Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

May I begin by wishing all the Members a happy new year? 

We will start this new year with questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Gareth Bennett. 

Llywydd, the actions of Business Wales, the Development Bank of Wales and the establishment of a dedicated regional office are amongst the steps taken by the Welsh Government to support businesses in South Wales Central.

Thank you for that update. One factor that has caused a lot of uncertainty for businesses in Wales is Brexit. Now, your party has just contested a general election on a policy of opposing Brexit. You have may have noted, First Minister, that this strategy did not work out very well for you. In fact, let's be honest, Labour got hammered. You weren't just beaten; you were annihilated. But, I see that, despite this, you are still talking about opposing Brexit here in the Assembly. Surely, for the sake of Welsh businesses, you now need to do your bit to end the uncertainty and support the UK Government's Brexit Bill. 

Well, Llywydd, the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on 31 January, and businesses will then find that Brexit is far from over, because, for months and years to come, we will continue to see the need to negotiate free trade agreements and other arrangements, both with the European Union and with other parts of the world. Anybody who believes that on 1 February, certainty will have replaced uncertainty, I'm afraid are going to be in for a very sad awakening. 

First Minister, I'm sure you'll join me in welcoming yesterday's news that Lloyds Banking Group expects to support firms in Wales this year by up to £1.1 billion in lending. This is part of their pledge to invest £18 billion in UK businesses in 2020, and they're looking at new businesses, microbusinesses seeking to upscale to small businesses, and those considering then trading internationally for the first time. 

When I speak to my constituents and business people, they do highlight the need to access reasonable commercial sources of funding. What are you doing to ensure that, where appropriate, Welsh Government sources and programmes are also taking into account the opportunities that exist for commercial partnerships in these programmes?

I thank David Melding for that question. It is interesting, isn't it, and I would expect he's had some of the same experience, that when you talk to commercial lenders, they tell you that there is no shortage of liquidity, and they set large sums of money aside for investment in businesses, and yet, when you talk to businesses, they often complain about how difficult it is to obtain the investment that they need to carry out the plans that they say would expand their business. 

So, part of what we do as a Government is to talk to the big lenders to try and persuade them that they have to find different ways of having conversations with people who are looking to borrow money to persuade them that their services are genuinely available to them.

Where big commercial lenders are not prepared to enter the market, that's why we have the Development Bank for Wales—£5.2 million spent in the last 12 months, Llywydd, helping 240 Welsh businesses with micro loans, of the sort that commercial lenders are not prepared to provide. So, the Welsh Government operates to try to be a broker between those who are looking for investment, and those who can provide it on a commercial basis, because where it can be commercially provided, that's what should be done, and where a commercial loan is unlikely to be forthcoming, then we try and use the instruments that we have available to fill those gaps in the market. 

First Minister, I recently met with the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss their report 'Are We There Yet?', which looks at how infrastructure spending in Wales can be best used to support the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises. How is the Welsh Government prioritising this within its capital spend?

I thank Vikki Howells for that. It's an absolutely integral part of our capital expenditure programmes that we try and make sure that as much business as possible ends up in the hands of local suppliers and indigenous enterprises. To give you just one example, the twenty-first century schools and colleges programme has a track record of working with local suppliers, and has developed discrete sets of targets for local supply chain engagement in that programme—the biggest programme of investment in schools and colleges for 50 years, and a deliberate bias in favour of making sure that that Welsh public money ends up in Welsh businesses, creating further Welsh jobs.

I thank Lynne Neagle for that question, Llywydd. Part of the Welsh Government’s response to the review was set out in our draft budget, published on 16 December, with additional investment in suicide prevention services, a doubling of our investment in the whole-school approach to mental health, and an extension of the pilot child and adolescent mental health service's In-Reach to Schools programme.

First Minister, the loss of every one of the 33 young people included in that review is an immense tragedy, which will have devastated families, schools, friends, and whole communities. I believe that review is the closest thing we have to hearing the voices of young people who have died by suicide; the nearest thing we have to retrospective recommendations from those young people about what could have helped them, and how we could prevent future deaths. First Minister, will you make a commitment that you will look at this review very carefully, and, on behalf of your whole Government, ensure that all the recommendations in it are driven forward with urgency and vigour?

I thank the Member for that. I've had an opportunity already to read the review, to read her own foreword to it, and the foreword by the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and to look at its recommendations. And of course Lynne Neagle is right, Llywydd, that a death by suicide leaves a ripple of effects that reaches out into the lives of people who are left, not simply in the immediate family, but in friends and other organisations who will have known that child or that young person.

Amongst the recommendations of the report, I think a really important one is that the 33 young people whose cases are reviewed in the report, a third of them were known to mental health services. And yet, many more of them were known to other public services, who may not have had suicide and suicide prevention at the front of their minds when they were working with that young person—whether that's in youth custody, where we know that there has been a really alarming rise in suicide in custodial settings; whether that's contact with the police; whether it's young people who are known to social services in different ways. So, of course the Government will be committed to absorbing the recommendations of the report, right across the Government. Because it is not a matter for the health Minister, although Public Health Wales was part of the production of the report; it is a report for the whole of the Government, looking to see that, wherever vulnerable young people are in touch with public services—devolved and non-devolved—the signs that may be there, the causes that may be identifiable, are recognised and acted upon, in line with the recommendations of the report.

Well, of course, this report is part of a bigger picture of reviews that have been taking place over many years. For those families and friends of the young people who killed themselves in Bridgend in 2007 and 2008 and beyond, obviously, for them, those events don't feel so very long ago. And of course, the use of the internet implicated in that suicide cluster, which is now so embedded in the lives of our young children and young—well, young people generally—for me, it feels almost impossible to try and protect against those evils, when we have so little control over its positive use.

In 2015, the University of Oxford Centre for Suicide Research recommended measures for those local services, to deal with suicide contagion—not a very nice phrase, but I think you know what I mean. It was an England document, but I'm sure Public Health Wales will have seen it as well. Can we attribute the drop in the occurrence of these suicide clusters to local services acting on research of that nature? Because if we can, that gives us greater confidence in local services taking up the recommendations that we've just been talking about today, and seeing that they do actually make a difference.

I thank Suzy Davies for that. There were lessons derived directly in Wales, and partly by the authors of the report to which Lynne Neagle referred as a result of the Bridgend cluster, and one of them was in responsible media reporting of such events. And I think that we have been lucky here in Wales that we have had a local media who have been prepared to absorb the lessons of that suicide cluster and haven't subsequently reported events in a way that draws alarmist attention to them that ends up affecting vulnerable young people to take action that otherwise they may not have contemplated.

And Suzy Davies is surely right, Llywydd, that it is very difficult to build complete protection into any system dealing with human beings. But we know that there are factors that help and we know there are factors that hinder people who are vulnerable and who are contemplating drastic action in their own lives. I think we have learned some of the lessons here in Wales and part of the reason that this report does not refer to a cluster phenomenon amongst the 33 young people whose cases it reviewed is partly the result of some of those lessons being absorbed. 

As part of the Programme for International Student Assessment report recently when the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development asked pupils about their feelings about life experience, it was discovered that 54 per cent of pupils in Wales occasionally or always feel down. The average internationally is 39 per cent. Sixty three per cent of pupils occasionally or always feel anxious. Now, these are results that are quite frightening, I'm sure you would agree with me on that. You have committed to make well-being and mental health a national priority, but where is the sign that we are moving in that direction in a significant manner in your draft budget?

Well, there are many examples in the draft budget, Llywydd, which demonstrate what we're doing to respond to the contents of the PISA report and what we're doing in the schools in particular to strengthen the services that are available on a daily basis to respond to those children who do feel down and don't feel that they have the future that they would wish to see. And that is why, in the draft budget, there is more funding—I will turn to English.

There's more money in the draft budget for suicide and self-harm services, to strengthen further the services that we have in schools through school counselling. And the school counselling service is a good example of how intervention of that sort can assist young people without them then needing to be referred on to further and more intensive services. Eighty seven per cent of the 11,365 young people who received counselling services in our schools last year needed no further intervention; 3 per cent of them only needed a referral on to a specialist mental health service, and that's why the draft budget invests more money in that whole-school approach, exactly for the reasons that Siân Gwenllian quite rightly points to. 

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

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, given the problems we've recently seen, which appear to be growing and not getting better, will you agree with me that Transport for Wales is not delivering for the people of Wales? 

Well, I don't agree with the Member that the problems are getting worse. Thousands more seats for commuters are available in Wales today since 15 December when new capacity was introduced into the service. Fares for passengers in Wales at the start of January fell by 1.1. per cent where they rose by 2.8 per cent across our border. It has been a challenging first year for Transport for Wales, but I believe the corner is turned already and that passengers will continue to see the difference over 2020.  

Well, quite clearly, we are not turning that corner. Let me give you some of its failings: performance in terms of passenger time lost in cancellations was worse between July and November last year than the previous year; it has struggled to secure long-term rolling stock; it's failed to meet the Welsh language standards on several occasions; and we've seen chaos over the renewal process for bus passes. So, it's clearly failing, First Minister.

Now, talking about transport failures, let's look at another of your transport failures: Cardiff Airport appears to be going from bad to worse. The airport has posted a loss of nearly £19 million for the last financial year. This is nearly three times higher than the previous year, and yet your Government continues to extend the loan facilities. And now the value of the airport has dropped significantly to £15 million, barely a third of what it was valued at back in 2014, the year your Government took control of the airport. Now, in contrast, Bristol Airport added more than 400,000 passengers last year, just under a third of Cardiff's total passengers for 2019, and actually posted a profit of £35 million. First Minister, with the outgoing chairman saying that the airport is expecting to lose 150,000 passengers next year, how much more taxpayers' money are you willing to throw at the airport before you say enough is enough?

Well, Llywydd, it's good to see that, at the start of another year, the Conservative Party in Wales continues to attack one of Wales's essential assets. Since the airport was taken into public ownership, its passenger numbers have increased by over 70 per cent, its turnover was up by £2.9 million last year over the year before. I know that any evidence of success comes as a disappointment to the Conservative Party, but those are the facts of the matter: passenger numbers are up by over 70 per cent, and a revenue growth of over 34 per cent. Now, let us hope that we now have a Secretary of State for Wales who will speak up for Cardiff Airport, just as Bristol MPs have spoken up for its airport. Now we have a Deputy Minister in the Wales Office who believes that air passenger duty being devolved to Wales is the right answer; let's hope that he can persuade his Government to do the same. Then we will see the sort of airport that we want to see on this side, whereas his party has only, absolutely only ever, sought to run down the airport, to deny its importance to the economy of Wales, and never has a single constructive suggestion to make about it.

First Minister, clearly you are not listening. But it's not surprising that you're not listening to the people of Wales: you're not listening over Brexit, you're not listening when it comes to this airport. The people of Wales don't want a national airport regardless of cost; they want an airport that offers them a stress-free getaway. They don't want you wasting their hard-earned cash with no end in sight.

Now, once again, First Minister, commuters face a miserable start to the new year, with trains being delayed, cancelled or even, unusually, leaving early. This time, Transport for Wales blames staff shortages and training for the delays, but, First Minister, it's the same problems, just a different excuse every time. Like Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, when are you going to get to grips with Transport for Wales, which is failing the people of Wales?

Llywydd, the Member doesn't have a good word to say for Wales at all. You name it—he wants to run it down. He talks about what the people of Wales want from their airport. I'll tell you what he wants: he doesn't want an airport at all.

The Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

As we embark on a new year, I'd like to begin, apart from wishing you blwyddyn newydd dda, with your end-of-year video. No, not the infamous James Bond one, but the one in which you set out your biggest achievements in your first year as First Minister. You highlighted, as one of those achievements, building almost 480 houses a month in 2019. Are you able to tell us what proportion, roughly, of those homes would qualify as affordable, and can you say whether that figure of almost 480 a month is higher or lower than the corresponding figure for the preceding three years?

Thank you very much, and a very happy new year to him too.

It's flattering to know that he views my videos in all their different dimensions. [Laughter.] What I will tell him is this: this Government has a commitment to build 20,000 affordable homes during this Assembly term. That is twice the number of affordable homes that were built in the last Assembly term, and we are confident that we will reach that figure before we come to the elections in May 2021.

Well, as we normally say under these circumstances, I can assist the First Minister, as the Assembly Research Service, quoting your own Government's statistics, say that the corresponding figures for 2016 and 2017 of homes built per month were 552 and 574 a month respectively. You were even marginally down on 2018, so it doesn't seem that that's something, First Minister, to crow about—you're going backwards.

One of the other achievements that you reference in that video is that of planting 14,000 trees a day. Now, I've hauled you over the coals about the Government's poor record in this area in the past, so any progress is welcome, but that is the combined figure, isn't it, for Wales and Uganda? While we obviously welcome the innovative work of the Wales for Africa programme, are you able to say, roughly, what proportion of these 5 million or so trees were planted within Wales? And did you meet your target last year for 2,000 hectares of new woodland per year?

Well, Llywydd, I just want to go back to the housing figure for a moment, because I do not accept for a moment that doubling the number of affordable homes built in Wales in an Assembly term is, somehow, a deterioration of the performance over the last Assembly term—it's not, and that's a target that we will reach.

We need to do more in planting trees. The trees we plant in Uganda are very important—very important as our contribution to global warming and very important in the contribution we make to the efforts that local people in that part of Uganda are making. But we need to do more. We need to do more here in Wales—that's why we're committed to the national forest and that's why the national forest has significant investment attached to it in the draft budget. It's an important contribution that we can make here in Wales to decarbonisation and to biodiversity, and we will do better and more in the future.

In relation to houses, I was merely asking you what the position was over the last year, the first year of your tenure, compared to the previous three years under your predecessor. What I have to say to you is that you've gone backwards, in terms of the last three years.

In terms of trees, you've been unable to confirm it, but I suspect that, once again, you haven't met the target for new woodland in Wales. Nothing happens in a hurry under this Government. The national forest—yes, it's been announced, but it hasn't been realised yet. The National Infrastructure Commission won't be publishing its state of the nation paper until 2022—four years after it was created; the new national curriculum will be implemented a year later than planned; and new trains, originally promised to be in service last spring, have yet to appear.

As we begin our twenty-first year of devolution in Wales, Wales is tired of being run at a snail's pace. Wasn't Alun Davies speaking for most of us when he said, referring to you, 'I clearly wished he was more radical'?

Well, Llywydd, any idea that you can announce a national forest and it simply grows in front of you is farcical as a suggestion. The national forest is a 20-year programme and will require investment over that long period, and will be a major national asset to Wales.

The National Infrastructure Commission's reporting framework is the one recommended to us by the committee of the Assembly who investigated it, so we are simply reacting to the advice that the Assembly itself has given us.

