it is intended to solve.

Well, Llywydd, I'll begin by welcoming the fact that manufacturers have taken action to reduce the sugar content in their products, and to reformulate the way in which products are brought to market in order to have a bearing on obesity. I regret the fact that the sugar tax was simply announced in a budget, without any reference to the devolved administrations, despite the fact that it has a direct bearing on our responsibilities. Therefore, we weren't able to contribute to a debate, which may have pointed to some of the potential unintended consequences of the tax as it currently stands.

Money has been transferred to the Welsh budget as a result of it. It will partly help to take forward initiatives such as the preventable obesity programme that my colleague Vaughan Gething is undertaking, but it allows us to do other things as well. It allows us to support the programme of free healthy breakfasts in our primary schools; it helps us to introduce the new school holiday enrichment programme, which helps to feed children during the school holidays, who otherwise might go hungry; and it allows us to do a number of other things in the field that the Member mentioned, to help us to bear down on the problems of obesity, which are well-known and well-recognised.

Conservatives' spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just say that I've spied my former colleague on the Finance Committee, Peter Black, up in the gallery? It took me back to the last Assembly election, when we were looking forward to tax devolution as a distant, although approaching, inevitability. We are now the other side of that devolution.

You said, in answer to Mark Reckless earlier, in relation to land transaction tax, which I want to question you about as well, that we are now in the period of collecting evidence about the introduction of the taxes, and the effect of those taxes, rather than mere speculation. If, as you said in answer to Mark Reckless, there does, at some point, appear to be an issue with the rates of land transaction tax, at what point will you act to make sure that those rates are reduced so that they're more comparable with those across the border?

Well, Llywydd, as I said, we are in the process of evidence collection now. We will look to see how the non-residential property market develops during this year. We will look to see whether there is any evidence that the very small increase in tax turns out to be a decisive factor in very big multimillion pound decisions that companies make. My hypothesis—and it was the one supported in the Bangor report—that a company that is going to be spending many millions of pounds deciding where to locate itself will be interested in things like the price of land, the price of property, both of which are cheaper in Wales than in competitor cities along the border; they will be looking at the supply of skills, and we have a highly skilled population; they will be looking for long-term stability, which we provide here in Wales; and I don't believe that a small amount in a one-off cost on the purchase of the property will be decisive in those people deciding whether to come here or not, but that's my account. There are other accounts. Now, we will have the evidence, and I will take that into account in the decision-making process that we will have every year here as we set tax rates for the future. 

Cabinet Secretary, you are an open-minded person, and it's interesting that your tone today is different to before the devolution of tax. You did say previously—you asked a rhetorical question and you answered it previously:

'Do I think that the marginal additional sum in LTT will be the determining factor in business deals...? No, I don't.'

I gather from your answer today that whilst you still would say that is your personal opinion, you don't shut the door on the fact that it might actually be causing problems for some businesses. Before you come back, if I can just pick out some projects, such as Central Square in Cardiff, for instance, where the marginal 1 per cent rise in rates would mean investors paying around 20 per cent more on their property than with stamp duty, and at least 32 per cent more than land and buildings transactions tax. So, I asked you previously at what point you would act on that evidence. Are you willing to accept that already at this point there are cases, such as in projects such as that, where this not only could make a difference but will make a difference? It might be marginal, but in economic terms it's marginal differences that often make the difference in profit or loss.

I don't think the Member can expect to cite those instances and say that they are actual evidence. We are a couple of weeks into the new tax regime, and I don't think he or anybody else could produce a single decision where a company could say, 'We've decided not to come to Wales because of the 6 per cent rate.' He's able to produce those large percentage figures because he's got low numbers, and the low numbers show that the actual impact from that 1 per cent is a good deal more modest than he's suggesting.

I stand by the thinking that lay behind the decision I made and brought to the floor of this Assembly, that the rate will not deter people from coming here to Wales and that the impact of lowering taxes for the 90 per cent of commercial property transactions in Wales, so they're the lowest in the United Kingdom, will have a much larger stimulative effect on business in Wales than the aspect that he complains of.

However, any sensible person must be open to the actual evidence and there are different views of how this may affect the market, and now over the coming months we will find out whether there is such an impact, and if there is and there is real evidence, then I just repeat what I've said, Llywydd, then of course anybody would take that into account as these decisions come up for review.

To be fair to the Cabinet Secretary, you're right, it is early days, I fully accept that, and we must obviously look at evidence. We'd want an evidence-based approach to this, and I also would accept that I've identified and spoken at length about one tax, but that is just one tax of an overall package, and in the economy there are different levers, and this may well just be one aspect of it. However, that one aspect cannot be ruled out when you're dealing with situations on the margins of an economy. That can make a difference. I'm pleased actually that you have left the door open on potentially altering the stamp duty regime—the LTT regime, I should say—in future, if that evidence does produce a problem.

Cabinet Secretary, I have no doubt at all that you want to be business friendly, that your Welsh Government does want to be business friendly, I've no doubt at all that your intention is to be business friendly, because only a madman would not want that. However, I would say that when you look at the evidence we have to date, businesses are concerned. So, can you tell us, if you look at the multiplier rates in Wales, for instance, compared with other parts of the UK, that's markedly higher. That does make a difference in terms of the business rates. Can you tell us what interaction you have had so far, albeit a short time, but what interaction have you had so far with businesses, and have any businesses expressed real concerns that they will not invest in Wales because of these changes?

Well, I have answered that question, but I'll repeat again: I met a group of businesses who made much the case that you have put very plainly this afternoon, and I've asked my officials to meet them subsequently so that we remain in touch with them and are well placed to gather the evidence that I've talked about this afternoon.

His point about the multiplier is a curious one because in England, where his party is in charge, there is of course a higher rate multiplier for exactly the sort of businesses that you've been talking about this afternoon. The largest businesses in England pay a higher rate of multiplier and we don't have that higher rate of multiplier here in Wales. And that is because in England, of course, they have to collect money from those higher rated businesses because those higher rated businesses pay for the rate relief schemes that smaller businesses enjoy in England, whereas, in Wales, we fully fund all our business rate relief schemes directly from the Welsh Government.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price. 

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's become more and more apparent in light of the report of the auditor general, for example, and then the evidence gathered by the Public Accounts Committee recently, that one of the cornerstones of the procurement policy of the Welsh Government, namely the National Procurement Service, is underachieving to say the least. The target, if Members recall, back in 2012, when the service was created, was to generate £25 million of savings on expenditure of £4.3 billion within the public sector. But, in the most recent years for which we have figures in the auditor's report, only £15 million has been delivered on a spend of £6 billion. We also discover in the report that only 19 per cent of members of the service have declared that they are making financial savings, and only a third of all local authorities are content with the service. And even the Welsh Government are saying that they are dissatisfied with the service that they themselves have created. Isn't it clear, Cabinet Secretary, that Welsh Government procurement policy is currently failing?

Well, Llywydd, I have welcomed the work done by the Auditor General for Wales in relation to procurement, and I welcome the work that the Public Accounts Committee has done in this field as well. It is because of concerns about the National Procurement Service, not simply the service itself, but about the changing context within which such a service has to operate—Brexit, ongoing austerity, emerging models of regional working, for example—that back in September I announced that we were undertaking a review of the service. Now, since then, as Adam Price has said, information has emerged about the extent to which the NPS has been able to reach the benchmarks that were originally set out for it and about the level of confidence that it has commanded amongst those who use it. That's why a plan to refocus NPS and Value Wales is important. That's why I am keen to press on with it. We need a service that is able to use the power of procurement to the advantage of the Welsh economy to the maximum extent, but it has to command the confidence of its key stakeholders, and there are changes that are needed to make sure that that can happen.

One of the main weaknesses as I see it in terms of procurement at the moment in Wales is a lack of staff with appropriate qualifications and the ability of public bodies to retain those experienced staff. In 2012, Cardiff University said in a report by Professor Kevin Morgan that there was a serious skills shortage at the heart of the public sector in Wales in relation to public procurement. He estimated that there was a need for an official with a chartered institute qualification for every £15 million of public spend. Now, the Welsh Government have gone a step further than that, of course, and followed the recommendations made by McClelland, and in their policy on public procurement they talked of a figure of £10 million of expenditure across the public sector as the benchmark. On that basis, of course, we are some 274 professional procurement managers short in Wales, so what actions are the Government taking to recruit and train more staff and experts in procurement?

Well, can I begin by recognising the point that the Member makes? The need for proper capacity and capability in procurement is a challenge. I talked to Kevin Morgan myself about it, and the Member was right that the McClelland methodology does suggest a deficit in Wales of the order that he identified. Now, we've already done some things about this in Wales. We've had the Home Grown Talent project, which has successfully brought new people into the system. We are committed to increasing the pool of procurement professionals in Wales. We're working with schools and colleges to raise the awareness of procurement as a desirable profession. But we also need to work with public sector organisations for them to give the sense of status and recognition to procurement professionals that they do to others. Too often, it seems to me, public organisations regard procurement as a rather handle-turning exercise, where you don't think of the people involved in it as having much of a cutting-edge contribution to the work of the organisation. But we know— some of the points Adam Price has already made—about the ability of procurement to drive value for the public, and not just value, but activity in terms of employment and community benefits and so on. The status of the profession needs to be recognised better, and that's part of the work that we want to do to try to address the recruitment and retention issues that Adam Price has identified.

Can I turn, finally, to a specific example, which I think raises further questions on whether or not NPS and the wider framework of procurement policy is fit for purpose? NPS recently awarded a three-year contract called Arbed 3, which is an all-Wales contract to insulate thousands of homes, to the Scottish based company, Everwarm, which is itself a subsidiary of a much larger firm called Lakehouse, based in Essex, I believe—a company that's been likened to Carillion in terms of its aggressive bidding for public sector contracts based on its ability to cut costs. This has led to questions about standards and probity, and it should be noted that this was the very same company that held the contract for fitting the fire alarms at Grenfell Tower.

Now, you, in the statement that you referred to, Cabinet Secretary, last year on repositioning Welsh Government procurement policy, did emphasise social value. Does this commitment sit comfortably with NPS's decision to appoint a firm that has been the subject of a string of negative reports, from profit warnings to fraud allegations and safety concerns—compared to Melin Homes, which, together with other Welsh-based partners, had, in the previous programme, ensured 100 per cent procurement from Welsh SMEs? Instead of repositioning Welsh Government procurement policy, don't we need a complete rethink?

Well, I thank the Member for raising that point, and it was raised in the Chamber yesterday by Mark Isherwood during business questions, as well. I've written, Llywydd, today, to all Assembly Members who have corresponded with me on this issue. Because there will be Members here who won't have received those replies, I wonder if I might just read the final two paragraphs of that letter, just so that I put the current position on the record for Members to know. So, the letter sets out the process that led to the identification of a successful bidder. It then says that, under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, we are required to allow a mandatory minimum 10-day standstill period. During the initial period, one of the bidders formally raised a number of points of clarification via their legal advisers and asked that the Welsh Government extend the standstill period. That standstill period has been extended. It will now last until 30 April and that will provide time to enable a clear and comprehensive consideration of the points that have been raised as part of this exercise.

Members will understand that, with that issue under further consideration, it wouldn't be right for me to comment further on the outcome of the procurement, but I will make a further statement when the standstill process comes to an end.

Can I thank the Member for that question? And no doubt I will find my answer to it any second now. Llywydd, the local government and public services portfolio will spend £5.4 billion in 2018-19, comprising £3.7 billion in revenue, £209 million in capital and £1.1 billion in annually managed expenditure. That investment covers a range of vitally important areas, including housing, homelessness, childcare and the council tax reduction scheme.

Okay. Thank you for that answer. There are financial implications to Government spending if a proposed prison in Port Talbot or elsewhere in Wales is to go ahead. Have you made any analysis of the impact in terms of how you would need to allocate extra resources to departments? I understand the public service Cabinet Secretary made a statement during recess, where the impacts on other aspects of public services and policy were raised as part of the reason for announcing a delay. So, I've received, myself, some information that shows that there is considerable impact on public resources relating to existing prisons, so I would like to ask: have you given any thought, specifically, to the impact on public services in south Wales and how you would need to potentially change the budget if there would be a need to do so?

I thank her for that further question. I have, of course, seen the statement on justice policy put out by my colleague Alun Davies during the recess. Whenever there are developments in this field, we work closely with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that, if non-devolved activity is being developed in Wales, the necessary resources come with it. We do that, however, at the point when there is a specific proposal around which those discussions could take place. So, the general answer to the Member's question is, were there to be any proposals, of course those discussions would happen, but they don't happen in this specific instance because there is nothing on the table around which such discussions could be focused.

Cabinet Secretary, around £100 million of grants were dehypothecated in this year's budget for local authorities and local government, and, of course, we see that as a positive move forward. Obviously, the costs of administration are very high. However, a number of local authorities have raised serious concerns that the £13 million that was previously allocated for the minority ethnic, Gypsy/Traveller and Roma element of the educational improvement grant was actually withheld and not actually passed on to this particular budget line. The education Secretary has since admitted error in this regard, thereby transferring this extra funding to make up for the shortfall. However, once again, our more rural local authorities were completely excluded from this correction. Cabinet Secretary, this does not inspire confidence in the budget setting of the Welsh Labour Government. So, therefore, what assurances can you provide me with that any dehypothecated funding going forward in the future will reach those authorities and the budgets that they're intended to do so?

Well, I'm grateful for what the Member said at the start of her question about her support for the general principle of dehypothecation, and I was very keen, in this budget round for this year, to take a step forward in that, because, at times when local authority budgets are under such pressure, we respond to the case they make to us that, if money goes into the revenue support grant, they can make more flexible, and therefore more effective and more efficient, use of it.

In relation to the minority ethnic achievement grant, we have come to an agreement, Llywydd, with the Welsh Local Government Association on that matter. I have provided an additional £5 million from central funds to assist with the education of children from those backgrounds, and my colleague Kirsty Williams has added a further £2.5 million to that sum to make sure that future development of this provision on a regional footing can be carried out. We were glad to reach that agreement with the WLGA. As we move further grants into the RSG, I accept the general point the Member made—that that has to be done carefully and has to be done with thorough discussion in advance to make sure that the particular strand in the budget formula that we use means that money ends up in the places where it is most needed.

Thank you, Siân Gwenllian for that question. Replacement funding for structural funds is a matter that I have raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other United Kingdom Ministers. At present, they haven’t given us any details of their proposals. Our position for replacement funding and autonomy is clearly set out in our paper ‘Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit’.

Thank you. It appears from that paper that the Government’s main argument is that we need to increase the baseline for the funding that Wales received from Westminster to put right the losses from structural funds and European Union investments. Now, with all due respect, I don’t see you shouting particularly loudly on this issue at the moment. Wales is facing the loss of significant funding—£2 billion—with poor and vulnerable communities in west Wales and the Valleys worst hit, even though that is where the greatest need lies. So, can you give us an assurance today that you will have specific discussions with the Westminster Government in order to secure this post-Brexit funding? I would also like to know what assurance there is that the Welsh Government, in gaining those funds, will distribute that funding on a needs basis so that communities in west Wales and the Valleys don’t miss out.

I thank Sian Gwenllian for that question. From the point of view of this Welsh Government, it’s a standpoint that we put in the joint document between ourselves and Plaid Cymru in January of last year, namely that for every pound that we receive from the European Union here in Wales, that funding must come to us post Brexit, as those who tried to persuade people to vote to come out of the European Union kept reiterating. So, that is our policy, and I can tell the Member that, at all opportunities that I have to make that point with the Westminster Ministers in the Treasury, I do so. I take every opportunity to make that case wherever and whenever. Are we confident that we will receive this money? Well, we can’t say that for sure at the moment because we haven’t received any details from the United Kingdom Government about what they will be doing post Brexit.

On the point that Siân Gwenllian raised about how we are going to use the funding should we receive that funding, well that is why we have published the paper on the regional investment policies so that we can be clear that we want ideas from them in the field and that we want to be able to run the policy in the future on a needs basis, but also on the basis that we will have regulations in place where people can see clearly how the system will work and that they can be confident that there will be equity in that system in Wales. 

I thank the Member for the question. The revenue raised by devolved taxes will fund the essential public services on which communities and businesses across Wales depend, supporting our social objectives and helping to deliver fair economic growth.

Thank you. And what are the early observations on the Wales Revenue Authority and their management and collation?

I thank the Member. To make a few points on that score, the Welsh Revenue Authority has now been in existence for between two and three weeks, and the early days were always going to be ones where you would have some anxiety that the move from the existing system to the new one would go smoothly. I think I can report that it has been a successful few weeks. The first registrations for new Welsh taxes happened by 3 April. The feedback from users to date has been very positive, and the investment in digital systems, which was a key point of the Finance Committee, who reminded us during the whole development of the Welsh Revenue Authority that, with an opportunity to create a system from scratch, we ought to make sure that it was fully digital. The digital side of the Welsh Revenue Authority's work has proved to be very successful, both in the way that it interfaces with users of the service and in the way that it is able to use data inside the revenue authority as well.

Democratically elected local authorities are responsible for setting council tax every year. Local authorities are answerable to their local populations for the decisions they make, including setting council tax rates. The Welsh Government has this week launched a campaign to increase the take-up of our council tax reduction scheme, which supports low-income households.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Bridgend residents have had a 4.5 per cent increase, Neath 3.7 per cent and Swansea a staggering 4.9 per cent increase. At the same time as my constituents are forced to pay these inflation-busting rises, wages are only rising by half these amounts. Cabinet Secretary, how can these increases be justified when services are being cut? How can we justify asking my constituents to pay out more of their dwindling income for fewer bin collections, unrepaired roads, broken street lights and service cuts?

I'm afraid, Llywydd, that the answer is very simple: the justification lies in the impact of eight years of austerity on public service budgets here in Wales—eight years in which, year on year on year, there is less money available to this Government and to local authorities to do the vital work that the Member pointed to. I know that local authorities of all persuasions across Wales think very hard about the impact that their decisions have on their local population. At least here in Wales, the least well-off households have the comfort of knowing that they do not pay council tax, whereas across the border in England over 2 million of the poorest households in the land are now having to make substantial contributions, not out of their not-rising incomes, but their frozen benefit incomes for local public services. 

Finally, question 7—Mick Antoniw. 

Llywydd, strong partnership arrangements exist between the Welsh Government and all Welsh police forces. Reductions in budgets on both sides inevitably place even greater pressure on our combined ability to provide essential services.

Cabinet Secretary, you've seen the growing debate on community safety, particularly the incidents, for example, in London, just to mention one area, the growth of knife crime, and the debate around the impact of police budget cuts around that. Of course, the UK Government's argument is that the Tory cuts in policing have not led to those increases in violent crime. Well, can I just draw the Cabinet Secretary's attention to the situation within Wales? We have, as the result of the loss of 682 police officers over the last eight years, had an 18 per cent increase in violent crime, a 14 per cent increase in knife crime in south Wales, a 25 per cent increase in knife crime in Wales and 84,000 crimes unsolved, and we've had the highest increases in these forms of crimes occurring. Isn't it the case that it is undeniable now that the Tory cuts to policing over the last few years that they've been in power have led to a direct result in not only fewer police officers and less money for the police, but a direct increase in violent crime, in knife crime and in crime generally across Wales, and that this is an issue that cannot go on any longer? 

Llywydd, the Prime Minister's disastrous record as Home Secretary is increasingly coming home to roost. Her decision—let's remember that it was her decision—year after year after year to reduce funding for the police—[Interruption.] You forget the times that she turned up at Police Federation conferences lecturing them on the way that they should conduct themselves, while she was, at the same time, taking away from police authorities across England and Wales the wherewithal to allow them to do the vital work that they do. It doesn't matter how many times Conservative Ministers go on the television and radio trying to claim that the slash and burn through police authority budgets has had no impact on crime, because people out there living real lives in real communities simply know that that is not true, and the figures that Mick Antoniw outlined demonstrate that very well. In the Prime Minister's disastrous election campaign last year, one of the issues that she failed to address right through the campaign was Labour's promise that if we were elected, we would restore those budgets and make sure that police numbers were restored to where they were before the Prime Minister set about her campaign of reducing them. Of course reducing budgets for police authorities has an impact on the work that they are able to do and of course the work they are able to do has an impact upon the lives of people in communities in every part of Wales.  

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next questions are for the leader of the house. The first question is from Simon Thomas.  

Thank you for the question. While we don't hold specific information on mobile reception in mid and west Wales, I do appreciate the difficulties that the area suffers. We have successfully lobbied Ofcom to include coverage obligations in their forthcoming spectrum auction of the 700 MHz band, which we hope will lead to better service availability. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary—I'm not sure what she is when she does this, leader of the house or Cabinet Secretary, but she's a member of the Cabinet, anyway. Thank you for that reply. I really struggle to understand how we can actually move on many parts of rural Wales to the automated future, the robotics future that we've been talking about in Welsh public life only today if we don't have a viable and reliable mobile phone signal. You can't do your automated farm, for example, if you don't have that. You can't have automated cars if you don't have that. We can't have developments, even if we do see a new train line between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth, without a reliable mobile phone signal for the track engineering and everything else.

You say you don't actually know the availability of this, and I understand it's not devolved, but there are ways of plugging the gap. The Scottish Government has a 4G infill programme. It has looked at changing planning regulations, trying to do the best it can about mast sharing, forcing companies to work together and, indeed, some public Government investment in filling in the notspots. Is that something that the Welsh Government is considering, and could we see a 4G/5G national programme, similar to the broadband programme that you've been rolling out over the last couple of years? I'm sure your postbag deserves a few extra letters on these matters as well.    

The devolution settlement is very complicated here and the edges are difficult, and so what exactly is devolved and what isn't is a constant source of conversation between ourselves, the UK Government, Ofcom and the industry about who can do what. So it's not quite as straightforward as the Scottish situation, unfortunately, would that it were. There have been some improvements. I'm not arguing at all that it's wonderful, but there have been some improvements as a result of our conversations with Ofcom and their pressure on the industry. Currently, the proportion of premises across Wales with outdoor mobile coverage is around 90 per cent. We've seen an increase of 33 percentage points in outdoor 4G availability between 2015 and 2016, reaching 53 per cent.

The last 4G spectrum auction licence, which I've just been talking about, was awarded to Telefónica O2, and carried the coverage obligation of at least 95 per cent of the population of Wales by the end of 2017, and we fought hard to get that in there. In late 2015, Ofcom did announce their forthcoming auction of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz and 3.4 GHz bands. That's a very high capacity spectrum that will be used for increasing capacity of existing 4G coverage. We're pressing Ofcom for the forthcoming auction of the 700 MHz spectrum to include a geographic coverage obligation, or if it doesn't then a time-limited obligation to give it back to us if it hasn't been implemented. I've spoken in this Chamber before about the land banking effect of the spectrum auctions, and how difficult that is for us. 

So, we are putting a lot of pressure on them. There are some other things going on. On the roll-out of the Home Office system, we understand that planning applications are now with local authorities and are going well. That will afford an extra ability to cover it. And also, of course, the rail franchise. We will be putting obligations on the rail franchise holder to spread mobile phone coverage along that network, and we're also looking at our road network. So, we are using the devolution settlement, such as it is, to the best of our ability and putting a lot of pressure on the UK Government and Ofcom about the way that the industry rolls out. We also continue to have the mobile action plan forum, which I chair, and 'Planning Policy Wales' is out to consultation as we speak about the issue with the mast sizes and spaces. So, there is a lot of activity going on, but I share the Member's frustration at the slowness and the difficulty.

The last thing I will say is that we have targeted in our broadband Superfast 2 project those who are excluded from 4G spectrum in order to try and boost them up in a different way.
 

Leader of the house, I do appreciate the answer that you've just given to Simon Thomas, but, of course, the reality is that in great chunks of mid and west Wales, there are areas where people do not have access to either broadband or mobile. To be fair, I absolutely recognise your commitment to sorting this out, and I know that you've taken on literally probably almost 100 of my constituents to try to get resolutions.

However, 90 per cent of mobile reception sounds great, but, of course, it's not 90 per cent of one provider. And so, sometimes you can get a bit of this provider, but your provider doesn't work. So, for example, I've got a household where—I don't know if I should mention the providers—if they were on EE, they can get it literally just by their door, but that's it, nowhere else in their area. So, actually that's not the best provider for them to be on. I wonder if a way forward might be to put together a task and finish group to look specifically at how we can jigsaw-puzzle together in rural areas all of the communication methodologies to ensure that our citizens really are digitally enabled going forward, because it's vital for business and for homework, kids, the whole lot. We all need our digital fix. 

Yes, the mobile action plan is actually attempting to do just that, to pull the operators together and to make sure that the jigsaw fits, if you like. Not wanting to politicise this, but there are some fundamentals here. One of the big issues is roaming. The mobile phone companies don't like the idea of roaming, and Ofcom backs them up on that. And we understand entirely why, commercially, they don't want roaming in big population centres and so on. But in rural areas, it's probably the only hope because you're never going to get coverage of five different networks across the whole of the rural land mass of Wales and elsewhere in the UK. And so, we have been pushing the UK Government to look again at roaming for outside major conurbations, for example. And the frustration is that if you have a SIM from outside Britain—if you have a French SIM, it will roam quite happily. So, it will happily look because the EU insists on roaming. Likewise, if you take a British SIM to Europe, it roams around happily. So, we do push that, and I share the Member's frustration on that.

We will have geographical coverage by one provider—98 per cent geographical coverage I should hasten to add; there will still be a 2 per cent that's not covered—which will be great because I hope the residents will speak with their feet and swap to that provider. But that doesn't help the tourist industry. You can't be saying to your tourism customers, 'Welcome to Wales, please be on this provider or else you can't access anything.' That's clearly useless. So, we continue to push pretty much how useless that is and to use our public networks and public infrastructure to get it out as far as we possibly can. There are problems, as I say, with the devolution settlement on that. 

Yes. Work is progressing across all themes: leadership, transformation, skills and workforce, platform services, digital dialogue and engagement, and data. It's very important to me because it drives improvements in delivering the business of Government, and, of course, I oversee progress of the plan, which is owned by the Permanent Secretary, at the digital and data group, which I chair. 

Thank you for that reply. Leader of the house, I attended the cross-party group on hospices and palliative care at the end of last term. There, a barrier to more effective working and communications across disciplines was identified, and that is the inability of the various information technology systems to talk to each other, although I do understand improvements are under way. Only yesterday, during the statement on sexual health services, lack of effective IT systems were highlighted as a problem once again. I appreciate that health systems may not be in your remit, but this has got me thinking about public services innovation, and those services being fit for the present, never mind the future.

My research has led me to read your digital action plan 2017-20, a clear exercise in navel-gazing, if ever I saw one, with one paragraph—29—given to one of the main reasons we are here: our much-valued public services. The trail then led me to the 2012 'digital first' report. This was advice given to the Welsh Government, where leadership, strategy and direction were deemed vital to the future efficient delivery of public services. Now, this is 2018—this is the future. After 20 years of devolution, in a very small nation, can you please outline what leadership, strategy and direction the Welsh Government has shown in this key area?

I'll try and unpick that a little. The health services issue: my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health and I do collaborate on health service issues, and, indeed, I attend the national informatics management board for the health service, which is NIMBY—always makes me smile, I'm afraid, but it doesn't mean what it normally means in normal parlance; it's the informatics board system. And the whole point of that is to co-ordinate IT progress across the health service, on a once-for-Wales basis, and to ensure that we do have systems that work—well, (a) that we have as few systems as possible, so we have similar systems across all health boards, and that, indeed, they do talk to each other, and that's very much a work in progress. And I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for health would be happy to update you on exactly where we are with that. But I assure you, we are on top of that, and we have very vigorous conversations about it.

In terms of the Welsh Government itself, there are three aspects to your question, I think. One is the internal business of the Welsh Government, which I've just outlined in terms of the digital action plan, which is about the way the Welsh Government itself works. And the Member may know that we've just come off one of the big headline IT contracts, Atos, and we're moving to a more flexible system. The commission were several years ahead of the Government in this, and it's a different way of working. And that's what I was just outlining, and I'll be reporting on the progress on that plan very shortly. And then there's the work that I do with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for public services, in local government and in the workforce partnership council, around digital innovation and improvement for the delivery of public services. We have an enormous agenda there, where we liaise with all public services—devolved and non-devolved public services in Wales—to ensure, again, that we have a similar once-for-Wales digitally connected system, where we roll out systems together. And my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance just spoke in his answers about the real success we've had with the Welsh Revenue Authority, which went live earlier this month—and I know he outlined it earlier—with all the online collection and management of the land transaction and landfill taxes all digitally enabled, and with all lawyers and conveyancers, and all the rest of it, all able to log on to that system, and do their transaction digitally.

