Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order. 

Before calling the First Minister, I wish to inform the Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, that the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 was given Royal Assent on 10 September.

We move to questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from David Rees.

Llywydd, can I thank the Member for that question, and for his consistent advocacy of the importance of the steel industry in Wales? As he will know, we are in regular discussions with the UK Government. We continue to press them to discharge their responsibilities to support strategic manufacturing in Wales and to play their part in securing a long-term future for our steel industry.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. You rightly point out that the UK Government needs to play its part. It hasn't even done a steel sector deal yet. The previous Secretary of State and the current Secretary of State seem to be oblivious to the importance of addressing this issue of our steel sector. Now, as you know, Port Talbot steelworks is crucial to my constituency. Many steelworks across the areas in Wales are actually the lifeblood of many local communities, and, whilst I want to talk about Port Talbot, I think it's more important we talk about the wider steel agenda and the recent announcement by Tata on closing the Orb works. The Orb works is part of the steel family in Wales, is part of the structure of Wales. What actions are the Welsh Government taking to look at the help it can give to the workers of the Orb works, because even though Tata are saying they will relocate many, actually what that does is take away jobs from other people and the jobs of future people coming into the Orb works. Opportunities will disappear. So, what's the Welsh Government going to do to ensure that the Orb works and the workers have a future?

Well, Llywydd, I thank David Rees for that follow-up question. Of course, he is right; it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government has failed to deliver a sector deal for the steel industry, despite the many opportunities that we have taken to put that case to them. And they won't do it because they have failed to solve some of the issues that lie directly in their own hands. Time after time, the industry and the Welsh Government have urged the UK Government to tackle the issue of industrial electricity price disparity between the United Kingdom and competitors of Tata on the continent of Europe. As recently as 27 August, my colleague Ken Skates was discussing this with the new Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy. It's time for the UK Government to step up and to play their part in supporting the steel industry in Port Talbot and more widely in Wales. And, of course, it is disappointing to have had the news on 2 September that no buyer has been found for the Orb site in Newport. It's disappointing for Wales and it's extremely worrying for workers at that plant. 

Now, I welcome the fact that Tata have said that they aim to avoid compulsory redundancies and to offer alternative employment at other sites. But that consultation that's being carried out with staff needs to be real, it needs to attend carefully to the case being made by the trade unions on behalf of their members, and, as a Welsh Government, we will work with the trade union movement, as well as with the company, to do everything we can to support that very loyal and very skilled workforce. 

Speaking here in 2015, in the debate that called on the Welsh Government to adopt a charter for British sustainable steel, I noted that Tata Steel Colors in Shotton were not only critically dependent upon the supply chain for sustainable British steel, but also had an emphasis on commitment to investment in improving their environmental performance and sustainability, where they were working with Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales to meet the industrial emissions directives. What engagement has the Welsh Government had with the UK Government since its March announcement of a consultation on an industrial energy transformation fund to help businesses with high energy use cut their bills, particularly steel, backed up by £315 million of investment?

Well, Llywydd, the Welsh Government was the first signatory of the steel charter earlier this year. And, of course, we work both with the industry and, where there are opportunities, with the UK Government. The industrial energy transformation fund was discussed by my colleague Ken Skates at the opportunity that I mentioned a few moments ago. And we will pursue as well the clean steel fund that was announced on 29 August, not intended to be operational before 2024, but offering opportunities across the United Kingdom. And I think it is very important indeed that we emphasise that to the UK Government—that this is to be a fund that is to be spent in Wales, as well as elsewhere, to assist the sector in its transition to low-carbon iron and steel production through new technologies and processes. And that will be very important for us here in Wales.

The announcement about the Orb works in Newport, obviously, was devastating for the workers involved, but it's also devastating for the potential of the steel industry in Wales. I think Tata said that converting the site to producing steels for future electric vehicle production would cost in excess of £50 million. Now, what negotiations did Welsh Government get involved in, in either finding, or making, or contributing towards that kind of investment? Because £50 million would have been an absolute bargain in terms of securing the future of the plant and the potential that it offered in terms of this key sector.

Well, Llywydd, the £50 million investment is only one part of the set of reasons that were identified by Tata in coming to their decision. Not only did they say that it would require an investment of that scale, but they also pointed to the fact that Orb Electrical Steels is part of the Cogent Power group, and Cogent have a plant in Sweden that already manufactures steel that is used in electric vehicles. So, the money by itself was not the issue; it's an issue of the global construction of the steel industry, and where companies choose to make their investments and where they choose to source the steel that they need. Now, of course we would like to see that investment in Wales. Of course we think there is a powerful case for making sure that there is a UK supplier of the sort of steel that will be needed for electric vehicles and the wider automotive industry, and we make that case to Tata and with our trade union colleagues. But the steel industry is in a global set of difficulties and concerns, and Tata Steel and the events at Orb cannot be isolated from those wider considerations—wider considerations for which the UK Government has to take a responsibility.

First Minister, steel has been made at the Orb site in Newport East since the end of the nineteenth century, and over that 120 years or so, the workforce and production have continually changed and adapted, and investment has been made, to meet the evolving demand for steel. And I do think that, given that track record, it's perfectly possible for further change and adaptation to occur, with necessary investment, to produce electrical steel for the mass production of electric cars in the future. And surely there's a strong case for that electrical steel to be produced here, in the UK, and at the Orb site. So, I would be very grateful if you would redouble your efforts, First Minister, to work with UK Government, the trade unions and industry to look at facilitating and encouraging that investment and that strong future for the Orb works.

I thank John Griffiths, who speaks, I know, on behalf of those many individuals and families in his own constituency who are affected by the announcement. The Minister for Economy and Transport spoke to Tata Steel immediately following the announcement to make these points to them—that they have this long history of an immensely loyal, committed workforce, who've gone through many changes in that past and would be with them on a journey of change if they were willing to pursue it in the future. And there is, as John Griffiths said, and as I said in my answer to Rhun ap Iorwerth, a strategic case for ensuring that, in the United Kingdom, there is a capacity to manufacture steel that will be needed for new forms of vehicles and new possibilities in the future. We make all those points to the company, where we have those opportunities, while at the same time making it clear to that workforce that, should the assistance of the Welsh Government and the approach we put in place when people need to find new skills and new job opportunities be needed, we will be there to support them when that time comes.

Well, Llywydd, even if the additional funding to which the Member refers materialises, the Welsh Government’s budget will be 2 per cent or £300 million lower in real terms than it was in 2010-11. Unreliable one-year funding, even when additional, fails to make up for nearly a decade of austerity. 

Well, first, First Minister, perhaps I should have welcomed you back from your Brexit bunker today. But I thank the First Minister for that answer. We all understand that whatever funding is given is never enough, but isn't it true to say that a less profligate approach to financial control by the Welsh Government would release more funding into our public services? By this I mean the losses sustained with Government projects such as the M4 relief road, the Cardiff land deal, the Year of the Sea, the Circuit of Wales and Communities First, which together cost just under £600 million—a  figure that about matches the sum afforded Wales by the UK Government. And there are, no doubt, many more examples of poor financial management by the Labour Welsh Government that I could have cited. Surely we should be looking at the way we approach financial control, rather than looking for largesse from Westminster.

Well, I entirely disagree with the Member. He completely misses the point and the examples that he cites don't stand up to examination either. The money that was spent in Communities First did fantastic work in many communities right across Wales. The scheme had reached the limits of its possibilities, and we have reformed and changed it. The decision in relation to the Circuit of Wales was not to spend money, not to throw money away. It was to make sure that money wasn't badly spent.

The Welsh Government has the best record of any part of the United Kingdom in spending the money that comes to us in Wales. We spend over 99 per cent of the budget that is available to us in Wales, and we do so by investing in our very hard-pressed public services—public services that have had to endure a decade of not having the money through the UK Government that was necessary to sustain them in the face of the demands that we know are there in Welsh society. It would be a lot better if the Member were prepared to speak up for people in Wales and for the investment that they need. 

Well, First Minister, you should be on the stage. The way that you managed to put a negative spin on those statistics without breaking into even a wry smile, you're to be commended on that. I hear what you're saying that there has been a period of cutbacks in Westminster, which saw cutbacks in the Welsh Government budget as well for a period of time, but even you must accept that the recent spending review will deliver next year, like it or not—it will deliver—a real-terms increase of 2.3 per cent over and above the money that's currently in the block grant coming to Wales. That's around £600 million a year, as Dave Rowlands referred to. If you look into the deeper figures of that, that's around £195 million that's being earmarked for education in Westminster, £385 million earmarked to health. Your advisers will know this as well as I do.

Can you give us a guarantee that it's up to the Welsh Government now to decide how you spend that money? Can you give us a guarantee that that money will be passed on to the public services in Wales that need it most, so that you can get on with the job, which you were charged to do, of defending public services in Wales, of defending the Welsh way of life, because people in Wales haven't always been convinced that that's happened in the past? You have a golden opportunity here, in a perfect position, to prove people who are negative wrong and to show that you can stand up for public services in Wales. 

Llywydd, for a decade we have been lectured by Members on that side of the Chamber: austerity was unavoidable, austerity was something over which there was no choice. There was, apparently, no magic money tree. Now that they've shredded all of that and finally taken decisions to turn their back on it, they expect us to be rejoicing on this side of the Chamber. A little more humility on the part of the party opposite would not go amiss. And let me tell Nick Ramsay why it is that we are not prepared to enter into the spirit of his question. First of all, what guarantee do we have that this money will ever arrive in Wales? Governments can only spend money that parliaments vote to them, and this Parliament has not voted on the sums of money announced last week. When will this Government put a money Bill in front of the Westminster Parliament so that we could have confidence that these sums of money will arise? They're not going to do that while Parliament is prorogued, they're not going to do that while the Prime Minister seeks a general election, and they're not going to do it when they don't have a majority on the floor of the House of Commons for anything that they announce.

So, first of all, I don't feel that we can be confident that this money will arrive at all. When it does arrive, Llywydd, of course, the Westminster Government will have spent large sums of it on our behalf. We now learn that the 85 per cent contribution to the pension costs that that Government has imposed on us is to be put into our baseline. So, not only did we lose out by £50 million this year, but we're going to lose out by £50 million every year into the future. So, that money's already been frittered away by decisions made by the UK Government. And why is it, Llywydd, that whereas public services in England are told that they have a three-year settlement and they know how much money there will be for education, not just next year, but for two years after that, we in Wales are not given a three-year settlement at all? Of course the money we get will be invested in public services. That's exactly what we do with all the money that comes our way. It would be nice if we were treated on the same basis as departments elsewhere and given the same opportunity.

Welcome back to all here today.

The First Minister, of course, is right in that we haven't seen a penny piece of this money yet. We wait to see it. We hope that it will be seen, but it goes no way towards making up the widening austerity gap that has emerged over a decade. But this adds too, of course, to the lack of certainty over the future of the shared prosperity fund, the lack of sign-off, because of prorogation, on the previous Chancellor's commitments on sustaining existing EU funding commitments, which are vital for supply chain as well as higher education, training and so on, and also, of course, the fact that he's alluded to that we have no long-term multi-annual comprehensive spending review settlement because Parliament is not there to sit and do it. Nothing has been ratified. There is one thing, however, that we do have increasing clarity on, and that is the implications of a 'no deal' Brexit. I wonder if he's had time to read the report by the UK in a Changing Europe group, 'No Deal Brexit: Issues, Impacts, Implications', because that makes crystal clear what the effects in Wales and every part of the UK will be if we crash out in a 'no deal' scenario.

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that question. There were two shocking things about the CSR announced earlier this month: first, that it only lasted for one year, whereas we were being promised by the Conservative Government at Westminster right up until July that it would be a three-year settlement that we would have, and that evaporated in a matter of weeks. And surely it was shocking to everybody in this Chamber that the Chancellor made not a single mention of the shared prosperity fund.

Month after month after month, we are told by UK Ministers that they will honour their promise to Wales that we would not be a penny worse off as a result of leaving the European Union because they have a shared prosperity fund. Month after month, we are told that it's only round the corner that they will have a consultation on that fund, and we will be able to see the colour of their money. Now we know that we're not going to hear anything until the next calendar year, and the Chancellor failed to mention it even once. The amount of money we expect to get through the shared prosperity fund would be in excess of the £600 million that Nick Ramsay mentioned as coming through the CSR. Huw Irranca-Davies is absolutely right to point to the fact that without that certainty, our partners here in Wales are unable to plan ahead in the way we would want them to do.

I have had an opportunity to see the UK in a Changing Europe report. A 'no deal' means a prolonged period of uncertainty; half of UK goods exports will face disruption. It will reduce the safety of UK citizens; the UK's international reputation may suffer. Is there any wonder why time after time after time on the floor of this Chamber we have warned about the catastrophic effect that leaving the European Union without a deal will have here in Wales?

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, do you believe that your Government responds appropriately and immediately to the needs of the people of Wales?

This Government responds every day to the needs of people in Wales—in the health service, in providing housing for people, in the education services that we provide. It's at the core of what we do as a Government.

Well, First Minister, let's discuss some of your immediate proposals, shall we? Back at the start of June, you made the decision to cancel the M4 relief road and waste £144 million of taxpayers' money in the process. Now, as part of that statement you made it clear that a commission would be created and would come forward with a first set of immediate proposals that can be put to work to begin to alleviate the problems experienced on the M4. You even said that you recognised that the action is required more than ever given the significance of these problems, and you concluded by saying

'we will begin on that work immediately.'

However, since 25 June there has been no further update about the work of this commission, the membership or what immediate proposals are taking place. In fact, as I understand it, the commission's initial report has now been pushed back to spring 2020 instead of December this year, and your Government has been squabbling over its budget. Your Government delayed making the initial decision, and even hid behind the Newport West by-election. So, First Minister, what is the excuse now for this further delay?

It's disappointing to hear that the leader of the Conservative Party here in Wales is as careless with the necessary conventions of our political life as his leader is in Westminster. The reason we delayed the announcement because of the Newport by-election is because that is what the rules of by-elections require. Now, I know that his party isn't keen on rules. I know that they don't care about whether or not they observe the way that things ought to be conducted. But it's disappointing to hear the leader of the opposition here align himself with that way of conducting public life here in Wales. While he talks about the waste of public money on major public infrastructure projects, presumably he wasn't reading when his Government made an announcement on HS2 and the billions of pounds that have been squandered by his Government on that. The Burns review has been working hard over the summer. It is working actively, it is recruiting the other members of the commission it will need. We will announce those names very shortly. It will hold its first public engagement event next month, and I expect that the next set of proposals from the review will be with us by the end of this calendar year, as we have said all along.

Well, you have been squabbling over the money that is actually available to this commission, because on 12 July you said that Lord Burns has the first call on all of that £1 billion, but five days later, your economy Minister said

'we're not going to be inviting the commission to spend £1 billion.'

So, as a Government, First Minister, you're all over the place on this. Who is right? You or your economy Minister?

Now, another area where your Government wanted immediate action is on the climate change emergency. So far, you have failed to bring forward substantial immediate proposals to tackle the climate emergency. What has been announced has been more of the same when we know that what we need now is not more of the same, but innovative ideas to reduce our damage to the planet.

Now, the £30 million for active travel will do nothing to help if the trains and buses across Wales are constantly delayed, full to bursting, and put people off rather than encourage them on board. The latest bus journey figures show that 20 million fewer bus journeys are being taken in Wales. What radical ideas did your Government have in mind when it declared the climate emergency, and when will you be bringing them forward? Because other nations have, for example, banned single-use plastics, and yet all your Government can say is that it is committed to a ban. When will your Government, First Minister, be introducing a ban and stop just thinking about it?

It's difficult to pick out much sense in what I've just been asked, Llywydd. On the issue of the money for the Burns commission, the Burns commission has first call on the £1 billion that was originally set aside for the M4 relief road. Lord Burns, when he met me, as a former permanent secretary at the Treasury, made it clear that that did not mean that he expected to spend £1 billion. He wasn't aiming to spend £1 billion. What he knows is that if he needs £1 billion it will be there at his disposal. It doesn't mean it's an ambition for him to do so.

The climate emergency question linked to the M4 relief road suggests that irony has long been lost on the benches opposite. How does he on the one hand want to complain about not building an M4 relief road, and then complain that we’re not taking a climate emergency seriously? The two things simply cannot be held in the mind at the same time. We have published a whole series of other practical proposals that we will take as a Government to respond to the climate emergency. We will introduce 20 mph zones as standard in our urban areas and we will introduce regulations to tackle agricultural pollution in January next year. We are focused on those practical things that the Welsh Government can do, and we will deliver against them here in Wales.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, which do you think represents a brighter future for Wales: Brexit or independence?

Well, it’s clearly not a choice that any sensible person would seek to make, Llywydd. The bright future for Wales lies in a strong Wales with an entrenched devolution settlement, taking domestic decisions here in our hands, in a strong United Kingdom and in a successful Europe. That’s what I believe the best future for Wales will be: Wales in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom in the European Union.

As we saw over the summer, from Caernarfon to Merthyr, thousands are on the march in Wales, and on independence the tide is turning. And, you know, you risk, First Minister, being overtaken by events as history is accelerating. It’s happened, of course, on more than one occasion against the backdrop of Brexit. Over the summer you still said in one of your first ministerial videos that you wanted to leave the European Union on the best of terms. The shadow chancellor, who wanted to back remain, has been rebuked by Len McCluskey, Labour’s largest donor. Even your own health Minister says your party’s policy of being both 'leave' and 'remain' deserves ridicule. Do you?

Well, Llywydd, let me begin by saying that I understand the frustration and the anger that many people here in Wales feel at the current UK Government and at the way in which events since the referendum have unfolded. It’s no wonder, I think, that people feel let down. But I am clear in my mind that the answer to those feelings of frustration and anger is not independence. Surely, Llywydd, the answer that people ought to draw from the Brexit experience is that borders create divisions, they create divisions inside societies and between societies, that they damage economies and that they reduce protections. The power of the union, as people on this side of the Chamber understand, is a power that exists inside the union of the United Kingdom and inside the union of the European Union. That’s the message of the Labour movement, and that’s why we believe that the answer to the frustrations and the anger that people feel is to create a successful future for Wales as part of both of those wider set of arrangements. And that’s the position of the Welsh Labour Party. The Labour Party will offer people in the United Kingdom a chance to vote again—a call that he has made in this Chamber many, many times. A Labour Government will deliver that, and in a second referendum, the Welsh Labour Party will campaign to persuade people in Wales that our future is better off in the European Union.

There are 44 days now, of course, until Boris Johnson tries to force through a ‘no deal’ Brexit. Now, our clear preference, to prevent this from happening, would be to hold a people’s vote before an election, but if we have a general election instead, it will become the people’s vote by proxy, with a Tory 'no deal' on the ballot paper. Now, if this does happen, then it seems vitally important to me that there is a clear 'remain' option on the ballot paper too. Now, your Brexit Minister, the Counsel General, said in July that the Labour Party

'should be advocating remain in that manifesto rather than a referendum'

and seeking a mandate to revoke on that basis. 

You didn't answer whether you disagreed with Vaughan Gething, but do you disagree with Jeremy Miles?

I've put the position of the Welsh Labour Party, Llywydd, and I put it again. I've put it in the Welsh Assembly, because I am responsible for the position of the Welsh Labour Party. In a general election, the position here in Wales will be clear: the Welsh Labour Party believes that our future is better secured inside the United Kingdom and we will say that loud and clear. You will argue to take Wales out of the United Kingdom and we will argue that Wales should remain in a United Kingdom that remains in the European Union. Both of those things are right for Wales. Only the Labour Party will argue for them both and I look forward to the chance to do exactly that.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, 12 days ago, you made a calculated decision to allege that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had lied. How would you describe the statement

'We will deliver a relief road for the M4'?

Llywydd, I've dealt with the relief road question. I have it from a man who has stood on a number of manifestos for different parties and is so attached to the promises that he made that he was willing to betray them on the floor of the Assembly and to zig-zag across the floor here. So, I don't need to hear questions from him on that sort of issue because his own history simply illustrates how hollow those questions are.

I didn't accuse the Prime Minister of lying. I put him right on that the last time he said that. I pointed out that the official spokesperson of the Prime Minister had been put up to say something that documents which were then revealed in front of a Scottish court turned out to be untrue. I don't think it is wrong to point that out.

On the M4 relief road, we have rehearsed the arguments here. I came to my decision, I stand by that decision, it was the right decision to make. 

So, you stand by your decision. You said just now it's to do with the climate change emergency but you didn't say anything about that in your decision notice, did you? [Interruption.] The decision notice talked about the environment and the Gwent levels; it did not mention climate change. [Interruption.]

We need to hear the question. Can the question be heard in some silence, please? Mark Reckless.

I have always backed Brexit. I've never lied about it. Now, you used that word—at least that's what I recall you using, or the meaning of what you were saying—yet your party, you and almost everyone behind you, said that you would respect the referendum. Yet, now, your policy is to go to the European Union, if I understand it correctly, and negotiate a deal so you can come back here and campaign against it. And that deal you are looking to negotiate is even more of a Brexit in name only than what the Conservatives have been offering us.

It will be, frankly, an in/in referendum. It's very difficult to judge whether it's the Lib Dems or Plaid saying, 'Revoke, just ignore the referendum, we know best', or it's you forcing people through the charade of an in/in referendum that would be more of a betrayal of the people of Wales.

Could I just read the First Minister two statements? The first is from his predecessor, Carwyn Jones, from the foreword of 'Securing Wales' Future':

'A majority in Wales voted to leave the European Union...and the Welsh Government has been clear from the outset that this democratic decision must be respected.'

Then, the Counsel General, shortly before that, for the Government, said:

'The people of the UK voted to leave the European Union. I respect that decision and we will not work against the referendum result.'

First Minister, weren't they lies?

Llywydd, for two years and more, this Labour Government argued for a form of leaving the European Union that would have respected the result of the referendum, but would have protected jobs and economies here in Wales. He attacked those proposals time after time after time, describing them as he has again today as leaving the European Union in name only.

We put forward those proposals because, with Plaid Cymru in the aftermath of the referendum, we understood that people in Wales had voted to leave the European Union, but as Steffan Lewis, our colleague here said at the time, they never voted to take leave of their senses. And that meant that if we were to leave the European Union, it had to be done on terms and in a way that would have protected their futures, and that's what we tried to promote.

It became clear to us, particularly as a new leader of the Conservative Party was elected, that that possibility had simply evaporated—that no matter how hard we argued for it and no matter how cogent our position was, it was never going to make a difference to somebody who, as the Member here said, wasn't interested in the arguments. He's always been in favour of Brexit. Say what you like about it, demonstrate how harmful it will be, he'll be for it come what may.

So, we decided at that point that the decision should go back to the people. A Labour Government will deliver exactly that. There will be a credible 'leave' option on the ballot paper, so he will be able to go on campaigning to leave the European Union, misguided as I've always believed him to be. But, for those of us who believe that Wales's future is better off inside the European Union, there will be a second opportunity to put that to people, to make those arguments and to persuade people on the basis of everything that we have learnt in the three years since that referendum that that's where our future lies. I look forward to us being able to do just that. His argument, I think, will be exposed yet again for the ideologically driven, evidence free, careless-of-the-future set of proposals that it has always been.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government continually monitors the safety of the M4 and addresses any immediate issues as a matter of urgency. A wide range of measures to improve safety and transport opportunities along the M4 west corridor has now been identified and we will make that report publicly available by the end of September.

Can I thank the First Minister for that response? As he's well aware, a large number of accidents of various degrees of seriousness have occurred between junction 45 and junction 47, which cover my constituency. I could continue it on into David Rees's constituency as well, but I won't do that—I think he'll have an opportunity later.

I think that it is a problem there. A number of regular users of the road have approached me concerned about drainage and the road surface, which they believe have contributed to accidents in this area. Will the First Minister arrange for an investigation into those concerns and, if they are proved to be correct, arrange for the problems to be rectified?

I thank Mike Hedges for that question. He's right to say, of course, that anybody who has followed the news over the month of August in particular will be aware of accidents that have happened between junctions 45 and 47 on the M4. That's why the Welsh transport appraisal guidance stage 1 study is important, Llywydd, because it has identified potential improvements to safety and other matters on that part of the road, and that's why we will publish those proposals this month.

Issues of drainage and the way in which road surfaces are constructed are a matter of safety. The 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges' sets out the standards that we use in Wales, but I will certainly ask officials to investigate whether issues of drainage and the state of the road surface did contribute, or were believed to contribute, to the accidents to which Mike Hedges refers.FootnoteLink

Thank you for that reply. I look forward to seeing that report, First Minister. The safety, of course, of the air that we breathe remains an issue around certainly the western part of the M4 running through my region. You'll recall that the extended 50 mph temporary zone west of Port Talbot is no longer temporary. However, I seem to recall that Government officials advised that the legal change doesn't necessarily mean that the reduced speed limit will be permanent, stating that once air quality has improved beyond required levels, the Government will revisit the question of the speed limit in that area.

Listening to your response to Paul Davies earlier, can you just confirm that it's still your intention to possibly increase that speed limit if there is a reduction in air pollution caused by vehicles? In the meantime, what active steps are you taking to encourage the use of less-polluting publicly procured and publicly licensed vehicles in that part of my region?

I thank Suzy Davies for that. We don't introduce a 50 mph zone just for the sake of reducing the speed of traffic. As she says, it's there for a particular reason, because of the evidence that we have seen and believe to be compelling that reducing average speeds to 50 mph will make a difference to air quality—necessary differences to air quality—and, of course, we will monitor that very carefully. We would not want to be in a position where we achieve improvements in air quality then raise speed limits to find that the air quality has gone back down again. So, I don't think we can offer an immediate assurance that if air quality standards improve that that will mean that speed limits will go back up again. But what we do provide an assurance of is that we continually monitor it, and we'll keep that question properly under review.

Of course, Suzy Davies is right, Llywydd, that beyond speed limits, we need vehicles that emit less pollution, and that's why it's been such good news that Wales has done so well in the competition to get funding for electric buses in Wales. And by changing the nature of the vehicles that we use, we will make a difference to air quality not just in Swansea and in the part of the M4 that Mike Hedges referred to, but right through to Cardiff and to Newport as well.

I thank Rhianon Passmore for that. Yesterday the Welsh Government published our 'no deal' Brexit action plan. It reflects our engagement in Operation Yellowhammer and, for the people of Islwyn, our close working with local partner organisations, including Gwent Police, local authorities and the Gwent local resilience forum.

First Minister, the forced release of the Operation Yellowhammer document confirms what the Welsh Labour Government has been consistently stating publicly for many months, namely that a 'no deal' cliff-edge Brexit could have enormous detrimental consequences for Welsh people, their families and our communities. Amidst the document's pages are non-worst-case-scenario warnings that some fresh supplies of food will decrease, and that critical dependencies for the food chain, such as key ingredients, may be in shorter supply. Further, that UK citizens enjoying their holidays abroad to European Union countries may be subject to increased immigration checks at EU border patrols causing serious delays and, critically, medical supply shortages. There may also be a rise—these are not my words—in public disorder and community tensions.

First Minister, these are just some of the Halloween horrors that the Tories are willing to inflict and wanting to inflict on my constituents, even though, as David Cameron has admitted this week, Boris Johnson didn't believe in Brexit and backed the 'leave' campaign only to help his political career. What hope can you give to my constituents in Islwyn that this dystopian future caused by a 'no deal' cliff-edge Tory Brexit can be in any way mitigated by a Welsh Labour Government on their side always?

Llywydd, the document that we published yesterday sets out the many actions that the Welsh Government has been working on over months past to do everything we can to mitigate the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit. The fact that we've developed a 12 to 15-week supply chain of medical devices and clinical consumables, that we have a bank of animal vaccines set up in case there is an outbreak of disease, that we have worked closely with all the major supermarkets about food supplies here in Wales and, in particular, the things that we have done to safeguard the future of vulnerable people in Wales in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit.

The Yellowhammer document sets it out: a 'no deal' Brexit will fall more harshly on the shoulders of those least able to bear that burden than anybody else. There will be rises in food prices, there will be rises in fuel prices, there will be rises in energy prices, and these will be borne by families in Wales who have had their benefits frozen since 2015. And the things that we are doing as a Welsh Government, set out in our action plan, demonstrates our determination to focus upon the most vulnerable in our society in aiming to protect them from the self-inflicted harm that leaving the European Union without a deal would mean.

First Minister, do you accept that the Operation Yellowhammer document is not a prediction of what is likely to happen, but it describes a worst-case scenario for the purposes of Government planning? And do you also recognise that the UK Government in London has stepped up preparation to mitigate any impact of a 'no deal' Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Wales?

You see, Llywydd, this simply doesn't stand up to examination. Yellowhammer is what the Government describes as a 'reasonable worst case'. It's not the worst-worst case; it's not an exaggerated account of the harm that will come to the United Kingdom. It is what a reasonable person would assess to be the impact of Brexit in a worst case, and we are heading into that worst case. And any idea—any idea—that this UK Government has been working hard in a way that will simply mitigate and wipe away the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit—they don't believe it, I can tell you that. They don't believe it at all and neither should anybody here.

First Minister, I'm particularly concerned with the supply of drugs and medicine to those who need them post Brexit. [Interruption.] How did I know you'd all—?

Let's hear the reason for the concern.

Thank you. There appear to be claims, counter-claims and claims again about security of supplies. Can you please allay the fears, the real fears that many constituents have because of all these things that people keep saying, and confirm that your Government has secured the medicine it needs to keep the Welsh NHS working, mitigating all the stress that people are listening to?

Well, Llywydd, let's be clear with Mandy Jones and other Members here that medicines that we rely on here in Wales come through the short straits and that the UK Government in its own predictions say that EU-UK traffic could fall by 40 to 60 per cent between Calais and Dover in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. That's why we have had to take the actions that we have taken to try to mitigate the impact that that would have on the supply of medicines here in Wales. It's inevitable—it's not a matter of shaking heads and sounding as though this is some sort of ideological point, it's an intensely practical issue: if those ports cannot bring in the supplies of medicines as they do today, there will be an impact on the availability of those medicines in the United Kingdom. And there are some medicines on which we rely that can't afford to sit and wait in a queue because they have short shelf lives, and that's particularly true of radioisotopes in the treatment of cancer. That's why there is a plan with the UK Government to get around the ports issue by flying those supplies into the United Kingdom. But if those supplies arrive at an airport and then there is logistical chaos because the lorries you're relying on are caught in a queue somewhere in Kent or aren't able to move back from the continent in the way that was expected, there's no guarantee that anybody can offer that those plans will deliver everything as they are today. Who would possibly embark on this course of self-harm? This is not inevitable—this could be stopped. It ought to be stopped, and then we wouldn't be having these conversations.

I think, reading through the document that the UK Government was forced to release by the courts, you understand why the UK Government didn't want the public to see this. I'm reminded of Aneurin Bevan when he told us:

'How can wealth persuade poverty to use its political freedom to keep wealth in power?'

This is a document that describes the impact of Brexit on the poorest people of this country. It describes the impact of 'no deal' on the sick, on the vulnerable. It describes how the people who can barely afford to buy food today and rely on foodbanks will see increases in food prices and a reduction of access to fresh food. This is a document that the UK Government sought to keep secret. It is also, First Minister, of course, a document that doesn't mention Wales. Devolved administrations are mentioned in the penultimate paragraph in terms of fishery protection. There is nothing here, yet the UK Government, you would have hoped, would understand that many of the matters here are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. Many of the responsibilities in dealing with these matters are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. And, First Minister, can you reassure us that the United Kingdom Government understands in any way the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the poorest people in this country? And can you reassure us, First Minister, that this Welsh Labour Government will continue to stand up for people in communities up and down this country?