This is a Government, Llywydd, with a radical programme that will keep this National Assembly fully and actively engaged throughout the rest of this year in a very challenging way. As we move to legislate to bring buses under public control, to put the new national curriculum on the statute book, to give private renters new protections here in Wales and to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement, right across this Government we will be taking action that this National Assembly will be involved in taking. It's a radical programme, it's a very, very committed and busy programme, and I look forward to working on it right through the year to come.

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, as well as wishing you a happy new year, may I thank you, your Government and your party for what you have done to bring about Brexit? You put forward a plan for Brexit in name only, but when Theresa May offered it to you, including a customs union, you voted against it. Instead, you chose to gamble that you could engineer a second referendum by persuading the British people to elect Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. With hindsight, do you regret that?

Llywydd, the Member will have his own version of history. It's certainly not mine. While there was a moment when it was possible that we could have put the decision about Brexit back into the hands of the people who made it in the first place, I thought it was very important indeed to demonstrate once again what we said as a party in our manifesto in 2016, and said as a Government in 2016 in the referendum—that Wales's future was better off inside the European Union. While there was a possibility that that could have been put back to people in a referendum, it was very important indeed that we supported that possibility. That possibility is over. The new UK Government will take us out of the European Union at the end of this month and will bear the responsibility for the consequences.

I'm not sure whether the First Minister has an alternative history there, but I think the closest it came in the Commons was a vote where it was defeated despite the whole Cabinet abstaining on it. I recall your Counsel General here saying he was broadly content with the withdrawal agreement, and might just perhaps like a couple of changes and a non-binding political declaration, but nonetheless, Labour voted against that. You were offered the customs union negotiations by Theresa May and you decided to gamble, and my party won the ensuing European elections and the Conservatives won the ensuing general election. We are now going to have a Brexit, and not the Brexit in name only that you said you wanted. So, again, I thank you for what you've done to assist in that cause.

Despite the referendum result, despite last month's election result, and you didn't answer this question earlier—I thought you had yesterday, but can I just confirm for the record it is your intention to carry on voting against Brexit when we consider the legislative consent motion on the withdrawal Bill later this month? And as you set your continuity Corbyn course, do you intend to change anything because of how people voted? Have you learnt any lessons from the vote last month?

Llywydd, the Member will have seen the legislative consent memorandum that was published yesterday. It analyses not Brexit, it analyses the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. It comes to the conclusion that the Bill is not in a state that would allow the Government to recommend to the National Assembly that it should give its consent to that Bill, for the reasons set out in it. There will be an opportunity to debate that here on the floor of the National Assembly and we will see where the majority opinion in this Chamber rests.

I thank the Member for that. I take every opportunity to raise the shared prosperity fund with the Prime Minister, both orally and in writing, and have done so again since the outcome of the 2019 general election.

I thank the First Minister for that answer, and he's rightly stood very firmly on the principle of 'not a penny less, not a power lost' in respect of the shared prosperity fund. Yet, over the last year, there has been little if any real engagement by the UK Government with the Welsh Government, and little detail beyond that headline. Meanwhile, quietly but assiduously in the background, the regional investment Wales steering group, which I've got the privilege of chairing, has been scoping future funding proposals for Wales that would respect the distinct policy framework within Wales, respect the principles of devolution and subsidiarity to and beyond Cardiff Bay and this Senedd, and also respect the need to be responsive to local and regional priorities. But it also notes the need to work in a cross-border way on funding and initiatives across the UK and indeed across Europe in the future. So, the First Minister will not be surprised to hear that the steering group would welcome a much more open, transparent engagement from the newly elected UK Government, and the new Secretary of State for Wales, on the shared prosperity fund. Would he and the Brexit Minister now seek constructive and urgent engagement with the UK Government on these matters, but on the very clear terms as well of not a penny less, as was guaranteed to us, and not a power lost?

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for that, and can I begin, Llywydd, by thanking him and Members of the steering group for the very engaged piece of work that they have been involved in over the whole of last year? I know the group intends to meet again in February, and that we will have a formal consultation drawing on its proposals again in March, because the can that is the shared prosperity fund cannot go on being kicked down the road by this Government in the way that it was continuously kicked down the road by its predecessor.

Now, I've had a conversation with the new Secretary of State for Wales, Llywydd. He assured me that he was committed to working in a consensual way with the devolved administration, that he will be looking for ways of agreeing practical ways forward on key policy issues, and I take those assurances at face value and look forward to meeting him to discuss the shared prosperity fund and other matters of mutual interest. But, when we come to those discussions, it will have to be, as Huw Irranca-Davies has said, on the basis of the principles that we have already articulated here.

People in Wales who voted to leave the European Union were promised that Wales would not be a penny worse off. That must be delivered through the shared prosperity fund. Regional economic policy has been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales since 1999. It is not a new addition to the repertoire of responsibilities that this National Assembly holds, and when the shared prosperity fund is brought into the daylight and we all have a chance to be able to look at it properly and to debate it, then it must deliver that as well. But, the responsibility for deploying that money should be as close as possible to the place where the difference can be made.

That's what all the literature tells us about regional economic development, it's what the OECD, which we are working with on this, tells us too, and it's why the work of the steering group that Huw Irranca-Davies has chaired has been supported by the FSB, the WLGA, Universities Wales, HEFCW, the WCVA, as well as think tanks outside Wales like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the all-party parliamentary group at Westminster. Our principles are principles that are widely shared beyond this Chamber and we look for them to be honoured in the shared prosperity fund.

EU structural funds are, of course, only available to certain parts of Wales, and given what you've just said in your previous answer in terms of being aware that money's being spent and being decided here in Wales, I wonder, First Minister, if you would agree with me that the shared prosperity fund provides a new opportunity to invest in parts of Wales outside of the Valleys and the west of Wales—indeed, available to spend in such areas of Wales such as mid Wales. 

Well, Llywydd, done properly, a shared prosperity fund would have the potential to offer new flexibilities in the way that regional economic funding could be spent in Wales, and maybe that is geographical—although those parts of Wales that benefit from those funds now would certainly have something to say if they thought that the future was one in which the help that they have had to date was to be diluted.

But, there are other ways in which flexibilities could be applied were the shared prosperity fund to be properly designed, so that money from Europe has been available for certain purposes. And then maybe there are other purposes that would have a bigger regional economic development impact that we could use funding for in a different sort of fund. It's been difficult under European funding sometimes to combine funds that are in the hands of the Welsh Government for other purposes with European Union funding, and a shared prosperity fund, properly designed, could be more flexible about the way in which different funding streams could be brought together to have the impact that we need.

So, I don't disagree with the basic premise of Russell George's question, but done properly, there are new flexibilities that we may be able to find. They would have to be carefully thought through and agreed with delivery partners here in Wales to make sure that they didn't have unintended negative consequences as well as potentially new positive impacts. 

If I could push you a little further on that, we are moving towards life outside the European Union now, and we do have to look at safeguarding Welsh interests in that new context, and we are all agreed that it's not just how much money comes to replace EU funding that's important, but how those funds are spent. You mention there that new flexibility that could emerge in certain areas, but what assurance have you received so far and what threats have you identified to date in terms of that principle that priorities should be set and decisions on expenditure should be made in Wales under this new fund?

Well, we haven't been given any assurances about any aspect of the new fund, and there are no details in the Conservative Party manifesto, and we haven't heard anything yet from the new Government. And that is why I said that it's crucial that the new Government publishes the details and talks to us about those details. We here in Wales—and not just in the Government, but with everybody that's been such an important part of the way in which we've spent the European funding—we will all have to be clear about the new Government's proposals, to give us an assurance about the principles that we've mentioned today, and also they must collaborate with us to plan an effective strategy for the future.

I thank Delyth Jewell for that, Llywydd. The Welsh Government's position on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill was set out in the legislative consent memorandum published yesterday. It does not recommend that the Senedd gives its consent to this Bill.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. We had an interesting discussion in the external affairs committee yesterday about the LCM for this Bill, where you explained your thinking on that very clearly. Now, I've since read the LCM, and I broadly agree with your analysis. Plaid Cymru accepts that Brexit is going to happen, but that doesn't mean that Boris Johnson should be given carte blanche to impose damaging impositions on Wales, dilute workers' rights or remove parliamentary scrutiny.

I'm particularly concerned about the lack of restriction on the power that the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol gives to the Secretary of State, since it would allow them, in theory, to amend the Government of Wales Act without this Senedd's consent. So, First Minister, can you give me your assurance that your Government will make categorically clear to the UK Government, in this Thursday's meeting of the JMC(EN), that this is wholly unacceptable and demand that the Bill be amended so that this specific power can never be used?

I thank Delyth Jewell for that. I was asked in the committee yesterday, Llywydd, whether I had any sense of hierarchy amongst the objections to the Bill that are set out in the memorandum. I was reluctant to put them in that sort of order, but it is quite certainly unacceptable, and ought to be unacceptable to every Member of this Assembly, that the withdrawal agreement Bill provides a power to the Secretary of State to amend, by secondary legislation, the primary legislation that has established this National Assembly for Wales, and could do that without our consent at all. Now, that is a completely unacceptable power. It ought not to be in this Bill. It's not there because of the National Assembly for Wales; it's there, as Delyth Jewell explained, because of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol. It would be at no cost to the UK Government to make it clear that it does not intend to use that power in relation to the National Assembly for Wales, and that is what it should do.

Now, my colleague the Counsel General and Brexit Minister has written on more than one occasion on exactly this matter to Mr Barclay, the Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union. It will be a subject for conversation at the JMC(EN) on Thursday. Any Government that has won an election has a mandate, Llywydd, and that's why we accept that we are leaving the European Union, but a mandate is not a blank cheque or a carte blanche, and it is not right that a Government should believe that it is beyond scrutiny or beyond challenge. Certainly, we will be making sure that that challenge is firmly put to the UK Government at every opportunity.

Do you accept that we now have a UK Conservative Government with a majority, a decent majority, and a clear mandate to get Brexit done? And on that basis, instead of carping and trying to have the old arguments that, frankly, were taking place before the general election, isn't it about time that you and your Government moved on, joined team UK, and batted on the same side as the UK Government to get the best Brexit deal possible as we leave the European Union? I'm glad that we're leaving the European Union on 31 January, that's what the people of Wales voted for and it's about time we implemented it and we had a Welsh Government that got behind that vision too.

Well, Llywydd, of course I understand that the Member is in favour of leaving the European Union, and he now has a Government that will deliver for him what he has wished for. That doesn't mean, surely—that, surely, does not mean that he believes that his Government in Westminster is beyond questioning? That it is somehow wrong that we should say to them that giving the Secretary of State the power to amend the devolution settlement by secondary legislation is something that is not acceptable to the National Assembly for Wales.

On this side, we certainly say that the protection for workers' rights that was in his Conservative Government's last withdrawal Bill—and no doubt he supported that Bill at its time—the fact that those workers' rights protections have disappeared from this Bill is not acceptable to us. It was acceptable to him when it was in the Bill, it's acceptable to him when it's not in the Bill—anything that his Government does will be acceptable to him, but it won't be acceptable to us.

The fact that we reached an agreement with his previous Government on the independent monitoring authority to make sure that there would be somebody on the monitoring authority who would understand and represent Welsh interests—we were glad to reach that agreement. But the new Bill allows a Secretary of State to hive off the responsibilities of the independent monitoring authority to another public body without any safeguard for Welsh interests at all. That is not acceptable to us. That's why we will be scrutinising this legislation, trying to get it improved, so that it works better for Wales. And there is absolutely nothing wrong in us carrying out our democratic duty in that way.

First Minister, as you just said, we discussed this matter at length in the committee yesterday when you asserted that, by recommending to the Assembly that its legislative consent is not given, you are not expecting a constitutional crisis. If the Assembly does refuse its consent, as you want, what do you think the consequences will be?

What I said in the committee, Llywydd, was that this is not a Government that is looking for a constitutional crisis. We are not objecting to the European withdrawal agreement Bill in order to pick a quarrel with the new UK Government. We are simply exercising the democratic rights that this National Assembly has to consider the Bill and to vote on it. And if a majority of Members of this National Assembly choose not to provide consent, that will be a very important statement of the democratic decision that this body will have come to. There will be consequences, Llywydd, of that of course. The UK Government will have to decide whether, for the first time in 20 years, it overrides the democratically expressed view of the National Assembly for Wales. That is a really important decision and it can't be expected to be consequence free.

First Minister, we all know that the withdrawal agreement that the Bill is there to implement actually was negotiated in October by the Prime Minister with the EU. Nothing's changed since that negotiation. We had a Bill put forward by the Prime Minister in October that failed, and he no longer decided to proceed with that particular Bill. He came back with a Bill, following his victory in the December election, with major changes to that Bill. Do you agree with me and have concerns that those changes have actually weakened the rights of people in this country as a consequence, and also weakens the scrutiny of the future negotiations with the EU that the UK Government intends to have?

Well, Llywydd, David Rees makes a really important point. The changes are to a Bill that the Prime Minister himself put in front of the House of Commons only in October—the Bill he was then prepared to support. The changes in the most recent version of the Bill make things worse from the point of view of Wales and not better. Why has the Prime Minister reneged on the commitment that he made in October on unaccompanied child refugees? Why has that been taken out of this Bill? Why has the parliamentary oversight that he was prepared to agree in October, why has that been taken out of this Bill now? Why when there was an agreement with his predecessor that a transition period could be extended if the United Kingdom believed it was in the United Kingdom's interests for it to be extended—nobody was imposing an extension, it was if a UK Government believed it was the right thing to do—why is he denying his own Government the ability to do that? On so many points set out in our legislative consent memorandum, this Bill is a worse Bill than the same Prime Minister produced in October.

I thank the Member for the question. Thirty-eight per cent of social workers that are regulated by Care Inspectorate Wales have the ability to speak Welsh. The Welsh Government is working to encourage more Welsh speakers to work in this important sector.

The fact that a health board operating under Welsh language standards could even consider moving a dementia patient who is Welsh speaking to England where care through the medium of Welsh would not be available, that is undoubted proof that Welsh language standards in health are entirely deficient. This is what happened over the Christmas period in the case of an elderly dementia patient from Ynys Môn. Plaid Cymru and others have argued from the very outset that the health standards are far too weak. Doesn't this case mean that we must introduce new standards that are firm and robust, and to do so as a matter of urgency? And doesn't this case also prove that there is a lack of understanding of the importance of Welsh-medium care? The case demonstrates that the Welsh language is seen as something that is peripheral or desirable in terms of care rather than being a central part of that care in terms of the quality of life and safety of those individuals involved. So, what do you intend to do in order to ensure that this important principle is rooted in our health and care regime in Wales?