So, we are very much ahead of that curve. There's a lot more to do, and there's a huge issue about understanding what the future looks like, in terms of the skills agenda as well. But the Welsh Government is very much, I think, on top of that agenda.

Leader of the house, there seems to be two aims of the Welsh Government's digital action plan—a more connected Wales and a more equal Wales. Now, you've published an update on your digital inclusion plan this morning, which I've had a read through, which cites good progress. But I have to say the reality is, of course, that thousands of my constituents, in Montgomeryshire, still suffer from slow or non-existent broadband connectivity at all. So, that means, of course, they simply cannot, and they are unable to, access Welsh Government services online. They don't feel more connected, and they don't feel part of a more equal Wales in this regard, and it will be, of course, of no surprise that I'm mentioning this to you. But can I ask for an update on the procurement of phase 2 of the Superfast Cymru project, and when will you be in a position to publish a full list of the 88,000 premises that will benefit from the next scheme?

Well, I have to say, I congratulate the Member for managing to get broadband into a conversation about the digital action plan of the Welsh Government, and I think there are a number of other questions later on the agenda on that. But the short answer is: I will be making a statement towards the end of May about the progress of Superfast 2, the three tendered projects, and the bespoke community issue, and I will expand further on that in later questions, Llywydd.

It is fair to say, of course, that there is for more interface between public services and the public happening online, so I think it’s a valid question. I have to say that many of my constituents have had enough of the empty promises that they’ve received in the past from people such as BT Openreach, or Openreach as they are now. Villages like Ysbyty Ifan to all intents and purposes have been misled by a company that clearly is more interested in protecting the interests of its shareholders than in providing services to the communities that it is supposed to serve. And even worse than that, the Welsh Government has given some false promises to constituents, with copies of letters that I’ve seen dating back to November 2015 promising resolutions in this area—one of them from you in a previous role as Minister for Skills and Technology from over two years ago. So, when will these rural communities, such as Ysbyty Ifan, at last be receiving the services that they deserve rather than the empty promises that they’ve had over the last few years?

I'm sorry that the Member feels they were empty promises. We do go out of our way to say that the dates mentioned in the letters are shiftable and are not promised connection dates. But I've said many times in this Chamber that I share his frustration and the frustration of those who were scheduled in the programme and then who, for whatever complicated reason, fell out at the end. The Superfast 2 programme will very much be trying to address people who were inside the superfast 1 programme and, for whatever reason, fell out of it. I cannot promise that they will all be addressed. There are some complicated issues there. 

Many people in Wales are stuck behind wayleave issues, for example. I think we have 10,000 premises stuck behind wayleaves at the moment, and, unfortunately, because it's not considered to be a utility, the Welsh Government and the contractors that the Welsh Government procures have no right to cross land. If a landowner refuses access to land we have no way of making them give us that access and that's just one example of many that there are across Wales. 

But I do share the Member's frustration. I am going out to very many communities in Wales talking about whether a community solution is possible for villages, such as the one you've just mentioned, and whether we can do one of our bespoke solutions for a group of people who are geographically proximate or whether some other solution might be best, and I'm going down to Ceredigion next week I think. 

Yes, Thursday. Four o'clock. [Laughter.] Llanina Arms. 

I'm looking forward to it already. [Laughter.]

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much. And an invitation has been issued to your office to come to Arfon too, if I may say so.

During the past month, in a speech given in Oxford, the First Minister said that he will hold a review of the equality and gender policies of the Welsh Government, which will include, among other things, consideration of how to move gender to the forefront in making decisions, ensuring that economic development planning corresponds to the aims on gender and equality, and to make Wales the safest place to be a woman in the whole of Europe, which all sounds very laudable, but what are the details? When will this review commence? Who will be holding it? Will there be specific targets and specific outcomes, and what will the purpose of this review be?

Well, the questions are very welcome and very timely. We've only just concluded the agreement of the terms of reference, which only this morning I placed in the Members' library, so they can be accessed by all Members as of today. So, the question is a very timely one. We're very pleased to have agreed the terms of reference. We will be having two initial stakeholder events, one on 26 April and one on 3 May, where we're getting all of the stakeholders who are active in this sphere together—one in south Wales and one in north Wales—to just try and get as many people as possible, and I have written out to all of the groups that we're aware of. If you know of any that haven't received anything from us, do encourage them to reply—we're not trying to only get to the people we know about—asking them, if they could only do one thing in the next three years in this space, what would it be, so that we can get a discussion going at the two stakeholder events around the priorities that people highlight. And then I'm very pleased to say that we will be looking to see what we can do rapidly, what we can do in the medium term and then what might take a little bit longer to achieve as part of this review, which I'm delighted to be doing. 

Thank you very much. I look forward to participating in that debate. In the context of the point made in the First Minister's speech in Oxford on making Wales the safest possible place to be a woman throughout the whole of Europe through legislation, you will be aware, of course, that that was one of the intentions underpinning the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, and I'm very pleased that there has been some progress now in light of issues that I have raised in this Chamber on implementing that particular piece of legislation. There is one persistent defect in terms of that legislation, namely healthy relationships education. Despite recent work by the task and finish group, it appears that we are still no nearer a resolution in this area. There’s been no mention of what is going to happen in terms of teaching the foundations of a healthy relationship, having discussions on what is acceptable behaviour and what isn’t acceptable, and so on and so forth. So, there’s been an opportunity missed with the legislation. I hope there’s an opportunity now, but I don’t see any progress being made. So, what’s holding things back in this area?

So, the Member rightly identifies an issue that's been at the forefront of many of our minds for some time. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education will shortly be making a statement on the teaching of—I can't remember exactly how it's put—sex and relationships education, effectively. That might not be the exact title, forgive me, but that's the gist of it. We've been building on the successful projects run by Hafan Cymru across many of the schools in Wales around healthy relationships teaching. I had the privilege of going to see a session in one of our Valleys primary schools, which was amazing. The difference in the group at the beginning of the session and at the end, and the young woman who was teaching it, was inspirational. So, we've been very much looking to see if we can build on that. But my colleague—I won't steal her thunder—the Cabinet Secretary will be making some announcements very soon.

Well, I’m very pleased to hear that and it is about time if I may say so because education is crucial in tackling this particular problem.

Yesterday, some Members mentioned in the Chamber the review of sexual health services, which drew attention to the postcode lottery that exists in terms of abortion services in Wales. The review states that abortion services in Wales are inequitable and that this can lead to late abortions or for women to be in a situation where they have no choice but to go on with an unintended pregnancy. Now, clearly that isn’t an acceptable situation. Will this major review that you’re going to be conducting pursue this particular issue, given that the provision is very patchy at the moment? It is an issue that has to be dealt with if the comments made by the First Minister are going to be taken seriously, otherwise people are going to think that it was empty rhetoric or a tokenistic statement that was made ad hoc to the press in Oxford.

One of the purposes of the review is to look at gender-focused policy right across the Welsh Government. So, that's one example you just gave there. There are many others around how and why services are as they are in Wales. One of the ones that I often quote is that you often see services for refuges, for example, grow up where a number of people tens of years ago got together and saw the need and then we've continued with that service rather than on a needs-based approach across Wales. Not that there's anything wrong with the services that are there, but I'm not absolutely convinced that we've got the coverage and that people have the same experience wherever they pitch up for those services, because of the way they grew up and the way that we—. So, that's part of the purpose of the review. So, you've highlighted another. There are other services—I've had endometriosis services highlighted to me, for example, and there are a number of others. So, yes, the purpose of the review is to look at policy across the Welsh Government and the availability of services and to focus on what might be done to improve that. 

The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. My questions relate to your responsibilities for equality and human rights. On Monday, I hosted and spoke at the Going for Gold Autistic Acceptance event in the Senedd. It was an autistic-led event, at which they, autistic adults—highly articulate and intelligent autistic adults—covered the areas of concern that they have, but also put forward ideas of how we can all work together co-productively, in their terms, to ensure that we begin to tackle the discrimination faced by autistic people

'that has become the norm rather than the exception'.

They particularly raised concern that awareness is not acceptance or equality, which is where your role comes into this, and yet there's growing concern that autism awareness training generally, and disability awareness training more broadly, across Wales is increasingly being led by non-disabled people who are professionals in medical or caring professions with a medical focus, which informs people about disabled people's impairments and ways of overcoming disability, whereas, as the sector says, autism equality training is always led by trainers who are disabled people, with a focus on disabled and non-disabled people working together to overcome the disabling barriers in society, recognising that removing physical, financial and attitudinal barriers will create a more inclusive, accessible society.

How, working with your colleagues, will you address the growing concerns within the autism community, and more broadly amongst disabled people in Wales, that this awareness training, is being provided without them or despite them on a medical model, rather than with them on a co-productive basis to tackle the barriers that they're encountering?

That hasn't been raised with me directly, Mark Isherwood, and I'd welcome a longer conversation with you about where those concerns have been raised. I'm very happy to look at that. Very, very much our stated policy is that we have a co-production model; that we work with the communities that we are serving in order to make sure that the services that we provide are provided with them and with their input. So, I'm concerned to hear you say that and I'd very much welcome a conversation with you about where those concerns have been raised as they've not been raised directly with me.

Well, thank you for that. I look forward to that conversation. Perhaps you could, in your answer, tell me whether you want me to contact you or your office to contact—

I'll get my office to contact you.

Sorry?

I'll get my office to contact you.

Thank you very much.

Well, on a similar subject, and, again, wearing your equalities hat, the Welsh Government publication early last month of its evaluation of the integrated autism service and autism spectrum disorder—a word I hope the Welsh Government has stopped using; it should be 'condition'—and strategic action plan interim report found weaknesses and inconsistencies in both assessment and diagnostic services for adults with autism and in support services for adults and children with autism, and said that although success requires a co-productive approach involving staff, service users and carers in the design, implementation and evaluation of the service,

'There are concerns that the “top down” approach…has stifled this'

Again, from Monday's event, and more broadly, the community feels that this is a breach of their equality and human rights. It's more than systems; it's more than services; it's a rights-based issue. Again, then, I hope that you will agree to consider this broadly and potentially in the meeting that you propose.

Certainly. The services that you mentioned are not actually in my portfolio, but I'm more than happy to discuss with the Member how we can take that forward amongst a number of Cabinet Secretaries who are involved.

And my final question, again, on a similar theme, I have—probably because I'm the chair of the cross-party autism group, I get a lot more approaches regarding this—an increasingly bulging case load of families where children, particularly girls, are being denied autism assessment and diagnosis because of the gender-based misconceptions about how autism presents itself. I've got an example here from the Inns of Court College of Advocacy, whose own guidelines say that females with autism may appear more sociable than their male counterparts. It's been suggested that women and girls with autism are better able to engage in social situations because they're likely to observe and copy others in their social skills and use of language. Such strategies may mask any difficulties that they have and make them appear to be more able than they actually are.

I have a growing number of cases, where health boards and schools are seeing the masking rather than the person, and more and more of these girls and their families—some of whose parents are on the spectrum as well—suffering serious anxiety problems, depression, absenteeism from school, falling behind and, nonetheless, having a belligerent and non-co-productive response from the statutory bodies to them and to me when I represent them. I know that this covers briefs that are not yours, but, again, these parents and, when I meet them, the children are telling me this is a breach of their human rights. And, again, I hope that you will confirm that you will give consideration to addressing these very real concerns because they're causing real damage to real lives.

I'm very aware of the issue about misconceived ideas of what a child who's on the autistic spectrum might present like. The Member, I know, is aware that I have a case in my own family, which I very much have in the forefront of my mind.

I'm more than happy, as part of our discussion, to include my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Health, who is responsible for most of the services, and I think some of them are probably education services as well. So, if we have that conversation, I'm more than happy to take that forward.

I'd just like to reiterate that I've not had those concerns raised directly with me, but I'm more than happy to take them up.

The UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. By sheer coincidence, my question somewhat follows on from some issues raised by Sian Gwenllian earlier on.

In April 2015, the Welsh Assembly passed the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. This was a laudable piece of legislation designed to protect, in particular, female victims of domestic abuse. As with any piece of legislation, it is incumbent on us after a period of time to question its effectiveness. Does the leader of the house believe the Act is achieving its goals?

It's still early days for the Act, obviously; we've only just put the new national advisers in place. I've had several extremely helpful and constructive meetings with them, including a half-day meeting with them where we discussed the range of services that currently exist in Wales and what needs to be done to get them to work in a more collaborative fashion. I had the real privilege just this week of attending the launch of the Seren Môr Consortium in Western Bay, which is embracing that collaborative approach as a result of our new national guidance. So, I think the Act is very much coming into its own.

We had a slow start, as Sian Gwenllian alluded to, but I think we're very much there now. We're about to put out our sustainable funding guidance as well. So, I think the Act is one that we can very much be proud of, and is just starting to make the difference that we expect and want it to make.

I thank the leader of the house for her comprehensive answer, but the figures with regard to sexual violence and domestic abuse do not make good reading. In March 2017, data showed a 23 per cent increase in this form of crime over the previous three years. Even given the fact that people are more readily reporting such incidents, it still shows worrying trends. However, what is far more worrying is the lack of funding for interventions once a victim has taken the often courageous step of leaving the home where domestic abuse has been perpetrated, sometimes over many years. Figures show that 47 per cent of such victims were turned away from refuges due to lack of accommodation. Given that these refuges play a vital role in helping people to get away from domestic violence, does the leader of the house feel funding is adequate?

Would that it were adequate. As my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said earlier on in response to a question, this is the result of many years of Conservative Government austerity. We have less and less money year on year. We have less and less money. There are no easy choices. We are not ever cutting something that doesn't work. All of these services are vital. We are not in any—. I cannot say that the funding is adequate, as it quite clearly isn't, and, after the large number of cuts that we've sustained year on year, it's no surprise.

Well, again, I thank the leader of the house for her answer, but the stark fact is that agencies such as the Domestic Abuse Safety Unit and Welsh Women's Aid state that far from funding being adequate to fund extra refuges, they are now fearful that some refuges will have to close. Is, therefore, moving funding from these projects to local authorities a sensible alternative, given the possibility of top-slicing this vital source for administration costs?

Okay, that's not what we're doing; we're not moving the funding to local authorities. What we're doing is that we have a co-ordinated regional approach to funding these services. As I said in a previous answer, this is about ensuring that services are provided properly and adequately across all of Wales, to all of the women of Wales and don't depend on a postcode lottery of any description. So, we will be doing, as part of our rapid review, an analysis of why and where those services are, and whether they're adequate to their task.

We are also looking to make sure that we cover off all the other issues as well. So, it is an issue about survivors, there is an issue about the protection of people who are fleeing immediate domestic violence, but there's a huge issue around training, around prevention, and around perpetrator issues as well, which also have to be addressed as part of this agenda. So, we've had 70,000 people so far who've taken our awareness-raising e-learning, and we're rolling out our 'ask and act' training for front-line professionals. I was very privileged to visit the fire service recently, who are the first White Ribbon fire service in the UK, and to see for myself their 'ask and act' training for all of their front-line professionals, because prevention is the real answer to this, although I absolutely accept that we must provide services for people in immediate danger of harm as well.

Yes, with pleasure. Since the Act came into force, the approach to tackling violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence has been transformed. Implementation of the Act has led to increased training, stronger guidance, practice change and a clear strategic direction throughout the Welsh public service. The third sector continues to play an extremely important role in all of this.

Well, of course, as we've heard today, the Violence Against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act is a critically important area of your portfolio, and I do welcome the way you are engaging so fully in this vital policy area. This Act has three purposes: prevention, protection and support, and in November I spoke at the BAWSO annual Light a Candle multifaith event at Llandaff cathedral, and I highlighted that, on average, two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner in England and Wales. So, given the ongoing prevalence of violence against women and girls, can you comment further on the progress of implementation of this pioneering legislation, given the challenges that are facing organisations who provide specialist services for women, the pressures on multi-agency providers such as police, social services, health boards, which all have a roll to play, and the NHS, particularly as a result of austerity and the pressures this Government is facing as a result of UK Government cuts?

Yes, indeed. I mean, we have made huge progress despite the challenges, and organisations across Wales have shown a real commitment to the Act and to the services that they provide. This is not a surprise to us; we know that people are very committed in this area.

We are, as Jane Hutt knows, in the process of moving to a co-ordinated, needs-led, regional commissioning base for services for violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. This is to provide for better planning and join-up of services, as I just said in previous answers, as well as some economies of scale. But we've got specialist third sector services being a vital part of that regional, collaborative approach, and just to elaborate a little bit, I did attend the launch of the the Seren Môr western bay consortium, which is a consortium of five organisations down there who have come together collaboratively. I think there is a real need for us to make sure that the way that we commission services doesn't have unintended consequences in lessening collaboration, and this regional approach will, we hope, be very instrumental in drawing those services together and getting them to work in a co-ordinated fashion together and share all of their data, rather than if we procure individual services and they compete with each other and naturally pull their data back together. So, we're very committed to doing that.

Our national training framework ensures that VAWDASV is a core part of the service that our health, fire and rescue, and local authority colleagues offer. As I said earlier, public services have shown their commitment to the training and, to date, over 70,000 people have been trained. Local authorities and local health boards are under a duty to publish their local VAWDASV strategies by early next month. It's a key commitment of the Act, and places it on a new strategic footing, which we think will ensure the stronger leadership and direction that the sector needs. We're very pleased to have got our own guidance out, as the third anniversary approaches. 

Cabinet Secretary, between November 2016 and October 2017, South Wales Police dealt with nearly 36,000 incidents of domestic abuse, and those are the ones they've dealt with. So, this is an enormous problem, and in many ways, it's only now that it's getting full recognition. Will you join with me in commending the work of the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales? Indeed, the leadership shown by police commissioners, I think, is key in this area, but the south Wales police commissioner received a grant last year from the Home Office of £1.4 million to help address violence against women and girls, concentrating on protection and prevention, and I understand this was the largest of any grant given to a police commissioner. I do think there's some great practice out there now, but it's a huge task, and a lot of it does relate to educating people, stopping behaviour before it accelerates, and just having a no-tolerance approach to abuse.

Yes, I couldn't agree more. I had the great pleasure of going with the police and crime commissioner around the multi-agency service hub, over in Cardiff central police station. I don't know if the Member's had the chance to do that, but I'd recommend it to all Members, if you haven't had the chance. That shows the real leadership that the police service, in particular, has given to that collaborative approach. I was able to see for myself how they were able to make sure that they responded much more quickly and appropriately to all of the incidents that they were dealing with, and make a lot better use of the wealth of data, and different professionals all working side by side to make sure that they had the best possible outcome in the circumstances that were presenting to them.

We collaborated with them, and with—as I said—a large number of our other statutory public sector and third sector partners, in rolling out our 'ask and act' training and our e-learning, which we launched just earlier last year, and that's been very successful as well. The idea is to make sure that all of our first responders and the people who deal with people on a day-to-day basis pick up the early signs of this sort of domestic abuse. So, our teaching staff, our teaching assistants, our fire and rescue services, our police services, our ambulance and other responders, are all going through the 'ask and act' training. There are several layers of the training, so the front-line responders get a particular set of training, and then there are co-ordinated training packs for the people dealing with the results—with actual live incidents in, for example, the multi-agency safeguarding hub.

We also have a number of other campaigns because we're trying to tackle the cause of much of this as well. So, we launched our This is Me campaign back in January. I was very pleased to be able to launch it down in Gower College, with an incredibly enthusiastic set of middle-range teenagers who engaged very enthusiastically with it. That's been one of the best received campaigns we've ever run, I think, as a Government. The response to it has been amazing. Because this is a big society issue as well, and the purpose of that—. We know that gender stereotyping is a large part of what drives domestic violence, as people try to live up to stereotypes, which are not realistic or live-uppable to—if that's even a word. You see the point I'm making. It's extremely important that men don't feel that they have to be strong and whatever, and women don't feel that they have to be submissive in circumstances in which domestic violence occurs. That's just to give one example. There is a large range of others. So, that's been a very successful campaign.

I hope that Members have all had the chance to see it. It runs on lots of social media platforms. We've had more response to it than we've had, I think, to any other campaign. It's been extraordinary. Because we do see this as a need to change. Societal change is required in order to change some of the stuff, and in the meantime, of course, we continue to provide services for those incidentally affected by it.

The Welsh Government has worked closely with stakeholders to co-produce a plan to improve outcomes for asylum seekers and refugees. The draft 'Nation of Sanctuary—Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan' addresses issues raised by the Equalities, Local Government and Communities Committee last year, and is out for consultation until 25 June.

Thank you for that. Cabinet Secretary, more broadly, growing up in Newport, I know many people who are part of the Windrush generation, having come to Wales from the Caribbean post second world war, and made huge contributions to our communities, our economy and, indeed, our public services. I share the current outrage at the way that the UK Government is conducting checks on the status of those who migrated to the UK from Commonwealth countries between 1948 and 1971, resulting in a number of them being informed that they do not have the right to access public services and, indeed, may be deported. Will you, and the Welsh Government as a whole, Cabinet Secretary, continue to press the UK Government to right these wrongs as a matter of urgency, and to stop the current situation, and reverse the current situation, where these members of our communities are being subject to gross indignity and a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety?

Yes, I share the Member's concern. I think this was the subject of a number of exchanges yesterday, here in the Senedd as well. I fully support the First Minister's position, as outlined in the letter that I hope all Members have now seen copies of. It is crucial that the Home Secretary puts in place a simple, quick and effective process to support all of these members of our communities. I have seen the new website that's been put up, and I don't think it's quick, easy or simple, I'm afraid, so we will be writing again to say that it's great that the website has been put there, that people are allowed to access it, but it should be made a lot more accessible. I don't know if Members have had a chance to look at it, but it's very off-putting and quite scary in some of its language, so it needs to be made a lot more simple.

And then of course only this morning it became clear that the embarkation documents have been destroyed, taking away some of the last pieces of documentation that some of the people caught up in this fiasco had, and that those whose embarkation documents were destroyed have been receiving a line that simply says, 'There is no record of you in our records, in our files', which is just not an acceptable situation at all. So, now that that's come to light, we will be writing further to highlight our shock that that's been done and to ask for further details about what's to be done to right it.

One of the priorities in the Welsh Government's asylum seeker delivery plan was to find increasing opportunities for access to higher education for asylum seekers, and very specifically in that plan it mentioned that Welsh Government will enable monthly surgeries with Cardiff Metropolitan University to provide advice on possible routes to universities for refugees and asylum seekers. You can probably see where I'm coming from as a Swansea representative yourself: are there any plans to roll this out to other parts of Wales?

Interestingly enough, this came up in—. I chaired the inter-faith forum earlier this week and it had a conversation about refreshing this strategy and what we can do to ensure that asylum seekers with professional qualifications, which are obviously of huge use to both them and to our economy, can make the most of those qualifications. The discussion was highlighted around the successful campaign to make sure that people who are qualified medical doctors could have their qualifications recongised swiftly and be working in Wales, and a number of—forgive me, I can't remember the exact number—a large number of people had gone through that programme successfully. So, we are in the process of looking to see what we can do to refresh that programme, not just in the universities, but across the board for people with professional and other qualifications that they could use.

I'm doing a lot with asylum seekers and refugees, both in Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, and it seems to me there's still quite a lot of issues with regard to isolation and transport issues. Some of the people I meet are actually single mothers with three or four children and they find it increasingly difficult to get different children to different places at different times, and get themselves then on to English for speakers of other languages classes or to college access courses.

So, I was wondering if you could look more into this particular issue, as well as the second issue that I'd like to raise with you, which is the fact that research that I've carried out shows that asylum seekers can't do voluntary work in the private sector. I've talked to some asylum seekers in Swansea who want to volunteer at a local hair salon because they are interested in developing their skills in this area, but they're being told, because of Home Office regulations, that they can volunteer at a charity but they can't volunteer at a business. That's confining their personal attempts to expand their horizons. They know full well that they can't work for money, but they want to be able to work on a voluntary basis in a local business. So, if you could look at those two aspects, I'd be very grateful.

Yes, I'm aware of both of those aspects already. In a recent refugee and asylum group that, again, I chair, that was raised and we raised with the Home Office unintended consequences of some of their policies, because some of these things are happening because of the issue about no recourse to public funds until you've got various levels of status. Unfortunately, we're seeking to extend free transport to all asylum seekers and refugees in Wales, but we need to be sure that that won't then be added to the list of public funds to which you have no recourse as soon as we make that statement. We are in the process of actually working through some of the complexities of that, so I'm very well aware.

In my own constituency, I have a number of people with whom I'm working who have a very similar problem. Similarly, with the voluntary work, we think it's an unintended consequence of the hostile environment, now called the compliance environment, that the UK Government has put in place, but we think it is actually an unintended consequence of it, so we're looking to see what we can do to draw that to their attention and get those rules changed.

Our actions are focused on providing women with the opportunities and support they need to enter, re-enter and progress in the workplace in order to achieve and prosper. This includes our childcare offer, encouraging women into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, training and upskilling programmes, all-age apprenticeships and tackling discrimination in the workplace.  

Thank you. The UK has a deficit of engineers and difficulty attracting women into industry. Recently I attended a recruitment fair in Newport for CAF Rail's ground-breaking new project building trains and trams. They're offering a range of roles, including managerial, technical and operational. CAF Rail has a 40 per cent female Spanish workforce. In the UK, women only make up 11 per cent of the engineering workforce—the lowest percentage of female engineering professionals in Europe. I know the Welsh Government are doing lots of positive work with young people and schools, however, what action is the Welsh Government taking to engage with businesses who are eager to increase the amount of women in this sector?

Actually, as it happens, I've just come hot-foot from chairing the Women in STEM board that I chair and we've just expanded the membership of the board to include people from industry for exactly that reason. So, the Member makes a very timely and good point. And one of the things that the board has been highlighting to me is this whole issue about societal mores, if you like. Why are there more engineers in some European countries than here? And it's because it's just socially acceptable for women to do those sorts of jobs, where it's been, unfortunately, less socially acceptable here. So, we are looking at a range of things that can address some of those issues. I did talk a little bit about the This is Me campaign, which is challenging those gender stereotypes. So, if we think, that's a very important part of this. We also have our STEM Cymru II programme, which encourages more young women to progress into engineering careers, and, to date, over 3,000 young women have engaged with that programme. I don't know if many of you have met Jessica Jones from Cardiff, who's one of the first success stories, who subsequently went on to become the first female to win the UK's Young Engineer of the Year award following her involvement in devising the contraction optical monitoring system.

Jessica is very much an ambassador for female engineering students and has just completed her degree in astrophysics. Our programme helped her on the way, and we are engaging with young women such as Jessica to get as many ambassadors out into our schools as possible and I've been having long conversations with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport about how we can, as part of the economic action plan, encourage businesses to engage with that programme more fully.

Finally, question 6—Leanne Wood.

We continue to undertake a number of measures to facilitate the improvement of mobile internet connectivity across all parts of Wales, including the delivery of the mobile action plan, the trialling of small cell technologies, continued discussions around 5G and the delivery of the essential backhaul fibre network.

There are many places in Wales that have substandard mobile internet coverage, as we've heard earlier on, and my constituency is not immune to this issue. Many communities are affected, but recently in Porth, for example, the council were unable to collect footfall data on the town centre because the counter couldn't get a consistent signal. Of course, this is bad for local residents, but it's also bad for business. Now, I appreciate that telecommunications policy is not devolved to Wales, but there are levers at your disposal and you outlined some of them in answers to earlier questions. Will you agree to look into places, like Porth in the Rhondda, that are lagging behind what is acceptable in terms of mobile internet connectivity? And will you use the powers and the influence that you have to remedy these local problems as soon as you possibly can?

Absolutely. I'm very happy to agree with that and I completely endorse the comments that Leanne Wood has made. As it happens, I'm chairing a meeting of the Valleys taskforce on Monday morning that is wholly to do with digital and digital connectivity and that will be very much at the forefront of that meeting with a view to doing exactly that. And, amongst the many things I outlined earlier that we're doing, we're also looking to see what we can do with public infrastructure—so, running Wi-Fi signals off public buildings and so on. So, there's quite a big piece of work ongoing about the complexities of the law in that regard, because, unfortunately, there are state-aid issues around using it, but I'm confident that we can find a way through those and provide good Wi-Fi for all of our communities right across Wales once we've got a way through. But, interestingly enough, the meeting to discuss that for the Valleys is on Monday.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is a statement by the Counsel General on the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill. I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. Could I acknowledge, before starting the statement, the questions from Members on this extremely important subject?

The Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill was passed by the Assembly on 21 March. We have been clear, prior to introduction of the Bill, during its passage and subsequently, that the Bill is a fall-back option. Our preference has been throughout, and it continues to be, an amended European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that respects devolution. We made it clear that, even following the introduction, and, indeed, the passage, of the Bill, this remains our primary focus. Colleagues within the Welsh Government have been tireless in their efforts, which continue, to reach an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments on amendments that would make the UK Bill acceptable to us. Such an agreement would enable us to recommend to the Assembly that it gives its consent to the EU withdrawal Bill, which would remove the need for our own legislation.

However, in the absence of an agreement, we felt it necessary to make responsible arrangements for the possibility that the consent of the Assembly to the EU withdrawal Bill would not be given. This approach was overwhelmingly supported by this Assembly when it passed the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill with a large majority.

However, clearly, passing a Bill is not the end of the process. As Assembly Members will be well aware, after Stage 4 of every Assembly Bill, a period of intimation immediately follows. During this period, the Attorney General and the Counsel General have the power to refer to the Supreme Court for decision the question of whether a Bill, or any provision of a Bill, is within the Assembly’s legislative competence. The Attorney General has decided to exercise this power in relation to this Bill and, yesterday, he referred it to the Supreme Court. The Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland similarly referred the Scottish continuity Bill to the Supreme Court.

Regrettable though it is, I don't think that we should over-dramatise the development. We brought forward our own legislation to avoid finding ourselves in a situation where no agreement on amendments had been reached and we no longer had a continuity Bill alternative as an option. In the same way, the UK Government has made the reference at the very end of the intimation period, because agreement on the contents of the EU withdrawal Bill has not yet been reached and because, if they had not done so now, they would lose the right to make a reference.

Negotiations continue, and both we and the UK Government remain committed to securing an agreement. This is therefore a protective measure on the part of the Attorney General. Indeed, I note that, in his press release, he stresses that:

'The Government very much hopes this issue will be resolved without the need to continue with this litigation.' 

The Attorney General has referred the entirety of the Bill to the Supreme Court for determination, rather than limiting the reference to particular sections. He has cited a number of grounds in the reference, which include that the Bill does not relate to the subjects listed in Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act, incompatibility with EU law, impermissible imposition of functions on Ministers of the Crown, impermissible modifications of the Government of Wales Act, and impermissible modifications of the European Communities Act 1972.

I'm sure that Members will appreciate that we have had limited time to consider these arguments, though we remain clear in our view that the Bill passed by the Assembly is within its legislative competence. We will continue to consider the reference and the more detailed arguments that the Attorney General will be required to provide in due course in support of his reference as part of the proceedings, but I can reassure Members that we will, if necessary, defend the reference in full. In particular, we are taking steps to seek an expedited hearing and we will keep the Assembly updated of any developments in this regard.

As I've already stressed, we continue to work towards an agreement on the EU withdrawal Bill. In the event of such an agreement, appropriate amendments will need to be made to the EU withdrawal Bill. The final Bill will then require consideration by the Assembly as part of the legislative consent motion process. If the Assembly does ultimately approve an LCM in relation to the EU withdrawal Bill, the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill will no longer be necessary, and we then will take steps to repeal the Bill. At that point, we would expect the reference to be withdrawn.

Can I start by noting the restrained tone of the Counsel General? I do welcome this as a sign that the Welsh Government is genuinely seeking agreement on these matters. I also think the decision by the UK Government to refer the matter to the Supreme Court should be viewed as an attempt to clarify the current legal position. The Scottish Presiding Officer, after all, considered their Bill to be outside their competence, and, Llywydd, you emphasised, in expressing a concrete view in terms of our Bill, that the matter was finely balanced. So, it seems to me reasonable, under these circumstances, for this clarity to be sought.

Like the Counsel General, on this side of the Assembly, we believe that getting agreement so that an LCM can pass is essential and that is very much what we should be focusing on, and that obviously means that the EU withdrawal Bill has to be suitably amended, specifically around clause 11, to allow that to happen, and all reasonable attempts to achieve this have been supported by us and that will continue to be our attitude. Closely related to this issue is how the frameworks and their governance will operate. Again, we've sought to give constructive support to the Welsh Government in pursuing these matters broadly around some sort of concept of shared governance. These are very important issues for the British constitution, for the development of devolution, when in this remarkable situation of seceding from the European Union.

So, whilst we oppose the continuity Bill, we are prepared, now, to see the general situation and urge restraint and construction and a constructive approach on all parties. I just wonder whether the Counsel General can give us any further indication on the current state of negotiations. It does seem to me, from the tone on both sides, that we could be quite close to an agreement and I just wonder if that is a fair reading of the situation—or are there greater complications than we currently realise, perhaps, associated with other jurisdictions and their attitudes? But I'll end on this: that, given this statement this afternoon and its constructive tone, we will urge all parties to work and redouble their efforts to get over that line, so that we can have an LCM that protects the devolution settlement appropriately and all parties can agree to.

I thank the Member for his question. I should be clear that, obviously, our preference would have been for this not to be referred to the Supreme Court, but, absolutely, we understand the reason why that was done at the time it was done, today—yesterday, rather—being the last day on which that was available as an option for the Attorney General.

You referred to the discussions around competence. Our view remains that we have the competence in this place for the Bill that we have passed. What the Attorney General has set out in the reference are his grounds for seeking the court's view on that. He hasn't yet set out the reasoning for those grounds, so we haven't yet been able to engage with the reasoning for that, although we are obviously considering the grounds that we have received. We'll be receiving the fuller reasoning in due course. 

Obviously, there have been and continue to be discussions amongst the three Governments in relation to appropriate amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill, and those discussions are ongoing. We very much hope that they will conclude in a positive way. Just to reiterate, in case there's any shadow of a doubt, our strong preference is for the EU withdrawal Bill to be appropriately amended by agreement between the UK Government and the devolved administrations, and in that eventuality, of course, the Bill, which has been referred to the Supreme Court yesterday, will obviously no longer be required.

I welcome the fact that a statement has been made by the Counsel General today, but I have to say this: a pledge was made by a Minister of the Crown on the floor of the House of Commons, before Christmas, in the middle of December, that this would be sorted. And here we are, the Lady Boys of Bangkok have reached Cardiff Bay, as they do every spring, and we haven’t found a solution to this problem. It’s been clear since the European withdrawal Bill was introduced that we needed to make changes to clause 11, and at least four months have passed without any sign of the Conservatives understanding the nature of the devolution that they are responsible for.

Today in the Commons, another Jeremy, Jeremy Wright, said that there was no agreement on the meaning of the word ‘continuity’. Is that the Counsel General’s interpretation of the problem here? If we do see that the Bill has now been referred to the Supreme Court, what situation are we in now in terms of expenditure by this Government and the Westminster Government to prepare for a court case, to take counsel and to start preparing a case? We are starting to spend public money on something that should have been decided politically not just today but four months ago. I want to hear from the Counsel General, if possible, more about the timetable here. He says that he hopes that the Supreme Court will hasten the process, because there is a process in existence so that the Supreme Court can do that, but it appears to me that we could get to a decision on this Bill before we reach political agreement on the nature of devolution and clause 11.

So, what plans does the Government have now to prepare for this court case and what public expenditure will be related to that? Are you going to do this in any way jointly with the Scottish Government? Of course, it must be acknowledged that Wales’s case may be stronger on this occasion that the Scottish Government’s case because we did push this through the toothpaste tube under the previous powers model and therefore we may be in a stronger position. So, are you working with the Scottish Government and what exactly will the arrangement be now if this goes to the Supreme Court? If there is political agreement, are there then amendments to be made to the Bill in the Lords or perhaps referred back to the Commons? And then at some point, we will have to make a decision as a Government—or as a Parliament, I should say; the Government part comes in three years—but we will have to give legislative consent, as David Melding has said. Would we have assurances and can you give us some assurances that we as an Assembly will have all the necessary information to make a decision on legislative consent if it comes to that?

I thank the Member for his questions. To be clear about this, it wasn’t my choice to send the Bill to the Supreme Court, therefore the question for the Welsh Government is: what are the steps that are appropriate to take in the context of the fact that that has happened? Of course, we have to prepare for this going to the court. We have a legal process to follow and we have to ensure that the interests of this place are safeguarded through spending what’s needed to ensure that rights and the Bill are protected in the legal process that is before us.

The next step is that we are at present looking at the process of having an early date for any court case that is needed, and discussions have already started on that. That’s the next step. In terms of the question of the relationship with Scotland, as the Member will know, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have collaborated and worked together through this process and the steps that we’ve taken throughout the process have happened through that co-operation. The intention, as we proceed, is that we still work in partnership. As the Member recognised, the situation in Scotland is different to the Welsh Government’s situation in terms of how the Bill in Scotland is structured and the constitutional analysis that has come in the wake of that, but we are going to co-operate with the Scottish Government.

In terms of the legislative consent in the Senedd, in the Assembly, we will have to ensure a variety of things before we can recommend that the Assembly does accept the Westminster Bill—that is, that agreement is reached, and that amendments are agreed and proposed. Then, we will ask for the consent of the Assembly in that context. I would suspect that, after that, steps will be taken to withdraw this Bill, but we need to look at those steps in the wake of what’s happening at present.

Can I congratulate the Counsel General on the calm and measured approach that he's brought to this, and in particular to applaud the way that he described the situation we've now arrived at as a development that shouldn't be over-dramatised? I suppose that if there are bona fide legal doubts about the compatibility of the continuity Bill with current legislation setting up this Assembly and devolving powers, it is right that the matter should be adjudicated, regrettable though that is. And I do agree with what Simon Thomas said that this fundamentally is a politically matter, which should have been resolved at political level. And does he share my continued perplexity at the dilatoriness of the United Kingdom Government in dealing with this matter and that a Government that ostensibly is devoted to the preservation of the United Kingdom is unnecessarily provoking a constitutional crisis that threatens to divide it? If the leader of UKIP can say that, then we've got to a very strange state of affairs in British politics.

It is vitally necessary that the United Kingdom Government, having approved the legislative settlement under which we exist—that that should not be undermined, certainly not explicitly or implicitly, by its own acts or intentions. I cannot understand, therefore, why it is that the UK Government has been so slow and continues apparently to be dilatory in its response to the arguments that have been put forward for what we all ultimately want to achieve. I'm perplexed by one of the grounds that is being cited by the Attorney-General, namely that of incompatibility with EU law, given that the continuity Bill will not come into force until we've actually legally left the EU. So, I don't know whether the Counsel General has got any information on what is in the mind of the Attorney-General on this point, or if this is perhaps an example of throwing the kitchen sink at us just in case.

It all seems rather problematic and extraordinary, but I'm pleased that the Counsel General is going to mitigate the matter in the way that he has set out, because it is vitally necessary that any uncertainty or ambiguity should be resolved. We can't be put into a position, which is what the continuity Bill itself was designed to deal with, of there being some legislative lacuna in the law as it applies within Wales. So, it's rather strange. We've got a situation now where the United Kingdom Government is litigating a Bill that we have put through this place that was designed to avoid the situation of legal doubts existing when we leave the EU. So, it is a paradox that perhaps this will ultimately resolve. 

I share the view that's been expressed by a number of Members that this is a matter that should be resolved at a political level. And just to be clear, that is the Welsh Government's approach; it has continuously and throughout approached the discussions with the other Governments with that in mind. The objective has been throughout to reach an agreement in relation to the Bill going through the UK Parliament, so that the process we have pursued in this place through an emergency process would not end up being necessary. I've said in the past, in response to other questions, that time has been running out for some time in relation to agreeing those amendments. But, as I say, we are hopeful that we will get that over the line and agree amendments that we feel happy as a Government to recommend to the Assembly, with the other two Governments. 

He raises one of the grounds that the Attorney-General has cited, which relates to incompatibility with EU law. As I say, we are currently considering the analysis and we will consider further when we get fuller arguments in due course, although obviously that was one of the grounds that had been contemplated in the discussions in this Chamber and in the Llywydd's analysis in her statement. It seems to me that taking preparatory steps within existing powers for a time for which we are outside the European Union is what we have done in this place, in the same way, I may say, as the House of Commons has done with their Bill.

I'll avoid repeating too much of what my colleagues have already said, but I will congratulate you on the way in which you've put a measured argument forward this afternoon. Can I also put on record the measured argument put forward by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance when he undertakes the negotiations as well? Perhaps that's more frustrating as to why the UK Government hasn't actually come to an agreement yet, because they seem to keep frustrating us.

I have a couple of points. I appreciate that we didn't want to be putting forward a continuity Bill, but we have because it was the right thing to do, and we must remember that. Therefore, I hope that, if it does end up in the courts, you, as the Welsh Government, will vigorously defend the rights of this institution to have this Bill put forward and let it work, because we saw the need for the Bill and that need has not gone away. We anticipate, from what has been said, that positive discussion and amendments will come forward, but, as Simon Thomas alluded to earlier, that was stated by the Cabinet Minister before in Westminster and we still haven't had it. So, until we see them actually agreed and approved and in the Bill, we're in a position where that continuity Bill still delivers what we want.

In that sense, can you give clarification—? You highlighted a little bit about what would happen. First of all, if agreement takes place and we see those amendments being approved and put into the Bill, what is the process that will happen to this particular Bill? Because we, as an Assembly, have agreed and passed the Bill, so, what is the process for actually then withdrawing the Bill as you just highlighted? And on timing—no offence to lawyers, but here we go again—law takes an awful long time; it is not a fast-moving process. There could be a situation where the EU withdrawal Bill, unamended, is approved before this goes to court. What is the situation if that arises? How will the Welsh Government tackle that so that we can ensure that what we approved in March actually delivers for the people of Wales?

I thank the Member for his question and also for his acknowledgement of the work of my friend the Cabinet Secretary for Finance in taking forward the discussions with the UK Government, which I completely associate myself with, if I may. He makes a very important point about the importance of defending these proceedings vigorously and that is absolutely my intention and the intention of the Welsh Government.

In terms of what happens in due course with repeal, if you like, the Member will recall that the Bill, as passed by the Assembly, includes a provision enabling the Act, when passed, to be repealed in this sort of circumstance. In order for that to happen, of course, it would need to receive Royal Assent first. So, there would be a sequence of steps, if you like, which would need to be agreed with the Attorney-General in the event that we here in due course do pass a legislative consent motion and that we find the amendments to the House of Commons Bill acceptable in this place. But obviously, the steps would need to be to withdraw the reference for the Bill to go to Royal Assent and then those powers would be available to Welsh Ministers here to deal with that repeal of the Bill.

Thank you, Counsel General. 

Point of order—Simon Thomas. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I’d like to raise a point of order under Standing Orders, particularly Standing Order 13.9 on conduct in the Chamber. In responding to Angela Burns and then Adam Price yesterday, the First Minister referred twice to myself and my work as a special adviser to Plaid Cymru Ministers in 2007-10. He stated, regarding the actions described by Angela Burns, and I quote:

'That's normal. Plaid Cymru Ministers, as Simon Thomas will be able to tell you, did exactly the same when they were in Government.'

I want to make it clear that I, as a special adviser, never contacted any public body to ask for the content or the nature of correspondence with Assembly Members, and that wasn’t part of the culture of the One Wales Government Ministers to my information. So, the First Minister’s claim is inaccurate.

That is not a point of order for me to adjudicate on, but Members will have heard your comments, Simon Thomas, and they are now on the record.

The next motion is the motion for an urgent debate, and, in accordance with Standing Order 12.69, I have accepted a request from Leanne Wood to move a motion for an urgent debate, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. On the morning of Saturday, 14 April, UK forces joined with the United States and French militaries to undertake air strikes against targets in Syria. Sites believed to be linked to the manufacture and storage of chemical weapons near Damascus and Homs were hit in response to an alleged chemical attack on 7 April. The UK Government did not consult any of the UK Parliaments for approval of the attack. I've lodged an application for an urgent debate on this matter at the earliest opportunity. Llywydd, the urgency and seriousness of this topic cannot be overestimated, nor condensed into a short speech such as this. However, my application for a debate is based on three key elements.

Firstly, without a shred of democratic legitimacy, without a single vote in a single UK Parliament, the UK Government approved the strike. Following the publication of details of the attack, the First Minister made a statement indicating his support for it. AMs must have the opportunity to scrutinise the First Minister on this statement and on his reasons for supporting the attack. Furthermore, Members must be given the opportunity to debate the role of our democratic institutions in approving military action.

Secondly, Llywydd, Welsh women and men make up a significant portion of the UK's military ranks. In fact, we make a larger contribution than our population share. It's therefore only right that this Assembly must be given an opportunity to debate the implications this and any consequent military action may have on members of the armed forces from Wales and based in Wales.

Finally, Llywydd, the conflict in Syria has already led to the displacement of tens of thousands of people. I'm heartened that Wales has offered safety and shelter to some of these people. The escalation of the civil war in Syria is only likely to force more people to flee their homes and the region. Ensuring Wales is doing all that it can to help and accommodate these people in desperate need must be a priority for this Government. It's this Assembly's job to ensure that Welsh Ministers are willing and prepared to support those refugees created by this conflict.

Llywydd, there are many more compelling reasons why we must debate this issue, whether it's the democratic deficit behind the decision to strike, the First Minister's statement, the impact on Welsh servicepeople, the cost, which rarely seems to be questioned, despite austerity, or simply our humanity as a nation. I would urge you all to support this application and give us the opportunity to debate this most serious issue.

I call on the leader of the house to reply on behalf of the Government. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. International affairs and decisions whether to launch military action against another sovereign nation are non-devolved matters and, as such, are normally debated in the Houses of Parliament rather than here in the National Assembly for Wales. Debating the UK air strikes in Syria in this Chamber risks blurring the lines between what is debated in the National Assembly and in Parliament. The First Minister answered questions from the leader of Plaid Cymru yesterday about military intervention in Syria; there were also questions during the business statement.

We all have personal views about the merits, rights and wrongs of the UK Government's decision to launch a joint punitive strike alongside the US and France against the regime in Syria at the weekend. As political parties, the forum for these views to be raised is in the Houses of Parliament. There have been nine hours of debate this week in the House of Commons, in which many of our colleagues participated. It's for these reasons the Government will be abstaining in the vote on the application for an urgent debate on the UK air strikes in Syria, and backbench Labour AMs will have a free vote.

The proposal is to agree the motion for an urgent debate. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote on the motion. I therefore call for a vote on the motion for an urgent debate. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 27, 15 abstentions, nine against. Therefore the motion is agreed. 

As the Assembly has resolved to consider the matter, in accordance with Standing Order 12.70, I have decided that the debate will be taken as the final item of business before today's voting time. 

The next item of business is the questions to the Assembly Commission, and the first question—Julie Morgan. 

I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission is committed to minimising waste, including reducing single-use plastic waste on the estate. We are proud to have achieved our commitment to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill to zero by 2018. In January we committed to alternatives to single-use plastics, where possible, within six months. We have already made progress with this, including eliminating individual salad dressing containers, and we will shortly be switching to compostable cutlery for takeaway food. A range of other options are being explored.

I thank the Commissioner for that response, and I'm glad that there is some progress happening. I notice you mentioned single-use plastic cutlery, so that will be a good move, but also what about the plastic cups for drinking water, which we haven't made any moves to remove yet? Salad pots, and the plastic lids for takeaway coffee cups—a lot of these items are still being used in the canteen, and I know that you have a plan. I think that you announced that plan in January, so it's really to urge you to move ahead with that plan, to make progress, and when are you going to tackle those particular items that I've mentioned?

I thank the Member yet again, and I'd like to update you on a couple of things. We are rid now of disposable coffee cups, and now stock aluminium drinks containers. The water filters around the estate cuts down on bottled water—plastic bottles. Meals hot and cold are now in compostable containers. There is extensive recycling signage across the estate for materials. Plastic straws were also raised last time—about the use of plastic straws—and although they haven't been in use an awful lot, they were in use, and we've now switched to paper straws, so I'd like to update you on that. Looking at the alternative to plastic cups for the water fountains—we are looking at an alternative for those, and I'll update you shortly on how we are progressing with that. We have achieved zero waste to landfill. So, that's the update that I have for you. 

I welcome the steps that have been taken so far, and there's some encouraging news on the reduction of single-use plastic in the Assembly. I wanted to ask what further steps can be done as a major purchaser in Cardiff and south Wales, and as a leader in this. Is the Commission talking to its suppliers? Because as well as the single-use plastic that we use, it's the supply chain that provides the food and everything that we use in this place that also has some plastic all tied up in it. Everyone is seeking to reduce this and over a period of time perhaps completely eliminate it. Are you able to update us on how you're using your purchasing power to influence suppliers as well? 

Well, obviously, Simon, we still have some stock that we have to use. It wouldn't be practical to just throw stock away, so we are reducing our stock at the moment, and we are always looking at alternative suppliers who produce exactly what we want to decrease our carbon footprint here, and to decrease the amount of plastics that we use. So, I will update you on that question, and I can assure you that we are looking at all suppliers to look at the best possible way of dealing with the question that you've just asked.

Thank you. Question 2 is to be answered by the Llywydd. Mandy Jones.

The Commission engages with the people of Wales in many different ways. We talk to people online, communicate via print and meet with them at events and workshops to inspire and encourage them to participate in Assembly work. Last year, we talked to around 50,000 people in schools, colleges, youth groups, community groups and events around the country.

Thank you for that answer. With all due respect to the other Members who have tabled questions today, the type of questions we ask of the Commission are quite limited and, it seems to me, very inwardly focused about internal Commission matters, which will, no doubt, leave many members of the public cold. I note the consultation on creating a Parliament for Wales has recently closed, and that only four public meetings were held across the country. Lots of people would not have even been aware of these meetings, and of those who were, many—those working, caring or looking after children—would not have been able to make those sessions. I know there were other ways of attempting to collect opinions, but they do feel like the same old to me. Considering the advancement of technology, consultation and information-gathering methods, is the Commission going to seek to push boundaries in terms of its engagement methods and how does it evaluate its current methods? How do we know it's working? 

Please don't feel limited at all in asking questions of me, Mandy Jones. I welcome the question you've asked. We held four public meetings to discuss the electoral reform consultation throughout Wales. I attended all of the meetings, and they were reasonably well attended, especially the last one I attended, which was in Wrexham in your region, and it was a lively Friday night in Wrexham. I enjoyed myself immensely and learnt a lot from the people of that area about their view on electoral reform and all other interesting matters as well. 

But you raise very important points about the need to be innovative at all times in how we do our consultation. We're not able to hold meetings in every single village hall in Wales to discuss any matter—neither us as a Commission nor the Welsh Government nor anybody—but we need to continually think and question ourselves, as you've raised this question today, on how we do our communicating with the people of Wales and allow them to express their views to us more directly, more vigorously and in every part of Wales. That's a challenge to me and a challenge to all of us, as elected Members, here representing communities throughout Wales, and it's where we want to improve all the time.

Diolch. The next two questions will be answered by Commissioner Caroline Jones. Question 3—Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Simon. The Commission is pleased to take this opportunity to announce that we have recently achieved certification to the international standard for environmental management, ISO 14001. As part of this environmental system, we have a long-term carbon reduction target of a 30 per cent reduction in our energy footprint by 2021. This builds on a previous target that we had for a 40 per cent reduction in our carbon footprint by 2015. We are making good progress with this newer target through a range of actions, and we have achieved a 23 per cent reduction so far as part of our KPIs. Recent actions to support sustainability include the installation of electric vehicle charging points on the estate. 

May I thank the Commissioner for her response and for responding in Welsh? Environmental jargon isn’t great in any language, I accept that, but I’m extremely grateful to you for it.

May I congratulate the Commission on two things, first of all, for gaining the ISO, that environmental standard, and secondly on the news that electric vehicle charging points have now been installed? I look forward to seeing them myself and to taking advantage of them.

The broader question that I wanted to ask today was on how the Assembly encourages more sustainable travel to the Assembly. I notice when visiting other capitals that have parliaments that there are walking or cycling routes to the parliament that have been marked out, '20 minutes' walk to such and such a parliament'. If you’re at the centre of Cardiff, you wouldn’t see any sign saying, 'Well, this way to walk to the Welsh Parliament'. I would ask whether the Commission would perhaps speak to the City of Cardiff Council, which plans safe and sustainable walking and cycling routes, to ensure that the city does much more to advertise the alternative ways of travelling to this Parliament and to Cardiff Bay too.

Diolch, Simon, and you raise an extremely valid point there about contacting other areas, such as the council, to explain that we are attempting to reduce our carbon footprint, and that we'd like to look at the different ways through active travel, and so on, of coming to and from the Senedd, and we wish to encourage alternative ways for Members, Members' families and any visitors to the Senedd to come here by other means of travel, or alternative means. So, I will certainly look into that for you and give you an update on that. 

We do produce an annual environmental report and it's published on the website, so I wonder if you are taking advantage of looking at that, and our environmental system is checked annually. We have long-term carbon targets and have action plans in place where we will hope to achieve this. So, I will look into your question further and I will come back to you with an answer. Diolch yn fawr.  

Hold on a second. Thank you for your question. The Assembly Commission fully complies with the regulations for the management and control of asbestos, and holds an asbestos register for all buildings within its estate. Detailed asbestos surveys and inspections were undertaken in 2002 and 2014, and the asbestos register confirms that no asbestos materials are present within the estate. The register is reviewed annually and consulted in advance of the commencement of relevant works or projects.  

Okay, thank you for that answer, because obviously you are aware that there are some 3,000 different asbestos-containing materials—so-called ACMs—in use across the country, and I chair the cross-party group on asbestos, primarily looking at asbestos in schools and other public buildings. So, I thought it was incumbent on me to make sure that we're doing what we should be doing on our own estate if we're looking at this in other areas. So, I'm pleased to hear what you say about the register; we need to be managing that risk properly. That risk does require that detailed procedures to ensure safe working practices are set out in asbestos management plans, and I'm not sure if that's what you were talking about, but perhaps if that is, you could just confirm that that is the case, and that we do have those management plans in place. 

I'd just like to say to Dawn that the asbestos register is reviewed annually as part of statutory compliance and procedures, so I think that does answer your question there. The detailed inspections and surveys that are carried out, the latest in 2014, there are no asbestos-containing materials that have been identified in either Tŷ Hywel or in the Senedd, or with any construction materials as well. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Item 5 on the agenda is topical questions. We have a topical question from Neil McEvoy. 

Yes. The second Severn bridge is a UK Government asset. The UK Government wrote to inform the First Minister of the name change in September 2017, and the First Minister did not object to the proposal. 

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, almost 40,000 people have signed a petition against renaming the second Severn crossing the Prince of Wales bridge. The people of Wales were very disappointed, to say the least, in not being consulted, but it turns out, as you've confirmed, that your Government was consulted, but you raised no objections. And this isn't an isolated incident, because just some months ago we had the debacle of the so-called 'iron ring' and a celebration of conquest, which so many people found insulting. I thought the idea of a National Assembly for Wales was to build a modern democracy, so why did you think it was a good idea to let Alun Cairns rename the bridge 'the Prince of Wales bridge'? Why did your Government not object, and inform the Secretary of State that we would like the main gateway to our country to be named after somebody from Wales, who has really achieved something for our country? We have so many talented people in Wales, past and present, so why are they not good enough to have the bridge named after them?

Well, there are many talented and able people from our past that this Government has recognised, by naming, for example, health boards after them, other pieces of infrastructure, but it's worth just reiterating the point that this is a bridge owned by another Government, half of which is in another country, and I'm more concerned with the removal of the tolls over that bridge to ease traffic flow rather than with the naming of the actual bridge. And although I believe that the bridge has been named in honour of, and in recognition of the current Prince of Wales, His Royal Highness Prince Charles, I see no reason why it can't be celebrated as a memorial to all princes of Wales in the past too. 

It does seem to me, I think, to be a fitting tribute to mark this important, special relationship that the Prince of Wales has with our nation by renaming the bridge on this occasion of his seventieth birthday, and to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Queen appointing him as the Prince of Wales. It is my view that this is something that the vast majority of the Welsh public welcome.

Would you agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that it's far more important to the Welsh people that we ensure that the Severn crossings continue to be a symbol of Wales's strong economic contribution to the United Kingdom, and that we should be championing the abolition of the tolls on the Severn bridge, which, of course, will be a huge boost to the Welsh economy, rather than focusing on the relatively minor issue of renaming the bridge? 