Well, Llywydd, I thank Alun Davies for that question. I hear Members around the Chamber who persuaded people in Wales to leave the European Union now trying to deny the impact that that will have in their lives, and there is no denying it. If you read Yellowhammer, it is as clearly set out there as you could wish. People who live on the smallest incomes in our society spend a larger proportion of their incomes securing the basics of everyday life: food, energy, fuel. It takes a far higher proportion of their incomes than it does people in this Chamber. They will have to find money to deal with the consequences of Brexit, and they will be the least able people to do that. I can give Alun Davies an absolute assurance—I attended a meeting of the latest UK committee myself last week: I pointed to that paragraph in Yellowhammer, I asked the UK Government what plan it had to put money into the pockets of those families in Wales and in the United Kingdom whose incomes have been held down, who have seen prices rising and will now be asked to pay the cost of a 'no deal' Brexit. It's their responsibility to do that; it's the very least that they should do to protect those most vulnerable people.

Llywydd, nitrogen dioxide levels have been monitored before and after the initial implementation of that 50 mph speed limit. Findings will be monitored and reported before the end of this month, when a full 12 months’ worth of post-implementation data will have been collated and analysed.

Thanks. Thank you for the answer and, of course, there are major concerns over the amount of pollution emanating from the A470. I was listening to your answer earlier to Suzy Davies's question, which was a related one, although hers was about the M4. Now, you say there's compelling evidence; we can have a look at that, of course. The observation of many of my constituents who regularly use that road to commute is that they're seeing an increased occurrence of traffic jams and, of course, there is the danger that traffic jams could tend to worsen the amount of polluting toxins in the air. So, when you do monitor the evidence that arises, if it transpires that the situation has worsened, would you be of a mind to consider possibly removing the 50 mph zones?

Well, Llywydd, we will certainly monitor the position very closely. The evidence is that 50 mph zones, when properly preserved, prevent queues rather than add to them. A section of the A470 between Upper Boat and Bridge Street interchanges is an area where we know that the figures demonstrate that there is an urgent and immediate need to bring about improvements in air quality. We will do more over this autumn to put up information that explains to people why they are being asked to observe that 50 mph speed limit and to explain to them that they are being asked to do it because the scientific evidence demonstrates that they will be making a contribution to improving air quality for those communities that they are driving through.

I think we've always been able to make an appeal to people in Wales to understand that collective effort has an impact on the lives of other people. We haven't explained that well enough and persistently enough to people so far. I am optimistic that when we do that, we will see people observe that 50 mph speed limit and that it will both improve air quality and reduce queuing and do good in the lives of people who, today, suffer the impact of the actions that other people take in travelling through those communities.

Llywydd, Transport for Wales will deliver the Wales and borders rail franchise through a £5 billion investment in Welsh railways over the next 15 years.

Thank you for your answer, First Minister. The level of service on the rail network in Wales has been wholly unacceptable over the summer. I have received dozens and dozens of complaints, either with people copying me into their own correspondence to Transport for Wales, or constituents contacting me directly—not to mention the issues aired over social media. Complaints fall into a number of categories that include cancelled trains, lack of staff, delayed trains, overcrowding and standing room only, signalling problems, a lack of appropriate carriages and a lack of quality information when issues do occur. When Transport for Wales took over the franchise last year, they raised expectations and the Welsh Government also told rail users they would see improvements. Can you tell rail users today when they can expect to see the improvements that you promised last year?

Llywydd, I saw information put out by the Member over the summer in which he complained that only 97 per cent of trains on the Cambrian line had run over the summer. I think there are people in Thameslink who would think they'd arrived in rail heaven if his Government was able to deliver 97 per cent of all planned services on that line. The Member will have seen yesterday the announcement made of £194 million-worth of investment in railway stations across Wales, and that will certainly attend to the point that the Member made, which was a fair point, about—

Why didn't you say it?

The Member will need to listen rather than speak and then he would have a chance of hearing the answer to his question, wouldn't he? The £194 million investment announced yesterday will certainly attend to the fair point the Member made—that's what I was about to say when he started interrupting me—about information being provided to passengers. The Member said when he was interrupting me that Transport for Wales has said that the performance on some lines, including the Cambrian line, has not been acceptable over this summer, and they're working hard with Network Rail to make sure that signalling difficulties that were experienced on that line are being put right. Of course we want to see further improvements. The £5 billion investment that I referred to earlier will certainly deliver that. People, I believe, are already seeing improvements in many parts of the rail service in Wales and that's what they will continue to see as the franchise unfolds.

The measures to which the Member refers are set out in the revised and strengthened non-domestic rating Order, passed by this Assembly in 2016. Responsibility for the effective operation of these procedures lies with local authorities and the Valuation Office Agency.

First Minister, while listening to the radio last week, I was struck by an advert I heard on a commercial station that began by informing people of how they could create an extra income out of their second homes and ended by saying, 'Take action now in order to avoid the extra council tax on second homes.' Will the First Minister agree with me that it is morally repugnant for companies or businesses to be offering this kind of advice? It is something that creates a situation where tax can be avoided and it encourages people to buy second homes in order to rent them out to holidaymakers, thus, of course, creating a situation where young people particularly can't afford to live in their own rural communities. Does the First Minister share my abhorrence of the message that that advert gave and will he condemn any attempts to try to get around the law?

Well, I certainly do that and do it as strongly as the Member just has. Tax avoidance is morally repugnant. Tax evasion is straightforwardly criminal and against the law. I didn't hear the advert myself, but I would have to warn anybody listening to it that if they think they are going to enter into a contrived arrangement in order to evade the council tax, then they will find themselves in receipt of very large accumulated bills when that is found out. And if any firm were to offer advice to somebody with the express intention of contriving an arrangement in which the law of the land can be avoided, then they would be, I believe, vulnerable to criminal prosecution for fraud. There is a very clear and legal set of requirements. If you are to let your house as accommodation that is self-catering, you have to make that property available for 140 days in any year, and it has to be let for 70 of those 140 days as a minimum. Those are legal requirements. They are set out in that way in the Valuation Office Agency's forms that people have to fill in, and there is a dedicated team here in the VOA in Wales that validates the evidence that's produced about self-catering premises and carries out regular spot checks to make sure that the law is being observed.

Anybody who thinks that the law is a soft touch in this area and that you can evade it or avoid it easily will rapidly come unstuck. [Interruption.] Every single—. I'll just say, every single example that local authorities in Wales have provided to the VOA have been investigated by the valuation agency. And I invite local authorities—as I know my colleagues did yesterday, in a meeting with them—I absolutely invite local authorities to provide that evidence. If there is genuine evidence of the law not being properly applied, and the dedicated team that the VOA have to make sure that it is, then, of course, we will take action. But we can only take action if the evidence itself is supplied, and only local authorities are in the right position to do that. Please make sure that, if they have the evidence, they send it in.

And finally, question 8—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

As much as I would like to have joined in that discussion, I will ask my own question.

Thank you for the question. The free swimming initiative has not ended. Following an independent review commissioned by the Sports Council for Wales, it has been revised. The new version will provide more opportunities for young people and the over-60s from the more disadvantaged areas of Wales.

The current scheme has come to an end, of course, and there are implications to that. Rightly or wrongly, the free swimming scheme has become a crucial part of how local government pays for its leisure services, because of the unsustainable cuts that have taken place in funding. Now, free swimming funding in Anglesey, for example, is cut in half by the decision to revise and, quite simply, the council won’t be able to afford to fill that gap of £30,000—some 20,000 people per annum take advantage of this, and that figure will go down.

First, we must have a commitment of real additional funding for councils next year, but, on the specific issue, given the preventative value of free swimming in improving health today, tackling obesity today, in order to prevent ill health and to save money for the NHS tomorrow, will the First Minister admit that revising this programme and cutting the budget so much is sure to lead to a reduction in the number of users and is contrary to the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015?

Well, I don’t believe that the evidence demonstrates that to be true, Llywydd.

It was right to reform the scheme. When the scheme was first introduced in 2004-05, over 800,000 swims took place by young people under the scheme. Last year, it had fallen to 126,000. If you don't think that those figures deserved a review, then I don't think that would be a fair conclusion to draw. And yet the number of swims by young people has gone up in Wales over that period. So, the idea that, by removing the scheme as it currently stands, it automatically leads to the unintended, and, as I see it, not to be realised consequences, doesn't stand up to examination. More people under the age of 16 are swimming in Wales than ever before, and yet fewer and fewer and fewer of them were taking advantage of the free swimming initiative. 

The money that is not being devoted by the sports council of Wales to this scheme is being spent by them instead on a series of healthy and active fund projects. Four of those new projects will be happening on the island of Anglesey. It's not that money is being taken away from these purposes; it's just that it's going to be spent in a different way, precisely in order to deliver the sorts of outcomes that Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to in his supplementary question.

Thank you, First Minister. The next item is questions to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister in respect of his law officer responsibilities. And the first question is from Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Presiding Officer, I understand that you've given permission for questions 1 and 3 to be grouped. I refer the Members to the written statements that I published yesterday and on 2 September. I intervened in the case because it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to do so in order to safeguard the interests of Wales and this Assembly.

Twice your Welsh Government has teamed up with an individual—Gina Miller—to challenge the actions of our UK Government. Most recently, you have intervened in legal proceedings in the High Court, supporting the legal case against the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament. You claimed that you did not make the intervention lightly and stated:

'As the law officer, I have a duty to uphold the rule of law and the constitution'.

Now, whilst I appreciate that the matter is before the Supreme Court now, the High Court concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not capable of challenge. Will you therefore disclose to this Chamber how much of our taxpayers' money has been spent by the Welsh Government in your attempts to subvert the very source of our democratic sovereignty?

Well, I think the Member fundamentally misunderstands the situation. The Welsh Government hasn't teamed up with anyone. As law officer, I have intervened in these proceedings, and I have had permission to do so by—

How much has that cost?

—the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Member may remember that the last time the Welsh Government intervened in a Miller case the Supreme Court found in favour of Miller, because the Supreme Court understood that the actions of the UK Government were designed to sideline Parliament. Those circumstances are the circumstances we face today, with a new Prime Minister seeking to sideline Parliament at exactly the time when Parliament should be sitting to scrutinise his actions and the Government's actions, and also to pass legislation to prevent the catastrophe of a 'no deal' Brexit. So, I make no apology for intervening on behalf of this Assembly. And Members here have sat and debated and considered legislation and asked Parliament to legislate on our behalf in order to ensure as smooth as possible a legislative statue book after Brexit.

How much?

And that opportunity has been denied Parliament to sit and consider that legislation by the prorogation. So, I make no apology at all for standing up for the rights of this Assembly.

She shouts at me from a sedentary position the question of costs. The costs of intervening in the High Court stage were £8,937.91 plus VAT—with apologies to Mark Reckless for the question he'll be asking me later.

The Scottish Court of Session found that Boris Johnson misled the Queen about his reasons for wanting to prorogue Parliament. The Prime Minister had said that it was so that a Queen's Speech could be introduced, but the judgment made it clear that there was documented evidence that the true reason was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. The English High Court did not contradict this, so there is no debate about whether Boris Johnson lied to the Queen and everybody else about the true nature of his reasons for proroguing Parliament—he did. The point at which the judgment of the High Court differed to the Court of Session was about whether lying about the reasons for prorogation is justiciable or not—that is, whether it's a legal or a political matter. Is the Counsel General in a position to explain his legal basis for believing that this is a justiciable matter and whether, if the Supreme Court finds in his favour, a judgment that prorogation is unlawful in this instance will be enforceable? I ask because of the briefings from No. 10 that they may seek to prorogue Parliament for a second time, regardless.

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. She is right, of course, to point out that the Court of Session in Scotland concluded that, whatever the reasons the Prime Minister gave publicly for seeking the prorogation, the actual reason was to stymie, as they put it, Parliament's consideration, which they concluded to be constitutionally unacceptable and unlawful. She is right to say that, for both the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland, the question of justiciability was at the heart of their considerations. The submissions made on my behalf in the Supreme Court will say that the divisional court—the High Court—was incorrect in its conclusion, and that the Court of Session was correct, in the way that both courts approach the question of justiciability, i.e. that Executive action shouldn't be undertaken other than in accordance with public law standards, and, where political subject matter is a basis for judicial restraint, it isn't a basis for Executive immunity, and those are some of the submissions that will be made on my behalf in the Supreme Court later this week.

On the question of the conclusions of the Supreme Court, I will say clearly now that this Government will abide by whatever the Supreme Court concludes, as would any Government worthy of that name, and I hope that the evasion that the Prime Minister has shown on that question, on reflection, he will realise is inappropriate, and that he will act in accordance with the outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment, as soon as it's given.

Welsh legislative powers do not extend to regulating vehicle emissions. However, the Government supports the use of challenging new vehicle standards to reduce emissions from transport and the Government is acting in areas where it has competence and has consulted on the clean air framework to lead local government actions to improve air quality and reduce emissions.

Thank you very much for that response. As you’ve said, clearly there is a range of legislative options available to the Welsh Government in pursuing this agenda. You will be aware that the UK Government, on 15 July, announced its intention to introduce legislation that makes it a requirement to put charging points for electric vehicles in all new homes in England, as part of efforts to reduce emissions by 2050. The proposals include changing building regulations for new residential buildings to provide for electric charging points and for infrastructure for charging points in non-residential buildings. So, what discussions have you been having within the Welsh Government on the best legislative route to secure similar outcomes here in Wales?

Well, I won’t elaborate on any legal discussions, for reasons that the Member will understand fully, I believe. But the question of the steps that Welsh Government can take to secure a low-carbon society is a very lively discussion that is held often within Welsh Government. I would refer the Member to the ‘Prosperity for All: A Low Carbon Wales’ policy document, which describes in detail the wide range of steps that the Government is taking at the moment, and the steps we intend to look at in future in this area and in other relevant areas.

The cost of intervening in the High Court stage was £8,937.91, and VAT. I consider this proportionate to the fundamental importance of the issue, both for this place and its ability to give voice to the interests of Wales, and to the rule of law and the constitution more generally.

Isn't an important part of the rule of law that our First Minister should accept the decisions of courts within our jurisdiction? And, following the decision of the divisional court in London, within the jurisdiction of England and Wales, that the decision to prorogue was lawful, is it appropriate for the First Minister to describe the decision as unlawful?

Well, the judgment in the Court of Session in Scotland, which, contrary—[Interruption.]—contrary to the comments of many Conservative backbench Members of Parliament, is actually a superior court to the High Court of England and Wales, found exactly the opposite proposition, which is, in accordance with the submissions we have made, that the decision was unlawful. And he mentions, from a sedentary position, that this is not our jurisdiction, as he put it. The Parliament that is prorogued is the Parliament of Scotland in Westminster, as it is the Parliament for Wales in relation to reserved matters, and the decisions of the Court of Session are not to be lightly derided as the Member is seeking to do. I hope that the Supreme Court will take full account not just of the conclusions of the High Court, but also of the arguments that prevailed in the Court of Session in Scotland and support the arguments made on behalf of Miller and Cherry, in which I was glad to intervene.

Whilst the Member will appreciate I don't disclose advice that I give to the Government, the question of the devolution settlement and how it might be improved in the future remains a live discussion within Government.

Thank you. Last month, you had the pleasure, as did I and many here, of attending the National Eisteddfod of Wales. Now, despite the Secretary of State, the Right Honourable Alun Cairns MP, having worked hard to deliver a clear and stable devolution settlement, you really did have quite a moan. In fact, you stated, and I quote,

'it is clear that the attitude of the UK government to devolution needs to change fundamentally. Currently, it seems still to have a profound ambivalence about devolution. Or worse, an attitude that if we behave ourselves, the UK government will out of the goodness of its heart, allow us some limited powers of self-government. A "get what you’re given" type of devolution.'

Now, whilst you did note that your priority is to remain and reform within the union of the United Kingdom, my question to you is whether it is actually the case that the Welsh Government will not be satisfied with devolution until there is actually a break-up of this union.

Can I first thank the Member for drawing attention to the speech that I gave in the Eisteddfod, which I feel otherwise might have had a slightly more limited audience than she will now have given it? So, I thank her for that. She mentions the efforts of the Secretary of State for Wales to deliver a stable settlement for devolution. I'm afraid I see it slightly differently from her, and I take for example the discussion that the First Minister mentioned earlier on the shared prosperity fund, which is a matter that should be entirely devolved to Wales, and he has not championed that position in my discussions with him. We have called on several occasions for there to be full engagement in the question of regional funding following the departure from the European Union, and that has not been taken up. That is one of many, many examples of where the current devolution settlement falls short and where the UK Government's commitment to a stable devolution settlement falls short.

She mentions in her closing question the break-up of the union as though that would be a thing that we would advocate. Let me be absolutely clear to the Member that the people taking the wrecking ball to the British constitution are people like the Brexit Party and people like her who are advocating the kind of hard and 'no deal' Brexit that runs a very serious risk of tearing the UK apart.

Thank you, Counsel General.

The business statement and announcement is next, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to make the statement—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are three changes to this week's business. Later this afternoon, I will make a statement on implications for Wales of the UK Government's 2019 spending round, and the Counsel General and Brexit Minister will make a statement on Brexit. To accommodate this, the statement on Designed to Smile—10 years of improving children's oral health in Wales will be issued as a written statement. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Can I call for a statement from the Minister responsible for transport on the A55 trunk road in north Wales? The Trefnydd will be aware that there have been many complaints coming in to Assembly Members from across the North Wales region because of significant roadworks that are taking place in the Llanddulas area. Now, I appreciate that these roadworks are necessary in terms of restoring safety to the bridge in Llanddulas, but the organisation of those roadworks, without any appropriate diversions in place to encourage motorists to take alternative routes, is causing absolute mayhem in local communities and towns throughout my constituency, including Abergele, Old Colwyn and Colwyn Bay. We've had children not able to go to school on time, we've had people not able to get to work on time, we've got tourists who are having a very poor visitor experience of north Wales as a result of these roadworks, and I'm very concerned that it's damaging now the reputation of north Wales and our economy. So, can we have a statement on what the Welsh Government is going to do to make sure that it plans these things better in the future so that we don't have the sort of disruption that we've been experiencing?

I thank Darren Millar for raising this issue this afternoon. As he recognises, the work that is being carried out on the A55 is very much being done in order to ensure the safety of that stretch of road, but clearly any disruption to people's lives is concerning. So, I will ask in the first instance Welsh Government officials to investigate the situation with a view to providing some advice as to how we can best avoid that kind of situation in future.

I'd like to add my name to the growing number of people who are calling for a summit on adult social care services on a national basis, into the provision of care for older people. I'd also like to see a moratorium in the interim on the closure of further facilities, because many local authorities have closed or are closing their day and residential care centres, and spaces are being lost everywhere. On the other end of the age spectrum there's a shortage of care places for younger people, and private care homes that prioritise profit seek to take advantage of this situation. We need good-quality, publicly provided care for older people, disabled people and looked-after children. At present, privatisation is happening by stealth. Can we have a Government debate and a response to this request for a summit and a moratorium as soon as possible, please?

The Government is well aware of the long-running campaign to reopen the Rhondda tunnel as a walking and cycling route. Its potential to attract tourism, facilitate active travel and to encourage physical activity is massive. That's why it's such an integral part of this policy document that I produced in conjunction with Sustrans this month. The main stumbling block to opening that tunnel comes from the question of its ownership. It's currently owned by the English Department for Transport and managed by Highways England—a bizarre anomaly that really should have been corrected by now. Until the ownership question is resolved, efforts to raise money for the project and take it to the next stage are hampered, thus endangering its chances of success. The project is also hampered by not being designated as part of an active travel route.

I have to declare an interest as a member of the Rhondda Tunnel Society, and, like my party colleague Bethan Jenkins AM and your party colleague David Rees AM, I've been working closely with the Rhondda Tunnel Society to bring this project to fruition. I first raised the issue of ownership with the Welsh Government more than three years ago, and we haven't moved on a great deal since then. So, can we have a statement explaining how the Welsh Government can help this project and resolve the ownership question? Guarantees could be put in place for the Welsh Government to avoid financial liability. The question now is: is the political will there?

Thank you for raising those two issues. I know the Minister with responsibility for social care is here in the Chamber to hear your request for a statement and a view on the proposals for a summit. I know that she'll give that due consideration.

With regard to the Rhondda tunnel, I think it's a tremendously exciting proposal. Clearly, there are issues in terms of the ownership and how any work would be funded in future—something that Welsh Government's very much alive to. I had a discussion only today with the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport about this, and I know that he's engaging with Sustrans as well to ask them to do a piece of work to explore how we can move this forward, because I think that we all share the enthusiasm and the understanding of what could be achieved.

Minister, can I add my voice to the last question by Leanne Wood in relation to the Rhondda Tunnel Society and the Rhondda tunnel ownership? I won't go any further because you've already answered the question, but I do put my voice to that call.

Can I ask for three statements, if possible? The first one is on the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008. Now, earlier this year Neath Port Talbot council actually put proposals forward that would have increased charges upon post-16 education travel for those going to Welsh-medium education, going to faith schools, and also in the additional learning needs areas. There is an opportunity here now—and I welcome the decision of the council to actually defer any decision on this for the local people—to look at the learner travel Measure as to whether we can actually look to amend the learner travel Measure to ensure that post-16 education becomes part of the travel requirements, to ensure that these people can go to schools or places of education without the extra charges that are being considered by local authorities. Will you, therefore, ask for a statement from the Minister for Economy and Transport, who I believe has responsibility for that area, to look at whether we can review the learner travel Measure to see what updates could be put into place, what amendments could be put into place, to ensure that those children can get the free transport to school, as it happens in the future?

Can I also look at a question in education as well—the supply teacher frameworks? I understand new frameworks are now in place. Well, I have seen e-mails from one of the agencies that has benefited from those frameworks, indicating that they are slightly encouraging schools to go off-framework, to encourage them to take people out of the frameworks and therefore pay them lower rates than they would be entitled to. That’s from an agency that’s been given permission in the frameworks and actually has a position on all 22 across Wales. We need to look at the monitoring of the supply teacher frameworks to ensure that teachers are not being abused by this system and that agencies are not taking an option to try and encourage schools to avoid and circumvent the actual requirements, to ensure that teachers get a decent wage and the decent conditions that they deserve as a supply teacher. And, therefore, can we have a statement from the Minister for Education as to what is being done about that framework?

Finally, it’s been mentioned by Rhun ap Iorwerth in his question to the First Minister this afternoon on free swimming. We had a written statement, and I thank the Deputy Minister for the written statement last week, giving us some indication as to what’s happening. But we need to ask questions in relation to the free swimming concessions and the changes that are being applied, because, if you look at it, they are actually not huge figures we’re talking about, but this is actually crucial to many constituents of mine, and they have written to me in quite large numbers saying, 'Why are we doing this?' We need, therefore, to be able to ask the Deputy Minister questions about the concessions, as to how we can move forward. It’s not just a matter of free swimming for everybody; this gives them opportunities, it takes them out of their homes, it gives them social interaction, it improves their health, and every opportunity like that is crucial to ensure our people over 60 are able to be active participants in our society. And this decision actually is going to remove that from some. I would therefore like an oral statement so that we can ask the questions specifically on the free swimming concession changes.

I thank Dai Rees for raising those issues. I know that you have also written directly to the Minister for Economy and Transport outlining your support for the Rhondda tunnel proposal and your concerns about the ownership, and so on. I can say that, as you’re probably aware, Welsh Government has funded work on a high-level business case for the project as well as providing subsequent funding to undertake an ecological assessment, a bats survey, a tapping survey to assess the condition of the tunnel, and also work to improve access to the tunnel for the survey work to be undertaken. So, I think that we can demonstrate our clear support for the proposals, although those issues of ownership and how the project could be funded are yet unresolved.

In terms of the learner travel Measure and your concerns about how that impacts on the ability of those learners over the age of 16 to get to their learning environment, and I think particularly those who are disabled are of concern to you, I will ask the transport Minister to write to you with an update on that, but also to take into consideration the case that you’ve made this afternoon.FootnoteLink

On supply teacher agencies, I can say that officials in the education directorate have worked closely with the National Procurement Service to address and incorporate a number of additional requirements in the framework contract specification to support supply teachers’ pay and working conditions and our fair work and social partnership principles. But, on the particular issue that you raised, the NPS has issued contract guidance to all of the appointed agencies, requiring them to report situations of non-compliance so that they’re able to have as much information as possible regarding the framework's uptake and effectiveness, and if a framework agency is consistently attempting to subvert the framework rules and, I think, the spirit of those rules as well, the NPS will take action.

And in terms of when the earliest opportunity would be to question the Minister on the issue of free swimming, I know that there is a question to the Deputy Minister tomorrow afternoon.

Trefnydd, I'd like to ask you for a couple of statements, if I may. First of all, could we have a statement from the Minister for Economy and Transport relating to public transport particularly in south-east Wales? I've received correspondence from constituents about difficulties in commuting from Monmouthshire to Newport and Cardiff—the city region area—and the frequency of those services. I myself drove to the Assembly today. If I hadn't driven, then I could have got the bus and the train here, but I wouldn't have been able to get back after 5 o'clock because there's no linking bus service after 5.30 p.m. from Newport or 5.45 p.m. from Abergavenny to Raglan. Sorry to bore you with my domestic issues, but that's an issue that affects all sorts of people commuting down to Cardiff. I appreciate that the metro is looking at this. Perhaps, as I've raised with the Minister in the past, the possibility of a metro hub at the new convention centre at the Celtic Manor could alleviate that. So, if there have been any discussions in that area, that would be interesting to hear.

Secondly, Members may be aware that there's been an issue in the United States, which is currently in the process of banning most flavoured e-cigarettes. Hundreds of people are suffering from a mysterious lung illness. I know that vaping products in America are different to the vaping products here—the nicotine is much stronger, the other chemicals in them are stronger—but nonetheless, there's an issue there and some of my constituents have been asking me what my opinion is. I'm not an expert on vaping, but I wonder whether we could have an update on the guidance of the Welsh Government in the light of those concerns.

And finally, it was the Usk Show recently—a very well attended event—and farmers there raised the issue of bovine TB with me and are concerned about recent increases in that disease. If we could have an update from the Welsh Government on efforts taken to tackle the disease, both in livestock but also in the animal reservoir.

And very finally, Llywydd—you've indulged me—yesterday was United Nations world ozone day, which I Facebooked and tweeted about. It's the thirty-second anniversary of the Montreal protocol that banned ozone-destroying CFC chemicals from aerosols and fridges and other utensils and household appliances. That was an enormous success. It was a positive that showed that when the world community gets together they can tackle really big environmental issues and it can be done in a way that here we are, 30 years on, and not only is the ozone hole in Antarctica now repairing itself, but it's estimated by 2060 it will be completely healed. That's brilliant news. Hopefully, your climate change emergency and that of local authorities in Wales will be able to deal with the issue of global warming and in the future we'll look back and say that was a similar success.

Thank you very much to Nick Ramsay for raising those issues. The first related to public transport in south-east Wales and your interest in a hub at the Celtic Manor at the new convention centre, and also ensuring that public transport is at a convenient time for people to be able to get both to and from work. I'll ask the Minister for transport to provide you with an update on the latest work regarding the south Wales metro and also thoughts in terms of public transport more widely and more imminently in the area. 

In terms of e-cigarettes, I know that reports from the United States of the cluster of serious pulmonary disease amongst people who use e-cigarettes are very concerning. However, I think that it's fair to say at the moment the exact cause of the disease is unknown. But we're very clear in Welsh Government that e-cigarettes shouldn't be used by non-smokers, they should not be used by young people. At the same time, we recognise some people have found them to be helpful in terms of helping them stop smoking, but we're very clear that evidence of the longer term health affects of e-cigarette use is currently very limited. We are working with partners across Wales to develop a shared consensus about e-cigarettes that is evidence based and I'm sure that we'll have more to say on that in due course, but in the meantime we'd certainly encourage anyone who wants to quit smoking to call our free national helpline, Help Me Quit, on 0800 085 2219. We also have our helpmequit.wales website, which you can also visit as well, should anybody be interested. 

In terms of bovine TB, I know the Minister for environment and rural affairs does provide regular updates to the Assembly on that issue and I know that she'll seek to provide a further update as and when she's able to.

And I share your enthusiasm for UN world ozone day and it certainly is an example of the power that can be drawn upon when countries work together for an important reason.

Before the summer recess, there was a commitment from you, and I quote, that

'there'll be a debate on 'Designed to Smile: 10 years of improving children's oral health in Wales' on the first day back in September'.

Well, today is that first day back and there is no debate. I know that the health committee is to bring a debate forward at the beginning of next month, but the Government has already rejected their recommendations for providing more funding for dental services, which makes no sense whatsoever to me.

It is critical. At the moment, only 15 per cent of surgeries in Wales are taking adult patients through the NHS and only 27 per cent take children. There are no dental practitioners in Arfon taking new patients on the NHS, and that includes children.

The Government here needs to face this reality, but at the moment you’re not even willing to hold a debate on the matter. So, may I ask for a debate and update as a matter of urgency, and an explanation of what the steps that you will take are and how you’re going to tackle this crisis across Wales, including in Arfon?

Unfortunately, we did have to move the item, as I illustrated at the start of the business statement today—the item on oral health amongst children—to a written statement, and that was to accommodate the statement that I'll be making this afternoon on the impacts for us of the spending round and, obviously, the statement that the Minister will be making on Brexit.

I understand, probably as much as or more than most people, the huge pressures that there are in order to accommodate all of the requests that we receive in the business statement. I often receive four requests from a single individual during a business statement. Clearly, on a normal business day, we would only have four debates or statements. So, we do our best to accommodate Members as much as possible.

On this occasion, we have, unfortunately, had to turn that proposed statement into a written statement, but the Minister has been here to hear your comments and I know that he will be keen to provide an update on dental issues in an appropriate way as soon as possible.

Could the Minister make a statement on the problems encountered by my constituents with regard to the obligatory application to renew their bus pass, which has to be completed by the end of December? Apparently, there has been a complete shutdown of the site where they could complete the application online, and the telephone service has also crashed. Surely, the volumes of applications should have been anticipated and the structures put in place to cope with the high volume of demand. A fundamental question has to be asked: why was the operation necessary in the first place? All of the necessary information would already be held by the local authorities, so the information could surely have been gleaned from these sources. It would only have been necessary for those whose details have changed to reapply. Surely, this is just another example of taxpayers' money being wasted, not to mention the anxiety caused to so many people who rely on their bus pass to move around.

Transport for Wales is managing the issue of the new-style concessionary travel cards across Wales on behalf of the Welsh Government and the 22 local authorities. The scheme is still owned by the local councils. The new-style cards will offer the same free travel rights and benefits as the current card, and the new-style cards are required because the current bus passes won't be recognised on electronic readers on buses after 31 December this year. The new cards, crucially, are also designed to work as part of an integrated travel network in the future. It's true to say that Transport for Wales has experienced an exceptionally high volume of hits to their new concessionary travel card site since its launch on 11 September. I've had, as many Members will, many members of the public contact me about this. Transport for Wales has taken down the new website to boost the capacity to better manage the traffic, and I understand that it will be back in operation today. But, really, the message to current cardholders is that there really is plenty of time to apply for those new cards. Their cards will be accepted right through until 31 December 2019, so we do encourage applicants to visit the website in the coming days, once demand has reduced.

I would like to ask for a Government statement on the role of planning inspectors and the rules under which they work. It is well known that I do not believe that there is a role for planning inspectors overruling democratic decisions made by council planning committees, as opposed to the ombudsman and judicial review for all other decisions made by councils. I do not understand why inspectors ignore supplementary planning guidance that has been approved by the Welsh Government. Perhaps the statement could explain why both local and nationally agreed policy can be ignored by planning inspectors.  

Thank you, Mike. I think in the first instance it might be helpful if I liaise with my colleague Julie James to offer a technical briefing from the appropriate officers within planning in order to have that opportunity to ask the detailed questions that you have. 