Well, Llywydd, it's one thing to say that there is a case to do more in terms of regulating how the Welsh language should be used in the health sector, and it's up to each one of us to agree or disagree with that, but what I don't agree with the Member on is trying to reflect the general situation from the specific case of a patient in Ynys Môn. As I understand it, he still resides in Wales; he hasn't moved. And the reasons were clinical reasons. That was why the decision had been taken. Now, the situation has improved and the patient himself has improved and it's possible to treat him here in Wales.

The patient, as I understand it, and I'm relying on the most recent information I have, the patient himself remains being looked after in Wales, and the reason that it was considered that he might need to be cared for outside Wales was for clinical and safety reasons. But the individual's condition has improved to the point where it remains possible, as is of course preferable, that he should remain looked after here in Wales. That individual case does not give rise to the general conclusions that the Member tried to draw from it.

The general case she makes is different and there's a proper debate to be had there about whether the current state of the regulations we have are sufficient to guarantee—. And let me say that I agree entirely with the final things that Siân Gwenllian said: that receiving a service through the language of your choice is not an optional extra in Wales. It is a fundamental part of you receiving the care that you need. Sometimes, there will be clinical reasons why care outside Wales is required for somebody and then an individual decision has to be made. But the general point that Siân Gwenllian made is one that I believe in and that Government believes in: that the ability to receive a service through the medium of English or Welsh, of your choice, is a choice for the patient to make and it should be honoured.

Llywydd, the number of nurses and midwives on the professional register in Wales grew by 500 between April and September last year—the strongest rate of growth of any of the four UK nations. 

Thank you for the reply, Minister, but recently, the Royal College of Nursing in Wales produced a report on the implementation of the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act, and the report states that the nursing workforce in Wales is facing a national crisis with a high number of vacancies and the prospect of significant losses of nurses to retirement over the next five to 10 years in Wales. The RCN also called on the Welsh Government to focus on improving nurse retention through ensuring safe nurse staffing levels, access to professional development and implementation of measures to support well-being, good rates of pay, flexible working hours and opportunities. First Minister, what action is your Government taking to develop a retention strategy to alleviate the crisis in nurse staffing levels in Wales, please?

Llywydd, it is because we understand the age profile of the nursing profession in Wales that we have increased the number of training places in Wales by 89 per cent since 2014, and when it comes to retention, Llywydd, we have retained nurse bursaries here in Wales, while his party abandoned them across our border and is having to reintroduce them again to make good their mistake. Now, the Royal College of Nursing, of course, has welcomed the announcement made just before Christmas by my colleague the health Minister that we will, in this Assembly term, extend the scope of the nurse staffing levels Act here in Wales from the acute medical and surgical adult wards, which is where it began, to inpatient paediatric wards before the end of this Assembly term, and the Minister has extended as well funding for the work that is going on for further extension of that Act to adult mental health inpatient wards, to health visiting and to district nursing. That's why having 500 more nurses and midwives in the Welsh NHS in a six-month period between April and September last year is so important. That's part of the reason why we are able to move ahead with extending the scope of that very important Act.

Llywydd, repeated assurances have been sought from both the Prime Minister and the Treasury that his Government will distribute spending power across the United Kingdom in a way that allows an equivalent level and quality of public goods and services to be provided in each of the four nations.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. If the spending of this Assembly had been increased by the Conservative Government in line with growth of the economy since 2010, we would be £4 billion better off than we are now. Effectively, the Tory austerity programme has robbed this country and the people of Wales of £4 billion. First Minister—[Interruption.]—First Minister, if we had been given that £4 billion that we should have been given, what difference might it have made to the lives of the people of Wales and the quality of our public services?

Llywydd, of course, had the spending available to the National Assembly still maintained the share that we had back in 2010, we would have had an enormous additional scope to invest in the public services that make a difference every day in the lives of people here in Wales. Had that Conservative Government been able to match the level of investment in public services managed by Mrs Thatcher and by John Major, we would have been over £6 billion better off by this point in the Assembly's history. That's the level that previous Conservative Governments believed—[Interruption.] Well, I can understand why Conservative Members are shocked to learn that, during the period that they've been involved in the stewardship of public services, we have fallen so far behind what was achieved by their own predecessors. That investment would have made a difference, wouldn't it, in every aspect of the responsibilities that this Assembly discharges. It would have allowed us to have done even more to provide affordable housing for people in Wales. It would have made sure that the investment that we could make in education, in health, in social services, in our economy—. Think what we could have done here in Wales if we hadn't been robbed of that £4 billion by the flawed and failed policies of austerity that the party opposite is now turning its back on, and no doubt we will hear cheers from them as they stand on their heads to celebrate the latest turn of their policy wheel.

I thank the Member for that. Amongst our priorities will be the deployment of our record investment in the Welsh NHS—an extra £342 million set out in the draft budget published on 16 December to strengthen primary care, to build further on the highest number ever of doctors and nurses we have in Wales and to respond to the challenges of an older population.

First Minister, yesterday, you confidently claimed at a press conference that plans for hospitals and health boards to cope with pressures for the winter period were holding up. You even highlighted that your Government had provided £30 million—very welcome—earlier than ever in the year to help health boards prepare for winter. However, I think within about half an hour of your press conference, my local health board, Hywel Dda, announced they'd experienced a level of escalation not seen before—we've been there before, haven't we, team—and that they would be canceling all inpatient operations across all of their hospitals in the interests of patient safety. This is shocking. This is the end of elective surgery in Hywel Dda at the moment.

First Minister, it's blatantly clear that the spin you provided to the press was not based on fact, or that you yourself are fully abreast of the current situation in our hospitals here in Wales. First Minister, when will your Government accept that there's a need for strong leadership of the Welsh NHS because these winter pressures happen—guess what—every winter? And we've been through this before. Yet again, the people in my constituency are having to wait endlessly for knee operations, hip operations, all manner of elective surgeries. There never seems to be an end to it.

Well, Llywydd, the Member is sadly badly informed about plans in Hywel Dda, because alongside all other health boards in Wales, there were very few operations scheduled for this week because this week is always the busiest week for unplanned admissions to our hospitals. Every year, as she says, it's entirely predictable, and because of that, it was planned for by that local health board.

Now, it has been a very busy and very challenging two weeks in the health service here in Wales, but the system has proved resilient to it because of the plans that local health boards, supported by the Welsh Government and that additional investment, have put in place. My understanding is that today, some planned surgery will have recommenced in Hywel Dda, and I want to put on record my gratitude to the staff of that health board and to staff right across Wales for the enormous efforts that they have made while this Assembly has been in recess, working right across Christmas and the new year to deal with the unprecedented demands, and to their colleagues there in social care in the Hywel Dda area who, yesterday and across the weekend, worked flat out to make sure that wherever they were able to provide help to move patients into the community, that they went well beyond what would normally be expected to help to do that. That's why the system has proved resilient, because of the enormous commitment of the people who work in it, and I think it's very good to have had the chance to put our appreciation of that on the record here this afternoon.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is questions to the Counsel General in respect of his law officer responsibilities, and the first question is from David Melding. 

I frequently have discussions with others about our relationship within the United Kingdom and strengthening our place within it. We believe Wales's interests are best served by being a part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom is better and stronger for having Wales in it. 

Can I just say how much those sentiments are supported on this side of the Assembly as well? You may have heard the First Minister in evidence yesterday to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee saying that the Prime Minister will be taking the Dunlop review's findings as seriously as the Government that commissioned that review. And I notice that this review, of course, is looking at ways to strengthen and sustain the union. And one of the things reported as a likely finding—and I quote the great authority of the Scottish Herald, which I'm sure colleagues opposite will find very reassuring—is that there will be a recommendation to replace the Joint Ministerial Committee system with a new inter-governmental structure, serviced by an independent secretariat, to command greater confidence from the devolved administrations. This has been a core appeal of the Welsh Government, and I, in this Chamber, have commended much of the work in terms of strengthening the governance structures within the United Kingdom that have been made by the Welsh Government, and much of that has been enthusiastically supported on this side of the Chamber.

So, can you now assure us that you will continue to work in this vain, as we're in new constitutional ground because of the fact that we will be leaving shortly the European Union, and that's the spirit in which you should co-operate with the UK Government, and use your leverage to the maximum and achieve productive results like the one you are seemingly likely to achieve when we hear the recommendations of the Dunlop review?

I thank the Member for that further question. I've been following with interest his series of postings on Twitter about the future of the union. The key is that the constitutional arrangements for a union of four nations need to respect the identity and aspirations of each of those nations, while preserving the collective interest of the whole. I know that he will have read the publication of the Welsh Government in October of last year, 'Reforming our Union: Shared Governance in the UK', which describes, I think, the kind of positive engagement that the Member identifies in his question, which has always been the approach that the UK Government has taken to this set of challenges—challenges which have become even more intense in the context of the pressure that Brexit has put upon the relationships within the United Kingdom.

We do need an acceptance—and I will say, perhaps particularly by the UK Government, which has not always accepted, despite the points he's made in his question—the need for a more shared vision of the governance of the United Kingdom into the future, and a new culture of mutual respect and parity of esteem in the kind of inter-governmental relations that have often been challenging.

We have identified on a number of occasions the shortcomings in the JMC arrangements, and have a very positive and constructive alternative to that. If the proposals that come out of the UK Government's recommendations reflect those kinds of principles and proposals, clearly we will welcome that. But alongside that approach, there needs to be a recognition on the part of the UK Government that we need to operate in a rules-based system, not one that invests them with considerable discretion to operate in the way that they choose. And the challenge will be, and the test for the UK Government will be, its readiness, or otherwise, to engage on a rules-based system, agreed between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom. That is the only way for the union to remain sustainable into the future.

Now that the dust has settled on the general election, it is clear that the separate nations of the United Kingdom have once again chosen different paths, and only in England do the Conservatives have a majority. Wales will once again be under the rule of a Conservative Government even though it did not vote for one. Once again, Wales gets the Government that England wants. For how much longer will the Welsh Government allow this situation to continue? Do you agree that you have an opportunity to forge a different path? And why do you therefore not commit to demanding significant constitutional changes, to demand more powers for this Senedd along the lines of the referendum of 2011, to ensure that a range of policies can be delivered by a Government that we in Wales actually elected?

Well, the Member may have not followed the debate that the Government has been leading here in Wales, which has been calling for further devolution of powers to this Assembly, principally, and most recently, in the area of justice. And I know that he shares that aspiration very strongly. There is a need, in the context of the changing union, for there to be an ongoing debate, and the publication that the First Minister issued towards the end of last year seeks to contribute to that debate, and to lead that debate. And I think evidence suggests that we have been successful in moving the perception of the debate here in Wales, and, to some extent, with the UK Government, and we will continue to do that in the interests of the people of Wales.

Regardless of the historic development of the union of the United Kingdom, the modern union is a union of consent, and that consent requires respect among the national and regional governments and the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. But this union is also fluid and full of stresses, which can hold it together but equally can threaten to pull it apart, in response to social and economic and political tensions, across different parts of that United Kingdom. And the process of Brexit, and the recent elections, have heightened those tensions. So, as we see that the process of Brexit and the recent elections have heightened those tensions, would the Counsel General and Brexit Minister give us his informed assessment of the implications for Wales, and the United Kingdom, of these tensions, not least the demand by the Scottish nationalist party for another referendum on independence in Scotland, and the continuing absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive? From his lofty viewpoint, having just marked the end of one decade, and looking forward to another, can he tell us: what is the future for Wales in the United Kingdom? I thought I'd start the new year with an easy question.

Well, as his question implies, we were the first Government to draw attention, over two years ago, to the constitutional challenges presented by Brexit, which he highlights in his question. And the 20 propositions in reforming our union describes the UK as a voluntary association of nations. Wales remains committed to that association, but it must be based on the recognition of popular sovereignty in each part of the UK, and not the outmoded version of parliamentary sovereignty, which we often have cited. I hope very much that the constitution, democracy and rights commission, which the UK Government has committed to establish within the next 12 months, will consider those proposals, rather than focusing on narrower interests. The UK, as his question implies, was constructed really not through any conscious plan, but as a result of pragmatic and politically expedient decisions. But the devolved institutions of Wales, and other parts of the UK, were established on the basis of popular endorsement, through referenda, which bring with them their own source of legitimacy, and that will be essential for the UK Government to recognise in any future discussions and negotiations over the future of the union.

My discussions with counterparts often cover our respective devolution settlements. As the Welsh Government's constitutional policy, 'Reforming our Union: Shared Governance in the UK', notes, as a result of the Wales Act 2017, the reserved-powers model is now the preferred model for legislative devolution. But, importantly, unhelpful asymmetries remain.

Counsel General, what was important about the 2017 Act was, of course, that it did enshrine the Sewel convention. However, it enshrined it in a way that leaves it open to interpretation and to uncertainty about its actual status. Now, in the post-Brexit environment, where we see increasing strains on the incursion into devolved areas of responsibility, it seems to me the whole status of the Sewel convention is now seriously under jeopardy. Do you belive that now is the time for serious consideration to be given to a disputes procedure to be established between the nations of the UK, in respect of what is devolved and devolved powers of responsibility? And do you agree also with me that it is now time to consider that the Sewel convention should be put into a format that makes it justiciable?

I thank the Member for that further set of questions. On the point about the resolution and avoidance, ideally, of course, of disputes between the Governments of the UK, that has been a long-standing call of the Welsh Government, and has been a matter that we have been pressing in discussions, both at ministerial and official level, with the UK Government and with other devolved Governments across the UK.

The Sewel convention remains a very, very important convention despite not being justiciable. But it provides the UK Government with considerable discretion about what circumstances are normal or not normal, which is the key to the application of the convention. That, in our view, as a Government, is not a sustainable way forward and we want to see a clear specification of the circumstances under which the UK Government could, in extremis, take forward legislation in defiance of this institution's lack of consent. We should consider setting that out in statute, which would then provide a platform for judicial oversight of the operation of the convention. But that, on its own, isn't going to be sufficient, it seems to me, to fix the problem that we face.

When the Scottish Parliament refused its consent in 2018 to the EU withdrawal Bill, neither House of the Parliament was given any real opportunity to consider the implications of proceeding without consent. So, we want to see a more explicit parliamentary stage for consideration of the implications of going forward without the consent of a devolved institution involving, perhaps, statements by UK Ministers to the House. There is, of course, a clearer and a more radical solution as well, which is simply to provide that Parliament simply will not legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the democratic devolved institutions.