Well, I would indeed. I think the removal of the tolls on the Severn bridge will send a very clear message that Wales is open for business, and it's essential, as we exit the EU, that we take every opportunity to promote Wales globally, and it's a fact that few other figures are better known around the world than His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and so I think we should not just recognise the invaluable work that he has done, and many other members of the royal family—and I say this not as a monarchist, but as a republican—and that we continue to do all we can to promote Wales globally. 

Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary the wider point about how this Assembly, Welsh Government and Secretary of State for Wales work together, or not, and how we, as an Assembly, can scrutinise the performance of the Secretary of State? Now, I don't want to go back to the old days of an annual appearance by the viceroy here, but we have so many issues where we needed dedicated, high-level support from a dynamic Secretary of State for Wales: like having a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay, like having electrification of the south Wales main railway line, like not having a superprison in Baglan. So many issues where really dedicated, high-level support from a Secretary of State for Wales could actually have made a difference. Instead, we have a pointless renaming exercise of a road bridge that will do nothing to help Wales's economic position and simply reinforces the view that little old Wales should listen to his masters in London.

Is the Secretary of State Wales's man in Westminster or Westminster's man in Wales? I mean, where will it all end? So many road bridges in Wales have no name; so many royals remain unconnected to any such structures. Although, there have been valiant attempts over the years to rub our noses in it as a conquered nation by anointing several hospitals with royal names.

So, is this it? Or can the First Minister, or anybody else, use their influence to better influence the behaviour of the Secretary of State to gain the decisions that we really want to see happening here in Wales, such as the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay? Diolch yn fawr.

We are no longer—. My colleague and my friend, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, is absolutely right, we are no longer conquered; we are a proud nation, we are a confident nation, and we should have confidence in our identity as well. In having confidence, we're able to reach out globally, we're able to be tolerant, we're able to be open to people, and we are able to recognise, as a confident nation, the contribution that people such as His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales make to our well-being and our prosperity.

The Member's right, there are a huge number of bridges that have not yet been named, and it was interesting that, in the mid 1990s, there was a massive public campaign, a huge public campaign, with tens of thousands of people pushing for what's called the new Flintshire bridge to be named the Lady Diana bridge. That never happened, but that does serve to demonstrate that, whilst there may have been 30,000 people who signed the particular petition that's been referenced today, more than 3 million people have not signed that petition. Indeed, many tens of thousands of people were pushing for a bridge in the north of the country to be named after a member of the royal family in the 1990s.

Whilst I have no objection whatsoever to naming the bridge after the Prince of Wales, whose Welsh connections are well known—he and I lived together once in a loose way, as residents of Pantycelyn hall at Aberystwyth, as students back in 1969—I do agree with Russell George that we do need to advertise Wales's part in the United Kingdom presided over by an ancient monarchy.

But we do have a second bridge, of course, to name across the Severn, and would it not be a good idea, therefore, to recognise the other tradition, sitting on my left here in this Assembly? Perhaps that could be named after Owain Glyndŵr or Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf.

It could well be, and again, there are many, many bridges around Wales that are still unnamed. In terms of giving places, communities, a sense of identity, and enhancing the quality of a place, I see no reason why more bridges couldn't be named after individuals who have made a huge contribution to our past and, indeed, our present. I'd welcome the naming of our bridges after individuals from Wales, and, indeed, individuals from overseas.

There are a huge number of people who are either foreign born or who currently reside overseas, or who have resided overseas, who've made a major contribution to Wales. I see no reason why we couldn't name more assets in honour of them.

Doesn't the Cabinet Secretary, though, understand the wider context to this? He's a Secretary of State who really sees south-east Wales as a suburb of Bristol, who wants to—along with his friend and colleague—recategorise Wales as a principality. It's part of a deliberate attempt to reintegrate Wales into some kind of nostalgic notion of a Britain that probably never existed; it's a recolonisation effort. That's why it's touched a nerve because it doesn't actually resonate with Wales as it is today, let alone the Wales that we want to build in the future. I could see that there are only 15 street parties going to be across Wales with the royal wedding. There were 15 street parties in my own village 40 years ago. Wales has moved on, and the naming of things—. Symbols are important because they say something about the nation that we are, and this is why this has jarred with the people. Can I ask the Welsh Government—you are there to represent the Welsh people—will you not ask the UK Government to think again?

No, we won't ask the UK Government to think again. I think it's absolutely right that the Prince of Wales is recognised, and the naming of the bridge after him, I think, whilst it's in the gift of the UK Government, is something that many, many people in Wales will support. But I would say, also, that there are a huge number of other bridges that we could name in honour of other people. I would urge the Member to reconsider the use of the term 'recolonisation', because I do not see any evidence that that is occurring, and I would also say that my fine friend and colleague is doing a superb job in promoting Wales as a fine destination for tourists and for people to live in.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is 90-second statements. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 'Shock result' is perhaps an overused term in sport. In reality, instances of teams overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds are relatively rare. The USSR's Olympic victory over the USA basketball team in 1972 is a controversial example. Leicester City winning the premiership title is a testament to how, in sport, teamwork can make the most unlikely outcomes a reality. So, it is quite amazing that a sporting feat has been achieved by a Welsh team, but very few people seem to know about it.

Last year, a newly formed Welsh cheerleading team went to the USA and beat them in their own backyard at their own game to bring home gold for Wales. Coached by volunteers, comprising young, disabled and non-disabled athletes, and based in Treforest in my constituency, Team Wales ParaCheer are arguably our best-kept sporting secret. 

On Saturday, the team fly out to the USA to defend their title, and it was fantastic to have the team visit the Senedd last month to preview their routine, as shown on the screens. You could not wish to meet a more impressive group of young people. They're not just great athletes; they are superb ambassadors for sport and for Wales. 

Although ParaCheer has been provisionally listed by the International Olympic Committee as a sport, it does not attract much media attention. That's why the team were so thrilled to be wished 'pob lwc' by sports Minister, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, yesterday. It meant a great deal to the team to be recognised in this way, and I'm sure that, today, we will go a step further and send the team our best wishes from the whole National Assembly for Wales for the coming world championships.

Thank you.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report: 'How is the Welsh Government preparing for Brexit?' And I call on the Chair of that committee, David Rees, to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure to open this debate on the report of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on how the Welsh Government is preparing for Brexit and also to move the motion tabled in my name.

Deputy Presiding Officer, last month marked a year until the UK has to leave the European Union after the Prime Minister enacted article 50 of the Lisbon accord. During the first part of the negotiations between the UK and the European Union, it was agreed that sufficient progress had been made on two key aspects of the withdrawal and that there was much still to discuss. There are many questions as to how Wales is preparing for Brexit that have emerged.

And, during this inquiry, we actually set out to explore how Wales, and the Welsh Government in particular, should be preparing for Brexit. The quality of our evidence base was greatly improved by both our traditional consultation process and oral evidence sessions in the Senedd, and visits to stakeholders at Swansea University, Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board and Calsonic Kansei in Llanelli. Our sincere thanks go to all those who contributed to our inquiry, both the stakeholders we went to meet, those who came to give evidence and those who submitted written evidence. And our continual thanks, as a committee, go to our committee team who provide the support that allows us to complete our work.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the report makes a total of seven recommendations, and I am pleased to see that the Welsh Government has accepted, or accepted in principle, all seven. Normally, I don't go through all seven, but this time I will.

Our first recommendation relates to the need for the Welsh Government to urgently examine the likely parameters of various Brexit scenarios, including a 'no deal' scenario, and to report to our committee within six months. Now, in preparing this report, we have worked in the sincere hope that the article 50 negotiations will conclude with a successful outcome for all parties, and progress has undoubtedly been made, particularly since we published our report. But it is important that we do not shy away from addressing a 'no deal' outcome still occurring. Whilst we are clear that this is not an outcome that we consider desirable in any way, we do believe that there's a need for the Welsh Government to be doing more in terms of scenario planning to prepare Wales. In its response, I am pleased to see that the Welsh Government has accepted the need for this, and we are being frequently told that this is under way.

Our second recommendation called on the Welsh Government to publish its research on the impact of various Brexit scenarios on the Welsh economy, and we are pleased to read the Cardiff Business School's analysis of the impacts on larger businesses in Wales. In the Welsh Government's response, I note that further research is currently under way. I'd like to place on the record the fact that the committee looks forward to seeing the outcome of that research in due course. It is vital that we have access to information and evidence that informs both the Government and the wider public debate about the shape of an outcome of exit. That allows us to scrutinise the Government's actions and decision making in more detail.

The third recommendation concerns a key aspect to our inquiry, which is the issue of communications. During the inquiry, we heard concerns from some stakeholders that public services in Wales simply lack the information they need to adequately prepare for Brexit. Furthermore, we heard that the lack of clarity from the UK Government and the potentially broad range of scenarios that may still arise are inhibiting the ability of public services, third sector and others to sufficiently plan and prepare for Brexit. Although we heard that Welsh Government is engaging with stakeholders at a representative level, we also heard that there are challenges in relation to cascading that information down to individual organisations and bodies and to front-line staff. To help combat this, recommendation 3 calls on the Welsh Government to improve its communications with individual organisations through encouraging representative bodies to cascade information downwards and, furthermore, for individual organisations to look at two-way engagement, because there's information coming upwards from the floor that should be considered important.

In our report, we also acknowledged that we have our own role to play in ensuring that public and civil society in Wales have access to reliable and authoritative information on Brexit. I take this opportunity—and Members, I'm sure, will indulge me—to remind everyone of the regular Brexit updates and monitoring reports produced by the Assembly's impartial Research Service, which are available on the Assembly's website and particularly, also, on our committee's website. So, please use the opportunity to keep an eye on all the information updated. The monitoring reports are excellent, and I, again, commend the staff who produce those reports.

Similarly, recommendation 4 relates to the issue of information and communication and, in particular, we call on the Welsh Government to issue clear and accessible guidelines and guidance to businesses, public sector organisations and third sector on what the implications of various scenarios will be, including a 'no deal' scenario. In its response, the Welsh Government states that it agrees with our recommendation to an extent, but argues that the timing is not right. Furthermore, the Government's response raises the important issue of a transition period and what that may mean for stakeholders in Wales. I accept all that, and I agree with it. We'll keep a close eye on how those discussions progress on transition, but we, as a committee, did not come to a firm view on precisely when this guidance should be issued. I acknowledge the arguments made by the Welsh Government on the need to avoid fuelling further uncertainty. But uncertainty exists, and we must address that uncertainty as best we can. As such, I would welcome an update from the Cabinet Secretary during today's debate on how he envisages the timescales for this guidance unfolding, particularly in light of the most recent European Council meeting, which took place towards the end of March.

Turning to recommendation 5, we heard concerns from stakeholders about the loss of future European funding and the challenge that this would present to services and organisations in Wales. That's why we've called on Welsh Government to seek greater clarity from the UK Government on how the proposed shared prosperity fund would be allocated and administered. I know this could be challenging because at the moment I don't think anyone has a clue what it even means beyond the three words 'shared prosperity fund', but it is important that you continue to press the UK Government for further detail on that. As we have previously expressed in earlier work on regional policy in Wales, it's vitally important that Wales is no worse off in terms of equivalent funding as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU than it would have been if we'd remained in the EU. Not having that information is causing difficulty for many public bodies in particular.

Our sixth recommendation calls on the Welsh Government, in conjunction with the higher education working group, to publish any work that it has undertaken in relation to research and innovation in the higher education sector and to take into account the implications of Brexit in that sector. I know that has been set up, but we have not seen any publications from that. 

We heard directly from students and the university sector about the critically important role that European funding for research, collaboration and innovation has played in the past, and the need to ensure that the university sector plays a role in preparing Wales for potential opportunities after Brexit. Since the report's publication, the Prime Minister has indicated the UK wishes to continue participation in areas of research and innovation across the EU, and we welcome that, but early preparation in Wales should ensure that we are at the forefront of this issue.

Our seventh and final recommendation concerns the anticipated Barnett funding consequential that the Welsh Government is set to receive as a result of the additional moneys being spent at the UK level to prepare for Brexit. We very much welcome the announcement of the £15 million transition fund used to prepare businesses and organisations for Brexit that Welsh Government has identified. It's critically important that the Welsh Government ensures that public services and others in Wales have the resources they need to adequately prepare for Brexit. The Welsh Government must keep the situation under review and, as a committee, we look forward to scrutinising how the deployment of the funding will be undertaken.

But it's also recognising that, in the November statement by the Chancellor, he identified £3 billion would be set aside for Brexit. We look forward to learning what consequential will be coming to Wales and how that will be spent to support businesses and public bodies that will be impacted upon by the preparations for Brexit and its effects, but also perhaps how those businesses and organisations will be supported to pursue any opportunities that may arise as a consequence of Brexit to ensure that funding is actually allocated to the purpose.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in bringing my remarks to a close, I'd like to remind the Chamber that Brexit will have important ramifications for many aspects of life in Wales and, as the process continues at pace—and it does continue at pace; it's changing almost every week—it is incumbent upon this Chamber to ensure that, in areas for which Wales has its own powers and responsibilities, we are ready for what lies ahead, not only to minimise any negative impacts, but also to grasp the opportunities that will arise following Brexit.

The Welsh Government response to our report’s recommendations claims that it

'mobilised quickly following the result of the referendum to build capability across Government to respond to the challenges and explore the opportunities presented by EU withdrawal.'

However, we know from feedback received during Brexit-related Assembly committee visits to Brussels, Dublin and elsewhere that it is us, the committees, rather than Welsh Government, that led this engagement and this agenda. We welcome their following our lead.

In accepting our first recommendation in principle only, the Welsh Government states that a 'no deal' scenario would be catastrophic for Wales, but fails to commit to providing progress reports on its examination of various Brexit scenarios.

In her Mansion House speech last month, the Prime Minister stated that:

'We must not only negotiate our exit from an organisation that touches so many important parts of our national life. We must also build a new and lasting relationship while...preparing for every scenario.'

And, as she said in Florence,

'we share the same set of fundamental beliefs; a belief in free trade, rigorous and fair competition, strong consumer rights, and that trying to beat other countries’ industries by unfairly subsidising one’s own is a serious mistake.'

She also said that:

'A deep and comprehensive agreement with the EU will therefore need to include commitments reflecting the extent to which the UK and EU economies are entwined.'

Well, the end stage of negotiations were started this week, with the press reporting that UK-EU relations are a lot more normalised and that EU insiders think much of the detail and substance governing EU-UK future relations will actually be worked out after the UK leaves the bloc in March next year.

In accepting our recommendation 2 in principle only, the Welsh Government states that it has worked closely with its

'sector teams…to better understand the picture across each of the sectors impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.'  

And in accepting our recommendation 3, it states that it has been working closely with

'a range of stakeholders, including businesses, farmers, trade unions, educational institutions, public services, the third sector, communities and the public…to build a detailed understanding of their priorities, concerns and vulnerabilities, while communicating the Welsh Government’s position on a range of Brexit issues and this activity will continue.'

However, as our report states, Michael Trickey from Wales Public Services 2025 told us:

'I don’t think we’re actually very much more advanced in our understanding of the implications of Brexit than we were a year ago.'

Both Mr Trickey and Dr Victoria Winckler, Director of the Bevan Foundation, recognised that any scenario planning that had been undertaken so far seemed relatively limited. Furthermore, Mr Trickey said that, although umbrella organisations were engaging with Brexit, the issue felt—quote—'very, very remote' at the level of individual delivery organisations.

Accepting our recommendation 4 in principle only, the Welsh Government states that

'Providing guidance to business and the third sector will need some further careful thought, given the diverse range of interests involved.'

However, the National Trust told us that they would like to see specific farm business planning advice relating to the various trading scenarios after Brexit. The Farmers’ Union of Wales called for the Welsh Government to

'quantify the possible impacts of different post-Brexit scenarios'.

And although the Welsh NHS Confederation of health boards and trusts e-mailed Members yesterday stating that it has been working with Welsh Government officials to consider and assess the scale of the impact for Welsh health and social care services post Brexit, the health and social care professionals we met at the Aneurin Bevan university health board in Caerleon told us that

'The lack of clarity and direction'

in relation to Brexit

'makes contingency planning difficult, and as a result conversations around scenario planning have yet to begin.'

As the Welsh Government states in response to our recommendation 5, the replacement for EU structural funds must work within a devolved context. Notwithstanding this, of course, we also note that these funds were intended to close the relative prosperity gap, but, unlike many other recipients across Europe, this has widened in Wales.  

In accepting our recommendation 6, the Welsh Government refers to

'implications of Brexit for Government funded research and innovation in Wales'.

We must therefore welcome the Prime Minister's statement that

'The UK is also committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU, facilitating the exchange of ideas and researchers. This would enable the UK to participate in key programmes alongside our EU partners.'

We wish the Welsh Government well in its future engagement over this matter but hope that it will reconsider some of the aspects of its response and consider further the evidence we received. Thank you.

I would like to begin by thanking members of the external affairs committee for their work on this report and I would also like to thank Steffan Lewis, who can't be here to take part in this debate today but who has made a significant contribution to the work of the committee and will continue to do so when he's able to join them again in the future. Brexit may not have been a policy chosen by the Welsh Government, but the implementation of the EU referendum result will have significant implications for the future of our nation. Our economy, our environment, our public services—there is little that won't be affected by the terms of the separation deal between the UK and the EU. The uncertainty that this report highlights is outside the Welsh Government's control. It poses a real challenge to the preparedness of the Government, business and the public sector that our future in Wales rests in the hands of negotiators from the UK and EU and depends to such a large extent on the shape of the final deal.

This report reveals a number of worrying gaps in the work that is being done to ready Wales for the many possible eventual outcomes of the Brexit negotiations. It's vital that the Welsh Government's preparation for Brexit is properly scrutinised. We need to see improved communication and leadership so that Wales can be Brexit-ready in time for our separation from the EU. The unwillingness of the Welsh Government to even contemplate the steps necessary to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit scenario is deeply concerning. I accept that a 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic. When the House of Lords EU Committee investigated a 'no deal' Brexit, they could find no possible upside. We could see empty shelves in supermarkets and a 20 per cent rise in food prices, flights to Europe could be grounded on exit day, and we could see miles of tailbacks at our ports. It's deeply negligent of the Tories to toy with the economic future of the UK by considering a 'no deal' Brexit as an option. I understand that the idea is that a 'no deal' Brexit would be a Tory-made mess and that it would therefore be the responsibility of the Tories in Westminster to clean it up, but where devolved areas of competency are affected, the Welsh Government will have a responsibility to do whatever possible to mitigate the effects. Wales must be prepared for any eventuality, and the Welsh Government has a responsibility to plan for this almost unthinkable outcome.

For individual organisations, many already feeling overstretched, there just isn't the capacity to think about Brexit when there is so much day-to-day business to be getting on with. It is the Welsh Government's responsibility to provide the guidance and to ensure that the right information is getting to the right people, particularly in our public services. It's alarming that this report finds that a number of sectors have felt that they are lacking the information that they need to prepare adequately. We know that the implications of Brexit on our public services could be huge. There'll be the loss of the £680 million of European funding every year, with no real assurances yet from the UK Government that we'll see that funding replaced.

A report published today by the Global Future think tank suggests that a final agreement in line with the UK Government's desired bespoke deal would cut the amount of funding available for public services at a UK level by £615 million per week—equivalent to 22 per cent of what is currently being spent. Meanwhile, we know that there could be disruption to our access to medicines and medial research. Theresa May's plea to be allowed to retain associate membership to the European Medicines Agency after Brexit was rebuffed by the Commission because she also wants to leave the single market. Welsh patients could find themselves missing out on treatments that they need and the most cutting-edge research. Canada often gets new drugs six to 12 months after the EU. If the UK ends up with a similar style deal, will we be in the same boat?

We cannot be complacent about the scale of the challenge we may face, but the ongoing uncertainty we face about the outcome of Brexit negotiations makes any preparedness very difficult. This report is a valuable contribution to the discussion about how Wales can begin to get ready for the impact that Brexit could have, and I urge the Welsh Government to act upon its recommendations.

I firstly welcome the report and also the really important contribution that the committee has made to our understanding of the challenges that we're going to face as we approach Brexit. There are two areas that I particularly want to refer to.

One is that the Chair of the committee, Dai Rees, and myself attended in Edinburgh the interparliamentary forum, a body of nearly all the parliamentary constitutional committees across the House of Lords, Westminster, Scotland and Wales. And one of the key areas of concern there, on a number of these issues, is what happens, post Brexit, in terms of the constitutional structure we've got and in terms of the need for agreements in respect of issues such as state aid, agriculture and so on. And it was very, very rare that across party, across all these committees, with the plethora of research and evidence and reports that have been produced, they unanimously agreed that the Joint Ministerial Committee, in its current form, is not fit for purpose. 'Not fit for pupose'—a devastating comment and one that the UK Government seems not to have addressed, but I know that the Welsh Government is one that has continually raised it. It is a vital area that needs resolution.

The other one, of course—and Leanne Wood referred to the issue of funding and lost funding—is comments that have been made recently by the Secretary of State for Wales in evidence with regard to the shared prosperity fund. It appears serious consideration is being given that this will be a Westminster-controlled fund. What is the point of us winning the continuity legislation argument, winning the clause 11 argument, if the UK Government takes control of those funds and is able to turn round to us and say, 'You can have all the powers you want, but you can only have the money that goes with them if you do things the way we say'? That is a coach and horses through devolution. That is undermining fundamental devolution principles, and is something that we seriously do have to address.

In itself, this report and the acceptance of its recommendations by Welsh Government are all well and good, and it's right that there's a high level of analysis and scrutiny as we head towards Brexit. If there'd been as much scrutiny of the transition that was taking place leading up towards a united states of Europe, the UK would have made the sensible decision to leave a long, long time ago. But there was very little or no scrutiny or debates in this place or in Westminster when extra powers were being given away, largely because every party in this Chamber at the time were supportive of further integration, even though it's now obvious the Welsh public were not.

The report is sensible and valuable, of course, but it all comes down to the content of this Government's communication with the stakeholders concerned and the public. There are many in this place and others who will do all they can to ignore the will of the voters and attempt to reverse the democratic decision made at the referendum, or who aim to leave the EU in name only. My concern is that the Government will use its contact with stakeholders to continue its project fear to get backing for the softest, most meaningless Brexit possible. In their discourse, I suspect they will attempt to paint a scene of stability within the EU that simply doesn't exist.

Remainers try to argue that leaving would create uncertainty, while ignoring the obvious truth that remaining would create uncertainty also. With all the moves towards greater political integration, more powers being given away to Brussels, an EU army and so on, there was no status quo option on the ballot paper, and there's no such option now either.

The notion that the Welsh Government will provide objective and impartial guidance on the implications of the various Brexit scenarios is frankly laughable. They have not managed to say anything accurate about the various Brexit scenarios to date, and they painted themselves into this corner by embarking on project fear during the referendum campaign. They went so overboard with painting a picture of doom and gloom that unless they continue that narrative when reporting back to this place or another, they would be discovered as having been wrong again. If they go back to businesses and say, 'We know we told you a leave vote would be a disaster, but, actually, now we know it's the opposite,' they will lose the tiny wisp of credibility they may still possess.

This Government never admits that it's wrong, and no more obvious is this than when they attempt to say what the people voted for and what they didn't vote for. Rather than accept that the public disagreed with them, they try to redefine what Welsh people were expressing through the 'leave' vote to keep it in line with their party political agenda.

So, finally, whether it's a question of exploring a 'no deal' scenario, publishing the nine sectoral analyses, improved communication with organisations, issuing guidance or any of the other recommendations, the report and the acceptance in principle from the Government are all well and good, but the Welsh Government must make sure that it puts the will of the Welsh people ahead of its bruised pride and party political agenda when delivering on the recommendations. Thank you.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate as a member of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, and, given the unpredictability of outcomes in the Brexit negotiations, there are areas, of course, where committee recommendations and views have already been overtaken. It was helpful to have confirmation of a transition period in March, as this was uncertain at the time of the committee inquiry. We can see, I believe, that the committee has already had an influence on Welsh Government, but I agree with the Cabinet Secretary's statement in his response to our report, when he says that his response to the committee's recommendations demonstrates

'that we have intensified our Brexit preparedness work'.

But I'm particularly interested in the Welsh Government's response on the proposed shared prosperity fund. This has been mentioned more than once this afternoon. This does have a direct impact on many organisations who gave evidence to the committee, raising their concerns about the financial implications of Brexit, with Wales currently benefiting from £680 million European funding annually, and also looking at stakeholders such as Cytûn and the Welsh Local Government Association, drawing attention to the need for any future fund to be administered by the Welsh Government rather than the UK Government, and to be on the basis of need rather than population share. So, it would be helpful if the Cabinet Secretary could clarify how this evidence from this committee is being used in the case that the Welsh Government's making for future funding arrangements, which are very clearly outlined in your 'Regional Investment in Wales after Brexit' report, and if he can confirm that the Welsh Government is seeking assurances that Wales will not be any worse off in terms of equivalent funding as a consequence of leaving the EU.

Now, Mick Antoniw has already given the feedback from the Secretary of State on the concerns that are arising as a result of evidence given and comments by the UK Government regarding the shared prosperity fund. It is worrying, and we do need to mobilise Welsh voices and represent Welsh interests here in this Chamber to ensure that the proposals for a Welsh Government partnership approach for the administration of funding is adopted.

It is relevant to draw attention to the committee views in the report on the need to address equality issues and preparedness for Brexit. Stakeholders raised their concerns in this inquiry about the implications for equalities, saying that the EU served as a safety net, and concerns were raised about the absence of provisions in the withdrawal Bill to transpose the EU charter on fundamental rights into domestic law after Brexit. The committees addressed these concerns further and I hope you will welcome the joint letter to the First Minister from David Rees and John Griffiths, Chairs of the relevant committees, on the equality and human rights implications of Brexit. In the letter to the First Minister our committee Chairs refer to the shared prosperity fund and state that the fund should be administered by the Welsh Government in relation to Wales to ensure that it is sensitive to local needs and inequalities. They also state that the funds should be targeted at tackling inequality and socioeconomic disadvantage.

Finally, Deputy Llywydd, yesterday I raised the question with the leader of the house regarding our new power to commence the Equality Act 2010 socioeconomic duty. I would ask again that the Welsh Government consider this as a matter of priority, and acknowledge that this would be a way in which the Welsh Government could help in the preparedness for Brexit in terms of tackling the inequalities that have been addressed by the investment through European programmes. These programmes have helped to reverse the structural inequalities that have blighted communities and disadvantaged groups in Wales and the deepening inequalities as a result of austerity, low pay and aggressive UK Government tax and benefit policies that will only be exacerbated unless we use all the powers at our disposal to address this. This is part of, I'm sure, how Welsh Government should prepare for Brexit.

As David Rees has already said, the promise during the referendum was that we would be no worse off if we left the European Union, and it's up to the UK Parliament to ensure that whatever deal is agreed by Mrs May, and she brings back to the UK Parliament, meets those criteria. Otherwise, they ought to know what to do with it. What our job is is to articulate the needs of Wales and how Wales will not have its devolved powers rowed back on as a result of leaving the European Union. We have already rehearsed the problems around the LDEU and the referral to the Supreme Court, so this is a discussion that's going to go on and on. But I think that we need to be wise to the rhetoric that has been surrounding this versus the reality.

When members of the committee visited Toyota in Deeside in February, it was made very clear to us that it would be a disaster if the just-in-time goods that they import into Felixstowe were going to be delayed as a result of us no longer having a single market arrangement, and that if there were additional customs checks in Felixstowe, it would obviously put a major question mark over whether or not Toyota would continue in the UK. It was therefore a very pleasant surprise to see that Toyota has actually agreed to build the latest engine at Deeside, which was announced after our visit. 

I think one of the issues for me is not just the time that all the big brains in Welsh Government are having to deploy on this subject when we could be dealing with other more pressing matters like eliminating poverty or sorting out homelessness, but that the cost of leaving the EU could be huge. Mrs May, in her speech at the Mansion House, for example, identified a number of EU agencies that she wanted the UK to continue to be involved in as an associate member. She mentioned the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency as ones that she had in mind.

Our discussions with stakeholders made it clear that those three are very important to the continued functioning of Welsh organisations. Cardiff Airport warned that if they were not part of the European Aviation Safety Agency, it would have a considerable impact on their ability to compete with other European airports and would certainly put new costs and new delays on their operations. The NHS Confederation, the Royal College of Nursing and the British Medical Association were all clear that we need to be part of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control as well as the European Medicines Agency. Leanne Wood has already referred to the fact that if we're not part of the European Medicines Agency, we will be at the back of the queue in terms of getting new medicines, because we will no longer be a large-enough economy to merit new medicines being given priority to our country, so that is obviously a very serious matter.