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip about the Welsh Government action plan to advance equality for transgender people published three years ago, in 2016? The Assembly will be aware that the equality impact assessments are a process designed to ensure that a policy, project and scheme does not discriminate against any disadvantaged or vulnerable person or people in our society. However, in response to a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request for a copy of the assessment relating to this action plan, the Welsh Government replied that they do not hold the required information. When pressed for further comments, the response received was—and the quote is, Minister—

'I understand that at the time of the development of the action plan an equality impact assessment was undertaken, to be updated throughout the consultation process.'

The quote continues:

'We have undertaken a thorough search, unfortunately, it appears that this document has since been deleted from our electronic record system and is not available to access.'

Minister, can we have a statement from the Deputy Minister on this unsatisfactory situation, and what action she intends to take to review the plan to ensure it meets its objective of advancing equality for transgender people in Wales, please? 

Thank you, Mohammad Asghar. Of course, the Deputy Minister is here to hear your comments, but clearly it is a matter of regret that the equality impact assessment relating to the 2016 action plan to advance the equality of transgender people cannot be located. However, it is important to note that the action plan focused on training, support and awareness raising, and challenging transphobic attitudes, rather than being operational guidance. Safeguarding is paramount, and all organisations are bound by relevant and appropriate safeguarding procedures. But I know that the Deputy Minister has heard your concern on this issue. 

On the first Saturday of this month, thousands gathered in Penderyn Square in Merthyr for a march for independence. However, many were unable to attend due to the lack of sufficient capacity on train services to Merthyr. Many trains were packed to the brim, with some trains bypassing some stations altogether due to the carriages being full from Cardiff Central. It simply isn't good enough to have a small number of carriages on days when major events are taking place, and this wasn't a one-off. When rugby internationals are held in Cardiff, there are often similar issues. What message are we sending to the world about Wales when we can't provide train services to an acceptable standard? I accept that improvements take time, but we are well over a year into the new contract, and it seems that although there have been improvements on some services, some are still Arriva trains in all but name. Will the Welsh Government provide a statement on what it will be doing in partnership with Transport for Wales to ensure there is sufficient capacity in future for major events of this sort that have been publicised well in advance?   

The Minister for Economy and Transport will be making a statement on a railway for Wales in Plenary next Tuesday, so this would be a good opportunity to hear from him on those concerns. 

Trefnydd, I would like to request an update from the Welsh Government on job losses that have been announced by BSW Sawmills Ltd of Newbridge-on-Wye in Powys. I received correspondence on this matter and it does say that there'll be a total of 33 redundancies, and 11 of those are people who are employed on a temporary basis. I know that this figure doesn't seem really high for some people in this Chamber, but for an area of Powys where there are very few jobs that are well paid, this is a very high number, 33 redundancies. So, I'm keen to know what discussions Welsh Government have had with the sawmills on this particular matter, and what assistance might or is being given to those impacted by this news. Constituents are concerned that further job losses may be announced in the very near future.

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for raising this issue. She's quite right that 33 job losses in a fairly small community can have a huge impact on that community and the life of that community. I'll ask the Minister for Economy and Transport to provide you with an update on the discussions that Welsh Government has had and any support that can be given to the affected workers.

Can I call for two statements? Firstly, on drugs, related to drug poisoning in Wales. This follows the publication during the Assembly summer recess of Office for National Statistics figures showing deaths related to drug poisoning in England and Wales 2018. These revealed that Wales has the second-highest figures amongst 10 areas—nine English regions and Wales. Wales had both the second biggest increase in its rate over the last 10 years, an 84 per cent increase, and the second-highest age-standardised mortality rate for deaths per million related to drugs misuse by country and region registered in 2018. Given that the Welsh Government has been responsible for tackling substance misuse policy in Wales for two decades now, Llywydd, this merits a statement and I hope this might be forthcoming.

Secondly, and finally, I call for a statement on funding for a social enterprise accelerator in north Wales. For the past five years work involving Bangor University and colleagues in Wales and Ireland has been ongoing to develop a social enterprise accelerator. They've been told several times over the last two years that €3.4 million of INTERREG funding has been ring-fenced for their project. However, repeated delays from the Welsh European Funding Office, part of the Welsh Government, have now led to a situation where the ring-fenced funding could possibly be returned to Europe unspent. They say that if WEFO had decided there were better projects to fund, that would be understood, but the social enterprise accelerator has already had its initial application and its stage 1 business plan approved, but the process of approving the project has taken so long that it looks like they could now run out of time when there were times when they were waiting three months even to receive a response to correspondence. They say that if nothing can be done the unacceptable delays from WEFO will have cost the economies of north and west Wales over £1.7 million in funding when a similar project in the south-west of England has already delivered over £16 million of economic value and supported the creation of over 1,000 jobs. So, will you provide a statement noting that they've said to me that if we're not too late, they'd be grateful if you could see whether anything can still be done to ensure the project proposal is assessed in time to secure this ring-fenced funding?

Thank you very much for raising those issues. The Minister for Health and Social Services is currently consulting on the next substance misuse delivery plan, so I think that would be an opportunity for Mark Isherwood to explore that plan to ensure that he's satisfied that it addresses the kind of issues that he described relating to drug poisoning. So, any contribution that he would have to that consultation, I know, would be welcomed, and then the Minister will obviously update the Assembly on the issue when the consultation has closed.

Regarding the social enterprise accelerator, I'll certainly look into that matter myself and then try to get to the bottom of what the delay is.

I'd like to ask for an update on what's happened in terms of the discussions between the Welsh Government and Ineos on the potential for the creation of 500 jobs when Ford—. Well, Ford have said that they are to leave the Bridgend site. If that does happen, we're given to understand from the Financial Times that Jim Ratcliffe is interested in that site. I have to say that I do have some reservations in that regard in terms of his track record on workers' rights, but according to that article, there have been discussions and I would like a statement from you as Government to inform us as Members—not just Members representing that area, but each and every one of us—so that we know what the state of those negotiations is.

The second request for a statement is—and I'm pleased the health Minister is here to hear me because I'm getting increasingly frustrated—about the fact that we are having no progress at all on the announcement as to what is happening with the eating disorders framework. I've been pretty tolerant, I think, in trying to wait for the outcome of the framework, but I've come to the point now where I've had to write an open letter to the Minister because he hasn't answered a letter that I wrote to him in July, with campaigners, with sufferers, who took part in good faith as part of that eating disorders framework review, who want to see positive changes, who want to work with the Minister, but are deeply frustrated at feeling ignored by him and his team. Please, I do not want to stand up here week in, week out asking for a statement on this. These are people's lives, people who have suffered eating disorders all their lives. Please, please act.

With regard to your interest in Ineos—and I'm aware of the FT article as well—I know that when there is an announcement to be made, the economy and transport Minister will make that announcement.

With regard to the eating disorders framework, I'm advised by the health Minister that he will be making a public statement in the coming weeks.

First, I'd just like to associate myself with the concerns expressed by Nick Ramsay on e-vaping. It's interesting to note that Peter Black, who opposed the legislation on e-vaping that was presented by the then health Minister, now First Minister, to give it the same regulatory controls as smoking cigarettes—. So I'd be keen to understand clearly why the regulations in the UK protect us from the serious risks that have occurred in the United States. I think that's the specific thing that I'd like to see. Is it that regulation is better in the UK, and specifically in Wales, to ensure that we're not getting the deaths that have been associated with vaping in the United States, and people becoming seriously ill who were otherwise healthy in every respect?

Secondly, I want to highlight the fact that Cardiff University recently secured £3.6 million in European funds for its electron microscope facility to develop cutting-edge research in catalysis, which will speed up cleaner, cheaper, safer ways of manufacturing goods, and entirely relevant to John Griffiths's points made in the First Minister's questions about electrical steel. This is exactly the sort of research we need, and I want to contrast that opportunity for developing safer, more sustainable, greener manufacturing in Wales, which we are getting as a result of that EU grant, with the alarm being expressed by university vice-chancellors. Four in five university vice-chancellors are having to worry about where they're going to source their toilet paper or how they're going to feed their students who are in residential halls were there to be a 'no deal' Brexit. In Cardiff, in particular, over 700 staff are EU citizens, and how are they going to be replaced? They are engaging in really important research, so it'd be really useful to have a statement from the Government about the impact of 'no deal' on our university sector, not just Cardiff University.

And lastly a specific question about the 'no deal' preparations the Government is making in relation to our clean water because, from the Welsh Government statement, I understand that there are chemicals that are sourced from Europe that help to keep our water clean. So, I'd like to know the specifics on what are these chemicals, why it's not possible for us to produce them in the UK, and how, under these very catastrophic circumstances, we are going to maintain a clean water supply for our citizens. Because that, ultimately, is the most important thing that we have to do.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for raising the issue and for associating herself with Nick Ramsay's comments on e-cigarettes and the concern about what we've seen in the United States. We are working with partners to agree a common position, based on the best and most recent evidence. And, obviously, I think the Welsh Government will be keen to share that common position when we have arrived at it.

There's a statement from the Minister for Brexit later on this afternoon—I think it's the next item of business—so that would be an opportune moment to ask some of the questions you've just raised in the most recent contribution. But I think the way you've described our membership of the European Union—the support we've had for innovation and for safe, sustainable manufacturing and the exciting potential future there—and then contrast that with the concerns that you've described about the things that university vice-chancellors are having to concern themselves with and spend their time on, that really does demonstrate the kind of impact that Brexit will have on us and what we would be losing were we to leave the European Union.

On the issue of water, you'll be aware that Welsh Government did produce the action plan identifying the strategic risks that we're aware of and setting out what we are doing in those areas, and I can confirm that Dŵr Cymru is working with the Government and the wider water industry to ensure a continuous high-quality supply of drinking water in all eventualities.

I'm looking at the Government's statement on making the fight against knife crime an absolute Government priority. I attended a very well-attended vigil in Cardiff recently with lots of parents and lots of young people, and it was an education to listen, especially to the young people talking about how they are affected by knife crime. I'm wondering whether or not Government Ministers or officials will sit down and meet with campaigners to discuss ways of taking action in the future, because this needs to be an absolute priority.

Thank you for raising this really important issue of the fight against knife crime. I know it's something that the police and crime commissioner has also taken a particular interest in—the south Wales police and crime commissioner who covers your area. I'll ask Ministers what might be the best and most appropriate way forward in terms of engaging with the interested parties on the fight against knife crime.

Can I request a Government statement on the role that sport plays in dealing with mental health? Last week marked World Suicide Prevention Day and I was very proud to lead an awareness-raising campaign—a successful campaign—with Cardiff City Football Club, Swansea City Association Football Club, Wrexham AFC, Newport County AFC and the Offside Trust charity. Unfortunately, we all know that by the end of a Premier League match on a Sunday, 84 men will have committed suicide that week. Now, to me and many others in this Chamber, those statistics are shocking and clearly unacceptable.

Many of us also know, those who struggle with mental health, that quite often it's our thoughts that cause more pain than any object, so I would like to thank, and for the Trefnydd to thank as well, any of those who joined in different campaigns on that day and do so on a daily basis. I certainly know the pain I felt during that day and during the run-up to that and even now as I stand here in the Chamber.

We need to recognise that mental health and suicide are actually now a national crisis. I've heard some say, Llywydd, 'When does the support end?' Well, let me be clear in this Chamber: to me, the support doesn't end. The support that we show people never should end, because we are talking about people's lives and the lives of their families and friends. My message to people out there in Wales today and across the UK is if you are worried about a friend or a family member, reach out. If you are struggling yourself, don't be afraid, there is support out there. So, let's work together for better mental health and suicide prevention, and that's as a Government, as Assembly Members, as friends, as family, but just basically as human beings.

Thank you, Jack, for raising that and I think that you've said that much more eloquently than I could, but I would certainly pay tribute to everything that you've said and give our backing, as Welsh Government, to the concern that you have for this issue and share your gratitude and your thanks to everybody who does provide that listening ear to people who are in those very dark situations.

We are currently consulting on the mental health delivery plan and I was quite taken by your suggestion at the start that we need to ensure that sport and that area is made the most of in terms of supporting mental health as well. So, I think we'll be checking that the mental health delivery plan does have those synergies across to sport in the ways that we already know it has across to things like substance misuse and homelessness. So I think that's a really important point that we'll take forward.

I wonder if you could let me know, Trefnydd, whether Welsh Government is planning a debate or statement on the skills needs of Wales any time soon. There's a report to be launched next week by ColegauCymru called 'Building a better Wales—lessons from Europe', which is about the future skills needs of Wales, that explores the connection between higher level skills and regional economic resilience. It's based on evidence and interviews across six countries in Europe, and also here in Wales itself. And this research aims to contribute to Welsh Government policy and the conversation that takes place in Wales around skills needs. It's made possible, the report, by European Union funding, and it includes a number of key recommendations, including that a broader range of business organisations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, should be involved more closely and effectively in deciding what future skills should be provided, and how we could have effective mechanisms to achieve that. And it also calls for a review of post-16 skills training in Wales, to provide longer term funding arrangements that support collaboration, and that there should be longer term planning and succession planning in terms of future skills needs on a more effective basis.

This will be the subject matter of the next cross-party group on further education and future skills meeting, which takes place next week, and it would be good if as many AMs as possible could get along to engage in that. But, essentially, Trefnydd, I think that with Brexit still a real possibility and the economic shocks that could bring, we really need to concentrate our minds on the future skills needs of Wales and make sure that we provide them as effectively as possible.

Thank you, John Griffiths, for highlighting that report. As you'll be aware, the First Minister has asked every member of the Cabinet to take responsibility for one of the cross-cutting areas of Government, to ensure that we are maximising all of the work that we do across different departments. I was given the role of taking on the employability and skills agenda as part of that cross-cutting work, so I'll certainly be really interested in receiving a copy of ColegauCymru's report to help inform our thinking as we develop that, and I'll explore as well what might be the best way to update on the work being done on skills. 

Thank you to the Trefnydd.

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government on improving security of tenure. And I call on the Minister to make her statement—Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This statement provides an update on the Government’s proposals for extending the minimum notice period for no-fault evictions under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. The consultation closed earlier this month and the responses are currently being considered, and I will, of course, update Members further in due course. Ahead of that, I want to make clear what is being proposed. Our approach is to amend the 2016 Act in order to deliver on the commitment to improve security of tenure in the private rented sector, and for the amended Act to then be implemented before the end of the current Assembly term.

The consultation proposed tripling, from two months to six months, the notice that a landlord must give when seeking to end a standard occupation contract under section 173 of the Act. This would apply in those cases where a landlord does not have to provide a reason for ending the contract. The consultation also proposed restricting the issue of a section 173 notice until six months after the occupation date of the contract. The Act currently sets this at four months. Taken together, the effect of these two key features would be that contract holders would enjoy 12, instead of six, months' initial security of tenure, subject to compliance with the terms of their contract. I appreciate that some Members may feel this falls short of a ban on so called no-fault evictions, but I want to stress that the dual impact of implementing the renting homes Act and seeking to extend the notice period for section 173 possessions will deliver substantial benefits to contract holders. Improving the security of tenure is our aim, and I firmly believe that is what these proposals deliver and that contract holders in Wales will not be short-changed compared to their counterparts in other parts of the UK.

In Scotland currently, and under the proposals being consulted on for England, there are grounds where tenants who are not at fault can still be evicted with only two months’ notice, such as when the landlord wishes to sell the property or move into it themselves. Under our proposals, in all circumstances, other than when the landlord is seeking possession for a specified breach of the contract, the tenant or contract holder will be entitled to a minimum notice period of six months.

Ultimately, I consider the length of time that someone has to find a new home is more critical than whether or not the landlord has a reason to seek possession. Therefore, under our proposals, even where a landlord intends to sell the property or live in it themselves, contract holders will have much more time to make the necessary arrangements for themselves or their dependants, such as their child’s school or for those they care for, and to find a property more suited to their needs. It would also give those who are able to do so more time to save, and those who are less able more time to engage the necessary support and assistance.

I have also considered how best to maximize improvements to the private rented sector at the earliest opportunity. It is my view that, to do this, we need to ensure the many benefits of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act are implemented without further delay. I'm sure I need not remind Members that, since the legislation was passed, we have been held back on implementing it due to the need for court systems to be changed. Having now reached a solution, I am keen to press ahead with full implementation by the end of the current Assembly term. I will shortly be writing to every Member, reminding them of the positive changes for every tenant in Wales as a result of this Act, but I want to set out some of the main ones now.

The Act will improve security by replacing the current complex areas of housing law with a fairer and simpler legal framework. It will also require landlords to issue a written statement of their occupation contract, which clearly sets out the rights and responsibilities of landlords and those renting from them. The Act will also provide other benefits, such as setting out the landlord’s obligation to ensure the dwelling is fit for human habitation. Here, regulations can be used to prescribe specific matters and circumstances to which regard must be had, for example including requirements for electrical safety testing, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors. These are provisions that will make it easier for a contract holder’s dependants or relatives to succeed to a—there are provisions; excuse me, Deputy Presiding Officer, I've got my tongue in a twist. There are provisions also that will make it easier for a contract holder’s dependants or relatives to succeed to a contract. Those in supported accommodation will also, for the first time, have a clearly defined set of terms underpinning their occupation, helping them to understand and enforce their rights. To help ensure abandoned properties are re-let as quickly as possible, the Act also specifies a new procedure for the possession of abandoned dwellings.

There are, therefore, two strands to our plans to improve security before the end of the Assembly term: to implement the renting homes Act and to provide further protections for contract holders when subject to a section 173 notice, which is the matter upon which we have just consulted.

Returning to that consultation, I am pleased to say that over 850 people or organisations responded. Responses were weighted heavily on the side of the landlords and agents, which is understandable, given the direct link we have to them through Rent Smart Wales. But whilst we did receive some responses directly from individual tenants, we are aware that organisations such as Shelter Cymru ran their own consultations to formulate their response as well. I'm not surprised by this level of interest because how a landlord can seek possession, and the impact any resulting eviction can have on tenants, has always been an issue that generates strong feelings. I'm therefore pleased by the level of response, and officials have been meeting with key stakeholders to gather further views that can be considered alongside the analysis of consultation responses.

Ahead of that consideration of the responses, there are two important things to remember. Firstly, whilst it is not my intention to remove section 173 entirely, the changes being proposed, if implemented, would remove the incentives for landlords to use it in the same way that they use section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 now. I expect this to significantly limit the circumstances in which it can be used. This is because the changes would mean that, if tenants pay their rent on time, look after the property and are not breaching any terms of their tenancy agreement, then they will have significantly increased security of tenure—twice as much, in fact, as there would be 12 months’ security at the outset rather than six. They will also no longer have the constant worry of potentially needing to move with only two months’ notice.

The second important thing to remember is that landlords will retain their ability to seek possession where there is a breach of the contract, including in the case of rent arrears or anti-social behaviour. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act already contains the necessary provisions, and the consultation did not propose extending notice periods in these circumstances.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we've already done a lot to ensure the private rented sector is well regulated and able to offer high-quality homes to those who choose to rent. But there is more that can, and should, be done. That is why we are committed to providing greater security for tenants, and I believe that my proposals do just that. Should they be enacted, their impact will be kept under review so that we can identify the impacts of the policy on the rental market, whether it has improved security for contract holders and whether further change is needed. Diolch.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement on this important area of public policy? I'd just like to ask, as the Minister said responses are now being considered, quite how firm is your policy, because I think what you've just outlined seemed to be a very clear path that you want to take. So, I would like to know how contingent it is, and how those consultations may now alter your views, if at all. I think we all agree that the system needs to be fair to both tenants and landlords. It is an area that requires reform and the UK Government is itself consulting on housing policy in this area for England, and that consultation, as you may know, closes on 12 October. I do think it may be wise to pay some regard to that consultation exercise, and indeed for them to do likewise to ours, as what is proposed in England differs a fair bit, but is, in other ways, related also in terms of the policy objective.

The Minister is not in favour of the proposal in England to allow eviction at two months' notice to permit sale or residential use by the landlord, and the Minister I think cogently argued that a reasonable period was required for a tenant to find a new home, and that, to her, is uppermost, and I don't disagree with that. However, as the Minister rather tangentially acknowledged, otherwise in England no-fault evictions will end, and that's a big difference between what you're proposing and what will happen in England. Instead, in England, during the contract period, landlords would have to rely on provisions permitting eviction where contracts have been broken, and it is the UK Government's suggestion that the court system be speeded up to ensure such redress is effective, and I think that does indicate a balance between the interests of tenants and those of landlords.

So, my question is: why does the Welsh Government not favour the approach that seems to be taken in England, which is to end no-fault evictions? And what regard will she give to the consultations in England and perhaps review her primary decision not to follow up a similar path and just say, 'This type of eviction will no longer be permitted in law'?

Well, I'm delighted to hear David Melding saying that he broadly is in line with the direction of travel. Obviously, we will be looking carefully to see what the responses say. I have had a brief overview of the responses, and they are largely what we expected, because we're in pretty constant touch with the sector anyway. But, of course, we will be looking at the policy in the light of those responses. I just wanted to remind Members what the consultation was based on.

In terms of taking into account the English consultation, we will, of course, be looking at that, but, however, our renting homes Act substantially changes the landscape in Wales, very substantially away from the Housing Act as it is in England. And what they've done in England is they've taken an approach that outlines a whole series of routes to possession, but it doesn't actually end no-fault evictions. There are circumstances in England in which no-fault evictions will still be allowed. Yes, and they are where a landlord seeks possession for their own use or for the use of their family, which is to sell. So, those routes remain open here. What they haven't done in England is that they haven't got the provisions that our renting homes Act has in place to prevent thing like retaliatory evictions and so on. So, I'm very confident that the combination of our renting homes Act and our extension of the time period actually gives us increased protection here in Wales.

And the language of the sector is around abolishing no-fault evictions, but, actually, when you speak to the sector—Shelter and Crisis and so on—they acknowledge that it's not possible to always do that, because, of course, the landlord who would otherwise find themselves homeless would have the right under human rights legislation, amongst others, to possession of their own house if they were themselves to be homeless. And I think it would not be very—well, it would not be possible to have legislation that prevented you from ever getting that property back. Rather, we talk about it in terms of increased security of tenure for renting in the private sector. There are, of course, a whole series of other things that we can do for homes that are socially rented, which I will come on to in a further statement, in due course, in the Assembly.

I'd like to say I'm surprised by this watered-down policy, but I'm not. It follows a well-trodden path in which a Labour Government hints at the delivery of a progressive policy, only to lose the courage of its convictions and instead roll out something that's unsatisfactory and diluted. I may not be surprised, but that's not to say that I'm not disappointed—disappointed for the many thousands of people in Wales that are living under the threat of a no-fault eviction. These are the very people that would have benefited from this Labour Government remaining steadfast in the face of strong lobbying and delivering what was needed. On that point, is it really fair and equitable that there are two professional lobbying bodies for landlords, and just one person working unpaid to represent Generation Rent? How does the Welsh Government intend to address this and create a level playing field?

What impact could a no-fault evictions policy have in this country? We know from figures provided by Shelter Cymru that at least 42 per cent of private tenants in Wales do not have a fixed-term tenancy agreement. This means that they risk eviction if they get on the wrong side of their landlord, often for something as innocuous as asking for a repair to be carried out. We also know that the status quo is more difficult for women, because, according to research from Shelter Cymru, women are more likely to be asked for sex for rent.

I spent some time with homeless people earlier this year when I joined some Plaid Cymru members who volunteer to go out on the streets of Swansea every week to give out warm food and clothing. One woman, who had been living on the streets for some time, spoke about the hardship of sleeping rough and how, in Swansea, the police and the council seem to crack down on rough-sleeping whenever they were due to hold a major event. People are regularly arrested under the Vagrancy Act 1824. That young woman asked me a simple, but profound question: how can it be legal to make someone homeless, but illegal for someone to be homeless? That is a perverse situation, and your proposals will not solve this problem.

Ending no-fault eviction is an important tool in tackling the shocking levels of homelessness we are now seeing, and I believe that this is a golden opportunity to deliver something positive and effective, and it's an opportunity that has now been missed. Will the Minister agree to monitor the situation, and, if it's found that the Government's measures do not impact sufficiently on the no-fault evictions rate, will you agree to revisit this with a view to ending no-fault evictions once and for all?

Well, I'm sorry that Leanne Wood has chosen to politicise it in quite the way that she has, because I think there's a fair amount of consensus across the Chamber about what we're trying to do here in Wales. She listed a number of issues, having made the political points that she chose to make, none of which are actually affected by the circumstances we're talking about here.

She talked about the scourge of homelessness, with which I entirely agree, but she hadn't spotted in my statement, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I point out that our renting homes Act makes it much easier for people in domestic abuse situations where they are not the listed tenant to stay on in their tenancy, for example. So, there are a number of things that the renting homes Act does that alleviate some of the circumstances that she talked about, none of which are related to no-fault evictions.

In fact, it's not possible to completely eliminate no-fault evictions unless you say that a landlord that's rented their house, even if they need it themselves because they're homeless, cannot get possession of it, and those are not circumstances in which any jurisdiction in the UK, who are actually subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, would be able to do.

So, what we're talking about is increased security of tenure for people. Once we've implemented these provisions, subject to the consultation—I know already from the general consultation responses that people are not objecting to the length of time that we're putting in place—you will basically have much more security of tenure here in Wales than you will have anywhere else in the UK.

So, I will be writing to all Assembly Members, Deputy Presiding Officer, just reminding ourselves quite what a radical Act we passed back in 2016. I think some time has passed since we implemented it, and so we've forgotten quite how radical we were. But the landscape for tenants in Wales will change completely when the Act is implemented, and I'm delighted that we can now implement it before the end of this Assembly term.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm keen to understand why you decided to retain section 173 in its revised form when landlords still have section 21 to call on when they need to get rid of tenants who are destroying their property. That's No. 1, and then, secondly, because like others, I want an end to no-fault evictions, because, otherwise, private tenancies are simply not a viable alternative for families with children who can then have their children forcibly removed from the school where they're flourishing, and that obviously has a huge impact on their education. Secondly, I just wondered if you could elaborate on the solution that's now been reached with the courts to enable us to implement the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, because this, I agree, has been a bugbear for some time when we've been discussing further Acts, because the Act has not been in place. So, I'd be very keen to find that out.

So, on that last one, there were severe difficulties with the court's IT system, which we've been discussing with them. The proposal across England and Wales is that the whole of the IT system will be renewed. It was due to be renewed 'within two years' about three years ago, and we were waiting on that renewal. But we've decided not to wait and to actually implement the IT changes at our own expense ourselves in advance of the whole court system being changed, as I think it seems pretty clear that it's going to take a lot longer than was originally planned, for a variety of reasons that I won't rehearse.

In terms of the section 21 and section 173 issue, it's important to remember that, once we have implemented the Renting Homes (Wales) Act, the Housing Act will no longer be in force in Wales, so section 21 will no longer be in force in Wales. So, it replaces in its entirety the Housing Act. So, we'll only have section 173, and that will limit the grounds of no-fault eviction to pretty narrow grounds. We have provisions in the Renting Homes (Wales) Act to prevent retaliatory evictions, so, if you've asked for a property to be improved and then the landlord suddenly discovers they want to sell the house, the court will be able to take that into account. Rent Smart Wales will also be able to take it into account in considering whether a landlord is a fit-and-proper person, and we intend to monitor that.

Forgive me, Deputy Presiding Officer—I didn't answer Leanne Wood's last question, which I intended to do, which is of course we will be monitoring it. We very much want this to work, and so I said in my statement that we will be carefully monitoring the changes, and, if they are not effective in the way we think they will be, then of course we will be looking to see what else we can do to strengthen it. So, I just want to make that point as well.

Bear in mind we've also passed the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, so you can no longer charge a whole series of arbitrary fees for, first of all, getting into your home, and then for doing a whole series of other things that we've rehearsed. We also have—. The new renting homes Bill, when it's implemented, will change the—a shorthold assured tenancy, for example, will change to a minimum period of 12 months.

At this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I just correct the record? I said in response to a question from Michelle Brown on 17 July 2019 that the proposal, if implemented, would give a two-year security of tenure—I misspoke; it's actually a one-year security of tenure, so I just wanted to correct that—and a minimum notice period of six months; you cannot implement this within the first six months of any tenancy. So, I just wanted to correct the record there, because it has been drawn to my attention that I inadvertently said two years instead of one. But this will mean that people have the longest notice period of any jurisdiction in the UK, and, as I repeatedly say, you cannot eliminate them completely, because the vast majority of landlords in Wales only own one other property, and frequently it's when two people have got together and made a couple and they rent out the other home, and, if they split back up again, you cannot expect the person who has the house to be homeless because they've rented it out.

What we don't want is for renting properties to become prohibitive for landlords and so we just dry the market up. So, you have a human right to possess your own home if you need it for yourself. So, we would not be able to do that. So, the sector will tell you that it's a handy moniker, 'end no-fault evictions', but it's not possible to do that in its entirety, and what we're seeking to do here is to do as much as you absolutely can to provide the security of tenure that people need. So, you will not get retaliatory evictions, you'll be able to ask for repairs, you'll be able to get them done, you will not be subject to a two-month notice period if the landlord decides to sell, you will have at least six months—and, if you're a new tenant, longer than that, because you can't do it in the first six months—to find a new home, because I totally accept the point you made about children's schooling and care arrangements and all the rest of it. So, what we're trying to do is give people security, but also enough time to plan if they do find themselves in those circumstances.

Then conversely, Deputy Presiding Officer, I just want to make this point as well, just from the landlord's point of view, of course if the tenant breaches their contract then all of the usual possession routes are still open to them. So, if you have a tenant that's actually behaving very poorly, then all the usual possession routes are open.

As we all know, there's been a substantial increase in the number of people in private rented accommodation as the number of council houses has decreased, and many of those houses that would have been available for first-time buyers have been bought up by private landlords and now privately rented. So, this is a lose-lose situation. Whilst I welcome the tripling of the two months' to six months’ notice a landlord needs to give, and that a six months' tenancy must be completed—that’s certainly moving in the right direction—the effect on children’s education and family life of having to move after a year is serious.

I still support the ending of no-fault evictions. I’m disappointed with the decision not to end it. I’ve heard what the Minister has said. I still don’t understand why you couldn’t say, 'There would be no-fault evictions, but you have to do—it's six months, and then six months if you wish to move back into it yourself', rather than having it as it is now that they can give six months’ notice after six months for any reason that they care to have.

On a positive point, I'm very pleased to see action being taken over empty, abandoned houses. None of us have been out campaigning in the streets without wandering past houses with notices in 'If you don’t come back in 14 days' because they’ve obviously been abandoned. If you could explain exactly how you’re going to bring abandoned houses back into use more quickly, because not only do abandoned houses affect the landlord, they affect all those people living in the area who get serious problems from having an abandoned house next to them, and there are occasions when abandoned houses are taken over by gangs of youths and others who break in because the abandoned house has not been properly protected.

On the six months and six months, how is the Welsh Government going to ensure that landlords actually do that, that they actually follow the rules, and what will happen to landlords who don’t follow the rules?

I'll start in reverse order again. We will ensure it because of course we have Rent Smart Wales. So, in Wales, you also have to be a registered landlord. So, we have a much more regulated sector than we have elsewhere in the United Kingdom. So, it's, first of all, important to remember that. If you breach these rules—. So, the rented homes Act says that you have to give a written contract to your tenant. So, if don’t do that, and the tenant complains that you haven’t done that, you will have breached the Rent Smart Wales rules. So, you’ll not be a fit-and-proper landlord. So, there are lots of double-backs on this.

You will not be able to do retaliatory evictions. So, if your tenant is asking you to mend the gas, for example, and you decide that you need to sell the house instead, you’ll not be allowed to do that, because that will be considered to be retaliatory, for a period of time—obviously not for ever and ever, but for a period of time that couldn’t be considered to be retaliatory. So, there will be a number of protections that the Act itself does, not just this change, and I think that’s why Assembly Members are struggling with it a little bit—and I had to be reminded as well; I think we’ve all forgotten quite how radical our 2016 Act actually is and the changes that it makes.