The First Minister announced in this Chamber the creation of a Cabinet committee on justice to take forward the recommendations of the Commission on Justice in Wales. The Deputy Minister and Chief Whip and I are members of that Cabinet committee, and access to justice and equality before the law will be key issues as we deliberate how to take forward the report's recommendations.

It is clear that a weak justice system does lead to inequality throughout, and inequality can be identified in Wales, according to the Thomas commission report, and it mentions the over-representation of people from minority ethnic communities within the justice system and the lack of services for women and health and mental health within the system. And the report does mention that the current legal system could lead to grave disadvantages for the people of Wales, and that that is actually happening as we speak—things that people in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland aren't experiencing. So, what is your long-term vision for the future of the justice system in Wales in terms of creating equality? I've heard about the first steps that you are taking, but what's your long-term vision?

Well, we as a Government, of course, are calling for the devolution of powers on justice here to Wales, so that we can provide a justice system that is fair for all sectors of society here and ensure—Siân Gwenllian mentioned the role of women and ethnic minorities in the justice system—that we have an alternative system available to address issues for both cohorts. For example, we've been very clear as a Government that we don't believe that there are sufficient facilities for women here in Wales. We don't want to see a women's prison, but we want to see alternative provision in centres where it would be possible for women to keep in touch with their families and their children, for example. There are too many women in the prison system generally, and having this alternative provision here in Wales would help us to deal with some of those important challenges.

There are also important recommendations in the report, by the way, about the access to the law through the medium of Welsh. Chapter 11 deals with bilingual provision in our courts, in our legal education, in the coroners' courts and so on. That's an important part of the commission's agenda, and one of the things that the Cabinet committee that the First Minister has established will look at early on.

Well, I've not had discussions on this specifically with UK Government law officers, but they should be in no doubt as to the Welsh Government's strong commitment to the independence of the Supreme Court. I also welcomed the court's first sitting in Cardiff last summer, and look forward very much to future sittings of the court here in Wales.

You will no doubt have heard the former leader of the Conservative Party, less than two weeks ago, claiming that the judiciary 'distorts' the law, quote, 'to reach the result they want to achieve'. This has been echoed, unfortunately, by other Tory politicians apparently flexing their muscles to try and undermine the independence of the judiciary—I'm sure it was unrelated to the Supreme Court decision that Boris Johnson's Government's proroguing of Parliament was unlawful. But, what discussions has the Counsel General had with UK Ministers about the idea that the appointment process for new Supreme Court justices should be changed to make them more political and therefore less independent of the executive?

Well, the 2005 Act that established the Supreme Court sets out very clearly the basis on which Supreme Court justices are appointed. That was revisited by the Conservative Government in 2013, and they wisely chose not to pursue the course of action that those like Michael Howard has been advocating in the press. I was struck by his remark that he said the law should be made by elected, accountable politicians, forgetting the fact, of course, that he sits in the House of Lords and is unelected. Also forgetting that, having made the law, it's incumbent on politicians, perhaps particularly, to obey the law, which is exactly the situation that the Supreme Court's intervention—to which she refers in her question—was intended to address. The whole point of the intervention of the Supreme Court was to enable Parliament to sit until properly prorogued, giving elected, accountable Members, in the language of Michael Howard, the continuing entitlement to make law and hold the Government accountable.

I want to be very clear that we are committed as a Government here in Wales to the absolute independence of the Supreme Court, and do not regard the sorts of proposals that Michael Howard was flagging as anything other than a very, very retrograde step. That isn't, by the way, to say that there are no reforms of the Supreme Court that we would support. Again, I've referred on a number of occasions to the document 'Reforming Our Union'. That sets out changes we think would be helpful to see in the Supreme Court to ensure that Welsh law interests are reflected on the court, and I'm pleased to say that the Commission on Justice in Wales reaches a similar conclusion in its set of recommendations.

The Welsh Government is currently considering options to reform leaseholds. The Law Commission's report, following its consultation on leasehold reform in England and Wales, is expected in the spring of this year and will help inform the Welsh Government's course of action in respect of legislative options.

Counsel General, I'm sure that answer will be very reassuring to many householders throughout Wales, including in my region. For instance, at St Edeyrns Village in Cardiff, many residents there have been in dispute with the housebuilder Persimmon and feel very aggrieved that leasehold tenure is introduced on sites that formerly would have been freehold. Sometimes, you can get a mix of both on the same site, creating a most remarkable difference in liabilities. I do note that the Law Commission's consultation paper on the reform you just referred to said, and I quote:

'The extent to which leasehold enfranchisement is devolved to the Welsh Assembly is unclear. Aspects of enfranchisement have, in the past, been treated as a devolved issue.'

Are you expecting the report to clarify this situation? And once clarified, and assuming that you can act, will you act quickly?

Well, I will make my own assessment of the competence on behalf of the Government in relation to any legislative options coming forward. The Member will know that—. I won't enter into prolonged analysis of the questions of competence, but I think, perhaps obviously, on one hand, whilst housing is expressly devolved, the law of property, broadly speaking, with exceptions, is reserved. And so, it's a question of navigating the boundaries of the relevant parts of the Government of Wales Act.

I think the report of the Law Commission will be important in setting that context for considering legislative options. And I know as well also that the Minister for Housing and Local Government is considering the report of the task and finish group that reported in the summer of last year, and intends to make a statement, I think in the coming weeks, in relation to her reflections on the work of that report, building on the non-legislative measures that we as a Government have been able to take, at least in the short term, which seem to have had some impact in terms of a reduction in the number of new build leasehold houses, specifically. But, obviously, we would share the objective of making sure that that is reduced to the barest minimum possible.

As the UK Government has been deliberately vague on its shared prosperity fund plans over the last two years, discussions with the legal sector themselves have not been possible. Last month, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister to reinforce our positions for replacement funding in full and for devolution in Wales to be respected, and I echo the First Minister's remarks in his earlier question in relation to that. 

Thank you, Counsel General, for that reply, and I think it's clear from the questions to the First Minister that we do continue to have a specific interest in the role of devolved nations in the delivery of the long-promised shared prosperity fund. I do think it's interesting that we've already seen Tory priorities, with Russell George actually suggesting moving support out of the Valleys—as we actually warned on the doorstep would happen if the shared prosperity fund is not devolved to us in Wales. However, I'm one of the many Valleys Members of this Senedd who fully appreciate the importance of capital investment in our infrastructure and investment in the skills of our people and will be looking for that to continue. So, bearing in mind what you've already said, when do you anticipate legal arrangements for the new funding arrangements are likely to be available for scrutiny?

Firstly, I know how important this is for the Member, as she indicates in her question. Since 2007, projects supported by EU structural funds in Merthyr Tydfil, for example, have created over 1,000 jobs and over 300 new businesses. I know the Lawns industrial estate in Rhymney, for example, is being supported, as we speak, by over £1 million-worth of EU funds. That's one example of the benefit that EU funds have delivered right across Wales.

As the First Minister indicated in his reply earlier, we are still waiting for proposals from the UK Government to come forward. This is not a matter on which we are going out of our way to seek conflict with the UK Government. We are keen to find a way to work with the UK Government on replacement EU funding for Wales, but that needs to be on the basis of real participation and genuine agreement across the four Governments of the UK, not on the basis of a solution that the UK Government seeks to impose. The devolution settlement must be respected in relation to that, a view that this Senedd has, on more than one occasion, voiced itself.

There is a consultation we intend to bring forward, informed by the work of the committee that Huw Irranca-Davies has been chairing in relation to this, and all I will say is: I hope that the UK Government will take up the offer that the First Minister, I and others have made to put forward the proposals they would wish to see and then to work together with us so that the devolution boundary is observed and the commitments made to people in Wales are fulfilled—that they should not suffer a penny lost as a consequence of leaving the European Union.

Thank you, Counsel General.

Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans.

There is one change to this week's business: the time allocated to tomorrow's questions to the Assembly Commission has been reduced. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for health about the cost to the NHS in Wales of pest control in our hospitals? According to information obtained by the BBC, Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board has paid nearly £94,000 over the last four years to its contractor to deal with infestation, Swansea Bay University Health Board spent more than £52,000, and Powys Teaching Health Board over £51,000, while Aneurin Bevan University Health Board did not hold any record of their data regarding pest control there. May we have a statement from the Minister for health on what he's doing to ensure the consistency of record keeping across health boards in Wales, and what action he intends to take in view of cost keeping in our hospitals for cleaning and keeping free of rats and insects, please?

I think investment in ensuring that hospitals, particularly, are clean and safe is money well spent, and I know that pest management strategies are really important in terms of the proper upkeep of public places, and particularly those places where members of the public will gather, such as hospitals. I would encourage you to write to the health Minister, because that is quite a specific question, perhaps, not something for an oral statement, but certainly I know the health Minister will be keen to respond to you in correspondence.

I'm sure many Members here will share my concerns about the situation in Iran. Whilst I would in no way defend the general that was killed, or the regime that he represents, a long and bloody war is a real possibility as a result of the actions of the President of the United States. With the UK Prime Minister so keen to strike a free trade deal with the United States, there is little chance of the UK avoiding being drawn into a clash that could well have bigger consequences than the disastrous decision to invade Iraq, in terms of casualties and further destabilisation of the middle east. Wales provides over and above our share of personnel to the armed forces. The impact of any conflict that involves boots on the ground will therefore be felt very hard in Wales, as it was with the Iraq war and the military action in Afghanistan. We are still dealing with the consequences in terms of PTSD and homelessness from previous conflicts. So many former troops have not had the help that they need to have from their Government. I'd like a statement from the Welsh Government outlining what representations are being made to the UK Government to argue against involvement in conflict. What is needed now is cool, calm, collected diplomacy. The actions of Trump, which don't appear to be part of any plan, also have the potential to kick start a war, and that should be condemned. So, I'd like to see the Government's statement condemn the impulsive and reckless actions of the United States President and put the case for peaceful solutions as strongly as you possibly can.

Further, a British teenager convicted of lying about being gang-raped was sentenced today to four months in prison, suspended for three years. She was also fined €140. Her barrister said the family will fight to overturn the conviction, and will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. This situation arose because her complaint to police that she was gang-raped was retracted in a signed statement after eight hours of questioning in a police station. During those eight hours she had no legal representation nor were her interviews recorded. It is strongly suspected that her statement was dictated to her. The multiple bruises on her body were said to be consistent with a violent assault, according to one expert. I believe an atrocity has been committed against this young woman. It is a potential miscarriage of justice. It's no surprise that she has been diagnosed with PTSD and is reported to be mentally fragile. In short, I believe her, and I am outraged at what has happened. The UK tour operator behind the working holiday that this teenager was on has now ceased all trips to this Cypriot resort. In a statement, they said:

'The safety of our customers is of paramount importance.'

So, given the legitimate concerns about the Cypriot justice system and the signal that this whole episode sends out to would-be attackers, does the Welsh Government plan to issue any advice to Welsh citizens who may be thinking of visiting that island?

I thank Leanne Wood for raising two crucially important issues in the Chamber this afternoon. The First Minister had the opportunity in his monthly press conference yesterday to set out his initial views on the situation that you see in Iran, and he was very clear that a peaceful solution and talking and dialogue and discourse should be the way forward. We have been in contact with the UK Government and with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because, obviously, foreign policy is a responsibility of the UK Government. The Chamber will be aware that the Prime Minister issued a joint statement yesterday with President Macron and Chancellor Merkel regarding the action taken by the US and the death and the associated situation in Iran. The joint statement condemns the recent attacks on the coalition forces in Iraq and states concerns about the role that Iran has played in the region. They are now calling for an urgent need to deescalate the situation in the region and for all parties to exercise restraint and responsibility. They call on Iran to refrain from further violent action or the proliferation of violence. So, I think that it is important that we look very much to be promoting a peaceful solution to what is a very serious issue.

On the second point, of course we would want to see women, wherever they are in the world, being able to go to the police and to all of the appropriate authorities should they find themselves in a situation where they had been attacked in any way and particularly the victim of a sexual attack. And we would want the same for women wherever they are in the world as we want for them here, and that is that they are believed and that they are treated with respect and dignity. I think that it is quite right for the woman and her family to avail themselves of the opportunity to take their case forward now to the European Court of Human Rights. 

Could I ask just for one debate today? It's great to see the Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism in his place as well, because the debate I want to ask for is on the incredible musical cultural heritage of the south Wales Valleys. I was delighted some years ago to unveil—it must have been about 13 years ago—a plaque commemorating the first ever public performance of 'Hen Wlad fy Nhadau' in the old Tabor chapel in Maesteg, which is now long-demolished. It's now Maesteg Workingmens Club. We unveiled the plaque there commemorating a young 16-year-old who first sang 'Hen Wlad fy Nhadau' in the vestry of the chapel there. And the plaque is there.

Actually, more importantly, very shortly there's an exciting commemoration coming up that my colleague Mike Hedges will know all about: it's of Daniel James 'Bad Boy' Gwyrosydd, who of course was the author of the lyrics for 'Calon Lân'. It's fascinating of course, because of its heritage as one of the favourite songs and hymns within Wales. Many people will know it. It was sung at my father's funeral as well there. But what most people will not know is the spell that Daniel James Gwyrosydd, known as 'Bad Boy'—. Why 'Bad Boy'? Because he was as fond of the public house as he was of the pulpit. It was composed, myth has it, but there's no reason to doubt it, on the back, literally, of cigarette papers in the Blaengarw Hotel across the road. So we are commemorating that very shortly and there'll be a choir coming in and a social event that Daniel James Gwyrosydd would have loved, alongside the commemorations in Swansea as well—his place of birth, the place where he passed away as well—to recognise that.

But wouldn't it be great to have a debate here that could celebrate that deep rich history that is still with us? They're things that we take for granted now when we stand up in the terraces and we sing these songs, whether it's anthems or songs, and to recognise that these came from working-class people in working-class communities and the threads go deep into those communities still. Let's have a debate on that.

Well, I always thoroughly enjoy Huw Irranca-Davies's interventions in the business statement because they're always so full of passion for the heritage and the communities that he represents. I know that there is a lot of interest, especially in the 100-year anniversary with regard to 'Calon Lân'—I know Mike Hedges has had some discussions locally about how it can be recorded and how it can be celebrated locally as well. As you say, the Minister is here to hear your request for a statement, and I'm sure he'll be considering it.

Could we have a statement from the Minister with regard to the wilding of upland grazing land? I've been contacted by members of the farming community who are seriously concerned at the degradation of areas that were previously grazed, often for many generations, by cattle, sheep and other livestock. These areas were farmed under proven, traditional management methods. Can the Minister also make a statement on why we are losing cost-effective farming practices such as those used in places like Rhayader, where livestock has been grazed all year round for over 40 years without interruption, and where, far from degrading the land, it has resulted in a record number of plant species of over 130, it has supressed damaging, unpalatable moorland grasses like Molinia and Nardus, and has also restricted the spread of bracken in these upland areas?