When we were in Brussels at the end of last month, one of the people we saw was Mr Stanislav Todorov, the permanent representative of Bulgaria, who is an extremely important figure at the moment, because Bulgaria holds the presidency of the European Union, so what he had to say is very important. He was perfectly clear with us—he was refreshingly clear and candid, in fact—about the expectations being raised by Mrs May and others. He said, 'Look, these agencies are all about strengthening the single market, and if the UK is not part of the single market, ergo they are not going to be members of these agencies.' Obviously, we can negotiate some sort of observer status, but it doesn't look very promising if the hard line adopted by Bulgaria is played out across the rest of the EU. Therefore, we have to then ask ourselves what the cost is going to be of setting up similar regulatory bodies in the UK, which is money that we, therefore, don't have to spend on other things like insulating all our homes.

So, I think there's a real tendency to want to have our cake and eat it on this one, but I hope that this report is a useful summary of some of the issues that we need to continue to pursue to protect Wales's interests.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the very industrious members of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. I want to thank them firstly for their report and secondly for the opportunity that was given to me and the First Minister to give evidence as part of the inquiry by the committee into how the Welsh Government is preparing for Brexit.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the position, as I see it, is this: where matters lie in our own hands, I think we can show that the Welsh Government has acted promptly and persistently to assemble the evidence and to set out key priorities for Wales as we move to Brexit. Where preparation depends critically on decisions that are made by others, then our ability to prepare is inevitably less certain—as Leanne Wood put it earlier, it is outside our own control.

Even when we are dealing with our own responsibilities, the changing context means that we have to renew our efforts and reshape our actions according to the developing story. The committee's report is especially helpful in drawing together the views of a wide range of organisations with a direct interest in Brexit and drawing conclusions about how we can work together even more closely in the future.

Everything we have done as a Government since June 2016 has been through engagement with as wide a range of Welsh views and voices as we have been able to assemble. The European advisory group, for example, set up by the First Minister in the immediate aftermath of the referendum, brings together a real breadth and depth of expertise. The Brexit round-tables chaired by my colleague Lesley Griffiths have proved a really well used and highly regarded forum for rural Wales. The council for economic development's EU exit working group, chaired by Ken Skates, has created a context in which key economic interests in Wales speak directly to the Welsh Government on Brexit preparation. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, I could go round the whole Cabinet table setting out the direct engagements that colleagues have taken forward with the education sector, with the health sector and so on, and we will continue to do this and to do more in the next period. 

From the outset, and the joint paper produced with Plaid Cymru in January of last year, we have argued that proper preparation for life beyond Brexit could not be accomplished within the two years of the article 50 process. At first, we were alone in arguing for a transition deal. Of course, we now welcome the provisional agreement on a transition period, even if we continue to believe that preparation will need to extend well beyond the 21 months currently on offer. 

The response made by the Government to the seven recommendations of the report were set out by the First Minister on 12 April, and they're shaped by this context. The Chair of the committee stole part of my speech by going through all seven recommendations, but it's been a wide-ranging debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, touching on a series of really important issues. I completely agree with what Mick Antoniw said on the operation of the JMC and the need for far stronger inter-governmental machinery for the United kingdom to prosper on the other side of our membership of the European Union.  

Jane Hutt and others draw attention to the shared prosperity fund. Let me make it completely clear once again, Dirprwy Lywydd: the Welsh Government is entirely opposed to the shared prosperity fund. It is yet another example of a power grab back to Westminster. The responsibility for regional economic development belongs here, and everybody who has reported on it independently makes the same argument. It is vitally important that regional economic development is aligned with those organisations that have a presence on the ground here in Wales, that are able to be responsive to our partners, able to deliver the services on which economic development relies, and a shared prosperity fund put in a manifesto for which no majority was secured at an election, and in which the Government proposing it went backwards rapidly here in Wales, lacks both intellectual coherence and a democratic mandate. 

Jenny Rathbone got to the heart of a series of Brexit preparedness issues in relation to trade barriers that Welsh businesses will face if we are beyond full participation in the single market and outside a customs union. She and Leanne Wood identified a series of specifics there: aviation—the real prospect that we will not be able to fly out of this country in the way that we are able to today; access to new and to nuclear medicine—vital public health arrangements. We are part of a European-wide set of arrangements that protect the health of people here in Wales every single day, and if we don't have access to that surveillance, to that information, to the threats to public health that we know can take place anywhere across the continent, we will be poorer as a result. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to focus just for a minute on one key theme in the recommendations of the committee—that of scenario planning. Already, we have produced scenario planning material costs to the Welsh economy, the results of the scenario planning workshops of the Brexit round-table group, the differentiated scenarios we have published for the future of the fishing industry, the detailed paper setting out possibilities for the future of regional economic development, the work of the Cardiff Business School analysing different post-Brexit options for large and medium-sized firms in Wales, the work of the Wales Centre for Public Policy into the implications of Brexit for agriculture, rural areas and land use in Wales—all of this demonstrates our determination to go on planning, preparing and shaping the future, a future we face on the other side of our membership of the European Union. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I said at the start, there are real limits to which reliable and definitive advice can be provided when so much uncertainty remains. The report asks the Welsh Government to issue clear and accessible guidance on the implications of various Brexit scenarios. The problem is that so little clarity exists.

Imagine if we had produced such guidance on the basis of the Prime Minister's Lancaster House speech of January last year. We would have told the many interested out in the report to plan for a Brexit based on no to a transition period; no to paying any exit bill; no to any role for the European Court of Justice; no to continuing participation in EU institutions, and no to a deal for citizenship rights. By the end of the same year, and the agreement at the December European Council, we'd be issuing a completely different set of guidance. Now, we will be telling Welsh interests to prepare for a transition period, for a financial future, and we will, quite rightly, pay our bills in billions of pounds, lasting up until 2064. We will be telling people to prepare for a guaranteed role for the European Court of Justice, undiminished through the transition period and continuing far beyond it. We'll be telling them to prepare for continued involvement in key institutions where we can persuade the EU 27 to allow for that to happen, and for a set of citizenship rights that, thankfully, go far beyond anything that Mrs May was willing to contemplate less than a year earlier. Little wonder that the Caerleon health professionals told Mr Isherwood that scenario planning was problematic.

The point I make, Llywydd, is simply this: of course we want the best possible advice to citizens in Wales, but we have to do so in the inevitable circumstances of uncertainty. No-deal Brexit simply cannot be planned away, no matter how sophisticated the analysis or how granular the sectoral insight. That's why we are determined to go on working together with others here in Wales, closely following the work and the advice of the committee, so that we prepare together for a very different future and a future that works for Wales.

Thank you. Can I now call on David Rees to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions today and to thank the Cabinet Secretary too.

I think it's important that we clarify some of the points. And for Leanne Wood's purposes: yes, I think, can you also pass on what an important role Steffan Lewis plays in the committee? We will also look forward to him coming back to the committee because he has an important role and he does take a deep interest in these issues and it helps the committee tremendously. So, we look forward to seeing him coming back as well.

It's been clear that many Members highlighted similar issues. We've had the questions of the funding aspects, and I'm very pleased the Cabinet Secretary highlighted how strongly the Welsh Government is opposed to the possible intentions of a Westminster-controlled fund, where it should actually be more focused upon the needs of Wales and should be allocated to Wales as a block to allow that to happen.

Again, can I thank Mick for his kind words and his contribution to the committee, to the work on Brexit? And he's quite right: we're not alone in this issue, it occurs across the various institutions within the UK because the meetings we attended represented Scotland, the Lords and Commons and there was a unanimous feeling about the failure of the JMC. And we cannot let the UK Government control any funding that should have been coming to us anyway.

Mark highlighted the point that he's deeply disappointed that only some were accepted in principle—so am I. There's no question about that. But we are moving forward, and we do need to have clarity on the guidance for allowing bodies to establish contingency planning. That is critical. I know the Cabinet Secretary has highlighted that there are limits to being able to know how much he can give because there is so much uncertainty that still exists, and I also appreciate that, but we've got to get preparing for this. We now need to know there's a transition period, so we can start working towards preparing for that transition period and whatever happens afterwards. And I totally agree with the Cabinet Secretary on a personal view: I do not believe we will get everything resolved before October, by which time they have to go to the Parliaments for the consideration of any withdrawal deal. So, this is going to be a long game to be played.

Can I also remind everyone of Jane Hutt's championship of the equalities agenda on this? She has been to the fore, pushing the committee to look at these issues and the implications as a consequence of Brexit on equalities and what we need to do on that, and we will not be going past those issues. 

Jenny Rathbone highlighted something about the Bulgarian representative, and it was mentioned about the agencies. He reminded us, actually, of an interesting question: that membership of agencies is complicated because some of the agencies are linked to the single market and, as such, we've got to look very carefully. If Theresa May doesn't want to be in the single market, that limits our access to agencies. So, there's some serious thinking the UK Government has to have, and we need to have those discussions, and preparations, for what implications they may have for Wales.

I now turn to Michelle Brown, and I have to express my huge disappointment that she used the opportunity to give what I considered a rerun of the referendum arguments. There is no project fear, there's purely a look at how we can deliver the best for Wales; that is what we are trying to do. In my opinion, I think she's misrepresented the Government's work. And they are responding; the number of times they've mentioned that they're responding to the will of the people. I suppose President Trump would say that section was actually more like fake news than genuine news.

So, let's refer it back to what we are focusing on: how does Wales prepare for Brexit? And that is critical. We face many more months ahead of us—11 months now, actually, until we leave, probably about six months of negotiations to the withdrawal agreement, and then the discussions on the withdrawal agreement. And in that time, there will be many, many issues that will arise, both at EU level and UK level, that will have to be negotiated to ensure that Wales gets its best deal. And we prepare our businesses, we prepare our public bodies, we prepare our third sector for ensuring that, when it happens, we're in a strong position to move forward, and that we are going to be impacted minimally by anything that arises as a consequence of Brexit.

We will continue to hold the Welsh and UK Governments to account, because I will give credit to Robin Walker, who has attended the committee, and he has committed himself to come back. We will hold them to account. It would be nice if David Davis, the Secretary of State, would also attend because it might reflect that, perhaps, his understanding of devolution as well—it seems to be lacking at the moment. But we will continue our work to safeguard the interests of the people of Wales. So, I hope that Members will therefore accept the report and let us move forward, keeping an eye on what happens in Brexit. And don't take your eyes off it because if you blink, you'll miss something.

The proposal is to note the committee report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings us to the next item, which is the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on the Permanent Secretary’s investigation report.

Before we debate this motion, I want to make my position clear about its legitimacy. First, the motion is in order and, second, the power in section 37 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is undoubtedly broad, and that is why it can only be applied as a result of a vote in this National Assembly. I expect Members to continue to approach the use of section 37 proportionately and reasonably. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion. Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to move the debate in the name of Paul Davies that's on the order paper this afternoon. And in particular, it's worth reflecting just very briefly on the events of yesterday—that we were faced with this debate not actually taking place.

In particular, if I may draw the Assembly's attention to the letter that was sent to the Presiding Officer, in particular point three that stated that the Government believed that the Table Office and the Presiding Officer were acting unlawfully in accepting this motion. That was what was in the letter that was put forward. As I understand it, that was then subsequently leaked to the press, which is somewhat ironic, to say the least, that we're having a leak inquiry and here's a leaked letter, which I believe came from the Government, as I understand it, to the media. So, I wonder whether we'll have a Permanent Secretary inquiry into this particular leaked letter. But it is worth reflecting on that type of language that meets you on the first page—not 'thinks' it's illegal; it's actually telling the Presiding Officer that it 'is' illegal. That, by any stretch, is a very threatening and intimidating environment to try and create around a debate in the Assembly here.

I want to focus on three areas, if I may. Over the last three months, the various arguments that the Government have put forward to try and stop this report being published in redacted form. The first came forward in January from the First Minister, when I questioned him in First Minister's questions, and that was about the privacy and confidentiality of witnesses who had given evidence to that inquiry—and I agree entirely. I agree entirely that that should be adhered to, and that is why, in the motion today, we have said that the report should be made available in a redacted form, to make sure that that confidentiality is provided and, above all, the security and safety of witnesses who feel they might have been threatened if their names came forward, although I'm a bit skeptical of where the threats might come from if those names came into the public. And I do regret that the First Minister, in his choice of language in First Minister's questions at that time, said, when he was responding to me,

'What he is asking the Permanent Secretary to do—because it's her decision—is to out those people, for the evidence to be made available and their names. Such a course, I have to say, would be both dishonourable and dishonest, and would bring the Welsh Government into disrepute.'

I reject that. I flatly reject that, and I refer the Assembly to the Hamilton inquiry report that was made available, in particular clause 22 in the Hamilton inquiry report yesterday, which clearly showed how Hamilton went about the process of protecting the identity of witnesses in that report. So, that clearly answers the point that you can provide a report and protect witness identity where that witness identity has been provided.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I certainly will.

Can the Member quote any example of a Westminster Government publishing a leak inquiry report? I suspect he can't, because he knows full well that all Governments in Westminster, of all parties, do not publish leak inquiries as a standard. So, why is he asking the Welsh Government to do something his own party's Government in London does not do?

I would suggest to the Member for Llanelli that these are unique circumstances. I have asked the Presiding Officer to provide me with the examples that she cites in her letters to Assembly Members around the inability to provide the report. These are a unique set of circumstances that have led, sadly, and looked at, the death of an individual. It is vitally important that, as Assembly Members, we have the ability to scrutinise the actions of these inquiries and be satisfied that those inquiries have looked at and exhausted all avenues. And I draw the Member's attention to the motion today that does state specifically around 'for the use of the Assembly', i.e. Assembly Members. There are many provisions that could be put in place for this report to be made available for Assembly Members to read and digest this report, in a redacted version, that would protect the identity of individuals who have given evidence.

Now, that's one argument that was put forward back in January. In February, when we had the motion here, which was endorsed by Assembly Members, the next argument that was deployed was by the leader of the house in her reply to myself—in a very short reply, I might add, to that debate. And this was her reply to me:

'This is about more than just this leaked report; this is about the integrity of future investigations and future leaked reports.

'Whereas here, there is the additional element of ongoing inquiries, there are further potential risks to the overall integrity of the process if information is put in the public domain on a piecemeal basis.'

Well, yesterday, we had the Hamilton report come forward. I do welcome that report becoming publicly available for Members to read and to see, but I have to say, if that's the second argument that the Government have deployed to prevent the publication of this report, then you've shot it below the waterline, obviously, by making available the Hamilton inquiry report. I welcome the outcome of that inquiry, which gives the First Minister a clean bill of health when it comes to the specific focus of that inquiry about misleading the Assembly. I would draw Members' attention to the fact that this isn't a witch hunt against the First Minister, as point 48 in that report clearly identifies, when it says no allegation—no allegation—was levelled against the First Minister about bullying or intimidatory actions on his part. And so, this isn't about a witch hunt against the First Minister, but I would also just draw Members' attention to the fact that if that was the second argument that was deployed, that releasing information into the public domain would be a piecemeal approach to all this and it would jeopardise future inquiries, why was Hamilton treated differently?

The third point I would suggest is obviously the point that was deployed yesterday in relation to the legal arguments the Government put forward in relation to the exercise of the Government of Wales provision. And that, again, can be put to one side by the legal advice that has been provided to Members in the Assembly here. There is a difference of opinion here. The Government believe that government would seize up if, obviously, this motion passed this afternoon, and actually they wouldn't be able to go about their business. The legal advice that has been given—and I'll read verbatim here—'Parliament did not give the Assembly completely open-ended power. It provided a safeguard where the Assembly votes in favour of a motion. Under section 37(8), a person is not obliged to produce any document which he or she would be entitled to refuse to produce for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales. There are numerous circumstances where this might apply. For instance, legal advice to the Welsh Government would not have to be disclosed in accordance with this provision, so would commercial confidentiality'. I could go on. And I could go on to say, as I've pointed out to the Member for Llanelli, there are circumstances such as a reading room environment that could be made available to Assembly Members to meet the provisions and the requirements of the motion before us. Because the motion before us asks to produce the report for the purposes of the Assembly. So, to deploy the legal argument that Government would seize up if this motion went forward today is nonsense—utter nonsense.

Now, the Government whip might deliver the vote today to stop this motion going forward. I hope it doesn't. I hope individual Members will vote on the strength of the argument that is before them, but, if the whip delivers that vote, it won't deliver what is morally right here, and that is the ability to have this report sitting alongside the other reports that have been commissioned so that we can satisfy ourselves that each and every avenue of investigation has been exhausted to make sure we get to the bottom of the argument and the discussion and the debate, and ultimately make some sense of the tragedy that led to the death of a member of this institution. I urge Members to support the motion that is before them today, which seeks that transparency here, in the home of Welsh democracy.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Counsel General to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Formally moved. Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is a short debate whose outcome may cast a long shadow. Now, ostensibly, it's about the publication of a particular report—a particular set of circumstances—which, of course, has a personal tragedy at its heart. However, its significance also goes far wider than that. I should say, at the outset, I don't have any unrealistic expectations that publication of this report will answer all of the questions surrounding this case, or even this aspect of this case. Leak inquiries tend, by their very nature, to be inconclusive. As I think Sir Humphrey Appleby told Jim Hacker in Yes Minister, the task of a professionally-conducted internal inquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence. Now, despite that—. Lee Waters is right, of course. Governments never like to—. They like to announce leak inquiries, they don't like to publish the report, because the content is almost always more interesting than the conclusions. If Margaret Thatcher, instead of summarising the leak inquiry at the heart of the Westland affair at the despatch box in the House of Commons, had published the report by the Cabinet Secretary, then I dare say Geoffrey Howe would have been Prime Minister by 6 o'clock, as she had predicted to colleagues. Now, there are some exceptions. Damian Green—the report by the Metropolitan Police Service about the leak inquiry in 2009, I believe. The Alistair Carmichael leak inquiry in 2015—didn't get the full report from the Government, but there was actually a very, very detailed summary, which set out the process and methodology that had been used.

Now, I accept that this will be a redacted report by definition, but, even then, it will be almost, by definition, possible to glean at least more information than we currently have from the two sparse paragraphs we had from the Permanent Secretary. Now, the arguments, I think, in favour of publication are more fundamental. They're about the principles of open government, they're about parliamentary accountability, and they touch upon the dark chapter, I think, in Welsh politics that we currently find ourselves going through.

On the value of transparency, it was Louis Brandeis—the only socialist ever to be appointed to the Supreme Court, a Harvard law graduate, but let's not hold that against him—who famously said:

'Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.'

If there are legitimate doubts about an important matter of public discourse and debate, the best way of dispelling those doubts is to publish, and the surest way of sustaining them is to refuse. Now, the Government has advanced the argument that there will always be a category of information that, by its nature, cannot be released, and in general terms that is true, of course, but it's also true that on major matters that have become the subject of national debate the primary interests of openness and accountability should always ultimately win out over the Executive's desire for secrecy. And, occasionally, Parliaments have to remind Governments, as Ralph Nader first argued, that:

'Information is the currency of democracy. It's denial must always be suspect.'

Now, the right to call for persons and papers is enshrined right at the heart of the parliamentary tradition. In our case, it's written into statute rather than Erskine May, but it's the same principle that was evoked by the official opposition at Westminster in moving a motion of return last November that forced the UK Government to publish its Brexit impact studies, and the Government acceded to that when the motion was won. It would be unthinkable at Westminster for the law officers of the British Government to march up to the Speaker's office, as the Counsel General did to our Presiding Officer, to issue a threat of legal proceedings. For that reason alone, I would argue we must pass this motion as a symbol of our defiant refusal to be bullied into submission by an overweening Executive. 

Now the final reason why this motion must surely pass is to heal the wounds that currently run deep in the Welsh body politic. These are dark times. Hamilton refers to the charge of a toxic atmosphere in Welsh Government. Wherever you are on that particular accusation, we are certainly in a dark place, in a dark phase. A noxious cocktail is corroding trust within and by the public in the institutions of our democracy, whether it's the honesty or the probity of Government, the impartiality of the civil service, or the ability of this Parliament to hold the Executive to account—these questions are swirling in people's minds. 

It's important to acknowledge, I think, and it's important to be fair about this, that the Hamilton inquiry does indeed exonerate the First Minister on those questions that he had addressed to Mr Hamilton. However, I think it's also fair to say the report does not paint an exactly happy picture of the culture of Government, and I would say the first step in moving forward is a new culture of frankness, painful and sometimes inconvenient that honesty may sometimes prove.

I thought that the leader of the opposition, with forensic skill, took apart the threadbare arguments of the Government against the publication of these reports. It certainly was startling to read the leaked letter that I received just minutes before First Minister's questions yesterday, threatening the Llywydd with legal action. Yet, then I heard, just a few minutes after I read that page, the First Minister saying that he accepted that there was no power to prevent this place having the debate that he was seeking to stop by means of legal action.

I don't know how that legal action would have been executed if he had succeeded in persuading a judge of the rightness of his cause, who would have appeared here, like a High Court tipstaff, to arrest the Llywydd or any others who tried to exercise our democratic rights to give our opinions on how the Government was conducting itself on any matter whatsoever. I thought it was an extraordinary reprise of the kind of attitude that we last saw in the House of Commons in the 1640s, when an overweening monarch eventually ended up losing his head because he was unwilling to accept the right of the people to discuss for themselves the rights that they had inherited from their predecessor generations. 

I think it's perfectly obvious from the report of James Hamilton that these matters can be redacted in such a way as to protect the identity of individuals, although their identities are not really a secret anyway, because we all know who we're talking about in this proceeding and who the prime suspects are. But the difficulty is often to prove this for lack of evidence, because, in the culture of omertà, nobody is prepared to speak out and tell the truth. 

I don't see why we can't have in this Assembly something like the system of reading documents and having discussions on Privy Council terms, where we trust each other to do the decent thing, and, in response to Lee Waters's intervention earlier on to say that Governments at Westminster routinely keep secret these matters, shouldn't we aim, actually, to be rather better than those at Westminster? Shouldn't Wales seek to lead rather than follow in these circumstances? Not that I expect that any leak inquiry will ever get to the truth; it would be highly unlikely if it did—although I was in the House of Commons at the time that the Westland leak inquiry took place and a highly dramatic series of events then unfolded—but what you can do with the publication of such documents, of course, is to evaluate how thorough the inquiries have been, and all sorts of pieces of information that might then be elicited could be put together in a jigsaw, especially when there might be a series of investigations, such as there is in this particular instance, on the basis of which, at the culmination of these processes, we can draw some rather more informed conclusions.

The last point that I wanted to make is on the gravamen of this letter from the Government to the Llywydd, which seeks to put the First Minister in an extraordinarily privileged position. The legal argument, as I understand it, on section 37 of the Government of Wales Act is that decisions or actions that the Government take collectively, which any Minister could take under the powers devolved in this Act, are available to this Assembly to be made the subject of inquiry, but that where the First Minister has the power alone to make such decisions or take such actions we have no power to investigate him. This seems to be a most extraordinary elevation of the First Minister into a kind of absolute monarch, which we certainly would never have anticipated when this Bill was in gestation in 2005, 2006, and I think it's a complete misreading of the relevant section to put the First Minister in that privileged position. I think what it simply does is to distinguish between the powers of Ministers. The junior Ministers, including Cabinet Ministers, are not necessarily collectively responsible for his decisions in the legal sense, but he is responsible, because he's in charge of the whole Government, for all the decisions that any Minister might make. Otherwise, he would be excluded uniquely from the Assembly's scrutiny, and I think it vitally important, therefore, that the Assembly votes this afternoon in favour of this motion just to show our defiance of the Government and to show our rejection of that toxic principle.

I put the motion to use section 37 to get the report published because ignoring this Assembly is an affront to democracy. It seems that the Conservatives liked my motion so much that they put it in themselves, and I'm glad they did that because we're debating this sooner than we otherwise would have done.

Not long ago, I asked the First Minister to introduce legislation to regulate lobbyists. I notice today that he is absent from this debate. It's something I've called for since being elected to this Assembly, and it's something that happens in all major democracies surrounding Wales. His answer in that debate was very interesting. He said that it's not right for the Government to introduce legislation such as this; it's a matter for the Assembly corporately. So, here we are deciding corporately, as an Assembly, on this matter of whether an inquiry into potential Government leaking should be published, but instead of allowing us to decide on this matter the First Minister has responded with legal threats and challenges. I think that shows a Government's priorities: do nothing on lobbyists but try to intervene to stop open Government from taking place.

The First Minister alleges that releasing this document would stop government from being able to take place, and he seems to think that unless he can operate in the shadows and keep things hidden from the public then he cannot govern. For this Labour Government he may be right, because if the Welsh people were ever to get the chance to see what goes on behind closed doors, I don't think he'd be in his job much longer. He also doesn't seem to place much faith in the democratically elected representatives of Wales to use section 37 wisely. It's been available for years—years—and it's only now, on an incredibly important matter of public interest, that it's being used for the first time.

If the First Minister operated his Government in a more transparent way, we wouldn't need to use it at all. I hope on this matter we can, as an Assembly, vote so that the public can see the outcome of the inquiry. It's the Welsh people we need to protect and it's the integrity of this institution. I'll be voting in favour of this motion, because this is about democratic accountability and the integrity of Welsh democracy. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Llywydd, section 37 is a complex area, and what the Welsh Government is seeking is clarity. This would have been preferable, in our view, before the debate took place today. Unfortunately, there is an obvious difference of opinion between the Welsh Government and the Assembly Commission. We must now move for this issue to be resolved, preferably without recourse to the courts.

The Welsh Government objects to this motion and requests that Members vote against it for the following reasons. Firstly, the motion is outside the scope of the Assembly's powers, as set out in section 37 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. This is because this provision extends only to matters relevant to the exercise of Welsh Ministers' functions, as distinct from the limited number of functions exercisable only by the First Minister. The report in question was commissioned and undertaken in pursuance of functions exercisable solely by the First Minister, and is therefore, in the view of the Welsh Government, outside the scope of the section 37 power.

Secondly, the Welsh Government believes that the motion brings into question the proper conduct of Assembly business—one of the grounds on which there is a discretion to reject a motion. There is a long-standing practice of non-disclosure of leak investigation reports, which extends, as we've heard, across Governments throughout the United Kingdom. This is because of the risk of prejudicing the conduct and confidentiality of future investigations. There is also a clear risk that if reports into leak investigations were required to be disclosed to the Assembly, then, in future, individuals may not be willing to volunteer information or co-operate in subsequent investigations, and none of us want that outcome.

Today's motion is not, in the Welsh Government's view, an appropriate mechanism for the resolution of this issue. I should stress that the Government's preference is to be able to persuade the Assembly of its view and agree a basis for section 37 to operate. However, in the absence of agreement with the Assembly about the scope of section 37, we may need to ask a court to interpret the law for us and this is the basis on which the First Minister wrote to the Presiding Officer earlier this week.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Just on that very point, I wonder if you could share with the Assembly your views on subsection (8), which seems to resolve many of the problems that you've already raised in your answer to the debate.

I don't believe that it does. It sets out a principle, but it's evident, when you look at when the principle might apply, that it doesn't establish to what circumstances it might apply, and if there is a difference of opinion, how that difference of opinion might be resolved. But this is something I'm going to come onto in a moment, if I may.

Our strong preference is to work with the Assembly to agree a protocol or some other mechanism for the appropriate future operation of all parts of section 37. We have shared a proposal with the Assembly earlier this afternoon as to how this discussion can be taken forward and hope that the Commission will engage with us to resolve the matter in a way that meets both the Assembly and the Welsh Government's legitimate aims.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I thank everyone who contributed to it. If I could focus on predominantly, in the time that I am limited to, responding to the Counsel General's reply. I believe that the first part of the argument was trying to set the First Minister up above the law, if you take the interpretation that he has given us that, actually, he is not accountable under the Government of Wales Act for the functions that he exercises, whilst, in fairness, Ministers are accountable under that law. That is dictatorship, and, as I said to you, the only example we could find anywhere was Egypt. That's the only example we can find.

I read out—and you didn't challenge it, Counsel General—I read out the legal note that we are basing our argument on, and you didn't challenge it. I'm more than happy for you to challenge me on what I've put before the Assembly today in the legal note. No? Okay.

You then said that the Government wrote to the Presiding Officer yesterday to try and seek consensus. I will read again what I opened my remarks with this afternoon, which was point 3 of the letter:

'First, the Table Office, on behalf of the Presiding Officer, has'—

not 'could have'—

'has acted unlawfully by accepting the motion.