In terms of abandoned properties, there are two types of abandoned properties. There are lots of owner-occupied or owner-unoccupied abandoned properties that my colleague Lee Waters has been actively seeking to put grants arrangements in place for, with my collaboration, in order to give people up to £20,000 to bring those back into beneficial use, with the proviso that you have to live in it yourself for five years following the grant. But there is the other problem where you’ve rented out your house and the tenant has abandoned it, but you have to go through quite a long process to prove that, and what the Act does is it truncates that process very severely. So, if you can prove the property is abandoned, you can get an almost immediate possession order for it, and that way we’ll get the house back into tenants’ use.

And the third thing we're doing, which this gives me the opportunity to highlight, is that we’re offering to private landlords in the private rented sector that, if they give their home over to us and allow us to rent it for social rent, then we will guarantee them the local housing rate for that house for the five-year period that we’re proposing to do that. In that way we’re hoping to get more landlords to come on board as being prepared to rent their house and give tenants in the sector all of the additional protections that a tenancy in the social rented sector also gives.

I must declare an interest at this point, as I am a landlord of a couple of rented properties in the private rented sector. Tenants have always had a secured tenancy agreement with myself, and rent charged has always been charged under what the property is valued at. If they have an issue, they ring the agent in charge, and the work is done immediately. So, I too believe that we should ensure security of tenure, but that it should go both ways—security for the tenant and security for the landlord. The one will not survive without the other. These proposals will further erode the rights of private landlords. I have already had a number of concerned owners of rental properties telling me that they are selling up and moving out of the private rental market. So, at a time when we are crying out for homes, the last thing we should be doing is deterring those who rent out their properties.

I have lost thousands of pounds due to bad tenants, and you would be hard pressed to find a landlord who has not, at some time or other, been in the same boat. But many, like me, believe recent changes make it untenable to continue renting out their properties and have decided to sell up. These proposals add insult to injury. Landlords who find it financially untenable to continue renting out their properties will be forced to wait even longer before they can ask their tenants to leave. This could place many landlords in greater debt. I believe this will put off future landlords, people considering renting out a second property until such time as they decide to sell. This is an important part of the private rented sector and we should be encouraging more people to do this if we are to address our housing crisis—and we do have a housing crisis.

So, Minister, you state that you will be making it easier for a contract holder's dependents or relatives to succeed a contract. Can you please expand upon that? Do you not believe that it should be up to the landlord whether or not to offer that contract? Many of the landlords who have contacted me are concerned that the Welsh Government would like to do away with private landlords. I would ask you if you could please answer those claims. Finally, Minister, if we are to tackle our housing crisis, we do need more private landlords, not fewer. How will your Government protect the rights of property owners who seek to rent out their properties in the short term? Thank you.

Well, I think we have a fundamental political disagreement about the role of the private rented sector just to start off. I think the solution to the housing crisis—for a crisis it is—is to build a lot more homes for social rent. That is a much better way of doing it, it's a much more secure route of doing it, and it provides people with the housing option that they actually want. So, we have a pretty fundamental disagreement. 

But, turning to the very specific things, I also think that—and it's usually women who are in this position—if you've been a 'tenant' in a house where you're not the named person on the tenancy and you find that your partner decides to end that tenancy, rendering you homeless, you should have rights, depending on how long you've stayed in that house and so on, and what you can show around it being your home. That's even more important where there's a domestic violence situation. So, you would not want a situation to continue where a woman in private rented accommodation whose name is not on the tenancy agreement cannot complain about domestic violence because in doing so she renders herself homeless. So, I think we at least across the Chamber will have an agreement that that should not be allowed. 

Similarly, where a carer has spent 20-odd years in a property and is not on the tenancy, or a child of that tenant has done that, they should not necessarily be evicted from their home for no reason other than the fact that they were omitted from the original tenancy agreement. So, the renting homes Act provides for that. This is not the change that I'm consulting on. We've already done that in the renting homes Act. I'm just reminding Members, and I will be writing to all of you reminding you of what we passed, and I think you'll be pleased when you see how radical it was. 

In terms of what you said about yourself and your landlord practices, I think that's the case for 98 per cent of the landlords in Wales. Most of our landlords are good landlords. What we have to do here is prevent the rogue landlords from giving the sector a bad name. So, a landlord who behaves themselves in the manner that you've just described will have nothing to fear from this Act or any of the other Acts that we've passed. Only those landlords who seek to do things like retaliatory evictions, have properties that are not fit for human habitation, or seek to manipulate the market in a way—so, for example, they seek possession of their house solely for the purposes of putting the rents up—will have problems with this. Because you cannot do it in the first six months of a tenancy, and then you need to give six months. So, everybody will have a minimum of 12. Then after that you've got a rolling six months. If you've got somebody willing to rent the house for slightly more, they're not still going to be there six months later.

So, we expect this to make a significant difference to those kinds of evictions. We also expect the Act in itself to make a significant difference, because what it will do is it will reward the good landlords. You're absolutely right in identifying that we need the good landlords to stay in the market. It will discourage yet more of the rogue landlords that we seek to have out of the sector—that's the truth.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister.

Item 5, which was a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on Designed to Smile: 10 years of improving children's oral health in Wales, has been issued as a written statement.

Therefore, we move to item 6, which is a statement by the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd on the implications for Wales of the UK Government's 2019 spending round. I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. I am today providing Members with a further statement on the UK Government’s spending round, the implications for Wales and the actions that we as a Government are taking to respond to the UK Government’s unpredictable approach to public finances. On 4 September, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the UK Government’s spending round, setting out its spending plans for 2020-21. Immediately following the Chancellor’s spending round, I provided Members with a written statement during recess outlining an initial response to the key headlines for Wales.

The Chancellor’s announcement was against a backdrop of escalating Brexit uncertainty and evidence of the UK potentially entering another period of recession. In the fortnight since the spending round, we have seen further chaos, uncertainty and mixed messages from the UK Government. The range of scenarios we are now needing to consider include the prospect of publishing our draft budget in a pre-election period. The Chancellor’s announcement provided, for the first time, details of our revenue budget for 2020-21, which will increase by £593 million above the 2019-20 baseline. This represents an increase of 2.3 per cent in real terms. The spending round also includes an increase of £18 million to our capital budget, which had already been set for 2020-21. Our capital budget will be 2.4 per cent higher in real terms than in 2019-20.

On the basis of the Chancellor’s announcement, the Welsh Government’s budget in 2020-21 will still be 2 per cent, or £300 million, lower in real terms than in 2010-11. The additional funding does not even return our spending power to the levels of a decade ago. We have consistently called for the end of the UK Government’s austerity policy and for increased investment in our vital public services. While the Chancellor’s announcement indicates some signs of loosening the purse strings in the short term, it does not make up for nearly a decade of cuts, nor does it come close to providing the sustainable long-term basis on which to plan our public services.

We remain unclear about the UK Government’s plans for an autumn budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility has informed the UK Parliament’s Treasury Committee that it has not been engaged to produce an updated forecast and would normally require 10 weeks’ notice. The UK Government is acting irresponsibly by publishing spending plans at this time based on forecasts from March, which assumed a relatively benign Brexit, and a previous administration’s fiscal policy. Since March, official data has shown that the UK economy contracted in the second quarter and the latest survey data indicates that it remains weak. A smaller economy means lower tax revenues and makes it likely that the UK Government will quickly revert to a policy of austerity.

Indeed, if the Office for Budget Responsibility had produced the timely economic and fiscal forecasts that normally underlie such a statement, the headroom that the Chancellor has exploited may well have proved to be illusory. The spending announcements will add further to borrowing, and the OBR has since stated that the Government’s own fiscal rules and a key Conservative manifesto pledge to deliver balanced budgets by the mid-2020s may well be off course, only adding to the high probability that another round of austerity will be likely in the near future.

We can have no confidence that these spending announcements will be sustainable. We certainly can't rely on the claimed long-term settlements for the NHS and for schools in England and any potential consequential that they might deliver, because the funding implications for these settlements beyond 2020-21 will actually be determined as part of the next comprehensive spending review. The reality is that the Chancellor’s announcement is a pre-election distraction from the UK Government’s management of an increasingly chaotic Brexit.

The Chancellor announced a further £2 billion in 2020-21 for Brexit delivery. We've been clear that the support to address even a proportion of the impact of Brexit cannot be delivered without a much more significant increase in public spending. We will require substantial additional funding and flexibilities to be able to respond meaningfully to the challenge of Brexit, and I pressed this point to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at a meeting of the finance Ministers’ quadrilateral at the end of August. The answers we've received from the UK Government to date provide no assurance that the funding we would require would be forthcoming.

It is clear that the Prime Minister is prepared to take the UK over the 'no deal' cliff edge. This would have a catastrophic impact on Wales. All the evidence shows that leaving the UK without a deal will produce a severe economic slowdown in the UK and that a prolonged recession is likely. In those circumstances, we know that the economy in Wales is likely to be around 10 per cent smaller in the long term, and this would be reflected in real incomes that, in today’s terms, would be up to £2,000 lower per person than otherwise.

I am deeply concerned that with exit day looming large, the Chancellor was silent on replacement EU funding to support our communities and businesses in Wales. He was unable to provide any kind of assurance that the UK Government will keep the promises of the Prime Minister that we will not receive a penny less than we would have expected within the EU, and that in accordance with the long-standing devolution settlements, we must have autonomy to develop and deliver successor arrangements for EU funding programmes. These are principles which have the full backing of this Assembly.

Despite these changes and unprecedented uncertainty, I am more determined than ever to look positively to the future and support our public services in Wales as best we can. I am now proposing to bring forward our plans and publish the Welsh Government budget earlier—to November—to provide as much certainty as possible to our partners and stakeholders. I am liaising with the business and finance committees to seek their support for this change. I welcome the support that committees have already offered and I hope that these new arrangements will be acceptable.

The Welsh Government budget will be based on the needs of the people of Wales, and we will aim to deliver the fairest possible settlement for Welsh public services. This consistent commitment is borne out by the fact that health and social services spending in Wales continues to be significantly higher than in England, and cuts to local authorities in England have been twice as deep as in Wales.

The Welsh Government has made it very clear that health will continue to be our priority, along with providing local government with the best possible settlement. We remain determined to maximise the impact of the resources we have. In my July statement on the future of public spending, I outlined that our budget preparations have been shaped by our eight priority areas of early years, social care, housing, skills and employability, better mental health, decarbonisation, poverty and biodiversity.

We recognise that these eight areas are the ones that have the greatest potential contribution to make to long-term prosperity and well-being. They reflect the times in people’s lives when they may be most in need of support, and when the right help can have a dramatic effect on their life course. They are priority areas where it has been shown that early intervention—tackling the root causes, rather than treating symptoms—pays dividends. If we are to realise the full potential of the well‑being of future generations Act, then integration and collaboration between activities and services, with an early intervention and people-centred approach, is essential to delivering long-term outcomes.

Our budget will be focused on the areas where we can have the greatest impact over the long term, and will be at the heart of the way Wales will respond to the challenges presented by this spending round.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement today and for the Welsh Government's proposed response to the 2019 spending round? I have to say, having listened to yourself, the Minister, and also the First Minister earlier, there's certainly an air of pessimism, I think, surrounding the speech writing and question writing in the Welsh Government today. Much of what you said I don't think we would disagree with and I don't think a lot of people in Wales would disagree with. We know full well that the last decade has involved cutbacks at the UK level that have fed through to the Welsh Government level. It's not often spoken about any more why we have those cuts, but of course it wasn't due to the Labour Party in this Chamber—it was due to profligate spending by the Labour Party up until 2010 in Westminster, and borrowing as well. So, anyway, that is for another debate, but I think people do sometimes need to be reminded.

You spoke about the uncertainty of Brexit. Of course, all debates have the Brexit angle at the moment, and, again, you are right to say that there are big uncertainties over Brexit and how we're going to exit the European Union and when, but that still leaves you with considerable ability yourself as a Welsh Government to manoeuvre and to plan and to make proposals for spending here that can improve the lives of the people of Wales and that is what we are here for.

Factually, you've stated the good news: the revenue budget will increase by just short of £600 million or 2.3 per cent in real terms above the 2019-20 baseline. And then there's also to be welcomed the £18 million increase in the capital budget, at 2.4 per cent higher in real terms. And the key wording in both of those instances is 'real'. So, these are real-terms increases, a fact that you accept. So, leaving aside the situation a few years ago, we have to recognise—the Welsh Government has to recognise—that this spending review does deliver more money, more real money for Wales over and above what we had before. And you take that in conjunction with the fiscal framework—which is a very good deal, negotiated between members of the Welsh Government and the UK Government, a great example of partnership working there—if you take it in conjunction with that, then over the last year Wales has actually seen a really good improvement in the formula with regard to the changes to the formula that happened and funding increases that mean that Wales can be—can be—in a much better place if the Welsh Government invest the money wisely.

Now, Minister, as I said, the First Minister was rather pessimistic when he said that a lot of these increases hadn't been signed off. Can you tell us what discussions you've had with the UK Government and with the Treasury in terms of these funding commitments? Do you share the First Minister's pessimism that, actually, a lot of this money is words and we're not going to see it here, or are you confident that this money, which you've announced in your statement is coming to Wales, will actually come to Wales? Because that is certainly what we have been promised and what we need to see here. You said that Wales shouldn't be a penny worse off from Brexit, something that was promised to us all back in the referendum campaign, and I think we would all in this Chamber want to agree with that. I certainly would.

You've, indeed, called for an end to austerity for a very long time: I can commend you on that, Minister. You have not veered from that message for as long as I've been questioning you, and, indeed, in your previous roles. We all want to see an end to that, and, as you said, the belt is now slackening. A corner has been turned. So, this should definitely be welcomed. And I'm sure that this hasn't made up for several years of cutbacks made necessary by people in another place, but we are turning that corner. So, what plans do you have for this new money? When will we see the detail of that? The Welsh Government has autonomy to spend it as it wishes aside from the well-known capital and revenue distinctions, which I'm sure Mike Hedges will go into—I can see him writing furiously over there. So, we need to know what the priorities of the Welsh Government will be.

You've mentioned the health service. There is a significant amount of money that the UK Government has promised to the English health service. Can you give a commitment that that money will feed through the system and will help deal with some of the pressures that the Welsh health budget has been under pressure from? It's been crying out to you to help with.

You mentioned education spending. As we know, school funding in Wales has not kept pace with inflation over recent years. Between 2010 and 2019, gross budgeted expenditure rose by 4.4 per cent, but that was actually a 7.9 per cent decrease in real terms. Back to that important word: real. So, what are you doing to arrest this? What are you doing to make sure that over this year and the years to come that that will be altered and that the funding gap, that all-important funding gap between pupils in England and Wales, can be addressed and dealt with? I know statistics aren't the be-all and end-all. I'm sure the education Minister would remind me of that if she was speaking in this statement, and I accept that. But, nonetheless, there is a recognised funding gap there, which I'd like you to address.

We had the customary Brexit cliff-edge discussion. I think my views are quite well-known as I certainly think that we should leave with a deal. I think that that is in the best interests of Wales. I do not want to see the effects on the Welsh economy if we do have a 'no deal' Brexit, and I'm sure that the Minister would agree with that. I think it's a shame that in Westminster, when it was discussed and there was a vote taken on it, that, actually, a lot of Labour Party MPs—not Assembly Members, but MPs—didn't vote for a deal, so we're in the rather upsetting situation that we are at the moment. But I agree with you that I would like to see us leave with an all-important deal.

In terms of the budget, can I welcome the move to bring the Welsh Government budget earlier to November, I think you said? That is certainly to be welcomed. You said you're going to hold discussions with the Finance Committee and with other committees. If you could have those discussions as quickly as possible and set the wheels in motion. We're already in September, so I appreciate the time for these budget lines is often very constrained and, in this case, this will be even tighter, but I think there is merit in us having those discussions as early as possible so we all know where we are and that we can get on with the job of putting that money into public services in Wales where it belongs.

I thank Nick Ramsay for his contribution. Very interesting, the rewriting of history at the very start, confirming, in his view, that it was profligate spending rather than a global economic downturn that affected the economy in the UK, but we'll put that to one side and consider the other questions that were asked.

The first was what kind of engagement we've had with the UK Government in terms of the spending round. So, we had a finance Ministers' quadrilateral at the end of August, where we sought some information. Nothing was forthcoming there, I have to say, but I did push the point, which Nick Ramsay also mentioned, which was that the 'leave' campaign and members of the Conservative Government have been very clear that Wales would not be a penny worse off as a result of Brexit. I made the point that we need to ensure that that promise is honoured, but I was deeply concerned that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury actually said, 'Well, that was a promise of the "leave" campaign; it's not a Conservative Government's promise.' But then the Prime Minister was leading the 'leave' campaign, so I think that we should be holding him to account for that promise. On the day of the spending round, I did have a brief conversation, again, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which is traditional, so that he can inform us of the allocations in advance of any formal statement.

Nick Ramsay accuses myself and the First Minister of being a little downbeat in terms of our approach to this, but I think we have every right to be because, as we've recognised on a like-for-like basis, our budget in 2021 will still be 2 per cent lower, or £3 million lower in real terms, than a decade before. And had the Welsh Government's budget grown in line with the economy since 2010-11, it would be £4 billion pounds higher in 2021. Imagine what we could do with that. And had the Welsh Government's budget grown in line with the long-run trend in public expenditure, it would be £6 billion higher in 2020-21. So, I think that is really, really stark in terms of what we could be achieving and the additional money we could be putting into our myriad challenges and our priorities that we have here in Wales.

We had been promised a comprehensive spending review at the previous finance Ministers' quadrilateral, but unfortunately, that didn't materialise. That's disappointing for several reasons, but one of which is that we really are sympathetic to the calls from our public sector partners who want to be able to budget over a longer period to support their forward financial planning. But this fast-tracked one-year spending round doesn't allow us to give our colleagues in local government and other services the opportunity to do that. And, as I've said, we've got no confidence that this particular spending round will be sustainable, that the announcements that have been made will necessarily materialise, because the First Minister's quite right that any funding will have to be voted through the finance Act in the UK Parliament and, as we can see, the UK Parliament is currently not sitting.

In terms of Nick Ramsay welcoming the fact that we intend to bring the budget forward, as I say, I've already written to the Finance Committee and the Business Committee. We had a conversation about it in the Business Committee this morning and I know the Finance Committee intend to address this issue in their meeting on Thursday. So, I hope that we'll be able to make announcements as soon as possible. But the work on the budget has been going on, really, since—last March I think I first started having conversations with colleagues. We agree our overall strategy in Cabinet in early spring every year, and then a series of bilaterals occur between myself and other Ministers—and we're going through another round of those now—identifying priorities, opportunities and pressures and so on, and those will inform the budget, as will the series of visits that I undertook over the summer and the series of other meetings that I have planned with interested parties in the coming weeks.

I think the budgetary context is changing so much and the chaos that we face is intensifying to such an extent that it’s very difficult to come to any definite conclusions on what the likely impact of the Chancellor’s statement would be. We can't say what the value of the additional £593 million would be, and I use the word 'additional' in quotation marks. It’s very difficult to say what the additional costs will be as a result of the Brexit chaos. We know that billions of pounds in addition have been provided by the UK Government in preparation for Brexit—oh, the irony—but we don't really know what the costs of responding to Brexit will be from the Welsh Government’s coffers. There will be costs, inevitably, of course.

We can't say what the impact on taxation revenue will be. Every piece of evidence suggests that the impact will be negative. The economy could shrink by 10 per cent. And, even if that happens only over a brief period of time, the impact of that would be very detrimental indeed and it would have an impact on the public purse. But also bear in mind that there has been no statement made by Boris Johnson's Government on the shared prosperity fund and, without additional funding to replace European funding if we leave the European Union, then we will lose out by hundreds of millions of pounds from the very outset. So that’s the background. We can't measure the value of this money.

A few questions from me. This was a one-year statement, not a three-year statement. Can you tell us if there is an intention at this particular point to provide more funding into reserves? Because of uncertainties at quite a fundamental level from 2021-22 forward, we will have to prepare for that uncertainty. I also welcome, as a member of the Business Committee and the Finance Committee, as it happens, the intention to bring the budget statements forward. The more time we have to scrutinise those and to go out and discuss them with stakeholders, then all the better, of course.

But may I ask for an assurance, soon, that a decade of cuts to local government funding specifically must come to an end? We must see real increases in budgets now. A flat settlement for next year isn't going to be acceptable. In Ynys Môn, for example, I was discussing with council officials just this week and we will need something in the region of £6 million just to stand still. That is the reality of the situation. And yes, Ynys Môn council had to make the difficult decision to increase council tax by up to 10 per cent last year. They cannot think about increasing it by the same amount next year. That wouldn't be sustainable for my constituents, so that option has gone out of the window. So a flat settlement cannot be sold as good news for next year; we must see a real increase in those budgets.

And with those few questions, for the time being, I will leave it there.

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for raising those issues. The first was to recognise that the UK Government had announced a further £2 billion in 2021 to respond to the likely effects of leaving the EU, but I think it's really important to recognise there that, based on what the Chancellor has said, it's likely that Wales won't see—or certainly Welsh Government won't see—much of that funding, because it very much focused on reserved areas of policy. So, we don't have any expectation that that will reach Wales, and obviously that's of deep concern to us. I completely share the concerns that with fewer than 60 days to go until exit day, the Chancellor was completely silent on the issue of replacement funding to support our communities and businesses in Wales. We still have nothing in terms of a future shared prosperity fund. We understand that there is a paper, but I'm starting to wonder if that paper even exists and if the work has been done on it, because it has been promised so many times and hasn't been forthcoming.

So, additional funding will be necessary, and as Rhun ap Iorwerth recognises, it is quite hard to quantify how much funding will be needed, because there are so many things to take into consideration and so many different forms that Brexit might yet take, although we understand what the most likely scenarios will be. So, we are pressing the UK Government to provide further funding to mitigate the impacts of 'no deal', and, again, this is something that we pressed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the finance quadrilateral at the end of August.

I think that it's important also to recognise that, alongside additional funding, we're also seeking new flexibilities to respond to a 'no deal' Brexit and to help us manage that transition through the period of the HMT guarantee. So, for example, that might include increasing the annual and aggregate limits on drawing on the Welsh reserve and so on. So, there are different considerations and different conversations that we are trying to have with UK Government there.

Rhun also pointed out that we've been given a one-year settlement rather than a three-year settlement. And as well as making it difficult for us to plan ahead, there are some quite practical considerations as well. So, when the UK Government is determining the allocation for Welsh Government, there would normally, in the cycle of a comprehensive spending review, be a full review of the comparability factors in the Barnett formula prior to that spending review, and that would set out the proportion of each UK Government departmental budget that is spent on programmes that are not devolved. Recent budgetary information is then used to ensure that those proportions are up to date and reflect the latest UK departmental arrangements. But, unfortunately, in this case, there hasn't been the time or the work gone in to develop those and to refine those comparability factors, and so there's only been a really partial review of those, which means that the Barnett formula is not using the most up-to-date information to apportion spending to devolved administrations. So, that's another reason why a one-year review is completely unsatisfactory, as compared to a more comprehensive three-year statement.

The question was also asked about what consideration will be given to the Welsh reserve. Well, this will be part of the overall discussions that we have in Government. And I share Rhun ap Iorwerth's admiration for local government. I think they've made heroic efforts to keep local services going in very, very difficult times, and we appreciate the huge pressure that local government is under. So, in our early discussions, and as I said in my statement, we've been keen that health remains a priority, but, at the same time, giving local government the best possible settlement is very much at the heart of our considerations.

First of all, I'd like to thank the Minister for her statement. Secondly, I would like to thank the Chancellor, Sajid Javid, for confirming what I've been saying since being elected in 2011: austerity is a political not an economic policy. The national debt has gone up from £1.78 trillion to £1.82 trillion in the last year, so it's not that we've got less debt as a country. And I don't believe that too many teachers, too many librarians and too many doctors caused the recession. I believe it was caused by bankers engaging in casino capitalism.

The UK Government have still not engaged the OBR on preparations for an autumn budget, despite the memorandum of understanding stipulation that they ought to provide the office with 10 weeks' notice. The letter from the OBR to the UK Government makes clear that the OBR would need to know which Brexit scenario their update should be based on: deal or no deal—it sounds like a television programme—before explaining that late notice means Her Majesty's Treasury relying on a rough-and-ready forecast from the OBR or none whatsoever.

I will welcome the extra money; real-terms increases of 2.3 and 2.4 per cent in revenue and capital are obviously beneficial to the Welsh economy. It's very disappointing it was not a three-year settlement based on exactly the same 2.3 and 2.4 real-terms increases.

I have three questions for the Minister. We've seen what we've had from Westminster: has the Westminster Government shown the workings they used to calculate Wales's share and is an appeals mechanism, independent of the Treasury, in existence? We've talked about that for some time—the ability to appeal against what the Treasury said. We can't have the Treasury making a decision and, when you're not happy, the Treasury telling you, 'Well, we've now re-looked at it again and this is what you're getting.' And the last thing is—and this really follows on from what Rhun ap Iorwerth said, and people will know that I'm a great supporter of Welsh local government, no matter which party runs the council, or none at all—does the Minister accept the need for additional money for local government services such as social care and education? And if we're having a real-terms increase, why can't we say now that no local authorities will have a real-terms decrease?

I thank Mike Hedges for raising those points, and also for pointing out again that austerity is a political choice and nothing more than that. It's certainly not a necessity.

In terms of whether the UK Government share their workings out with us, well, that goes back to those comparability factors that the UK Government uses in order to work out our Barnett share for the various departments, but, as I say, they haven't been updated to reflect the most recent responsibilities of departments, which is hugely disappointing. That piece of work would normally take place over a number of months, with the UK Government and Welsh Government officials working closely together, but that hasn't taken place on this occasion. But there's another interesting point here, because our spending round settlement includes an adjustment for non-domestic rates income, and that's an accepted element of the Barnett formula designed to ensure that devolved administrations who retain their own NDR don't also benefit from increases in departmental expenditure limit spending in England financed from the English NDR. Without such an adjustment, obviously, devolved administrations would in effect be benefiting from both increases in their own NDR revenues and then also increases in English NDR revenues. However, the size of the adjustment in the spending round, which is almost £180 million, was certainly unexpected, I think, in terms of what Welsh Government officials had expected to be the case. So, we're in discussions with HM Treasury about that. And that adjustment largely accounts for why the growth in our Welsh allocation in 2020-1—so, the 2.3 per cent real-terms increase—is actually smaller than the increase in UK departments such as health and education, which are more than 3 per cent higher in real terms. So, there could be a case where we would want to challenge that, and the normal way we would do that would be to appeal via the Joint Ministerial Committee. Now, that is an entirely unsatisfactory way of dealing with disagreements between the UK Government and the devolved nations, so part of the inter-governmental relationship and the infrastructure that supports that in future has to include a more satisfactory way for devolved nations to raise their concerns, particularly when it relates to budget decisions and allocations.

I'm not in a position today to make any announcements because I don't think it would be fair to do so, because I haven't completed the latest round of budget bilaterals with colleagues. I've got lots of stakeholders yet to speak to. I've met several times with the future generations commissioner, but I'm also meeting the older people's commissioner, the Welsh Language Commissioner and others in order to discuss their views on the budget, as well as the Equality and Human Rights Commission. And over the summer I undertook a series of visits, which were really helpful. I visited schemes that fell, if you like, under each of the eight Welsh Government priority areas, to further my thinking, really, about what could be achieved, especially when we work in a cross-Government, collaborative way, bringing to life the future generations Act.

I've previously characterised some of the Minister for finance's contributions as a long whinge about austerity and sometimes about Brexit, and when I listened to the Chancellor's statement and heard not just the statement that austerity is over, but the significant increases in spending, and starting calculating what that would mean for what extra money will come to Wales, I thought, 'What on earth is Rebecca Evans going to say now?' I hoped we might hear more about your own responsibilities rather than the whinge about austerity, yet today we've just had more of the same. It's as if there hadn't been any change. Nowhere in your statement did you welcome these increases in spending. If you're so concerned about austerity, when the UK Government starts increasing spending, and increasing it significantly, why don't you welcome it? Everywhere in your statement we see the most pessimistic interpretation. Let me give you a couple of examples. Perhaps some of your backbenchers may be able to assist. You say:

'Since March official data has shown that the UK economy contracted in the second quarter and the latest survey data indicates that it remains weak.'

Why do you go on to the latest survey data? Why don’t you take account of the latest official data? We’ve had gross domestic product data for July that showed that just in one month, from June to July, GDP went up by 0.3 per cent. Unless it falls significantly in both August and September, we’ll see growth in the third quarter. Why didn’t you mention that?

You then go on to say:

'A smaller economy means lower tax revenues'.

Yet, it’s more complex than that. We a have a system that is progressive and not fully indexed, so even if the real economy doesn’t grow, inflation, with other things being equal, leads to some tax revenues over time. Much more significantly, you had to look not just at the overall growth rate, but at the mix of growth, because that makes a huge difference to how much we get in terms of tax revenue. I was concerned at the budget that we were six months on, yet there was no change in forecasts and apparently no consideration as to what the mix of growth was and the implications for tax. Does the Minister for Finance not understand that when we see growth, as we have recently, that is very focused on the consumer, we see a strong labour market in terms of employment and more recently wage growth—that leads through with a significant multiplier into increased tax take? Yet, where we’ve seen weakness in the economy—particularly in investments, to a degree in exports—those areas often subtract from tax take. If you export, you get a value added tax refund. If you invest, you get a capital allowance and spend less in corporation tax. Can the Minister think about the mix in tax and engage with the OBR on these issues, because she’s responsible herself for quite a lot of tax now?

Could I also draw her up on this remark:

'we know that the economy in Wales is likely to be around 10 per cent smaller'?

We don’t know. There was a forecast from civil servants in the Treasury—the same civil servants who gave us those forecasts that there would be an immediate recession if we voted to leave and there'd be an increase in unemployment within a year of over 0.5 million. It didn’t happen, did it? That Treasury forecast has been superseded by several forecasts from the Bank of England. When the Treasury came out with that forecast—10 per cent lower output—the Bank of England had a similar forecast. Yet they’ve since revised it twice. The first time down to 8 per cent, and then down to 5 per cent. Even their projections of a 5 per cent smaller economy relies on an assumption that the Bank of England respond to a ‘no deal’ Brexit by raising interest rates from 0.75 to 4.5 per cent. I don’t think anyone in the private sector considers that to be a realistic assumption, yet the Minister says ‘we know’.

Finally, you refer to eight priority areas and they include decarbonisation and biodiversity. You then say:

'We recognise these eight areas…reflect the times in people’s lives when they may be most in need of support'.

Can you explain how that applies to the priority areas of decarbonisation and biodiversity? Also, if, as you say, decarbonisation is such a priority, why did this Government halve its spending on climate change projects in its first supplementary budget?

Well, I very much enjoyed the fiscal and economic lecture from Mark Reckless and I’ll give him one back, because the UK economy has underperformed relative to all other major economies since the decision to call the EU referendum was announced in 2015. Since the referendum itself, GDP—and Mark Reckless wanted to talk about GDP—is estimated to be between 1 and 2 percentage points lower than would otherwise have been the case. And for illustrative purposes, that equates to between £300 and £600 per person each year in Wales. National income or GDP decreased by 0.2 per cent in the second quarter of this year. GDP per head decreased by 0.4 per cent. Business surveys suggest momentum has remained negative in the third quarter. If GDP contracts in the current quarter, the UK economy will be in recession. At best, mainstream forecasters expect the economy to grow at only a moderate pace over the next couple of years, even if the UK exits the EU in an orderly fashion.

