Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Mick Antoniw. 

Llywydd, discussions have been held between the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport, and other departments in UK Government, regarding the freight capacity framework agreement, although these were often late in the procurement process.  That process was undertaken solely by the UK Department for Transport.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Each year, Welsh ports, as you know, handle 48 million tonnes of freight. They carry 2.5 million passengers. They employ 6,000 people, including 1,000 seafarers, and it's worth £1 billion a year to the Welsh economy. The Government's Brexit mismanagement is likely to turn into a disaster for the Welsh economy and for Welsh jobs. So, if there is no deal, the freight capacity framework agreement is a potential charter for workers' exploitation, and already companies like Irish Ferries and Fastnet Line, have been named by trade unions such as the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers as the 'ships of shame', because of they're non-recognition of trade unions and exploitative rates of pay below the UK minimum wage. Now, if there is a deal, First Minister, the new Tory Siegfried line that will be the customs border down the middle of the Irish sea will lead to companies bypassing Welsh ports as they head tariff-free to the European Union. So, under the Tories' Brexit arrangements, First Minister, Welsh workers face either exploitation or unemployment. So, will you, as First Minister, meet with me, and with RMT, to discuss the steps that Welsh Government can take to protect Welsh workers and Welsh ports?

Well, Llywydd, Mick Antoniw is right to the point to the significance of Welsh ports. It's often, I think, not easily understood in other parts of the United Kingdom, but Holyhead is one of the busiest ports in the whole of the UK. Now, if we leave the European Union without a deal—an eventuality that we have absolutely regularly pointed out to be disastrous as far as the Welsh economy is concerned—then there will be immediate and adverse impacts at Welsh ports. And while we have worked with the UK Government and with ports authorities to mitigate those impacts, they will be real and they will be felt in Wales, as well as elsewhere. 

Llywydd, Mick Antoniw went on to point out the impact of the deal that the Prime Minister has now struck. And we are not well prepared for that deal, because we have proceeded on the basis of the Prime Minister's previous pronouncements on this subject. On 2 July, he told an audience in Belfast,

'under no circumstances', he said

'whatever happens, will I allow the EU or anyone else to create any kind of division down the Irish sea.'

The second of July, that's what he said—an arrangement that Mrs May described, let's not forget, as something that no UK Prime Minister could ever agree to. And here we are, a few short weeks later, and that is exactly what is now being proposed. And that without any opportunity for us to explore with this administration the impact that that decision will have on ports here in Wales, and those impacts will be absolutely real. The Johnson deal makes Wales, and Welsh ports, the front line between Great Britain and the European Union. 

Now, I've seen the Member's correspondence with my colleague Ken Skates on these matters, and I'm very happy to discuss a ministerial meeting involving Mick Antoniw and the trade unions. 

First Minister, I think it is essential that the freight capacity framework agreement can provide Government departments with the ability to secure freight capacity for supply chains between the UK and the EU. But it's also important to improve cross-border freight capacity between Wales and England. And I noticed during the evidence gathering for the Marches and mid Wales freight strategy, which was published last year, that the business community outlined the opportunities for greater domestic food production. I also say that in the context of the importance of agriculture to areas of Wales such as my constituency. They also stressed the importance of interventions that would increase the capacity of the road network in mid Wales, for better flow into the midlands. So, can I ask what specific discussions you've had with the UK Government in regard to better flow of freight between Wales and England, in the context of the points that I've raised?

I thank the Member for that point. He makes an important point about freight capacity on the mainland between Wales and England. But discussions with the UK Government on this point have focused entirely on not whether there will be enough road capacity, but whether there will be hauliers with the necessary licences to operate their lorries on those roads at all. Because, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, we know that there simply will not be sufficient permits to allow HGVs to operate in the way that they have while we've been members of the European Union. The freight capacity framework agreement has focused primarily on additional capacity across the short straits, but it also has an impact here in Wales as well, between Welsh ports and the Republic of Ireland. Those ports, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, will find themselves with hauliers unable to operate in the way that they do now, stranded potentially on the continent of Europe, unable to return. And our problem in that context will not be whether the roads themselves are fit for purpose; it will be that we won't have the capacity that we have today to operate along them.

I thank the Member for that question. The Minister for Housing and Local Government is currently giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the task and finish group. We do not now expect to receive reports from the Law Commission until the spring, but the Minister will provide an update during this autumn term, as previously indicated.

I'd like to emphasise the importance of this report for my constituents. Freehold residents in Cwm Calon in Ystrad Mynach are currently paying upwards of £150 a year for maintenance work on their estate, carried out by an estate management company. There is currently no cap on how high those charges can go, and residents cannot sell their properties until they've paid those charges, and, if they don't pay them, they're subject to county court judgments. And they're on top of their council tax. The fact that any maintenance work is going on at this estate at all is a testament to the work of the voluntary, estate-based Cwm Calon liaison group, which was set up by residents to liaise with the estate management company to get them to do the work. There is no power to make them do the work, but they managed to work with that company to make them do it. I'm currently trying to get a meeting between Redrow, the estate management company, and the council together, and currently I'm having a nightmare getting Redrow to respond to me. We're desperate to get this meeting together. We need regulation to enforce the work that is going on here, and we need regulations to enforce the power of residents in these circumstances. In particular, Welsh Government must support local authorities in adopting green spaces, so that they don't have to pay these charges, and, from a trading standards perspective, residents feel that they have been missold their properties. Can the First Minister, therefore, take these comments on board? This is residents speaking to me out of desperation. Can the First Minister take these comments on board, and please can we proceed to regulation as quickly as possible?

Llywydd, I thank the Member for those very important points. He is drawing attention to the fact that, although the task and finish group was set up to deal with leasehold reform, there was a particular workstream within it dealing with freehold matters as well. And this is a very complex area of law and policy, Llywydd, which is why, as well as the taskforce that has reported to my colleague Julie James, the Minister for Economy and Transport also set up a taskforce to look at issues surrounding unadopted roads. Because unadopted roads is a very important subset of estate management charges of the sort referred to by Hefin David.

In a very complex picture, with many different actions, I'm going to just highlight three things this afternoon, if I could. First of all, as a result of that report, we have set up the Wales conveyancer accreditation scheme, because the report said that one of the really important things was to make sure that, at the point of purchase, people got proper advice. Otherwise, people find themselves in the position that Hefin outlined, where they find charges imposed on them that they hadn't anticipated, find it very difficult to get an explanation of where those charges derive from or to get any sense of how those charges are to be regulated in the future. If you're buying a house under Help to Buy now in Wales you've got to use a conveyancer who's been accredited. The accreditation is a high bar, where people have to be able to demonstrate that they've been trained and are properly equipped to ensure that customers are adequately informed at the point of purchase.

The second thing we are looking at is strengthened rights. Leaseholders have rights and legal protections. For example, they can challenge the reasonableness of service charges under the provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Freeholders do not have those protections, which is how they end up in the position of the residents in Hefin David's constituency. The Law Commission report, which I referred to in my answer, is now expected in 2020, and we do not hold back at all from the possibility that we will want to legislate, but we will need to legislate in the light of the wider recommendations that that report will make.

And, finally and thirdly, to take up the point of unadopted roads and the charges that people find themselves having to pay there, as a result of the taskforce that Ken Skates has established, all parties are now agreed on common national standards. A good practice guide has been produced and has been disseminated to all local authorities, and a database is being developed of historic unadopted roads across Wales, so we have a better sense of the challenge that is there. All of those were recommendations of the taskforce. All three of them have been implemented and all of them I think will be of relevance to Hefin David's constitutents. 

First Minister, do you join with me in welcoming Persimmon Homes' decision to settle out of court during the summer and grant 55 householders on a Cardiff estate—St Edeyrns—their leasehold free of charge? They were on that estate despite the fact that the other 1,100 properties were sold as freehold, and it really is time that developers stopped using leasehold simply as another tool to generate income. It should only be used when the type of tenure requires leasehold, and there are times when it does, but usually on these residential estates freehold is what should be granted. 

Well, I entirely agree with the Member there, and he will be pleased, I know, to see that the figures released by the Office for National Statistics show that, in Wales, the proportion of new house sales that were leasehold decreased from 18 per cent in 2017 to 2.6 per cent in 2018,FootnoteLink and we anticipate a further reduction when the figures for 2019 are published. And that is because of an agreement with the volume house builders that no Help to Buy or Wales property development fund houses will be built in future as leasehold homes, and that's a very important advance that we've been able to make in Wales. 

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

First Minister, why has your Government increased the loan facility to Cardiff Airport by £21.2 million? 

Well, we have increased the loan payment because of the success that Cardiff Airport has established during the time that it has been in public ownership and because we want that success to continue and to grow. 

Well, let's be clear, First Minister—since the Welsh Government purchased Cardiff Airport back in 2013, it has already invested over £90 million of public money. Now, with this extra £21 million,  that's twice the amount that the Government paid for it, and what have been the results? Yes, passenger numbers are increasing, but not above the 2007 levels. However, even with the increase in passenger numbers, the airport continues to make a loss. In its latest financial statement, the airport revealed that its losses have increased to £5.71 million. Now, in my former profession, First Minister, if a business case came to me with these figures I would want to see a clear plan of how it could make its way back into profit and the viability of the business before providing further loan facilities. The airport currently owes £38.2 million, and yet your Government is extending this by £21.2 million when the airport is clearly losing millions of pounds. What business plan—what business plan—has your Government received to convince you that this loan facility is appropriate and that this is the best use of taxpayers' money? And can you reassure the people of Wales that this is not just offering a blank cheque to the airport and that this money will ultimately be repaid to the Welsh taxpayer?

Well, Llywydd, the airport has, as the Member knows, a draft master plan, which provides exactly what he is asking for, and that is a plan that the Welsh Government endorses. We invest in the airport in order to make sure that Wales has a vibrant asset, which we need for our economy in the whole of the south of Wales. We are very confident in what the airport can achieve. The Member will have seen that only today TUI, the largest firm of its sort in the United Kingdom, has announced 15,000 new holidays to be sold from Cardiff Wales airport next year, bringing further passengers and further new business to that airport.

What would help the airport, Llywydd, would be if his Government would allow air passenger duty to be devolved in Wales. What would help would be if his Government would allow our airport to have the same advantages as large airports across our border are able to have. Smaller regional airports are squeezed in the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom's regional policies and their approach to those airports. There's a great deal the UK Government could do to support Cardiff Airport and it resolutely refuses to do any of them.

Well, let me remind the First Minister that I'm not the only person who thinks that this situation needs to be turned around and that you must now look at introducing a different business model to make this airport successful after six years of nationalisation. Your very own director general for economy, skills and natural resources recently made it clear that, in order for it to be, or revert to be, a wholly commercial endeavour, its business model would need to be very different. But it seems to me—[Interruption.]—it seems to me that you carry on doing the same things hoping for a different outcome by offering a blank cheque.

Now, First Minister, people will argue that this additional loan for the airport could have been spent on funding our vital public services. Twenty-one million pounds indeed could go a long way—£21 million could help pay for the salaries of more than 400 GPs, or nearly 900 nurses, or indeed 700 teachers. Your Government's plan for the airport relies solely on increased passenger numbers, and yet, whilst passenger numbers are slowly increasing, the airport's losses continue to grow faster. That does not make any sense. More passengers should mean more income for the airport. Why is it therefore going wrong, First Minister, and is your Government still aiming to return this airport to private ownership, and, if so, what target date have you set to achieve this?

Well, Llywydd, the degree of short sightedness expressed in that question is breathtaking, as well as the degree of ignorance about basic business models. You can't pay nurses out of capital loans, can you? The idea that you can is absurd. You clearly could not possibly do so. The money that we have provided to Cardiff Airport, if you totalled it all up, if you total every penny of it up, is less than his Government is spending on an advertising campaign about Brexit. Where is the money for nurses and doctors coming out of that £100 million, I wonder?

Llywydd, there are 4,300 airports in the world from which scheduled flights are part of their operation—4,300. Of those, 14 per cent are in private ownership. So, Cardiff Airport is in the same position as JFK airport in New York, Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, as Charles De Gaulle Airport in Paris. The model that we have in Wales is the model replicated around the world. It makes sure that the Welsh public has an airport that they need, that its economy needs, and we will invest to make it a success, where he would have closed it down.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

First Minister, we all want to get to our destination quicker and in greater comfort, and promises made to Welsh train travellers in this regard should be promises kept. Transport for Wales said that outdated Pacer trains would be taken out of service by the end of this year, but we now know, as you confirmed last week, this commitment will not be met. Pacers will also remain in service on the busiest routes in northern England next year, despite an identical commitment to phase them out there. The Labour leaders of greater Manchester, Sheffield city region and Leeds have accused the train operator there of treating passengers like second-class citizens. In Wales, passengers are compensated for delays of 15 minutes or more; will Transport for Wales compensate travellers, in the same way that Labour is calling for in England, for new trains that will be delayed by months?

Well, the reasons why Pacer trains have to retained into 2020 here in Wales are the same reasons why they have to be retained on the northern franchise as well, because of the failure of train manufacturing companies to honour the contract signed with them, where we would have had those new trains already here in Wales and ready to go onto the network. They haven't arrived, despite signing contracts to say that they could be delivered, and Pacer trains will need to continue for a short while longer, until that capacity arrives.

What Transport for Wales is about to do is to announce plans to improve fares across their entire network from January 2020. Parts of that have been announced already, Llywydd, as you know—extending free travel to under-11-year-olds, under-16s being able to travel off-peak free when accompanied by an adult, and extending half-price fares to 18-year-olds down to 16 to 17-year-olds as well. But that will come with additional reductions in fares in parts of the network when Transport for Wales makes its January announcement, and that will be some compensation for people who were promised by private providers that those trains would arrive and where those promises have not been kept by them. 

So, if I follow the First Minister, what I think he's saying is that the reason for the extension of the use of the Pacer trains—it's not just a legacy of the last franchise, it's a consequence of some of the procurement decisions and the problems with that made under this one. Now, can you confirm that Arriva ordered four to five-car Flex trains, as I think they're called, and that Transport for Wales extended that order to nine trains? Can you confirm whether or not these electric trains with a diesel engine that are on order actually work or not? And, if they don't, has Transport for Wales built in any penalty clauses to the deal with the supplier, Porterbrook trains, and is there a cancellation point that gives Transport for Wales the option of pulling the plug on that deal? And have Transport for Wales and the Government made any analysis of the cost implications of having to keep these older Pacer trains in service in relation to the maintenance costs?

I thank the Member for the question. There are some details in there that he'll understand I'm not likely to have immediate access to. He made an important point in the beginning, that some of this is legacy stuff from those years of Arriva and their underinvestment and the decisions that they made about rolling stock. I'm told by my colleague, the transport Minister, that safeguards are built into the contracts that have been signed by Transport for Wales in relation to the new rolling stock that we're going to have here in Wales. I told the Chamber last week of my meeting with CAF, who have set up their train manufacturing centre in Newport, and how those trains, made in Wales by Welsh workers, will be running on Welsh railways before next year is out. I will check the detail of the Member's question, of course, and make sure that he has an answer to the specific points he's raised with me. 

What I actually said was that it doesn't appear to be a legacy problem. If you— through Transport for Wales, if the Government has procured a technology that doesn't actually work, then it's you who should have done the due diligence, and the responsibility lies with you.

Now, transforming our twentieth-century rail infrastructure demands a radical approach overall. If I wanted to make the 36-mile journey from Pontypool to Treherbert without going by car, I'd almost be better going by bike as by train at the moment. At this time, on a Tuesday afternoon, the train journey takes over two hours. Now, travelling east-west within the south Wales Valleys is as difficult as travelling north-south in Wales as a whole, and for the same reasons—Beeching and the legacy of an extractive economy that prioritised moving product over people. Isn't now the time, First Minister, to turn that on its head and, as Mark Barry and my party have proposed, connect the Heads of the Valleys not just by road but by rail, creating a new corridor of development with a 50 km rapid-transit crossrail for the Valleys?

Well, first of all, Llywydd, the Member is quite wrong if he thinks that the legacy of Arriva, and the years of neglect that were inflicted on Wales by that franchise and by the failure to account for any growth in passenger numbers during it—if he thinks there isn't a legacy issue there that has to be dealt with, then I'm afraid he needs to read up a bit on the history of that.

I don't accept that the technology doesn't work. I've said that I will investigate his questions. That doesn't mean for a minute that I accept that there is a problem simply because he asserts that there may be one. And the Welsh Government is investing enormous sums of money to complete the Heads of the Valleys road so that there is a link across east-west in that part of Wales. That demonstrates completely this Government's commitment to Valleys communities and to connectivity between them.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, your future generations commissioner, Sophie Howe, has announced that GCSEs are not fit for purpose and should be scrapped. She claims this is necessary as the new curriculum replaces what she characterised as the 'silos' of traditional subjects with six areas of learning and experience. The co-author of her White Paper, Professor Calvin Jones, says they struggle with the idea of a public standardised exam that gives pupils a grade. Instead, they want schools to focus on teaching the skills of empathy, emotional intelligence, artistry, creativity, care giving and carbon cutting. Does the First Minister agree with their vision for the future of education in Wales?

Well, I agree that the introduction of the new curriculum requires a new qualifications framework to go with it—it's why Qualifications Wales is doing exactly that. I thought the contribution from the future generations commissioner, as ever, is an important contribution to the debate, as I thought the report today from the Welsh Youth Parliament on the same subject was particularly interesting and useful. It describes the danger that Welsh schools produce 'A* robots', by which it means that they teach their pupils very well to pass exams, but those children aren't necessarily equipped with the sort of thinking skills, the sort of critical capacity, that we know employers tell us that they are looking for in young people entering the workplace. I thought it was particularly interesting that that point of view comes from young people themselves. The Minister is meeting the Youth Parliament on Friday to discuss their report. Taking that and the work of the commissioner together, they will be important contributions to thinking about the way in which we have a qualifications approach that goes with the radical new curriculum we are introducing in Wales.

But do our schools teach pupils very well to pass exams—or at least sufficiently—on the current results? One change we are having, which I should welcome, which the education Secretary put out this morning, is we are seeing a 2.75 per cent increase in teachers' pay and 5 per cent for the newly qualified, and, I think, £12.8 million in the current year to support that. However, would the First Minister agree that this may be too little, too late to address the deep crisis we see in teacher recruitment currently?

Will he also consider whether lower standards of education in Wales compared to England, at least on the results that we are able to compare and the Programme for International Student Assessment ratings, reflect more than just relative spending priorities? May they not also reflect progressive policy and a lack of rigorous comparison of achievement among pupils, schools and UK nations? Estyn reports have dropped their key stage 2 comparisons among schools; Welsh Government has got rid of their target for five good GCSEs, including Maths and English or Welsh; and we've seen our GCSE A to G grades diverging from the 1 to 9 they now have in England. Is the final stage in ending accountability for this Government's failure in education simply to abolish GCSEs?

Well, I certainly don't agree with that, of course, Llywydd. A* grades in A-levels in Wales in the summer were the best in any part of the United Kingdom—the very best, better than any part of England, better than Scotland. Welsh young people achieving the very top grades in examinations and outstripping anybody else—I don't regard that as a failure of our system. And his Gradgrind approach to education, that it's simply there to factorise children through a system so they come out at the end of it, not as young people who've had a breadth of education, not as young people who are taught to think critically, not as young people who are able to understand, argue and to participate in that wider way, but just have a set of qualifications, that's not my idea of education, because I want our children to have both. I want them to have successful qualifications, but I want them to have an education experience that will fit them for life in the twenty-first century, and that's what our curriculum will provide.

I thank the Member for that question, Llywydd. Over the next 12 months, our skills training will see the introduction of Job Support Wales, simplifying and consolidating the current suite of employability programmes. That will take place in the context of the impact that Brexit has produced on the skill needs of Welsh employers.

Thank you very much, First Minister, for the answer. The UK Conservative Government has announced it is to invest £120 million to establish eight new institutes of technology in England. This is in addition to the 12 institutes already in operation there. These institutes are a partnership between further education colleges, universities and employers, offering higher education technical qualifications for students in areas such as digital, construction, manufacturing and engineering. First Minister, given that the Confederation of British Industry in Wales has called for a greater focus on vocational qualifications, what consideration have you given to opening institutes of technology to improve the skill set base for workers in Wales, please?

Llywydd, it's good to see the system in England catching up with what we've been doing here in Wales. We don't need to invent new centres in Wales, because we already have centres doing what the new technology centres purport to do across our border. That's why we have been increasing higher level apprenticeships in our further education colleges. It's why we have degree apprenticeships, level 6 apprenticeships, for the first time starting work in September of this year with £20 million-worth of new investment. We are serious here in Wales about vocational qualifications, and the importance that they play in the Welsh economy. As I say, they're catching up across our border, and it's good to see them doing it.  

There's been a great deal of focus on teachers' skills in the statutory sector in terms of teaching through the medium of Welsh, but there hasn't been as much focus on the skills of those in FE in terms of how they can teach through the medium of Welsh. During a recent meeting of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, the Welsh Language Commissioner joined us and told us that there was a lack of data about what level of skill exists within the sector in terms of the tutors, and that there is a shortage of tutors who have the capacity to teach through the medium of Welsh. So, what is your Government doing to try and change that, and what plans are in place to ensure that those teaching in FE have those necessary skills? 

Thank you very much for that question. Of course, I agree on the work we are doing to invest in people’s skills in the classroom, that’s vital to help people with the confidence to use the language and to create an atmosphere where they can use the skills that they have already to help young people. That’s why we're investing the greatest amount of money in our history in the people in the workforce in schools, and we want to do more in FE as well to use the lessons that we've seen in the classrooms in our schools, and to do more with the FE colleges as well.

We must rightly acknowledge the recent extensive work put in by the Welsh Government in putting in place the infrastructure that will produce a better skilled workforce for the future. Can I ask, however, what progress has been made by local authorities in developing skill pathways by integrating vocational training into the wider education system?

Well, Llywydd, we work with our local authority colleagues, of course, to make sure that the contribution they can make through their representation at further education, and in the schools that they themselves run, to make sure that the skills agenda is understood and implemented there.

It's one of the key things that Government does, Llywydd, to invest in people and to provide them with the skills that they need for the future. We expect all local authorities to work with local employers as well as listening to the voice of the learners themselves. When my colleague Ken Skates commissioned an independent review of regional skills partnerships, one of the things that that report said was that as well as listening to the voice of professionals, we need to learn from the learners as well. Because they will often tell us important things about the quality of the experience in the classroom, the quality of the experience they get when out on the job, and by learning from their experience, we can improve the experience for others who come after them.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government has not identified any sites or communities in Wales where a geological disposal facility could be sited, nor will we seek to do so. The Welsh Government's policy is clear: a GDF can only be built in Wales if there is a community willing to host it, and a local authority willing to give its consent.

First Minister, last year, there was an enormous protest here against mud being dumped in Welsh waters that had been dredged from outside Hinkley C nuclear reactor without the full range of testing that could and should have been done. The campaign generated international publicity, with coverage on Al Jazeera, Russia Today, the BBC, German news, Pakistani news, and many other news outlets. [Interruptions.] But your Labour Party and the AMs here ignored the protests and the clear public outrage and voted for the dumping to happen. Your own Deputy Minister—

Allow the Member to be heard, please.

—has taken to Twitter to take issue with the building of Hinkley C, asking what could be achieved with the billions upon billions of pounds spent there. So, when EDF Energy returns to the Welsh Government to ask for permission to dump a second round of mud dredged from outside of a nuclear reactor not even in Wales, will you do three things? This is the question. Firstly, will you demand that a full environmental impact assessment takes place this time? Secondly, will you demand that the full range of radiation testing takes place, including alpha, gamma and mass spectrometry? And thirdly, will you give your Labour AMs a free vote next time instead of whipping them to vote for the dumping to take place?

Llywydd, no such application has been received.

In the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the Hinkley Point construction site and found that that opportunity presents to 25 per cent of the workforce being Welsh based, and it's really important that the benefits of that spend—£19 billion in total—is felt in the Welsh economy as well. What action is the Welsh Government undertaking to make sure that Welsh companies are to the fore when it comes to contracts being awarded on that construction, and in particular, the promotion of the skills that are available to employees to find work in that particular project?

Llywydd, I agree with the Member that the economic opportunities need to be taken and made available to Welsh workers. Actions taken by my colleague Ken Skates have made sure that those opportunities are well advertised to workers in Wales.

I recently attended a conference call by Unite: The Union, in which they foregrounded the actions that they have taken to make sure that the skills of Welsh workers are known to the employers in that project, and that where opportunities arise, Welsh workers are able to avail themselves of them.