'4. Second, the Presiding Officer'—

not 'could have'—

'has acted...unlawfully, by not withdrawing the motion.'

You were telling the Presiding Officer what she should do yesterday and, by association, you are telling the Assembly what it should do. No democracy can function under that level of duress, I would suggest, and it will be a very dark day if, after listening to the arguments that I have put today, Members of the governing party on the back bench do follow the whip and do listen to your arguments, because, actually, what you have implied is to ignore the law and just run roughshod over what we're governed by, which is democracy.

I have not heard a single counterargument come from you today, Counsel General, to challenge any point that I have put before this Assembly. Not one. I systematically went through the three arguments that the Government have deployed over the last three months as to why this report should not see the light of day: (1) protecting the confidentiality of individuals who have contributed to the inquiry; (2) release could prejudice further inquiries; (3) exercising the law and the provisions of the Government of Wales Act. You have not sought to undermine any one of those arguments. I therefore call on the governing back bench to respond to the motion before us today, because, ultimately, if you do not, then, as I said, the Government whip might well win the day, but morally you will be found wanting.

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

The next item is the second Welsh Conservatives debate, on a national school workforce plan. I call on Darren Millar to move the motion—Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I move the motion in the name of Paul Davies on the order paper today in respect of the growing teacher recruitment crisis that we have here in Wales? If the Welsh Government's ambition for all learners to reach their full potential is ever to be realised, then we've got to have an education workforce that is fit for the future and equipped to deliver that aim. But we know that there are signs of a growing crisis in our schools, and there's been insufficient action to date to address it.

Wales has the lowest number of teachers it has ever had since the year 2000. The number of newly qualified teachers in Wales through initial teacher training and education has fallen from almost 2,000 in 2003 to just 1,060 in August 2017. Now, following a review in 2006, the Welsh Government has, rather shortsightedly, cut teacher training student numbers, and, in addition to these cuts, initial teacher training providers have been unable to recruit to Welsh Government targets in each of the last three years. Currently, around one in three secondary postgraduate places and around 8 per cent of primary places are left unfilled.

We know that there are certain factors that are impacting on the number of new applicants, including qualification entry requirements, better incentives to train in other parts of the United Kingdom, difficulties in new teachers securing permanent posts after qualification, concerns about the quality of initial teacher education in Wales, and, of course, concerns over workload, with 88 per cent of teachers who responded to the Education Workforce Council's national workforce survey saying that they were unable to manage their workload, and, on average, teachers working over 50 hours a week. Now, as a result of this, there have been changes in the staffing mix in our schools. The ratio of registered schoolteachers to learning support workers is now almost 1:1. All new schoolteachers are required to complete statutory induction before they're fully registered with the Education Workforce Council, and since this requirement, from a quality perspective, less than 1 per cent of the 16,000 new teachers have failed to meet those standards. I suspect that raises questions in everybody's minds about whether they are sufficiently robust.

And of course it's not just teaching staff. Headteachers as well are under pressure. According to the EWC, as of 1 March there were just under 1,500 headteachers registered, which is a fall of almost a quarter since 2003. Now, of course some of that is as a result of school closures in Wales. We know that this Welsh Government and its predecessors have a good record on closing schools—there are over 160 fewer, according to Estyn, from 2011 to 2017. But it's concerning also to note that the number of applications for headteacher posts in Wales has declined on average to fewer than six. This is compared to over 20 on average back in 2012, and many schools are saying that they're having difficulty recruiting headteachers. We know, again, that there are concerns about workload, there's concern about the lack of funding that's in place in Wales, there's a concern about the pace of change in Wales, in Welsh education, and the burden associated with managerial and administrative tasks when those heads are wanting support. And of course they raise concerns about the multiple layers of accountability that we have here in Wales—LEAs, the consortia, the Welsh Government, the governing body, expectations of parents. All of this piles pressure on headteachers and is leading to them not wanting to apply for new jobs.

In addition to that, of course, we've got great pressures in terms of recruiting Welsh-medium education teachers. Welsh Government data consistently shows that the average number of applications for Welsh-medium posts has been lower. In 2015 the average number of applications was under five compared to around 10 for all posts historically, and a similar pattern has been seen for secondary vacancies as well. Just a quarter of all the teachers registered with the EWC are able to teach through the medium of Welsh, and we're supposed to have a workforce that is going to deliver, or help to deliver, this ambitious aim of a million Welsh speakers by 2050. The evidence suggests that insufficient work is being done in order to get the mix right.

We've also got big shortages in our secondary subjects, particularly for certain subjects like English, maths, religious education and Welsh, in addition to those STEM subjects as well. That's leading to many classes being taught by people who are not subject experts, and as a result of that, the standards are beginning to slip. You only have to look at the PISA results to see us slipping further and further down the scale. So, we've got to sort this mess out, and that's why we have made a suggestion that we need a national education workforce plan that is comprehensive, that looks at recruitment, that looks at retention and that creates and establishes new routes into teaching for categories that are currently registered with the EWC. So, further education lecturers, who have got a good track record at delivering excellent GCSE and A-level results in further education, for some bizarre reason, aren't considered to be eligible to teach in our schools. Why is that? It's absolutely crazy.

In addition we've got overseas-trained teachers here in Wales who could be also be added to the teacher ranks. In other parts of the UK they're considered fit to be able to teach, yet in Wales, for some reason, we've erected barriers to prevent them from teaching in our schools. I've had a headteacher from a school in Australia, a public school in Australia, who was not considered fit to be able to teach in Wales and has been lost to the education workforce here. It's not acceptable. Then of course we've got a wealth of talent in our independent schools and colleges who also should be considered fit to be able to teach in our schools without unnecessary barriers or induction programmes that are put in their way.

I could go on, Presiding Officer, but time is short. I trust that people will support our motion this afternoon so that we can get this comprehensive plan in place and support the education reforms that we all want to see happen here in Wales.

I have selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James?

I formally move.

Thank you. Can I now call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I’m very pleased to move amendment 2 in the name of Plaid Cymru.

I will start by referring to a BBC report back in December that demonstrated that school budgets had declined by some £370 per capita for each pupil in real terms over a period of six years. Now, it’s no surprise, therefore, that some of the teaching unions are warning, as the National Education Union did recently, that there is a hidden financial crisis in our schools, although some would suggest that it isn’t that hidden anymore. Estyn also, in its current annual report, which was published a month ago, points at the direct impact of those cuts, through highlighting that there are fewer qualified teachers involved in the foundation phase in Welsh schools now. But we know, of course, that what cuts to school budgets mean is job losses among teachers, and then, as we find in some of our work as a committee, they have to use other pots of money, such as the pupil development grant and so on, to try to narrow that gap.

But what’s happening, of course, because of these cuts is that there is a loss of capacity within our schools. We’re losing teachers and classroom assistants, who have to be made redundant because of the financial squeeze, and then, naturally, that places more pressure on the remaining staff. It’s no surprise, therefore, that the unions are also telling us that there is a workload crisis among teachers in Wales, and we’ve already heard reference to certain figures. How can you disagree that the situation is unacceptable when the Education Workforce Council says that 90 per cent of teachers say that they can’t manage their workload within their current working hours, or the agreed working hours? And as has already been mentioned, on average, full-time teachers work 50 hours a week, and part-time teachers work 35 hours a week. So, what does that tell us? How can we be surprised, therefore—as we referred to in our amendment—that the 21,000 days lost through stress in 2009 has more than doubled to 52,000 in 2015, with also increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession prematurely? With the responsibility for teachers’ pay and conditions being devolved to Wales later this year, the time has now come to look anew at how much time teachers have to carry out their responsibilities and to look at that balance between preparation time, teaching time, CPD time and training time. I know that the Cabinet Secretary has started the process of looking at some of these areas, and I would urge her most strongly to take the opportunity to tackle these factors.

So, it’s no surprise, under these current circumstances, that it’s difficult to attract people to teaching, when they see the situation of the profession as it currently exists. We know, of course, that the targets in terms of attracting students to undertake teacher training are being missed substantially. Two thirds of the secondary school teachers that we need to train are currently being trained, which therefore means that there will be dire problems further down the line in terms of having adequate numbers in the teaching profession, and that’s why we will be supporting the central demand of this motion for a national workforce plan. Maths, chemistry, physics, biology, modern languages, information technology, design technology and music are all under the recruitment target for initial teacher training. With the number of Welsh teachers at its lowest point for a decade, what hope is there for us to reach that million Welsh speakers if we don’t have the teachers to teach our pupils?

As the motion notes, it’s worth recognising the increasing reliance in our schools on teaching support assistants—there are nearly as many of them now, as we heard, as there are registered teachers. They are an integral part of the education system, but often work for very small wages and aren’t often recognised as they should be. But we do know that 10 per cent of them—some 3,000 teaching assistants in Wales—are graduates, and there is a need, as we as a party committed some weeks ago in our national conference, to look at the opportunities that exist to give them routes to training. They've already chosen the classroom as their place of work, and one would then feel that there is a strong precedent there for them to contribute to strengthening the workforce and secure sufficiency within the workforce for the years to come. But, of course, alone that isn't enough, and we have to tackle the funding situation and the workload situation or, of course, unfortunately, we will be no closer to the shore. 

I'd like to make a brief intervention to highlight the role technology can have in helping us to develop a robust workforce plan for the future. Only today, the news has been reported of one in three jobs in Wales being at risk from automation by the early 2030s, and that analysis shows that jobs with routine and repetitive tasks—many of which will be able to be replaced by algorithms and by artificial intelligence within the next 20 years. And Bill Gates has commented that we often overestimate the pace of change that we're likely to see over the next two years, but underestimate the pace of change we're likely to see over the next 10 years. Certainly, in the next decade or more, all aspects of society will be impacted by the potential of artificial intelligence, and education is certainly central to that. 

The amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru quotes figures from the NUT showing that 50,000 working days are lost by teachers due to stress-related illness and, in their view, it's getting worse with a third set to leave the profession in the next few years. But, actually, harnessing technology can help alleviate the strain on teachers and greatly assist them in their tasks in the classroom—routine tasks—freeing them up to do what they came into education to do—to teach, to nurture, to coach, to lead, and we really need to be, when we are discussing future plans for the education workforce, thinking about the centrality that technology can have to unleash the potential of teachers.

I'll just mention just a couple of examples that are available using existing technology. One is something called Zzish, which is a virtual teaching assistant that helps teachers instantly see which of their students need help in real time, what they're struggling with through an assessment application, which allows, then, the teachers to track individual performance, the class as a whole, and see clear improvement over time. That's just one example of existing technologies, and, as I say, with the pace of development we're likely to see through artificial development over the next 10 years, that potential will become even greater. 

So, my plea to all Members and to the Government is to put technology at the heart of their thinking of how we can support the teaching sector so they don't feel overburdened by stressful, repetitive, dull tasks, and actually could be freed up to do what they came into the profession to do. Diolch.   

Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate. We in the UKIP group agree that there is a problem with both recruiting and retaining teachers. To some extent, the issues relating to this problem are common to both England and Wales, but there are also some issues that are peculiar to Wales. 

In some ways, the Welsh Government has made life harder for itself in terms of recruiting teachers because of an over-reliance on particular qualifications. Yes, we need to ensure that we have the right people entering the teaching profession, but we also know that you can't measure things, and certainly you can't measure people, by qualifications alone. Now, we have an education Minister who has frequently made the sensible point that we can't just look at statistics all the time; we have to look at everything in context. We have to see the broader picture. And I think we can actually apply that mindset a little to the recruitment of teachers. So, hopefully, the Minister will apply her own maxim to this issue. 

In our view, an over-reliance on qualifications means that many life-experienced people, some of whom at least would be suitable for the classroom, can't get into the teaching profession because they don't have the relevant qualifications, and it would cost too much time and expense for them to retrain. We could actually relax the rules a little to make it easier for people to retrain. 

Looking at today's motion in a bit more detail, we support the idea of the Welsh Government and the Education Workforce Council working together to develop a school workforce plan for Wales. We would add the caveat that there needs to be input from people who have experienced problems in entering teaching, or who entered the profession and then left it prematurely, so that any such plan is tailored to the needs of suitable potential teachers who have been unable to get into teaching or remain in teaching. We want to make it easier for schools to recruit teachers, and we think that a lot of common abilities are obviously going to exist with college tutors and with teachers at independent schools. So, it should be made easier for this group of people to get the required accreditation so that they can bring their skill set into the school classrooms.

The Conservatives also mention a route into teaching for teaching assistants, or TAs. I've raised the issue of TAs in previous questions to the education Minister. I think there is sometimes a problem with TAs in that once they've been on the relevant courses and have got their qualifications, they find that they've theoretically moved up a level but they don't automatically get upgraded to that status in terms of their pay, and we end up with TAs of a certain level not being able to get jobs at that level, and that leads to some of them becoming cynical and wondering if they were only sent on these courses so that the companies or organisations running these courses got something out of it rather than the people who were being trained. TAs can be a valuable asset to a school. Sometimes, they could be as effective as some of the already qualified teachers, but they lack that basic thing: that piece of paper that says they have a certain qualification. So, I think a career path for TAs that allows them to enter the teaching profession more easily would be a very good idea.

So, we support the Conservative motion today. We also agree with the Plaid amendment, because as Plaid state in their amendment, we do also have to look at the churn rate in the teaching profession, and I'm sure they're right to link problems with staff retention to the stresses of the job. In our view, this stress could be caused by many factors, but there are some that are quite common, including class sizes, and we agree with what the education Minister has said in the past—that we do need smaller class sizes. We also need to get away from too much of a focus on targets and assessments. Ultimately, when you have too many of these, they just become an objective in themselves. In other words, we end up with teachers training pupils to pass tests and exams rather than teaching them something useful. So, a final point is that it would help matters no end if educationists now spent some time thinking about writing curriculums, that, rather than being totally focused on getting pupils to pass exams, actually sought to teach those people something useful. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Up until now, it's fair for Welsh Government to say they haven't had all the tools they need to confront teacher shortages, but from next year, Welsh Government will set teachers' pay and conditions. From then, there can be no excuse if we do not see improvement in teacher recruitment.

As well as improving terms and conditions, we need to increase the number of routes into teaching. Darren mentioned further education teachers, overseas teachers, teachers from independent schools. Llyr mentioned teaching assistants. I hope the Cabinet Secretary will join me in commending Teach First, which has been doing excellent work recently with the Central South Consortium. They've offered a new way into teaching, and more recently also applied it to those entering via a career change who may otherwise not have been able to commit the time to a PGCE. We should be looking to spread that model further across Wales, and I trust the Cabinet Secretary will now act to do so.

We also need to look at retention. Far too many teachers leave the profession early in their career and never return, and as Plaid Cymru note in their amendment, a third of teachers are considering leaving the profession in the near future. A recent ComRes survey reported that nearly three quarters of the teachers who said they were considering leaving the profession were doing so because of excessive workload.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary has ambitions, I understand, to reduce class sizes to 25 for infant classes, but how on earth is that achievable in an environment where we have the strains and failure to recruit the quality and quantity of teachers we need? Will it be that these teachers are just taking more classes because there are fewer pupils in classes on average, or where is the money coming from? Perhaps we could see a higher proportion of what is kept in Welsh Government or within the local education authorities going down to the schools to support teaching directly.

I also wonder where we are going in terms of the teaching assistant and the support model. We have this one-to-one ratio that Darren referred to now, yet we have far greater complaints of excessive workload than we ever did before, and it seems to get worse year by year. What is the way to get more teachers into the profession given that? Are these teaching assistants and the teaching in small groups rather than a whole class for more of the time—are they adding to these burdens that teachers are facing outside of the direct class teaching time? And, ultimately, is the way to attract more people into teaching to give teachers a substantial pay rise? But how would we afford that, and what do we see from overseas models, where, actually, the evidence and the academic studies don't especially support the ambition of the education Secretary in terms of class size being a key driver of performance.

There are education systems—Singapore is one that comes to mind clearly—where class sizes may be higher but where you have very high-quality teachers from the top institutions, getting the best grades, being attracted into teaching, often by higher salaries, and in some systems actually having larger classes than we do here. I don't present that as my model I give for the future, but I ask the question: is the way to attract more people into teaching the education Secretary's focus on reducing class sizes to 25 infants, or is it a focus on paying higher quality teachers as much as we need to get them into the profession, even if that means that we don't have the profusion of teaching assistance and support that we have seen develop but doesn't seem to have reduced the complaints from teachers of excessive workloads that continue to increase in volume?

The ComRes survey also suggests that one of the positive actions that could be taken to keep more teachers in the profession is more professional development and more opportunities to enter leadership roles. If we were to focus more funding on improving standards of teaching and improving professional development, we could potentially retain more teachers, as well as making it a more attractive profession for people to enter. In that respect, I do welcome the education Secretary's new academy and obvious passion for it, and the positive response I've heard from educators. It is imperative that the Welsh Government uses its new powers over terms and conditions and takes the action needed to arrest the crisis in Welsh education.

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm really sorry this is only a half-an-hour debate, which means I only have four minutes to sum up, because there are some things where I agree very passionately with what Members have said this afternoon, and there are some things that I vehemently disagree with this afternoon.

Gareth, can I be absolutely clear, there is intrinsic value in children leaving our schools with examinations and qualifications that allow them to go on to something else? Our education system can be about more than that, but to say that we're not doing a useful thing for our children in getting them to pass tests, exams and to attain qualifications is not one of them. And we have to, I have to say, Mr Reckless, see education in the cultural context in which it's delivered. And I don't think there are many parents in Wales who would want to see the effects that there are on child well-being in many of the countries, including Singapore, that you have talked about in the educational system here. Indeed, a group of parents went recently to the far east to look at education methods in the far east, and one parent said to me, 'Whatever you do to improve the situation in Wales, please do not subject my child to what we saw when we visited those countries.' So, we have to see education in the cultural context, but does that mean we can do better? Of course it does, and you know that I am determined to do better because it is my, it is this Government's national mission to deliver a reformed and successful education system in Wales for its young people. An education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence. And I recognise that, above all else, it is the quality of teaching that transforms young people's lives, and therefore it is essential that our reforms support a sufficient supply of high-quality, well-qualified teachers to underpin our national reform journey.

Our teachers of tomorrow are absolutely integral to our national mission, and I've made very clear my commitment to attract and retain more highly qualified graduates into teaching because our young people—your children, my children, all of our children—deserve nothing less. That's why all teachers in Wales need to be qualified, unlike other countries such as England, where the use of unqualified people in our schools is growing at pace. The overall teacher vacancy rate in Wales remains comparatively low, although I would be the first to admit that there sometimes can be local difficulties in recruiting into certain subjects and into certain phases.

Now, Plaid's amendment states that the recent national workforce survey showed that 34 per cent of teachers said they were considering leaving the profession. That is a matter of fact. Yet, to put this into perspective, out of 30,610 teaching practitioners, just over 1,600 stated that they were considering leaving the profession, for some of whom it may have been a result of retirement. I am pleased that, in contrast, 47 per cent of teachers stated that they were looking to continue to develop and strengthen their practice, with others looking to progress on to leadership roles. I would agree with you, Mark, that ensuring that we have a consistent national approach to professional learning and career development is a really, really important point, and we are working on that at the moment, as, I also recognise, is the issue of workload, and we continue to work with the unions and experts regarding workload, especially through the prism of the devolution of teachers' pay and conditions.

With regard to recruitment, Deputy Presiding Officer, in October I announced an improved priority subject incentive scheme, and a new incentive scheme targeting Welsh-medium postgraduates to address some of the complexities that we face. Many of the points raised this afternoon are already in train. The teacher recruitment and retention advisory board, which I have set up, is reviewing international evidence to consider how we support people into the profession—all those wishing to enter into the profession through alternative routes. That's people who are wanting to change careers. That is indeed foreign teachers. It's indeed upskilling people who are already in the education workforce but want QTS. But when I do that, it will not be at the expense of lowering down standards. I am determined to maintain a standard that requires people to go into the profession. We wouldn't be saying some of these things about the medical profession, would we? We wouldn't accept it for that profession, and why would we accept it in this case?

But there are ways in which we can find new ways for people to find themselves in classrooms if that is their calling, because I want teaching in Wales to be a first-choice profession, so that we can attract the very, very best, and our reformed initial teacher education offer will ensure that more people will want to train in Wales and will give them the very best start to their careers. These reforms enable the profession to take a central role delivering and leading change, as well as creating a stable, high-quality system that enables institutions and individuals to flourish. And it will do exactly that, Gareth: our teachers will be intrinsic to the development of our new curriculum. They will be at the forefront of that. 

I have established the leadership academy, which will continue to work with the Welsh Government, so that leaders and leadership are supported to enable the objectives of our national mission—supporting existing headteachers and nurturing those who want to go on to lead Welsh schools. The academy will engage with leaders, identify international evidence and create a network for collaboration to help inform the profession and make a difference to young people.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the overall objective of our national mission is simple, clear and ambitious. Working together with all of our partners, we will raise standards, we will reduce the attainment gap and, as I said, deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence. And to achieve this, we will help everyone, including everyone teaching in our schools, to be the best that they can be, so that they, and the children that they teach, can reach their full potential.

Thank you very much. I call Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I know I've got very limited time, so I just want to refer, if I can, to the Cabinet Secretary's comments. I heard what you had to say, and I acknowledge that some work is going on in the Welsh Government to try to address this problem. I'm pleased that you at least acknowledge that we have a problem, even if you don't acknowledge that it's a crisis. What baffles me is that when you were in opposition you took forward a comprehensive piece of legislation on nurse staffing levels, which required a national workforce plan and effort. Why are you rejecting a national workforce plan for our education system, for our schools? Why are you saying that you don't want to work with the EWC to develop one? Because that's what you're doing by trying to vote down our motion today. It just doesn't make any sense. You say that the quality of teaching is what matters, and you're not prepared to dumb down on the quality and have unqualified teachers in our classrooms, and yet that's precisely what we've got. We've got people who aren't qualified to deliver English lessons, and yet 20 per cent of our English lessons have people who are teaching those lessons who are not qualified in English as their specific subject. Seventeen per cent in maths; 27 per cent in religious education; and 23 per cent of teachers who are in Welsh lessons aren't qualified to deliver in Welsh.

So, the reality is that what you're saying is supporting a system that continues to have people who are not qualified to deliver those specific subjects in those areas. So, listen to some common sense, let's have a national education workforce plan, let's make sure that you work with all of the stakeholders to develop it, let's look at these new routes into the teaching profession for learning support workes, for people in further education and people who are qualified by experience. Let's take some examples internationally, both good, bad and indifferent, in part of that learning process, and make sure that we have an education workforce that is fit for the future.

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

Item 10 on our agenda is the UKIP debate on the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. I call on Caroline Jones to move the motion. Caroline.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to move this motion today, tabled in the name of my colleague Neil Hamilton. I have to declare an interest at the outset, Dirprwy Lywydd: I am a woman unfairly affected by state pension age changes, and one of the women against state pension inequality.

In 1995, the then Conservative Government introduced a new Pensions Act, which would have raised the age of retirement for women to 65—the same age as men—by 2020. This would have given women at least 15 years to change their retirement plans—15 more years of savings to help meet the shortfall in their pension funds. However, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition Government changed these plans. The Pensions Act 2011 sped up the changes, meaning that women's state pension age would increase from 63 in 2016 to 65 in November this year, and on it goes. The Act also stated that both men and women's state pension age should increase to 66 by 2020. I, like thousands of my compatriots, was not personally notified of these changes. I received no letter; I received no explanation. No-one told me my retirement plans would have to change, but, unlike many other women in this situation, I am lucky: I am still in employment; I am not facing destitution. Sadly, many women have been badly affected by these changes, and I have heard of at least one woman who took her own life as a result of the financial black hole she found herself in. No-one should be treated this way—no-one. Nobody disagrees that men and women's retirement ages shouldn't be the same. However, these changes shouldn't have been introduced without decades of notice, years to plan and time to make additional financial arrangements.

As it stands, the changes to women's pensions were introduced too fast, too haphazardly. I only learned of the changes via an offhand remark made to me one day, and my situation is far from unique. Women are being made to suffer because of a lack of foresight and planning by successive UK Governments. Women are being made to suffer because of the Tory and Lib Dem pursuit of austerity. And women are being made to suffer because of Labour's mishandling of public finances and their failure to repeal the 1995 Act. I ask those Labour politicians who support the WASPI movement—you were in Government from 1997 until 2010—why did you not take action then? Unfortunately, we can't correct past mistakes, but we can mitigate the effects those mistakes are having on women born in the 1950s.

Our motion before you today calls for a bridging pension that supplies an income until state pension age that is not means-tested, compensation for the absence of a bridging pension to those women who have already reached their state pension age, compensation to all those who have not started to receive a bridging pension by an appropriate date that would be sufficient to recover lost monetary interest, and compensation to the beneficiaries of the estates of those who are deceased and fail to receive a bridging pension. This is not too much to ask, and I hope that Members here will support this motion today. I hope the Welsh Government will fight the WASPI women's corner, and I hope that the UK Government will see sense. 

There are things we can do here in Wales without waiting for the UK Government to acknowledge the pain and suffering the policies have created. Women born in the 1950s now find themselves having to work for another six years and the Welsh Government can assist them in both finding work and ensuring that employers take on employees close to retirement age, whilst at the same time fighting for the women of the 1950s to receive what they are owed. They were robbed. 

I have been told of numerous examples of women being denied employment because of their age. A lady contacted me and stated, 'I'm 62, I receive no pension as I was promised. I'm rendered unemployable due to my age. I'm destitute and depend on friends and family.' This should not be the case, but I doubt it's unique.

We have to encourage employers to see the benefits of employing people in the final years of their working life. These women will bring with them a lifetime of experience, a wealth of knowledge, and a work ethic forged through decades of hard graft. I urge the Welsh Government to do all they can to encourage employers to invest in WASPI women, to work with employers to ensure that there is meaningful employment for those forced to work longer, but who are also fighting to survive and want what they are owed. 

I urge Members to show their support for WASPI women by supporting this motion before you today. Show your support for WASPI women by telling the UK Government that it is unacceptable how these women are being treated. The pension changes wouldn't have had much impact on women in their 30s and maybe 40s, but have had a devastating impact on women in their 50s and 60s. The UK Government clearly don't care about the impact these policies are having, as evidenced by their blank refusal to roll back the changes. 

It is now up to each and every one of us here today to ensure the impact these changes are having are mitigated and that the people have what they're entitled to. I don't want to see any other woman forced to make a choice between living in destitution or taking their own life. These women have worked hard for decades, they shouldn't be facing poverty in retirement. They should be receiving the pension they were promised for decades of hard work.

No Government should have the right to break these promises and put these women in poverty. These women planned their retirement according to these promises, and these promises were broken. No-one has the right to take their money from these women. It's worth noting, some women, after 43 years of hard physical work, unable to work physically anymore, are now left without their pension. So, we have to act. The Welsh Government has to act. The UK Government must be forced to act. I urge you all to support the motion I've put before you today.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion and I call on the leader of the house to move formally amendments 1 and 2, tabled in her name.

Formally.

Thank you. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important issue today. Decisions made at Westminster by an out-of-touch and uncaring Government have had a terrible impact on millions of British women, including an estimated 200,000 women here in Wales. The WASPI women, those who have contributed all their lives to our country, have been effectively abandoned. For many of us, those women are our friends, acquaintances, close family and the women we see all around us in our communities on a daily basis.

With the recent news on the Windrush generation, it seems that the breaking of the social commitment that has bound our country together for decades is the sole ambition of the Tories in Westminster. However, it is precisely because it is UK Ministers who have caused this problem, and indeed in a spirit of justice and fairness, that we need to take urgent remedial action. That is why I am supporting the Government’s amendments today. The best outcome from today’s debate for WASPI women will be that we send a clear and incontrovertible message to Westminster that what UK Ministers have done is wrong. 

We should all be familiar with what has happened in this case. Legislation from 1995 set out an intention for women’s state pension age to increase to 65 by 2020. Iain Duncan-Smith, who boasts of being able to live on £53 a week whilst in reality claiming nearly £100 in expenses for a new stapler, forced through these changes. His Pensions Act 2011 accelerated the timetable, bringing the change forward to November this year and putting in place a further rise to age 66 by 2020. His promises for transitional arrangements were not kept. And who were these transitional arrangements for? They would have helped the millions of women born in the 1950s who now face the pushing back of the age at which they expected to claim their state pensions—pensions that they have paid into all their lives, worked hard for, contributed to.