Borrowing—and Mike Hedges referred to borrowing—has increased sharply in the first four months of the current financial year, running well ahead of the OBR’s forecast for the spring budget. The UK Government’s spending round will add further to borrowing, so that the UK Government’s fiscal rules on borrowing and debt may be breached, which means that there’s a high probability that another round of austerity will feature in the near future. The UK Government borrowed £24 billion in the most recent financial year, equivalent to 1.1 per cent of GDP. In the first four months of the current financial year, borrowing is up substantially compared to a year ago. The UK Government's policy on Brexit is trashing the economy. The latest survey data, as Mark Reckless said, is showing that the UK may already be in a recession. The survey data that's used is survey data from the purchasing managers' indices, which have generally got a good and reasonable record of anticipating official data. They indicate that the second quarter's growth rate could be flat or slightly negative, and much will depend on the outcomes for September, which will in turn be influenced by the extent to which businesses and consumers anticipate a 'no deal' Brexit, and, even if third quarter growth is positive, this may be driven by stock building in anticipation of Brexit. So, if this were to be the case, underlying growth could still be negative. So, I hope that that has helped clarify the situation and helped clarify the comments in my statement.

Can I thank you for your statement, Minister? It's clear that, even with the limited increase that we're seeing in this year's spending round, the impact of 10 years of austerity is not being adequately addressed and Wales still faces some very difficult financial situations in the years ahead. It was interesting to hear Nick Ramsay's comments to the First Minister earlier and in response to you, Minister, when even Nick had to recognise that we've had some cutbacks. I think you're starting to master the art of understatement now, Nick. [Laughter.]

But it's also clear from what—[Interruption.] It's also clear from what the former Tory Prime Minister David Cameron has written in his memoirs that he believes that his Government should actually have delivered bigger and faster cuts. He suggested that his Government should have gone harder on the deficit after he became PM in 2010. He said:

'My assessment now is that we probably didn't cut enough.'

And he goes on to say that:

'Those who were opposed to austerity were going to be opposed and pretty hysterically to whatever we did...we might as well well have ripped the plaster off with more cuts early on.'

Would you agree with me, finance Minister, that, in spite of what the Welsh Conservatives say today and the regular calls for Welsh Government to spend more, we now know that in reality they would have preferred to have made even deeper cuts to our budgets and that that should send a stark warning to the Welsh electorate, whenever that election comes, and, under them and their new-found friends in the Brexit Party, that we will not be seeing the desperately needed increases in local government and other front-line services? Would you also join me in condemning their arrogance in calling those of us who've opposed the damage caused by austerity as hysterical?

I absolutely agree, of course, with everything that Dawn Bowden has said and her complete disdain for the comments from former Prime Minister David Cameron that he should have made bigger and faster cuts. Those are exactly the kind of comments that we would imagine from somebody who has no idea of the impact that cuts have on ordinary people's lives, no idea of the impact that it has on the services and the hard-pressed local authorities, the health service and others, because people like David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and pretty much everybody at the higher echelons of the Brexit movement, are completely untouched by normal life. They're untouched by the message that they're putting forward, they're untouched by the implications of a 'no deal' Brexit. They'll be quite happy; they'll be rich whatever happens. But that isn't the case for our constituents and it's not the case for the vast majority of the people in Wales who are being and who will be badly hit by an irresponsible policy.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, an update on Brexit, and I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles, to make the statement. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. When this Assembly was recalled two weeks ago, the First Minister outlined the outrageous actions of the Prime Minister in gagging Parliament at a time of national crisis for the country. At the end of that debate, we sent a clear message to the UK Government that we would not stand by while decisions are taken that threaten our democracy.

When Parliament was prorogued last week, there were 52 days left to exit day. By the time MPs are due to return from their enforced suspension, there will be only 17 days to go. For three quarters of those precious 52 days, Parliament has been in lockdown.

It’s no good claiming that a recess for the party conferences was already pencilled in. That was a decision for Parliament to make and we know that in all likelihood the House of Commons would have voted to cancel or shorten it.

So, I welcome the decision by the Court of Session, which is, in fact, a superior court to the High Court in London, despite the comments of some Conservative MPs, which ruled that the act to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. We now await the final ruling from the Supreme Court.

In the precious time that Parliament sat after the summer recess, MPs from across political parties, including those on the Government benches who were prepared to put national interest ahead of the interests of the Conservative Party, united to bring forward legislation designed to stop a ‘no deal’ exit on 31 October.

As the law officer for the Welsh Government, I take my duty to ensure the rule of law is followed very seriously. This is a fundamental principle that all citizens of the UK, and, indeed, citizens of any mature democracy, rely on every single day.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we've used strong language in this Chamber in recent weeks, but I make no excuse for calling out the UK Government Ministers when they fail to commit that they will obey the law. It is utterly scandalous that the people of the UK cannot rely on the Prime Minister to follow the law of the UK.

Last week, at the JMC(EN), I challenged Michael Gove on this and he assured me that the Government would obey the law. But, at the same time, he continued to talk as if the UK would definitely have left the EU by 31 October. And we must remember that the UK alone does not decide whether this is the case; each of the 27 other EU member states wields a veto on an extension. What is clear, then, is that the risks of the UK crashing out on 31 October remain and we need to press on at pace with our 'no deal' planning.

Yesterday, we published the Welsh Government’s 'no deal' action plan. This echoes the sobering analysis of the risks that we face that the forced publication of the UK Government’s Yellowhammer assumptions revealed to the general public. We, as a Government, have been saying for months that the sort of consequences mentioned in those documents are a very real risk of a 'no deal' Brexit and completely unthinkable, which is why we have called for it to be ruled out. We have been clear that where we have the ability to take action to mitigate against the implications of 'no deal' we have done so.

Over the next few weeks, ministerial colleagues will update the Chamber on the preparations outlined in the action plan. The Welsh Government will also bring together stakeholders from across Wales to discuss the implications of 'no deal' on Wales and what more, if anything, we can do to limit the damage that would be done.

But let me be clear: the majority of the mitigations needed for a 'no deal' are out of our direct control—they're not even in the control of the UK Government. In the recent UK Cabinet sub-committee meetings that I and other Welsh Government Ministers have attended, the dire consequences of a 'no deal' exit continue to be laid out. It is extraordinary that the UK Government could contemplate such damage to the UK as a matter of political choice.

The people of Wales should not be fooled that a 'no deal' Brexit will be the end of three years of uncertainty. Instead, it will start a new chapter of immense turbulence. The economy will suffer significant economic pain, with a crash in the value of the pound and wider instability in the financial markets. This pain will be felt by every citizen in Wales and the UK.

All the evidence shows that this economic pain will be long-lasting and permanent. The economy will be smaller than it would otherwise have been, which will hit the income of every family in the UK. Moreover, even in the so-called clean break, the UK will have to negotiate a new relationship with our closest economic partners, and a crash-out Brexit will only make these negotiations more difficult.

UK-EU relations at the point of exit look set to become even more deeply acrimonious, with an entrenchment of positions, very little likelihood of a future deal in the near term, and the UK Government focusing on blaming the European Union. Add to that the threat that the UK Government will not honour the financial commitments in a 'no deal' exit, and it is clear that, even before negotiations begin, the UK will need to build new bridges and repair damaged relationships.

The reality is that the UK will be in constant negotiations with the EU forever if we leave. For this new relationship to get off on such a bad note is deeply worrying and damaging to our international reputation. The Prime Minister has been given clear instructions by Parliament. The process for avoiding a 'no deal' is set out in legislation. The steps are there to take. Yet we hear from the Prime Minister that it is his policy for the UK to leave on 31 October even if a deal cannot be agreed. If the Prime Minister was to disobey the instruction by Parliament, then this would be a decision that must have grave constitutional and legal implications.

A 'no deal' exit will be catastrophic and should be unthinkable. We remain committed to the alternative path. There is a brighter future for Wales, and that is to choose to remain in and help shape a reformed European Union.

If I could just remind the Minister today, in advance of thanking him for his statement, by the way, that there is an inconvenient truth that, for some reason, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru in this Chamber do not want to recognise, and that is that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. I know that you don't like that. The people in your own constituency voted to leave the European Union by a majority, and in many of your constituencies across Wales in those places where you're advocating to remain.

Now, you're doing everything you can to frustrate the will of the people. You just referred—you just referred to the Prime Minister getting clear instructions from Parliament. What about the clear instructions from the people of the United Kingdom and Wales that were given to Parliament? It's about time we had some respect for the decision and the will of the people, and implemented the Brexit that people voted for.

Now, I can see all the—I can see all of the attempt to create panic amongst the public through project fear mark 2, which you seem to have embarked upon. We saw the very thin document that was published this week in terms of the preparation of the Welsh Government, and the assumptions that the Welsh Government are working to. But, of course, we heard all of the same predictions before, and this is why people are not persuaded by the arguments that you're putting forward. We heard these predictions before about what would happen on day 1 if we voted to leave the European Union, and not one of them has materialised—not one of them has materialised. So, I'm afraid I find it very, very difficult to hear the same old arguments rehearsed again in this Chamber by the Welsh Government, and there appears to be an even more determined effort these days to abolish the will of the people and overturn that democratic mandate that everybody should be focusing on implementing.

We heard just today that Plaid Cymru have joined the Brexit extremists in the Liberal so-called Democrats in wanting to actually just completely scrap Brexit even without a referendum. That's bizarre. Your position is bizarre because you want to try to negotiate a deal and then encourage people to vote against it in a referendum. I really don't know why you don't think that that's an unusual thing to be criticised by the European Union for, which is why, of course, they have been criticising it. So, I find it difficult to listen to the crocodile tears around the Chamber when it's abundantly clear that people want to leave, people want us to get on with it, they're fed up of waiting around, and that's why I'm wholeheartedly behind the Prime Minister in seeking to implement this decision by 31 October.

Now, nobody—nobody in this Chamber is aiming for a 'no deal'. Everybody would rather have a deal, but we're only one side of the bargaining table. The other side of the bargaining table appear to be a bloc of nation states who are refusing to budge in their intransigence in terms of amending the withdrawal agreement. Now, you say that you want some continuity, you say that you want some reassurance, you say that you want the ability for people to continue to trade, and, of course, all of that was wrapped up in the withdrawal agreement, which you all voted down consistently. So, we're in a position where we have a Prime Minister who is trying to deliver on the will of Parliament in trying to secure changes to the withdrawal agreement, and he's made it clear that if he cannot get those changes agreed then he's determined to leave without a deal if necessary.

Now, can I ask you some questions? You've made it clear—. You've suggested today that the Welsh Government supports a position whereby even if we leave the EU without a deal you feel we should pay that contribution of £39 billion, which I find very alarming indeed. Can you confirm that that is the Welsh Government's position? Because that's what you seemed to suggest when you talked about the need to honour financial commitments. Because those commitments, of course, are linked to the withdrawal agreement at the moment.

Do you accept that Parliament has been given clear instructions by the people of the United Kingdom, including the people of Wales, to leave the European Union? Do you accept—? You talk about constitutional implications of disobeying parliament, but what about the constitutional implications and complications that would be caused by not implementing the outcome of a referendum? It would be the first time in the history of the United Kingdom that the outcome of a referendum would not have been implemented.

And if I can turn to your document, if I will, that you published just the other day, one thing that you don't seem to refer to—and there's very little of an update, actually, in the text of your statement today—you don't refer to what is actually going on in terms of people accessing the support that's available from the Welsh Government. You've set a £50 million transition fund aside. Not all of that has been allocated yet. I mean, how close do we have to get to the date before you actually start allocating this money and getting it out of the door into the pockets of the organisations that need to prepare for Brexit? Can we have an update on that? That would have been more useful than the claptrap that we've heard this afternoon.

Can you tell us also how many businesses have accessed the Business Wales Brexit portal? Because I don't think many people are accessing it, frankly. I mean, you can put me right if you want to. I'll be happy to—. If that's the case, I'll be happy if many thousands have and are actually not just clicking on it once but actually using the website in order to access the support that they need.

Are you winding up, please?

And what about the Paratoi Wales website, as well? I am winding up, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can you tell us how many people have accessed that in terms of the other organisations that aren't businesses that might need support? So, instead of being like a scratched record, I'd like to hear precisely what progress you're making by working with the UK Government to deliver on the will of the people of Wales in delivering Brexit as soon as possible. 

Brexit Minister.

I hope the selectors of the Clwyd West Conservative Party found that more informative than the rest of us in this Chamber did. The Member talks about a 'no deal' Brexit with a kind of equanimity that I think most of us on these benches find really very disturbing. He purports to care about the statistics in relation to access to Government-funded services and the contributions that we've made to resilience. I don't believe for a second that that is a genuine set of enquiries, but I'm happy to answer some of the questions.

He talks about honouring the referendum. What about honouring the promises that were made to people in 2016? Let's start with that. Let's start with the promises that trade deals would be a walk in the park and yet we're now in a position where we've normalised the idea of walking away from a trade network, which would cripple parts of our economy, and parts of this Chamber regard that as perfectly acceptable. It's a disgrace.

He talks about an attempt to create panic. The Government that he supports in Westminster has revealed their planning assumptions. That is a Government that's content to proceed to a 'no deal' Brexit despite the stark illustration in that document of the damage that would be caused—[Interruption.] He mutters from a sedentary position that that is a worst-case scenario—[Interruption.] If he listens, he'll get the replies. That is a document that shows what a reasonable person's assessment is of how bad things can get.

If not all of that happens, what is he prepared to tolerate going wrong in that list of things? Is it electricity prices going up? Is it civil unrest? Is it low-income groups being disproportionately affected by price rises? Is it delays to medicine supplies? What of that is he prepared to tolerate as he describes with complete calmness the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit? We are taking steps that are proportionate in the face of that kind of threat to mitigate, as best we can, the damage on Wales. But let's be absolutely categorical: no amount of preparation, however effective, however collaborative, can begin to touch some of the damage that is described in that document, and he should focus on that rather than the synthetic anger that he's demonstrated today.

And just to be clear, we do believe the UK Government should pay its debts. We do believe the UK Government should pay its debts. These are contributions to current programmes, to current commitments to the European Union, and he treads a very dangerous path indeed if, in a world where he thinks we should be negotiating new trade deals, he's prepared to trash the UK's reputation by walking away from its obligations.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank the Minister for his statement. What an almighty mess the UK Government is making of things. The Prime Minister is found to have lied to the Queen and is happy to gag Parliament and to flout the rule of law. As you've said, Minister, if prorogation continues—and it's no guarantee, considering how the Supreme Court case seems to be going—but if prorogation does continue, MPs will return with only 17 days before the day when Boris Johnson continues to insist against the law, against all reason, that we will leave the EU, come what may. 'Do not waste this time' is what we were warned by Donald Tusk. Well, the Westminster Government has shown how tin eared it can be—how deaf to all cries of reason, compassion or sense.

The Yellowhammer documents published by the UK Government make hardly any mention of Wales, so it's useful that the Welsh Government has decided to publish its 'no deal' action plan. Given it is a hefty document, I won't offer any criticism of the plans before I've fully finished analysing them, but I'd also like to place on record my own thanks to public sector workers who are working tirelessly in the back rooms, behind the scenes, and diligently, to prepare for this possible disaster.

Yesterday, the First Minister informed the external affairs committee that the Welsh Government had received more detailed information from the UK Government than has been published in Yellowhammer, and it's obvious that this information has informed your action plan. The contingencies the Welsh Government is preparing for, based on that advice, are nothing short of sickening. I think it is shameful that the Conservative spokesperson is claiming this is project fear and can so easily dismiss major disruption to the movement of people and goods, chaos at ports and airports, possible food and medicine shortages, major disruption to trade, which could, and I quote,

'risk the sustainability of some businesses and have a negative impact on jobs and wages',

rising inflation, lower economic growth, with low-income households worst affected, a perfect storm of job losses, wage decreases, and rising costs, the farming and fishing sectors being, and I quote again, 'hit particularly hard', advanced manufacturing facing disruption due to problems with just-in-time supply chains, service sectors likely to be significantly affected, an increase in inflation having a significant impact on social care providers, a possible loss of citizens' rights and the imposition of a hostile environment. The list goes on and on.

And let's be absolutely clear about this. Even though these effects sound like the ramifications of war or a natural disaster, they are the expected consequences of current UK Government policy. If they take us over the cliff edge, if they inflict 'no deal' on Wales and the rest of the UK, they will never be forgiven. This could even eclipse the disastrous effects that Thatcher's deindustrialisation policies had on Wales.

So, I do find it startling, Minister, that the very first matter that the 'no deal' action plan discusses is making the case for the union of the UK. Surely, if the UK Government inflicts 'no deal' on Wales, there would be no case. Leaving the union would be a priority, once we've dealt with the short-term emergency. Forty-one per cent of the Welsh population say they would vote for independence as a way to remain in the EU, and that is now, before the disaster of 'no deal' has happened, and that figure is happening now when people know more of the facts as well. The Welsh Government must stop shoring up a union that will have failed us. The First Minister himself has said that the UK is a voluntary union. If support for independence rises further, then the calls for an independence referendum will become impossible to ignore. You need to start preparing for it now.

I'd like to finish by asking a few questions. Can you tell us how much the Welsh Government has spent preparing for 'no deal' and whether you agree with me that these funds should be reimbursed to Wales in full, as it's a UK Government policy that has necessitated the expenditure? I noticed, as well, that there was no mention in Yellowhammer, or your action plan, about the future of the Pembroke oil refinery, even though the leaks to The Sunday Times suggest that hundreds of jobs there could be at risk. This is apparently what redacted paragraph 15 of Yellowhammer refers to. Are you concerned for these jobs, or is the Secretary of State for Wales correct to say that they're safe? And finally, can you give assurances today that the Welsh Government will make extra funds available over and above the £2 million already earmarked for foodbanks if 'no deal' leads to funding crises for low-income families and individuals, which will almost certainly be the case?

I thank the Member for her questions. Can I first associate myself with her comments in relation to the thanks for all those people in public services and, indeed, across society in Wales who are working hard to take steps to prepare Wales for some of the sorts of things we saw described in the Yellowhammer document? 

She mentioned the Supreme Court case. I will just say to her that I've had reports of the proceedings today in court and the justices are taking a real interest in the impact on the work of the Assembly of the prorogation in Parliament and the consequence that that has on the legislation and the work that Members here have put in to scrutiny and consideration of those. I would hope, at least, that most people in the Chamber would support the interest that has been shown in the impact here on our work.

She makes a number of points in relation to the future of the UK as a consequence of a hard or 'no deal' Brexit. What I would say—I'll repeat the point that I made earlier—is that those posing the greatest threat to the union are those advocating a hard or 'no deal' Brexit. We know what consequences that that could easily have in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and I think that the future of the UK is imperilled in a way that it hasn't been by the sorts of arrangements that those people are perfectly content to contemplate, and I include the Prime Minister in that.

She asks specifically about the expenditure and so on, and I'm very happy to confirm to her that I do think that money that is being spent in relation to preparation could be spent more productively on other things. None of us, I think, believe that the resources and energy and time that has been spent by Government, by local government and by public bodies and organisations and businesses across Wales could not be more productively spent elsewhere. And we absolutely will be making sure that we have a series of very clear financial asks to the UK Government if the sorts of circumstances described in the documentation we've seen come to pass. It is not possible for us to deal with the consequences envisaged in that document without very, very, very significant financial support from the UK Government, and I know that the Minister for finance is very focused on that task.

I won't comment, if she doesn't mind, on the question of the oil refinery; I will just direct her to the public comments that the company have themselves made about their concerns in relation to Brexit. And I will confirm—and I hope that she will have detected this from the document disclosed yesterday—we do think that the impact on vulnerable groups of the sorts of Brexit described in these documents is going to be very, very considerable. And the cumulative effect of a number of these impacts could be very, very damaging indeed to some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. The plan does contain commitments to support various vulnerable groups. Those remain, of course, under review and we will do everything we can within our power and resources.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement? I also thank the Welsh Government for their action plan that was published yesterday. At least we here in the Assembly have an opportunity to actually scrutinise the Government on its action plan, unlike our colleagues in Westminster who've been blocked from scrutinising the work on Yellowhammer.

Minister, it's all well and good saying—. You know, we've had speeches from various Members. This is not about speeches; it's about asking you questions. So, I'll try and focus on questions, because what you are saying is what we all think. Now, the point is—. A couple of points. I would've hoped that we'd have had—[Interruption.] If the Member would give me a chance to ask some questions. Thank you. Minister, we haven't had an update on the common frameworks, which I would've hoped for in this speech, because it is important we know where we are in those common frameworks. Because if we do leave without a deal on 31 October, it will be nice to know exactly how progress is being made on those common frameworks so that we can ensure that things are progressing as well. But also, perhaps you could comment upon the differences you are experiencing as a consequence of the new Government, because I know with the previous Government we seemed to be progressing, where we had the report—we published that as part of our papers yesterday in the committee—and three of the members involved in that report are no longer in Government, so it is interesting to see whether the new Government is actually taking the progress on common frameworks seriously or not.

Can you also tell us about any future legislative needs for Wales? Again, are there any SIs outstanding that need to be put into place prior to 31 October? Are there any SIs in England or Westminster that we still need to be aware of that need still to go through for us to be able to be in a position where the legislation is in place for a 'no deal' Brexit on 1 November? Also, again, have you assessed the actual specific needs in Wales? We know that proroguing Parliament—we've discussed this, and the First Minister has mentioned it quite clearly. The decision to prorogue Parliament meant all those Bills that are not completed and did not have an Order placed upon them—and none of them did—to actually be allowed to continue are dead, and anything has to be started all over again. There are several Bills that have huge consequences if we don't have a transition period following departure.

Have you also done any further analysis, following the work done by Cardiff University's business school, which you published before, because that was a few months or a while back? Where are we today in your analysis of the economic impact? Because you, I'm assuming—and it's been mentioned by Delyth Jewell—have based your analysis and your action plans upon the data you receive from the UK Government as part of Yellowhammer. Have you done any other analysis yourselves or sought any analysis on the follow-up from the Cardiff business school work?

We haven't discussed this today, but the shared prosperity fund—where are we on that? What discussions have you had in relation to that? The First Minister's already highlighted that that would actually be more than the £600 million being offered to us in an agreement that hasn't yet been passed by Parliament. So, where are we on that, and how does that have implications for the actions you will be taking and these action plans following on, because, as you highlighted in that action plan, some of them are short term and there are other, longer term implications to these? Again, one of the things in the action plan highlighted to me was where you say

'the Bank of England has estimated households are £1,000 worse off every year'.

Now I know, whatever Darren Millar said earlier, constituents in my constituency did not vote to make themselves or their neighbours £1,000 a year worse off. So, we need to look at exactly what the implications are for those.

Can I ask one thing? We've seen the Prime Minister go to Europe eventually and try to persuade Europe that his ideas are actually working and have meaningful content—questionable, but he's tried. But, yesterday, he actually didn't even turn up for a press conference with the Luxembourg Prime Minister. He decided to get himself out of it. Now, that doesn't help relationships with our EU partners. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure we strengthen those partnerships and those relationships in a situation where we might see an acrimonious departure because of the way the UK Government is behaving? Because, for Wales, the continuation of strong relationships with the EU nations and the regions within the EU are going to be crucial for our continuing business needs.

I thank the Member for that range of questions. I'll deal with them as succinctly as I can. In relation to the question of common frameworks, work continues in relation to those. He will know from exchanges in committee that we've had in the past that we would like there to be faster progress in relation to that, but I think the distraction that we will have faced in planning for 'no deal' has had an impact, unfortunately, on the time frames. He will also know that those are intended to support policy development over the longer term, and what is obvious is that there may be a need to make policy adjustments in the interim period before a particular common framework has been agreed and been scrutinised and had stakeholder input and so on. So, we are currently looking at what we need to do in order to accommodate that need.

In relation to the impact of the new Government on that work, I think that work has been under way at an official level and I think that work is progressing in relation to those. There have been, I think, two or three that have been with stakeholders for input. We're very conscious of the fact—I think all Governments are conscious of the fact that we need to make sure that there's time for legislatures and stakeholders to scrutinise those frameworks as they become more mature and before they are agreed.

He talked about legislation and the legislative impact of prorogation. There are five Bills that have fallen as a consequence of prorogation. One at least was one that we'd provided formal consent for here, for that Bill; one would have extended our competence here in the Assembly; and one provided for important powers to enable payments to farmers and so on. So these are not small pieces of legislation of no relevance; they are important Bills that the Assembly here was expecting Parliament would have an opportunity to pass. We are looking at the moment at what that means in terms of possible additional legislation here. Certainly with regard to statutory instruments, there will be a need for further SIs to be brought forward, either because of things that we've learnt in the interim period or changes that have happened in European Union law in the interim period. So, those will be brought forward in due course.

In relation to the economic impact, we know of course, as he outlined in his question, how significant the adverse economic impact of a 'no deal' or hard Brexit would be, and we also know that no form of Brexit will be as beneficial to the Welsh economy as membership of the European Union. The Government will be releasing an update on the economic impact of Brexit shortly. That will be available for Members to see.

He talked about the shared prosperity fund. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to give him any update in relation to that. We simply do not know what the current plans are in Westminster in relation to that. The Minister for finance indicated earlier, I think, that she had begun to lose confidence that there even was a plan in the UK Government, and it's hard to resist that conclusion sometimes.

With regard to the Prime Minister in Luxembourg, I think at the end of the day it's important to be available for scrutiny, isn't it? I think that just demonstrates a pattern of behaviour in not making oneself available for questioning and so on. But the broader point there: I was at the JMC(EN) last Thursday and asked for an update on the negotiations that the UK Government says it's undertaking, and I'm afraid I left with no confidence at all that we were looking at a negotiation as we would understand it—a substantive, advanced process of bargaining and exchange. So I'm not at all confident that I can give him any reassurance that there's a negotiation in the way that we would understand it, meaningfully, under way.

I'm pleased to hear that the Government will be publishing its own estimate on the economic impact of 'no deal', because the Minister just now adopted David Rees's reference to the Bank of England estimate—£1,000 coming from a 5 per cent estimate. Yet his colleague just now, Rebecca Evans, referred to a 10 per cent estimate from the Treasury, which led to this £2,000 estimate. Yet even the lower of those estimates, does the Minister recognise, is based on an assumption by the Bank of England that a 'no deal' exit will lead to the Bank of England raising its interest rates from 0.75 per cent to 4.5 per cent, and he's aware that almost any private sector economist who has commented on that thinks that it's simply an incredible thing to say?

I'm still no clearer, really, as to where the policy of the Minister is in terms of the overall Brexit position. Does he want to see a UK Government under his party go to Brussels to seek to negotiate a new deal so that they can then come back to this country and campaign against it in a referendum? And does he agree with the two letters used by his colleague the health Secretary to describe that policy—BS?

He says in his statement that the UK Government is focused on blaming the EU, but many people listening to our debates will see the Welsh Government as being focused on blaming the UK Government. Whenever there's a dispute, whenever the European Union refuses to move its position and remains intransigent, this Welsh Government can be counted on to take the side of those European Union institutions against the UK Government. The previous Member talked about a threat to the union. Is not a threat to the union that this Welsh Government refuses to act for the people of Wales who want to stay in the UK but leave the European Union? Your predecessor, Counsel General, said

'we will not work against the referendum result.'

When did that policy change?

You talk about paying our debts. Are you not aware that our treaty with the European Union provides for an exit mechanism? We give two years' notice. For those two years we're on the hook to continue paying everything we would as a member. After that there is no continuing, international legal obligation. We are not contracted to pay. There is not a debt. Even the House of Lords' European Union Select Committee—hardly a hotbed of leavers—said that if we leave at the end of an article 50 process, there is no continuing financial obligation. The only area where that might be different is for the European Investment Bank, because it’s separately constituted with its own capital. And if we were to go to the International Court of Justice, why is it that we're only getting back £3.5 billion of the capital we initially put in, not our share of £7.5 billion extra of the accumulated reserves? No doubt he'll back the European Union on that point too.

Can I just ask about the legal situation? Because he describes the Court of Session, saying,

'which is in fact a superior court'.

In what sense is it a superior court? It is in a different jurisdiction. It also hears cases of first instance in judicial review in the same way that the High Court in London, or indeed sitting in Cardiff, does. It is in a different jurisdiction. Why is it a superior court any more than an eighth district of federal appeals in California might be a superior court? It’s not; it’s in a different jurisdiction. Is it not the case that its rulings are at most persuasive? They are not binding in our jurisdiction of England and Wales. And, Counsel General, you complain that the UK cannot rely on the Prime Minister to follow the law of the UK. Can't the people of Wales rely on their First Minister and Counsel General to follow the law of England and Wales?

Okay. For a man so expensively educated, he certainly hasn't learned to do his homework. That last point: it’s a matter of fact that the Court of Session is a senior court, and it is not hearing this judicial review as a first instance, and I would have thought that he would have known that.

He claims to know the mind of the business community as though it was of one mind and he has some direct access to it. We know from our contact with people across Wales, businesses across Wales, how terrified they are of the levels of uncertainty that Brexit and the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit are causing. That is why we've been so focused on giving all the support that we're able to give.

I think it is absolutely cavalier of him to talk about the UK not paying the sums it owes to the European Union. Even on his view of the world—which I don't share in any respect—it must surely be the case that any government seeking to negotiate international treaties and international obligations with other partners must be able to point to its good word and its honesty and its integrity when it comes to paying sums it has already agreed to pay. And I think the UK Government imperils that reputation very significantly if it seeks to evade those payments.

He asks about our policy. Let me be absolutely clear: we could not be more categorical in the Welsh Labour Party that our position is that people should have an opportunity to have their say and that we will campaign for remain. I hope that we can persuade our colleagues in Parliament to commit to remain in all those circumstances, but let’s be absolutely clear that that is our commitment. We've made that repeatedly here in the Chamber. Actually, the case is, in 2016, people were made a set of promises that have fallen apart. And while he talks about respecting the referendum result, it's about time people started respecting the promises made to people in 2016.

And finally, very briefly, Jenny Rathbone. 

What did you campaign for in 2016?

Thank you. I've called Jenny Rathbone. Thank you.

Thank you. One of the contingency plans mentioned in the Welsh Government’s statement published recently is on this potential disruption to chemicals that are used in the water industry. I wonder if you could tell us what discussions you've had with the UK Government on this and what discussions with Dŵr Cymru. Could you elaborate on what these chemicals are and why they can't be stockpiled, or can they only be stockpiled for a certain amount of time? And how long would it take for what is currently imported from other parts of Europe to be manufactured in Wales? That’s my first question.

The second question I have is on the food industry. The First Minister has already said that supermarkets have given reassurances that they will be supplying even the most remote parts of Wales, ensuring that people have food, but I just wondered what advice has been given to schools and to communities about growing winter vegetables so that schools won't simply have to rely on tinned and frozen vegetables as substitutes for fresh vegetables.

I thank her for that question. In relation to the question of water treatment chemicals—I think she was asking about that—there have been advanced discussions with the water companies and with UK Government in relation to that so that there are contingency plans in place in relation to those that have been tested.

She's right, if I may say, to highlight the importance of food supply and food availability generally. We have been clear in focusing on that as part of our planning and making sure that we have commitments from supermarkets and distributors in order to ensure that all parts of Wales and all parts of the UK, in fact, are fairly treated in the distribution of food. We are in regular contact with local education authorities and, indeed, schools directly in relation to planning around food supply. She makes an important point, I think, which has a bearing on Brexit but has a broader bearing, doesn't it, in relation to the capacity of schools and communities to grow their own food and to ensure that people have access to fresh locally grown produce in any circumstances? But I will reassure her that, from the perspective of ensuring fair distribution and fair access of food into our public services, we are very focused on that as a priority.

Thank you very much, Minister. 

Item 8 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Valleys taskforce, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport to move the motion—Lee Waters.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful for the opportunity to update Members on the work of the Valleys taskforce and outline its direction for the remainder of this Assembly. We should all be grateful for the huge amount of work done by my predecessor, Alun Davies, in establishing the taskforce, and to those who made significant contributions as its members.