I thank the Member for that question. Our priorities include safeguarding the Aberavon economy from the adverse impacts of Brexit by investing in people, places and businesses through skills, infrastructure and business support.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. Now, First Minister, as you're aware, last week, Hi-Lex Cable System Company announced that it was going to close its factory, with the loss of 125 well-paid, highly skilled jobs as a consequence of a forecast of sales lost due to Brexit, as the Swindon Honda plant is going to shut consequently. Now, what we have here are high-skilled, well-paid individuals who are working in the locality, and what we want now is to actually ensure that we attract more inward investment and support local businesses so that we can use those skills. We want to ensure that those skills remain local, because if we want a diverse economy in Port Talbot, then we need to have that attraction and those skills retained. Can you give me assurances that you will work with local authorities and other partners to attract businesses to ensure that the skilled workforce remains, and if we need more skills, we develop those skills within Port Talbot to ensure that those businesses can work effectively there?

I thank the Member for that question. It is indeed because of the efforts that the Welsh Government, local authorities and businesses in his constituency have made that full-time workers in Aberavon have the highest gross weekly earnings in the whole of Wales. We want to make sure that we do everything we can to continue to provide a range of opportunities where those very highly skilled people can develop their skills for new opportunities and deploy their skills in existing ways.

I look forward to working with Neath Port Talbot council on the programmes for which they are responsible within the Swansea city deal. We're in the very final stages of seeing them submit the business case for the Homes as Power Stations project. That will be £0.5 billion-worth of investment in the Swansea Bay city deal area, led by Neath Port Talbot council. Soon after that business case is submitted, we look forward to receiving detailed proposals for the Swansea Bay technology centre, to be based at the Baglan Energy Park, again led by Neath Port Talbot council and absolutely aimed at creating technological possibilities for the future, where the high-skill people who made up that local economy will be able to look forward to a future in which their skills can be further developed and put to good productive use.

Thank you for mentioning the Swansea Bay city deal there, but one area within our economy generally in Wales where we need highly skilled workers is an area where high levels of skill aren't seen as necessary, and that is our tourism industry. I know that David Rees will agree with me on this, that we've got in Aberavon some rather fantastic, but also unexpected scenery and attractions. We know about Margam Country Park, and so forth, but we've also got the Baked Bean Museum of Excellence. All of these are things that are something of a private delight to residents in that area, but I'm sure they'd be very happy to share those with the rest of the world. So, can you tell me what your Government has done to take advantage of the UK Government tourism sector deal to raise the status and strategic importance of tourism in Wales, particularly with areas like Aberavon, where there's a lot to offer, but that potential is under-exploited?

Llywydd, let me agree with Suzy Davies about the potential that Aberavon has for tourism. And, the Member is absolutely right to say that there is a real challenge for that industry in reshaping its reputation amongst people who go to work for it, and emphasising to people the opportunities that exist within the tourism industry and that it isn't regarded as something you do only when nothing else is available to you. So, that's a reputational challenge for that sector. I met recently with representatives from the tourism industry in Wales, and they know themselves, particularly if a supply of labour that they have relied upon coming from other parts of the European Union won't be available to them in the future, that they are going to have to do more to make that industry attractive to people who are already here in Wales.

We will work with them to do that, to find new opportunities, because the tourism industry is important in all parts of Wales, but there is a challenge for the industry itself. They are going to have to do things that demonstrate that the skills are important, that the career paths exist, that the rewards are available, and that if you commit yourself to leisure and tourism in Wales, then the opportunities that my colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas is helping to develop in that industry, levelling it upwards so that it has a different profile in Wales, that that profile communicates itself to potential workers as well.

I thank Joyce Watson for that. The Welsh Government works hard, with others, to prevent hate crimes, support victims and promote community cohesion. In recognition of the tensions and divisions that have arisen since the EU referendum, we have utilised the EU transition fund to bolster our work significantly in this area.

I thank you for that answer, but recent figures obtained from the Home Office have shown a 29 per cent increase in hate crime across England and Wales, and the highest increase is seen in transgender and disability hate crimes. We've also witnessed the rhetoric and language that's been witnessed being used by leading political figures very recently, and, in my opinion, that has only added fuel to the fire, particularly when it comes to racially motivated and religious hate crime. Hate crime based on an individual's race is accounting for three quarters of all hate crime that is reported, and I was horrified, and I'm sure that most people in this Chamber would be, to witness the racial abuse experienced by a number of England football players in Bulgaria recently, and also on Saturday when Haringey's goalkeeper was spat at and bottles were thrown at him, resulting in, quite rightly, those players walking off the field. But the real concern here, when you view some of those pictures, is that it's young people who are the perpetrators of these acts, and the problem with that is we're talking about the next generation coming through. So, First Minister, I ask what assessment the Welsh Government has made about the recent Home Office stats regarding the worrying increases, and whether you've had any conversations whatsoever with the Football Association of Wales and particularly Show Racism the Red Card?

I thank the Member for the question and for the work that she has done so consistently over the years in this area, and for the part she has played in making sure that this Assembly will be debating this matter on the floor here tomorrow afternoon. If I think of the Home Office figures, then I think there are four things that I draw from them immediately, Llywydd. The first is that Wales is not immune to hate crime and the horrors that it brings, and we should never think that, somehow, these things don't happen here—they do—and, secondly, that behind the figures lies a combination of better reporting and recording as well as real increases in instances. We have had a policy in Wales since 2014 of driving up reporting in this area, of persuading people to have confidence to come forward to the police, and then working with the police to make sure that those reports are properly recorded and reported. So, there is something, I hope, in these figures that demonstrates that people are more willing to come forward and more willing to take these things seriously. But as well as that, there is a real rise in incidents in these figures too.

I think the third thing that I learned from the figures is that hate crime happens across the whole range of targets; 68 per cent of hate crime is race hate crime, but as Joyce Watson said, over 400 disability hate crimes were recorded in Wales last year. I find myself just baffled by it—how anybody could think that someone who already has to deal with the issues of disability becomes a victim of crime because of the disability that they suffer. And an 88 per cent increase, the largest increase of all, as Joyce Watson said, in transgender hate crime.

I think the fourth point that I draw from it, Llywydd, is the importance of the investment that we make in Wales in resisting hate crime—the extra money we've put into the national hate crime report and support centre, the additional investment in the hate crime minority communities grant, the community cohesion grant that we provide through the Welsh Government, supported across the Chamber here, I know. All of these things help to make a difference, and it is by working with others, whether that is Show Racism the Red Card or whether it is formal bodies like the Football Association of Wales, that we can do what we can to row back the hateful presence of hate crime in Wales as elsewhere.

Thank you, Siân Gwenllian, for that question. Too many children are taken away from their families in Wales. Every local authority has now submitted their plans to reduce the number of children in care, the number placed out of county, out of Wales, and those removed from parents with a learning disability.

In addition to asking local authorities to submit plans to reduce the numbers, your Government also asks them to set targets for reducing the number of children in care, and you will be aware, perhaps, that Gwynedd Council and a number of other councils have refused to comply with that requirement to set a target, seeing it as a dangerous and retrograde step. And I agree. Using arbitrary figures is not the way of tackling the increasing numbers of children in care, but, rather, we need to look at why the numbers are increasing and focus on improving outcomes for children in care. Are you willing to review your policy of setting targets?

Well, I disagree with the Member, Llywydd, because we come to targets reluctantly. It was absolutely not our first way of doing things, but we have tried—we have tried for nearly a decade all the other measures to which the Member refers. This Government has funded, repeatedly, year after year, initiatives to reduce the number of children taken into care here in Wales. We have provided money directly to local authorities, we have sponsored, through local authorities, the production of reports, such as the Cordis Bright report, that set out more than five years ago for local authorities in Wales the practical steps that they could take to reduce the number of children they take into care. We’ve funded other initiatives to do exactly the same thing, and yet, year after year after year, the number of children being taken into care in Wales goes up. It has gone up every year for 20 years. And the gap between the rate at which children are taken away from their families in Wales and that are taken away from their families across our border has widened every year as well. And Gwynedd is not immune from this. The number of children taken into care in Gwynedd has risen steadily year on year for the last four years. The rate at which Gwynedd takes children away from their families has risen year on year for the last four years. If Members here read last week the report of the rate at which children in Wales are taken away at birth from their families, they will have seen that Gwynedd does that at a faster rate than other local authorities in Wales. The idea that Gwynedd has nothing to look at and nothing to learn does not stand up to examination.

Now, our targets are simply there to focus the minds of local authorities on this problem, and 18 of the 22 local authorities in Wales have agreed to do that. So, Gwynedd is in a small minority of councils who have not come with us on this journey. The targets are absolutely not there to prevent social workers from making right decisions, but they are there to focus the minds of local authorities on one of the great public policy challenges that we have in Wales, and a problem that is getting worse, and has got worse every year for 20 years. That’s why we are doing it, and that’s why it is the right thing to do, and that’s why I’m grateful to the 18 local authorities in Wales who’ve agreed that this is the right way to tackle the problem.

And finally, question 8, Neil Hamilton.

Llywydd, we have funded a new generation of ambulances fitted with solar panels. We have invested millions of pounds in projects to address biodiversity. We have published major reforms in future financial support for agriculture. Last week, all this, and more, was discussed at our first annual climate change conference.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I wonder if he ever has any sleepless nights about the impact upon the lives of ordinary people of climate change policies of the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Figures for fuel poverty in Wales were published recently—that is, people spending more than 10 per cent of their income on keeping warm—130,000 vulnerable households spend more than 10 per per cent on keeping warm; 32,000 households spend more than 20 per cent of their income on keeping warm. And yet it's the policy of UK Government and Welsh Government to make fuel more expensive in order, supposedly, to save the planet. The carbon zero by 2050 commitment, which Theresa May made as a parting shot to us all before she left office, has been estimated by her own Chancellor, Philip Hammond, to cost more than £1 trillion, and the UK Committee on Climate Change has estimated that to reach this target will cost us between 1 to 2 per cent of our gross domestic product every single year between now and 2050, which for Wales amounts to something like £2.5 billion a year. That's about a sixth or so of the entire Welsh budget. If this is going to be funded by putting imposts upon the price of electricity, that will directly affect the poorest and most vulnerable in society. So, where does that leave the Government's anti-poverty programme, and indeed its commitment to eradicate fuel poverty in Wales, on which it has spectacularly failed so far?

Llywydd, what does keep me awake at night is the impact of the climate change emergency upon this planet, upon those who will come after us, who will live with the consequences of any failure on our part to take the actions that we can take during the time that we have that opportunity, and will make those long-term differences that will allow this fragile planet to go on providing a home for future generations. And every time that somebody tries to place obstacles in the path of the necessary actions, it's an obstacle in the path of that major ambition of this Government. We will do all the things that lie in our hands to tackle the decline in biodiversity, the impact of climate change here in Wales, and sometimes those will be difficult and sometimes they will be unpopular, but what they will overwhelmingly be is right.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement from the Trefnydd. And I call on the Trefnydd to make the statement—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are four changes to this week's business. I will shortly move a motion to suspend the relevant Standing Order to allow a debate on Brexit to be held as the last item of business today. As a result, the oral statement—update on Brexit—has been withdrawn. Additionally, the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism will make a statement on priorities for the visitor economy 2020-25. Finally, the debate under Standing Order 25.15 on the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2019 has been postponed. Draft business for the next three sitting weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for health on the new eye care measures? The Royal National Institute of Blind People, RNIB Cymru, has expressed its concern at the results of the first three months of data collected since the introduction of new eye care measures. In that time, not a single health board has hit the Welsh Government target. Secondly, all health boards have seen an increase in the number of patients waiting beyond their target dates. And finally, the highest risk patients are waiting beyond targets and longer than is clinically safe. Minister, eyesight is precious. It is unforgivable that people should be at risk of irreversible harm because they are not treated quickly enough. May we have a statement on what action is being taken to ensure people with rapid eyesight loss receive the treatment they need within the specified timescales in Wales?

Thank you very much for raising the issue of the new eye care measures in the Chamber this afternoon. I know that when those eye care standards were introduced, they were warmly welcomed by RNIB and others who saw the potential that they could have in terms of preventing eyesight loss for people in Wales. I'll be happy to ask the Minister to write to you with an update as to how those new standards and measures are being implemented within the first three months, but also to set out how he envisages the improvements to be demonstrated in the longer period ahead.

Earlier this month, a statement was issued by the transport Minister, and in that statement we were told that the dreaded Pacer trains will be with us for much longer than was originally promised. Built from the body of a bus mounted on train wheels to create a uniquely bumpy and rattling travelling experience, the Pacers were only meant to be a temporary stopgap when they were first introduced in the 1980s. The statement containing this came just after the publication of the annual report for Transport for Wales, which did not include the pledge from the previous year's annual report to phase out the Pacers before the end of the year. The statement also declared that an even older train, the 1960s-built British Rail class 37, would remain on the tracks for longer as well. This train model was not even featured in the first annual report of Transport for Wales, because it was brought out of retirement after the publication of that report due to chronic rolling stock shortages.

Travelling on these trains that are well past their use-by date does not make for a great travelling experience. I use these trains all the time, and I can testify to others' complaints about overcrowding, missing services and broken-down trains that are made on a regular basis by many, many people. Now, I note that your Labour Party colleagues, Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, Sheffield city regional mayor, Dan Jarvis, and Leeds City Council leader, Judith Blake, have all signed a letter calling on train operator, Northern, to reduce fares for passengers who, like us in Wales, are forced to travel on these Pacer trains. I think this is a great idea. Will you and your Cabinet colleague with the transport brief be standing shoulder to shoulder with your party colleagues in putting the interests of passengers before profit? Can we have a statement from the transport Minister outlining by how much passengers can expect their fares to be reduced while we wait for the basic public transport service that we deserve?

Presiding Officer, I think that the First Minister did answer some of these questions during his exchange with the leader of Plaid Cymru this afternoon. But, just to repeat, the stock to which Leanne Wood refers will be phased out early in the new year. They're being kept on the lines at the moment to maintain capacity. And, of course, there are rolling stock across the whole of the UK; this isn't an issue which is particularly confined to Wales. And the First Minister also set out the future proposals in terms of the reduction of fares across Wales as well. 

Two issues: first of all, the Wales Audit Office has today published an important report on the roll-out of enhanced primary care, which highlights that change needs to be happening at a greater pace and scale to address all the long-standing challenges, and ensure that primary care services are fit for purpose. Certainly, investment in new buildings sometimes has unintended consequences. In my own constituency, the St David's practice in Pentwyn was awarded a capital grant by the Government to expand its Pontprennau branch to accommodate the growing number of new estates in Cardiff North. But this has led to the Pentwyn surgery, where the most deprived population is living, being redesignated as a branch surgery. So, there's been a superficial strengthening of primary care, which has actually led to a reduced service for those who don't have a vehicle and only have an infrequent bus service. So, I wondered if we could have a debate in Government time to enable us to examine the challenges that we face in primary care, and hear more about what the Government is doing to strengthen primary care, which is so crucial for delivering 'A Healthier Wales'. 

Secondly, I wanted to raise the issue of the fall-out from the demise of Tomlinsons Dairies in Wrexham, because we have learnt in the last 36 hours that farmers were encouraged to transfer to Tomlinsons by Sainsbury's on the grounds that if they didn't transfer to Tomlinsons, they would lose their contracts to supply milk to that supermarket. But a result of which is that they haven't been paid in the last two weeks. I understand that Marks and Spencer has paid suppliers for milk that they have sold, but Sainsbury's has yet to do so. I wondered what the Government can do about this and whether they've entered into any discussions with Sainsbury's on this matter of justice. 

I thank Jenny Rathbone for raising the issues this afternoon. We do welcome the report on primary care services, which has been produced by the Wales office, and that will certainly help inform the wider work that is being undertaken to achieve the vision that we set out in 'A Healthier Wales', where people have access to the care and support that they need, and remain independent for as long as possible. The national director for primary care has established a strategic programme, designed to support the local implementation of the primary care model. And I know that the Minister, Vaughan Gething, made a statement not too long ago on primary care services here in Wales. But I know that he'll be interested to hear particularly about the experiences of your constituents in Pentwyn surgery, so it would be great if you could write to him and set out those particular issues.

On the matter of Tomlinsons Dairies, we have been working closely with Tomlinsons Dairies over the last 18 months to try and help them resolve the ongoing business issues that they're facing. We've now established a taskforce to work directly with the staff affected by the closure, and we're in discussions with farming unions and other stakeholders to consider what support is required at this time. I think it's really positive that M&S has paid the suppliers, and I would hope, certainly, that Sainsbury's will take a similar approach.

Could I identify with the comments in particular about Tomlinsons Dairies, where we had the urgent question last week? And I appreciate the Government has been involved for some considerable period of time with the dairy. But it is imperative and incumbent, I would suggest, on Sainsbury's to live up to their pledge. They directed producers to this dairy. I don't blame the Welsh Government for this, but, by the heavy involvement of Welsh Government, many farmers took that as a green light, if you like, to put their supplies with that particular dairy. And because of economic circumstances, many now face a very bleak couple of weeks, trying to understand how they're going to plug that cashflow. So, if the Welsh Government does feel it is able, in any way, shape or form, to use its contacts at Sainsbury's, that would be hugely appreciated. I appreciate it's a commercial decision, but any activity and action the Welsh Government could bring would be most welcome—I'm assuring you of that.

Could I also seek a statement from the housing Minister, please, in relation to Celestia Homes, just up the way from this building here? Many Members have been lobbied and informed of the very precarious situation that all residents find themselves in in that particular block. In excess of 400 houses have had a fire prevention order served on them, and, in particular, a lot of the work looks as if it was substandard when it was built in 2006-07. I appreciate, again, this is in the field of commercial activity and that it's a dispute between Redrow and other individuals involved in the construction of that particular block, but it would be worth while if the Minister would give a statement forward to Members so that we can understand whether the Welsh Government see themselves having a role at all in being honest broker in this dispute. And importantly, the enforcement of building regulations—. I met residents on Friday, and some of the pictures they showed clearly are at the build stage, and the non-supervision of the implementation of plumbing works, fire prevention measures were not correctly installed—. And it is unbelievable to think that they could have been signed off by building regulation officers from the local authority. I do think that's a really important—[Interruption.] I can hear plenty of people chundering. I've built three or four properties myself, so I do understand a bit about building regs, and the building regs do allow for an impartial person to come in and sign, at every stage, the building works off, so that they meet a satisfactory level. There are, as I said, in excess of 400 residents, just a stone's throw away from this building, who are at their wits' end. And I would be grateful if the Minister could bring a statement forward, to indicate whether the Government is able in any way to act as honest broker. I'm not blaming the Government at all, but there is a role for Government here to assist, I would suggest, along with the local authority—in this case, Cardiff council.

And the second point I would like to make, if possible, please, is to understand why yesterday's statement was given in a written form on the new loan to Cardiff Airport. Only three weeks ago, I raised it with your good self about the Minister coming forward with a statement after the evidence that was given to the Public Accounts Committee over the continuing involvement of Welsh Government. And to have another loan put on the table, without oral examination from Members in this Chamber, really is disrespectful, I would suggest. This is a considerable sum of money, now taking in excess of £50 million leant to the airport. And the Government can talk all they want about this being on commercial terms, and rates; none of us know what those commercial terms are because, every time we question on these areas, we are told that this is commercial confidentiality and we cannot release that information. Well, if you feel strong enough about it and you feel prepared to stand by it, you should be able to take questions in this Chamber. And looking at the agenda today, there is more than enough time available to the Government to have brought a statement forward. So, I'd be grateful to understand why a written statement and not an oral statement was brought forward, when this substantial sum of money was injected into the airport.

Well, I note, of course, that you began by associating yourself with the comments that Jenny Rathbone made on Tomlinsons, and the Minister for environment and rural affairs has confirmed that her officials are doing a huge amount of work to try and support the workforce there, and to ensure that—. I think it's around 40 farmers in the supply chain who are on aligned contracts and are yet awaiting payment from Sainsbury's. And I know officials are very much involved in supporting that particular piece of work.

We do have a statement this afternoon on building safety from the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and that is a culmination of some of the work that began in the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster. So, Welsh Government is working very hard with partners on a programme of building safety to ensure that the homes that we build newly, but also the homes that we have here in Wales, are safe. Of course, Members will have specific examples of buildings that they may be interested in within their own constituencies, and I would encourage them to write to the Minister about those specific cases, in addition to listening to what the Minister has to say on building safety in the round this afternoon. 

And, of course, there are ample opportunities to scrutinise Welsh Government on decisions relating to the airport. You referred to the PAC inquiry that has been undertaken. Your leader asked questions on this particular issue this afternoon during leaders' questions. So, it's not as if the Government isn't making itself available for scrutiny on this or any other issue. 

Trefnydd, as the constituency AM, you will be aware of the recent decision by the UK Government to grant development consent for 300 MW gas-fired power station on land at Abergelli, north of Swansea. Now, clearly, the Welsh Government has made a number of policy announcements over recent months that are relevant to this application, none more so than becoming the first Parliament in the world to vote in favour of the declaration of a climate emergency. The Welsh Government has also specifically committed to cross-governmental action on decarbonisation to reach net zero by 2050. Now, the decision by the UK Government to grant development consent for the gas-fired power station at Abergelli, therefore, flies in the face of Welsh Government policy in this area.

We know that the UK Government has already made a number of major infrastructure decisions that have resulted in a significant amount of additional fossil fuel generation being located in Wales, whilst at the same time rejecting renewable energy projects such as the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. Despite developing Wales-specific policy on this front, the current deficit in the devolution settlement means that the UK Government can ride roughshod and simply ignore it, as is the case here in Abergelli. So, will the Welsh Government, therefore, bring forward a statement on the issue of the UK Government ignoring Welsh Government objectives in this way and how it intends to challenge this type of behaviour going forward? 

As Dai Lloyd says, I'm familiar with the particular case in hand through my constituency role, and I understand that the gas-powered energy facility is a facility that will deal with energy surges, rather than being a full-time energy plant, as it were. I'll certainly ask the Minister with responsibility for energy to give some consideration to this particular case, and explore what discussions have been had with the UK Government to ensure that we do have access to reliable energy but also as much renewable energy as is possible. 

Can I call for a single statement on children educated at home? If a child is arrested they cannot be forced to give evidence. So, where a child is at serious risk of harm, a court order is required if the parent declines to consent to the child being interviewed. However, a concern's been raised with me that the Welsh Government's draft statutory guidance for local authorities on home education would mean that children educated at home are to be treated less favourably than children who offend or children at risk, simply on the basis of that home education, should the guidance be implemented. I have been copied in on advice from a QC in Matrix Chambers, Gray's Inn, which says that that draft strategy guidance is unlawful, and I am circulating that to all Members through the internal postal system. The guidance explains that the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child guide how the rights of the child are protected, but the Welsh Government guidance fails to include or recognise the obligations arising under article 14, the rights and duties of parents, or article 16, prohibition of interference with privacy and home. It says that the guidance is unlawful in implying the local authority can insist on discussions with parents and/or children and unlawful in suggesting that a local authority has any role in questioning the parental choice to home educate in circumstances where that education is agreed suitable. And it concludes, overall, if the matters it sets out are adopted in the final guidance following consultation, then that final guidance will misstate or misunderstand the law and so be unlawful and/or lead to illegality by local authorities acting in the light of it. I call for a Welsh Government statement accordingly to ensure that matters don't go forward until these serious legal concerns have been addressed.

Well, consultation on the new home education statutory guidance commenced at the end of July and closed yesterday, but I'm sure that if you write to the Minister with the specific concerns that you've raised in the Chamber this afternoon she'd be pleased to look at them as part of the consideration of the responses to the consultation. 

First of all, Trefnydd, I appreciate that we have a statement from the Minister for housing this afternoon, and I hope that she does have the opportunity to address those questions raised by Andrew R.T. Davies regarding building regulations—the primary responsibility, of course, being the builders', but also there's a question for the vulnerability of local authorities on their building inspectorates. There is an issue, of course, that breaches of building regulations cease to become actionable after a certain period of time, and I'd be grateful if she could at least make some preliminary comments on that. 

The second—Mark Reckless raised this point earlier on—we've heard recently, this week, from the future generations commissioner with the report 'Education fit for the Future', and, of course, the First Minister mentioned the Youth Parliament report on life skills. Bearing in mind that we have a draft Bill fairly imminent now on the curriculum and also PISA results due out by the end of the year, I wonder if I could ask the education Minister, who explained that she is seeing both the Youth Parliament and the future generations commissioner this week, to bring forward an urgent response to both those reports, which will help us scrutinise her plans in the new year. Thank you. 

Building safety is certainly a very complex area. I think we've already had that demonstrated in the contributions from yourself and from Andrew R.T. Davies. And there are many, many partners with different responsibilities, and I think that that is one of the things that the Minister has been seeking to address in terms of having a more coherent look at building safety, and of course we'll hear more about that this afternoon. But, again, if there are specific cases, perhaps a letter to the Minister would be very useful in terms of setting out particular concerns. 

And the education Minister, of course, is here to hear your request for a statement or some other response to the recent reports and ideas that have been set out for us. 