I'll certainly ensure that the Minister with responsibility for farming and rural affairs is aware of the request for a statement today, and particularly that she hears your concerns about support for uplands in Wales.

I've had raised with me a number of concerns regarding litter, especially over the Christmas period. Can I ask for a Welsh Government statement on actions being taken to discourage littering? Two suggestions I have received are that first-time offenders attend a litter awareness course similar to the speed awareness course and that fast food restaurants print the car number plate on the packaging of the food bought at a drive-through takeaway.

Can I crave your indulgence regarding Daniel James and Calon Lân? In March this year it's the hundredth anniversary. I've been in contact with the Commission here to ask about it being sung on these premises. Will the Welsh Government consider having it sung on Welsh Government premises the length and breadth of Wales? Because it truly is probably—well, it probably is—Wales's best-known hymn.

Well, they don't call me Rebecca Evans for nothing. [Laughter.] I do like to exercise the vocal cords occasionally, so I'll be happy to join in any of the singing.

But I will say, on the serious point of the litter and the littering, Welsh Government's working really closely with local authorities and communities across Wales in terms of tackling littering, and this does include the development of a new litter prevention action plan. We're working really closely with third sector organisations such as Keep Wales Tidy, and I know that the Minister will be really keen to explore those two particular suggestions as part of that action plan. I know that she's also planning to meet with representatives of the fast food packaging industry, and again, I think this is an opportunity to explore that issue with them.

Trefnydd, can I please ask for a statement from the Minister for Health and Social Services on the delivery by health boards of elective surgery over winter months? Not just elective surgery, but actually an update on how they're managing winter pressures. It's not just Hywel Dda, we've got pressures at Betsi and we've got pressures in Cwm Taf. And I think we have to say—because we're here every single year—there've been endless committee reports by the Health and Social Care Committee. We acknowledge there's an extra £30 million that has gone into winter preparedness planning, but it's obviously not getting to the front line, and the issue's either poor workforce management or the delayed transfers of care of people who shouldn't be in hospital being able to go back into their homes with support, and therefore ensure that hospital beds are available.

So, I think we need to have a debate on this, because we need to discuss things like: should there have been that £30 million actually just given straight into social care? Would that deployment of that money have been better, and therefore freed up our hospitals as a consequence of sorting out some of the backlog that we have in getting people appropriate social care? So I'm basically just asking for a really serious update, because the First Minister rightfully made the point in response to my question that front-line staff work their socks off, and it must be so dispiriting, because it's not just this winter—it was last winter, it was the winter before, in fact I think we've discussed this almost every winter since I've become an AM.

Winter plans are always put in place early on in the year, and then they are submitted to Welsh Government, and Welsh Government provides an element, then, of robust challenge to ensure that those winter plans are further developed to learn the lessons of the previous year, and also to consider challenges that might be forthcoming through the course of this winter. This winter, we were able to provide that additional funding earlier on in the year than we've ever been able to do before, and I think that has helped although the First Minister did set out the challenges that there are, nonetheless, in terms of winter pressures. Obviously, I will make sure that the health Minister hears the request for the debate or the statement, as you described.

I'd like to reiterate the points that Angela Burns has made about the urgent need to have a full—I would argue—debate, but if that's not possible, a statement in Government time about the state of winter pressures. We all know what the position is in Hywel Dda and the point the First Minister made about front-line staff is, of course, absolutely correct, but he and others may very well have heard the director of the Royal College of Nursing on the radio this morning asking the Welsh Government to—her words were—'Get back in the room', to talk to people about why this situation happens year-on-year. As Angela Burns has said, in the whole term of this Assembly, and, indeed, probably before, winter comes every year, people get flu every year, we have norovirus every year, and we really do need Welsh Government to explain how it is going to get back in the room, as the nurses are asking us to do, because this situation can't be allowed to continue year-on-year. I think we also need to ensure that this is a discussion about health and social care, because one of the things that the nursing community are certainly putting to me is that one of the big issues at this time of year is that if social services departments, for example, have closed down for long periods in the winter because of staff leave, they can't then discharge patients, they can't get assessments made.

I did read with interest the Welsh Government's press statement on this matter, and I have to say that I found it a bit self-congratulatory. Of course, the £30 million is welcome, but unless it's used properly, it's not going to solve the problem. So, I would reiterate the request for a statement—at least a statement, preferably a debate—in Government time urgently. I am aware that we have questions to the health Minister, I think, next week, but those will not give us a sufficient opportunity to examine in detail what's going on around what is certainly in Hywel Dda a crisis, and I know from colleagues is a real problem in Betsi Cadwaladr health board as well.

I know that the RCN, along with other clinical leads, are meeting with the chief executive of the NHS tomorrow to discuss the winter pressures that are being felt across the NHS. So, that will be an opportunity for those particular individuals to have that conversation, and I know, as I say, that Welsh Government is in constant contact with all of the health boards with regard to their winter plans and the pressures that they are feeling, but, again, I've heard the request for the statement. I will make sure that the health Minister is aware of it. 

I'd like to ask for three statements this afternoon. Firstly, before Christmas, the M4 commission announced three fast-track measures to be implemented. As of today, they're still not in place, and one of those was to lower the speed limit to 50 mph. I think many people who regularly use this stretch of the motorway would feel it was an unusual day to get up to 50 mph. However, could we have a statement about when these measures will be implemented and how will they be measured for their effectiveness, both in isolation and in relation to other changes proposed?

The Ebbw Vale to Newport rail link has long been promised and is eagerly anticipated by my constituents and others in the surrounding Gwent Valleys. In June last year, the Minister for transport committed to introducing an hourly service between Ebbw Vale and Newport in 2021. As that date is fast approaching, I would like a statement on the progress of this service. With the importance of public transport and a desire to remove more traffic from our roads, it's incredibly frustrating that if you live in Rogerstone or near Pye Corner, to get to Newport by train you have to go to Cardiff and back.

Furthermore, I would like another statement on the recent changes in rail fares by Transport for Wales. While people travelling from Newport station to Cardiff Central have received a very welcome reduction on a return ticket from £5.40 to £4.80, those who travel from Pye Corner or Rogerstone to Cardiff are faced with an increase from £7.40 to £7.60, and Rogerstone and Pye Corner are closer geographically to Cardiff and the difference in price just seems to many people illogical. 

Thank you to Jayne Bryant for raising those three issues today. On the first, with regard to the 50 mph speed limits, I do know that the Minister for Economy and Transport has been having some discussions with the police about how this might best be enforced, and I hope that those discussions will come to a successful resolution as soon as possible.

With regard to the Ebbw Vale to Newport train line, I will ask the Minister to provide you with a written update that you can share with your constituents, but I can say that Transport for Wales introduced more modern class 170 trains on the Ebbw Vale line as part of their new timetables from December 2019. Those trains provide a better customer experience, including electronic passenger information, air-conditioning, power sockets and increased capacity. They'll also be introducing brand-new trains to Blaenau Gwent from 2022, as part of an £800 million investment that will feature level boarding and more space for bicycles. I know, also, that Transport for Wales have undertaken a study of the Ebbw Vale line on behalf of Welsh Government, and that's focusing on increasing the frequency of those services and also delivering a new service between Ebbw Vale and Newport. But, as I say, I'll ask the Minister to provide you with a more detailed written update.

With regard to rail fares, I know that a number of different factors do play into these disparities, such as the track access fees, differing maintenance costs and customer demand for their services. So, then, it's very difficult to make those direct comparisons across the routes on the network, but the Rail Delivery Group, representing all British train operators, has recently undertaken a consultation on how rail fares can be made simpler to benefit passengers, and Transport for Wales did fully participate in that consultation, and support many of the recommendations that have come out of it. We are now awaiting the formal response from the UK Government, which ultimately holds responsibility for the UK rail fare system. So, again, I'll ask the Minister to provide you with an update when we do have those details.

Trefnydd, can I ask for two statements from the Welsh Government? The first from my colleague to my right, sitting next to me, in relation to the contemporary art museum that's been talked about and the progress there is on that. Clearly, before Christmas, we celebrated one year since the Banksy appeared in Taibach and has now moved into a shopping centre in Station Road in Port Talbot, opposite the railway station. It's not yet visible to the public in the sense of opening up, because we still have a process to go through, but it is important we understand where we are with the progress in relation to the contemporary art museum and where we can be fitting into that.

The second one is on steel, following the interview that was published in The Sunday Times with Mr Chandrasekaran, the chair of Tata Sons, which is the parent company of Tata Steel, in relation to, clearly, a statement there where he feels that Tata have given over-and-above support to Port Talbot and that it must make itself self-sufficient in the future. Understood—the workforce understand that; they've always been part of the transformation programme, but for it to so clearly made and bluntly made by the chairman of the parent company does therefore cause concern as to the future that Tata will see in the business in Port Talbot. Now, many of the levers, as has been said, actually, are outside the control of the workers themselves. They have put in the effort to making them as productive as possible. They have reduced jobs, they are making productivity improvements, but global markets are difficult at this point in time.

But, also, the UK Government seems to be failing to actually take any action in relation to helping the steel industry in the UK. Can I have a statement from the Minister as to what actions he has taken with the UK Government, particularly the steel sector council that failed to meet last year? I don't know if it's met yet. Where are we on that? It is important, it's a foundation industry in the UK. Welsh steel making is critical, it is therefore critical that we have an assessment as to where we are with Tata and Welsh steel making, where the UK Government sees Welsh steel making and what they will do to improve it, particularly in energy costs and other aspects, which they have responsibility for and they have levers for.

I thank David Rees for raising these issues, and, of course, the Deputy Minister has heard your request for the update on the contemporary art museum, and I know he'll be able to either provide you with a verbal update or he'll certainly write to you with the very latest on that.

You're absolutely right that the workers at Tata have certainly done their bit. Ken Skates had the opportunity to meet with the new Secretary of State for Wales just yesterday, and he was very clear that now it's time for the UK Government to step up to the plate and support Tata and its workforce as well. Dai recognised that energy prices are one of the key issues, and, again, was something that I know that Ken had the opportunity to put home to the new Secretary of State that is one of the levers that the UK Government does have at its disposal, and its support for Tata and the workforce there will be one of the key first challenges that the new Secretary of State will face.

Thank you very much, Trefnydd.

Item 4 on the agenda is the debate on a statement on the draft budget of 2020 to 2021, and I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement on the Welsh Government's draft budget for 2020-1.

On 16 December, I laid the Welsh Government's draft budget before the Senedd. The decision to lay the draft budget in recess was taken with the agreement of the Business Committee and Finance Committee, and I'd like to put on record my gratitude for the co-operation of both committees in agreeing the exceptional arrangements.

The failure of the UK Government to deliver on its multi-year comprehensive spending review means that we do not have a budget beyond 2020-1. Instead, we were presented with a 'fast-tracked' spending round in September, setting plans for 2020-1 only. As a result, I'm only able to lay one-year revenue and capital plans.

Despite claims that austerity is over, the Welsh Government budget in 2020-1 will be nearly £300 million lower in real terms compared to 2010-11. Following months of uncertainty and a cancelled budget, the UK Government has announced today its plans for a budget on 11 March, a week after we are due to debate the final budget in this Chamber—another example of the UK Government's unpredictability when it comes to managing the nation's finances. But, despite this chaos, I plan to press ahead with our plans to publish the final budget on 25 February in order to deliver the certainty and stability that Welsh public services, businesses and communities need, and I will look to reflect any significant changes to our plans in an early supplementary budget.

Before Christmas, I wrote to the Chancellor calling for the UK Government to provide the sustained increase in funding that our public services require. The budget is an early opportunity for the UK Government to make good its promise to end austerity.

I will now turn to the major building blocks of this budget and the fiscal decisions that are now made in Wales. From 2019-20, some £5 billion of devolved and local tax revenue is raised in Wales and stays in Wales. This gives us the ability to consider how our tax policies can contribute to our wider ambitions for Welsh public services. In line with our manifesto commitment, we will not raise Welsh rates of income tax in 2020. I do not intend to make any changes to land transaction tax rates and bands, but I will keep them under review. Landfill disposals tax rates will increase in line with inflation.

For the first time, and in line with the longer term forecasting arrangements, the Office for Budget Responsibility has produced its independent forecast of revenues from devolved taxes for the Welsh Government's budget. I thank them for their work, and Members will have the opportunity to hear from the OBR directly at a briefing session on Thursday.

Turning to reserves, I have looked to make maximum possible use of the new Wales reserve. I plan to draw down the maximum annual amount of revenue from the Wales reserve of £125 million in 2020-1.

I now turn to borrowing for capital expenditure. Our approach to borrowing has been well rehearsed in this Chamber by myself and by previous finance Ministers. We will always look to use the least expensive forms of capital before moving on to other sources. In setting firm capital plans for next year, we are maintaining previously published plans to borrow £125 million of capital.

I'll now set out how our combined revenue and capital resources are to be deployed across Government. The draft budget will take this Government's investment in the Welsh NHS to £37 billion since 2016, proof of the priority we continue to give to Wales's most cherished public service. This is a budget that also delivers a new level of ambition in the fight to protect the future of our planet, which includes support for low-carbon housing and transport and the development of a national forest for Wales.

I am proud that this fifth—and final—budget of this Assembly term delivers on the key spending pledges we made to the people of Wales in 2016 on all-age apprenticeships, school improvement, childcare, help for small businesses, quick access to new treatments, affordable housing and much more. We are bringing our total investment in health and social care to more than £8.7 billion in 2020-1, with an above-inflation increase of more than £400 million.

We have always looked to protect local government from the worst impacts of austerity. Delivering on the commitment for the best possible settlement, local authorities will receive an extra £200 million through the revenue and capital settlement next year. This brings total investment from the Welsh Government in core revenue funding and non-domestic rates to spend on delivering key services, including schools and social services, to nearly £4.5 billion. This means a real-terms increase for every local authority, acknowledged by the Welsh Local Government Association as an exceptionally good finance settlement. I am grateful to the WLGA for the positive engagement that they've had with Ministers and the co-operation shown in managing a challenging timetable for this year's budget.

Through the local government settlement and through our £1.8 billion education budget, the draft budget supports the national mission for a world-class education system, which includes more than £200 million for our educational infrastructure. Llywydd, with the new money for local government and the additional funding we are providing for schools and social care through other funding streams, we have matched the additional funding we received in the spending round in relation to schools and social care in England and we've gone further.