I've been keen to take the opportunity to take stock, and I set out in a written statement to Members on 18 July how the taskforce has now agreed to focus on seven priority areas, each with a sub-group of its own of the taskforce to take forward their area of work. Some of the original members have taken the opportunity to step away and allow new members to join—I'm grateful for all their work, and I'm pleased the main group will now be gender balanced.

I'm also keen that our plans are scrutinised, and it's important that today we have a proper debate to help inform our next steps. I have already engaged with Members representing Valleys constituencies and I've met with each council leader across the area to test emerging ideas and to ask for examples of best practice that we might scale across the whole area. Rather than imposing ideas on communities, it is much better to identify local good practice and seek to spread it to neighbouring valleys. 

In my first meeting with Councillor Andrew Morgan, the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf council, he explained to me the success that his council has had in bringing empty homes back into use. Their own scheme of giving grants to people who take on properties that have been empty for six months or more is one other council leaders agreed would benefit them too, and they've endorsed housing becoming the first of our new strategic priorities. We're setting aside £10 million for the scheme over the next two years and, crucially, this is funding that will flow across the Valleys, not just into the strategic hubs as originally intended, but in the northern Valleys too. We'll emulate the RCT scheme and look to add to it where we can. For example, we're looking at how we can retrofit energy-saving measures as we regenerate the housing stock.

In my meeting with the leader of Swansea Council, Councillor Rob Stewart, he persuaded me of the case for allowing local authorities to access this funding to bring empty homes into council ownership too, to make them available to people waiting for affordable homes to rent. I'm pleased that my colleague Julie James, the Minister for housing, has embraced this suggestion with enthusiasm.

The chief executive of Carmarthenshire council convinced me of adopting the model used in the twenty-first century schools project of match funding to make the funding pot even larger and to give councils skin in the game, as he put it. We'll be looking to adopt these ideas as we approach the second year of the scheme. Our priority now is to crack on with rolling out the project. And in an excellent example of regional collaboration, RCT council are taking on the role of lead authority, using their expertise and experience to help deliver this for all councils in the taskforce area. And I'm delighted that the people in the Amman and Gwendraeth valleys will be able to benefit from this too, now that we've extended the taskforce boundary to encompass the western edge of the old coalfield.

I'm hopeful the scheme will bring palpable benefits right across our Valleys communities. Llywydd, an empty property is not only a home going to waste, it's a blight on an area: overgrown gardens attract vermin and broken windows scar a street. By tackling the problem of empty homes, we will nurture the fabric of our communities and we'll also help the second of our strategic priorities: growing the foundational economy.

The experience in RCT is that the homes being renovated are using local builders and trades—grounded small and medium-sized enterprises—who recirculate the spending in their area. We're also using some of the taskforce allocation to increase the size of the foundational economy experimental fund, allowing us to double the £1.5 million we originally agreed with Plaid Cymru as part of our budget negotiations. I hope to make announcements on which schemes we are supporting in the coming weeks.

A third strategic priority area is entrepreneurship and business support. I'm very grateful for the work of angel investor Andrew Diplock—the work he's done as a member of the taskforce in this area. He's helped us run a #PitchItValleys event, where 43 Valleys-based entrepreneurs applied to take part. Six are now through to the final round and are working with mentors before the final pitch at the end of November, where each will bid for up to £75,000 of equity investment.

We're also trialling a peer-to-peer network to help existing businesses grow. This is a very promising idea, I think, of bringing 10 founders so far of local firms together to counsel each other using real-world business growth challenges, which they can then apply to their own businesses. We hope this can provide a template for how we can support grounded firms in the rest of Wales.

We're also running with an idea put forward in an entrepreneurship workshop I held in Bedwas of local business advice surgeries. Caerphilly Assembly Member Hefin David piloted the idea in Bargoed in June, and I've since written to all Valleys constituency AMs and offered to work together to roll out a similar model in their area, and the next one will take place in Rhymney at the end of November.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I don't have the time to go through all the activities in each of the seven priority areas. There is a lot going on, and we'll be publishing our annual delivery plan in November, which will provide more details. But I will highlight two more areas in my opening contribution, if I may.

Access to regular, reliable and affordable transport was the No. 1 issue highlighted during the initial round of taskforce engagement. We co-hosted our first event with Transport for Wales in Merthyr last week, chaired by Dawn Bowden, the local AM, of course, and now a full member of the taskforce. We'll be running further events across the Valleys until the end of October to update local people on the developments in their area. It's important that having asked them for feedback we now report back to them on what we're doing as a result of that.

Transport for Wales are developing a pilot project to test a demand-responsive bus service in the Ebbw Vale area. It's been described as a type of Uber for buses—not to emulate every aspect of the app-based service but to paint a picture of how we think we can innovate the way local bus services work. We're also developing proposals for community transport pilots in Neath.

We have listened to the feedback on the taskforce from the Department for Work and Pensions that some people are finding it difficult to take up offers of work on industrial estates because buses simply do not run in tandem with shift patterns. We're therefore funding a pilot in the upper Rhondda Fach to get workers to the Treforest and Llantrisant industrial estates in time for work. This has been running since May, and, so far, it's showing signs of success, so we'll be looking at how this can be rolled out once it's evaluated.

Of course, on top of all this is the exciting metro plans that are being worked through—new trains, more-frequent services and improved stations are coming. The efforts of the taskforce in identifying strategic hubs across the Valleys have been invaluable in adding value to the planned work. We've provided Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf councils with over £600,000 of additional funding from the taskforce to commission feasibility and design studies to develop some ambitious integrated transport hubs across the Valleys. These are due to be presented at the next taskforce meeting in October.

We're setting up a sub-group of the taskforce to look at how we can make the most of the millions of pounds-worth of investment in the Heads of the Valleys road. We don't want the A465 to be a bypass around some of our most challenged communities, but a way of bringing jobs and investments to them. My colleagues who represent these constituencies have been pressing me on this, and I am pleased that Dawn Bowden has agreed to lead a sub-group of the taskforce to focus on it.

Finally, Llywydd, last week the First Minister and I announced nearly £7 million of funding for the Valleys regional park. Eleven good projects will benefit. At Parc Penallta near Ystrad Mynach and Cefn Coed mining museum in the Dulais valley, we are fully funding completely new facilities. All the projects have a strong community focus and will act as gateways to the Valleys regional park, a concept strongly championed by my predecessor, the Assembly Member for Blaenau Gwent.

Will you take an intervention? 

Of course. 

One question that constituents have raised about Parc Penallta and what's being offered there is the amount of money spent and what is actually going to be based there. How will it engage with people in the immediate area and the immediate community? What exactly is planned? 

I'm happy to write to the Member with the exact details of the plan. The main focus is going to be a new timber-framed building that will be a site for outreach and community involvement, as well as considerable environmental schemes too, but I'm happy to give him the full details of that. It is a site that was a late bid. We reopened the bidding to allow new bids. I was initially sceptical about doing that, but such was the quality of the bid and the depth of the community engagement in drawing up the bid that I was persuaded, rather than to share all the money equally to make sure everybody had something, to fully fund good-quality schemes, and I was pleased that that was the one that I agreed to fully fund. And the whole point of these sites is that they will be launch pads to encourage local people and visitors to explore the surrounding areas, to create a necklace of parks. And as part of that, we will be returning to the original idea of the Valleys regional park coming from the city region development in Stuttgart where they have landscape parks, where they put promoting the landscape alongside traditional economic development to improve the whole place. I'm delighted that, in taking forward that concept, Cardiff capital region have agreed to absorb the governance of the Valleys regional park into their own structures. So, we're not creating new structures from scratch for the sake of it, but we're giving ownership and returning this to local authorities so that they can take this forward beyond the life of the grant, because I'm conscious that the last time the Valleys regional park existed was part of the Objective 1 funding, and when that funding ran out, the concept slowed down. So, I don't want us to do that again, which is why I'm keen that, having announced the funding, we now hand the project over to local authorities.

And then a final example of adopting good practice: I was very impressed by the work Bridgend council have done in their local area of community connectors. So, instead of having traditional park rangers through the Valleys regional park, we will be adopting the approach of Bridgend of having community connectors to signpost people to their local environment. Huw David, the leader of Bridgend, told me how this approach involved working with local GPs to encourage people to take green exercise, and this social prescribing model encourages people to get out and meet people, improve their well-being and resilience. And I'm pleased that Bridgend will now take the lead in spreading this model across the whole Valleys regional park.

I'm grateful to the leader of Torfaen, Councillor Anthony Hunt, in agreeing to lead this work on behalf of the city region, and for involving Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Carmarthenshire in that work, even though they're not part of the capital region. And I'd also just like to finally single out the contribution that Jocelyn Davies has made in this area in particular, the former AM for south-east Wales. She has made a significant contribution to the development of thinking around the park.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, to close, spreading good practice, engaging, listening and acting on good ideas are the ways we are working to make lasting change in our communities. This is no panacea, but we are making progress, and I looking forward to discussing what more we can do. Diolch.

Thank you. I have selected the seven amendments to the motion, and I call on Russell George to move amendments 1, 2, 3 and 7 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Russell. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move those amendments in the name of Darren Millar. 

I'd like to thank the Deputy Minister for his update on the progress of the Valleys taskforce and also for his earlier update sent by e-mail to Members this afternoon; I haven't had time to look at that in great detail. I would like to reiterate the Welsh Conservatives' support for the Valleys taskforce. I think that—. It's correct to say that I think the taskforce area makes up nearly 30 per cent of the population of Wales, and for hundreds of years this area has been the beating heart of the Welsh economy. I think it's therefore vital that we do not let down the descendants of those who were so essential in powering the industrial revolution and making Wales the home of the first £1 million contract. A lot has changed, sadly, and the Valleys areas have not been able to adapt to the changing world. I think politicians of all parties have let down the Valleys at times and we must put that right to ensure that the people who live in the Valleys have the same opportunities, the same standard of living, decent housing and the ability to achieve more than they thought possible. That is why in today's debate we should be critical of the response so far but also supportive of the proposals as long as they have the impact of improving the lives of people in the Valleys and their children, as they are, and, of course, will be the future of Wales.

Our first amendment today is to make it clear that the best way to improve people's lives, not just in the Valleys but, of course, across Wales, is through providing long-term employment opportunities. It is a concern that since the taskforce was created less than 2,000 economically inactive people have been helped into work through the Welsh Government-led employment programmes. The target, of course, is 7,000 by 2021. I'll be interested if the Minister in his concluding comments can confirm that that is a target he still believes will be reached.

Our other amendment is also in regard to having more ambition. We do believe that there should be more ambition in the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' plan. The Government I think really does need to deliver better on joined-up public transport that people can afford. I'm sure that perhaps the Deputy Minister would agree with that statement; he did talk about that in his opening comments. But I think it's particularly important to look at how fares are calculated in terms of bus journeys, because there do seem to be some perhaps unfair and not-comparable rates if you look at the bus timetables and the distances travelled in parts of Wales.

And let's not, of course, forget—I can't go without saying this; I disappointingly have to say it, but we look at the summer as well, and the trains from Cardiff back home into the Valleys. If the trains aren't cramped with people squashed in like sardines, they're delayed. So, what I'd say is: how can people who want to get on in life and provide for their families—how can that happen? How can that be achieved when hurdles such as these are put in front of them?

With an increase of 40 per cent in the number of empty homes in Wales, I am keen to see the success of empty homes being brought back into use. I agree with the Deputy Minister's comments in regard to the negative impact it has when you have empty properties across a community and the blight that is attached to that. I am concerned to the extent that the £10 million that the Deputy Minister mentioned in his opening comments will go to make sure that this project is a success for businesses and homes.

And I'll conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, by welcoming, of course, the £600 million for the Welsh block grant for next year and would, of course, urge the Welsh Government to spend this additional money on the Welsh NHS, but more importantly ensuring that the extra £195 million for schools this year is spent directly on schools so that the funding gap that currently exists between Wales and England can disappear.

Thank you. I call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I move the amendments in the name of Plaid Cymru. The constituency that I represent, the Rhondda, is possibly one of the best-known of the Welsh Valleys throughout the world. Now, having served its purpose as far as the British state is concerned, the Rhondda, similar to many other Valleys, as well as non-Valleys communities throughout the country have been left by successive Governments on both ends of the M4 to rot. Unlike other parts of the UK that were deliberately de-industrialised, the former coalfield in Wales did not get the same economic support, and, as a result, we lag way behind places like Sheffield, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Yorkshire in terms of economic development and wealth. Too many people in too many of our communities are forced to live with the scourge of poverty, and it's beyond disappointing to say that after 20 years of devolution the Valleys—and specifically the valley in which I live, the Rhondda—has seen pitiful levels of both attention and investment.

Of course, the policies of Governments in Westminster—principally austerity over the last decade or more—have made our situation much, much worse. There are amazing things going on in the Valleys by some amazing people, but too often that is despite Government, not because of it. If you had to pay for the work carried out by volunteers, it would bankrupt this Government. Community activists everywhere are running radio stations, foodbanks, food-share schemes, community centres and youth clubs, Scouts, Guides, sports clubs, paddling pools, support for older and disabled people and so on, all for free, but their efforts are hindered by cuts and hiked costs—often Government costs.

Just this week I had a meeting with the Rhondda Tunnel Society, a group of volunteers who have done sterling work for many, many years. Their work is being hindered by Government in action, both local and national: failure to resolve the ownership problems, failure to designate the area as an active travel route—obstacles, obstacles all the time. For just relatively small sums of money, many of these projects and community activists could reach so many more people but, of course, what we really need is economic development and jobs. And that's why I was so excited to learn about a co-operative that had been formed in the Rhondda made up of ex-Burberry workers. That excitement didn't last for long. This garment co-operative was given to understand that, were they to constitute a proper business, they would be looked upon favourably for a Government contract making public sector workers' uniforms—new train workers' uniforms, NHS uniforms and so on. These are highly skilled workers used to delivering high-quality products. They've got a premises in the old Burberry factory and their plan was to use that iconic history to build a business to train the next generation. Imagine how devastated they were to learn that the contract was instead going to a training company operating out of another valley, supported by the Valleys taskforce initiative, when they had no idea that they were in competition with others. Yes, there may be a possibility that this company can be successful—they haven't given up—but there are questions to be answered, and I haven't had credible answers so far.

Despite great efforts, I've failed to get a sense of what financial or other support may be available for this sort of development or any other. When I've made enquiries about specific sums of money for the Valleys, I've been told that there is no figure to give. When I ask what we can expect to see in the Rhondda, I get told what investment is available in other places. Just this week, a Transport for Wales consultation misses out the Rhondda, and, when asked on Twitter about that, we're told that there are meetings in Pontypridd and Aberdare. I'm asking about the Rhondda—can I please emphasise the Rhondda is not in Pontypridd or in Aberdare? I've lost count of the number of meetings I've had with the former Minister and how many times I've asked questions that we hope to have addressed by these amendments, and I'm still waiting for answers.

How much budget is being allocated to the Valleys taskforce? How much, and what exactly can we expect to see in the Rhondda? I don't want to know about other places; I want to know about your plans for the Rhondda, and, given that I haven't been able to get answers to these questions thus far, a temporary committee where those of us who care about this can scrutinise the decisions, the spending, the Ministers' statements. This Government needs to demonstrate to me that this Valleys taskforce is worth something; I'm not seeing it so far.

The Welsh Government undoubtedly made a strategic error when ditching the successful Welsh Development Agency. It had the skills, the expertise and the contacts to serve Wales on a long-term basis. All the expertise, skills and contacts developed by competent and experienced staff was discarded and lost forever, and it could be said that Wales has never recovered from that disastrous decision. Its replacement by the Welsh Government's initiatives such as the Valleys taskforce falls into line with all other past initiatives: it fails the first test of any plan—measurability. The signposts are missing, which, of course, prevents overall assessment of its progress. After reading the two sets of minutes of the taskforce, you begin to realise that there is no detailed joined-up plan, but simply an incoherent jumble that seems to mimic the defunct Communities First programme.

Two years on from the production of yet another glossy brochure, there is still no clear focus and it would seem that efforts are spread over too large an area. The Bevan Foundation also says that solutions to the lack of skills and qualifications are conspicuous by their absence.

I do welcome the plans outlined earlier by the Deputy economy Minister, and I am sure that his enthusiasm and commitment are genuine, but he has still not indicated how all the effectiveness of these initiatives will be measured. If we take one example of the ineffectiveness of the taskforce, Ebbw Vale has seen a 50 per cent reduction in bus services into the town centre, and Stagecoach experienced 50 breakdowns in just one month, including a bus fire in the Blaenau Gwent area. Surely, the taskforce should be examining such matters given its impact on local businesses and connectivity in the Valleys in general, otherwise where does its remit lie? We should also raise the question as to the make-up of the taskforce. Is the make-up of the taskforce the right one for this initiative? It is said that the right composition should bring coherent and subjective planning to undertake the necessary actions required. Are the skills and competences present in the present governance structure? Most of the initiatives are far too small to make a difference and, indeed, moving jobs from one place to the next can hardly be called creative.

In Wales, we need a total reinvention of the economy with all the parties involved and focused to work together. It is time to end the business of playing party politics and concentrate on putting things right in Wales, because we have to all agree that there are too many things wrong in Wales. As an ex-director of the WDA said some years ago, the key aspects of the problem are superficial politics, lack of technical analysis and focus and a civil service culture that is not task orientated.

Can I thank the Government for bringing forward this debate today on the work of the Valleys taskforce? What I think we can now see is the vital shift taking place in the work of the taskforce as it moves to the funding and delivery of projects. And, before I go on, can I add my thanks to that of the Deputy Minister to my colleague Alun Davies, who spent a huge amount of time and energy on the first phase of the work of the Valleys taskforce? When I joined the taskforce earlier this year, it was very clear that there was a substantial foundation of work and project ideas, so thank you, Alun, for your part in that.

Having seen that strong foundation established, it has allowed the taskforce to move to the implementation that we now see of the delivery of projects. Indeed, the announcement in recent days of a package of funding for parks and heritage sites is an important part of turning some of that vision into reality. These sites are the initial gateways to a wider strategic vision for the landscape and environment of the Valleys communities, and many of them, like Cyfarthfa Park in my own constituency are, of course, highly valued by the local community. And, while this might be a parochial consideration, it's certainly my hope that this round of investment in Cyfarthfa Park is a stepping stone to the much bigger ambition that we hold to tell the story of this site and this community and its wider environment, with the development of the Crucible project.

In a way, it's that word 'ambition' that projects my hope for the continuing work of the taskforce, because the deep-rooted challenges that we face in many of our Valleys communities require us to hold an ambition for transformation. We know that there's no single solution to the variety of challenges that we face, so a key part of our solution has to be found in our ambition—our ambition to combat negative and outdated stereotypes, our ambition to continue scaling up our responses based on a long-term commitment to the Valleys, a long-term commitment that I believe will be the key to its success. And that ambition must now see us deliver the final stage of the improvements to the A465 Heads of the Valleys road to ensure that we have the economic strategy that co-ordinates the potential of the new route. So, I was very pleased to hear the Deputy Minister confirm that we have not just spent billions of pounds to fund a bypass, but that we have invested in a means to unlock new potential in the communities along that route, and I look forward to being part of the group that will look at how we can do that. 

And that Heads of the Valleys route of course must also be considered as part of the wider transport and economic solutions to pressures in other parts of the south Wales region. So, it's right that the Welsh Government and partners continue to play their part in that. For example, the investment in the metro system, trains, buses and other forms of transport that we discussed at the event in Merthyr last week means that we can speed up journey times and use the power of Government to place jobs in the Valleys—vital if we are to meet our objectives of better jobs closer to home, and Pontypridd is a good example of that at present. But when I hear people tell me how it will be good to see speedier journey times to Cardiff, my response is always that it will also be good for people in Cardiff to only have to travel 45 minutes to work in Merthyr Tydfil or Rhymney. Our ambition must change those mindsets. 

So, can I ask the Deputy Minister, in addition to the work that you've already outlined in today's debate, that in the next 12 months we ensure that the commitment to the Valleys taskforce is the commitment to our ambition and that it is embedded in the long-term plans for our Government? Such commitment is needed to ensure that the projects that we deliver in 2019, 2020 and 2021 are stepping stones to the wider ambitions that we hold for the Valleys, with communities, economies and an environment in which we can all take pride because we've helped to deliver a brighter future for them.

In preparing for this debate this afternoon, I wasn't sure that I'd had the opportunity to welcome the Minister to his role in leading the Valleys taskforce, so I would like to put on record that I do welcome his appointment, but I also welcome the new and fresh thinking that he's brought to the role. I do believe that it's important that from time to time all ministerial roles need to be refreshed and that new thinking is always important in taking forward these projects and tasks, such as that which the taskforce has set itself. 

I've also listened to a contribution from a Minister that stands in stark contrast to the contributions we've heard from other political parties represented here. I listened to the list of grizzles from the Brexit Party and I noticed from the order paper that they didn't even bother to submit a single amendment to this debate today. So much for their ideas. So much for their commitment to the Valleys. They couldn't even write down an amendment to this motion this afternoon. 

I would also say this: that when I see investment taking place in any part of the Valleys, I celebrate it and I welcome it. I want to see the whole of the Valleys succeed. I want to see investment across the whole of the south Wales Valleys region. And I'll say this to Plaid Cymru: the only time I've seen investment taken out of the Valleys was when Plaid Cymru held the economic development brief and they put the dualling of the A465 on hold in order to move those resources elsewhere. So, let's have some realism about this. 

Will you take an intervention?

I will take an intervention.

I asked you when you were Minister on countless occasions how much investment would be available for the Rhondda. We've heard this afternoon that there's investment going into buses and houses. Well, that should be there already. Can you answer me now: what money has gone into the Rhondda from this Valleys taskforce? And if none has gone in so far, what specific money for the Rhondda, not Rhondda Cynon Taf, not Ebbw Vale—what money is coming from the Valleys taskforce to be invested in the Rhondda? Because you've failed to answer that question to date.

In your amendment 5, you ask for that budget.

Answer it. 

I would like to ask you to withdraw that amendment, actually—

Answer the question first. 

—because in my view, each one of the Ministers we have here should be a Minister for the Valleys and each one of the Ministers—

But they're not, are they?

—should be a Minister for every part of the community of Wales. [Interruption.] I don't believe in having a Minister for different parts of the country. [Interruption.] I want to have a Government and Ministers operating for the whole of the country—[Interruption.]—and that's why I reject the arguments that we need a set budget for the Valleys taskforce.

Can I say, Presiding Officer, there was a broad welcome last week for the funding announcement to invest in the creation of a Valleys regional park? I actually believe this is one of the most exciting and potentially transformative visions that we have in Wales today. The concept brings together our economic ambitions with the environmental and social ambitions to create a sustainable framework for the future. I was pleased to hear the Minister announce that he has given some consideration to the structure and governance that are required to deliver on this potential. I would ask him to also consider a formal designation that is rooted in statute. This was certainly the direction of travel that we were considering in Government in my time, and I hope that we will be able to do it again.

I am unsure, but open to be convinced, of his proposals for the city region to take on the governance of this park. I do believe that the park needs a focus and a clear, agreed and ambitious vision, with the capacity to deliver that vision. It's more than a series of individual projects and grants, and more than simply a collection of urban or semi-urban parks. I hope that the city region will be able to deliver that, and I'm open to be convinced by it, but I fear that we do need a structure that will deliver a greater focus.

The purpose of the strategic hubs was to focus public investment into seven parts of the Valleys, which would in itself create a catalyst to attract additional private investment. I can see that this approach is having an impact, and the Minister has agreed that this afternoon. But we also all note that progress is uneven. I would be grateful if the Minister could set some clear objectives for the coming year so that we can be sure that progress is being made across the whole region and that the target of creating jobs will be met by the end of this Government's mandate in 2021.

I was also pleased to hear from the Minister that he'd appointed Dawn Bowden to work on the development of an economic plan for the Heads of the Valleys region. This, for me, is the one area of unfinished work that I believe we really need to prioritise. The Heads of the Valleys has long been identified as a region that requires the greatest and most intense public support. The dualling of the A465 is continuing and will be completed, but this investment must be seen as a tool of economic development. I hope that we'll be able to deliver a jobs plan that will focus our work over the coming years, and I hope that we will be able to set clear targets again to achieve that. I do believe that this is one area where the city region structure can help to deliver.

I'll conclude my remarks, Presiding Officer, with a note closer to home. The Tech Valleys scheme is a £100 million investment in the future of Blaenau Gwent. It's over two years since it was announced, with a commitment to spend £25 million in investments by 2021. I would like to gently note that this is not simply a housing scheme, but a project to drive economic activity and deliver new jobs and opportunities in the borough. That is not to decry the commitments that the Government has made to support housing developments that are clearly needed in the borough, but that should not be the focus of this investment programme. I fully recognise that Brexit may well have a negative impact on the Government's ability to deliver on its commitments, but I do want to see and understand more fully the ambition and vision that the Government has for Tech Valleys. I would like to see the Government publish a timetable for taking this investment programme forward to 2021 and beyond.

Presiding Officer, I think, across most parts of the Valleys and across most parts of this Chamber, there will be a warm welcome for the Government's statements this afternoon, and a warm welcome for the Minister's approach and the fresh thinking and drive that he has brought to this taskforce.

I would like to thank the Deputy Minister for bringing forward this debate in Welsh Government time and giving all of us the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the Valleys taskforce and, in particular, the changes that have been made over the last few months—      

Will you take an intervention? You mentioned scrutiny; I think scrutiny's really important. Do you share my concerns that a sum of money has not been allocated to the Cynon valley? The questions that I've been asking about the Rhondda are the same questions that are pertinent to the Cynon valley. Are you concerned that we're not getting answers to those questions from a scrutiny perspective?

I don't share your concerns on that, no, because money is not the answer to everything here—[Interruption.]—in terms of allocated budgets. There are Ministers with responsibility right across the Government; for example, health is a really important part of the way that we need to look forward with the Valleys, as well. So, I think it would be quite a simplistic approach to try and have a pot of money that can be spent. I prefer to look at how the Valleys taskforce interacts with Ministers across Government, and I think that if you look deeply, that is quite easy to see.

No, it's not.

Anyway, I wanted to make a few remarks, starting off with transport, which I know all of us Valleys AMs have raised at one point or another. Better transport links both in terms of roads and public transport are absolutely crucial, and I'm really pleased to see that this is one of the priority areas for the Welsh Government to focus on.

I will start by talking about the dualling of the Heads of the Valleys road as well. There is such a huge need to maximise the benefit the road brings to local communities. This is a point that I've raised several times and I know that other AMs have as well, so it's been really good to see that the Deputy Minister has taken that on board by setting up this sub-group to look at how we can maximise the benefits from that road and to look not just around contractual requirements within the procurement process, but also things like local opportunities for employment, apprenticeships and local opportunities for companies within that process as well, and also the recognition that these opportunities must carry on when the road is open through concepts such as the innovation chain. As the Bevan Foundation recently reminded us,

'the A465 is transforming the relationships between places in the valleys and the rest of the UK.'

But let's also make sure that it transforms local Valleys economies as well.

Similarly, delivering on the south Wales metro could be equally transformational. But there's been so much emphasis on the role of rail services within that. For the true vision of the metro to be realised, we must remember the fundamental role played by buses. Often, they are the only public transport service covering the most isolated and deprived communities, and certainly the Heads of the Valleys area is a prime example. So, I would like to ask the Deputy Minister if he would consider having some representation from bus companies within his sub-group there, looking at the Heads of the Valleys road, and also community transport as well. They seem to be the ones who are willing and have the moral compass to pick up the slack where commercial bus operators often let us down.

I'm sure I'm not the only Assembly Member who has had an avalanche of casework over the summer caused by bus companies like Stagecoach changing their routes, and doing so with no real consultation or consideration for the social and economic needs of our constituents. Indeed, their only maxim seems to be profit margins. So, I welcome how the Valleys taskforce may be able to tie in with the work that's currently ongoing with the Minister for the economy on bus reform. I think that's a clear example of where we need to look beyond simply shouting about whether there's a pot of money or not and how the work of other Ministers within Government is absolutely crucial to the work of the Valleys taskforce.

I've followed with interest the Welsh Government’s Rhondda bus pilot—a really exciting initiative. I hope we can learn lessons from that and see where it could be rolled out to other areas in the Valleys as well to enable those who need to get to work on industrial estates and at different times to suit their shifts to access the jobs market.

I was delighted to hear about the investment in the Valleys regional park as well, with Dare Valley Country Park in my constituency benefiting to the tune of £800,000, and I share with other Assembly Members who have spoken the enthusiasm for the Valleys regional park as a concept. I note that the Deputy Minister focuses significantly on the economic benefits that the Valleys regional park can bring, and, indeed, it can, particularly in terms of tourism. But, I'd just like to issue a plea, really, not to move away from the original concept, which focused on physical and mental well-being too. I think that's really important. If we're looking at the whole quality of life for people who live in the Valleys, then enhancing their physical and mental well-being needs to be at the heart of that vision. It also fits in with ideas like the Valleys Skyline project, which was the subject of an interesting event hosted by the Member for Ogmore a few months ago.

Finally, I just want to touch on the final point of the motion. It was really an honour to join the deputy economic Minister and the housing Minister in Ynysybwl in July for the announcement of the roll-out of the empty properties grant. I'm really proud of the work that's been done by Rhondda Cynon Taf council, which has turned around 130 empty properties in the locality, meaning 130 families now have modern, energy-efficient homes, and there are 130 fewer empty eyesores. To be able to speak to the owners of that property about the benefits it brought to them, about their use of local builders in order to fulfil those contracts—. I look forward to seeing how other Valleys communities can learn from the work of RCT council and to spread that good practice across the area.

I thank the Minister for his reference to Parc Penallta. I don't think we should have any doubt of the national interest that is taken into some of our Valleys parks and landmarks. Indeed, I took part in the winter of 2015 in a BBC national programme in which I was invited to be interviewed on the pit pony, which is the sculpted mound at Parc Penallta built in the honour of the pit pony Sultan. I wore my best suit and I climbed to the top of the mound of the pit pony. It was raining, it was the middle of winter and I got my legs covered in mud, almost right up to the top of my legs, but I was thinking, 'Oh well, it'll be broadcast from waist up,' only to discover that the programme was on BBC Radio 4. So there is a lesson in preparation for any media event that I've subsequently learned, but I won't be turning up to Sharp End in a cagoule and wellies.

I think the money for Parc Penallta is very welcome. You've promised to give me further information about what is specifically planned to engage with the community there. I can see the thinking, and it has been largely welcomed when I've mentioned it via social media. But some of the questions that have also been raised have been, 'Well, what about the winding wheel and pit baths in Penallta colliery, which is just across the road?' The problem is that this is privately owned, and it links directly with Penallta park, and I think there needs to be some consideration about how some public sector leverage can be used to do something with the pit baths and the winding wheel there.

And of course, Caerphilly castle—you cannot be an inspiring candidate for any office in Caerphilly without being pictured outside the castle. It is receiving much attention from the Deputy Minister for culture. It is good to see—in fact, it's almost his second home, Caerphilly castle, so many times I've seen him there—but it's good to see also that the landscape around the castle is now getting funded. Because one of the things—. The Deputy Minister and I were looking out towards Caerphilly town, and one of the things we felt was that the townscape needed work, and I think that is the focus of this additional funding, too.

But let's also not forget that we have a Welsh national mining memorial in Caerphilly, too, and I think that needs attention. I think Alun Davies made the point there needs to be a strategic intent to this funding, and if that strategic intent is to mean anything, then the Welsh national mining memorial must be part of that discovery zone, because it is key to the cultural landscape of the Caerphilly constituency.