Trefnydd, I recently hosted a charity quiz night—one of my other hats—to raise funds for research into ovarian cancer in Wales. This came about after a constituent case, a constituent whose wife died on the very day she was supposed to start treatment for cancer. She was already at stage 4, due to repeated misdiagnosis earlier on in the stages of cancer, over many months. I had a meeting with my constituent with my colleague Angela Burns as well. She was misdiagnosed at various times with irritable bowel syndrome, other conditions. The point my constituent made was that this is a notoriously difficult cancer to diagnose—one of the most difficult, I think, because it masquerades as many other different conditions earlier on in the cycle. My constituent is calling for more research, more investment, into better ways of diagnosing this, so I wonder if we could have a statement from the Welsh Government on efforts being made by the Welsh Government, with the NHS, to try and improve diagnosis of ovarian cancer. And also could you tell us what support you're giving both to sufferers from this condition and also the families, because it is a very cruel disease that takes people away, often at a young age and with very little warning, actually, certainly in this case. My heart certainly went out to this constituent. So, I wonder if we could have an update from the Government on what can be done in this area. 

Thank you, Nick Ramsay. The health Minister was here listening to what you had to say, and he would be happy to write to all Members providing an update on Welsh Government action in this particular area. 

I've a request for a statement and a debate. I would like to request a Government statement on buildings listed by Cadw. In Swansea East, which I don't think is unusual, we have listed buildings in various degrees of disrepair, which are privately owned but unoccupied, such as Danbert House, which is turning into a ruin, St John's Church on Woodfield Street, which has vegetation growing out of it, and the former Manselton School, which is currently empty. These are causing grave concerns to my constituents and to me.

I would also like to request a debate in Government time, sponsored by the Government, on regional economic policy, identifying support to the four regions of Wales and how wealth can be shared more equally in Wales than it currently is, and how universities, for example, can act as regional economic drivers. Because there are serious concerns in some parts of Wales—I speak for Swansea and west Wales, but I'm sure some people from north Wales and mid Wales would say the same thing—that wealth is not being equally shared out throughout Wales.

Thank you very much, Mike Hedges. You've certainly articulated some of the concerns that the economy Minister has also articulated, in terms of ensuring that wealth and opportunity are there to grow across Wales and to ensure that all parts of Wales are able to thrive. I know that he will give consideration as to what the best opportunity will be to provide colleagues with an update on his approach to regional economic policy.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

Next the motion to suspend Standing Orders 12.20(i), 12.22(i) and 11.16 to allow a debate on Brexit to be considered as the last item of business in Plenary today. I call on the Trefnydd to move the motion.

Formally.

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

Therefore, the statement by the First Minister on a Brexit update is withdrawn.

Therefore, we move to item 4, which is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales'. I call on the Minister to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week I was delighted to launch 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', our 10-year strategy to help prevent and reduce obesity. This sets a clear path for a long-term approach that makes use of the five ways of working set out in the future generations Act as key components to deliver an approach that will have far-reaching impacts for the future health of the population.

Obesity is a complex issue, with many contributing factors acting at an individual, community and global level. We are at a point in time where the UK already has one of the highest levels of obesity in western Europe. We start from a position where over 60 per cent of our adult population are either overweight or obese, and that has become a normalised state, with around 27 per cent of our four- and five-year-old children starting school each year who are already overweight or obese.

The burden of obesity is felt hardest in our least affluent communities, and there are significant impacts upon life expectancy as we see worrying trends around links to type 2 diabetes, cancers, heart conditions and many other conditions associated with diet and an inactive lifestyle. We know that obesity can also have a significant impact on our mental health. In many cases that tracks from a young age to having lifelong consequences.

The final strategy is a culmination of the views of our stakeholders, international evidence and research. When I stood before you to launch the consultation, I was grateful for the large measure of cross-party support and the understanding of the significance of this as an issue. Since then, we've held far-reaching consultation, which included conversations with over 1,000 people across Wales. There is strong support for the proposals that we have set out in the strategy, together with energy and backing within our communities to support positive lifestyle change. I want to ensure that our strategy unlocks that potential.

Our strategy sets out a 10-year vision to help us all to make the healthy choice the easy choice. Our aim is to achieve these changes by 2030. We want future generations to live in environments where the healthy choice is the norm, where physical activity is part of everyday life, encouraged and supported by working in partnership with local government, education and transport, where Wales’s natural beauty is taken advantage of and our food choices are nutritious and affordable. I want to close the health inequalities gap and, in particular, I want to focus and target support for children and families.

Taking the approach of 'A Healthier Wales', this is the first time that the Welsh Government has adopted a co-ordinated approach to tackling obesity. The range of cross-Government action highlights how existing programmes and approaches can work in tandem to promote and enable positive change. This includes how interventions in areas like transport, planning, early years, education, communities and health services can be brought together to enable even greater opportunities for people to change behaviours. 

The four themes of the strategy are: healthy environments, healthy settings, healthy people, and leadership and enabling change. They illustrate the system-wide approach that will be required to tackle obesity, recognising that the environment influences our everyday choices. Over generations, we have evolved the environment into one that places a focus on convenience over health. We'll develop and scale approaches to reverse the current imbalance placed towards unhealthy food choices, and ensure that our active environment can help to make good physical activity choices.

Our focus upon the environment will be coupled with approaches through behavioural change. This will develop a range of actions to enable prevention and early intervention support for people, which will focus upon providing the right information, advice or provision at the right time. We'll also develop an equitable and accessible clinical obesity pathway across Wales, which will put in place a range of specialist services for those who require the most specialist support.

But obesity cannot be solved by the Government or NHS working in isolation. Our systems-based approach should help to develop leadership across all levels. This is on the basis of collective responsibility and drawing upon the strengths and assets of a particular community. We'll underpin this approach through the development of dynamic data, evaluation and strong communication.

Now, I have previously stated that we will not set superficial targets and that the strategy is focused on delivering outcomes. To supplement the strategy, we'll publish an outcomes framework in the new year, which will help us to monitor and track change. We've begun to explore new data sources to develop this work. This will provide us with a range of indicators that are linked to behavioural change.

Accompanying the strategy will be a series of two-yearly delivery plans, which will span its lifetime. The first delivery plan will be from 2020 to 2022, and it will provide detail of the initial priority areas that we will take forward. I will chair a newly-established implementation board later this year to agree these priorities and establish how to utilise and maximise existing resources, policies and programmes to achieve an integrated approach. Over the next two years, we will begin to develop policy and legislation, and I will make funding available to help achieve our aims. This will allow us to put a greater focus, together with partners, on prevention and early intervention through all systems as part of our approach to building a healthier Wales. The strategy will help to ensure that we can leverage and maximise additional funding and opportunities to drive changes across partners, to see a shift in how we use spend towards prevention. 

Of course, we have to take into consideration the impact of Brexit. Whilst I intend to announce funding approaches to influence positive health impacts across our population, the uncertainty over funding is unavoidable in the current climate. If we leave the European Union, especially a crash-out 'no deal' Brexit, then we will have many hard and unpleasant choices to make. There is no evidence to suggest there will be an overall shortage of food. However, a 'no deal' Brexit is likely to lead to a reduction in the choices and availability of some foods, especially fresh fruit and vegetables that we regularly import from the European Union. As a consequence, it is likely that costs for these foods will rise, and that will impact disproportionately upon families on the lowest incomes. We will need to consider and reflect the impact that Brexit would have on the delivery of this strategy.

I continue to welcome cross-party support and challenge to ensure that we can achieve shared ambitions and forward-thinking aims. I welcome continued support and engagement with other parties and the wider public to ensure that we can deliver an approach that will make a significant difference for the health of our population.

Thank you, Minister. Angela Burns. 

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you very much for the statement today, Minister. There's much in it to agree with, although I will have to just say that I thought your end paragraph about Brexit was utterly ridiculous in this particular context. Yes, we will have challenges no matter what happens, in or out, but the situation we have today is a current situation that has been evolving over the last decades, decades when your Government have been responsible for trying to help to solve this issue. To suddenly land the end of your statement with an 'Oh, woe is me; this is all down to Brexit', I think, is ridiculous.

There are some very good points that you make in this, but I would like to make a couple of my own. The first is that at no point in this document do you actually follow a line that says that people have a personal responsibility. And I can say this as someone who's had more than her fair share of ill health over the last few years, and I am no sylph, regrettably, but I am fully aware that in order to get truly well, I have to take myself in hand. We all know that. We don't smoke, we need to have more exercise, and we need to control what we eat. And in your statement, there's very little reference to that; it's all about what you can do, communities can do, GPs can do. But I do think that somewhere along here there needs to be a slight call to action on the public, that we also try to do our bit to control what we weigh and understand what impact not controlling what we eat is going to have on our long-term health outcomes. It's an honesty agenda, and we are very, very scared at times, I think, of being quite straightforward with people.

You talk a lot about prevention, and I think there is an awful lot of very good prevention work going on, and particularly in schools through the healthy eating initiatives. But of course, being a healthy weight isn't just about what you put in your mouth; it is about the exercise that you take and your attitudes to the way you go out and live your life. And I wondered if you can clarify for us what discussions you have had with the Minister for Education about increasing the amount of time that children have within their school day to spend on sports, because over the last decade, the amount of time that children have had in the playground—and I've done the FOIs, I've had all the answers back—has slowly been reducing. There may have been a step change in the last year, because I haven't checked in the last year, but it needs more than just an extra five minutes a day or five minutes a week. So, what discussions have you had, particularly at primary age, on ensuring that young people have that opportunity to really have inculcated into them the desire to go out and be fitter and just to enjoy it? They don't even know it's exercise, they're just playing, they're having fun. Education is absolutely key.

The food environment comments, I think, are extremely important. I think there is a real argument for widening the advertising exclusion zone around schools and to work closely with Sport Wales.

Your whole statement is called 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales'. I understand it's driving on the obesity agenda, but I couldn't stand here and not mention the fact that, particularly for our young teenagers, underweight is also a massive issue. So, I would like to ask you what steps you're taking as a Government to ensure that when promoting this agenda, what we're actually saying is, 'Let's get the right weight.' Because we have, especially our young girls, an awful lot of them who just do not eat appropriately because they are terrified of being too fat or they feel they should be following some norm that's been pushed by some celebrity. And on Instagram, I couldn't agree with you more, Minister for Education; I think Instagram is one of the great ills of the world.

On the active environment, I'm so glad to see that the Minister for housing is also here because, actually, again, in the planning, I'd like to ask you to go through what discussions you've had about how we can use the planning system to increase our recreational and sports ability and play ability in our new housing developments. Because, again, we've been through this in the past where developers have said, 'Oh, well, we've got x metres of green space', but actually it turns out to be the green grass along the sides of the pavement. That is not a sports facility where kids can play. And the other thing that developers do not do is they don't recognise the fact that parents actually quite like to have the play area where parents can see it, so that they know that their kids are safe. So, they put the play area on the other side of the village lane, away from all the houses. We want them in the middle of the houses. It's very old-fashioned, but you can look out of your window, you can see your child, your child's outside having fun and having that play. All of those small things help to contribute towards having a healthier life.

I do just want to very quickly, though, mention a couple of very good programmes that have been running. There's a fabulous one—and I'm going to get this wrong; no, it is right, it's been written down about three times—Man versus Fat. This is for men, middle aged, a bit too wide, and they go out and they play football. There is a big programme, it's running in the National Assembly, and people are losing weight by the droves. That's the kind of thing we need to be encouraging people. Middle-aged women like me, I don't want to go to a gym and face off with a gym bunny in Lycra. No, thank you. I'd much rather we come up with programmes and it's about getting the adults out there—they'll get fitter, the kids will get fitter, but it's about targeting it.

There's a fabulous programme running in London. It's called 'Mind, Exercise, Nutrition...Do it!', MEND. It's a programme that's aimed specifically at seven to 13-year-olds who are very obese, and again, it's had great successes. Minister, can you tell us what you've done to look at other initiatives that have already been proven? I saw in your programme, which I've read today, that, again, you're talking about finding best practice and making it happen throughout the whole of Wales. If you can just give us some of that information, that would be very helpful.

And, before I'm booted off the floor, may I just add about the funding? It comes back to my point about Brexit. Actually, this is a really serious issue about making us all slimmer, fitter and healthier. The saving to the NHS in the long term would be immense, and even more important, the saving to the individual. And it is within your power; you get over £16 billion a year as a Government. We're not talking big bucks, but you can spend a little bit of that money in helping local authorities to keep their gym facilities open, open their swimming pools, keep their bowling greens going, keep all their green spaces and allow them to have play equipment that can be looked after and maintained so that people actually have a great environment to go out there and to try and be fit.

Thank you for the range of comments and questions. I'll deal, to start off, with your point about Brexit. I've never said, either in launching the consultation or in the statement that I made today, that the challenge that we face in terms of combating and reducing obesity as a society is only the result of Brexit—far from it. The point that I make is an unavoidable one, that the scale of our challenge is made harder because of the reality of what Brexit would do. And don't take my word for it; there are many representatives of your own party who recognise the economic impact of leaving on the currently proposed deal. That would have an impact. We know that's true. If we have less fresh fruit and veg available and what we have costs more, we know that will have an impact too. And that's part of being honest. That's part of the honesty that is required, but I certainly don't deny that even if Brexit were not happening, we would still need to look again at what we are doing in this area, because our population figures and the reality of the impact of this issue is not something that we could or should avoid. And that's why we have the strategy.

We start by looking at how we empower and enable people, the assets that exist within people and in their communities. Because, at the outset of this consultation, I did try to point out that I recognise that sometimes, this can be a difficult debate to have. If you wag your finger at people and say, 'You must do better', that doesn't always work, it often puts people off. So, there's something about how you empower and encourage people, because most people actually do want to make a change, and the challenge is how we can support them into a place where they can make that change an effective one. And that is partly about the message of some responsibility for self, but how that is provided is really important and not straightforward, because that can easily turn into a very harsh and unkind debate. And, at the times that we're in, we live at a point in time when, often, that is the default position, and it's very difficult, sometimes, to find the room for reasons through the middle. And this strategy tries to take that approach saying, 'This is what we can do, but we have to work with people', because it's always the case that the biggest influencer on your own healthcare and your own health outcomes is you, the individual person. And that includes me when I look at my health.

On your point about physical activity, you talked about sport in schools, and yes, we do talk about this and officials across the Government have talked about this, but I remember that there was someone who looked quite a lot like you when the consultation was launched in this Chamber, who said that they didn't just want to talk about sport, because not everyone enjoys sport. But there's something about physical activity and opportunities to make the activity range that people undertake, not just in schools, but in communities as well, and that is definitely part of what we're looking at. So, it's not just the daily mile in schools, but very clearly set out within the strategy we do talk about having more physical activity within school settings as part of what we want to achieve.

In terms of your point about what is a healthy weight, and the challenge for people who are underweight and have eating disorders, this is again one of the difficult parts of the consultation because not everyone liked the title 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', as if there was an impression it was deliberately avoiding issues of people who have eating disorders, or people who are underweight. As ever, there is never a perfect title for anything we choose to do, but we do take that seriously, and so there's a whole different stream of work ongoing, but this is the point about what is 'healthy'. It isn't just the weight you are necessarily, it's about 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', the way you live your life, the choices that you make, and understanding what you do to your own body with the choices that you make about eating, drinking and exercise in particular. You'll definitely see those themes, of course, in the areas of learning within the school curriculum, and you'll see consistency between that and the approach we're taking in the strategy.

When it comes to the point about planning healthier environments both at home and at work, again, I take on board the point you're making and again I strive to make clear that we do want to look at that. There are things that we'll want to try and test and do with future legislation. For example, I'm quite keen to test the limits of what we can do in terms of public health and planning, where fast-food outlets are and aren't allowed to take place, the number of them that might be allowed to take place, and how close they are to leisure centres and schools. Those are the things we want to test and see how far we can go with that, because we know that otherwise we'll end up having more of those in areas where we recognise they'll have an adverse impact on the health of the population.

In terms of what is appropriate in terms of activity, yes, we have looked already at what exists in the UK and in other parts of Europe and the US in particular, because I do recognise that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach—no pun intended. For different people, different opportunities will make the difference for them, that will be accessible and things they'll want to do. Some people may really enjoy going out and joining a walking football club, and there are lots of people, men and women, who are enjoying doing things like that. For other people, that would be the last thing that they would want to do. So it's the variety of activity that we can provide and understanding the evidence base for what is the most effective intervention to help support people. It's a difference that, as I say, most people do want to make, and it's about how we help them to do so.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement on 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales'? Obviously it's quite comprehensive. I just wanted to drill down on what we can actually do as a matter of urgency because this is an emergency. We've been talking about an obesity epidemic for some time now and really we need to see a step change, because as you say here, over 60 per cent of our adult population are overweight or obese, which has become a normalised state. Yes, correct; it has. With around 20 per cent of our children starting school each year who are already obese or overweight.

Now, obviously, it's a balance of what Government can do and what the individual can do. Government, as you've alluded to, can do things like restrict price promotions on food and drink high in fat, salt and sugar, like two-for-one promotions and stuff. We'd like to see that pretty aggressively enforced. And as you also alluded to, planning restrictions on hot takeaways near schools and leisure centres and stuff. We also really do need to get to grips with tackling the advertising of junk foods targeted at children. Now, I know some of that is not devolved, but frankly we've been talking about that for years and the power of advertising is such that it's still a very pervasive influence on what our children eat, and also portion sizes. That is also a combination of what can be legislated for or individual choice; I'll leave that one up to the Minister. But the important thing is, after smoking, obesity is the biggest preventable cause of cancer. Lots of people don't realise that actually obesity is an independent cause of cancer, just like smoking. Being overweight causes cancers. It causes around 13 different types of cancers. Even in the absence of smoking, being overweight gives you cancer as an independent carcinogen.

But obviously, as you've alluded to, and as Angela Burns has already also alluded to, it's not just about diet, it's not just about eating less, eating fewer carbohydrates, fewer sugars, more protein and also extending the period of the day that you're actually fasting, trying to restrict the time of day that we take calories to about an eight or a 10-hour slot out of the 24—that's the latest medical advice. So, it's not just about diet: it’s about physical fitness and physical activity as well. And walking doesn't require fancy Lycra—well, you could obviously be in Lycra if you wanted to, but on the coastal path, you don’t actually need Lycra. Going up a mountainside—you don’t actually need Lycra there either. But you could do with 10,000 steps a day or any other additional number of thousands of steps per day, walking briskly, getting physically fit. As I’ve said here before, of being physically fit, your blood sugar is 30 per cent lower than if you’re not physically fit. Your blood cholesterol level is 30 per cent lower than if you’re not physical fit. And if you are physically fit, your blood pressure is 30 per cent lower than if you’re not physically fit. Now, as I’ve said before, if you invented a tablet that did all that, we’d be shouting to the rooftops about a miracle cure, but physical fitness is that miracle cure. And, obviously, there’s an overall weight reduction as well.

So, a lot of that is down to the individual, but, as I said, Government has a role here as well, with the planning restrictions, and for restricting price promotions and stuff. But also, as we found, we can educate people until we’re blue in the face, but it’s actually anti-smoking legislation that brought about the greatest reduction in smoking rates in this country in recent years. That smoking ban—. When we had devolution, 32 per cent of the adult population in Wales smoked, and it has been about 32 to 35 per cent for the previous 20 years, despite all the education programmes and stuff. Now, after the smoking ban, it’s down to 16 per cent and getting lower. It was the legislation that did a marked change, along with the education and the help to quit and stuff. And now we’re finding with minimum alcohol legislation in Scotland, people in Scotland are drinking less alcohol. Who would have thought? People in Scotland drinking less alcohol, and that is down to the minimum alcohol legislation about pricing.

So, I think the Government needs to get real and tough about food and drink legislation as well, and start to view food and drink companies—like big food, big drink—a bit like we view big tobacco. Let’s not have any more volunteering or voluntary agreements. Let’s legislate. Sugar tax raised in this country—I know there’s a sugar tax, but we have very little control over it. We need to have control over it here so that we can spend what comes from the sugar tax here in Wales on what we want to do in the obesity agenda.

And finally, in the preventative analogy: education. I’m looking at the education Minister there. As Angela Burns knows well, as the Minister knows well, in the health committee we’ve done a review on physical fitness and obesity—this very agenda. One of those recommendations we came up with was, ‘How about making 120 minutes of physical activity mandatory per week in our schools?’ It was a very strong recommendation. That’s what all the evidence said. How about making Estyn inspections of that physical activity also mandatory? That is something that could happen now. How about moving radically with the active travel legislation? We’ve been talking about active travel legislation—it’s wonderful, it is, but how about making it easy and safe to walk and cycle everywhere? We need to actually do something rather than talk about it all of the time.

So, yes, I welcome a lot of what’s happening here, but we haven’t got 10 more years and stuff. There needs to be a step change in activity, so that we can get the people of Wales into a healthy weight, and for a healthier Wales indeed. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank Dr Lloyd for the interesting sermon and lecture. I agree with most of what he says. There is agreement on where we are and what we want to try and do. Rather than trading some facts and figures about what we’re doing and investing in active travel and that in the strategy as well, I think it’s just important to reflect and to recognise that the points that you make about smoking are of real interest, because the legislative change helped to move things on with a broader change taking place at different levels within different parts of the country. But it led to wider-spread cultural change, in particular people’s attitudes around smoking around children, and smoking around food as well. You still see that carrying on. You are suddenly seeing a wider shift in attitudes, and, as you know, I agree with you on minimum unit pricing—that’s why I took through the minimum unit pricing legislation in this place. I think we'll see a similar impact here, not just a reduction in the amount of alcohol but the amount of high strength and very cheap alcohol that is consumed as well.

So, in the strategy, we do set out that we do, as I said to Angela, want to test the limits of our powers—the powers we currently have, for example the powers available to us in the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 we passed in the last Assembly term, as well as looking in that delivery plan to have future options for legislation, to set out how we might use powers that are available to us in terms of our competence to set up the legislation to allow us to do so as well. Because there are things to think about in terms of advertising and promotion. And then some of that is difficult, because we have some people who raise income in different ways at present. If you think about healthy vending, it's part of what we see within the health service, but also in leisure centres too as well. We don't run those directly, and yet I can tell you, when I take my son swimming, as I do regularly, and he's got far too much energy, as most five-year-old children do, but it's great—except, we finish swimming and we sit down to put our shoes on and we're sat in front of a vending machine that is full of chocolate. My son's five, and he sees a bag full of chocolate and he says, 'Daddy, can I have some chocolate?' So, I have to tell him 'no', so I end up being a bit like bad dad, but I'm doing the right thing. So, there's something about how we change the environment so you're not having those different and mixed messages. Because if I tell him, 'This is a treat', then every time he goes around to try and do the right thing, that is there in front of him. That's part of what we need to see a shift and change in as well.

Just finally, on your point about walking, for those of us who have jobs here, this job is not great for physical activity. I regularly walk from the basement up to the fifth floor, because often it is the only exercise I'll get in the day. Otherwise, I'm sat on my backside talking or stood on my feet talking—not a great deal of exercise. So, there is a challenge about our working environment, and not just us in this place, but people who work in office jobs. There are a range of jobs we now undertake in more modern economies that are not physically active in the way that lots of people would have gone to work and had to earn a living in the past. There is a challenge about what we choose to do in a workplace to make it more physically active, but also, then, about what we choose to do in our time outside of work as well. So, big system shift behaviour change is part of what we want to see, and as you say, and I'm glad you recognise, it isn't all about the Government, it is about all the choices that we make together.

I agree with the earlier two speakers: we are the most obese nation in Europe and our food system is absolutely broken. So, no change is not an option. It isn't just a sugar tax we need, we need a salt tax and a fat tax in order to control the actions of the food manufacturing companies who target people with this stuff that passes off as food. And in addition to that, there's been an exponential rise in type 2 diabetes, which already consumes 10 per cent of the NHS budget. So, we cannot wait for a decade to sort this out.

I agree with the Minister that you're absolutely right to point out that the cost of vegetables and fruit will go up as a result of Brexit. So, I'd like to know what the Government's doing now to get more people growing vegetables and fruit here in Wales. That isn't even mentioned in the document. We were at our most healthiest during the second world war when we were digging for victory. We now need to dig to save our nation, really, and save our NHS. And that needs doing now. Even if we manage to avoid the catastrophe of no deal with Brexit, there's lots of evidence that if you get kids to grow food, they will then be tempted to eat it as well.

We are what we eat, and the most terrifying statistic that I've learnt recently is that two thirds of people never eat a meal prepared with fresh ingredients—never. Because even when they go out, they'll go and eat junk food. So, that is the scale of the challenge that we face.