What is worse, these changes were made with little or no notice, forced through without time to make alternative plans. So, now, WASPI women have to work for longer, or indeed find new employment altogether. Evidence from Age UK has shown the challenges for those in physically demanding jobs having to work for longer, the additional stress, strain and ill health. Whilst changes to state pension age may offer no personal challenge to Prime Minister Theresa May, that is not the case for most other women, especially those working in physically demanding roles such as, for example, carers, cleaners or jobs in retail. Moreover, there are challenges around workplace skills. I've been told of the barriers facing one WASPI woman from my local area. Having retired on the basis of misleading DWP information, she needs to return to the workplace now, but is having no success. As she says, 'I can’t use a computer and who wants to employ an exhausted, unskilled 62-year-old?'

A further complicating factor is that many of these women are also trapped with a double burden. Unpaid caring responsibilities for grandchildren, spouses or perhaps even their own elderly parents take up too much time and energy. In short,

'retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences'.

These words come from the Women Against State Pensions Inequality campaign.

The only positive to have come out of this is the way that those 1950s women have fought back so impressively, organising and campaigning to highlight the injustice that has been done to them. Many AMs will have met campaigners and been impressed by their resolve and courage, especially when this is a role that many of them never expected to have to play.

I recently spoke at an event to mark 100 years since the 1918 Representation of the People Act in Cynon Valley Museum. I was joined on the panel by the co-ordinator of the local WASPI group. She told me about the range of profile-raising activities they undertake, but also the practical, albeit less glamorous, work that they do supporting their peers by helping them to complete technical forms and limitless paperwork, and providing friendship and support. As we celebrate the centenary of women gaining the vote, it is good to see the spirit of the suffragettes still alive.

In 1918, the UK Government extended the franchise to recognise women's campaigning and practical work during the war. The duty is now on the UK Government to make changes, to put in place the transitional arrangements this current generation of women worked all their lives for, to give them back their dues, their hope and their future.

I welcome the fact that UKIP have brought this debate to the Chamber this afternoon, and I must say it's difficult to add to Caroline Jones's opening passionate and excellent contribution, which covered so many different areas and aspects, not only of how we got into this position, but also the real suffering that some women are going through in this position. Also, you quoted your own personal experience as well.

Can I start by saying that I have, like all other AMs, great sympathy for the women affected by these changes to the state pension and, as I said, what they're going through at this moment? One of my members of staff is actually in a similar position herself to that set out by Caroline Jones, so it's a sensitive issue in my office so I have it close to home. So, I'm not just speaking about this issue today from a distance, as clearly not a WASPI myself—[Inaudible.]—but from personal experience of friendships and colleagues.

I'm sure that all AMs here have been approached at some point by women in this situation, and, as Caroline Jones did today, the WASPI women make a very strong, passionate case, so it is very difficult not to be compelled by what they have to say. And as politicians, Assembly Members, that is our job. Some of the stories that Vikki Howells mentioned do touch the heart strings.

Of course, to say this is purely an issue that happened under this UK Government is not true. Certainly, some of the changes that happened in 2010-11, you're quite right to point those out, but as you said, the changes, actually, are a consequence of going back as far as the Pensions Act 1995, which set this train in motion. Back then, the changes were deliberately held back for a length of time with the intention, at least, to give the women affected time to plan for their retirement. Now, of course, we know that that process—. Well, to say it was far from perfect is an understatement; it clearly hasn't worked.

Whilst it is a Conservative Government in power at the moment, of course, this has happened under a number of Governments. It's happened under a coalition Government, going back to the 1990s it was a Conservative Government and, of course, the Labour Government in between. So, along the line, there has been a successive failure of effective communication between UK Government and the WASPI women and that is regrettable, but as you've said, Caroline, it's difficult, not always impossible, but difficult to correct past mistakes, and so what we have to do, as Vikki Howells said as well, is see how we can best support those women.

Now, this isn't a devolved issue; Julie James has had nothing, well, very little to do with the changes in legislation at UK level. I must say, though, I did find the Government amendment, which changes the call for the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to the Welsh Government to 'urge' the UK Government a little pedantic. I'm sure there was some—. Well, you can probably explain the reason for that drafting. But, I think that the public would not mind, Julie, if the Welsh Government, even though it isn't a devolved responsibility, was actually working with the UK Government in this instance. We do have two Governments, as we know—we've got the UK Government at the other end of the M4, as Plaid are often keen to point out, and we have the Welsh Government here. So, I think there does need to be co-operation. Even though the levers of power on this are in Westminster, I think there does need to be a concerted effort here to get the UK Government—

Will you take an intervention?

I will shortly.

To get the UK Government to review the situation.

Thank you for that. Can I ask, then, in that regard, what interventions you have made, as Welsh Conservatives—and representations—to them around this matter?

Yes. As I said earlier, Rhianon, like other AMs, I've had approaches from WASPI women constituents and I've been happy to say to the UK Government, 'Look, this doesn't look like it's worked out particularly well and I think you should look again at this.' Like all of us here, I'm not in the UK Government. I am here as a Welsh Assembly Member, so as the Welsh Government don't have a direct role to play in this, I don't either, but nonetheless, we all have Members of Parliament who represent our areas, so I hope that we would all pass on our concerns.

There was a rationale back then behind the changes. It was to meet EU equality laws—probably not going to be so important for too long into the future, now, but that was the reason back then. There was a need to keep pensions on a sustainable footing with an ageing population and I think that was some of the reason behind some of the changes that were made in 2010-11. So, there were reasons there, but clearly something has gone wrong with the communication through this process. I'm more than happy, Rhianon—and I would like other Members to know—to pass on my concerns to the UK Government. I think we are where we are, but let's keep the pressure up to see that these women who are affected are given the support they need, that they are allowed to work in the ways and for the length of time they need to make sure that they don't go into their latter years, into older age, suffering, because that wasn't the original intention and that certainly shouldn't be the case.

I’d like to start by congratulating WASPI for their very powerful campaign drawing attention to this unfairness that we’re discussing today. In my area, there are a number of women who have come to Hywel Williams, the MP for Arfon, Liz Saville-Roberts, the MP for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and me, and we’ve worked together with those women to establish local WASPI groups. By now, we have a WASPI group for Arfon and Anglesey and a Dwyfor Meirionnydd WASPI group. We’re continuing to support their efforts and highlighting the unfairness that has been created by the changes to the state pension Act. I know that there are other WASPI groups across Wales, and I do congratulate you on your work.

The changes are a concern for millions of people across the UK and there are more and more becoming aware of the impact. Not everyone still is aware of the far-reaching impact that this can have on the lives of women and their families.

It’s important to note that Plaid Cymru does support the principle of creating equality in terms of the state pension age. There is no reason why it’s expected that a woman would retire at a younger age than a man would. That’s not appropriate or relevant in an age of equality. There is no opposition to the principle, therefore, but I do object strongly to the process that has been adopted to drive this change forward. What we need is a transitional period that is fair for every woman who was born in the 1950s and who has been affected by these changes. The timetable as it stands doesn’t give time for women who are affected to plan for their retirement, for the reduction in the pension, which is unlike what they were planning for, and that is the message I hear time and again from the women that I work with in our local group in Arfon.

Could we dwell a moment on the situation of women generally? Women in Arfon and, indeed, in Wales will be struck particularly hard by these changes. People live longer in England than they do in Wales, income per capita is lower than it is in other parts of the UK, and, on top of that, women in Wales earn less, on average, than the men of Wales—nearly £5,000 less. Twenty-five thousand pounds is the average salary for men, and £20,000 for women, which is a great inequality.

So, while we do welcome the equal treatment of women in terms of the state pension age, we need to treat women equally in all areas—in the workplace, in terms of salaries, and in terms of life chances. It’s interesting to see that the Westminster Government is quite willing to drive forward the equality agenda when that suits them and when it does mean cutting the welfare budget, but what are they doing about equality generally in terms of the general deficiencies, and what are they doing in terms of developing other aspects of equality and getting rid of inequality? And, with all due respect, could I ask UKIP what kind of emphasis do they place on equality generally for women? It’s easy bringing this kind of issue before us, which suits them, but how about this issue generally?

Therefore, we agree with WASPI. We need to introduce equality in terms of the state pension age, but we need to do that over a longer time frame and give an opportunity to women to prepare properly for their future. These women deserve to be treated fairly. I will close with this: I have a case in my constituency of a women who was born 24 hours too late, and now she has to work two years and three months longer. That wasn’t her wish, but that’s what she has to do. That’s not fair, and Plaid Cymru has called consistently for transitional arrangements, and a bridging pension and compensation would go a long way to ameliorate that situation and to make a much more acceptable situation. But, remember, Plaid Cymru is also determined to ensure genuine equality for women across Wales, in every area. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A betrayal lies at the heart of the situation WASPI women find themselves in. Throughout their working lives, they were promised that, in return for their taxes and national insurance, they would receive a pension and that they would receive it from the age of 60. Women have built lives around the expectation that the UK Government would be as good as its word. For women who have already been working upwards of 25 years to be told at the age of 55 that, rather than work for another five years, they're going to have to work twice that long is hard enough, but, to exacerbate matters, WASPI women have not been notified in sufficient time to put alternative arrangements in place. As we've already heard today, some have not been notified at all. 

It would appear that the changes have been introduced by UK Government with scant, if any, consideration of the impact on the women concerned. The Turner commission said that the notice period should be 15 years; Saga said 10 years. It seems the UK Government ignored them as well. We're not talking about highly paid women here. We're talking about women who have suffered wage inequality throughout their working lives in the first place, women whose work is likely to have been underpaid in relation to its value to society, such as those retired WASPI nurses on whose backs the NHS was built. We're also talking about women who were unlikely to be able to afford a private pension.

I'm sure that the Welsh Government will remind us all that the powers necessary to rectify this injustice sit in Westminster and not Cardiff Bay, and of course they would be right. However, foreign military action is no more devolved than is pension provision, and, if the First Minister can let the world know that he backs bombing Syria, he can let the UK Government know in no uncertain terms what the Welsh Government thinks about the injustice being perpetrated on WASPI women in Wales. He can also work with UK Government to find a solution.

Perhaps Labour feel they can ignore this inequality because the women affected won't make as much noise as the media and sports stars seeking equality. Or maybe there aren't enough of them to make a difference to Labour's electoral calculations. Yet these are the voiceless workers Labour say they're there to serve, to fight for. But it would seem that the Welsh Government have done nothing, absolutely nothing. The Labour amendment replacing the words 'work with the UK Government' with 'urge the UK Government' is an example of their doing nothing. It's easy to urge others to take action, and by doing so they make the right noises and wave the right flag. But if you want to help the WASPI women of Wales you have to be prepared to take action yourselves.

The only thing my party can do in this place for WASPI women is to propose this motion and lobby. But the Welsh Labour Government has the machinery and the communications channels to bring pressure to bear on the UK Government to act fairly on this matter. A bridging pension and/or compensation for those already at retirement age is the only meaningful way to right this wrong, and I really, really hope that you all agree with me here. Compensation to the beneficiaries of affected estates—I'm sorry, I'm really wound up about this—is unquestionably the right thing to do. As I said at the beginning, WASPI women have been cynically betrayed by their Government.

Finally, whilst I appreciate that the Welsh Government cannot legislate itself to rectify this wrong, Welsh WASPI women are looking to the Welsh Government to go to work on the UK Government on their behalf as hard as they're working to achieve other, more international goals. Anything less is simply not enough, and I urge all Members to back this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. Like Siân Gwenllian, can I start, before making my contribution, by paying tribute to many colleagues, both inside and outside of politics, over a considerable period of time— that doesn't actually include UKIP, quite frankly—that have been so actively involved in the WASPI campaign seeking justice for these women? There are so many aspects—

Will you take an intervention? Will you take an intervention?

No. 

There are so many aspects of this sorry business that I could talk about: the financial hardship suffered, the mass of maladministration complaints, the unfair way in which the changes were introduced, the blatant discrimination and the mismanagement of changes, but, being called late into this debate, I'm going to focus my comments on the outrageous way in which women were notified, or rather, more accurately, were not notified, of changes in their state pension arrangements and the impact on one particular constituent of mine to demonstrate how wide and broad the impact has been. 

Like other Members, I know, I've met women who've told me that they were given little notice by the UK Government of this life-changing decision, and, indeed, as we know, some were never notified at all, because in March 2011 the Government stopped writing to women affected because of further changes that were in the pipeline, and they did not resume writing to women affected until January 2012. The impact of this was that many WASPI women received a letter advising them of significant increases to their state pension age when they were 59, and that was within one year of the significant increases to the state pension age and just one year from the date that they had expected to receive their pension. Be under no illusion: as we have heard several contributors say, this change is resulting in real hardship. It represents a loss of anticipated income for so many women, who, at such short notice, have had no time to prepare for these changes.

But let me now outline the story of one of my constituents, caught out by the changes not by having to work longer but because of her disability. She was born in 1954 and has significant learning disabilities. At 63 years of age, she is unable to read, write, tell the time or manage money—she relied on her parents as carers. After her father passed away 10 years ago, her primary carer was her mother, who had to deal with all her financial matters and with Government bureaucracy around benefits and so on. Understandably, as her mother was dealing with all of her affairs, most of the paperwork was in her mother's name. Sadly, her mother also passed away a couple of years ago. After losing her mother, my constituent's sister became involved in assisting with her needs. Just a few days after their mother's death, my constituent's sister came home to find her very upset, saying that somebody had rung her to say that she had to go somewhere. But, as she didn't retain information well, she was unable to relay the information about where she had to go, or even who it was who'd contacted her, and she became increasingly distressed.

To cut a very long story short, her sister eventually managed to establish that it was the Department for Work and Pensions calling my constituent for a fitness-to-work assessment. It was at this point that my constituent's sister started to realise that her own sister with disabilities was not yet on a state pension, as she had always assumed she would be. Of course, had she been on a state pension at 60 years of age, the DWP wouldn't have been calling her in for a fitness-to-work assessment. There then started a nightmare of assessments to determine fitness to work, at which my constituent was becoming more and more afraid, agitated and distressed. She didn't know what was happening to her—it was a nightmare she would never have had to endure had she received her pension at age 60. 

So, although it was eventually accepted that she was not fit for work, and her benefits changed accordingly, she is still not old enough to receive the state pension. At a time of great emotional distress, having lost her mother—her constant companion, her only friend and her primary carer—and having never lived independently, within a matter of days she was having to deal with Government bureaucracy around fitness to work, all because she was at an age when women were no longer in receipt of the state pension and no-one knew about it. Goodness knows what would have happened to her if she had not had a sister who stepped in to take over that caring and supporting role.

This is just one example of the many difficulties caused by the change in the state pension age, a change that, for my constituent, neither she nor her family knew about and therefore had no plans or provision to deal with. It came about because of a lack of care in communicating the importance of these changes and what the financial impact on many individuals would be, and all of this compounded by the UK Government not being prepared to resolve the situation by introducing fair transitional arrangements to see these women, unprepared for such financial hardship, into retirement. How can—

Are you winding up, please?

—that be right? How can that be just? How can we not support the women in this campaign? However we got here—

Are you winding up, please?

—it is the responsibility of all of us, in whatever we can do, to put this injustice right.

Thank you. Jane Hutt.

I'd like to pay tribute to women in my constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, who are affected by pension inequality and pledge again today to continue to support them, and welcome them here today in the gallery.

I was very pleased to host a meeting in Barry last year, at the Highlight Park Community Centre, and support campaigners like Kay Ann Clarke, who brought women together to learn more about the campaign and the impact of these unfair changes—changes that are adversely affecting their lives after years of working and caring responsibility.

Now, Kay Clarke has raised a number of points with the Secretary of State for Wales regarding his message on International Women's Day, when this issue was raised locally and nationally. In her message, Kay said to the Secretary of State: 'You stated that there are now 44,000 more women in work in Wales than there were in 2010, and that the UK Government is making significant strides in delivering the changes and creating the conditions required for women from all walks of life who want their horizons broadened and aspirations lifted. Can I suggest to you that a vast number of these women are, in fact, being forced to remain in employment due to the goalposts being unjustly changed by the Government in respect of their state pension age? You also mentioned that, right across Wales, men and women alike will take part in impressive programmes of rallies, concerts, workshops, conferences and performances to send out the message that continued awareness and action is required to ensure that women's equality is gained and maintained in all aspects of life. The aforementioned rallies to which you refer were primarily organised to protest to the Government about the unfair treatment of women with regard to state pension changes. You will be aware that WASPI had arranged one of these rallies, and after finding out on social media about this rally, many organisations joined us in the city centre to inform the public about the gross injustice inflicted on the 1950s-born women. Although they had many commitments on that day, a large number of politicians came to speak at our rally.'

Will the Member give way? 

I will. 

I thank the Member for giving way. Could I draw to her attention the meeting that was held in Cardiff North that was organised by the MP Anna McMorrin, when women queued along the roads leading to the Whitchurch rugby club because the strength of feeling was so great? In fact, the meeting had to be held in two rooms and the hallway because there was such an overwhelming feeling. I'd like to draw that to the Member's attention. 

I think it's important to recognise that, at the rally that was held in Cardiff, at the Nye Bevan statue, where so many important rallies are held in our capital city, on International Women's Day, many people did come and the public joined in that rally. Julie Morgan spoke at that rally as well as myself, supporting the WASPI cause.

But I think it's important that Kay did say in her message to the Secretary of State for Wales: 'You were actually in Cardiff that morning attending to ministerial business, declining our invitation to address the women of Wales, when you were given an opportunity to explain why the Government continues to move the goalposts in respect of the debate and appropriate action to alleviate this gross miscarriage of justice to the women of Wales. I would like to ask why you did not take this opportunity to do so.'

So, I thank Kay today for those questions to the Secretary of State and for allowing me to air and share these today in this very important and serious debate, where I think we're all committed to continuing to fight this cause on behalf of the women affected. The cause, of course, is widely supported, and we have to ensure that we all make our representations to the UK Government on this crucial issue for the women of Wales. 

Thank you. Can I now call the leader of the house, Julie James? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In rising in this debate, I'm delighted to do so. I'm actually very grateful to UKIP for bringing the debate forward. It's a matter of extreme importance to all of us. I too also need to make a declaration of interest as I am one of the women affected, having been born in the 1950s. Fortunately, like Caroline Jones, I'm still in work and so not so badly affected by it, but a very large number of my friends, family, constituents and colleagues are affected by it. Many of them are now enduring hardship and poverty as a result of the changes, about which they knew nothing. This cannot be right and should not be allowed to continue. Many of the women in this age group will have worked in part-time and low-paid roles, or taken time off work to look after children or elderly relatives, and been subject to gender inequality for much of their adult life, as these are the women that were most affected by those changes that were brought in by the women's movement immediately following the second world war. So, it's somewhat ironic that they're the group that are most affected by this. 

Nick Ramsay actually asked me why were changing 'work with' to 'urge', and I will tell him very simply: it's because we've found it impossible to work with the UK Government on this. I wrote to Guy Opperman, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions and Financial Inclusion, at the end of February to reiterate our concerns, and urge them to reconsider transitional arrangements, having first written to the UK Government back in 2016 to express our concerns about the way in which the transition to equal state pension aid was communicated and implemented. I've also added my voice on many platforms and rallies in my own constituency and elsewhere in Wales to those urging the UK Government to reconsider the transitional arrangements without delay, in order that the system is fair to all and does not compound gender inequality for a minority of people. His response cites increases in life expectancy, affordability and sustainability as reasons why the UK Government has no plans to revisit the policy and does not intend to make any further concessions. So, I fear that I do not see the point of working with somebody who has set his face so against a campaign for justice, and that's why I've changed the motion to 'urge', because we continue to urge strenuously that they do indeed change their mind and revisit the transitional arrangements that many Members have pointed out the need for in this Chamber today. In Plenary on 6 March, I reiterated my commitment to raise again the concerns of the Welsh Government and of this Chamber with the UK Government, and I renew that commitment again today and I will write immediately expressing our views following this debate.

I think that many Members have also pointed out that it's not the issue about transition to equality in state pension age that's the question here; it's the manner in which the changes were communicated, the speed with which they were done, and the removal of the transitional arrangements in 2011 that we have a serious problem with. The UK Government has a responsibility towards the women that they have put into this position, to right a wrong and to ensure gender equality is not compounded. Around 195,000 women in Wales are WASPI women, affected by the changes in this Act. And I think many Members have also pointed this out as well, but there is some really heartening stuff here as well, because, as Jane Hutt and Siân Gwenllian and many others have pointed out, it's amazing what the accomplishments of this group of women acting together have achieved already, from getting the message into the mainstream media, the crowdfunding campaign that raised over £100,000 in three weeks, the formation of groups all over the country, and being instrumental in the formation of the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women.

As a result of their campaign, women from across the country have submitted complaints of maladministration against the Department for Work and Pensions regarding what they see as inadequate communication of changes in the state pension age. Progress on the complaints submitted to the Independent Case Examiner has been very slow, but last November, the legal firm hired by WASPI had a breakthrough, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman stepped in and agreed with the Independent Case Examiner that it will directly streamline the process in future, and I just mention that in the Chamber to demonstrate the sheer strength of the campaign and the campaigning behind it.

Julie Morgan, in her intervention with Jane Hutt, mentioned the queue of women outside the meeting organised by Anna McMorrin, and we've had similar experiences as well. Very strong feelings have been aroused by this, quite rightly so, because it's an appalling injustice. There have been numerous debates in the House of Commons, unfortunately not binding on the Government, and Carolyn Harris introduced a private Member's Bill in September on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group, which is calling for a review of the situation, and in particular to undertake costings for the compensation scheme. Its Second Reading has unfortunately been postponed, but they have got an online consultation inviting groups who campaign on this issue to respond, so if anyone knows of a group that hasn't responded, please urge them to do so. I know they've had over 100 responses so far. They're going to be presenting the results of that survey on 25 April, and the point of it is to seek to identify a solution that large numbers of Members can support, that can inform the private Member's Bill, and that this Government will also be seeking to support in any way that we can.

Just because Michelle Brown said that she didn't think that we were doing anything, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will just point out that the Welsh Government recognises the important role played by social welfare advice services in helping people make informed decisions and enforcing their rights to civil justice in terms of these sorts of problems. We remain committed to supporting not-for-profit advice providers who have been very instrumental in giving advice to women as to how to submit a complaint, because we feel confident that some of the most vulnerable people in our society ought to have access to free and independent advice on debt, money management and pension issues, and be supported in this way. So, during this financial year, the Welsh Government will provide £5.97 million in grant funding to not-for-profit advice services, helping people across Wales to access free and independent advice on problems linking to accessing welfare benefits, debt advice, housing and so on.

The reason I point that out is because a number of Members linked, quite rightly, the issue of the WASPI women's injustice with the issue of poverty and women living in poverty. Figures show that the number of women aged 60 plus claiming employment support allowance in Great Britain increased by 410 per cent between August 2013 and August 2017. It's not very difficult to figure out why that should be. The increase for women aged 60 plus claiming universal credit and jobseeker's allowance was 110 per cent. Data compiled by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in its 2017 report 'Can’t wait to get my pension: 
the effect of raising the female state pension age on income, poverty and deprivation' found household incomes for women aged 60 to 62 had fallen by around £32 a week on average. The reduction is similar in cash terms for richer and poorer households, meaning that while the average drop in proportional terms is 12 per cent, the decline is significantly larger, on average, for low-income households: a 21 per cent drop, compared to higher-income households, where it's around 4 per cent. So, all the evidence suggests that it's those who are already around the poverty line who have already seen the largest income losses as a result of the impacts of welfare reform, compared to other income groups.

I spoke earlier, Deputy Presiding Officer, in the Chamber, in answer to some questions, about unintended consequences of numbers of policies coming together and having a much bigger effect than was intended, and we will be making that point again to the UK Government, because its roll-out of universal credit, the way that it's reacting to jobseekers and the way that it's reacting to the transition to personal independent payments, combined with the increase in state pension age, is having a most unfortunate cumulative effect on a large number of women in Wales, and it's right that we point that out.

Universal credit has now been rolled out to eight local authorities in Wales, with Denbighshire going live in April. The DWP have, I'm pleased to say, amended their roll-out schedule to include more time for the full Welsh language online system to be available, but it does mean that the women caught in this position are also caught in the transition, which is very unfortunate indeed. We remain deeply concerned about the fundamental flaws of the system, and we're very disappointed that the UK Government is persisting with the roll-out, despite our and others' calls on them to halt the roll-out and address the number of issues, of which this is one that should be addressed as part of the roll-out.

So, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are fully behind the WASPI women in their campaign. I will continue to urge the UK Government to change its mind and not set its face against transitional and other arrangements, and we will continue to do everything that the Welsh Government possibly can do to support the very brave, courageous and very effective campaigns run by WASPI women all over the country. Diolch.

Thank you very much. Can I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Firstly, can I thank all those who have contributed to the debate, and in such a positive manner on most occasions? Can I take this opportunity to congratulate those behind WASPI for the work they have done, and are doing, to raise the awareness of this wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Legislation passed by the UK Government has meant that some 2.6 million women in Britain had their state pension age delayed by up to six years. This change took place without those affected being adequately informed as to the consequences and without proper notice by the DWP, leaving them little time to adequately prepare for their late retirement date. Indeed, after the 1995 legislation, the DWP was still sending out correspondence quoting the retirement age for women as being 60. The original legislation saw women's state pension age rise from 60 to 65 by the year 2020, however this was amended by a further Act in 2011, bringing it forward to 2018 and raising it to 66. Both the changes to the law and the failure to communicate the consequences of the changes to those affected has led to many women across the country being left without adequate pensions after retirement. Many are now near destitute or living on meagre incomes.

Vikki Howells made the point that these women are all around us, including relatives and friends, and outlined the disinformation available to WASPI women. Nick Ramsay pointed out that this all began in 1995. He also again made reference to the misinformation, and as we would expect, said that this was made both under Tory and Labour Governments. Siân Gwenllian quite rightly congratulated the work of WASPI groups across Wales and expressed her support for those groups. Michelle Brown said that women built their lives around retiring at 60, only to find very late in the day, in many cases, that the goalposts were being moved with great disadvantage to WASPI women.

Dawn Bowden concentrated on the misinformation, or non-information. I must say—and I have great respect for Dawn—that her criticism of UKIP's so called 'non-involvement' ignored the fact that the Labour Party were not involved until WASPI came into being, and, of course, the Labour Party had 13 years to repeal the 1995 Act and did not do so. Jane Hutt also spoke of WASPI groups, and she outlined the rally in Cardiff and her desire to help to carry on fighting the cause. Julie James said that many of the WASPI women—and nobody had brought this out, actually—would have been in part-time and low-paid work, which makes their position with late pensions even more disastrous. It was good to hear that she will—and I think I can use this phrase—redouble her efforts to influence the UK Government, and she was quite comprehensive in pointing out some of the interventions that the Welsh Government are attempting to make to make life easier for WASPI women.

We in UKIP call upon this Chamber to put pressure on the UK Government to put in place resources and/or change the legislation to alleviate the suffering of these women, many of whom have worked all their lives and contributed considerably to the wealth of this country. I urge you to support this debate.

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

We now move on to the urgent debate on UK air strikes on Syria, and I call on Leanne Wood to open the urgent debate. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 'Mission complete'—those were the words of President Trump following the joint US, French and British air strike on Syria last weekend. An estimated 400,000 Syrians have been killed since the outbreak of war in 2011. More than 5.6 million Syrians have fled the country, according to the United Nations, and 6.1 million people are displaced internally. The Assad regime remains safely in power, and senior generals, including the Director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, have said that Assad retains the capacity to use chemical weapons after the attack. That does not sound like 'mission complete' by any measure.

I would like to address three central issues to this Assembly for Wales and our role in supporting and managing the awful consequences of the Syrian conflict. I would first like to seek to gain clarity from the First Minister for his stance on the weekend's air strikes. Secondly, I would like to discuss the material and financial cost of the attack, before moving on to discuss how we can redouble our efforts to offer a safe haven to those dealing with the fall-out from the Syrian civil war.

Before I move on to my speech proper, I'd like to reiterate my disappointment that Members of the Labour front bench felt that this was not a significant enough issue to warrant debate. Failing to support Plaid Cymru's calls for a debate on this issue is not only disappointing but bizarre, considering their colleagues' calls for greater parliamentary scrutiny on this issue in Westminster.