The former Minister mentioned also the strategic hubs, and he mentioned the fact that the delivery is uneven in some places. I'd say that the strategic hubs missed a chance a little bit in Caerphilly, because I think there are areas—. It focused on Ystrad Mynach and the south of Caerphilly; I think there are areas in the Caerphilly constituency that need a strategic focus, and I think those are some of the areas I've already mentioned: Senghennydd and the Aber valley, Nelson, and the town that is closest to my heart because it's where I went to school, Bargoed. These areas need that strategic attention, and I know that the Minister has listened to me to some extent on this, and we've had the business workshop that we held in Bargoed, which was successful and a good learning opportunity. I'd say to Members who are planning to do it in their communities that there are things we learned there, particularly about getting businesses to know about what's going on. But also I think we need to think about how towns like Bargoed can be part of a bigger strategy, and I think that is something that still has some work to do, connecting those northern Valleys. And maybe I'd echo some of the things that perhaps Leanne Wood was getting at, that those strategic connections across the Valleys still need some work.

The issue of housing and the work to be done on housing is very welcome. I've long called for strategic development plans, and the Valleys taskforce finds a good footprint for a strategic development plan, at least in part, across that region. And what he was talking about, by bringing homes back into use, we are talking about moving housing further north and not building in those already overdeveloped areas in the south of the Caerphilly constituency. Making use of those properties that already exist and bringing them back into use is a key area. 

I think that there are real opportunities with the Valleys taskforce, but to echo his predecessor, I still think there are opportunities to learn as well, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in his response. One thing I'd say, finally, is that you can see his personality is imprinted on this, though, and that's quite impressive.

Islwyn is a varied constituency, comprising a series of beautiful Welsh Gwent Valleys communities, and it contains both the wonder of the natural lush mountainous landscapes of Wales with the harsh realities of society continuing to tackle the challenges of deindustrialisation: the loss of its mining and steel communities and the propensity for respiratory ill-health, with the Wales indices of multiple deprivation data to underpin and accompany such harsh socioeconomic diversity. So, as a child of Islwyn, I'm incredibly proud to represent this constituency here in the National Assembly for Wales, the Welsh Parliament.

I have championed, as have many, many causes, but one of the most important to me has been the work of the Welsh Labour Government's Valleys taskforce, and this is because it has both opportunity and potential to truly transform the lives of some of the most diverse communities in Wales. So I would like to thank the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, and the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport, Lee Waters, for the high priority that they have continued to give to ensure that the Valleys taskforce remains one of the most important ongoing projects of the Welsh Labour Government. 

Just last week, the Welsh Labour Government announced that Cwmcarn forest drive constitutes one of the five Gwent sites named as discovery gateways that will share more than £2 million Valleys taskforce funding. I have consistently pushed here and in private for Cwmcarn forest drive to be fully reopened to its former glory, and this continues to be a priority for me and for my constituents. National Resources Wales are now committed to reopening the Cwmcarn forest drive fully by Easter 2020 because it is one of the natural jewels of nature that has been bestowed on Wales. And I know that the Minister for culture was visiting there recently, and he knows it is imperative that Cwmcarn forest drive is opened for Wales and the world again as a must-visit destination. 

In our age of climate emergency, where the appreciation and value of our natural landscape has never, ever been greater, we know that family and friends want to spend their days outside. We know more than ever the value of getting outside for our mental health. Days spent exploring the natural landscapes of Islwyn will benefit our local communities and all those who visit. So, I'll say to Members present in the Chamber: come and visit our sites across Islwyn, in terms of Twmbarlwm tump, ancient sites like the scenic drive, the Gwythen and Sirhowy valleys—they are of great importance.

The nearly £0.5 million of Welsh Labour Government investment looks to maximise community use, with the promise of a shared space at the Cwmcarn scenic drive, the lifelong learning office space with Wi-Fi for community use, the development of landscape interpretation points and discovery trails, and it's essential that the magnificent natural beauty of Cwmcarn forest drive is fully utilised by frequent and meaningful engagement by the public with the needed access to do so. So, this is further evidence of an ambitious programme of renewal for the Valleys and for Islwyn by a Welsh Labour Government determined to revitalise the landscape and the people we serve. 

Finally, Llywydd, tomorrow evening, I will be attending a meeting of the Friends of Cwmcarn Forest Drive at the infamous Cwmcarn Working Men's Club and Institute, and some ongoing engagement and dialogue with people living and working in the Valleys will be critical to ensuring that the taskforce's laudable goals are met and superseded. And so I will continue to work closely with the people of Islwyn and the Welsh Labour Government and the Minister to ensure that, together, we maximise the prosperity of our great Welsh landscapes and Valleys towns, not just for every single individual here, but for all of our future generations. 

The Deputy Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I don't have an enormous amount of time to respond, so I won't be able to respond to each of the comments, but I'm happy to have further discussions with anybody who wishes. 

I'll try and address some of the points that have stuck with me. To begin with, Russell George's challenge on the target of 7,000 people into employment. I'm not sure where he gets his figures from. He quoted that only 2,000 people had moved from inactivity into activity. Our figures are showing that 4,500 have been supported into work through community employment programmes since July 2017. So, we're on target to meet the 7,000 jobs we’ve committed to, all other things being equal. Of course, we don’t know the impact that the recession and Brexit is going to have on our economy over the next 18 months and the Brexit uncertainty that his Government has unleashed upon us may well have an impact on that. As of today, we’re on target to meet our commitments on employment.

Vikki Howells made the call for bus company and community transport representatives to be incorporated into the taskforce and we are, as I said, having a separate sub-group on transport, and I will certainly do my best to make sure that those groups are represented on that. And she was right to highlight the personal impact from our visit to Ynysybwl of the empty homes initiative, where we saw the impact on the street of bringing a derelict home back into use and giving a family who worked in the village a chance to have a home in the village—that had a real, tangible impact.

The question of the strategic hubs was touched upon by both Hefin David and Alun Davies. This was a decision that I made. We had £15 million, I think, allocated towards spending in the strategic hubs and I looked at the quality of the bid that came through from the local authorities and I thought that if we funded all of those, I didn’t feel that we'd have more than the sum of the parts to show at the end of it of the impact of the Valleys taskforce that I wanted to see. So, I took a decision not to do that and to use the funds more strategically and more laterally so that they could be spread into the northern Valleys. And the empty homes project will spread into every community and not into a hub.

But to address directly the criticisms that Leanne Wood made, I would say that this taskforce is not a panacea. The socioeconomic condition of all the Valleys is the result of 100 years of economic headwinds and we’re not going to transform them in the short term. We are, though, doing practical, constructive things. And the invitation is open to Leanne Wood, as the Assembly Member for the Rhondda, to engage with us in a practical and constructive way. It’s easy to complain about all the things wrong in the Rhondda. I’m open to having a conversation with her about the things that we’re doing—[Interruption.] I'm afraid I don't have time. 

Will you take an intervention?

I won't, I'm afraid. But let me just tell you some of the things we are doing in the Rhondda—[Interruption.] I've got 30 seconds left, Leanne Wood, and I've agreed to meet you tomorrow to discuss in detail some of the issues you have raised. I don't have time, I'm afraid, but we are spending £27 million on the Rhondda—

You'll have to sit down, Leanne Wood. He's not giving way.

—£27 million in the Rhondda constituency alone from the metro, which you did not acknowledge. The foundational economy fund, I’m confident, will have projects in the Rhondda. The transport-to-work pilot is specifically in Rhondda Fach and the empty homes fund is also open to the Rhondda. So, I don’t think that it is a fair representation of the work that we’re doing in your constituency.

And on the specific example you quoted of the sewing co-operative in Treorchy, it’s a point you’ve previously made in this Chamber. We have written to you setting out the case since then. You continue to make the original point you made, which, I’m afraid, is not an accurate description of what has happened, but I’m meeting you tomorrow—[Interruption.] If I had time, Llywydd, I’d happily address the points from a sedentary position that the Member for the Rhondda is making, but she has a misunderstanding of the situation and I want to engage with her in a constructive and polite way tomorrow to try and talk her through the position we have to see if we can find a way to make sure that we are able to bring investment into Treorchy as well. It’s not a case of one valley against the other. We all have a responsibility to work together to raise up all of the Valleys and we are trying our sincere best, through this project, to do that and the invitation is open to all Assembly Members to engage constructively in that process. Diolch.

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

That brings us to the final debate, the debate on general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Julie Morgan.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. This Bill, if passed, will ensure children in Wales have the same level of protection from physical punishment as adults.

I want to start by thanking the three committees who have worked so hard to scrutinise this Bill. Your input will be invaluable in shaping this important legislation. I also want to put on record my thanks to the many people and organisations who have given evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. This Government believes that children and young people's voices matter. The Assembly has supported the establishment of the Welsh Youth Parliament, which has in its turn given its own majority support to this Bill—70 per cent of its Members voted to support this legislation. So that is the voice of the young people.

Many of us in this Chamber have campaigned for many years for this legislation. I've actually campaigned for 20 years, and I am very proud that it is a key commitment for this Government. I want to thank Huw Irranca-Davies for his enthusiastic introduction of the Bill, and to pay tribute to Carl Sargeant, and for the role they both played in the Bill's development. Llywydd, I want Members to know that I've carefully considered and intend to accept the majority of the recommendations made by each of the three scrutiny committees.

This Bill is about helping to protect children's rights. We can take pride in this country that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is central to our approach to give children the best start in life, and to help them achieve their potential. The overarching aim of the Bill is to help protect children's rights, in accordance with article 19 of the UNCRC—the right to protection from all forms of violence.

We need to recognise that terms such as 'a light smack', or 'a loving smack' make light of physical punishment. There are different interpretations about what a light or loving smack involves, and how often they are used, often by parents who believe they are doing the right thing for their child. And as the committee heard during Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill, the term 'reasonable punishment' itself can blur boundaries too, making it difficult for professionals to give clear and unequivocal advice to parents. And that is why there is so much support from virtually all the professional bodies, and all the professionals who work with children. And, whatever it's called, physical punishment is a human rights issue, which the majority of researchers say has the potential to cause harm to children.

However mild it may seem, the UNCRC recognises that any physical punishment of children is incompatible with their human rights. There are many alternative and more positive ways to discipline a child that don't involve physical punishment. I can never accept that it is acceptable for a big person to hit a little person. This Bill brings Wales fully in line with the UNCRC; it also accords with the recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and with UN sustainable development goal 16.

I was very pleased that, with the exception of two of its members, the Children, Young People and Education Committee recommended support for the general principles of the Bill. Both that committee and the Finance Committee were clear that, to be really effective, this Bill must be accompanied by a well-planned information campaign. We must make sure that parents are aware and know what we're doing. And I wholeheartedly agree with Members on this point, and I've given an undertaking that we will raise awareness about the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment, and I've approved a high-level awareness campaign. I will bring forward Government amendments to add a duty to raise awareness on the face of the Bill.

Another area of focus has been on the importance of supporting parents to adopt positive parenting styles. We already provide information, advice and support for parents through a range of programmes and campaigns, but we plan to carry out a mapping exercise to identify the gaps or opportunities to do more. And I have agreed to provide information about the outcome of this review following analysis and discussions with the parenting expert group.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you. I know many people are concerned about being criminalised as a result of this legislation, and the point that you've just made there about family support is a really important one. Do you envisage that if a family is caught out under this legislation that they wouldn't go to prison, that there would be a provision for sentencing to include options to provide supportive parenting, family group conferencing—that kind of approach to this—rather than criminalisation, prison and splitting up families? I think that's where a lot of the fear for this legislation comes from. So, can you assure people, please?

Yes, I think the Member’s making a very important point. It’s essential that we introduce this legislation with support for parents. What we want to do is to try to make the job of parenting easier, and I think we all know that parenting is difficult, and parents welcome all the advice and help they can get. So, it’s absolutely essential that when we introduce this legislation, we also make sure that there is support and help, and we are working with the different agencies—we're working with the police to discuss diversion schemes and we're working with other organisations to see what help and support can be given. So, I think she makes an absolutely important point.

So, in light of recommendations from the Children, Young People and Education Committee, I've also looked with my colleagues—the Minister for Health and Social Services and the Minister for Education—at the role of the Healthy Child Wales programme and the new curriculum in supporting current parents, and in equipping children and young people to become the parents of the future. And I think that’s very essential that what happens in school helps prepare them for the future.

We want positive parenting to be the way we do things in Wales, and if this Bill is passed, if the Assembly passes this Bill, how the Bill is going to be implemented will be absolutely crucial. We've been working very closely with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, CAFCASS Cymru and social services to consider its impact and implementation, including considering guidance and training needs. We've established a strategic implementation group and four task and finish groups to take this work forward. I also agree with the Children, Young People and Education Committee that sufficient time will be needed between Royal Assent and commencement for the important awareness-raising and implementation work to take place.

I welcome the recognition of the importance of data collection in enabling assessment and evaluation of the Bill’s impact. Obtaining and analysing data was and remains a priority. So, we will continue to work closely with stakeholders to find ways to collect relevant data for a period prior to implementation to establish baselines, and following commencement to monitor the Bill. I will bring forward a Government amendment to place a commitment to undertake post-implementation evaluation of the Bill. We will also carry out regular surveys to track the success of our awareness-raising activity and the impact on public opinion towards the physical punishment of children.

I want to emphasis however that there is no international evidence to suggest that either the police or social services will be overwhelmed by a decision to remove the defence of reasonable punishment, and the police, CPS and social services have also confirmed this in their evidence to the committee. Furthermore, last week I met the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland. As you know, Scotland are going through a similar process. They are introducing a Bill at the same time as we are. The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland is a New Zealander, and in August he met with the police, social workers and the parenting organisations in New Zealand—and of course, New Zealand has got a similar legal jurisdiction to ourselves, and they implemented this 10 years ago—and he said that they were unanimous in being absolutely positive about the change of their law there. Social workers welcomed the clarity the law has provided, and the police said it hadn't led to increased prosecution. Rather, it had provided clarity for officers and allowed for supportive interventions. These front-line workers in New Zealand cited the progressive change there’s been in public attitudes over the last decade, and that is backed up by Government surveys of the population. So, I thought it was very good to have first-hand information about what’s happening in New Zealand.

And I want to close by saying that devolution has given Wales a unique opportunity to lead the way on a number of issues in the UK. Just two of them: we introduced the 5p carrier bag charge, which has dramatically cut the number of single-use carrier bags used, followed by other parts of the UK; we changed the law on organ donation and we now have the highest consent rate of all the UK nations. We now have an opportunity to change the law on the physical punishment of children and remove this defence, which has meant children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. I can't think of anything more important myself that we can do than to protect our most vulnerable children. So, in the past, where Wales has led, others have followed. Let's be bold in this case and let's support this legislation today. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate to outline the Children, Young People and Education Committee's main recommendations and conclusions in relation to the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill.

Members will see from our report that the majority of our committee supports the general principles of this Bill. Suzy Davies and Janet Finch-Saunders do not support the Bill progressing beyond Stage 1, and I'm sure they'll outline the reasons underpinning their position later this afternoon.

Before I get to the detail of why the majority of our committee supports the Bill, I want to thank all those who submitted evidence setting out their views. I would also like to thank those parents and representatives of organisations who spoke directly with us. It takes time and effort for people to do this. In the case of those not familiar with this place, it can also take courage. As a committee, we would like to place on record our thanks to everyone who contributed. I would also like to place on record the committee's thanks to our committee team, who as always have provided exceptional support to the committee as we undertake our scrutiny.

From the outset, I want to emphasise that we fully recognise the strongly held views on both sides of the debate about whether this Bill should become law. I hope the length of our report and the detail contained within it demonstrate the importance we attached to considering views from across the spectrum of opinion. We know that a proportion of the population will not agree with our conclusions. However, we hope that the approach we have taken demonstrates to both the Bill's supporters and opponents the committee's commitment to fair and robust scrutiny and consideration of the evidence and views we heard.

To this end, we invited the data science campus at the Office of National Statistics to undertake an impartial analysis of the views expressed in our public consultation on the Bill. I would like to put on record our thanks to them for their work. We received a wide range of information, heard a wide range of opinions, and gave detailed consideration to the breadth of evidence available to us.

An important part of our work was to hear from those working on the front line, delivering services and having a statutory responsibility to protect children and act in their best interest. This included the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, social services, teacher representatives and a wide range of health professionals, including GPs, nurses, health visitors, paediatricians and psychiatrists. Without exception, they told us that this Bill will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.

We were told that having a clearer law will help those on the front line to better protect children, including those who are most vulnerable. Professionals told us this Bill will make a significant difference because it provides a clear line for them, and importantly a clear boundary that parents, children and the wider public can clearly understand.

We acknowledge that the majority of individuals who responded to our consultation in a personal capacity did not support the general principles of this Bill. We heard a wide range of reasons for their opposition and we have reflected on these views in detail in our report. The majority of responses from individuals focused on how removing the defence will impact on parents. We were very clear that our primary concern as a committee must be to weigh up what the evidence tells us about the impact this Bill could or will have on children, and whether it will improve the protection the law provides for them.

We also considered the wealth of academic evidence that exists in this area. This covers a range of issues, including consideration of the evidence about the short and long-term impacts of physical punishment on children, and the impact on child outcomes in countries that have already prohibited it.

On balance, the majority of our committee believes there is a strong argument that this Bill will reduce the risk of potential harm to children and young people. We are not convinced that there is a potential for high numbers of prosecutions as a result of its passing. There is simply no evidence for that, and that is not the view of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service either.

Wales was seen to lead the way for children and young people and received international recognition when it introduced the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure in 2011. This was the first legislation of its kind in the UK, embedding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law. We, and our predecessor committees, have consistently told the Welsh Government that this legislative commitment to rights must be made a reality in children’s lives.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has been very explicit that it wants the law on physical punishment changed in the UK. Most recently, in 2016, it said we should

'Prohibit as a matter of priority all corporal punishment in the family, including through the repeal of all legal defences, such as "reasonable chastisement" '.

The majority of our committee believes that, as a country, we cannot pick and choose the articles of the convention with which we comply. For us, passing this legislation will be a clear example of how these existing legislative duties can be translated into a meaningful reality for children in Wales.

In the time remaining, I'd like to turn to the things the majority of our committee thinks are needed to ensure that this Bill delivers its stated aims. In recommending that the Bill should progress, we are very clear that it is crucial that two things are in place to ensure that this legislation works for the benefit of children and their families. Firstly, we believe a wide-ranging awareness-raising campaign is essential. This is fundamental to the success of this legislation. We do not doubt the current Government’s intention to deliver this public awareness campaign. However, while future administrations will inherit the laws we pass, they may not share the same level of commitment to the mechanisms that are key to their effective implementation. As such, we welcome the Deputy Minister’s acceptance of our recommendation that the Bill be amended to place a duty on the Welsh Government to provide information and increase awareness about the effect of the legislation.

Secondly, we recommend that universal support be made available to parents across Wales. There is much more that must be done to help families with the inevitable challenges that parenting brings. We believe that providing support to parents to learn about and use alternatives to physical punishment when disciplining their children is essential to ensuring the Bill achieves the Government’s stated aims. This will require a step change and a strategic investment.

Given the importance the committee attached to the provision of adequate universal support for parents, I would like to probe the Deputy Minister a little further on her response to recommendations 7 and 18. We welcomed the Deputy Minister’s assurances during the scrutiny that an exercise was under way to map the support available to parents in Wales. We are therefore disappointed that the outcomes of the mapping exercise will not be available to us in time to inform the amending stages of this Bill. This is of particular concern to us given that the Deputy Minister’s desire not to pre-empt the mapping exercise is the reason cited for being unable to fully accept our recommendation 18, which calls for that step change in universal positive parenting support. I would be grateful if the Deputy Minister could indicate why this mapping exercise was not started earlier to ensure the Assembly had the maximum amount of information available to it. To assure both supporters and opponents of this Bill that sufficient support will be available to parents alongside this change in the law, I would urge the Deputy Minister to reconsider the current timetable for the mapping exercise.

I would like to close by thanking the Deputy Minister and her officials for the detailed response provided in advance of the debate, and to repeat my thanks to all those who contributed to our Stage 1 scrutiny. Diolch yn fawr.

Dai Lloyd to speak on behalf of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

Thank you, Llywydd. We reported on this Bill, the Children (Abolition of Defence and Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill on 2 August this year, making just two recommendations. I'd like to highlight a couple of broader points before moving on to our recommendations.

In accordance with our work on scrutiny of all Bills, the CLA Committee considered matters relating to the competence of the Assembly, the proposed use of subordinate legislation, and other matters that we consider to be relevant to the quality of the legislation.

For a Bill to be within legislative competence of the National Assembly, the Government of Wales Act requires all of its provisions to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. We raised this issue with the Deputy Minister during our evidence session, in particular with regard to balancing the rights of the child to be protected and the rights of parents to discipline a child.

We welcome the Deputy Minister’s responses to the questions that we posed, and we note the information contained within the equality impact assessment that covers the relevant articles of the ECHR. 

However, we have consistently maintained that the Welsh Government should ensure that information relating to legislative competence set out in the explanatory memoranda contain sufficient detail to ensure transparency and to enable effective scrutiny of Bills. 

We believe that a fuller explanation of the assessments undertaken in relation to human rights should be included within the explanatory memoranda. We note the Deputy Minister’s commitment to review the balance between what is in the EM and the impact assessments that were undertaken and published on the Welsh Government’s website.

I’d like to be clear that this is not an attempt to undermine the assessments of legislative competence made by the Welsh Government. Our approach is to ensure that these matters are laid out in a coherent, transparent and accessible way to facilitate the scrutiny process and to enhance understanding among citizens.

We noted that the Bill contains one delegated power which takes the form of an Order. The Order will appoint the date on which the provisions of the Bill come into force, and will not be subject to a scrutiny procedure. While we are therefore content with the balance between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation, we do note that the Order may make transitional, transitory or saving provisions. In light of that, our report suggests that our successor committee in the sixth Assembly should carefully consider the use made of this commencement power.

I will now move on to our two recommendations. The Crown Prosecution Service, as the principal public prosecuting service for England and Wales, provides charging advice in more serious or complex cases than that is based on the code for Crown prosecutors and prosecution guidance. We agree with the Deputy Minister that revised Crown Prosecution Service charging standard guidance will be extremely important in delivering the Bill’s objectives.

On that basis, our first recommendation suggests that the Deputy Minister should work with the CPS and ensure that the standard charging guidance, as well as any associated guidance, should be available to Assembly Members in draft format ahead of Stage 3 proceedings on the Bill. We note that the Deputy Minister, while accepting the principle of this recommendation, has stated that she is unable to influence the CPS on the development or timing of their guidance.

Finally, we took note of the Deputy Minister’s intention to hold a post-implementation review. In our view, the Bill should require Welsh Ministers to evaluate its effectiveness in delivering the policy objectives. We draw attention to other Welsh Acts that include provisions requiring post-implementation evaluation, for example the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Act 2014 and the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Act 2018.

Our second recommendation, therefore, is that the Bill should be amended to require Welsh Ministers to undertake a post-implementation evaluation of the Bill. We suggest that such an evaluation should take place within three years of the legislation coming into force, and that Welsh Ministers should report their findings to the National Assembly.

We welcome the Deputy Minister’s statement that she is willing to bring forward an amendment to bring effect to this recommendation. We note, however, that this evaluation will take place within a period of five years rather than three years, as set out in our recommendation. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m very pleased to contribute to this debate to outline the Finance Committee’s recommendations in relation to the financial implications of this Bill this afternoon. We have made, as a committee, nine recommendations and I'm pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed to accept seven of these recommendations in full and has accepted two others in principle. And I will focus, in my contribution, on our key findings.

The majority of costs associated with the Bill, of course, relate to awareness-raising activity to be undertaken by the Welsh Government. During evidence sessions, we heard that similar legislation was being considered by the Scottish Parliament, and in contrast to the Welsh Government’s approach, the Scottish Bill places a duty on the face of the Bill requiring Scottish Ministers to promote public awareness and understanding of the impact of the Bill. Now, given that the campaign will be integral to the Bill’s implementation, we feel the same approach should be taken in Wales. And I'm very pleased now, of course, that the Deputy Minister has accepted our recommendation 1 and a similar recommendation by the Children, Young People and Education Committee, and will be tabling an amendment to that effect.

We are also pleased to hear that the Deputy Minister has given her approval for a high-intensity campaign, allocating around £2.2 million over approximately six years, and will be publishing further details about the awareness-raising campaign, in particular how it intends to reach relevant individuals. We look forward to seeing this information included in a revised explanatory memorandum at the end of Stage 2.

During the evidence session, we heard that the costs to social services were currently unknown at present due to a lack of baseline data. Now, as the defence of reasonable punishment currently exists, social services in Wales do not specifically collect information on physical punishment. Given the lead-in time for the development of this Bill, we believe that more progress should have been made in establishing a baseline cost for referrals to social services. However, we're pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed to prioritise this work and that Welsh Government officials are now working with local authorities to try to obtain an estimate of numbers of current referrals to social services.

Now, it's estimated that there are likely to be 274 referrals per annum to the police relating to the removal of the defence at a unit cost of £650, which gives us a total cost of £178,000. The Deputy Minister has said that the number of cases proceeding to prosecution would reduce over time as a result of the awareness campaign. The Deputy Minister also told us that prosecutions would only take place if it’s in the public interest and in the child’s interest, and that she would like to explore community solutions such as diversion schemes and some of the issues that Leanne Wood raised earlier. We're pleased that she has accepted recommendation 5 from the Finance Committee and that work is being undertaken on the cost implications of diversion schemes.

We're also pleased the Deputy Minister has agreed recommendation 6 and that further work will be undertaken to provide data that show a clear link between the numbers of cases referred to the police and the number of resulting prosecutions.

I just want to close by talking about the implementation group. This appears to have a key role to play in assessing the activities that will be required to successfully deliver the Bill. However, the regulatory impact assessment does not include costings for the resourcing of the group. The committee believes that the time professionals spend as members of the group is an opportunity cost and therefore the group must provide value for money. We are therefore pleased that the Deputy Minister has agreed recommendation 8 and will be publishing a high-level work plan for the implementation group. And therefore, with that, I thank you for listening. Thank you.

I have many speakers who've indicated a desire to speak in this debate. If Members can be as succinct as possible, that would be useful in order to enable us to call as many speakers as possible. I expect that there will be a variety of views expressed this afternoon on this matter, so we will seek to call as many speakers as possible but expect this session to be extended from its 60 minutes of allocated time. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to speak against the fundamental principles of this Bill, a Bill that sees this Government intervening inappropriately and excessively in family life. What we have here is a nanny-state approach, which disagrees that it is parents who are best placed to decide on the appropriate punishment or discipline for a child. We know from a UK Government review that the defence appears to be little used. Similarly, between 2009 and 2017, the defence was only raised three times in cases where a decision to charge had been made. So, the defence has not been hindering many parents who have actually caused anything more than a temporary reddening of the skin from being held accountable. Therefore, it seems that the allegation that this whole exercise is a demonstration of virtue signalling is absolutely right. It is indefensible in this instance to be infringing further on parents' rights in respect of private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The Welsh Government argue that the interference is justified by the need to protect the rights of children, but is it? I think not. It is acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum that there is unlikely to be any research evidence that specifically shows the effects of a light and infrequent smack as being harmful to children. This is actually supported by the 'Parental Physical Punishment: Child Outcomes and Attitudes' review.

There is evidence that the processing of emotional pain in the brain is actually in the same area as physical pain. The independent Psychology Associates tell us that physical punishment is less harmful than some other non-physical, such as mind games, and that sending a child to a room and isolating them for several hours would be a very, very harmful thing to do. It was no surprise, therefore, that only half of the consultation respondents agreed that the legislative proposal will achieve the aim of protecting children's rights. Therefore, the advice of Professor Larzelere cannot be ignored—that a better alternative is to identify the most appropriate chastisement. As it stands, we are now on track to be unreasonably criminalising good parents, of which there are many in Wales. 

It is admitted in the explanatory memorandum that parents, if reported, will be charged, prosecuted and convicted, or offered a statutory out-of-court disposal, which would be disclosed as conviction information on an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. Even worse is that the chief constable for south Wales admitted that reports of alleged criminal behaviour will still show up, even if that person has not been prosecuted. 

I ask this Chamber: do we really want such parents to see their career chances challenged and travel to certain countries curbed as a result of a minor incident and removal of the defence? Have we even thought of the fact that punishing the parent may actually cause harm to the child too? It was noted in committee that senior officers in Wales have warned that children may be removed from their family home whilst cases are prosecuted. It has also been explained that the ban could delay some of the 6,500 court cases where parents can't agree arrangements for their children, and weaponise smacking in divorce cases.  

If you don't believe me, listen to the Deputy Minister. She herself has admitted that malicious reporting via ex-partners is likely to occur. It is true that the police already have to identify genuine cases, and that multi-agency safeguarding hubs are used to understand the context of families. Despite the Welsh Government response to recommendation 17 portraying them as being unfazed by the fact that there is not a hub in every area, in evidence, a police and crime commissioner noted the necessity of greater funding levels, and essentially agreed that it is a concern that the Welsh Government is proposing a law that it is not funding with regard to the greater impact on our police force. Funding is an even greater problem when questioning the impact of the Bill on social services. Astoundingly, the Deputy Minister comes across as being clueless as to the pressure this legislation will cause to the cash crisis in social services. 

Will you wind up, please?

Yes. She has not actually calculated the potential additional costs, meaning that she's asking us to support a Bill with serious unknown financial implications for struggling local authorities. This is fiscally irresponsible. If you don't believe me, look at the conclusions of the Finance Committee report, and recommendation 20 of the Children, Young People and Education Committee report, to which the Deputy Minister has replied that:

'it may not be possible to provide more detailed estimates'

of the unknown costs.

Wind up, please.

Okay. The Deputy Minister has tripped up on awareness too. I know that the Bill was a Welsh Labour manifesto commitment, but I think that it would be responsible—

Sorry. Sorry. No, I'm sorry. Dawn Bowden. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And, as a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, which is one of the committees that scrutinised this Bill, I'm very pleased to commend its recommendations to you. I believe that our scrutiny has been thorough, and can I also add my thanks to those of Lynne Neagle to those individuals and organisations that gave their time to come in and discuss with us the issues that arise from, what, on the face of the Bill, is a very narrow matter? But, while the Bill may be narrow in scope to remove the defence of reasonable punishment of children, the evidence that we heard was very wide-ranging, and is hugely significant in the debate around the rights of the child. As a committee, we deliberated on the evidence, I thought, in a constructive way, though, on this occasion, it was unfortunate that not all of the committee was able to agree all of the recommendations—a reflection, I have no doubt, of the strongly held views on both sides of the debate. 

But, Llywydd, for my contribution, I just want to cover four areas of evidence that we heard. First, and I think at the heart of this change in the law, is the recognition of the rights of the child, and, flowing from that, a need for parents to engage in more effective forms of corrective actions. And that's why I support the need for a period of time to prepare for the implementation of the change in the law, should it be passed by this Assembly. Because it's not just about the law; it's also an important change in the culture of parenting. And so I'm very pleased to hear the Deputy Minister say that the Government will be bringing forward the amendment to raise awareness on the face of the Bill, which two of the committees had asked for. 

So, the work to be undertaken through public information and advertising campaigns, with midwives and others who help parents, does need a period of preparation before the change in the law is introduced. Secondly, my interest in this Bill was to understand, as best possible, the practical implications of removing this legal defence. Prior to the introduction of the Bill, I'd heard many campaigners claim that it was important, perhaps symbolic, in order to secure full rights for children in Wales. But, up until this point, I'd not had the opportunity to probe in detail, with social work practitioners, with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, et cetera, exactly what the practical application—implication, sorry—of the change in the law would be. So, I was, and I am, keen to be assured that, in removing this defence, we do not create a situation where hard-pressed social services, police forces and prosecutors face a much greater burden of activity. And, on this point, the evidence that we heard has reassured me sufficiently to continue supporting the Bill in that particular area. 