So, I am struggling to understand the difference between milestones and outcomes and targets. I want to see some really clear targets so that we know that we are making progress on this. It's something we've talked about ever since I've been here, and we just need action now. I want to know—the baby born next week: how are they going to be protected from the marketing of unhealthy products masquerading as food? We know that less than three quarters of children starting school have a healthy weight. What is that figure going to be in 2022? We absolutely have to have a whole-system approach; this is not just the Minister for health's department. I want to see what we're going to do with public procurement. What are we doing? We have all the levers here to do something. We've got the 'Appetite for Life' guidelines, regulations, but they're not being adhered to in all our schools, because nobody is monitoring them.

So, we know that up to a third of our children rely on the free breakfasts and the lunches that they get in school, otherwise they are not getting any other thing that I would classify as food. And we know from the statistics and the research done by other organisations that half the children going hungry to bed are not even eligible for free school meals because of the poverty wages their parents are suffering. So, we've got lots of aspiration but not enough action. And one of the things I want to see is the traffic light system, to ensure that people are clear about whether this is something healthy or whether it's something just pretending to be healthy. 

We need action to ensure that all processed food, including baby foods, are not laced with sugar, fat and salt in order to make them more profitable. How does the Minister plan to normalise good eating in primary schools? That's what I find is absent from your document. Will you consider banning the sale of drinks in secondary schools, which, at the moment, encourages pupils to use money that's supposed to be spent on food instead on drinks of limited nutritional value? 

There are lots of opportunities to make Wales into a good food nation, and it's something that we need to work at collectively, not just in the health service. But I'm unclear exactly what differences we expect to see in two years' time so that we can measure whether or not the Government's programme has been successful. 

I thank the Member for the comments. It's fair to point out that with salt reformulation, a range of food businesses reduced the salt content and it had no impact on the taste that customers reported when actually having that food. The challenge is whether a voluntary approach is enough. And, as I've set out, I think we ought to test the limits of what is available to us to make a bigger difference. That's part of what I've set out, and that goes into school and food and the way that children understand the way their food is produced. And in virtually every primary school that I visit, including ones in the less well-off parts of my constituency, I see a very consistent approach to encouraging children to grow food and to understand where and how that's produced on a local level.

And I just want to deal with your points about targets, and then how we use outcomes and then some of the proposals that we have. We had a conversation about whether to have targets in this strategy, and I decided not to have targets. I looked at what is happening in Scotland and England, where they've got targets to reduce childhood obesity, to halve it by 2030, and I just don't think there's any evidence that that is an aspiration that is in any way achievable, because part of our challenge is that we don't understand yet how much of an impact the measures that we're going to try to introduce will have, and I don't particularly want an aspirational finger-in-the-wind target. I just don't think that's smart or sensible for anyone. The outcome framework that we're going to produce will allow people to measure what impact is being had upon the population of Wales. So, if there is no change, then the outcome measures will track that. If there is real change, we'll see that and we'll then need to try and understand which ones of our interventions are having the most significant impacts. We can't always tell which intervention we introduce affects people's lives and what the direct correlation is in terms of how healthy a weight the country has.

In terms of some of the proposals, it may be helpful to set out that we are looking at a ban on the sale of energy drinks to children; restricting the promotion and marketing of unhealthy food and drink in the retail environment; to ban the sale of refillable sugary drinks in out-of-home settings—and we regularly see those, the endless refills; to restrict the size of a sugary soft drink; and mandatory calorie labelling in out-of-home settings; and to explore options to restrict access to the promotion of unhealthy food and drink accessible to schoolchildren. So, there is a range of specific measures we are looking at and I'll come forward with more specific proposals in the future.

Finally, Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. As you've acknowledged today, Minister, and as other Members have referred to, we have got a situation where one in four of our children starts school either overweight or obese. And, as you know, the Children, Young People and Education Committee was very keen to influence Welsh Government's thinking in this area and to make sure that children and young people are at the centre of this all-age strategy. And to inform our contribution to the consultation, we conducted a round-table with key stakeholders and took evidence from the chief medical officer, and I would like to take this opportunity to place on record our thanks to them.

As you'll have seen, in April, we published our detailed response to the consultation and highlighted the issues that we thought needed to be addressed, and I do welcome the steps taken to address some of those issues. However, we also identified accountability as a key area that would need to be addressed if we are to guard against a situation where the strategy becomes everybody's role but nobody's responsibility. And we also called for an ambitious target for reducing obesity, and clarity on who will lead on this complex and cross-cutting issue within Government.

Now, I hear what you said in response to Jenny Rathbone, and I note that the strategy states that, instead of specific targets, we will have built-in milestones for each of the four themes of the strategy to test what progress is being made. Can you provide more information on how that measurement of the milestones will work, and also tell us what leadership and accountability is going to be in place across Government to ensure that this strategy is delivered? Because, clearly, it's not just an issue for yourself as health Minister. So, what assurances can you give that, across the whole of the Government, there is going to be appropriate leadership to drive this forward?

Okay. I think they're fair questions. I've tried to deal with the point about targets, and I reckon there are different views on this, so I won't try to pretend that there isn't a difference of view about whether we should or shouldn't have targets. In terms of the outcomes and the milestones, one of the first tasks of the implementation board will be to set out those milestones and targets. They'll be visible, they'll be published—they won't be secret and kept within my desk. And then you'll be able to see how we're looking to measure the progress that we make. And I fully expect that I'll have the opportunity, should I stay in this post, to come to committee to explain what progress is or isn't being made.

And, in terms of the leadership within the Government, I'm the lead Minister, but this is a whole-Government enterprise. If you look at all the different areas that we cover in this strategy, it certainly isn't just one Minister and one department. And that will again come back to the implementation board looking honestly at where we are and setting out who needs to do what, because the honest truth is that, if we don't get all parts of Government pointing in the same direction, we won't get our partners on board, and we won't get the biggest partner in all of this on board, and that's the public themselves. So, I think some of this will have to be about this is about the Government genuinely trying to work together with others. I'm the lead Minister, but we'll need to able to demonstrate the progress we're making in reality, and then, I think, that will be the best answer to your challenge about whether there's real accountability in implementing what is a shared vision. And I think there is widespread support for the areas of activity we recognise need to be undertaken. 

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Local Government—an update on building safety. And I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to make the statement. Julie James. 

Diolch. Building safety, and the safety of residents, is a high priority for this Government. Safe homes are the foundation on which any modern society thrives. People have a fundamental right to feel safe in their homes. In Wales, we have a good record of fire safety. Latest figures show the number of accidental dwelling fires in Wales is at an all-time low. Furthermore, we have seen this number fall faster here than elsewhere in Great Britain. The overall chance of any dwelling experiencing a fire is low, at around one in 1,000 per year. Whilst the statistics are positive, the harm that fires cause, both in terms of injury and loss of property, is devastating. The data also shows that over three quarters of dwelling fires are caused by unsafe behaviour, not unsafe products or premises. No system of regulation can address that.

Wales also has by far the most widespread and most generous programme of home fire safety checks in Great Britain. The preventative work undertaken by our fire and rescue services has improved fire safety in our homes significantly. However, there is no room for complacency. We must continue to make improvements where we can, whilst working towards an improved and comprehensive building safety system, from the design and construction of buildings through to their occupation.

Next week we will see the publication of the first report of the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire. It will cover the events on the night of the fire itself and the actions of the main responders, in particular the London Fire Brigade and the Metropolitan Police. Any findings or recommendations it makes will primarily be a matter for those organisations, but we will be examining the report closely to identify any implications and lessons for Wales.

Since my last oral statement on building safety in May, the building safety programme board has been established and is progressing the recommendations from 'A Road Map to safer buildings in Wales'. Many of these reforms are long-term changes that will require new primary legislation. I will publish my White Paper on proposals for the reformed building safety system next year. However, there is much that can be done in the short and medium term to improve fire safety.

I've already committed to consult on making the fire and rescue service a statutory consultee on relevant planning applications. This will ensure fire safety issues are fully considered at this early stage, and make the service aware of changes in local fire risk at the earliest opportunity. This goes beyond high-rise buildings, and, subject to consultation, could include other purpose-built flats. Extensive low-rise developments can also raise issues of access for fire appliances and water supplies.

Amendments to the current building regulations in order to ban the use of combustible cladding materials, making it clear what cladding is acceptable on high-rise residential buildings, are also in hand. I would expect these amendments to be laid by Christmas, following clearance. We will not tolerate cladding that falls below acceptable standards and increases risk to residents.

To ensure practical short-term improvements to current working arrangements, my officials have further engaged with key partners to improve communication and better understand current roles and duties. We are working with the Welsh Local Government Association and the Directors of Public Protection Wales to identify further support for local authorities to ensure residents in high-rise residential buildings receive the necessary checks. This will maintain a safe living environment and should help rebuild confidence following the tragedy at Grenfell Tower.

This programme of comprehensive reforms will put greater emphasis on buildings over 18m, or seven storeys, in height. Fire safety in blocks of flats depends critically on maintaining compartmentalisation—the ability of the structure to contain a fire in the area in which it originates. If that fails, as it did at Grenfell, then the consequences, as we know, can be really dire. The risks presented by inadequate compartmentation are especially high in taller buildings, given the added challenges of escape or rescue. Therefore, it is right and proper that there are more requirements on how these buildings are designed and constructed and how they are managed when in occupation.

My commitment to improving fire safety does not only apply to those living in high-rise residential buildings, though. My intention is for legislation to be flexible enough to include other buildings in the future, should the evidence lead us to consider it necessary. A one-size-fits-all system does not reflect the range and complexity of the system we are trying to fix.

As part of the reforms, I am looking to make significant changes to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, commonly known as the fire safety Order, to lighten the system for occupation of buildings. Sorry, Llywydd—to tighten the system, not lighten it; to tighten the system for occupation of buildings. I am minded to extend many of these changes to other buildings containing multiple dwellings and a common area. Areas I will be looking to address when reforming the fire safety Order include bringing clarity to the parts of buildings covered by the regime, including in particular the safety-critical boundaries between common areas and dwellings and the outside walls of buildings; clarifying who the responsible person should be and their role, including legal liability, regarding continual fire safety management; and making fire-risk assessments more robust. New requirements could include a fully qualified and experienced person carrying out assessments at specified intervals, and for the results to be documented and available on request to residents, regulators and others.

We will also explore specific duties around preserving compartmentation, which is vital to fire safety in any multi-dwelling premises. Such duties could apply to residents and contractors, as well as landlords and managing agents. We will also consider specific duties around raising the alarm, fire suppression, means of escape, and facilities for firefighters. The current arrangements for inspection, enforcement and sanctions will also be reviewed.

During the design and construction phase of residential buildings above 18m, a heightened inspection regime will be introduced, with hard stop points. Where problems are identified, progression to the next stage of construction will halt until the issues are addressed. There will also be additional building requirements to improve fire safety. These measures will increase transparency and help rebuild the public’s confidence in the system.

I'm also looking at ways to ensure managing agents are registered to support best practice, and stamp out rogue operators. An initial voluntary accreditation scheme for managing agents will generate evidence to inform the creation of a mandatory system. At occupation phase, there will be a requirement to register duty holders for homes of multiple occupancy, and set new requirements for duty holders for residential buildings over 18m in height to be licensed. 

Of course, these changes will improve matters for the future. But, over the past few months, a number of serious building safety defects in existing high-rise residential buildings have been brought to my attention. Newly identified fire risks are becoming apparent as buildings are undergoing detailed inspections following the fire at Grenfell Tower two years ago. I have been consistent in my message that the taxpayer cannot foot the bill for failures in the design or construction of private sector residential buildings. Building owners and developers should face up to their moral responsibility and put right these faults, or risk their professional reputation. However, I know many leaseholders have been frustrated by the lack of action and left distressed at the bills many face to fix the issues.

This Government has long held that sprinklers are the single most effective way to help protect people and property in the event of a fire. I'm therefore exploring how we might build on the foundation laid by our world-leading 2016 legislation that ensures all new and converted homes in Wales are fitted with sprinklers, and promote retrofit of sprinklers in more existing buildings. I have asked officials to examine the potential to develop a new low-cost loan scheme to support the retrofitting of sprinklers in existing blocks of flats within both the private and public sectors, and I will announce further detail of that in due course.

This is complex work and has required time to reflect on the variety of different professional opinions and potential policy proposals. It is vital that we get this right as the legislative changes will be complex, covering at least three key pieces of legislation. I am confident we can meet the targets set out in my published timetable and, importantly, that they will deliver on our commitment to reform the system for the better. Diolch. 

While I agree with much of the Minister's approach, I do think it's time to move more quickly, though I do welcome the fact that we're having regular statements on this very important issue. For instance, I note that you will publish a White Paper on building safety. I think that's appropriate. But I think what we also need to know is whether you intend to legislate before the Assembly elections in 2021, because, if you don't, any Government that's elected then at that election will have to bring in a legislative programme, that probably won't be until the autumn of 2021, and it could be 2022 or 2023 before we are seeing any legislation. So, I really think that we need to do the legislation in this Assembly, if at all possible.

I have a couple of specific questions as well. I note what you said about compartmentation, which is not easy to say, being critical to the design of high-rise buildings, and that any safety inspection has to look at that, and then any future remediation has to look at that, and communal areas. Even each person's front door—if that isn't of the required fire safety then it doesn't matter how robust the flat is, obviously you've got a problem. But I do want to know where we are with 'stay put' advice as well. I notice in England—sorry, in London—they are expressly reviewing that. There's still a lot of confusion about what residents should do.

And then the registration of managing agents—whilst I could see, in terms of a voluntary scheme, that you can get going quicker on that, I would like to know whether we have the power to legislate or whether that doesn't lie within our powers. And, if it doesn't, what discussions are we having with the UK Government to ensure—? I think it should be a mandatory system, and if we could move forward on that as quickly as possible—. 

Finally, can I say that I was a bit disappointed about what we're doing in the private residential sector, where there have been more and more revelations of sub-standard buildings, some of them not very old? The Celestia complex in Cardiff Bay has been discussed, and I think it's a very troubling example: developed by Redrow, now found to have very poor or non-existent fire barriers between flats—there is an enforcement order issued by the fire authority—very poor or non-existent compartmentation measures; design features not in place to stop fire spreading internally; missing or defective external fire cavity barriers; and some of the timber cladding and insulation does not meet required standards. Now, just reading that out, you can imagine what the residents feel, but it now appears that they're going to bear all the risk and the cost of putting things right, unless pressure is brought to bear. I think the developers have and the builders have a moral responsibility, but we need to go a bit further than that and see if the regulations that were in force at the time were properly observed, and, if not, and there's systematic failure, so even if the materials were correct the way they were installed was not, then it seems to me that, at the very least, we need a partnership approach between the private sector, state sector and, perhaps, residents as well. But I do not think the residents should be bearing the brunt of the cost—nothing like it.

Now, the UK Government, to get moving on this, has announced that about £200 million would be made available to remove and replace unsafe cladding from high-rise private residential buildings. This will enable remediation work to take place and it will have to be done for the benefit of the leaseholders, and presumably it will help to reduce the costs they face. I genuinely don't know if that's a UK scheme. If it is, what can we expect to get and how will you administer it? If it isn't, is there any Barnett consequential and will you be developing a scheme as well?

But, it's not enough, I think, and I would say this of the UK Government as well—I'm not singling you out—to talk about moral responsibility that the builders and developers have. We need to get everyone around the table and find a solution, and not just send off bills for £40,000, potentially, to someone who owns a modest two-bedroomed flat in one of these developments. People are really, really concerned—I'm sure many of them are watching this session. I would co-operate with you fully, because we are where we are through a series of problems and errors that have been committed by various administrations, no doubt, but we do need to help these people who are in real need at the moment, and, in many ways, in a worse position than those in social housing.

Yes, I don't disagree, really, David, with anything that you've set out there. We are quite frustrated by the position. The UK Government is currently investigating whether to bring into force something called section 38 of the Building Act 1984, which is a part of the Building Act that addresses the civil liability and who is responsible for breaches of regulatory duty and so on. So, that consultation is live. We don't have the power to do it here, as I understand it, although if that's incorrect I'll write to say, but my understanding is we don't.

If they do bring that into force, it gives individuals the right to legal recourse where they suffer damage, which includes personal injury, death and so on, as a result of a breach of the duty imposed by building regulations. But, at the moment—. I've got pages and pages here of the complexity of the law relating to who is responsible if buildings had passed a regulatory regime at one point then fail it subsequently, and it's immensely complex. Andrew R.T. Davies asked a question in the business statement earlier about this, and I'm afraid the answer is that it's immensely complicated. It depends at what point they were inspected, by whom, what the relationship was, what your insurance position is and whether you're a leaseholder. It's really complicated and very individualised.

What is clear, though, is that the current regime does not place the onus on the building inspector. All they're doing is a spot check, so something could have gone wrong the day before that's now covered up or go wrong the day afterwards, so it's a system based on spot checking—it is not a guarantee that your building is compliant. Indeed, as you've rightly pointed out, we are now aware that many buildings that did pass those tests on a spot-check basis are not compliant, so it is a real problem.

We are in conversation—in particular, you mentioned Celestia. Officials are engaged in conversations with the fire authorities—the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service. Welsh Government officials have been meeting with Celestia's managing agents and Cardiff council, as well as fire and rescue, to understand the complex issues that are problematic there. I agree with you that leaseholders should not be expected to pay these, but, at the moment, it is not clear, unless they have a valid claim, who would pay unless the UK Government stumps up some cash, which I join you in calling for them to do.

In terms of the ACM cladding issues, those are slightly more complex. So, we had 111 high-rise buildings identified in Wales and 12 high-rise private residential buildings with ACM cladding that failed the initial screening tests, all of which were in Cardiff. All 12 buildings have either removed the cladding or have a remediation system in place. So, that particular problem is not a problem in Wales, although it continues to be a problem elsewhere. For social homes, we provided the funding to remedy the situation. So, in Wales that specific problem doesn't exist, although we continue to test other types of cladding. Sometimes it's not the cladding, it's the way it was put on, as you say, and the workmanship and so on, so these are very complex things.

In terms of the timing, I totally accept what you're saying. It would be lovely to get it done, but the other thing to do is to get it right. And so, these are really complex, and the more we go into them, the more differing professional views there are. So, I want to get it right. I hope the White Paper will enable us to make those policy choices, and then assuming they're not controversial, maybe we will be able to get that legislation through. I share your wish to do that, but we'll have to see what the White Paper produces.

I thank the Minister for the update provided in the statement. If the Grenfell fire has revealed anything the most, it's been just how neglected the housing conditions of many people have been for far, far too long. It also should highlight the dangers of lax regulation and planning, of which we're seeing the aftermath of here. 

I've got a few questions to focus on this particular aspect of the statement. First of all, there is no professional regulation for builders; anyone can set themselves up as a builder and obtain work that could then subsequently go on to become a fire hazard. We are one of the few countries where this is the case. So, will the Minister be prepared to look at establishing professional regulation in order to raise standards?

Secondly, your statement mentions the professional reputation of building owners and developers. However, in practice, this reputation appears to mean little to many of them. Part of this problem is that developers who apply for planning can't have their previous reputation taken into account by planning officers, who have to go on their word that promises will be kept. So, what steps will you take to change this, and ensure that the reputation of a developer is something that matters more to them than being able to pay a big bonus to their management?

Finally, I'd like to ask you about the last part of your statement that mentions the problems that leaseholders in the same buildings are facing, an issue that has been reported in the media recently, and has been raised with you this afternoon. Now, your statement is suggesting that a low-cost loan scheme be implemented to retrofit sprinklers, but I'm not really sure that that will help. One of the developers has already offered a loan anyway. This is an issue of injustice. Why should the residents who bought those flats in good faith have to pay to rectify those issues that should have been identified by the quality-control process that a responsible developer should have had in place? Instead, wouldn't you agree that developers who have profited from a lacklustre and laissez-faire planning and regulatory regime should be the ones who rectify this? A windfall tax on large developers would be one way of paying for this work to be rectified but, of course, we don't have the ability to do that here. But we do have the ability to create new taxes. So, will you instruct your officials to explore what forms of new taxation could be levied to ensure that those private building companies who've profited from poor safety can no longer do so?

Yes. So, just to be clear on the loan, I'm not talking about loaning it to the residents; I'm talking about loaning it to the developers, because some of them are saying that they can't afford it. So, I agree with that, but we've got to work through the system. So, I completely agree with you that the people who are actually resident should not be paying for it, just to be clear. But that's really complicated, because we can't trace them all, some of them have passed on the managing companies through three or four iterations, and there's one in my patch in Swansea where everybody's gone bankrupt in sight. They're really complex issues to work through. But just to be clear, I am trying to make sure that the residents are not the people who end up footing the bill for that. So, I completely agree that they should not be although, actually, getting a fault remedied is also very important, so we'll be bringing forward that, but I take the principle of that certainly on board.

On the tax windfall, I have absolutely no idea, but I'm very happy to undertake to speak with my colleague Rebecca Evans about whether such a thing would be possible in Wales, but I certainly take your point. One of the difficulties is that people set up single-purpose vehicle companies to build these things, and so the holding company—the one that's making all the profit—is often not the one that's on the hook locally. In responding to David Melding, I should have said that that's one of the complexities of the legal system, because trying to establish a contract between yourself and the ultimate holding company can be really complicated. It's one of the things that our system will have to overcome when we do put it into place; it's just immensely complicated who holds the existing thing.

And that's the other issue on the planning thing; I absolutely have a lot of sympathy with the idea that previous reputation should be allowed to be taken into account, but it's just so easy to make a single-purpose vehicle company to do that. So, it is about tracing individuals through the system as well as company names. So, whilst I accept the principle of that, in practice, that's also very problematic to do. But I do take the principle points, which we will certainly be looking at.

Professional regulations for builders: I've already had several conversations with professional bodies around us doing that. They are very keen that a regime should be in place right across Britain because a lot of them work across boundaries and so on. I'm very keen to pursue that. If the UK Government doesn't take it forward, though, we are very keen to look at what can be done here in Wales. And that goes for the whole chain: so, estate agents as well, managing agents, and the professional bodies for builders. But the profession itself is very keen that we don't put more barriers in the place of people who are often already on poor zero-hours contracts and all that kind of stuff. So, there's a lot of complexity for that. But they are also sympathetic to the idea that, you know, I can walk out of a building, call myself a carpenter and set myself up, and clearly would have not the faintest idea of how to do that, just to be clear.

So, I've got a lot of sympathy with what you're saying. What I'd like to do, Llywydd, is keep people in touch with our thinking as it develops, and when we put the White Paper out, to continue to have that policy conversation about the practical implications of some of the principles that I think are shared across the Chamber as to what we'd like to see.

Minister, I'm participating in this debate, really, because I want to support and agree with the various comments that have been made, and certainly about the state of the house building industry and some of the legacies we have.

I have a constituent who specifically has asked me to to raise the Celestia issue, and he is obviously one of many. He now lives in my constituency. He, of course, can't sell his flat because of the blighting that has taken place. And the fundamental scandal is this: we see it throughout Wales, I know, and I'm sure throughout the UK, in terms of why this house building monopoly appears to operate now with really very low ethical standards. You build rubbish houses, you then run away from them after making enormous profits, and you leave enormous legacies of problems and repairs and so on. I'm sure most Assembly Members have enormous caseloads of people who've moved into these new houses, sometimes with Government support in terms of the funding arrangements, only to have, year after year after year, the legacy of problems that exist and the problems that then are there when people want to try and sell their particular houses. It seems to me that the real crux, as we've all said from time to time, is that what we do need is a comprehensive, ethical housing and house building policy.

Part of the problem, of course, is that we lost in the public sector the capacity to build houses ourselves, and that is something we have to regain because what they have now is a monopoly over us, and they don't care. We have all met with them from time to time. We have these pointless meetings where it's almost like meeting with banks to talk about bank closures. You're meeting with some of these housing companies to talk about the housing problems they have, and you sit down and, yes, you get a lot of supportive nodding of the head, but nothing changes. The fact that we have modern houses being built that don't even have basic internet services as a guarantee—something that is absolutely fundamental.

So, we have to look, I think, at the weaknesses within our own planning arrangements: the fact that we are giving planning permission to these housing companies to extort these enormous profits and to rob the people who are actually buying these houses, and we have to look at alternatives in house building, whether it be co-operative house building, whether it be establishing our own companies in respect of that. And I know, Minister, that you are very supportive of all these sorts of things, but I think the time has come now where, within Wales, I think we can say, 'Look, enough is enough; this just cannot go on any longer.' The Celestia one is just an example of these companies. They build the houses, they reap the profits, then they accept no responsibility later on from them, and the leasehold is just another scandal. And I still remain of the view that we should just ban any further leasehold housing. There are other things that we can't do.

So, Minister, all I would ask is that you give serious thought to a comprehensive, ethical housing policy, but also to look at the moment at those people, for example, in Celestia who have these particular problems, to do what you can to bring these housing companies together, to bang their heads together and make them accept the responsibilities that they should be taking. It's one thing to say, 'We'll name and shame them', I think they've been shamed and I don't think they actually care that much anymore. But, certainly, whatever pressure—. And, quite frankly, if they can't comply, if they can't deliver to the standards they should, then surely, whether we should actually be allowing them to build houses within Wales, whether the planning system, somehow, should actually say, 'Look, if you can't commit to these ethical standards, then we don't want you building houses here in Wales.'