We have achieved this despite the burden of funding shortfalls delivered by the UK Treasury. I've previously updated Members on the £36 million shortfall that we received this year as a result of the UK Government failing to meet in full the increased public sector pension costs that we face. That shortfall will rise to around £50 million in 2020-1. It is entirely contrary to the UK Treasury's own principles set out in the 'Statement of funding policy', and removes £50 million that I could have otherwise allocated to our public services.

We recognise the vital role that local authorities provide in delivering preventative services. Prevention has been at the heart of the work in relation to our eight cross-cutting priorities of early years, social care, housing, employability and skills, better mental health, decarbonisation, poverty, and biodiversity. These are the areas where early intervention pays dividends, and where it's essential to delivering long-term outcomes. Through the new approach, we worked across Government, and outside traditional ministerial boundaries, to maximise our collective contribution to these priority areas. As a result, we're allocating new funding on top of existing measures, to help protect the future of our planet and to tackle poverty.

We know that there is no greater challenge facing Government, public bodies, businesses and third sector organisations and communities across Wales than climate change. That is why, in the first budget since our declaration of a climate emergency, we are allocating a new £140 million package of capital funding to support our ambitions for decarbonisation and to protect our wonderful environment.

Drawing on the advice of the UK Committee on Climate Change we are investing in the areas where we can have the greatest impact for our environment. This includes investment in active travel and an electric bus fleet, new ways of building homes, enhancing our most ecologically important sites, and the development of a national forest to extend the full length of our country. As recognised by WWF Cymru, this additional investment is a positive step on our journey to a greener Wales.

Llywydd, this draft budget also protects the significant ongoing investments we're making in support of our low-carbon delivery plan. This includes investments in our flagship £738 million investment in the south Wales metro and the additional £20 million we're investing this year in the north Wales metro. We're also making improvements in energy efficiency in 25,000 households through the Nest and Arbed schemes. By investing £240 million in this programme since 2010, we have been able to lift thousands of low-income households out of fuel poverty.

The greatest physical risks posed by climate change are increasingly intense storms, flooding and coastal erosion. In this budget we're committing £64 million to protect communities from the most severe impacts of climate change.

In terms of broader measures, we are also considering a public communications campaign around the climate and ecological emergency and a citizens' assembly, and we'll say more on this as our plans are developed in-year.

Building on existing cross-Government action totalling more than £1 billion, we are allocating an additional £19 million in a package of measures that are specifically targeted to help some of the most vulnerable people living in poverty in our communities. This includes new funding to extend pupil deprivation grant access for uniforms and other school essentials, ongoing funding to tackle period poverty, as well as extending funding for the school holiday enrichment programme.

Our mental health and early years priority work has also delivered extra funding for the whole school approach, to provide counselling and emotional support at school, as well as additional funding for Flying Start, allowing the programme to reach 3,500 more children.

Good-quality housing is central to supporting people in poverty. Together with an extra £175 million capital this year, we will have invested more than £2 billion in affordable housing over this Assembly term. And that is major investment welcomed by Community Housing Cymru.

Building on the steps we have taken in recent years and the 'journey checker' developed by the future generations commissioner, we have published for the first time a budget improvement plan, which sets out how we intend to take continuous steps to embed the requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 into the budget process. I welcome the commissioner's statement that Wales should be commended for being at the forefront of a movement towards well-being budgeting.

Despite ongoing austerity imposed at a UK level undermining our ability to deliver the investment our country truly deserves, I am proud to introduce a budget that continues to invest in our vital public services while supporting our ambitions for a more equal, more prosperous and greener Wales. Thank you.

Well, I have to say, we had some great hopes for this budget, because, of course, we know that Boris Johnson has already started to deliver on his promise to end austerity and to enable significant extra investment in the Welsh economy and public services. [Interruption.] And I can hear the cackling, but as a result the Welsh Government has received an additional £600 million, which brings the Welsh block grant to a record high level.

And, of course, in addition to that, the Welsh Government now also has the power to vary income tax levels, which of course could be a powerful tool, we believe, to create a low tax economy, to encourage businesses to set up here, and to create the well-paid, skilled jobs that people need. So, in the words of a former Prime Minister, 'You've never had it so good.' You've never had it so good. We've got a golden opportunity in this budget, a golden opportunity to invest in people's priorities, to drive a more dynamic economy, to deliver for working people, and to build on opportunities for Wales as they are presented to us as we leave the European Union. 

But, I'm afraid it's an opportunity that the finance Minister has, of course, missed. Where there was an opportunity to be imaginative, you've opted for the mundane. Where there was an opportunity to rise to the challenge and be ambitious for our country, all we've seen is you sitting back. Where there was an opportunity to be radical, you've stuck to the tried, tested and failed approach of Welsh Governments of the past.

Now, on the economy, one of the biggest barriers to growth and investment, particularly in south Wales, is the lack of capacity on our road network. Last year, the First Minister scrapped the M4 relief road, against independent advice, having already spent £144 million of taxpayers' money, and he did so without any alternative to the chronic congestion and air pollution that we see in south Wales. And as another Prime Minister recently said, the Brynglas tunnels are like the blocked 'nostrils of the Welsh dragon'. They deter investment west of Newport, dragging down the whole of the south Wales economy. The First Minister has even said that if the UK Government made the finance available to fully fund the project, at a cost of over £1 billion, he would decline to accept that money. It's shocking. 

And, of course, we don't just have problems in south Wales. We also face them in the north, and indeed in the west. The opportunity to upgrade the A55, to invest in dualling the A40, have been missed. Now, we're told that some of the reason behind not proceeding with the major investment in road capacity is because of the climate change emergency. And yet we're on the brink, First Minister—I can see you're paying attention—we're on the brink of an electric car revolution, ignored by your decision when you made the decision to scrap the M4. And of course, we all know that the evidence actually suggests that if you reduce congestion you also reduce air pollution. And ironically—. Yes, I'll happily take an intervention.

I wonder if he could clarify something from his own party's manifesto, where it said if there was a Welsh Conservative Government it would deliver the M4 relief road. But, on the A55, the manifesto just said, without any qualification, 'We will upgrade the A55' in north Wales.

We were very clear that we wanted to work with the UK Government to deliver improvements in various parts of our road network, including on the A55 and the M4.

But, in spite of the rhetoric that we hear from the Welsh Government on climate change, when you look at where they are investing in transport, it's actually in the most polluting form—air travel. Ironically, we will see that, this year, a further £4.8 million has been given to the state-owned Cardiff Airport, on top of a loan in excess of £21 million, and that's in addition to the £36 million loan that has already been given. And of course, last year, we saw the biggest ever losses that that airport has ever made—over £18.5 million, compared to the less than £1 million during the airport's last full year in private ownership back in 2012. And of course, we already heard during First Minister's question time that the net book value of the airport has fallen to well below the £50 million-odd that was paid by the Welsh Government for the airport.

Will you take an intervention?

I'll happily take an intervention.

I listened to what you said—I always listen to your contributions with great fascination, as you know. What is your alternative on the airport?

We produced a very detailed blueprint for aviation back in 2013, which set out our position on what to do on the aviation industry. I'll send you a copy of it.

Here's the reality: Ministers here in this Chamber should face facts—you don't have the expertise required to make a success of this venture and it should be returned to the private sector as soon as possible. It's further evidence in support of your own Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport's claim that the Welsh Government does not know what it is doing on the economy. [Interruption.] I'll happily give way to the former First Minister.

I'm grateful to the Member opposite. Just two things. Firstly, to remind him that when the airport was in private ownership it was on the verge of closure, and I was told that by the owners at the time. The only way of dealing with it was to buy it—take it into public ownership. Secondly, if he is saying the Government should not invest in air travel, does that mean he thinks that the airport—and of course Anglesey airport, which is now part of the same group—should close?

I think you paid over the odds for an airport if you thought it was on the brink of closure, frankly wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

Now, if I can just turn—because I've got to make some progress—to business rates. Of course, we've missed an opportunity to address the fact that Wales has the least competitive business rates environment in the whole of the UK, taxing businesses off our high streets. It's no wonder we've got the highest high street vacancy rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. And of course, we believe that, instead of doing that, you should be taking the opportunity to reduce taxes on businesses, to coax them back onto our high streets, in order that we can improve opportunities in our town centres.

With regard to the NHS, the finance Minister described it as our most cherished public service. We absolutely agree, and that's why we're very pleased to see some additional investment finally coming through to our NHS. But, we must never allow the public to forget that it was a Welsh First Minister who presided over the only cuts ever seen in an NHS budget ever in the history of the United Kingdom. It is shameful that it was a Labour Government, a Labour Government—no Conservative Prime Minister has ever cut an NHS budget—it was a Labour Government here that took the decision to do that. And of course, the health Minister at the time is now the First Minister sat before us in this Chamber today. Is it any wonder that the performance of the NHS in Wales is behind that of England on many, many different measures? And is it any wonder that we have so many health boards in Wales in targeted intervention? And of course, we've got the classic example in my own area of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, which has been in special measures for almost five years now and is showing only limited signs of improvement. In fact, in some areas, it's showing signs of getting even worse.

Now, if I can turn to education, just for a few moments. According to the NASUWT—not the Welsh Conservative briefing office, the NASUWT, a highly respected teaching union here in Wales—schools in Wales continue to be underfunded at a rate of around £645 per pupil per year compared to schools in England. [Interruption.] I know you dispute it, but you've never sent—. I'll happily take an intervention, yes.   

[Inaudible.]—this £300 million a year that we've been deprived of by the Tory Government amounting to a total of £4 billion, if we'd had that, do you believe that money would have rectified some of the flaws that you have identified? 

I think what I find extraordinary is that Wales receives £1.20 for every £1 and yet it's spending £645 less per pupil per year. There's no excuse for this underfunding at all. You might want to defend it, Mick, but I am not going to defend it, and I will challenge your Government all the way so we have a level playing field between England and Wales so that our children can have the same opportunities that children have over the border in England. 

Local government—we know that we've seen local government settlements that smack, frankly, of cronyism. We've seen local authorities in north Wales getting lower settlements than local authorities in the south, and it seems to be that the political colour of your local authority has a bearing on the proportion of additional cash that you might receive. [Interruption.] Again, I can hear the carping and I'm very happy to give some information to the Chamber on this.

Let's compare this year's settlement. Let's compare this year's settlement. I've taken plenty of—. I've got not much time left—[Interruption.] If I can just make a reference to this year's settlement, the proposed draft settlement. The funding increases vary from 3 per cent in Conservative-run Monmouthsire to 5.4 per cent in Labour-run Newport right next door—two local authorities right next door. And we know that the average increases for north Wales are far worse than they are in the south. 

So, can I urge the Government to consider introducing a funding floor so that we can even out some of these differences? Because, frankly, it's unacceptable that some parts—[Interruption.] There's not a funding floor in place for this year. If I can just correct your Cabinet colleagues, you haven't announced a funding floor for this year, as you well know, finance Minister. But, it will be interesting to see what that funding floor might be and perhaps you can put some more meat on the bones and tell us a little bit about it. 

You mentioned some of the pressures on the social care issues. You've talked about the integrated care fund, for example, in your statement. What you haven't done is ruled out any kind of social care tax, which we know that your party was sort of contemplating before. Perhaps you can give us some more information as to whether you're wanting to tax people in respect of social care, because we'd like some assurances that you're not going to increase the tax burden on the people of Wales in order to pay for that. 

In terms of the environment, we've heard that this is one of your priorities and yet you can't even get a decent network of electric vehicle charging points up and running here in Wales. We've got the worst record in the whole of the United Kingdom. What on earth are you doing? You've had some money as a Barnett consequential to improve the network and yet you can't plug in between north and south Wales sufficiently in order to get an electric car up and down our roads. It's not acceptable and we need to get things improved. 

So, in conclusion, Llywydd, if I may, I regret that, despite the great opportunities presented by this record-breaking budget that you have at your disposal, you are still failing to address the people's priorities here in Wales. We're failing to see the improvements in the performance of the NHS that people and patients need to see. We're failing to see you address the underfunding in our Welsh schools and we're failing to see you close that gap between England and Wales in terms of the per pupil spend per head. We're failing to see the ambition that we need to support businesses to improve the growth and the wealth of our nation. And we're seeing a complete inertia, frankly, in terms of the climate change agenda. I hope very much that you'll reflect on these things and change this budget before it comes back to this Chamber so that we can deal with people's priorities as we get Brexit done as a nation. 

What we have in this budget quite simply, I fear, is an opportunity missed. Yes, there is more money available to be spent on public services. Yes, we are in a position where every expenditure heading has seen an increase, I believe. And after a decade of continuous cuts in most areas, that is something of a relief. But, what disappoints me and us on these benches more than anything is the lack of any sign that this Labour Government is willing to take this opportunity to change direction in a meaningful way, to change culture in any significant way or to think in the longer term. What we have here is another budget that is managerial but demonstrates no innovation or imagination if truth be told.

This budget does see a loosening of purse strings, but there's no loosening of the apparent unwillingness of this Labour Government to think differently, to think innovatively about how today's budget decisions really impact on our tomorrows, and by that, I mean the medium to long term.

Now, recent announcements from UK Government have been hailed by some as the end of austerity. We've heard that claim again today, although, sadly, most assessments I've read suggest that this is more likely temporary relief. But if this is to be even a temporary step away from the kind of ideologically driven austerity, the deep cuts—let's give it its real name—of the past decade, then what we should be seeing with this budget is a pouncing on that opportunity to invest now for more sustainable services in future. I'll look principally at three areas: health, local government funding, and, in fact, the way health and local government funding should be interacting together better, and climate change.

For the life of me, I can't see in this budget a sign of a Government really tackling the climate crisis that it declared, and this Assembly declared—the first Parliament anywhere in the world to do so—with the real urgency it deserves. In fact, the signs were a bit worrying immediately after that Government declaration when the First Minister said, he doesn't believe that the declaration of climate emergency is a new policy for this Government or, indeed, for this National Assembly, because the environmental principles that have been important across this Chamber and across the period of devolution are summed up in that decision. But surely, such a momentous declaration, if it means anything, has to be seen as a significant turning point. And while later in the same session, I think the First Minister said he would support certain innovative responses to climate change—water quality and management, protection of biodiversity and unique local habitats and so on—the truth is, if we're serious about stepping up in our determination to address our environmental responsibilities, that should be seen running clearly right through this budget, and it isn't.

I've already mentioned that there are increases in departmental budgets across the board, but looking at the environment, energy and rural affairs budget, the increase in real terms is a measly 0.7 per cent—I think an issue that Mike Hedges from the Labour benches pursued the Minister on in a special meeting of the Finance Committee prior to Christmas. And looking at capital spending, committing just £140 million to environmental projects like the £29 million earmarked for electric buses, for example, is, whilst welcome in itself, clearly not going to drive the kind of wholesale change of direction that so many are looking to Government for leadership on at this point in time.