Thirdly, I want to stress the importance of recommendation 4—the importance of diversionary pathways that we've heard others talk about as well, when cases arise after the changes that would becomes law if this Bill becomes law. Welsh Government must ensure sufficient preparation is made so that diversionary schemes can focus on encouraging and supporting parents rather than penalising them. And I know that the Deputy Minister agrees that this is an important consideration, and she has confirmed that again today. 

And that leads me to my fourth and final point, which is summarised in recommendation 8 of this report. I believe that there will be extra costs that arise from this Bill in relation to the additional support that will be required for parents, and for statutory and third sector organisations looking to deliver that support. And while we can't, at this point, be explicit on those costs, it is important that Welsh Government commit to monitoring those costs and financing services that are identified as being crucial to the successful changes required.

The assurances given by the Deputy Minister on behalf of the Welsh Government are correct that some of the uncertainties on the costs will be overcome. But that will depend on us having a robust evaluation process, which I believe is covered in our committee's recommendations 13 and 16. Llywydd, this Stage 1 evaluation of this legislation has been extensive and informative, and it's right, in my view, that we progress with it.

In concluding, I'm of the view that we shouldn't be sidetracked by the use of sanitised terminology like 'smacking' or 'light tap', which kind of sounds okay, but really it's not okay. It's still hitting a child, and whatever reservations people may have—and I say this as a mother who struggled with disciplining my children when they were little at times—we must recognise that hitting a child cannot be right. Not only can it be damaging to the child, but it sends absolutely the wrong message to them in their formative years, that the use of physical punishment is an acceptable way to instill good behaviour. The legislation will introduce clarity that doesn't currently exist, and the law around children's rights will be better for that clarity. So, I hope this Assembly will accept the recommendations as set out in the committee's report.

Plaid Cymru supports the general principles of the children (Wales) Bill before us today, and, as a member of the children and young people committee, I have had numerous opportunities to listen carefully to the arguments for and against the introduction of a Bill of this kind, and I have been convinced entirely that children in Wales can only benefit as a result of this minor legislative change. Therefore, the Bill should certainly be allowed to proceed to the next legislative stage in this Assembly.

There's a strong argument to be made that this Bill could reduce the risk of possible harm to children and young people. Along with the introduction of the Bill, we must do much more to help families with the inevitable challenges of parenting that face us all, and the Chair of the children and young people committee has already mentioned the importance of enhancing and expanding that support, and we look forward to seeing what the outcomes of the mapping exercises will be, and what steps will be taken as a result of that.

Very briefly, why should the law change? Well, there are a number of very good reasons for this change. Children should have the same defence against violence as adults, and that should be enshrined in law. Reasonable punishment is not accepted as a defence in cases of common assault when the victim is over 16 years old, so why on earth should we have one rule for children under 16 and another for everyone else?

According to article 19 of the UNCRC we must take all appropriate steps to safeguard children while they're in the care of their parents or other individuals, and Wales has adopted that convention as a baseline for policy development in relation to children and young people in Wales, and that was done back in 2004. Therefore, I would argue that we are duty bound under human rights legislation to change the law.

The abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment is a minor change to the law and it will affect only a small number of people. The Crown prosecution sentencing guidance will not need to change because, as we heard in committee, a decision will need to be made in all cases as to whether prosecution is in the public interest and in the child's interest.

A UK Government review of the efficiency of the 2004 Children Act found that there was a lack of understanding of current legislation and that many believed that section 58 allowed physical punishment. Some practitioners, such as social workers, who want to advise parents not to strike their children see it difficult to do that because of the legal position. Therefore, the abolition of this defence would make their work so much easier and the situation would be far clearer for everyone.

For all those reasons, therefore, I am pleased to support the general principles of this Bill, and I thank Julie Morgan for her detailed work and her determination with this issue.

My position on this Bill has not changed since the last time it was discussed in this Chamber, when I shared my own experience of abuse as a child and as a young adult. To start with, I think it would be worth you showing this Chamber and, more to the point, the public what you really mean by a 'smack'. There is a massive spectrum between a tap on the hand and a punch in the face, and I should know that. So, can you please demonstrate what you actually deem to be a 'smack' as prohibited by this so-called smacking ban? 

That said, in this wider debate, I think it's natural, when thinking about removing a defence, and about courts and criminality, to immediately picture the more extreme types of violence that produce injuries like bruises and black eyes. But that is not what we are talking about here, is it, as that is abuse. To my mind, this Bill represents a disproportionate interference in family life by the state, and I cannot support that level of interference. It could lead to loving parents being prosecuted for using a mild smack. This would not be in the interests of the children, this would not be in the interests of the parents, and not in the interests of the professionals having to police this. I recall a recent exchange about outcomes for looked-after children, where your Government is quite rightly encouraging preventative measures to ensure fewer children becoming looked after. I mentioned then the call on social services staff, the same staff who will be dealing with their legacy reactive cases, their new preventative cases and these new smacking cases. Parents who use light physical discipline with their children are not seeking to hurt them, and the evidence does not show that a light tap does anything to harm a child whatsoever. In fact, in some situations it can communicate danger to a child in a way that verbal reasoning cannot.

It is wrong for this Welsh Government to criminalise parents who choose to discipline their children in this way. This is a classic example of out-of-reach politicians imposing their own views on parenting on the general public. If this Bill becomes law, professionals will have to go after hundreds of parents who smack, instead of dedicating their time to tackling actual child abuse. You have estimated that 548 parents a year would be caught under a smacking ban. That's a huge additional workload for front-line professionals. Distracting police officers and social workers with these cases will mean that children who are in the same awful situation that I was years ago might actually slip through the net. I don't want to take that risk.

Investigating families over smacking will also be traumatic for children. The children's committee heard evidence that children could be removed from their families during a smacking investigation. Really? Can you confirm, where there is more than one child in a family in these circumstances, whether all the children would be removed? Police groups go on to say that the emotional impact of the removal of a parent from a family setting on a child should not be underestimated, and I fully agree with that. Lynne Neagle, as Chair, you stated yourself that most adults surveyed do not want this law, but, as usual, the Welsh Government will go ahead and do it anyway.

Presiding Officer, it is child abusers who need to feel the full weight of the law, not loving parents who use a light smack. While we do not advocate physical chastisement in any form, the Brexit Party group does advocate the right of parents to bring up their children as they see fit, within the confines of the law and protections already in place. So, we will not be supporting this Bill.

Can I thank the Minister for outlining some of the rationale behind this Bill? As the Minister will know, we've crossed swords on many occasions in this Chamber on this particular issue, and I think everybody is informed by their own experiences as both a mum or dad and in terms of their own upbringing when it comes to this particular issue. But I have to say I will not be voting to allow this particular piece of legislation to proceed through the Assembly today, because, as others have already said, we're being asked to give permission for a Bill to proceed to its next stage, to become law, which will result in the criminalisation, potentially, of tens of thousands of loving parents across Wales who use the occasional smack to discipline their children.

Now, as has already been said, parenting is hard enough as it is, and we do need to extend our support to parents and encourage them and equip them to be able to use alternative forms of discipline. I've got no problem with that. You've said that you will want to encourage that through parenting programmes, but I want to see, as the committee does, a universal offer of those programmes, in the same way that there's a universal offer of things like antenatal classes before babies are going to be born. So, instead of punishing parents, I think that we need to be offering these alternatives to them and making sure that there is access to those courses universally.

There isn't public support for this particular piece of legislation. I know that you'll say, 'It was included in our manifesto, and that's why we've got a mandate to do it', but the reality is, as we all know, that most of our manifestos, whether we like it or not, are not read in detail. This was not something that was highlighted in every single leaflet that went through people's doors. Whenever public opinion has been tested on this, the response has been very, very clear, and that is: the overwhelming majority, between two thirds and three quarters of people, do not believe that a smacking ban should be introduced. They recognise, you see, as many of us opposing this Bill today do, that we've already got comprehensive legislation in place that the police, social services and others do use to prosecute cases against people who abuse their children, and quite rightly they should do that because, of course, those people should feel the full weight of the law and face the consequences if they are abusing their children. But most parents who use the occasional smack do so within the confines of a loving relationship with the child who they want to raise to be a responsible adult and someone who can contribute to society usefully in the future. So, I don't think it's appropriate that we are penalising parents who have that heart and motive behind their discipline in a way that, perhaps, other parents who abuse their children will not.

We've talked about some of the potential consequences—other Members have—in terms of the time that social services and the police will be using in order to investigate these sorts of cases when the real abuse cases might be going and slipping through the net. But, in terms of the consequences in other nations—and the Minister referred to New Zealand earlier on—we know that, in New Zealand, there are hundreds of cases a year that are taken through the courts. There have been 55 prosecutions, for example, just in the first five years. Parents lost their jobs as a result of smacking their children. We saw parents separated from their children, causing the sort of damage that we've heard can happen in those sorts of situations. I think when we look at those examples and the fact that people are still smacking their children in New Zealand—around a third of parents, according to surveys, in spite of the ban are still smacking their children—we can see that this doesn't really work. So, instead of changing the law unnecessarily, I would urge the Government instead to use its resources, to use the talent that is within the Government department, to provide some positive incentives to assist parents with raising their children in a way where they don't have to smack or smack less frequently.

The costs of this, of course, could be runaway costs. We've no idea what they are; there's not been an estimate in the financial parts of the explanatory memorandum. It would be irresponsible, frankly, for us to sit here at a time when budgets are tight to allow this piece of legislation to proceed when there's no price tag attached to it. And I think we need to reflect on that and reflect on the views of our constituents, the overwhelming majority of whom will oppose this Bill, before we vote on it today. 

Well, I fully and enthusiastically support this Bill, Dirprwy Lywydd. I believe it is overdue to end the defence of reasonable punishment and provide greater clarity by putting children on an equal footing with adults. And overdue as well to be consistent with our international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and overdue to give greater protection to our children and ensure their dignity, indeed, is properly respected and valued. 

I guess I wouldn't be alone, Dirprwy Lywydd, in seeing echoes of previous debates in the debate that we've heard today. I well remember when I went to school—and I guess there are other Members present in this Chamber today who had similar experiences—there was the cane, there was the ruler, there was the dapper, there were other implements to strike children with, and when it was proposed to abolish corporal punishment in schools, there was an outcry and many politicians made the points that I think we've heard today, that this would undermine discipline, would be counterproductive, wasn't necessary, it should be up to the schools and, indeed, public opinion to decide what happened in our schools. Now, thankfully I would say, our schools are very different places to the way that they were in those days, and I would say that change has been much for the better. Discipline is now achieved in much more positive ways.

And schools, indeed, today try to instil in their pupils a respect for other children and people in general. They're told to have kind hands, not to use physical force to try to get other children to do what they want them to do. They are taught very clearly and consistently that using physical force is wrong, bullying is wrong. As the Deputy Minister said earlier, the idea that a big person can hit a little person and that's legitimate and right is a very worrying message, I think, to give to our children when we're trying to tackle bullying in school and, indeed, bullying in general.

I must say, to me, if you allow hitting at home in the way that it is currently allowed with the defence of reasonable punishment in existence, it does undermine those messages that schools are trying to inculcate in our pupils. And I believe those messages that they send through education today are very important indeed as to the way our society in general is and the protection that not just children in schools today will have as a result, but, when they grow into adults, the protection that those adults will enjoy as well, because children will look at physical force in a very different way. 

So, to me, it is a very progressive measure. It would achieve greater consistency with our human rights obligations, the way that our schools take forward their education and teaching. 

Will you take an invtervention?

I will give way to Darren Millar. 

I'm very grateful for your giving way. I just wanted to touch on this issue of consistency with human rights obligations. Of course, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child talks about physical and mental violence, not just physical violence. Given that we've heard, and everyone seems to accept, the evidence that also confining a child to a room or shouting and screaming in their face or ignoring the child can also cause harm to a child, why isn't the Government legislating on this, do you think? There's no consistency, is there?

I think Government has said that there would be a package of measures in support of this legislation, and it is about positive parenting and making sure that the advice and the support and guidance will be available to have that positive parenting, and I think that would very much address those issues that you raise also. 

Over 50 countries, we know, have already made this change and are experiencing the benefits. By and large it's a positive experience, and I want to see children in Wales, families in Wales and parents in Wales having that positive experience as well. I do believe we need to send the right messages and this change will send those right messages. We need to change expectations of parents. The family unit is the essential building block in society. It should be a loving, warm and supportive unit, as loving, warm and supportive as possible. It should allow children's personalities to develop and flourish. Positive parenting will allow that. It's a better way to set boundaries than hitting, and it's an important part of fostering, I believe, the sort of loving families that we want to see here in Wales. So, I very much welcome this progressive Bill and the Welsh Government's commitment in bringing it forward. 

David Melding.

Thank you for calling me to speak in this really important debate. We've been debating this since the first Assembly, and a few of us, I think, took part in the several debates, I think, we had in the first Assembly, and I remain consistent in my position that a ban is appropriate. We've got to be careful about how it's implemented. I fear that, unlike in the first Assembly, I won't have two of my colleagues who will support me, but I do recall that three out of the nine of the first Assembly Conservative group did back change in the law.

Back then, in the early 2000s, only a handful of countries had actually banned smacking, and, as John just told us, 56 countries now have, starting with Sweden in 1979, and today including most countries in Europe—Britain is one of the few to retain a defence—and they include Germany, Ireland, France, Malta and the Baltic states. I think that range, just there, as a sample, shows you how normalised it's now become to move to a clearer position on legal chastisement being removed as a defence. And further afield, countries like Israel, which is a different culture again, have moved strongly and seen significant behavioural change following their change in the law to ban smacking.

There's a very common approach in these countries, and that is not to criminalise parents. And I do accept that, in our common law system, with our emphasis on the legal system—we don't have a civil code, as they do in countries like France—we have more of a challenge here, and we need to be aware of that, and those points are well made. But the change in the legal position in these countries has been successful because it's focused on supporting parents, and that needs to be our focus this afternoon.

Our own legal position dates back to 1860, and the changes in public attitudes to physical punishment—I mean, you could be flogged in the armed forces, let alone in prisons, and beaten in schools, severely, then. And there has been a massive and consistent change to outlaw these practices. Now, obviously, smacking in no way is a severe punishment, but it is, I think, part of this continuum, about how we view others, and respect others, and recognise their rights, and encourage people to adopt better behaviour. And proper discipline, of course, is always required—and I must say, I don't speak as a parent, so I think it's Dr Melding's guide to good parenting here. But you don't give any favours to children if you don't discipline them—it is a very, very important function.

So I do want to commend, in particular, the work of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. I really think it's one of the best reports that has ever been produced at Stage 1, in its range, its balance, and quoting evidence that's not entirely consistent—it's fair to those who have a different view. And that's absolutely the right way to approach this, because generous hearts can take a very different view on this issue—and I must say Mandy expressed that with incredible eloquence. But I am convinced that both the weight of evidence and parental practice, which is a very significant thing, point strongly to the need to reform.

I would like to say a lot more, but I particularly just want to finish on the recommendations, which I thought were very powerful in the committee's report. Recommendation 3—an information campaign and proportionate implementation. My understanding is that smacking will be seen as de minimis. It would not be appropriate for a heavy-handed criminal investigation or sanction. It's only if it were repeated and repeated and repeated would a de minimis offence attract that level of attention from the courts, in my view. That's what we're looking at. 

Recommendation 4—focusing on supporting parents not penalising them. Recommendation 5—clear guidance for law enforcement authorities. I think that really is essential. Recommendation 7—support services for parents. I know that that's been discussed already. And finally, I do think it's very wise—recommendation 13—for some form of post-legislative scrutiny to be conducted by the executive. Perhaps we should do it as well. Because it will be important to see how this change in the law works in practice.

But I'm proud to see this Bill finally before the Assembly. I do wish it could have happened 20 years ago. There were reasons it couldn't, not least because we didn't have law-making powers. But I will be supporting with enthusiasm the general principles of this Bill.

Thank you very much. We have gone past the allocated time for this debate, but conscious of what the Llywydd said when she started the debate, I now intend—. I have a number of speakers and I now intend to ask them to limit their contributions to three minutes in order that I don't then have to say to somebody, 'You can't speak'. So, it's three minutes from now on, and then the Minister will respond and we'll see how we go from there. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We will be voting against this Bill today. I've been inundated with calls and e-mails from concerned parents who fear they will be turned into criminals as a result of the Welsh Government's proposals.

I am not advocating for wholesale assault on children. Indeed, as a teacher and as a person who looked after two children for many years, I can confirm they were never physically reprimanded. The defence of reasonable chastisement allows a loving parent to deliver a very mild smack to their child. The defence does not allow a parent to beat their child black and blue. Reasonable chastisement is not abuse. It is the discipline given by a loving parent. It should be up to the loving parent whether or not reasonable chastisement is used, and not for the state to outlaw it.

There is overwhelming support amongst parents for this position. Three quarters of parents surveyed believe that smacking should not be criminalised. Criminalising loving parents will also place our public services under greater strain. The Welsh Government proposes encouraging the public to report to authorities if they believe they have seen or learned of a child being physically punished.

Instead of investigating genuine cases of abuse, resources will be diverted to investigating and prosecuting parents who have tapped or lightly smacked their child. Those parents will have a criminal record and the consequences will be dire. They'll be prevented from working with children. The Welsh Government accepts there could be hundreds of such cases every year, yet are unsure of what impact this will have upon social services, the family courts, police and the CPS.

There is absolutely no need for this legislation. Under existing law, if a parent smacks their child so hard it leaves a significant mark, the parent faces a fine, a community order, or up to five years in jail. Let's leave the law as it is, but perhaps offering parents knowledge on other ways of reprimanding their children, by us working together as politicians and not alienating loving parents. We must allow parents to decide upon the best way of disciplining their child, whilst educating them at the same time on alternatives, and concentrate wholly on prosecuting those who physically abuse their children. 

I don't support smacking, but I also do not support telling other parents how to bring their children up. This is not a child welfare Bill. I know because I tried to amend it but it wasn't possible. My main concern with this Bill is that I think that, if it becomes law, it could make it more easy to abuse children.

I campaign to get children's voices heard in cases where they allege abuse but they're not being listened to, and I'm not confident, stood here today, that all cases of alleged abuse are investigated properly. I have a meeting coming up with the head of public protection in south Wales, because there are cases where children have alleged abuse, but they’ve not been interviewed in places of safety, and they’ve not been interviewed away from the alleged abuser. These are big concerns.

The system is more than creaking. It’s more than creaking. And it’s a reality that the police are hugely under-resourced. Any case of abuse is hugely time consuming. Hugely. If this Bill becomes law, then the police may well be forced to investigate a large amount of cases. The Government cannot even say how many. So, we could see a possible deluge of decent parents dropped into the criminal justice system, and that could mean that those who do abuse have the cover of the fact that the police would be so under-resourced and overworked. So, you could have people out there getting away with it because of stretched resources.

I want to quote the senior serving police officer who wrote to us all, and he said there is no need for—. Well, he or she, actually; I don’t know. It’s verified. He or she is anonymous, but verified.

'There is no need for a smacking ban. Existing laws are working well. Children are already protected from abuse and physical harm. As officers we know where the line is drawn and so do the public at large. The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking. It stops parents being treated like criminals for no good reason.'

The officer continues:

'Add this to the risk of false allegations from disgruntled children or mud-slinging spouses going through a divorce and you have a recipe for disaster.'

Because anyone that does anything in the family law arena knows where there is conflict there also are a lot of false allegations—it’s part of the family law game, except this will mean that parents will be criminalised, and the children will pay the price for that, emotionally, in my view, as well. This is a bad law. It’s a bad law and I’ll be voting against it.

I’m the parent of six, all now responsible and caring adults. I’m a godparent, a grandparent, uncle and great uncle. I haven’t spoken to a single person outside the Cardiff Bay bubble who supports this Bill. As I said when speaking in the 2011 Member debate here on the end of lawful chastisement, section 58 of the Children Act 2004 limited the use of the defence of reasonable punishment so that it could no longer be used when people are charged with offences against a child, such as causing actual bodily harm or cruelty. Quoting the Crown Prosecution Service, I said that

'for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH for which the defence of "reasonable chastisement” is no longer available. However, if the injury amounts to no more than reddening of the skin, and the injury is transient and trifling…the reasonable chastisement defence remains available’.

As I then concluded, instead of criminalising 

'loving parents who use a smack from time to time, we must recognise the clear difference between smacking and child abuse'.

We heard about, a moment ago, an experienced senior officer with a Welsh police force who said:

‘I’m constrained from speaking out publicly, but I have to do something to try to discourage the Assembly from backing plans to outlaw smacking.’

He said:

'The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking...Removing the defence will remove any discretion we have. It will lead to decent families being traumatised.’

Extensive correspondence received from constituents regarding this has all asked me to oppose this Bill. The rest of my speech is therefore taken entirely from their words, and I quote from them.

'Seven in 10 people oppose the Welsh Government’s smacking Bill. I do not see it to be in the interest of parents, children or anyone else in society to criminalise smacking. Such a measure would send entirely the wrong message to parents struggling to bring up their children. I guess that most of us were smacked as children, not by criminal parents, but by loving, caring parents, who desired only our well-being, safety and a desire to teach us right from wrong. We would not accuse our parents of abuse or reckon they were criminals. In fact, it is those who would call this a criminal offence who are in danger of abusing children and of damaging both their future interests and those of society at large.'

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Do you think domestic abuse should be legal if it's meted out by a loving partner?

Absolutely not— 

What's the difference, then?

—and I've already made the point that we should distinguish absolutely between what we're talking about today and the horror of domestic abuse, whether it's physical or otherwise.

The power's the same. The power imbalance is the same.

There is a vast difference, and, as a parent, I know that very, very well. 

Now, in fact, it is those who call it a criminal offence who are in danger of abusing children. The law, as it stands, is an adequate safeguard against unreasonable physical abuse. Children suffering real abuse would be more at risk due to the police and social services being overwhelmed with inconsequential reports and it is a great pity that a vocal minority will be allowed to sway the day on this.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. Now, I appreciate that there is a need to protect children from being physically abused, and I am sure that everyone here agrees on that. But we do have laws that have been in place for a long time that already provide this protection, so I do wonder at the need to create new legislation to tackle a crime that can already be dealt with perfectly well under the existing laws.

When the Minister raised the issue of the smacking ban in a statement here in March, she stated that

'our intention is not to draw more people into the criminal justice system.' 

If that were the case, then perhaps this proposed Bill could be seen as a fairly harmless piece of virtue signalling. However, I worry that this will not actually be the case. I worry that what may happen is that we will see people who really aren't abusing their children being investigated and their lives perhaps being blown apart as a result of some spurious complaint being made against them, perhaps even a malicious compliant.

Dirprwy Lywydd, what the police do have at the moment is some level of discretion. If a complaint is received, which they do not feel is well warranted, then they have the discretion not to carry out a full-scale investigation. There is the defence of reasonable chastisement. Now, there has been no evidence brought forward by the Minister that genuinely abusive adults are escaping their rightful punishment because of this defence. Indeed, the new Bill will do nothing meaningful to add to the police's power in this area. But what it will do is remove the police's discretion so that they will be obliged in future to investigate fully each complaint that is made, even if it is one that they themselves believe to be ill-founded, malicious or even vexatious. This will lead inevitably to a heavier workload for the police and the CPS, who are already being rendered unable to properly investigate serious crimes as it is because of the workload that they already have. 

I have no doubt that it will also result in entirely innocent people being prosecuted. And although many of them may ultimately not be convicted, the whole rigmarole of being interviewed by police, and in many cases, of appearing in court, will not be a pleasant experience. 

If I can turn to annex 7 of the explanatory memorandum, we can see that this cites the example of New Zealand, and it is explained that, in New Zealand, the evidence was that once the legislation was passed, the number of cases that the police would have to investigate would actually double. In Wales, if we take that projection, it means we go from around 274 cases a year to around 548 cases. So, this idea that we're not going to be criminalising people by passing this legislation, and that we're just helping people to be directed towards positive parenting, is completely bogus. If we want to direct people towards positive parenting, we can simply have a spending programme that commits to that end. We don't need to create a new wave of prosecutions.

I think this is extremely ill-advised legislation that will have a detrimental effect on family life in Wales, and will ultimately lead to more innocent people being dragged into criminal investigations. It will not protect a single extra child from physical abuse, because they're already protected under existing laws. So, I will be voting against this legislation.

I am very pleased to speak in support of the general principles of this Bill, concurring with the views of the majority of members of the CYPE committee, who brought forward a thorough and balanced report. The committee have examined the evidence, written and oral, the international, and other lessons as appropriate, and have concluded by a clear majority that it is time for the defence of reasonable punishment to be removed from the statute book, and they're supported by many people in that conclusion.

This is a debate, of course, today on the general principles, and there will be much to discuss in detail as the report goes forward into committee. The detail will no doubt include the need to draw on and, where necessary, build on the huge experience of, and the expertise in, positive parenting programmes that have already been established in Wales; the need for awareness-raising campaigns by all partners on those positive parenting approaches, which we continue to expand in Wales, drawing on the best international practice and evidence; the need to adequately resource the various positive parenting initiatives right across Wales, making them accessible, as required, in all communities and to all families; the need to continue the deep work already under way between the Minister and the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and in liaising with UK Government departments as necessary to put in place effective guidance for front-line officers and other front-line professionals, building, I have to say, on their already extensive experience and expertise in making expert and informed judgments in domestic situations and on a multi-agency basis, not least with the current work on the ACEs programme as well; the need to further explore the potential for diversionary schemes to help parents who need the additional support, where prosecution is judged neither appropriate nor the most effective way forward for the family or child; and the need to avoid rushing the commencement of this Bill after Royal Assent to allow sufficient time to ensure the provision of information and support to parents, to raise awareness of the changes and to update, as needed, the training and guidance. Now, I'm sure that the Minister is cognisant of all of these issues, as she suggested within her opening remarks.

When I announced, weeks into my tenure as Minister, that the Welsh Government, with Cabinet support, would indeed progress with removing the defence of reasonable punishment, it seemed to catch many people by surprise. Yet, actually, this is wholly unsurprising in many ways. It follows the best available evidence on the lifelong benefits of positive parenting approaches for children as they progress through to adulthood. It follows the work we've been championing in Wales around positive parenting for many, many years. It follows changes in parenting approaches over many years, which is no criticism of our parents or our grandparents, but it's a simple acknowledgment that we've evolved over years our approach to setting those boundaries and discipline, putting aside physical punishment and promoting positive parenting. And it follows the example set in many other countries, with very different legal and social systems, admittedly, who have already changed to follow the evidence.

So, let us make sure that all the support, the guidance and the resource needed for parents and front-line professionals is there. But, on the general principle of removing the defence of reasonable punishment, I appeal to all colleagues here today, 'Support this Bill, which creates no new offence but removes an historic anomaly from the statute book, and let us redouble our efforts on what really matters: positive parenting and the beneficial influence this can have on this and future generations of children in Wales.'

Thank you very much. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate? Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to everybody who contributed to this debate. I'm very grateful to the committee Chairs and the members of the committees who've spoken in the debate today, and I thank them again for their very detailed reports. I look forward to working with them as the Bill continues. Obviously, due to the time restrictions, I'm not going to be able to respond to the vast number of points that have been made today, but I do thank you for all your reasoned and thoughtful contributions. There is a division of opinion across the Chamber, but I do feel that we have been able to put forward our points, on the whole, in a civilised, considered way, and we've been able to discuss these issues in a constructive way, looking at where we move forward from this. 

As I say, I'm not going to be able to respond to individual points but I would be very happy to discuss those with individual Members. I'd like to finish by making some general points. A lot of points have been made about the criminalisation of parents, and I think it's very important for us to remember that we have support for this legislation from the police, from the police chief constables, from the police and crime commissioners, and we are working very closely with them to ensure that this legislation is satisfactory. I'd also like to reiterate, as it's been raised again in the debate today, that the police will only act in the interests of the public and in the interests of the child involved, and on evidence. And I think that all the evidence that we have from this legislation being brought in in other countries is that there is no great increase in prosecutions and parents are not drawn into the criminal justice system and, in fact, evidence that was given to the children and young persons' committee by the police said:

'we do a lot more of our work through voluntary attendance and interviews, and many of the cases we might imagine under this legislative change would probably fall into that.'

And that was one of the chief constables.

Would you take an intervention? Thank you very much. I hear what you say and I have no doubt that you genuinely don't want people to be caught by the heavy hand of the law unnecessarily, but what you've just said is not true, of course, because if you look to some of the other examples, including New Zealand, which I cited earlier on, you have seen the heavy hand of the law separating families, you've seen it prosecuting loving parents, and you've seen, as a result, many parents ending up with criminal records that have then led to them being chucked out of their jobs and, in fact, not being able to travel overseas to certain countries. That's not the sort of situation we want to see developing in Wales, so I would implore you to abandon this legislation and instead to look at these alternative things that the Government can do without legislation in order to promote decent parenting across Wales.

Well, the evidence that Darren Millar puts forward from New Zealand is very different from the evidence that I have read, and the first-hand reports that I've received about what's happened in New Zealand is that it has been a very positive experience, that 10 years have resulted in a very successful bit of legislation of which they are proud. So, I think you're looking at something very different than what I'm seeing.

So, with regard to the police, as I say, we've got their total support and we're working very closely with them. Another theme that has come up is the pressure that is on, particularly, social services and on the front-line staff. And, again, we've had a lot of discussion and debate with social services members and I know that they gave evidence, again, to the children and young persons committee, and, again, I've got to repeat that social services are totally in support of this legislation. All the professionals who are working on the front line, who are working with children, who are helping parents, want this legislation to go through, because it makes their job so much easier because they are clear in what they can do, how they can help, and how they can advise parents. So, we've got all those people that you're worrying about, about the social services and the burden of it—they're completely behind us. So, I think it's really important that we do take that on board, that all the professionals who are involved in a professional way on working on the front line are supporting this legislation.

And then the third point I'd like to make, really, is the issue about support for the Bill. The feedback to the children and young persons committee was: professional support organisations, total. But individual responses from parents were, on the whole, negative. We have done representative surveys of parents and of the public from the Government and certainly there does appear to be a trend of much greater acceptance of this legislation and a much greater feeling that this is the right way to go. Amongst younger people, it's very, very strong, because 60 per cent of those aged 16 to 35 do not think it is necessary to smack a child, and that is of younger people, and particularly of parents with children under seven. And so I do think that this is—. We are going along with the times; things are moving.

We heard in contributions to the debate that there was a time when we thought it was completely wrong for—we thought it was right for children to be hit in schools; there was an uproar about removing corporal punishment. Now, we're moving on to the next stage. I know the Deputy Presiding Officer is telling me I have to finish, but I just want to finish, really, by saying thank you, all, for all your contributions, whatever side you came in on, because I think—. I do hope that we will get the vote here today to take this through, because I think this is a landmark bit of legislation and I'll be very proud if this Welsh Parliament passes it. 

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

Item 10 on our agenda is a motion to agree the financial resolution in respect of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move that motion. Julie Morgan.

Formally move.

Formally move. Thank you. I have no speakers. And as the voting on the general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill has been deferred until voting time, I defer the vote on the financial resolution until voting time as well.

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I am going to proceed to the vote. Fine. So, the first vote, then, this evening is on the debate on the Valleys taskforce. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 51, no abstentions, no-one against, therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2 in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 23, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore amendment 2 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 23, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 23, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore amendment 4 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 23, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore amendment 5 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion eight, one abstention, 42 against, therefore amendment 6 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 7, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, five abstentions, 36 against, therefore amendment 7 is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 28, seven abstentions, 16 against, therefore the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to vote on the general principles of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie Morgan. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 36, no abstentions, 15 against, therefore the motion is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion—. Sorry. We now move to vote on the financial resolution in respect of the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie Morgan. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 36, no abstentions, 15 against, therefore the motion is agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.