Well, thank you very much for that. I broadly agree with everything you've said. We are working, exactly as you say, on a comprehensive ethical policy. The White Paper will cover off some of the building safety bits of that. There are other bits around standards and green infrastructure and all the rest of it that we also want to put in place.

It is a near monopoly situation, but, actually, Lee Waters and I just met only yesterday with the SME building sector in Wales just to discuss how we could support the SME sector to step up to the plate, really, in terms of that and what they might require in terms of Government support to do that. Also, of course, now, we're able to build social housing at a pace and scale that we haven't had before, and that will drive a different kind of competition into the market. I think it cannot be said often enough that the standards that we build social housing to are higher, currently, than the standards that private sector housing is built to. I'm not sure that's widespread knowledge in Wales, so I'll just say it very clearly. We're looking to extend those standards right across the piece as fast as possible.

There is a whole issue—. I know that Mick Antoniw is aware of some of the legal issues around this about the privity of contract and so on, as a lawyer, so I'm going to lapse into legalese in a minute, but there are some real problems around the privity of contract arrangements and who is responsible. The issue that David Melding raised—and Leanne Wood raised, actually—about what the building control system is designed to do, because it is not designed, currently, to be a regulatory system enforced in the way that people are trying to make it—. What we need to do is look at a system that does do that, since a system based on trust has clearly failed, because, clearly, a system based on trust just means that people cut corners. So, we've got to come up with a better system than that and it's important to get that right so that we don't have another tragedy from unintended consequences later on down the line.

I do want to pay tribute, though, to our fire and rescue services in Wales. As I said in my statement, we've actually done very well in Wales. In fact, the fire service has done itself out of a job, almost, because they've done such a good job. We have a very comprehensive programme of building safety and even in the buildings that are now causing problems—and we've mentioned Celestia today, but that's not the only one in Wales; there are other buildings that have got those kinds of problems—but in all of those cases, the fire and rescue services are in there making sure that the right provisions are in place to keep people safe in their homes. So, I do want to emphasise that, Llywydd—that we are in that. So, if anybody knows of any other situations that we should be engaged in, I'm happy to do that. So, I share both Mick Antoniw's ambition and his frustration at the current system. We will be bringing at least part of what you're talking about forward. And in terms of the leaseholder thing, I think the First Minister said during FMQs—I will be responding to the expert report shortly, saying what we intend to do in Wales in that regard as well.

I want to raise some issues that have already been touched upon by you, Minister, and, indeed, other contributors, and that's around private sector high-rise residential buildings. Just last week, the equality committee received correspondence from a leaseholder raising very significant concerns about basic quality and fire safety measures and the lack of them, and this followed a level 4 survey, which found defects around compartmentation with no effective fire stopping in the compartment wall between each flat and the common corridor. I know this issue has been raised before in Plenary and we're writing to you now, in fact, regarding this case, with more detail on the specific complex involved. But I believe it also links to broader concerns about the private sector and these high-rise residential blocks. We know, for example, that a previous level 4 survey found similar issues with fire safety in another building in south Wales, and this was something that we explored in our report on fire safety in high-rise private sector buildings late last year. So, we think it's very concerning, really, that, of the two buildings surveyed to the extent of a level 4 survey, very basic fire safety measures were lacking. And I think it begs the question, really, for you and for all of us, as to how confident we can be with regard to other private sector high-rise residential buildings in Wales in terms of those issues and the lack of those basic standards.

In our report on fire safety, Minister, we recommended that Welsh Government explore the feasibility of ensuring level 4 surveys for all high-rise residential buildings, and we made this recommendation because we were concerned that people could be living unknowingly in buildings with these basic fire safety defects. So, we were pleased that Welsh Government accepted the recommendation in principle, stating that, as part of the response to the Hackitt review, you would be addressing these issues and you would consider the need for invasive building surveys and who is best-placed to undertake them. However, when the road map was published, it didn't address the issue directly, although the road map did note that there was little in law to require meaningful improvements to the fire safety of existing buildings over the course of their life cycle. It also said that Welsh Government needs to consider how it will ensure all buildings could progressively be brought up to the highest standards now recommended. So, I'd be grateful, really, Minister if you could outline what further consideration is being given to mandating the use of level 4 invasive surveys for all existing high-rise residential buildings in the private sector in Wales.

Thank you for that, John. I concur broadly with the thrust of that. You will know from various interchanges we've had on this that the road map recommends further work is required to understand what the capacity issues and what the resources to undertake that kind of testing might be in Wales, and we've got continual engagement with the UK Government and their competence steering group on the same issue, because those capacity issues are similar across Wales. So, we've got workforce planning and consideration of capacity issues both right now and in the future as a key part of the design and construction task and finish group of the road map working group, and we've already begun the work with regard to future workforce planning.

I would love to be able to say to you, 'Yes, we will do that', but I know that local authorities wouldn't be able to do that at the moment. So, what we're doing is working to see how fast we can do it with the capacity that we have, and how fast we can grow the capacity, because just announcing that we're going to do it doesn't produce magically the people who can and are competent to do that, and can carry out an inspection to the right level of competence and so on. So, I'm still accepting in principle what you say; we're still working very hard on increasing the capacity to be able to deliver it.

Thank you, Minister—

Sorry, Llywydd, can I just say one thing? I beg your indulgence. In response to something that Rhun brought up in my question session last week, I inadvertently said that Llinos—I was very praising of Llinos, and I'd like to reiterate those comments, but I inadvertently said she was a member of the finance sub-group of the partnership council, and I just want to correct the record and say that she's not. I'd become confused with the number of meetings of the partnership council I've been to. She's not a member of that specific sub-group. I just wanted to correct the record in that regard. Sorry.

Okay. The record is corrected.

Therefore, the next item is a statement by the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism on priorities for the visitor economy 2020 to 2025, and I call on the Deputy Minister to make the statement—Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It is particularly appropriate, in my view, that I am making this statement at this particular time. It has never been more appropriate to celebrate our culture, the unique nature and identity of Wales, our landscape and the incredible adventures that are to be had here, or, indeed, to invite people to the nation that we all consider to be particularly beautiful.

I'm, therefore, very proud of what has been done over the past five years to develop tourism in Wales. I hope that Assembly Members are, as I know most of the industry are, enthusiastic about the strong, distinctive and unique Welsh brand that we have developed and is at the heart of everything we do. But not only has this brand been used to attract visitors, it has been used too by my fellow Ministers to promote Wales internationally, to showcase the wonderful food and drink of Wales, and even to recruit to our health service.

The basis of the new brand is this emphasis on the 'years of', but it’s not just a matter of one year at a time. We have now extended these years over two years, so that these themes can dovetail together—themes such as 'legends', 'adventure', 'the sea' and, to come next year, the 'Year of Outdoors'. These bring different organisations, the length and breadth of Wales, together under one banner to highlight the best of Welsh culture, landscape and adventure.

I’m also particularly pleased with the investment that’s been made in the excellent products that have changed perceptions of Wales. You won’t be surprised to hear me referring to Zip World, where a new generation can experience our wonderful industrial heritage—if they have an opportunity to see what they pass so swiftly, as they get to speeds of over 90 mph. But those attractions—and, of course, Surf Snowdonia, the first inland surf lagoon in the world—have emphasised the importance of adventure in the Welsh landscape.

I also know that people the length and breadth of Wales and beyond have enjoyed the events that we have supported as a Government: the UEFA Champions League final; the Volvo Ocean Race; home-grown events such as the Hay Festival; and then when international events come to Wales, whether they're related to cycling or motoring and so on. By bringing visitors to Wales, these new products—great events and great marketing support—do demonstrate how crucial tourism is to the Welsh economy.

There are over 11,500 tourism business in Wales. These bring £6.3 billion per annum into the economy. Around 9 per cent of active employment in Wales is in tourism. And that’s why I am delighted that we as a Government have recognised tourism as part of the foundational economy within the economic action plan, and of the pathway that we have set and which we have almost delivered in our current tourism plan, namely to increase our income by 10 per cent.

This leads me, then, to our new priorities. Tourism is an economic driver across Wales. We also think that we can do more through the visitor economy in order to promote the economy more generally. Not only have we secured jobs in tourism, supported communities by supporting a sense of place, relighting our passion for heritage and culture, and creating opportunities to get out there and be active, which is so crucial for the health of our nation and our visitors across Wales—. And so, the ambition of the new action plan, as you will see on its publication in December, is to grow tourism for the good of Wales. This means that it is still important to develop tourism, but to do so in a way that delivers wider benefits to culture, to communities, and to do that by safeguarding our environment. That is, sustainable tourism—that is what Welsh tourism will be, and this vision is at the heart of the plan and will shape everything, as you will see.

I have made it clear that this is not just the vision of Government, or even the vision of one department of Government. When we started to work on this plan, we corresponded with Ministers and Assembly Members to ask about your vision for the future of tourism. That invitation is repeated here today, before we complete the plan in its final form.

I was told, when I asked people’s views, that we needed to show how tourism could contribute to our wider aims for future generations, and, as a result of that, we have set that ambition as central to the plan. We have also been discussing all of this in detail with the industry and with the sector. From the tourism summit held in March of last year, and following the questions asked there, there were around 386 people who responded with comments and ideas. And they told us that sustainability should be at the heart of everything we do.

The sector also identified some practical challenges—the need to tackle seasonality in tourism and to continue to create year-round jobs, to increase more profits and manage rising costs. We also are beginning to see overemphasis on tourism, according to some, in some areas of Wales and at some particular times of the year. So, in addition to the core ambition to grow tourism for the good of Wales, the new action plan needs to set out how we will address some of these practical challenges.

To stay ahead of our competitors, we need a product that is distinctive and ambitious, which is true to our strengths, and appeals to the markets of tomorrow. That’s why we offer the unique Welsh experiences that strike a balance between the local and the global, between what we call 'bro' and 'byd'. This means doing things that deliver local benefits, but also emphasising a strong sense of place for Wales, supporting home-grown businesses and contributing towards the wider Welsh brand, whilst also meeting world-class standards in provision.

We have, therefore, identified four priority areas for the future. The first is ‘great products and places’—we will continue to invest in innovative products that bring people to Wales.

Our main priority is ‘quality visitor experiences’. But, particularly on the basis of visits I’ve recently taken to sites that provide camping opportunities for people with special needs, particular disabilities, or mobility problems, I am very eager that we provide opportunities for people who do have mobility problems and so on to be attracted here to Wales, so that Wales has a global reputation in terms of providing for everyone who wishes to visit us.

A further priority will be to continue to develop the innovative Cymru brand, with an emphasis on digital marketing and innovation.

And then, fourth, we are eager to demonstrate that we have an engaged and vibrant sector within an economy that is vibrant, and does more to link tourism with tourism agendas such as transport and, of course, health. We will include challenges as to how tourism can address some of its impacts on climate change as part of our thinking. 

We will also be seeking to work in a far more commercial manner, through new ways of creating products that can be ordered, focusing on special interest products, and being smarter about how we work with partners in order to reach a wider audience. That is, not that we just offer these products, but that we understand what kind of products people who visit us truly want.

And, to summarise all of our ambitions, it’s to grow tourism for the good of Wales, for economic performance, but also by realising that tourism brings the whole nation together, in rural areas as well as our urban areas, in the Valleys as well as in the mountains of Snowdonia. We also need to be realistic, so that we do realise that we need to adapt our offer in order to respond to what our visitors want to see, but also to link that with Welsh needs. And therefore our overarching priority is to remind the world that Wales is open for business as a place to invest, to work, to live. And thank you all as Assembly Members and, particularly, the industry and the sector outside this Senedd for their support over the two years in which I've had the privilege for being responsible for this industry.

Can I start by just welcoming the fact that the Deputy Minister is inviting us to make our own contributions in terms of the ongoing approach to expand the tourism sector and is open to ideas? I think that many of the ambitions that have been set out will be shared. So, anyway, this is my opportunity to tell the Assembly, and the Minister in particular, about what I think needs to be in the plan and priorities for the visitor economy in the first half of the 2020s.

I think we do need to recognise the dual nature of the market. We have a large market that comes from the rest of the UK, and that's very, very important, but there's also an international market, and I think, for driving up the standards, trying to get higher end tourism and a green offer, many of the things that are now there and demanded by tourists, that needs to be remembered, because I don't think both elements of the market necessarily always work together. So, some different approaches are needed between the UK market and the international market. So, that's my first thing, and I want to see some very precise planning around that. 

I think we also need to seek growth in our international market. I do think we have just world-class offers, and I should say the Minister and I were at a seminar run by the National Museum earlier today, and one of the participants raised Caerleon, just saying said that it's such an excellent Roman site, but people go to the slightly more meagre—well, not slightly, the more meagre—site in Bath, which has this wonderful constant campaign, I suppose, going on to attract visitors. And Conwy Castle, for instance, is probably the greatest—that is, the most terrible—castle ever built by man. It is part of our heritage and people from around the world, if they want to visit a medieval castle, they should be visiting Wales. And, indeed, if it's Conwy, it also has one of the best preserved medieval town layouts still in existence anywhere in Europe. So, I do want to see a greater emphasis on the international market and also on the green tourism that is often demanded in that market. I mean, hiking holidays—Wales is completely blessed in being able to provide the most wonderful range of walking destinations, and mix that in with high-end culture and I really think there's a winning combination. 

I think there needs to be more work on the brand, frankly. This is difficult, because it costs a lot. But if you look at Ireland—perhaps Ireland's not the best comparator, given how vast their budget is on marketing, but Scotland, I think, has been driving forward and spending more on marketing. And I do think it's a great failure of the private sector, really, because it can't combine and produce that capacity to market something like a nation or its tourism offer. This is where Government needs to step in, because, really, if Government doesn't do it and lead it, it just doesn't get done at anything like the optimum level. 

I welcome your talk about a more commercial approach, because I do think that some of the standards we have need to be higher. We need more boutique hotels, we need more high-end restaurants, and that's good for the UK market and the international market, and it's good for our own local economies. Hi-tech, really good green offers, boutique hotels and all the rest of it, they can be a part of the foundational economy as well. The foundational economy means it's something that can work around the year, locally, and stays local—the money that is generated. It doesn't mean that it's a basic level of the economy, necessarily, so I would mention that.

I think in Scotland they have a very ambitious draft strategy. They've set the target of Scotland being a world leader in tourism by 2030. I think that's the sort of ambition we should state as well. And, if you do state it, I know that everyone in the Assembly would be behind you in trying to achieve that ambition.

I'm very grateful for the enthusiasm displayed in the response by David Melding. I will agree that Conwy is probably one of the most frightening castles ever built. As you know, I am a citizen of the county of Conwy, but I have to tell you that this most frightening of castles is now blessed with the latest effort in tapestry inspired by Cefyn Burgess and school pupils from that part of the world. What we are doing with our heritage sites is showing visitors that they are also places that are appreciated by the local population as well as themselves.

I certainly agree that there is a need for different approaches for the UK market and for the international market. I did try to do my bit for the international market with the new destination room that we recently opened at terminal 3 in Heathrow. Certainly, having life-sized and room-filling photographic images of Wales—albeit in the departures area rather than in an arrivals area, although we've also got other artwork in other parts of airports, both Manchester and Cardiff, obviously, as well as Heathrow—it enables people to see the value of combining landscape and culture with history, and that is a continuing emphasis that we have. So, the UK market and the international market—we are always conscious there.

Marketing is an exercise that needs both imagination and continuity, as well as substantial expenditure. I think what we've achieved now in the particular graphic design of the marketing is something that is very distinctive, which people can see and respond to. 

I obviously agree with the importance of walking holidays, and to remember those wonderful areas of our country—the coastal path, but also that amazing Offa's Dyke, which indicates clearly—

Which I've walked.

I'm sure you have.

The whole length. [Laughter.]

Which indicates clearly that we have the opportunity for long-distance hiking of the kind that you emphasised.

I also agree with boutique hotels. We have a significant pipeline of hotels and we are continuing to make sure that in our tourism offer there are always—at the head of that offer, we're seeking to invest in increasing and developing the quality of our hotels throughout Wales.

Thank you for the statement and the advance notice given of it. There is a great deal that I welcome in the statement. I agree with the comments about how important tourism can be for Wales, and that in our beauty, our culture, our food, our sports and our adventure there is means to attract visitors and tourists in a way that can bring us great economic profit. I can draw attention to things that haven’t quite reached their potential—for example, Parys Mountain—in my constituency. There’s so much more that could be done to grow that attraction, and I would welcome any kind of support for that and to tell the history of the bridges, for example, in another museum.

But I also welcome the reference in the statement to the risks of becoming overdependent on tourism. I would like to hear more about the Minister’s plans to try to manage that. Also, there is a risk that this can be a sector where salaries are too low, and there is too much emphasis on creating seasonal jobs, and not enough on assisting people in making a good and sustainable living. There isn't enough mention of that in this statement, and I would like comments from the Minister on that.

The other issue that I would like to highlight is this question of making the most of this Welsh brand. The statement is peppered with references, and I quote, to

'our strong, distinctive Wales Brand',

to 'a sense of place', which suggests something specifically Welsh. And there is mention of creating

'a product that is distinctive and ambitious'

and creating an 'Innovative Cymru Brand'. May I suggest, therefore, that there is a need for the Government to be much more willing to come out from under the shadow of the Britain brand? Because we know from experience, for example—although there are indications that things are improving—how weak VisitBritain has been in giving Wales attention under their brand. As a nationalist, I can see the advantages of working cross-border in Britain and in Europe in all sorts of different ways, but I would truly appreciate an assurance from the Minister that the Welsh Government will be much more determined in not diluting the Welsh brand, particularly in some circumstances where there is great strength to that brand, by allowing it to become more British.

We're talking about food here. Surely, in our own national royal show, our main agricultural and food show, we should be able to celebrate our own food. Once again, under the GREAT brand, at the gate this year, it said, 'For the finest food and drink, choose the UK'. Well, no, surely we could actually say, 'Choose Wales' at our own show.

Many people have drawn attention to the GREAT campaign trying to claim the Welsh team's success in the Rugby World Cup, saying 'Rugby is GREAT’. But, no, this is a stage where being specifically Welsh is truly valuable. There is no need to try and make the Welsh brand more British in that context. And I will never forget the disappointment of being in Paris during the Euro 2016 football championship. We went to that wonderful village on the banks of the Seine where every independent footballing European country was to be found selling themselves, and there, at the Wales stand, was the union jack under the label 'Britain is GREAT'. And that’s where Wales was. It broke my heart, and it was completely unnecessary and uncalled for and showed a lack of confidence.

We can't quite believe what the Government is saying about being ambitious and confident in our own brand if the Government cannot insist on using that brand and only that brand, certainly in those places where the Welsh brand is yelling out to be used. I would welcome some assurance from the Government that they are to be much more daring about doing that.

Thank you for that. I will deal, first of all, with the question of Grand Bretagne as compared to the lesser Bretagne, because, as people who know their cultural history and the history of nations know, 'Great Britain' is not some reference to grandeur, but that Britain or Ynys y Cedyrn, to use the term of the Mabinogion, is greater than Brittany, which is the lesser Bretagne, and that’s where the term originates. 

I see the union jack.

Well, that’s the etymology of the word. Now, I'm not responsible for what the UK Government does to promote what they describe as 'Great Britain' or for their historic misunderstanding as to the meaning of that phrase. But I will say this: it is clear to me that we need a better understanding of the nature of the UK as a multi-nation state in all material published for this unit of the British isles and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the materials for this are clearly available, if one understands the history, and if we can convey that history as an invitation to come to a diverse state in terms of its nations. And that is what’s crucial to us in our promotion work. That is maintained in our relationship. We do have a relationship between Visit Wales and VisitBritain, and we do have representation on UK tourism, but our intention always is that we promote Wales as a nation and as a unique nation.

I also appreciate the understanding of the importance of not being overly dependant on tourism in our economy. But having said that, the important thing is to promote different places that will appeal to different kinds of visitors, including those visitors coming from other parts of the UK and the people of Wales who want to visit areas of their own nation. I haven’t been able to come up with a good enough phrase for my own liking to translate ‘staycation’ into Welsh, but I would give a small prize, not a huge prize, to anyone who can come up with a Welsh term for ‘staycation’, because those two things, as was said earlier—the international market and also those people who choose to holiday in their own country—are just as important to us. Therefore, promoting Wales as Wales and as a unique nation within the UK is central to everything that Visit Wales does because that is our most valuable unique selling point.

Can I just thank the Minister for his statement and a couple of points I just to wish to raise on his statement? I welcome the ambition that comes through that statement and the desire to see a chosen strategy push for not just more visitors but a different visitor experience coming into Wales, which is crucial.

My concern, looking through it, is very often we talk about certain events such as those footballing events, whatever, they're one-off events and people come for once. And it seems to me that we need to look very carefully at the one-off visitors coming once and not coming back. And what we'll need to look at is the visitors who come back on day visits, on weekend visits, time after time because of the experience they have here. And usually that's based upon activity experience where there's walking or, in my area, mountain biking and other types of experience. So, I would like to see, within the final document, more ambition to get those returning all the time, time after time after time, and we continue to offer them an experience, not just the same experience, but a varied experience so when they come back, they actually have something different.

And to ensure that, there needs to be a strategic approach for the Welsh Government, local authorities, and other bodies to work together to ensure that when someone comes, the experience they have in one patch isn't repeated somewhere else. So, there is something different somewhere else; it's not the same thing just in another location. But we also need to make sure that, taking mountain biking as an example, what's in the Afan valley isn't necessarily the same thing that's in Merthyr or the same thing that's somewhere else. There is something different; there's another reason to be there. I think that's important and we need to ensure that the plan highlights that.

Can you also make sure that it links to the economic strategies of local authorities and regions and making sure the local authorities prioritise tourism? Because my own local authority, at one point, got rid of its tourism officers, now has them back in, but it's a small number. We need to ensure that local authorities take tourism as a serious issue for the economic regeneration of their communities.

The events, as I say, we need to attract those who return. These are basically activity-led events. Most of what you've talked about are actually an event not an activity. The zip wire is an activity, and other things—surfing is an activity. These are what bring people to us. Now, whether it's just good for holidaying on Tenby beach or whether it's actually coming to walk the different parts of Wales, that's what we need to address. How are we focusing our audience on those things? So, when you talk about your plan and when you talk about your digital under social-media approach, can you make sure that you address those aspects and where those different activities can take place, so that we can attract people in different parts of Wales, depending on what their interests and their activities are?

Now, the four priority areas—great products and places; quality experiences; innovative brand; vibrant sector—they are what we want. I appreciate that. And the quality experience you examined and highlighted, the need for toilets, actually, is hugely important, because if you go through many towns, you try and find some public toilets sometimes and you can't find them. But visitors do need that, because they don't know where the local pub is, they don't know where the local McDonald’s is to go and use the facilities, so it is important that we have those not just there, but that they're signed as well, so that people know where to find them. So, can you make sure that you look at those issues very carefully?

Can you also make sure that we look at aspects of our communities? In mine, whether it's Margam park, the Afan valley, or whether it’s Aberavon beach—by the way, if you've never been there, it’s a fantastic beach, one of the best in Wales; go and have a look at it—these different places to go can be linked up. And also the possibilities for future development, we need to look at what they can offer in the future as well. I'll highlight the Rhondda tunnel as an example of how that can be linked into the Valley walking, the cycling paths and the opportunities for regeneration—these are things we also need to look at. That’s why we need to address this and partner it with an economic plan to ensure that the economy and tourism are working together to address those points.

Thank you very much, David. When we came to look at the regional approach of the Government and look at it in relation to the needs of tourism, I was very keen, as someone who had lived in mid Wales for over 20 years and still represents a very important part of it in Meirionnydd—. Mid Wales, by the way, is Meirionnydd, Ceredigion and Powys, just in case, for the avoidance of doubt. And I was delighted last week at the turnout for the first awards ceremony for Mid Wales Tourism, and I hope to join Go North Wales, as again they describe it up there, for a further ceremony soon. I mentioned that because it's an example of the distinctiveness of the offer in the different parts of Wales. I do appreciate the distinctiveness that we have to offer in Aberavon, indeed in Margam park, or in those very different parts of Wales that still have very specific and very moving traditional buildings, such as abbeys and large churches and so on, which, again, is part of a spiritual tourism offer that I, obviously, am anxious to promote. So, the visitor experience everywhere is important.

But, I also very much agree that cultivating returners has to be a key part of our strategy—people who wish to come back again for a different experience of mountain biking in different parts of Wales. I was inaugurating in Nant yr Arian at the weekend—another tourist area that is benefiting from a new mountain biking trail. These activities, of course, it's not just mountain biking, it's also the walking, it's also the centres that are established there and the sale of local produce. I'm still looking forward to tasting a very small bottle, obviously, of local mead, which I acquired during a recent visit. So, it's all these things together—[Interruption.] No, I'm waiting to consume it, I said; it's not disappeared yet. So, the varied experience is a key thing.