I'd ask the Minister: where is the evidence of a real step change? Do you have a formula, even, perhaps you could answer that, for working out the impact of spending decisions in the area of climate change? Do you even know what impact you will get from the elements of climate change prevention spend you do have in there? Where's the evidence of a culture change in Government that's running through, cross-departmentally, of climate change prevention measures? And whilst Government says the welfare of future generations Act is used as a guide in its budgeting process, since when has legislation been merely a guide? Preventing catastrophic climate change as much as we can, while playing Wales's part to its maximum in that job, is about as serious as it gets in terms of a need to focus on preventative measures rather than just short-term management spend. And just as this budget is lacking in its emphasis on the preventative in relation to the environment, I believe it's still woefully lacking when it comes to preventative spend in other areas too. I met members of the National Association of Head Teachers union this lunch time, as other Members did too, I know, highlighting an inadequate uplift, in their view, for education, and especially additional learning needs. I agree: funding special schools adequately, for example, has a huge preventative potential on wider education budgets, on social care, even on the health budget. I'll ask if I can, at this point, what assessment Welsh Government has made of consequentials that may be due to Wales from recent spending announcements for primary education in particular in England? That's a question coming directly from the NAHT representatives as they seek new funding for this sector.

But I'll turn to health now if I may.

It is a serious concern to me that the attitude of this Government toward health funding focuses too much on the sum of money provided to the NHS today, despite the importance of that, of course, and isn't sufficiently focused on how to make health and care services more sustainable for the longer term. There is an intention to substantially increase the revenue funding provided to health, and on the face of it, who could disagree with that?

The problem, of course, is that most of the additional money available for 2020-21 is going to the NHS—an increase of £341 million, 2.6 per cent in real terms. We cannot ignore the fact that increasing the health budget continually at the expense of other areas does weaken those areas, and that, in turn, can add to the costs of the NHS ultimately. It is a vicious circle. Indeed, health expenditure has increased over the years of austerity by some 16 per cent in real terms, whilst other budgets have shrunk by a similar amount. And if we continue without making the investments and without making policy decisions that are innovative and preventative, as we should do now, then the part of the cake that needs to be given to health will continue to grow and now, surely, as the financial shackles are loosened slightly, then now is the time to make that innovative change.

So, when I see minor amounts praised in the budget in the statement made in December—£2.7 million to help primary school children become healthy and fit; £5.5 million for 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales'; and diabetes, much of it relating to obesity, costing some 10 per cent of the whole NHS budget—then I can't help but think that we are missing a trick in failing to invest health and welfare budgets in infrastructure for physical activity and sport to make us a healthier nation in the long term.

I see references to £190 million for preventative health measures in this budget. That is only something over 2 per cent of the total expenditure on health. The warmer words that we hear on the preventative agenda must be matched by funding too, and the same is true of mental health. There is still a lack of preventative spend in this budget, particularly for younger people. Also, we can't think in the longer term by continuing to sufficiently support the social care service and the services provided by our local authorities. Yes, there's a proposal to increase local authority budgets by £184 million, but the WLGA itself said that some £254 million would be required for a standstill position. Costs related to salaries weigh heavily, there are pressures from social services and children's services have also increased greatly, and we know that if local government doesn't receive the necessary support for providing social care, then it's the NHS that picks up the bill, ultimately—a vicious circle once again.

I could go on to talk about so many different areas where short-term management is the theme here rather than long-term innovation. The Welsh language is another example. We can all agree on the target of one million Welsh speakers, why, therefore, reduce the budget for the Welsh language specifically?

Llywydd, although we've heard today that we're expecting the first new Conservative Government budget on 11 March, I will make a brief comment on that. It's another example of us having to change our arrangements because of the whims of a Government in Westminster. A budget there decides on expenditure here after we've completed our budgetary process here. There is an alternative way of dealing with that and that is by taking responsibility for this ourselves. But we do know, because of the forecast of a slowdown in the economy and a pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT and so on and so forth, that there is very little scope for increasing public expenditure further. The economic uncertainty related to leaving the European Union is part of the problem, of course.

But to conclude, today, we are not talking about proposals from Government to change tax rates in Wales, but with the public purse likely to be under significant and increasing pressures to provide the kind of services that people require and insist upon in an uncertain economic context, the discussion on how we can use our limited taxation powers is going to have to become a more prominent issue of budgetary discussions in oncoming years.

I congratulate the finance Minister on her budget and the process she's used. I'm noting, just from Rhun just then, that his remarks were quite gentle in admonishing the UK Government for the shifts in timings of its budgets and how those have been communicated, which contrasts what we heard earlier in the Scottish Parliament, where there seems to have been a serious ding-dong about the complete disrespect for the Scottish Parliament, apparently and profound consequences and catastrophic risks that the change in timing will lead to for them, which appears to be that they expected their budget to come after the UK one but before 11 March, which is their legal date for the local government funding. So, I don't quite know how they're going to sort it out, but what we seem to be doing here seems to be more sensible and with somewhat less drama than what we're seeing there.

I note that the finance Minister says that she'll deliver the certainty and stability that Welsh public services need through doing this, and we then get the UK budget on 11 March. Given that she's bringing down the £125 million from the Welsh reserve, can I ask, is that a standard approach going forward or is that informed by her knowledge that the UK budget is coming later and, perhaps, an expectation that there may be further Barnett consequentials coming through following 11 March? 

I've criticised the finance Minister before for her emphasis on complaining about austerity when she's not complaining about Brexit. There was a bit less of that today. I did, though, note a tweet from BBC Wales Politics at 11 o'clock last night saying,

'The UK government must take responsibility, says @fmwales',

and I sort of clicked through it to see what story he was commenting on or what he thought they should be taking responsibility for, and there was no story behind it. It was just a general comment of applicability. I wasn't even sure what it was meant to relate to.

But I think what people in Wales want to hear is what is the Welsh Government doing with the levers at its disposal. Of course, it doesn't have all the levers. Of course, there's been a period where public spending has been less than the completely unsustainable trajectory that it was on previously, but given the cloth we have, how are we cutting it and what are our priorities? And I'm not sure whether I saw a slightly wistful look on the First Minister's face in terms of the budget that his finance Minister's got to present is giving a lot more money to a lot more different areas than he was ever able to when he had that role. 

I think we need not just to look at the comparison to 2010, which the finance Minister is always so keen on making, but what's the increase we're having this year. There's a complaint about the £36 million or £50 million that's not coming through for pensions, but where in this statement is the reference to what is the overall Barnett consequential, the extra money we have to spend in Wales next year because of the decisions that have been taken by the UK Government and by the relative improvement in the economy compared to the unsustainable trajectory that we got on to spending before? 

I don't see in this budget what the Welsh Government is communicating on its core priority, particularly on the biggest spending areas. We hear from the Conservatives a lot of condemnation, but I felt that a few years back, at least, there was actually a Conservative critique of the Welsh Government's spending that had a degree of internal consistency about it, that relative to England, they had cut spending on health. I saw the First Minister's reaction to the suggestion of there being a cut, but, certainly, relative to England, in Wales, we or the Welsh Government have chosen to implement austerity by being less generous to health and more generous to local government than has happened in England, and that is by far the largest budget and financial decision that has been made. Yet, this year, when the restrictions come off, when we have significant money to hand out, the amount handed out in percentage terms is almost the same to health and to local government, so I can't determine from that where the Welsh Government's priorities are, and I note that there have been reductions, but the reductions that have been made in English local government are hugely greater than those that have been made in Welsh local government. I do ask whether there are further opportunities for efficiencies in Wales that haven't been taken that have been in England. I accept the comments that are made around social care and the interaction with the NHS. I think that is a fair comment, but it does not explain the whole difference in the approach that's been taken.

And I'd ask why, in Wales, are councillors paid, I think, £13,868 this year? Next year, will that be more than £14,000? Why are councils not allowed to make savings in that area? When I served in my local council in England that was facing big reductions in spending because of austerity, one of the first things we did was to cut the councillor allowances to far lower than those that we have in Wales. Yet we continue to have 22 councils, we continue to have a much larger number of councillors who are paid a very significant amount of money. Is that not an area where we should be looking for savings?

The Government talks a lot about its prioritisation of climate change. I recall the first budget of this Assembly, where I was wearing multiple hats, and the Welsh Government announced very substantial reductions to its spending on climate change projects. What I ask the First Minister and the finance Minister is: could we have, in comparable terms, what Welsh Government is planning to spend now compared to what it was going to spend then? I remember the uproar, a modest proportion of those cuts were put back. Where are we now compared to then and can we try and consider that on a comparable basis, both in capital and revenue terms?

I felt Rhun made a very good comment around the prioritisation of climate change spending, and I really am concerned that we do not know what is the relative benefit of those different types of spending. So, we've got investment in active travel, in the electric bus fleet, ways of building homes; what are the relative yields in terms of the impact we can have on emissions of spending in those different areas? Some electric buses—I'd love to see more of them, not least because of the impact on air quality, but they are very expensive, and there's quite good evidence that home insulation and looking at the energy efficiency is a very effective way of reducing emissions for relatively limited spending. But we have this national forest for Wales—sounds great, we're spending a certain amount on that, we're also spending a certain amount on planting trees in Uganda. What is the relative return from the spending in those areas? Surely, Welsh Government should be investing in research to try and understand that, looking at best practice elsewhere, making those comparisons so the money is, at least, spent in the most effective way possible, rather than looking instead to put it into a communications campaign so we can campaign back to those who are campaigning for us just to do more about climate change. What we need to do is look into what measures are most effective for the amount of money we have available, and I hope Welsh Government will push in that direction.

I wish them well with the budget, we look forward on the Finance Committee to looking in greater detail on Thursday with various interest groups, and I hope Welsh Government will take note of what is said by those. I also hope it will look to build a better and more effective budget process going forward. I believe that the process we have for spending in the Welsh Parliament now is better than the one that they had in Westminster. I am not convinced it is yet for tax, but I hope that the Finance Committee and Welsh Government will be able to work together in terms of looking at the medium-term plans for what is the best way for us to run budgets in this place in future. Thank you.

Can I just, in opening my comments, thank Welsh Government, even with the difficulties of not being able to do a long-term multi-annual settlement, even with the difficulties of having to wait till March, after we've actually done our final budget, and then bring forward a supplementary budget to accommodate what the UK Government is doing—even with all that, this is the first time I've seen my two council leaders smile for a decade? [Laughter.] And I want to thank you for that, because it's been darn miserable, and it's been miserable because, year after year—it was interesting following on from Mark's comments. It isn't only the health and social care interactions, and we've put money into social care. We've taken it up to £30 million, you're taking it up to £40 million now, and that's fantastic to see and so on, and that has an impact on the overall health and social care spending. But, actually, it's the planning officers and economic development officers and the environmental standards officers and the active travel officers, and so on—those are the ones that creak terribly behind the scenes. They're not there anymore. They've not been decimated, not one in 10—I suspect it's four, five, six, seven out of 10 who have now gone.

So, this at least gives the opportunity now for local authority leaders to lift their heads up and think not only with social care, but, generally, 'What are the priorities now, going forward?' It's still not going to be easy, because, regardless of this, we're still in extremely difficult times. We're picking up after 10 years of cuts, cuts, cuts within local authorities. You can't suddenly turn the taps on and expect everything to flow; things have been lost in that period, in this decade of austerity. But at least I'm genuinely now having interesting conversations with council leaders about where we can invest, as opposed to, 'Where do we now have to go and find another £30 million of cuts, or this, that or the other, in the local authority?'

But I also want to reflect, in my opening remarks, on the fact that we sometimes forget what we've managed to do even with these austere times, this austere decade, that we've been in. We have been able to deliver on some significant commitments that we brought forward in the 2016 manifesto. We brought in just short of £600 million to actually fund quality apprenticeships, 100,000 quality apprenticeships, within Wales. I know that that is happening within my constituency with local employers, where I'm speaking to youngsters or people on the side of the playing fields who are saying, 'My youngster now is employed in a good apprenticeship down the round in manufacturing because of that funding that Welsh Government, our Welsh Government, has done.'

The rates thing—I know the rates relief on small businesses doesn't go everywhere, but I'll tell you it goes a long way in communities like Pontycymer and Ogmore Vale and even Maesteg. We're not the Cowbridge, we're not the Monmouth high streets. We are the ones where the turnover is low and the footfall is low on those things, and they are the ones that benefit from the exemptions that we've been able to give. They're the ones. That's why they're able to carry on trading. Because they're never going to make $1 million, frankly, on those streets, but what they do do is they provide really good local services, local sales, local support in that high street for a viable local high street, and the business rates help of just short of £600 million has been a real help.

And also the £100 million that's gone into school standards, driving school standards up—there is a quiet revolution going on here within education within Wales, and we've managed to do that and that was part of our commitment.

And of course the new treatment fund—£80 million for the new treatment fund. It's now cut waiting times for new drugs from 90 days, as it was, to just 10 days. And I want to touch on one area where I'd like to see us going more as well. Yes, we have actually brought in over £200 million to deliver the childcare for working parents. We've delivered it in advance of when we said we were going to do it. But, as I keep saying to the Government, if I had my absolute magic wand and money was no object, then I would look at that whole landscape of childcare provision. There's money in here for Flying Start—I recognise that. There's more money for other initiatives with young people. But look at the thing in its entirety, from early years education and childcare provision going through. If I had more money available to me, if we suddenly had more money actually delivered to us going forward in the next few years, then its in those early years and those children and young people that I would want to see it go, beyond the childcare offer but actually into that wider thing.

But we've done some great things within this budget already. We've looked at those key transition years at seven and 11, and we've put additional funding behind those. Now, that's going to make a huge difference, because we know it's not only the Flying Start, it's not only that very early years provision, it's also as they transition then into the school next door, and it's also as they transition up into big school as well, that makes the real difference.

And there are some great things within this as well. On things like—. It won't excite everybody, but I think the concept behind a national forest is quite an astonishingly ambitious one. I would simply say, in driving it forward—and I know the Minister will be very aware of it—we have to comply with that idea of this being the right tree in the right place, so we're not just delivering carbon reductions, we're delivering biodiversity gains at the same time in all the places that we have.

There's so much within this that is good, but I would ask, in closing, a couple of key things. I was disappointed to see Darren completely dismiss out of hand any future whatever for any additional funding within social care within Wales. [Interruption.] No, I find that—. I'll finish my point. You seem to—. I found that a very retrograde step, because we've been waiting on the social care Green Paper in London for such a long time. Are you ruling that out, because it really sounded like that to me?