Yesterday, in First Minister's questions, I asked the First Minister a straight question: does he stand by his statement of support for the military intervention in Syria? His answer was typically evasive. Without a single vote being cast in any of the UK's Parliaments, on Saturday morning the First Minister gave his support to the Prime Minister and her decision to join the American-led bombing. I wanted to give the First Minister another chance, today, to answer that question. Without any parliamentary approval, does the First Minister stand by his statement of support for the Prime Minister and her air strike, as she claimed it was in the British national interest? And knowing now that the air strike has not mitigated the Syrian regime's capacity to use chemical weapons or change the course of the conflict, does he still support the action? But he's not here for this debate. I very much hope that this will be brought to his attention, and that he is able to answer these important questions in due course.

Tokenistic strikes do little to help desperate Syrian people who do not need more bombs to be dropped, but a solution to what is a political crisis and a human tragedy.

War is an expensive pursuit. Of course, for some, it is profitable. To see the shares of companies like BAE Systems rise at the prospect of further conflict shows the vile corporate structures that underpin the defence establishment.

British Typhoon and Tornado aircraft launched eight Storm Shadow cruise missiles. According to a 2011 parliamentary question, each one of these missiles costs £790,000. A crude calculation shows that we are looking at in excess of a cost of £6.3 million for the single strike undertaken on the weekend. This excludes the costs of the planes used to fire each of those £0.75 million bombs. When money is needed to pay our WASPI women a fair pension, the coffers are empty. When penny-pinching and cruel welfare reforms lead to people committing suicide out of desperation, we are told there's no money left. All of us here have lost valuable assets and services in the communities that we represent all because of austerity, yet when it comes to weapons of war, the British state seems to have very deep pockets. It is shameful that Westminster can claim that spending millions on bombing foreign countries is in the national interests while homeless women and men are told that there is no money to house them.

I'm ashamed to say that Wales's record on Syrian refugees remains disappointing. By dropping bombs on this war-torn nation, the British state may well be making more refugees at the same time as it's refusing to fulfil its existing obligations. Wales took just over 300 refugees last year, and I'm proud to say that it was a Plaid Cymru-led council in Carmarthenshire that gave home to the most—51—all from Syria. Yet some councils—the Labour administrations in Merthyr Tydfil and Neath Port Talbot—had not taken a single refugee by the end of last year. For shame. I implore the First Minister to speak to his party colleagues and get them moving on this issue. Here, in our national Parliament, in our councils and in our communities, we can save lives. We can offer these desperate people a safe haven. We have a moral obligation to act, and I reiterate to the First Minister that he must act now to ensure that Wales is doing all that it can to help people fleeing this terrible conflict.

To conclude, much more can be and must be said about this extremely complex and important issue. However, for now, I would like to close with the same sentiment with which I began: Plaid Cymru does not support this tokenistic American-led air strike on Syria, and I will once again remind Members that the path to peace is never paved with the weapons to war.

Can I first of all say I voted in favour of having this debate? The second thing is: I'm very pleased to find that Theresa May has found this infamous money tree in order to be able to fund the bombing of Syria. I also think, if we live in a parliamentary democracy, the Westminster Parliament should have had an opportunity to vote on whether we went to war and attacked another country or not, and we didn't have to work to Donald Trump's timetable. If you look at what we've done so far, we wanted to bomb Syria, which would only have helped Assad, which would have helped Isis. Then, we bombed Isis to help Assad. Now, we're back bombing Assad, which would only help Isis. It's almost as if our policy is, 'Can we keep this civil war going for as long as possible?'

We didn't bomb the site of the chemical weapons, thankfully. How do I know that? Because thousands and millions of people didn't die. Because if you bomb chemical weapon plants, the chemicals get put out into the atmosphere. The whole of the middle east could have been covered in whatever chemical weapons are meant to be there. 'Ah', you say, 'they haven't been mixed yet'. Well, let's say they haven't been mixed—when you bomb them, what do you think you're going to do with the chemicals but mix them? If you bombed a chlorine plant we would have created absolute havoc. But we seem to have a policy of bombing for peace. It reminds me of the medieval idea of bleeding people to make them better. Neither work. 

We really do need to intervene in Syria. It worked so well in Iraq and it's worked so well in Libya. After so much success—. Somebody once said, when we used to partition countries, 'It hadn't worked yet, but we hoped the next time would.' The next time never worked. Bombing countries never works. This can only be solved by negotiation, and we need to get peace in the middle east and we need to get peace in Syria. And the other thing is: there is a worse case happening in the world today, and that is Yemen: the unthought of, unspoken area, where children are dying daily, but because Saudi Arabia are involved, the west is frightened to get involved. 

I'm pleased to say the Conservative group voted to allow the debate to go forward this afternoon. I do think it is important that when motions of this severity come forward—or importance rather than severity, importance, come forward—that the Assembly does have the opportunity to express its view. I disagree with the view that the leader of Plaid Cymru has put across. I disagree with some of the points that the Member from Swansea East has made this afternoon. But, at the end of the day, we are a democracy, this is a debating Chamber, that is what our role is.

I do support the point that the leader of Plaid Cymru makes that, sadly, the First Minister hasn't turned up for another important debate today. And this is an important debate, because on the weekend, as has been outlined in the opening comments, the First Minister—. And Theresa May did not ring Carwyn Jones because he was Mr Jones from Bridgend. She rang Carwyn Jones because he was the First Minister of Wales and, thereby, he was speaking on behalf of the Government. I'm assuming that the endorsement that the First Minister gave, which I welcome, because I do believe that the actions undertaken by the Prime Minister were correct, were appropriate and were proportional—. But I go back to the point about the First Minister giving that endorsement, and his endorsement was, 'I offered my support to any intervention', and those were his words that he said, so, therefore, he was obviously speaking on behalf of the Government, and the Government vote here today, I assume. And I welcome that support, I do, but it would have been good to have heard from him here today as to his arguments and his points on why he was able to give that support, because there are colleagues in the Labour Party—Jo Stevens, for example, and the leader of the Labour Party in Westminster—who legitimately have made a point that they don't believe that the actions were legal. Now, I disagree with that point, but, as I said, we live in a democracy and points have to be made, and when you make the point you then have to explain why you are standing by the point that you have made and the commitment that you have made. 

As I said, from the Conservative benches, we voted to have the debate this afternoon. We as a group support wholeheartedly the proportionality and the decisiveness with which the Prime Minister has acted on a specific issue. It's not about regime change, but about the horrendous use of chemical weapons and the images that we have seen come forward out of Syria over the weekend—the weekend just after Easter—where children were screaming in agony, where adults were screaming in agony, and we know that at least 70-plus people died because of that chemical attack.

We know for a fact that in 2013 the UK Parliament voted not to militarily intervene to stop further acts of warfare or chemical warfare in Syria. Regrettably, that vote prevented, in my mind and many other people's minds, the proliferation of more chemical attacks in the intervening period up to last weekend. 

Yes, Mike. 

I would say that—[Inaudible.]—making that intervention stopped Isis getting control of the country. 

Well, that's a view you might put forward, but I've noticed this week that many people who voted to prevent those air strikes—specific air strikes, I might add, because it wasn't an open-ended mandate—specific air strikes, now regret that they took that decision. But history will show us what has been achieved, and what we do know is that Assad has continued to use chemical weapons indiscriminately against the civilian population to further his aims, his barbaric aims.    

I don't know if the Member was going to attend to this point, which—. He just referred to the vote in 2013, I think it was, and I commend David Cameron for calling that vote, and for giving Parliament the ability to decide this. Does he feel that the Prime Minister was right to take this action? He agrees with the action—I accept his point on that—but does he feel the Prime Minister's correct to take the action without recalling Parliament and having a vote in Parliament, as she had the opportunity to do on the Friday?

I do believe, in this situation, that she was correct in the action she took, because it was an alliance of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. It wasn't unilateral action. I think that, if it was unilateral action, it would be a completely separate issue and it would require, in my mind, parliamentary approval. This week, we have had votes in the House of Commons, which the Government has won. In fact, the official opposition walked away from those votes, which is remarkable given the heat that was expressed over the weekend about what the leader of the opposition was going to undertake when Parliament reconvened after Easter.

So, I just go back to the points that I have made: from these benches, we unequivocally support the proportionality and the aims of the airstrike that the UK Government undertook with France and with America. We support the ability of this institution to debate this very important point, and I do—I think it is worth emphasising again—bitterly regret that the First Minister is not here to engage in this debate and explain fully—it was welcome support, in our view—why he was able to give such an unqualified amount of support to the actions, given that senior figures within the Labour Party in Westminster have expressed serious doubts. I do believe that those questions deserve an answer, and this would be the forum to get those answers.

Thank you. Bethan Sayed.

Thank you. Firstly, I just like to say that I am disappointed by the Welsh Government's attitude to the call for this emergency debate in Leanne Wood's name. I have had many constituents and many people from across Wales wanting to know the opinion of AMs on this, and there has also been a petition in relation to the reaction by the First Minister in stating that he would support 'any intervention'—his words, not mine: 'any intervention'. I think that when a First Minister of a country, a nation, makes those comments without consulting us as a Parliament, then that is a very dangerous attitude to take. But I'm not surprised, in the last few days, that he has made that call.

I am also surprised because I asked the Cabinet Secretary today about what she was doing in relation to Syrian refugees, and that is an important part of how we deal with this particular crisis. For example, there are currently 5.64 million external Syrian refugees. Of these, only 500,000 are residing in refugee camps. There is a funding gap between donations received and donations required of over £2.1 billion to provide proper humanitarian care. There are 6.1 million people displaced within Syria, twice the population of Wales, and 13.1 million within the country require humanitarian assistance. I just wanted to reiterate these figures because they are staggering, particularly when we consider the pre-war population of 22 million. Syria is utterly devastated. It's economy has been almost entirely destroyed, as have substantial parts of its infrastructure. It's a country that, in many cases, is now a nightmare of destruction and death.

I understand that there is a frustration and conflict surrounding people's views on Syria. I know that, morally, people feel that there should be a response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, but that should be done with diplomacy at the heart of it. I feel we should be focused on the consequences also of military action for the people of Syria and what it means for those people residing there and those who are made destitute as a result of war. Given that the country is in such a state of destruction, I fail to see the humanitarian benefits long term of military strikes. We have seen no strategic plan by the Prime Minister as yet and no exit strategy. Even if the military strikes were carefully targeted, more missiles flying over the heads of Syrian people, more explosions, more possibilities of reprisals as a result, the more and more they find themselves at the centre of world tensions between global and authoritarian nuclear powers.

We should also be aware that with the Russian Federation now firmly entrenched within Syria, the threat of military action from NATO countries is now not a realistic long-term deterrent, in my view. So, we need to plan for and facilitate peace talks and meet the humanitarian needs of the people of Syria. We must put in place a proper plan via the Department for International Development and offer Welsh assistance where possible, as we have done in previous circumstances—in Palestine, for example—in helping to cover the funding gap between donations needed and received. We must prepare to take more Syrian refugees, to fulfil and acknowledge our proper role in this crisis and so we can do something truly beneficial for the people of Syria. And, when we do take refugees, we must provide for them properly so they do not come to an alien country and find themselves without recourse to help or public funds.

Will you take an intervention?

I don't have much time, I'm afraid.

It's something that I've always noted, that those often most keen on a march to war for various reasons, particularly those gripped by British jingoism, are often those least keen to help those who are on the receiving end of military action. Those most opposed to Iraqi refugees after the Iraq war were those most in favour of war in the first place. So, I would urge those most in favour of intervention in Syria to take an honest position and provide an acknowledgement that military actions, even those that are targeted, will intensify the situation in Syria. 

I think it's a mark of shame on this country that the UK has steadfastly refused to take a proper share of Syrian refugees. I know Neath Port Talbot has; it was only last year that they didn't, so I'll correct that for you, David, even on a temporary basis. It is an abandonment of our international role that we have allowed some of our European allies to act positively in relation to Syrian refugees and integrated them integrally to our society. So, I would urge that, at least in this Assembly, we demonstrate a different view, which recognises our international obligations and urges a move to constructive and humanitarian-driven policies, and to finally help get a ceasefire.

I think I should echo comments made by many in the Chamber, even if we disagree on this issue. I would have liked for the First Minister to have been here, considering the fact that he made that decision. I'm not sure whether he consulted Cabinet, whether he consulted the Labour group in this Assembly, but he made that decision for us in our name, but I'd like to say here today: he did not do it in my name.

Firstly, I wish to point out that UKIP has been the only major UK-wide party to oppose any military action in the middle east, including the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. We in UKIP acknowledge that the political scenarios in almost all the nations of this region are far too complex for western countries to get involved. Even where there has been some success, for instance Afghanistan, the gains are far too insecure for us to call it a complete success.

Whilst we would do nothing to aid Assad, we can completely condemn the action taken this week by the US and UK Governments. We accept that Assad's regime may not be acceptable to western democracies, but we must acknowledge that he is a democratically elected leader who, it appears, has a very large following in his country. Whatever his excesses are in ruling Syria, it has had nothing like the devastating affect on both its people and infrastructure that the war, in part aided and abetted by the west, has had: over six million people displaced and hundreds of thousands of civilians and troops killed.

The UK media has very much concentrated on condemnation of Assad's activities during this war, whilst completely ignoring the fact that the rebels, despite knowing that they have lost the war in specific parts of the military arena, have carried on fighting despite the appalling loss of life and damage to infrastructure, often leading to utter devastation, which this continued resistance has caused. Western leaders must accept a large degree of responsibility for both the deaths and devastation in Syria. This Assembly should condemn all military action in the middle east.

First of all, I want to say how glad I am that we are debating the strikes on Syria here in this Chamber. It seems really important to me that we are here at the heart of Welsh democracy and that we should be discussing this very important issue. The issues of war and peace are clearly not devolved, as the leader of the house made clear earlier in the day. Those decisions are made, clearly, in Westminster. However, I do believe that the people of Wales want to see us debating these issues of huge importance here in this Chamber. They want to hear what we think. And, of course, we have Syrians living here with us in Wales, and it is so important, I think, that we do give our views here.

I want to reiterate the point about these attacks taking place without a single vote being cast in Parliament. The Cabinet was called together. Why wasn't Parliament called? Parliament could easily have been summoned, and it makes you feel that Parliament was deliberately not summoned; that the timing was such that Parliament was ignored. Because there has been a convention built up of the Government in Westminster consulting Parliament on matters of war and peace. This happened when I was in the House of Commons and there was a debate and vote on the Iraq war in 2003, and that is one of the most significant votes that I've ever taken part in. The vote resulted in support for the the Labour Government of the day's position, although many people did regret how they cast their vote later on. But at least there was a debate, and I'm sure many of you know what is written on Robin Cook's gravestone:

'I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war'.

But as it turns out, there was no debate now. That right was not firmly decided on. But since then, there have been a number of occasions when Parliament has been recalled, and 2013 has already been referred to today.

After the airstrikes took place last week, on Saturday, I went to the Aneurin Bevan statue in the centre of Cardiff where there were many people who went there feeling a bit in despair and concern about what had happened, and lots of people gave their views about what they felt about the airstrikes. A variety of views came out, and one of the main reasons was the fear of escalation—the fear that this would lead to something more. Another concern was about the unpredictability of Trump, and the fact that we were there in this action with Trump, and his great concern about his habit of making policy by tweets. I was quite shocked today—we've talked today about the humanitarian help that is given by different countries—to read that, since last November, only 11 Syrian refugees have been admitted to the United States, and in the last six months only 44. That compares to 6,000 in the same period a year ago. So, where are the humanitarian feelings there from Trump in terms of not taking anybody in, but he's taken part in this action.

Today, lots of people have mentioned the Syrian refugees coming to Wales. Certainly in terms of the UK Government's action, I feel that we could have taken many, many more Syrian refugees, and I also think it's a huge matter of shame about the lack of action over unaccompanied refugee children after the Dubs amendment was passed—that we have sadly let down all those unaccompanied refugee children.

So, the fear of escalation, I think, is one of the major concerns about this action, and I think it's important to note what the United Nations Secretary-General said, because, of course, he said the use of chemical weapons is absolutely abhorrent and horrendous. I know we all absolutely agree with that. But he said,

'I urge all member states to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances, and to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the sufferings of the Syrian people'.

I don't think there can ever be a military solution to this problem. A diplomatic solution is difficult, and we know that it has been tried, and it is very, very difficult, but we must continue to pursue a diplomatic situation, however difficult that must be. This is such a complex situation that airstrikes by themselves, bombing in this way, will never result in peace.

I’m pleased to participate in this important debate and I’m grateful for the opportunity to state my dissatisfaction with the decision taken by Theresa May, taken without consultation with Members of Parliament in Westminster.

May I pay tribute, first of all, to the powerful leadership of Leanne Wood in this debate and also congratulate Mike Hedges and Julie Morgan on their wonderful contributions this afternoon? As many have already said, it’s a very complex situation in Syria. We’ve all seen the appalling images of suffering in the country and this latest suffering is piled upon years of cruel war in Syria.

In my spare time, I’m a trustee of a charity called Christian Rebuild, which funds and supports humanitarian efforts through churches in Syria and other counties in the middle east. Heroic work is done by a number of organisations under heartbreaking conditions in that country, with suffering wherever one looks. It is endless and churches are working heroically to alleviate the suffering by providing services on the ground.

Very often, this Parliament is described as a talking shop, holding numerous debates—like every other Parliament, obviously—but in Westminster they didn’t have an opportunity to be a talking shop last week, as Theresa May took the decision to bomb Syrian targets without discussing it with the Members of Parliament in Westminster. And that is one of the main points of this debate this afternoon, as well as the intervention of our First Minister in that decision—or his lack of intervention, perhaps—because it is a complex situation on the ground in Syria, just like the complex situation in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is promoting destruction there, without any criticism from Westminster.

To conclude, we do need to pause and think of a long-term future for Syria, as others have said, using diplomatic means. Thank you. 

I'm surprised but glad to be able to discuss this matter, because I've been raising issues to do with the Yemen and to do with Kurdistan constantly in this Chamber. We saw again, today, that the answer from the leader of the Chamber was that we don't talk about foreign policy. Clearly we do, because we're doing it now and I think that that's a great thing. 

I don't think the First Minister had any right to say what he said, speaking on behalf of the people of Wales, without recourse to this Chamber, and there's an empty chair there. The First Minister of Wales—we're debating this important matter for Wales and he's not here. 

Where is Carwyn?

Shocking. Shocking. Did he get legal advice? I'd like to hear from him.

There's a very easy solution, in my opinion, to adventurist, violent attacks overseas. Here he is—welcome, First Minister. I'll say it again. There's a very easy solution to adventurist, violent attacks overseas killing people. What we need, before any military action is taken on behalf of the people of these islands, is a decision by a sovereign Welsh Parliament, a decision by a sovereign Scottish Parliament and a decision by a sovereign English Parliament. If we had sovereign Parliaments in these islands, co-operating and sharing sovereignty on defence, then I'm sure that these awful decisions that result in death and destruction abroad would simply not be made.

And I'll say finally, the next time that I ask in this Chamber for a Government view on the Yemen, speaking on behalf of my constituents at the Yemeni centre where I was on Saturday, I would like the common decency of an answer from this Government.

We have, from time to time, discussed international issues. I know that, in the past, we've looked at the issue of apartheid in South Africa and Nelson Mandela. We discussed Catalonia not so long ago and I've certainly raised issues with regard to Ukraine, and in the last session, we did have discussions on issues of nuclear weapons. I do agree, though, that we have to be cautious about raising international issues here. We don't have direct decision-making powers or devolved responsibilities in some areas, but I do think, as a Parliament, we cannot ignore the impact that certain international events have and the impact on our constituents, particularly in the areas where people actually do want a view from us, particularly where there are very important moral and political questions that are involved. I think this is actually one of those.

Can I say, I don't raise any criticism of the First Minister on this? He's expressed a view that is one that is held by many people. It's not a view or an approach that I agree with, but I think this is an area where we do have to actually have respect for different views and opinions. The issue for me—the fundamental issue for me is this: the failure to engage with Parliament and to get an endorsement. And it is a trend—it's an unfortunate trend that's been taking place in Westminster of moves to bypass Parliament. The whole article 50 case was about bypassing Parliament. Issues around the withdrawal Bill are about bypassing Parliament. It is really with great sadness that this issue, when it arose, was again about bypassing and not trusting Parliament; not trusting the people who have been elected by the people of the UK to actually take these decisions. 

I can say that what I know about the missile strikes that took place, the targeting of specific chemical dumps and chemical capacity, had I been an MP in Westminster and had I been presented with the detail of a strike that was specifically focused on the destruction of those, I would have actually endorsed that. But, the fundamental point is that Parliament was bypassed and was not involved. It is such a dangerous political precedent, a dangerous road for us to go down, particularly in the current international climate we're in.

I went back and had a look at the actual statement that was made by Robin Cook, which established the convention that Parliament should be asked to endorse action, and I think it's worth reflecting on that. This is what he said: 

'From the start of the present crisis—'

this is 2003,

'—I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support. I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the Government.'

The point there was a fundamental point of principle that Robin Cook established and that is that ultimately in this modern world, this dangerous world we live in, democratic institutions have got to be the bodies that endorse going to war, that endorse military action. If we move away from that, we go down a very, very dangerous road. What does it say about democracy if the actions of a Prime Minister are based on, 'I cannot trust the people who are elected to take these decisions by the people of the United Kingdom, therefore, I will use an outdated prerogative in order to take action.' It undermines and pours contempt on our democratic institutions. It was an act of cowardice by the Prime Minister and that is why she was fundamentally wrong and why there is so much anger about, not the decision—not what has actually happened—but the decision and the way it was taken and the fact that the voice of the people of this country was bypassed.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I just want to be absolutely clear that the Government abstained in the vote to take forward this emergency debate, not because we don't think this is a very important subject—because clearly it is a very important subject of the deepest and most profound significance—but because we believe that international affairs and decisions about whether to launch military action against another sovereign nation are non-devolved matters and, as such, should be debated in the Houses of Parliament rather than here in the National Assembly.

As this debate has demonstrated, there are a large number of passionately held, strongly held and morally held views on this basis. They are held across the Chamber and all of their variety has been demonstrated in this debate today. We are glad that Members had the chance to do that and that's why the Government abstained in the Assembly making the decision. I'm very pleased to have heard everybody's views on that matter, but our position formally remains that it's not for this Government to comment on the actions of another Parliament and that the proper place to debate these matters is in the Houses of Parliament. Diolch.  

I call on Simon Thomas to close the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all Members who've participated in this debate. It's been a serious debate, and I think the tenor of the debate, those who supported the action and those who don't support the action, has reflected well on the Assembly and the need to debate these matters on our hand that are before us.

Can I just start with the Government's view, just to get that kind of hare out of the way, in a sense? I can't believe we're told, just after we've debated WASPI, that we're not here to debate things that are matters for Westminster. I really cannot accept that. Hearing the passionate speeches—I wasn't in the Chamber, but I was outside watching—from some Labour Members in favour of women's pension rights, and then to say we're not here to debate Westminster issues, it's completely impossible to accept that. And the Government over the last few weeks has really disappeared up its own tail in its legalistic arguments around these matters. It's a serious point, even if I didn't use quite the right language to get it across. It's a serious point.

The First Minister himself has got a bit of a history here. He's here for the vote, I note. He wasn't here for the debate. But we have a First Minister who is prepared, on weekend after weekend, to appear on the media to make points that are important to the people in Wales, whether it ranges from the sacking of a Cabinet Minister to a response to a strike on Syria, and then tries to avoid any scrutiny in this Chamber on why he took those decisions, how those decisions were taken, and doesn't present himself to answer questions about that. [Interruption.] He's welcome to intervene on me now. He's welcome.

I'm here every Tuesday.

You are here every Tuesday. We're all here every Tuesday. But we're also making the more general point that you're here, and you spoke up in favour of the Conservative Prime Minister's actions in Syria, and we would expect you to be here to tell us why you did that. And I think a lot of your Labour Members would expect you to tell us why you did that as well.

It's not that we're the people who hold you to account about this. We are here on behalf of the people of Wales, and when the UK Government commits finances, as Leanne Wood put out at the start of this debate, commits our troops and men and women in the armed forces, from Wales potentially, and risks homeland security by taking offensive action abroad, which is a point that Jeremy Corbyn has made time and time again, then surely that affects us here in Wales, and we're right to debate that. We don't decide these things, but we're right to debate them because we send a message back to our constituents who, as has been raised by several Members—Bethan Sayed and Mick Antoniw as well, I think, made this point—several constituents have contacted us to say, 'Where's your moral fibre? Where do you stand on these issues?' You may not always please constituents when you're an Assembly Member dealing with Westminster issues, but they want to hear from you. So, from this Chamber we send back those messages, and we send back either our support or not as the case may be.

I think that two themes have emerged from this debate. First of all, there's the issue of whether Parliament should have been recalled to decide this, and the convention that Robin Cook so powerfully—and I was with Julie Morgan, as was Adam Price as well, in Westminster when he made his resignation speech, and when he made that famous convention. But as Mick Antoniw has set out, has reminded us, really, conventions are very strange things in the British constitution. They can be broken as well as set, and what we are concerned about here is that the Cook convention has been broken by this decision to take offensive action—not defensive action, but offensive action—in a foreign country as part of an alliance without recourse to Parliament. When you see conventions broken like that, what price the Sewel convention? What price our debates around frameworks and Brexit and everything that emerges from that, when we see that the Westminster Government acts in a particular way? So, there's that issue that I think has been very strongly put forward.

Then there's the action itself. I'd like to thank particularly Mike Hedges and Julie Morgan for their contributions on this. It crystallises in a simple question: do we today feel that the civilians in Syria are better protected, better looked after, have a safer future following this strike? [Interruption.] An intervention from a sedentary position says possibly they are. I don't accept that, but it's an argument to make. But I think the majority view in here, I sense, would be that we don't really accept that. So we need to ask: what has this offensive action been taken for? Well, it's really been taken for geopolitical reasons. It's been taken to support Trump, to look like that we are in association with Trump. When that dead hand of Trump went onto Theresa May's hand and he led her down the garden path—that's where it started, this thought that we have to associate ourselves with a very erratic American foreign policy. Now, whatever you thought of the neo-cons in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I didn't think much of them—. [Interruption.] In a second, if I may. I didn't think much of them. It was clear what that foreign policy was. The difficulty was, of course, they didn't have any policy for what happened to the countries after military intervention, but it was clear what the path of military intervention was. I don't think we see that from President Trump and, therefore, I don't think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom should be associating herself with such an erratic foreign policy. I'll give way to David Melding.

I have to say, from my reading of recent events, it was the French Government that was insisting that a response to the use of chemical weapons was required and they were prepared to take unilateral action. That's where the force for this intervention came. 

I've heard something similar, and I think we have a different problem with President Macron and what he's trying to project in terms of the French status here. And I won't go down the route that's been suggested to me sotto voce there. But, if that is the case, then surely wiser heads should have prevailed on President Macron. He could not actually have taken unilateral intervention in Syria. I know they have a history there, I know they have offensive positions there, but, in effect, that would have been extremely dangerous, as, I think, David Melding realises, and I think the Russians would have felt very differently about a response to an unilateral intervention by France, rather than what eventually persuaded—. The fact that four countries came together enabled this, in a sense, to happen, and we shouldn't have given our name to it; we shouldn't have allowed it to happen.

It has been a serious debate. I think the general points around whether we debate enough some foreign policy that does effect on our citizens—Yemen has been mentioned; I would add Afrin and the attacks of Turkey in Iraq to this as well, because that is also something that impinges directly on families and refugees that are here in Wales. We can't debate them every time. Yes, it's Westminster that decides these issues. But, from time to time, we have to do a very simple thing. We have to be the Parliament for Wales, we have to be the Parliament that reflects what's being debated on the streets and what's really concerning people. Sometimes we're not able to answer all those questions and sometimes we're frustrated perhaps by what the First Minister does or what other members of the Government do on our behalf. But the quid pro quo about that is that we must be allowed to debate this and must be allowed to at least voice our concerns and make them very clear. I'm very grateful for everyone who has spoken—I thought it was a decent debate and a good debate and I think those who have participated in it will be able to at least tell their constituents and those concerned about offensive military action, and any potential future military action—. Because, having set a precedent, we have to ask ourselves what happens now if there's a limited release of chlorine gas in one part of Syria or another use of a particularly offensive kind of weapon. Having had that, at least we are now better positioned and better understand our fellow Assembly Members' positions, but also, perhaps, asking ourselves exactly how we stand on these issues.

That concludes the urgent debate.

And that brings us to voting time, and, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time, and the first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on Permanent Secretary's investigation report. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If it's not agreed, we will vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. So, a vote on the motion in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, one abstention, 29 against. And therefore the motion is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, one abstention, 26 against. Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.