I think the other important point is that I do understand the difference between an event and an activity, and I know that it's not about promoting spectator events; it's also about participation in events, and those emphases are equally important in a broad and attractive tourism strategy.

We must acknowledge that there have been some remarkable successes to celebrate in the promotion of tourism in Wales over the last five years. The themed approach was inspired and inspiring and, I think we would all agree, each, in its own way, gave a substantial boost to the tourist economy of Wales. The future plans and indeed those being implemented at this moment all have merit and should have the ability to build on past successes. You were right to point out, Deputy Minister, that Wales has a huge amount to offer—stunning countryside, a coastline of unparalleled beauty, as well as our history, both legendary and industrially. If we're talking about brands, in our flag we probably have one of the most iconic brands of flag on planet Earth. When Rhun mentioned the business of rugby, the sight of our flag at all the rugby internationals means that long after the cross of St George, the Scottish saltire or the Irish tricolour are forgotten, the Welsh flag will still be in the minds of all those people across the planet who've been watching the rugby matches. So, it's very important that we use that flag and put it on every piece of tourist propaganda or information that we put out there.

I truly believe the plans outlined in your statement have the potential to unlock the true depth of what Wales has to offer and also deal sensibly with the possibility of over-exploitation, perhaps signs of which are to be seen on our highest mountain, Snowdon, and its environs. But, Deputy Minister, a word of caution: there are moves afoot in Wales that could have a hugely detrimental impact on all these magnificent efforts. I refer here to both planned and existing speed restrictions on huge portions of our road infrastructure. We could soon be the first country in the whole of Europe, maybe the world, to have a 50 mph speed limit on our entire motorway network, albeit the small portion that we have. This, coupled with a 20 mph limit on huge portions of our urban network, will, I believe, have the effect of making Wales less attractive than other countries with less restrictive vehicle regimes. Would the Deputy Minister not agree with me that the last thing we wish to portray to the outside world is the slogan, and I say this quite seriously, 'Welcome to Wales/Croeso i Gymru, but leave your car at the border'?

I thought we were getting on very well, David, until the end of your contribution, so I will come to that briefly. Thank you for your welcome for the themed approach and the understanding of that. I do pay tribute here to the thoughtful people who dream up these approaches. When I first saw the word 'epic' on the top of Pen y Gwryd I thought, 'This is a step too far', partly because it was in what used to be my own constituency, and I still live there, and I thought, 'Well, this is over the top.' But the reality is that to be able to present a countryside in a dramatic way, you require some overstatement, and this is where I think it is possible to attract people to go to areas they hadn't intended to go to, or would like to go to as well, and that's part of taking the pressure off Snowdonia, or off Pen y Fan, which I witness very often, of course, as being seriously under pressure.

Thank you for the tribute to the red dragon. I also think it's rather a good flag, but I'm also a bit of a fan of the cross of St David, if you want a bit of variation.

I will now come to your final point. I'm not responsible for transport policy, but I do believe it's essential to have a safe motorway system, and a safe road system, and that that can be an attraction to tourists in itself. But what I also want to see is a much more effective integrated transport system within Wales and across Wales. I'm blessed where I live by through trains, all the way from my—. I can sit at a train in Pwllheli and I can be in Birmingham International before I finish my sandwiches. That is possible. Similarly, obviously, across south Wales, but also across the north and into Manchester Airport—we have these really effective connections. And when there’s a further development on Great Western, there will be a new connection coming westwards out of Heathrow, which I discussed when I was there involved with a marketing event last week. So, we must focus on Wales as a country that has more effective public transport when we have that.

I’d like to begin by thanking the Minister for bringing this statement today. The tourism and visitor economy has certainly been a creative programme and a great success to date, but it is more than tourism, as has already been stated. Creating a distinctive brand, Wales has been a significant part of this success, but it must also have a sustainable and strategic interoperability with Creative Wales. We are all very familiar with the magnificent landscapes of Wales, which attract hundreds of thousands of tourists each year, and we say that glibly, but that’s hugely important. And though our iconic coastlines, mountains and valleys must of course be a cornerstone of our tourism offer, I firmly believe that our tourism offer must be a strong cultural offer as well. In particular, I would like to ask the Minister what more can be done to utilise Wales’s reputation as a land of song as a means of attracting visitors.

We have a very proud musical tradition, thanks to our choirs and brass bands, eisteddfodau and orchestras, but we also have a thriving and successful international pop scene in both of our languages, and more, which continue to put Welsh music and Welsh talent on the map—far too many for me to list today. Ours is not just a European musical reputation, but an international one too. And I know that we have already done a great deal to celebrate our culture in attracting visitors, but I believe that music should be at the very heart of our international tourism offer. And we can be doing more to attract music festivals alongside our literary international festivals. And I’m sure that many of us who watched our quarter-final triumph over France last Sunday will have noticed the young Japanese mascot singing along to our anthem, and if ever we needed any proof of Wales’s musical international appeal, I think that is a very, very great example right there.

So, Minister, what more can we do to make Wales the land of song a priority for our visitor economy, whether that is celebrating our world-famous signers, our bands, or orchestras, or on a grass-roots level supporting venues and performers, so that more of our visitors can actually access Welsh music along the way, supporting our cultural economy in the process, alongside and cohesively working with a vibrant national music strategy—a plan for Wales for a sustainable and creative and international Wales of the future?

Well, thank you very much for that, Rhianon, and I appreciate your passion for placing Welsh music at the heart of the attractiveness of the country. And, in a sense, you have anticipated a future statement I hope to be making on establishing Creative Wales. Because I do believe that when we will have Creative Wales to sit alongside the Welsh arts council, and to sit alongside the particular contribution that is made to the life of Wales by the support that we currently give to the film and television industry, and the digital industry generally—that is a centrepiece of Creative Wales—we can see these different national institutions working even more closely together.

I am looking at a way of establishing Creative Wales on a model similar to Cadw. So, that’s a good start. We take a way of working that I believe to be working in the context of the built heritage, with a relatively autonomous board, but within Welsh Government, and that is the model that we will have for Creative Wales. Creativity has to be celebrated in a way that recognises the skills of creative workers, but it must also be celebrated in a way that seeks to treat creativity as a public good and an economic good. And that is why it is important that the emphasis of Creative Wales follows the kind of emphasis that we have used for Visit Wales. In other words, it has to be an organisation with a commercial drive, as well as a drive in more traditional perceptions of culture. I hope that goes some way to giving you a reassurance before we continue a further discussion on that aspect.

But all these—they're not institutions, they're enabling bodies. All these enabling bodies are part of what creates the attractiveness of the country. That's why the work that I'm waiting for at the moment, where Sport Wales and health promotion Wales have been working alongside Natural Resources Wales—this is a model that I hope will develop for the future, so that we are not working in terms of Government bodies that are not looking across the whole of Government for their activity.

We're out of time on this statement, but very briefly to finish, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Presiding Officer, and—

thank you for your statement, Minister.

I'm still trying to think about your staycation in Wales comment earlier, given that you gave a competition. The best I could come up with was 'Cymrucation', but that's a weird amalgamation, isn't it, of two languages, and probably doesn't work? Anyway, can I just ask you about your statement and two issues in my area that you're well versed with because I've raised them many times: Abergavenny Food Festival and also Raglan castle and access issues to Welsh monuments such as that? You spoke earlier about the need to have a Welsh-wide Cymru message, if you will, for the Welsh tourism industry. But, of course, that's based on local areas, local economies, local tourism. So, how are you factoring in issues like the food festival, issues like Raglan castle and other historic monuments around Wales, and local areas into that overall Cymru message? Because we know that the overall British message only works if Wales and Scotland play their part. So, within Wales, how does that depend on the local areas playing their part?

Thank you very much for that, Nick. Raglan castle, as you know, is one of my favourite castles. I think it's in a very striking location, and its architecture is very striking. I think what we need to do in all these cases, first of all, is improve the access to these locations, especially when, as that castle is, close to a very fast-moving highway, so that people driving past will be able to see the castle but have no idea, quite frankly—there is a Cadw sign, but they've no idea how to access the site. So, I think it's essential that we have a more integrated transport and access strategy to all our castles.

I certainly also agree that it is essential that it is the diversity of the country that attracts people, but then you have the privilege yourself of representing one of the most attractive rural constituencies in Wales. People forget that Monmouthshire is almost as rural as the kind of area that I represent.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. 

The next item, therefore, is the Food Information (Wales) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. These regulations form part of a wider programme of work undertaken in preparation for our exit from the European Union, to ensure the Welsh statute book works as intended at the point of exit. The regulations amend the Food Information (Wales) Regulations 2014. Currently, the 2014 regulations allow an improvement notice to be served where a person does not comply with EU food labelling requirements to consumers. As a result of EU exit, a new UK food labelling scheme, which will recognise geographical indications and protected food names in the UK, is being developed in readiness for exit day. As a result of this change in the system of food labelling, the regulations seek to allow a transitional period to allow food businesses to continue to meet pre-EU exit labelling requirements, whilst adjusting to the new UK geographical indication protected food name scheme. During this time, improvement notices will not be issued if specified products comply with pre-EU exit labelling requirements. The relevant transition periods are: for specified products placed on the market in the period before exit day until existing stocks of such products are exhausted; for specified wine products held by a person as at exit day until stocks are exhausted; and for specified non-wine products placed on the market within a period beginning with exit day; three years beginning with the day after exit day. A public consultation was undertaken in respect of these changes between 20 May and 28 June 2019. One response was received to the consultation, which fully supported the terms of the proposal.

I have no speakers in this debate, therefore the Minister probably doesn't wish to respond to the debate. 

The proposal, therefore, is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed. 

The next item is the Seeds (Amendment etc.) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Again, I call on the same Minister to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. These regulations amend two pieces of domestic legislation: the Marketing of Fruit Plant and Propagating Material (Wales) Regulations 2017 and the Marketing of Seeds and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Part 2 of these regulations enables Welsh Ministers to authorise the marketing of fruit plant and propagating material from any country outside the EU, if satisfied that material has been produced under conditions equivalent to those required in domestic legislation. Part 3 of these regualtions ensures the amendment made by Part 2 continues to operate effectively after the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. 

We are debating the regulations today following the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's consideration and subsequent recommendation for them to be approved by a resolution of the National Assembly. This follows a technical point raised in the committee's report relating to their view that, by not overtly stating the new time limit of 31 December 2022 for the authorisation of the said marketing, the regulations would not appropriately implement European law on the date the implementing legislation is made. I am informed the approach adopted by these regulations will ensure they appropriately implement European law when they are made and, all things being equal, they will continue to appropriately do so until 1 January 2023.

The approach adopted by these regulations is reasonable in light of the current uncertainty surrounding EU exit and the regularity of the European and domestic review of plant legislation. In addition, it is in line with the approach taken in England, with whom we share the services of the animal and plant health agency, who undertake operational functions in relation to plant varieties and seeds on behalf of the Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State. 

There are no other speakers, and I assume that the Minister doesn't wish to respond. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. [Interruption.]

Yes, you are down, sorry. I jumped far too quickly for my own good. So, I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to contribute to the debate—Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I will be succinct on these. The regulations were laid for the purposes of sifting, under the EU withdrawal Act 2018 in accordance with Standing Order 27.9A, and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee scrutinised the instrument as a proposed negative instrument at its meeting on 16 September 2019. 

We considered the criteria set out in Standing Order 21.3C and in our report laid on 17 September, and we recommended that the procedure for the regulations should be uplifted to the affirmative procedure. Our recommendation resulted from a question relating to the timing of the regulations. In particular, there appeared to be a conflict between EU law setting a time limit upon the use of this power to authorise the marketing of fruit plant material from countries outside the EU, while the regulations set no time limit, as was mentioned by the Minister. So, we're pleased to note the Welsh Government accepted our recommendation for an uplift in procedure. We considered the instrument again as an affirmative instrument at our meeting on 14 October, and there were no further reporting points. 

Thank you. Does the Minister wish to respond? No. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is, therefore, agreed.

The next item, item 9, has been postponed.

That brings us to the Brexit debate. I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, first of all, I would like to thank you and fellow Members for agreeing to the staging of this debate in the Assembly this afternoon. In bringing this debate forward, I would like to explain why we believe this Parliament should not agree to the EU withdrawal agreement conditionally agreed by the UK Government and the European Council last Thursday as it is currently drafted. I would also like to explain our approach to considering legislative consent for the withdrawal Bill. Let me start with the deal—with the agreement reached. This includes two elements: first of all, the withdrawal agreement, which will bind the UK under international law, and, secondly, the political declaration, which is an intermediate framework essentially and which notes the intention of both sides in terms of the longer term relationship.

In the case of the withdrawal agreement, the only element that has changed since the previous element agreed with Theresa May is the protocol on Northern Ireland. This is interesting in and of itself because many Conservative Members of Parliament, including many Cabinet members, seem to have had a Damascene conversion. Their opposition to many elements of the agreement appears to have disappeared. To give you two examples, I could list their unwillingness for there to be a continuing role for the European Court of Justice in terms of citizens’ rights, and, secondly, on the payment in terms of unconcluded commitments.

The political statement has changed more substantially, but it has changed in a way that is entirely contrary to what we would have wanted to see, weakening the relationship between us in the future to being one that would be based on a free trade agreement alone.

Llywydd, this is a bad deal for Wales and a bad deal for the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a bad deal for Wales because it would clearly damage our economy, above all our manufacturing and agri-food sectors. It would see new, significant non-tariff barriers to trade, even if tariffs themselves were ultimately avoided. Now, we have not seen the UK Government's economic impact analysis, but their previous modelling, in line with many other serious economic analyses, suggested such an outcome would lead to a shortfall in gross domestic product of around 6.7 per cent over a 15-year period when compared to what would occur if we were to remain within the European Union—an outcome, in other words, Llywydd, more than twice as bad as Theresa May's deal, and an outcome that would make us all poorer and cost jobs and investment right across Wales. It's a bad deal for Wales, Llywydd, because there are no legally binding commitments to maintaining employment, environmental and consumer rights and protections, simply an aspiration in the political declaration from which this UK Government could simply walk away.

It's a bad deal because it would not put an end to uncertainty—the nonsense that is talked about just getting Brexit done, as if this agreement was somehow the end of the road rather than simply the beginning. As some of the European Research Group, seduced to give up their principles and support this agreement, have themselves claimed, it is quite possible that at the end of the transition period, only 14 short months away, we could still end up leaving with no deal at all, or rather Great Britain could end up leaving with no deal, because Northern Ireland's long-term relationship with the EU is firmly set, at least until 2024, and in practice almost certainly indefinitely.

Now, Llywydd, I don't come here this afternoon to criticise the Northern Ireland protocol. It serves its purpose—the red line set out at the start of the negotiations by the European Union of ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. For us, preventing the return of violence in Northern Ireland must always come first, but we cannot neglect the impact of these proposals on our ports here in Wales, serious as we believe those to be, or the barriers which this agreement puts in the path of Welsh businesses. And that is doubly the case, Llywydd, because whereas the protocol previously was a backstop that both the EU 27 and the UK were committed to trying to avoid coming into existence, what is now proposed is a permanent arrangement that puts Northern Ireland in a different economic zone to Great Britain, with a hard border in the Irish sea—something that the Prime Minister claimed as recently as 2 July that no Conservative Prime Minister would ever agree to.   

Will you take an intervention? Thank you for taking the intervention. It's just on that particular point. This is not a permanent arrangement, is it? It will be superseded should there be a free trade agreement with the European Union and, indeed, there's an opportunity for the Northern Ireland Assembly to vote on this matter on a regular basis in order to bring it to an end. So, why do you say that this is a permanent arrangement, when very clearly it is not?

Well, Llywydd, on the first point, the Member is simply mistaken. He doesn't understand what the free trade agreement would do and why it certainly doesn't do what he claimed. His Government, having set off originally, having promised the DUP that they would have a veto on this agreement, then sold the DUP down the river. In future, the Northern Ireland Assembly will just require a simple majority, and that simple majority will always be there to extend the arrangement that this agreement sets out. That's why I say it's permanent, and that's why I say that your Prime Minister, who went to Belfast and said, as I quoted earlier this afternoon, 'Never', he said, 'never in any circumstances, wherever the suggestion might come from, will I ever agree to a border in the Irish sea', and that, a few short weeks later, is exactly what he has done. 

Now, if British standards diverge away from those of the EU, then Welsh businesses will not be able to export goods that meet UK standards to Northern Ireland. More generally, goods from third countries that will be able to be put on the market in Wales, England and Scotland as a result of any new trade deals, those goods will not be able to be imported into Northern Ireland if they do not also meet EU standards. Such goods will also incur any applicable EU tariffs, and these can only be reclaimed if it can be proved that they will not be sold on to the Republic, including as components or ingredients of other products. And yesterday, as we discovered, even goods from Northern Ireland will have to have export certificates to travel into Great Britain, even if that news came as a surprise to the Secretary of State in the Department for Exiting the European Union, who is meant to be in charge of all of this.

Let's be in no doubt, Llywydd, that this is a huge breach in the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, and a huge breach of trust by the Prime Minister. For all these reasons, we believe that the National Assembly cannot and should not support this deal, and that we should signal now in unequivocal terms that, in the absence of fundamental change, we will not give legislative consent to legislation to implement this bad deal. Now, legislative consent may not be a term used widely beyond this Chamber, but what it means is important. It means that the UK Parliament should only make changes to our powers and responsibilities if we have agreed to those changes being made. It is a fundamental building block of the system that enables this Government and this Senedd to take decisions that meet the needs of Wales. And this legislation, the withdrawal agreement Bill, a 100-page, hugely complex piece of legislation, which Parliament had not seen until yesterday, will certainly need an LCM here in the Senedd. Indeed, we have received a letter from the Department for Exiting the European Union asking for our consent.

Now, why should that be? Well, the Bill will, for example, restrict us for at least a year from passing any legislation incompatible with EU law. It will set up an independent monitoring authority to protect EU citizens' rights, which will affect the legislative powers of this Assembly. And it provides sweeping powers to UK Ministers to implement the Northern Ireland protocol that could even allow them unilaterally to change the Government of Wales Act itself.

Llywydd, this is the most important and far-reaching piece of legislation to come before Parliament for decades, and the most important ever that has required our legislative consent, yet the Government wants to ram it through all its stages at Westminster in less than 10 days. And it wants this Senedd and the Scottish Parliament to provide legislative consent even more quickly. It is quite unconscionable. As legislatures, we have to have time to do our fundamental job of scrutiny and to do it conscientiously and properly. To this end, I have written, along with the Scottish First Minister, to both the Prime Minister and the President of the European Council, making clear that it is essential for there to be an extension of the article 50 period to enable us to fulfil our constitutional duty.

Of course, the Prime Minister has tried to railroad Parliament by threatening the catastrophe of a 'no deal' Brexit, and he's been at it again in the House of Commons today—'It's my way or no way'—and that's no way to act in a democracy. The tactics of a 'bully boy', to quote Dominic Grieve, the Conservative Attorney General during this decade.

Now, I sincerely hope that Parliament will refuse to agree a timetable whose sole purpose is to spare the blushes of a Prime Minister who insisted that he would deliver Brexit by 31 October 'do or die', with the arrogance with which we have had to become accustomed. That is one reason why, while we will produce a legislative consent memorandum later today, we too need proper time for the Senedd to do its work. It is only if this opportunity is denied to us that I will ask you, Llywydd, to consider allowing the Senedd to have such a motion in front of it in the next nine days.

In the meantime, the message of this National Assembly to the Prime Minister must be clear: this Senedd must be given the time needed to discharge the responsibilities that the law requires us to discharge. We need an extension of article 50 and, as required by the law, the Prime Minister must seek to achieve this in good faith. Then we need to put the issue back to the people in a referendum with 'remain' on the ballot paper. If you believe this deal is really in the interests of this country, then you will not be afraid to allow that to happen.

In the meantime, this deal is a bad deal for Wales and a bad deal for the United Kingdom. We will not support it as it stands and, on this side, we know Wales is better off remaining in the European Union.

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I rise to speak to the amendment, tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives.

Regardless of whether the Welsh Government accepts the new deal that has been reached between the UK Government and the European Union, it must be remembered that this deal was accepted by both partners and is, at the very least, an attempt to deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum—a result that showed that the people of Wales want to leave the European Union. And so I have to say that I continue to be frustrated to hear the First Minister taking a position that directly contradicts the will of the people of Wales, particularly as there is nothing in his comments that respects the referendum result nor shows any commitment to delivering that referendum result. I've seen nothing in the endless statements that the Welsh Government has delivered in recent months that shows any shred of respect for the referendum result. Instead, we've heard excuses for delaying Brexit, constant political point scoring and a general disregard of the views of the Welsh people—[Interruption.] Not at the moment. Now, Jean-Claude Juncker was right to say that this is a fair and balanced deal, and, above all else, it shows that, with a commitment to finding solutions and with an attitude that's willing to compromise, a deal can be secured. Perhaps if the Welsh Government had been more willing to compromise and work with the UK Government, then maybe Wales could have had more of a stake in the negotiations. And I give way to the Member for Blaenau Gwent.

I'm grateful to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. He says that we should be respecting the result of the referendum, but, of course, it was the Conservative Party that, three months after the Welsh referendum on devolution, voted against a Second Reading of the Bill to give life to that referendum. So, when it comes to respecting the will of the people, the Conservatives don't have a very good record, do they?

You know full well—the Member knows full well—that I respected that referendum result and he should respect this referendum result. And let me remind the Member for Blaenau Gwent that 62 per cent of his constituents voted to leave the European Union and you should be standing up for those people.

Of course, the alternative—[Interruption.] Of course, the alternative to the deal before us is to push ahead without a deal. For months and months, we've heard about the impact that a 'no deal' Brexit would have on Wales, and this is one area where I do share the First Minister's concerns. Businesses and industry leaders right across Wales have made it clear that Wales will suffer if Britain leaves the European Union without a deal. As the options begin to become more binary, you'd think the Welsh Government has a moral duty to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit, therefore it's even more disappointing that the First Minister and his colleagues at Westminster are continuing to frustrate the process even at this late stage.

And I have to say—I have to say—[Interruption.] I will in a minute. I have to say that the MP for Don Valley, Caroline Flint, was absolutely right on Saturday to say that some of her colleagues had, and I quote,

'no idea or confidence that a deal would be before us today that would allow those of us in this House who want to secure a deal to move on and leave the European Union by 31 October? As a result, if the House votes for amendment (a) today, we will be forced—even if a deal is approved—to seek an extension until 31 January, underlining that the sponsors of Benn Act had only one motivation: to delay Brexit and stop it'.

Well, I have to say she's absolutely right. It's all about delaying Brexit and stopping Brexit. Indeed, the joint letter signed by the Welsh and Scottish First Ministers just confirms that Caroline Flint was right after all.

Now, report after report tells us that the current uncertainty over how Britain would leave the European Union has been harmful to Welsh businesses, and I say to the First Minister: we're now in a position to end that current uncertainty with a comprehensive deal, and so I fail to understand why the Welsh Government would want to extend that period of uncertainty any longer than absolutely necessary. However, instead of acknowledging the end of that uncertainty, the First Minister's response to the agreed deal was to make it clear that a deal would lead to untold damage to the Welsh economy and to Welsh jobs, because this Government is so committed to remaining in the European Union that it's willing to go against the will of the people of Wales. And that's the Welsh Government's Brexit position all over, isn't it: no settlement, no strategy and certainly no supporting the result of the referendum.

The First Minister should come clean once and for all and admit that he and his Government has no intention of supporting any deal where Britain leaves the European Union, and so it begs the question: why doesn't the Welsh Government just come out and say that it wants to revoke article 50? At least Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they just want to stop Brexit. Let me remind Members that the real damage to the Welsh economy and jobs has been done by successful Welsh Labour and Labour-led Governments, which have failed to deliver for Welsh businesses and Welsh industries. And let's take the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report, which showed that Wales hasn't taken advantage of the funds available in the past that were linked to the trans-European transport network. Therefore, it's clear that the Welsh Government has failed to collaboratively work with the UK Governments and the EU to better support Wales's infrastructure in the past. And, if I have time, I will give way to the Member for Caerphilly.

I think one of the things that the leader of the Conservatives is good at is scrutiny. Would he not agree—and let's just try and take some of the party political heat out of this—would he not agree that three days for a Bill of this magnitude is just not long enough to provide the right level of scrutiny? Would he not just agree that?

Well, Llywydd, the parties opposite can't have it both ways. They claim that this legislation is rushed, but they were more than happy to push through the Benn Act at a record pace at Westminster. So, you can't have it both ways. [Interruption.] You can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand—[Interruption.] You can't say on the one hand—[Interruption.] You can't say on the one hand that this has been rushed through and then you rush through legislation.

Llywydd—[Interruption.] Llywydd—[Interruption.] Llywydd—[Interruption.]

The Member to finish in silence, please.

Llywydd, the UK Government is delivering on the outcome of the referendum in 2016 and giving the people of Wales what they want: an exit from the European Union. We're hearing calls for a second referendum whilst the Welsh Government take every opportunity to remind us how divisive the last one was. However, the opposition parties at Westminster don't seem to know what they want. They keep frustrating the process and moving the goalposts. They clearly didn't expect a deal to be secured and yet they don't want to table a vote of no confidence and take this matter back to the people. Surely the people of Wales deserve better. If the Welsh Government really want to take this back to the people then it's time to call for a general election, and, Llywydd, the First Minister and his colleagues can lay out their stall to the people of Wales and the people can have their say once and for all.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 2, tabled in his name.

Labour and Plaid Cymru have brought a motion to the Welsh Parliament calling for the withdrawal agreement Bill that will pave the way for Brexit to be rejected as it stands. But they've not given any detail in their motion about what they would like to see instead. That's a dereliction of duty, lacking any kind of leadership. As a result, I've introduced an amendment to give Wales a clear alternative and a clear way forward. For the first time in our nation's history, our Welsh Parliament will now vote on whether to hold a referendum on Welsh national sovereignty in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. That's the referendum Wales really needs. It's the referendum we've always needed, and I ask you not to deny the Welsh people the choice and the democratic right to vote on our nation's future.

Our country can and must move forward from the mess created by Westminster and push forward to stand on our own two feet as a proud nation. It's an old concept, called democracy. I ask you to support my amendment today and to support a vote on Welsh national sovereignty. Diolch yn fawr.

Once again, politics, our Parliament, the countries of these islands, have been forced to the edge of a precipice by one of the most irresponsible, reckless Governments that we've ever seen. A decision, which, I think we all accept, is one of the most momentous that any Parliament will have made in generations is going to be forced through in a matter of days. A Bill, running at over 100 pages, published overnight, no impact assessment—and instead of politics proceeding through cool reflection, effective scrutiny, what we're having is politics working through bitter argument and through threats.

The latest threat, of course, is that, 'If you don't vote for our timetable then we'll pull the whole Bill and we'll denounce you as enemies of the people'. That's the spirit, unfortunately, in which this Conservative Government have approached this issue, certainly since the current Prime Minister has taken over. It's completely unacceptable. How has it got to this? Basically, the Tory party has been taken over by the extreme right wing of its party. And surely—. Paul Davies, you know better than this in your heart of hearts. You've acquiesced. How is it—[Interruption.] We've ended up in a position—[Interruption.] We've ended up in a position, right, where the mandate from the 2016 referendum has been taken as a mandate for the most extreme, hardest of all Brexits. They even call themselves 'the Spartans' without a hint of irony—some phalanx of people who think that politics is war conducted by other means. Let’s remember this, it didn't end well for the Spartans, by the way—they ended up internally polarised, externally marginalised, and they ended up having to rejoin the Achaean league that they had left. There’s a moral lesson there for you, look.

It could have been and it should have been different, right? There was the opportunity for compromise here. Despite the fact that we are passionately a pro-remain party, we were prepared to compromise. We supported the infinitely better option of a single market membership and customs union. In fact, we will support an amendment today at Westminster on that basis. But, no, what happened is that the Conservative Government took us further and further to the extreme, right-wing fringes of this argument, and indeed its party.

I must admit, I was surprised by Mr Johnson coming back with a deal, because I did not expect even him to actually be guilty of one of the greatest acts of political treachery and dishonesty that I have ever seen—and I use my words advisedly. As the First Minister has said, this is a man who went to the DUP conference and said in terms that no British Conservative Government could or should sign up to a regulatory and customs border in the Irish sea, and that is precisely what he has done. There are echos here, aren’t there, of the grandfather of Ulster unionism, Edward Carson, in 1921 saying,

'What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into power.'

It was ever thus. And there’s a lesson here for us in Wales as well: this man is not a man that can be trusted. What he has done to the DUP he will do to us as well. Don't trust his words.

Look at the political declaration—the latest version of it—it’s full of qualified language: 'should' not 'will'. Therein lies the—. There are no binding commitments there at all. Section 79 talks about 'the level playing field'. The most ambiguous phrase possible: 'building upon'. We all know 'building upon'—it actually is no basis to believe anything. We will end up in the extreme hard Brexit. The direction of travel is absolutely clear.

We can't accept this. This is no way to run a country. This is certainly no way to ruin ours. We have to do our job and stand up to the Conservative Party. It’s a shame that the Conservative Party is not prepared to do that themselves. How can we actually assess this without even the transparency of an economic impact? We will end up in a position where Wallonia will have more power over the future direction of our economy than we do in Wales. That's what's being served up to us. I have to say, look, the only way to resolve this, because of the vacuum of leadership that is Conservative Party now, is to take it back to the people so that they can have the final say.

I rise today with great disappointment that, once again, this Chamber is wasting the time and the money of the Welsh public. This motion is—[Interruption.]—contradictory. If point 1 of the motion comes to pass and the UK Parliament doesn't enact the withdrawal agreement Bill, then point 2 will not apply, as there would be no need for an LCM under Standing Order 29. It’s totally nonsensical and it’s not for this place to decide, is it? It is currently being discussed in Parliament, so why on earth are we pre-empting any decision? This motion today is nothing more than a public relations stunt for the Welsh Government and its little helpers, and my group will be voting against it.

Will you take an intervention?

No. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because—

[Inaudible.]—isn't in her script. Sorry.

She loves you too, Alun.

Yes, I love you too, Alun. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because it doesn't protect—[Interruption.] I'll start again. Labour's argument is that it cannot vote for this deal because it doesn't protect workers' rights and environmental protections. What guff.

What it will do, as we have endlessly discussed here, is transfer responsibility for doing that from the EU to the UK Government. Why does Labour believe that any UK Government won't preserve those rights?

Will you take an intervention?

No. Most workers' rights we enjoy today actually came through the UK Parliament, often following campaigns by your trade unions. Many such rights in the UK are far superior to the minimum provisions given by the EU. For example, paid holiday leave: EU legislation is four weeks, the UK is 5.6 weeks. Maternity leave: the EU is 14 weeks and the UK is 52 weeks. In the UK, it is 90 per cent pay for six weeks and then £140 for 33 weeks on equal pay. This was law in 1970, well before the UK even joined the EU. On wages, the EU has no minimum wage, unlike the UK, and we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. On discrimination, the UK had laws on sex discrimination in 1975 and race discrimination in 1965—long before the EU. Health and safety: we in the UK have some of the best health and safety at work rules and have done since 1974. 

Llywydd, rather than debating the unknown outcome of a vote in Westminster, this Chamber should be debating things that it does have influence and power over: the NHS in Wales, Betsi still in special measures; the future of Welsh farming once we leave the EU to give farmers in Wales certainty; or the fact that Cardiff Airport—[Interruption.] Llywydd?

This is disgraceful.

Or the fact that Cardiff Airport—

Will you take an intervention?

No. Or the fact that Cardiff Airport has got yet another cash injection when north Wales, yet again, misses out under this Welsh Labour Government. 

Where were you when we've discussed these things? You weren't here. 

The Labour Party in Westminster—

You were out of the Chamber when we've discussed these things. Turn up.

The Labour Party in Westminster stopped a meaningful vote, yet the Labour Party in Wales wants another meaningless debate and another meaningless vote. Thank you.

Carwyn Jones—[Interruption.] Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm going to try and calm things down a little, if I may. It's perfectly correct that this, the elected National Assembly of the people of Wales should debate these matters. It is a legal issue that we're discussing here and that is the question of an LCM. So, this is not time wasted in some way; we're doing this because a request has come to us from a Whitehall department and it's a request that, I suspect, will not be one that finds favour with us. I don't accept that, in some way, we should know our place here and not discuss issues that affect directly the people of Wales.

Could I remind those Members who claim, on the Conservative benches, that the Welsh Government has no strategy and has always opposed Brexit, that in 2016, together with Plaid Cymru, we published a White Paper that proposed Brexit? And it was a Brexit that included, yes, membership of the customs union and it included, yes, as much access as possible to the single market. Now, there are some who'll say, 'Well, that's not Brexit.' There's no evidence of that at all. And this is the problem. In 2016, there was no argument about what Brexit was meant to look like other than the fact that Britain had to leave the EU. Well, my view is that all you Brexiteers out there, you'd have had Brexit by now if you'd actually listened to the Welsh Government and to Plaid Cymru back in 2016, and Britain would no longer by a member of the EU. Instead, we've had three and a half years of utter chaos in Westminster.

And, what is the sense in rushing through in days the most important legislation that has been placed before Parliament, I'd argue, for at least 50 years? And we're going to go through it in days? That cannot possibly be right. All to meet a deadline that is artificially put there by the Prime Minister. There's no reason why it has to be done by 31 October. Now we hear the Prime Minister saying, 'Well, I might pull the vote.' Well, what's he got to hide, if that's the case? It surely cannot be right that a Government that cannot get its way just simply says, 'If we can't get our way, we'll take the ball home.' That's not the way to govern and that's not the way to reach out to others, either. All because of an artificial timetable. As the First Minister has said, we are asked to provide our consent today, almost, or tomorrow, maybe next week, but in such a short space of time that it is simply not possible to have an informed debate, regardless of the views of various Members in this Chamber.

I do not accept that this deal gives certainty. I wish it did, but I do not accept that it does. It kicks the can down the road to the end of 2020, so there will be discussions over the next year and if those discussions come to naught then the Government will decide whether or not the UK leaves with no deal or not. That cannot possibly be democracy. It's another year of uncertainty of course.

Unfortunately, that's the way that the EU decided it wanted to conduct this exit from the European Union. They said it had to be done via a withdrawal agreement and then, following the agreement of that withdrawal agreement, the discussions on the future trade relationship with the EU could take place. So do you accept that that's not actually a problem of the UK Government's making, it's a problem of the EU's making?

What did you think would happen? The level of naivety among Brexiteers stuns me. And, yes, we would have certainty if we'd said, 'We will stay in the customs union.' That would be certainty. The problem of Ireland would have gone away. The issue of Ireland would have gone away. That wouldn't have been an issue that we would be discussing today.

I come back to Ireland. It gives me no pleasure to say, 'I told you so three years ago'—

Here we go.

Yes, here we go, here we go. Yes, 3,000 people dead in Northern Ireland; 'here we go', say the Tory benches. That shows exactly what they think of Northern Ireland and how blind they are to the issue of Ireland itself. Let me remind Members that this is not a question of trade; this is a question of peace. It's a question of peace. Since 1998, in my wife's home city, people are not being killed on a daily basis because of their religion and their political beliefs. This done badly carries the risk of those days returning, and there's no need for it.

Let's look at the trade issues here. One of the issues I raised about Northern Ireland does affect Wales, and I'll come on to that in a second. It appeared that if you had goods originating in Northern Ireland then you could go into the British market or the European single market without any need to have any extra paperwork. That was a competitive advantage that would have ensured that companies would have left Wales and gone to Northern Ireland. Why would you stay here when you could go somewhere where you had open access to both markets? Now, I don't know, and neither does Steve Barclay, the Brexit Secretary. Yesterday he said two entirely different things. He said Northern Ireland businesses wouldn't need export certificates then he said they did. So what does that mean now? They now need export certificates to enter both those markets, which makes them a far worse place to actually do business. And this is the problem: the uncertainty is unbelievable, and these are not small details, these are details that are hugely important for the future.

I can see the time, Llywydd. There are no impact assessments. I wouldn't buy a house without a survey. I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it. Why on earth should I buy a Brexit deal that hasn't even been assessed properly? That surely makes no sense at all. And it does affect Wales, finally. Welsh ports will be affected. There will be customs check back in Welsh ports, of that there is no doubt.

And the final point I make is this: I agree that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to express its view on the economic relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but that's a devolved matter. That's a devolved matter. As soon as the UK Government concedes that a devolved Government and Assembly has a say over a matter that is actually not devolved, the same must apply here, and the same must apply to Scotland. The argument that Wales is represented in the UK Parliament doesn't hold, because so is Northern Ireland, and it comes back to the point that I've made many, many times in the past, and that is the UK will not hold together unless we scrutinise things like this properly, and it will not hold together until we get constitutional change. That is the challenge for all in this Chamber, but, Llywydd, I have to say that to take through this legislation in the space of a matter of days is a constitutional outrage.

The former First Minister always speaks with great passion on these issues through his family connections and we respect that. However, I would remind him that both Mrs May's deal and the current deal is and was supported by the Republic of Ireland's Government, so I do regret some of the rhetorical flourishes you made and threw at our benches. I think that was very unfair, frankly.

You said it. 'Here we go again', you said.

I didn't say anything. I was just sat here listening.

I think what we must realise in a point of crisis like this is that we have come to the time when we must decide. Our EU partners have been very patient. They need to move on, just as we do. I would have much preferred Mrs May's deal. It did seem to me to fully respect the referendum result, which was clear, that the people—unexpectedly, probably—wanted to withdraw from the European Union, but the vote was very close. And also, I don't think all the issues of trade were fully debated and grasped by everyone. I don't grasp them to this day, and I've studied them quite closely. And so there was an element of work in progress, and I thought Mrs May came up with a reasonable way of getting us forward.

The current offer is a harder form of Brexit, if it leads to a transition and then a free trade agreement at the end of 2020. But its present form is just the divorce deal to get us into the transition. And I don't like the fact that the legislation would have to be accelerated. I do take the view that constitutional matters need to be fully examined, but I do remind Members on the opposite benches that you passed at great speed, under the emergency measure, the continuity Act, a year or 18 months ago. So, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I suppose, in these matters.

What we are facing are the capital terms, really, of a deal. The arrangements for Ireland and what sort of future we might have if we have a free trade agreement—all that, in terms of the future relationship, will be determined in the transition period. It is not rooted in the current legislation, three quarters of which is, of course, what Mrs May proposed. So, I think we need to be very solemn and careful about the point we have reached. Myself, I do think, because of the need to rush the legislation, that people can reasonably say that it needs further examination and, perhaps, the deadline of 31 October should be extended a bit. If the usual channels could agree for two or three weeks, or even four weeks, to thoroughly review the divorce agreement, I think I could be persuaded to agree to that. But the thing is, we all know that those that do not want to leave the EU and respect the referendum result want either to attach a referendum to this Bill or to require us to enter a customs agreement with the EU. And that, I think, would destroy the guts of Brexit, as far as those that support Brexit are concerned. And we must be honest with the electorate that it will do that.

Will the Member take an intervention?

I will give way. 

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I've just heard you and, clearly, you are as deeply worried about the accelerated pace as I am, particularly in ensuring time to look at these documents. But you've just mentioned that people wanted to look at the common market, that the customs union is an issue for many people. I was faced by many questions—that they didn't want the EU but, when they voted in 1970, it was for a common market, which effectively is a customs union. So, a large proportion of the people actually felt that the customs union wasn't the issue, because they wanted the economic agenda, they just didn't want the political agenda.

Well, you know, we may be at the point where you could convince people of that, but, frankly, nothing would have pleased me in the last couple of years than that there would have been a huge shift in public opinion and an obvious demonstration that the public wanted another vote. The problem is, if we had another vote, it could well be the same result. And these arguments have been aired for the last two or three years, and they've not shifted public opinion.

But this is where I think we are: we have an enfeebled Government that cannot now control its own agenda and, frankly, the thought that having lost the timetable motion any Government would proceed with substantial legislation I do think is fanciful. We've come to the end. We now need a Government that has a mandate to act. We need a general election. It's quite clear that that's where we have reached. And I have to say, the First Minister said that we were afraid of a referendum—I think he meant Brexiteers. Well, I'm not a Brexiteer. I don't know if they're afraid of a referendum, or not, but I do think you're afraid of a general election, and I think that's what lies at the heart of your—albeit forceful—speech this afternoon. But can I just finish—?

Will you give way?

Oh, do I have time to give way again?

Yes. 

I'll give way. 

I am very grateful to the Member for allowing me. The difficulty is this: in 2017, there were many in this Chamber who thought there was one result to the election; in fact, it delivered something unclear. What if the election results in another hung Parliament? Then we end up in a situation where there's no mandate for anything. Surely, in those circumstances, the only way out of it is to have another referendum.

No-one can predict with certainty what will happen in a general election, but I cannot see any way than refreshing the current Parliament and attempting to form a Government that has a mandate to act. That may be a coalition Government—who knows? But that's always the situation, at great points of peril, in a general election. You have to face the electorate and deal with the outcome they gave you.

But can I just make this appeal? Whatever Government is elected at the general election that must be impending—I certainly hope it is—will first and foremost pursue a unionist course, because what we don't want at the end of 2020 is leaving without a deal.

May I say first of all that I agree with David Melding when he said that we have come to the end? I don't think there is a better deal, that there is some silver bullet that can solve this problem politically in Westminster. That's why I believe, and have believed for some time, that the solution is to put this back in the hands of the people in a further referendum. There may have been arguments over the past few years—'Don't have a referendum as an option because that will weaken our hand in negotiations.' There may have been some truth in that, but if we have reached the very end, now is the time to put this back in the hands of the people. And I will say this: the fact that I have a daughter who is 19 years old, and that there are hundreds of thousands of young people like her who didn't have the right to vote in the referendum in 2016 because they were too young, and that they now are old enough to vote, that in itself is a good enough reason to go back to ask them, because it's their future that we're talking about. If we do want to ensure that democracy is as contemporary as it can be, is as sensitive as it can be to the reality of the views of the people of Britain, not a snapshot taken three and half years ago, then let's go back and have a further vote.

But that's not a reason—[Interruption.] If anybody wants to intervene, then I am happy to take the intervention.

Yes, I will. First of all, would you not agree that you've had 40 years to prove to the British people that the European Union is their best option? And after 40 years of being in the European Union, the British people said, 'That is not the option we want. We want to come out of the European Union because we believe that Britain would be better off outside of that union.'

Let me say this: if in this referendum that I want people say, 'We leave'—we leave. [Interruption.] [Inaudible]—from the Conservative benches, 'How many referendums do you want?' If there's a referendum, as we want now—that is it, if it's 'leave'. What our argument is: we did not have the information to be able to make an informed decision. Now, we do.

Very, very quickly—if that referendum, the next referendum, said, 'We leave the European Union', would you then accept that?

I've just said that. 

But why would you accept that one and not the previous one?

I've just answered that question. 

Are you taking another one? 

No, I must press on, because I want to talk about the port of Holyhead, because we're talking today about the agreement that is on the table and what it actually means in practice. I could talk about what leaving on the terms that are being proposed now through this withdrawal would mean for traffic in Holyhead, for congestion in Holyhead, for the backing up of lorries on the A55 and so on, and for the inconvenience caused, but I'm not going to talk about that. I'm going to talk about my very real concern about what will happen to the port of Holyhead as the hugely important strategic port it is under what is being proposed now.

We can talk about the political treachery of what Boris Johnson has done in proposing now that there is a border down the Irish sea. I'll talk, if I may, about the practical consequences of that. Trade through the port of Holyhead has grown 700 per cent or thereabouts since the creation of the single market. Holyhead is a hugely important port, not only because it’s well run, it has great staff, and it's an effective and efficient port, but it’s successful because it is the easiest way for trade to flow from Europe through Britain on to Ireland. So, much of what is being proposed now threatens that position that Holyhead has—that privileged position of being the best route for trade. Fifty per cent of the trade through Dublin and Holyhead comes from Northern Ireland. Now, under the terms of what is being proposed now, there would be parts of that trade traffic that would be tariff-free, which would have easier access directly into ports in Scotland and England. That would directly put the port of Holyhead under disadvantage. We know what’s going on in terms of planning for direct traffic for trade from Ireland to continental Europe. Some 40 per cent of the trade that comes through the port of Holyhead goes straight over the land bridge that Britain is and on to continental Europe. We already know that investment is being put into cutting out that land bridge altogether, as Andrew Potter of Cardiff University said:

'Rather than going through the hassle of going through two ports in the UK—you'd be able to stick your truck on a ferry and sail round the UK without ever effectively leaving the European Union.'

And hassle is really, really important here, because we have tariff barriers and we have non-tariff barriers, and those non-tariff barriers are the things that make trade flow quickly or slowly, and what we have in this proposal, in the withdrawal deal, is a proposal to make Holyhead and traffic through Wales, boosting the Welsh economy, a hassle. And we will lose out, because, at the end of the day, trade will find the easiest route and we are the ones that will lose out. And when I say ‘we are the ones’, I have mostly in my mind those hard-working families in Holyhead, on the Isle of Anglesey, that will find that that port—which has been so vital to the economy of my constituency, of my community—will find itself at a disadvantage, and I will never support a deal that places my community under a disadvantage.

Deputy Presiding Officer, there are really three points that I wanted to contribute in this particular debate. The first point actually relates to the timescale for the consideration of this. I started reading these 450 pages this morning. I don’t believe there is a single person in this Chamber who has yet had time or the ability to actually digest the incredibly technical content of this.

Now, the Prime Minister said that, if he doesn’t get his timetable through, he will pull the Bill. Well, listen, I think that on something as important as this, constitutionally, if he’d rather pull his Brexit Bill than have it face proper security, then he shouldn’t have brought it before Parliament in the very first place. And it is also making a mockery of our parliamentary procedures internationally.

I see this comment from the Institute for Government, who’ve given so much advice during this process. What they say is:

'the Brexit Bill would have less time in the Commons than the Wild Animals in Circuses Act.'

They say, an Act, that affects,

'only 19 wild animals left in circuses in the U.K.—among them a zebra, two camels, three racoons and a zebu.'

I don’t know what a zebu is.

'All of whom now have the honor of attracting more House of Commons' debate than…the historic legal treaty securing the U.K.’s departure from the European Union.'

This is not the way to do proper constitutional reform.

That’s the first point I make. The second point I make relates to the issue of workers' rights, which to many of us has been such a fundamental issue. It's an issue that was such an important promise during the Brexit referendum—that there would be guarantees of workers' rights. I remember how hard we fought to get the social chapter signed, and how pleased we were when it was signed in 1997. And I tell you, it was a fight—it was a fight on our side, because Blair wanted to cherry-pick bits and pieces, and it was really the trade unions who said, ‘No, we take the whole of the social chapter, because we signed up to social Europe.’ I’m thinking of a conversation with the First Minister the other day, who said, ‘Yes, I remember those debates well. What was the Tory position?’ ‘Up yours, Delors.’ Quite frankly, that has very much been part of the Tory position ever since.

There was a point that was made very cleverly, I think, by Keir Starmer during the debate in Westminster, and it was this—because we heard today from the UKIP/Brexit; whatever they’re called these days—if you're going to make the point that we have certain terms and conditions and employment legislation that is better than EU standards, well of course the point is that EU standards have always been a baseline. There has never been any restriction on providing better and higher standards, and if it is the case that you don't want to reduce employment legislation, then why abolish the baseline? The answer, as we know quite clearly, is because the intention is to shred the ability to protect employment rights—those rights that we got from the social chapter. And if you read this document—and I read those particular bits—there is no guarantee in there that that baseline will in any way be protected, and nor could it be protected, because in order to do a trade deal with the US, in order to do that US trade deal, we have to agree to the abolition and the lowering of standards in order to be compliant and have a level playing field with the United States. So, the Tory Party should be honest that that really is their intention and that has always been one of the big bugbears of membership of the EU in the first place anyway—the fact that it gave that social chapter and it had that particular social agenda.

I think the final point I'd like to make is this: if you refer to section 36 of the draft Bill, there is the most bizarre statement in there in terms of sovereignty, and sovereignty at a time, actually, when there's also the abolition of section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which is the body that actually gives time for Parliament to scrutinise international treaties. That is being abolished within the Bill, and I haven't heard any discussion of that yet. Just leaving that particular part aside, if we look at that part of the Bill in terms of sovereignty and so on, if the intention of Parliament is to rely on that section 36 and to proceed in such a way that it basically drives a nail into the coffin of Sewel, then that is again yet another move towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. I refer to this section within the legislative consent memorandum that went before the Scottish Parliament, and they refer to our own paper that we discussed and supported in this Chamber only the other week:

'The Welsh Government recently published proposals which endorsed the idea of the United Kingdom as an association based on a recognition of popular sovereignty in each part of the UK, and concluded that the traditional doctrine of sovereignty of parliament no longer provides a firm foundation for the constitution of the UK'.

That is the position that was adopted by this Chamber, recognised by the Scottish Parliament, but not recognised anywhere within any of these documents. And if we get to a situation where the UK Government presses ahead, it is the end of Sewel and it is the end of the primacy of the devolution statutes within our UK constitutional structure, and it is a step on the way to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Well, this is yet another skirmish in the endless battle between remainer Parliaments and the people of this country. I start by reminding people that 486 Members of Parliament out of 650 voted to remain, and 49 Members of this Assembly out of 60 voted to remain. All the major parties who fought the last general election fought it on the same wording as appeared in the Labour Party manifesto: 'Labour accepts the referendum result.' And they've spent the last three and a half years doing everything they possibly can to undermine that statement. We know that the First Minister and his colleagues, and, indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru and his colleagues, never really accepted the result of the referendum—

Will you take an intervention?

Well, I've hardly started yet, but, go on.

So, 'Securing Wales' Future', in terms of the document that this Chamber passed, you don't feel that was a serious, serious intervention.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

I thought it was quite clear—'Securing Wales' Future'.

We have remainer Parliaments that are determined, and always have been determined, to defy the will of the people. Before the referendum campaign, every imaginable horror was conjured up by exactly the same people of what would happen if we left the customs union and the single market. There were plagues of boils and frogs and so on and so forth. So, the idea that these arguments,  which we’ve gone through endless times in the last three and half years, didn’t feature in the referendum campaign is an absurd rewriting of history. Only last week we were taking about Catalonia in this place, and the leader of Plaid Cymru was waxing lyrical about the right of the Catalonian people to determine their own future by means of a referendum. The Spanish Government, of course, takes a totally different view. As far as Plaid Cymru are concerned, in these debates, they have assumed the role of the Spanish Government because they are determined to keep us in the unity of the supranational empire, which is what Guy Verhofstadt describes it as, of the European Union. Britain and Wales should never be allowed to secure their freedom from this supranational body. Plaid Cymru are quite happy for us to be a colony in the Belgian empire; they just don’t want us to be a part of the United Kingdom. And the absurdity of that position is that whereas, however inadequate it might be—at the moment we’ve got 40 Members of Parliament at Westminster—if Wales were to be independent within the European Union, it would have a handful of Members of the European Parliament, you’d have a miniscule percentage of the votes in the Council of Ministers, and you’d have one European Commissioner, who would be bound to be independent. I give way.

Two of the 11 Catalan political prisoners are personal friends of mine. I went to Madrid penitentiary VI to visit them, and I asked them, 'What did you say to the likes of those who would say, "Well, look, the European Union—"'. And I regret the response of the European Union, and some of the member states—not all—including the UK Government, have been terrible on this. 'But what would you say?' He said, 'Look, we want Wales to be there alongside Catalonia in the Europe of the peoples that we’re trying to create.' That’s the future for us as small nations. We need that family of European nations where, different to this union, we will be an equal partner, respected. That’s the vision we’re fighting for—something you would never understand.

The absurdity of the assertion that Wales would be equal to Germany in the European Union requires no further demolition in my view. We all know the internal dynamics of the way the European Union works. [Interruption.] I think I must move on with my speech. [Interruption.] I must move on with my speech.

Come on, give way.

The honourable gentleman, who I greatly respect, can make his own speech, but I’m going to get on with mine.

This fundamentally is ultimately a question of democracy, and we cannot have a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union until we have delivered on the first. That is the whole point of this process. This is why, as David Melding has pointed out, as a passionate pro-European, that we must respect the wishes of the people or else undermine the faith in democracy in our own country. And we all know that the argument over the timetable at Westminster—I agree, actually, that three days isn’t sufficient to deal with the complications of a Bill of this kind—but we all know that arguments over timetables are fundamentally all about extending delay indefinitely so that Britain never leaves the EU. It’s Hotel California—you check out, but you can never leave. Well, the British people will get their way eventually, however long it takes. Fifty-three per cent of the public in Wales and in Britain voted to leave the EU, and we can’t go on like this indefinitely, denying them what they voted for. I think, like David Melding said, a general election is the way forward.

What we’re doing today, I think, is undermining the faith in this place—I don’t mind that, there’s isn’t much anyway outside of this building. But we are undermining more than that—faith in democracy itself, and that I really do care about. If ever there were a Nobel Prize for hypocrisy, we know there would be plenty of candidates for that in the leadership of Plaid Cymru and the leadership of the Labour Party and the whole of the political establishment of this country.

So, I say it doesn’t really matter what we do here today. We don’t even know yet whether the House of Commons is going to allow Boris Johnson to get his deal. Personally, I think not, and therefore that will make this whole proceeding otiose. So, what we should, as politicians, be doing is to deliver on what the British people, who are our masters, voted for.

I'll try and keep it brief, but I just heard the comments from the Member for Mid and West Wales highlighting actually false figures—it's not 53 per cent but 52 per cent, just to correct him. I know that he likes to exaggerate, even by one.

It's important that we understand democracy, and what democracy means is actually taking our time to scrutinise and deal with the issues. Now, two things. On the Bill—we are not discussing the legislative consent motion because it hasn't actually been laid yet—but, on the Bill, a Government that tries to put something through in three days is hiding from scrutiny, because this document, as Mick Antoniw has said—120 pages of a Bill, 126 pages of an explanatory memorandum, so far eight pages of amendments, plus the 500-plus pages of the withdrawal agreement itself, and the political declaration attached to that—if anyone can read all that and understand it, not just digest it, but understand what it means in the time of three days, well, they're telling you fibs, because it's impossible. I'm looking through this, I'm trying to read it, but it's taken me a long time to actually get to grips with it because you've got a lot of cross-referencing in this Bill to other aspects and to other political declarations. The Bill also says, by way of the political declaration, that you can't change it—that you can't change the political declaration. Paragraph 31(3) says that you abide by this in the future—anyone has to abide by this political declaration in the future. That's important.

So, you've got to work through this Bill. You've got to scrutinise this Bill very, very carefully, and three days is a joke. Now, people mentioned that it doesn't really need to be three days. Then tell your Government, 'Take time; take the time you need to do it, take the scrutiny you need to do it.' There is no rush. The European Parliament is not going to ratify this by 31 October, because they have already said that they're not going to do it this week. There is no plenary sitting next week. They're not going to do it until after 31 October. There is no rush other than the ego of Boris Johnson to say, 'I got this through the House of Commons by 31 October', for a political declaration in a general election. 

If we were just talking about the sole issue of how to conduct properly a Bill of this magnitude, I would agree with you; it does require time and it's obviously not going to get it. However, the First Minister has said this afternoon, in the most emphatic terms—and he's passionate about it and he's entitled to his opinion—that he doesn't want any deal; he wants to remain in the EU. And that's the problem, isn't it? All this is a proxy to derail the process and deny a decision at the moment on the fundamentals of this deal agreed between the UK Government and the EU. 

Obviously, you and I will not agree on that position. I'll go back to the actual motion in a minute, but the debate on the Bill, you've already agreed, and I think everyone in their hearts in this Chamber agrees, that you cannot do the job you're supposed to do in three days. It's impossible, particularly on such an important constitutional issue, which, as Rhun has said, affects the futures of our younger generation. We need to do it properly, 

Now, when we come to the actual agreement, yes, we may not have the same view on that agreement. And there are important aspects. Where is the economic impact analysis so that we can work out how this agreement addresses some of the concerns we had in the previous agreements? We have done much work in this Chamber, and in various committees, to look at the impact of previous agreements, whether they be a 'no deal', Theresa May's deal, or other aspects, and we know that every one has an impact upon us which takes us downwards, not upwards. So, what is the one on this particular deal? We haven't seen it. We know the transition period, actually, is for 14 months for a free trade agreement. No-one has yet told me that they can do an FTA in 14 months. We had the Finnish ambassador in yesterday in the committee—David knows this—who quite clearly had deep concerns about completing such an agreement in 14 months. And if you want an extension, you've got to make that decision by July next year, not December next year. So, actually, you've got eight months to make a decision whether you need an extension to the transition period, and the current Government doesn't give me the confidence that it will even seek that extension, so we could end up going out without a deal in December next year.

Now, we talk about aspects on the deal, wth the rules of origin still to be questioned, and, actually, this deal makes the rules of origin more difficult. That causes concerns for businesses and their transport and exportation. We still have the issue of the decision to jump over a precipice if we're not careful. That's still there. We need to really look very carefully at what the UK Government is trying to do. It's not just trying to, as Members on this bench and opposite there say, deliver on the referendum; it's actually trying to keep the promises of someone who sought the leadership of their party. That's what this is about. It's not about what's good for this country—it's about what's good for Boris Johnson. That's the real thrust of this Bill, and the real thrust of this agreement. Come off it—he dumped the DUP as soon as he could, because he knew that that was the best way he could get something by 31 October. So, who else will he dump, and when will he dump us? On 31 December 2020, because that's what he will do—you can't trust him to say or do anything different. So, the whole emphasis of this debate is really about: is this deal any better, and does it deliver on what the First Minister and the former First Minister clarified the Welsh Government's position has been, always has been—respect the referendum, but protect jobs and the economy? Does this deal do that? The answer is 'no', because it's actually worse than Theresa May's deal, which we knew damaged our economy. Then you have to question: why is he rushing this? Because he doesn't want to have scrutiny, because, actually, he wants to go into a general election with one message: 'I delivered this for you'. That's what this is about. It's not about delivering on the people's will—it's about delivering for the Tory party. We need to make sure the message from here is: that's not good enough for the people of Wales. The people of Wales deserve better than that, and we need to make sure that we represent my constituents, your constituents, and their best interests.

I want to say a few words about the issue of consent. The withdrawal agreement Bill has a number of failings that have been laid out this afternoon, but principal amongst these failings is the way in which Boris Johnson's Government is trying to force it through in this ridiculous timetable in Westminster, without giving Westminster or the devolved administrations adequate time to scrutinise it properly. Now this Bill, if it were passed, would fail to give this place the time to scrutinise future free trade agreements, and it would also not offer the people the chance to have a final say through a second referendum. Now, I know that Members throughout the Chamber have said a number of times in this debate, and a number of times in other debates, that the people have already had a chance to vote. Well, yes, they did vote; they voted when they were told that we'd have the easiest deal in history, and that we would have £350 million extra every week for the NHS—lies that have been exposed in the three years since. Now, consent has to be informed; it has to be sought again when things change. When the circumstances change, you cannot presume that consent has remained the same. That seems to me to be a fundamental point. I'll take the intervention.

Well, given the 53 per cent who voted in 2016, and the development of your arguments—a presumption that people knew more by the following years, and particularly up to 2019—19 out of 22 council areas saw a majority voting for the Brexit Party in the European election. In the Brecon and Radnorshire election, over half of those who voted, voted for strong, pro-Brexit candidates. Views haven't changed. And people were I live—Labour supporters where I live—are expressing their growing fury at the way they're being treated by this place and people in Westminster.

[Interruption.] Yes, exactly. Thank you for the intervention, but I would say, with respect, that instead of having proxy discussions about proxy elections about what we can read into what this might mean, why don't we actually have a straightforward question? I do take the point, but I think that this really needs to be done properly, and asking the direct question rather than having a proxy general election instead.

Now, ultimately, consent is about power. It involves two sides coming to an agreement when one side is in a position of power or authority and the other consents to something happening. It is predicated upon trust. Now, I would put it to this place that the trust of our constituents was gained in bad faith in 2016, whilst the consent for this particular deal has not been gained at all. And, Llywydd—Dirprwy Lywydd—that consent must be sought. MPs too and AMs, MSPs and MLAs need to understand what we are voting on before we give our consent. It is beyond regrettable that no impact assessments will be made available. How can we give consent to something without knowing what the impact of it will be on our constituents? The future welfare of our constituents cannot be held hostage to Boris Johnson's arrogance and his determination to get something through in time for an arbitrary deadline.

Llywydd, there has to be a level—. Dirprwy Lywydd, there has to be a level playing field. The Northern Ireland Assembly, under this deal, will be asked to give its active consent every four years for the set-up to continue. Our Senedd will not be granted this same opportunity, neither will the Scottish Parliament. Our consent, apparently, is not required. [Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention.

I'm very grateful to you. In the situation of an absence of consent for the nature of these developments, does she agree with me that there will be an accelerated move—? If we have a 'no deal' Brexit in 11 days or 11 months, it will accelerate the shift towards a unity referendum in the north of Ireland, to an independence referendum in Scotland, and, as we have said, there is a strong case then, and we would want to see an independence referendum here in Wales. Although we'll support the amendment, it's very important, if there's going to be informed consent, that we should be using clear language, so we should talk about an independence referendum, not a nebulous concept like sovereignty.

Yes, thank you. I would agree, and, as I've said recently in Scotland, events could overtake us very quickly. We need to be putting in place active markers and planning for an independence referendum, and that might happen far more urgently than we think, so I would certainly agree with that point.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, there is no hierarchy of consent, not unless there's somehow a hierarchy within this union and some constituent parts are favoured more than others. Now, going back to the point that I was making about Northern Ireland, I don't begrudge Stormont that opportunity to give their active consent. I simply ask that the same opportunity be given to all nations of the UK. Consent is binary: you either give informed, active consent or you do not. There is no light and shade. People need to understand what they are voting for—anything else is a failure of democracy. The phrase is often used, 'Legislate in haste, repent at leisure'. We need time to scrutinise the Bill effectively. Goodness knows what the impact will be if we do not, because we certainly can't know that without the assessments.

I'm aware of the time. The UK Government's cynicism in trying to constrain all debate about the greatest economic and constitutional change in a generation to three measly days in Westminster is contemptible. We need more time before consent can even be considered on far-reaching legislation that will rip us out of the single market, radically alter our trading arrangements with our biggest trading partner, and constrain GDP growth for generations, and our Senedd should not be rushed or sidelined in the process; we should be shown respect, because consent has to be gained.

And, finally, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. The crushing irony, of course, of this Bill is that the first thing it does is to re-impose European law on this country. First, article 1, clause 1, it re-imposes European law on the whole of the United Kingdom, but does so without any opportunity for us then to influence the formation of that law. And that is what we're being told is a good deal. The good deal, of course, is what we've got at the moment, where we lead the development of European law, where we shape the development of European law, where we lead the thinking across the whole of the continent, where the United Kingdom has a respected role and voice at the top table of European policy making. From decision maker to decision taker—a broken Britain, a laughing stock across the councils of the world. That is what this Bill is delivering. But it is also the emasculation of our democracy Bill, the emasculation of our democratic institutions.

One of the most disturbing parts of debate that we're hearing, that we're seeing taking place at the moment, is not the debate that says, 'Are you right or is somebody else right?', not an argument and a debate and a discussion about the facts, but the abuse that many of us receive, and that I am receiving on social media at the moment—that I no longer have a right to a view, that I no longer have an opportunity to argue the case that I was elected to argue, that I no longer have the opportunity to stand here or elsewhere and argue for that which I believe. That is no democracy—that is no democracy. And self-government is not about saying, 'Here's a Bill—you've got three days, take it or leave it'. That's not democracy either. That's not the democracy that many of us understand. The will of the people has become sovereign, but who are the arbitrators of that will? We're told that they're not the people who are elected by those people, of course; they're the hedge fund managers, the rich and the powerful, the newspaper proprietors, the offshore bankers. All of them have one thing in common, they try to avoid paying UK tax, and then they tell us that it is they who know what the will of the people is, not the people who are elected by the population of this country, and not the people who serve the people of this country—judges are 'enemies of the people'; we have 'Parliament against the people'. This is not democracy. This is the emasculation of British democracy.

And to say to the UK Parliament that you have three days to read through a Bill of 122 pages—and David Melding does his best to make the case for this rotten old Government, but I have to say to him, the bundle of papers available that you would need to understand to properly scrutinise this Bill runs to over 1,000 pages, and that doesn't include, of course, the economic impact analysis, which hasn't been done, and neither does it include the Act of last year, the withdrawal Act, that this Bill seeks to amend. Now, the former leader of the Welsh Conservatives didn't even realise that Act existed, so, in terms of arguing the case that we need more time for scrutiny, I'm not convinced that the Conservatives are on very firm ground.

But even the opportunity to read through it immediately tells us there are real dangers with this Bill. Clause 30 is very clear—only a Minister of the Crown can apply for an extension of a transition period. Has the Government learnt nothing from the last few months? It creates the opportunity to deliver a hard Brexit by the back door. It prevents people arguing for a different sort of Brexit. It prevents people arguing for a further extension, if that is needed. What it does is deliver something by the back door—it's typical Boris Johnson. And it does so without allowing us a proper say over future relationships. Clause 31 provides very little oversight of future negotiations by the UK Parliament and none whatsoever by this Parliament. After an initial statement of objectives a Minister of the Crown 'may, at any time' make a future statement. 'May, at any time'—no opportunity in this Bill to hold the Government to account. None whatsoever. But this place, this Parliament, will only receive a report after the event. Now, those of us who sit on the external affairs committee know—and we've seen this in our debates and discussions on international treaties—that, if you want to influence the shape of a negotiation, you do so at the beginning of that negotiation and not at the end of the negotiation, yet this Parliament is given no opportunity at all to influence the shape of those negotiations—no role for Wales, no role for this Parliament, no role for the Welsh Government, and then we are lectured on democracy. We've already heard on the situation in Northern Ireland, and I will say very seriously to those Labour MPs who tonight are trusting Boris Johnson on workers' rights, perhaps they need to go to Strangers' and have a chat with the DUP and see how far the promises of Boris Johnson actually reach, and see how far Boris Johnson can be trusted, because, when he stood up this afternoon in the House of Commons and said 'yes' time and time again to Labour MPs asking for assurances, you could see the DUP sitting there saying, 'Yes, we heard the same promises ourselves'.

Finally, clause 22 enables Ministers to make any regulations they choose—any they choose—on the matter of Northern Ireland, again by regulation, again beyond the scrutiny of Parliament. That asks and begs a question about the place of Wales. Clause 36 is an eccentric clause to find in any piece of legislation, apparently drafted by Bill Cash in order to provide him with some dubious pleasure. But let me say this—let me say this—we have changed radically the governance of these islands, and we have done so with the consent of the people. We have done so at all times in step with a developing constitution. Clause 36 has the power to end the United Kingdom because, when it, when the UK Parliament, tries to drive a coach and horses through the new democracies of Britain, the people of Britain will say, 'That's not what we want', and then it is for us, the elected representatives of the people of Wales, to determine what we wish to do about that. Last week—

Can we wind up, please?

—we debated and discussed—. I will bring my comments to a close. The First Minister outlined an exciting and radical view of the future of Britain. My real fear is a Bill that starts out as the emasculation of democracy Bill will end up with the abolition of the United Kingdom Act. 

Can I now call the First Minister to reply to the debate?

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I won't attempt to respond individually to all the many points that have been made, but I will try and address a number of the key themes that I think we've heard in the debate. So, a theme running from Paul Davies's initial contribution right through the afternoon has been that of timing. What is so magic about 31 October? What is it that means that this Bill has to be concluded at such a breakneck speed? Well, I've heard people say, 'Well, other pieces of legislation have been done quickly too.' It's true. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was rushed through Parliament in just a couple of days, and look what a success that turned out to be. But surely—surely—there is an issue here of magnitude. It's one thing to take a small Bill through this legislature or another at speed, absolutely something different to set in stone relationships that will last for generations against an entirely artificial deadline that the Prime Minister has invented for himself.

This afternoon, in the House of Commons, Rory Stewart said that this Bill will be poisoned with the stain of illegitimacy, because it will not have had the consideration, the proper chance for people to say what they want to say, to read it in the detail that it deserves, because of this timetable. Labour whips in the House of Commons have written this afternoon, in an unusual step, a public letter to the business managers of the Government offering to discuss a timetable—a timetable that would allow the Bill to proceed, but would allow it to happen in an orderly fashion, in which the rights of this place and the Scottish Parliament, as well as the rights of Parliament, can be respected. And of every argument that I've heard this afternoon on that side of the debate it seems to me to be the argument that is convincing. 

We've heard quite a bit this afternoon, Dirprwy Lywydd, about the undying mandate of 2016—a mummified mandate, the mandate that can never be undone. And yet, as was said by a series of people around the Chamber—and Rhun ap Iorwerth, I thought, put it very well—so much has happened since then, so many people whose futures are now at stake want to have the chance to have their say on this deal. Back in 2016, nobody knew the deal that we would leave the European Union with. Now we do, now people deserve a chance to say whether this is what they thought they were voting for. And if it is, and if that's what people decide, then I'm with other people: if that's what people decide, that will be it. That will be the end of this argument, because then, this time, people know what they are buying. Last time, they knew nothing. They saw a bus plastered with the lies that were the stock in trade of the 'leave' campaign. This time, they will not be able to do that, because there is a deal. There is a deal that people will be able to see, given enough time to be able to read it. And that's why this argument about 'We voted once and that's the end of democracy' simply does not run. 

And one of the reasons why it doesn't run is because of the theme—[Interruption.] Sorry. 

Thank you, First Minister. I'm grateful for your taking an intervention. Do you think that the reason why there are so many Brexiteers in this Chamber who are against the idea of a second referendum and allowing people to have a say is that the result would be a different one this time around, and that's what they're afraid of?

Well, I'd put it differently, agreeing with the point that Carwyn Jones has made. I'd put it in this way: what are they afraid of? What are they afraid of? Time after time they pop up around this Chamber telling us that this is the best deal we'll ever see. And if it is, what is there to be afraid of—

Can we just listen to the First Minister, please?

—in asking the electorate if they agree with them? I will take the risk of going out there and arguing for what I believe in; they're not prepared to take the risk to do that themselves. And one of the reasons—[Interruption.] No, I'm trying to make a bit of progress.

One of the reasons why this doesn't work is because of another great theme in this debate, that of trust. Adam Price identified it early on as fundamental to the way that the Brexit debate has been conducted. David Rees came back to it later on in the debate. You could not trust this Prime Minister. You could not trust him. Look at his record.

Mandy Jones, in a contribution that defied parody, asked a Welsh Assembly, 'Why not trust the Tories? Why not trust the Tories here in Wales?' After all the years of our experience. Well, we don't trust the Tories, and we don't trust them for every single good reason that they simply are not to be trusted. We know it from our history and we know it again today.

Let me get on, Dirprwy Lywydd, to a number of the issues of substance, the substance of the deal itself. It is, as Adam Price said, a hardline Brexit deal. Its substance will not work for Wales. We were prepared—our party, Plaid Cymru—to put a form of leaving the European Union that would have left the political arrangements of the European Union while protecting the economy of Wales, and we tried—my goodness, did we not try—to persuade the UK Government to take that idea seriously. Mrs May—

Thank you for taking the intervention. To show that we were trying to get a good deal for Wales, would you agree that when Dominic Raab said a few days ago that this was a cracking deal for Northern Ireland because it retains seamless access to the single market, that betrays somewhat what's going on here?  

Well, I think that is a very insightful remark. It reminds me that Mrs May's deal in her Chequers White Paper would have had dynamic regulatory alignment for goods and agrifood products, so we would have had access to the single market, and it had a customs arrangement in it. It wasn't us who walked away from Mrs May's deal; it was the then Foreign Secretary who walked away from that deal. It was Dominic Raab who refused to support that deal. It wasn't people on this side of the Chamber who scuppered Mrs May. It was people behind her and on her own side. As a result, we have this hardline Brexit. We will not support it for all the reasons you've heard: the impact on Holyhead, the impact on the peace process, the impact on workers' rights, the fact that there is a Brexit trapdoor bolted in to the deal that the Prime Minister has done. 

Darren Millar said, misunderstanding this, as other points, that the Brexit trapdoor was there at the insistence of the European Union. It's absolutely not the case at all. The Prime Minister is absolutely able to put a clause into his Bill that says, 'At the end of the transition period, it will be Parliament that decides whether or not'—not the Government untrammelled by any parliamentary oversight. After all, the Parliaments of Europe will all have a vote on this, but apparently it's not good enough for the 'take back controllers' of the Conservative Party.

And at stake here as well is the future of the United Kingdom, as we have heard. If this Assembly does decide not to give its consent, I hope that Members on the Conservative benches here will say to their Government just how serious it will be if they decide to use the Sewel convention to override the views of this National Assembly. I think sometimes that the members of the Conservative Government have no interest at all in the future of the United Kingdom, that they're prepared to act in ways that are utterly careless of its integrity. And there is something fundamentally important at stake here, and they should use the influence they have, the contacts that they have, to make sure that they understand that. 

To end, Dirprwy Lywydd, let me end with a point that Delyth Jewell made towards the end of the debate, because this is all about consent. This is all about consent. And the document that we debated here last week—the 20 points—makes it clear that, in our view, this is a United Kingdom that can only operate on the basis of consent, a voluntary union of four nations where we choose to act together, and consent is what that process is all about. That's why we have a legislative consent process, and that legislative consent process needs to be given the time it needs, it needs to be treated with the respect that it deserves, and today's debate is the start, not the end, of that process. 

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

I have now decided that now is voting time, and therefore unless three Members wish to have the bell rung, we will proceed to the first vote.

So, we're voting on the debate on Brexit, and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, five abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

And I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Neil McEvoy. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 8, one abstention, 43 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

We now call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

And that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.