If I can just make my point abundantly clear to you, because I don't think that you paid close enough attention, I welcomed the additional investment that the Welsh Government is making in social care, but I made it clear that my party wanted to know whether the Welsh Government was going to introduce a social care tax here in Wales. It's not something that we would advocate, and we certainly won't go into the next Assembly elections advocating it. If you want to do so, we'd appreciate some clarity on that. We've had no clarity from you, so give us some clarity.

Well, once again—. Llywydd, I can see I'm over time. Once again, I'm really genuinely disappointed, because the failure to move forward—[Interruption.] 

Allow him to carry on, Darren Millar, please.

Because the failure of successive Governments, but including the current Conservative Government, to be able to deliver a consensus in Westminster means that we are going to have to take imaginative, creative and difficult decisions about how we fund not just health, but health and social care together. One of the decisions, Darren, we will have to make as responsible grown-up statespeople is whether we think there is sufficient money in the system in order to give the terms and conditions that people deserve on the front line in order to deliver affordable and quality social care. Now, if you're not willing to have that discussion, then I'm afraid—[Interruption.] Then I'm afraid you are writing off generations of people.

I don't believe it's necessary to raise taxes to do it.

So, it's a shame that the politics of running up to a next election—[Interruption.] You are doing exactly the same as successive Conservative Governments have done—

You will now need to bring your comments to a close. You have had seven minutes.

Indeed. My apologies, Llywydd. It was an interesting digression. My apologies.

Thank you. I'm moving on to the next speaker.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Angela Burns.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Thank you. The draft budget has announced an increase of more than £400 million into the health and social care budget for 2020-1, which I obviously welcome. Given this means that there is a total investment of some £8.7 billion in health and social care, which is almost half of the Welsh budget, therefore it is even more vital that this money is held properly to account and delivers effective health and social care for the people of Wales.

However, I have to say that accountability has never been the Welsh Government's strong suit. Despite the Government stating that it will focus on social care and mental health in the 2020-1 budget, there is next to non-existent detail as to how the budget will support and improve the day-to-day running of the NHS.

Minister, in the 2020-1 draft budget's narrative, the Welsh Labour Government claims that

'Investing in our NHS and social services is at the heart of our spending plans',

outlining that £37 billion has been invested since 2016. Yet, for all of this investment, the latest figures show the worst-performing A&E waiting times on record for the second month in a row; some 23,000 patients waited for more than four hours in November 2019 and nearly 6,000 waited for more than 12 hours; the Welsh ambulance service's response target for red calls was not met; and Wales has not met its target for 95 per cent of patients diagnosed with cancer to start treatment within 62 days since 2008. Yes, 2008, Minister. I have to ask: are the recently merged urgent and non-urgent cancer pathways into just one 62-day target an exercise in smoke and mirrors? The 95 per cent target of patients waiting fewer than 26 weeks for referral to treatment hasn't been met and this is the worst since September 2017. Four out of the seven health boards in Wales are in special measures or targeted intervention—the highest level of Welsh Government intervention possible. And Betsi Cadwaladr services have continuously been in some form of special measures for more than four and a half years—longer than any other health board in the UK, and it's set to continue being in special measures for at least the medium term. And we had the Cwm Taf experience, which I won't touch on any further.

So, Minister, Betsi Cadwaladr has received nearly £83 million from the Welsh Government for intervention and improvement support and many millions in other areas. How will you ensure that further moneys deliver the changes the patients of north Wales desperately need? Will the budget simply be used to mop up the projected deficit of £35 million in this financial year? Will it just be spent on more £2,000-a-day consultants? We'd love to hear what you have to say about how this money in the budget can support Betsi Cadwaladr.

Workforce shortages, Minister, are also endemic within the health service. Whilst the health Minister is now acting, it is in a limited way. We are in a crisis. The Royal College of Nursing has outlined that there are severe gaps in the nursing workforce, noting that every week nurses in Wales give the NHS extra hours to the value of 976 full-time nurses. That's a shocking statistic. NHS Wales spent £63.8 million last year on agency nursing—a substantial rise of 24 per cent. Whilst the health Minister recently announced more training places for nurses, it's going to fall well short of what we need and it doesn't touch on paediatric nurses, district nurses, learning disability nurses, and neither does it touch on the chronic shortage we have in allied healthcare professionals. Given that the entire drive for healthcare delivery in Wales is about community-based services, what we need are more physios, occupational therapists, chronic care managers and the rest of it. I've no idea of how this budget is going to support that.

So, Minister, can you please outline to us how you will ensure the budget supports that workforce planning, and ensures we're not only recruiting the staff we need today, but also training the appropriate numbers for tomorrow? I have to say it would be remiss of me to not highlight that 42 per cent of GPs say it is financially unsustainable to run a practice. When asked why running a practice is unsustainable, 82 per cent of GPs said, 'Insufficient core funding'. Minister, can you tell me how this budget is going to support the GPs? Because we cannot afford to lose any of them.

Now, for the usual barracking from the back benches, I have actually got a very long list, which I'm exceptionally happy to share—at another time, as I'm running out of time—with the health Minister, of what the Welsh Conservatives would do. We have a very long and clear list of how we would support our NHS and our social services.

I would like to end just on one very quick note, about social care. It is one of the greatest challenges that we face. We have a very clear answer as to how we can do it. It may not be the same as the way you think we should fund and manage social services, but we do have a plan and it's very clearly laid out in the Conservative manifesto. So, rather than just shout and scream and say that we have no idea, and we haven't got a plan, may I please send to your office, Mr Irranca-Davies, a copy of our manifesto? And hopefully, it will illuminate you.

I certainly won't take the Chamber's time by reiterating points that people have made, but I'd like to expand on them, and I think I need to begin by saying that there is much in Welsh Government policy that is incredibly difficult to actually disagree with. We certainly don't disagree with commitments around climate change, and we certainly don't disagree with the policies around prudent healthcare, but I was always brought up to look not at what people said but at what they did. And there is that saying in Welsh, is there not, 'Diwedd y gân yw'r geiniog'/'At the end of any song, there has to be the penny'? And what is frustrating, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has already set out, is the extent to which we have a Government that can sometimes come up with policy that sounds innovative, but then doesn't do the most basic things to make that policy happen. I want to say a little bit more to expand on what Rhun has said, and in some senses to support what Angela Burns has just said about the health and social care budget.

It is a clichéd definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect to get a different result. Now, nobody is going to complain about additional spending on health, but unless we break down the silos between health and social care, those pressures will come on again and again and again. I'm sure it is not a surprise to the Welsh Government that winter comes every year, and every year we find ourselves, one way or another—sometimes it's one health board, sometimes it's another—with a real crisis. This is what we've got in Hywel Dda. We've just had the press release today saying that they are continuing to postpone non-essential operations. Now, if we just keep piling more resources into the health budget itself—and I can see why that's tempting to the Government, because of course that's a budget that they control; well, should control—if we keep doing that, we are not going to change the fundamental problems. We have done some research in Plaid Cymru into this, and for £470 million a year, which sounds like a lot of money, but out of an £8 billion health budget it's peanuts, we could provide free social care in this country to everybody who needs it. Now, would that not be a step to freeing up that problem that we have where people are not able to go into the care settings that they need? [Interruption.] I will very happily take an intervention.

Thank you for that, Helen Mary. I think that that sounds like a very interesting comment that you've just made, and I would be very interested in discussing that further with you, because we do need to find a solution to this. You've got one way of resolving this issue, we've come up with another way, I'm sure that Labour—somewhere—have got another way, and maybe that's something that we can all come together to discuss.

Well, of course, we were told by the health and social services Minister that we would be hearing from him about his long-term social care plans back in the autumn. I may lack a grasp of the Welsh language, but I don't think that January is in the autumn. But, where I would agree with Angela Burns—and I think, probably, we'd have agreement across the Chamber—is that we do need to solve this problem long term, and that we will best do that if we can talk to each other and, very importantly, listen to each other, listen to the people who are providing services, and listen to the families who need them.

But, of course, as Rhun has said, in terms of preventing people from getting ill in the first place, the place to spend the money is not in the health service, and it becomes a vicious circle. If we don't spend sufficiently on housing, if we don't spend sufficiently on the right bits of education, if we don't change education policy to make it compulsory, as the committee recommended, for primary school children, for example, to do a certain number of hours of exercise every day, every week, we will still keep finding people with the diabetes problems, with all the other health problems. So, we have to take a radical look at how our money is spent.

Now, I am not suggesting for a moment, Llywydd, that this is easy. It's one of the most difficult things in the world to make money follow policy; everybody knows that. But, as Rhun has already said, this is an opportunity where there's a little bit of a breathing space. How sustainable that breathing space is going to be, we don't yet know, but it is really, really disappointing that we don't know across portfolios how key priorities are going to be delivered.

I want to specifically ask the Minister today how all of the policies across all portfolios were proofed against the sustainability goals, not with what I think was referred to as 'guidance'. This is law. This is what is supposed to drive all policy. And I'm trying not to be skeptical about what ought to be a groundbreaking piece of legislation, but unless when we pass that groundbreaking legislation the funding then follows, we're going to be in trouble.

What impact has been made? What child rights impact assessment has been made in this budget across portfolio? There is some welcome additional funding directly for children and young people, of course that's good news, but have we checked how the economic development spend is going to influence children and young people? Have we checked how transport spending is going to influence children and young people at a time when we know that we've got young people struggling to get appropriate transport to school in some of our communities?

This is disappointing. This is a missed opportunity. But, please, let's not have any more of these. The Government has sometimes the right ideas. What they seem to lack is the guts to put them into practice. 

We've had confirmed by the Conservative Westminster Government that austerity was a political  not an economic policy. We're seeing real growth in the money available for the Welsh budget whilst the British economy continues to stagnate. The real-terms growth in money available has got to be welcomed. I think that any real-growth increase has got to be welcomed. It would be churlish not to.

I'm disappointed that neither the Conservatives nor Plaid Cymru have produced an alternative budget, not just highlighting their priorities, because we've had a lot of priorities—[Interruption.]

Have you produced your alternative?

I could give you an alternative. I'll give you an alternative: I'd take money out of the economy budget and I'd put it into the environment budget and I'd put it into the education budget. I'm only asking you to do top-line changes. But, I think, where you would take money off—. Because you have to take money off somewhere to put it in somewhere else.

Can I start off with a request that's very easy? Can we have the £1 million return for over-60s free swimming? I am told this followed an independent review that recommended it. Can the Government now accept the independent review into free over-60s swimming was wrong and reinstate the money? The belief in the infallibility of independent reviews and inspectors is to me incredibly worrying—that these people are not infallible. This is money that is really useful in that it gets people out and exercising—the over-60s—and keeps them out of hospital.

I welcome the real-terms growth in the health and social services budget, but I fear that if it's given to health boards, which vary from at best dysfunctional to at worst failing, then we'll see very little improvement in health performance despite the real-terms growth in expenditure. Some health problems are well known: an undervalued, underfunded, and in some cases underperforming primary healthcare service. A&E is a default rather than the GP far too often when people are taken ill, sometimes recommended by the GP, some of whom will not provide emergency appointments, including to very young children and babies. Unless primary care is adequately funded and all primary care provided to an acceptable standard, then A&E queues will continue to grow. 

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly. 

Thank you. Very grateful. So, would you therefore agree with me that we should use the budgeting process to ensure that some of those resources come out of some aspects of secondary care when we can and to put that directly into primary care? And would you agree with me that we clearly can't trust the health boards to do that by themselves? 

Yes, I would, and, yes, I said exactly the same thing last year and the year before. So, welcome.

An example of a large organisation not working effectively is the Welsh ambulance service. This desperately needs to be run on a series of much smaller footprints.

We've got long orthopaedic waiting lists, and these need addressing. I've got someone who's been waiting between four and eight years, depending on which list you look at, to have a shoulder operation.

Can I just—will you take an intervention?

Yes.

There was a report, of course, an independent report into the Welsh ambulance service a number of years ago that recommended splitting the ambulance service up between emergency transport and routine transport to hospitals. It was welcomed on all sides of this Chamber, but no progress has been made, actually—[Interruption.] No progress has been made. It was supposed to be split completely. That was what this Assembly agreed and that's what the Government's policy was at the time. Do you regret that that isn't the case?

Well, I'm not sure that splitting it would actually be particularly beneficial. I think that actually having it under the control of hospitals so they are responsible for the ambulances waiting outside, rather than it being somebody else's responsibility—it makes no sense whatsoever. The ambulances are waiting outside, and it's not in the health board's interest to get the people out because they're not responsible for it.

Individual hospital management and consultants need greater control over what they do. Social services needs additional funding to speed up hospital discharges. Money needs to go to the hospitals, not to management consultants.

On the economy, what we should have understood by now is that offering large financial incentives to companies to move branch factories to Wales does not work in the long term. If you must give financial incentives better than anywhere else—they don't want to come here, and they will leave when they get a better offer from countries like Hungary.

The best expenditure to grow the economy is educational expenditure. Companies come in because of the quality of their employees, and education is the way of growing it. How much do you think California is offering companies to go to California to grow? They don't. How much is Cambridge having to offer? They don't. If you've got the quality of education, you don't need to try and bribe companies to come in.

On the environment, the Welsh Government has called a climate change emergency and they're giving the smallest real-terms revenue increase to the environment portfolio. If the climate and climate change is a priority, then additional real-terms funding of the environment portfolio should be a priority.

Can I just try and finish off on income tax? It's not going to increase. Scotland didn't increase it, with all the opportunities they had, when they could move it up by plus or minus 3 per cent. I would guarantee that, in 10 years' time, no-one will change it one way or the other. If you take 1 per cent off, you lose £200 million, approximately. If you add 1 per cent, you gain £200 million, which is not going to make a substantial difference, but will annoy a lot of people.

This may, of course, be a one-off real-terms growth budget. As we leave the European Union, we will find out who is correct. Will leaving the European Union cause our currency and our economy to grow, or will it cause them to shrink? We're going to find out this time next year which one's right. 

The increase in the draft local government revenue settlement 2020-21 is welcomed, made possible, of course, by the UK Government's prudent economic management since 2010, when the UK budget deficit was the worst in the G20, behind only Ireland and Greece in the EU. If the UK Government had instead grown the big deficit it inherited, someone else would have owned the UK economy and required bigger cuts.

Last month, I again challenged the local government Minister here over the Welsh Government's local government funding formula, noting that, under this, nine out of 22 Welsh authorities received an increase in the current financial year, with Cardiff up 0.9 per cent and Swansea up 0.5 per cent, but Wrexham down 0.1 per cent, and Flintshire down 0.3 per cent, despite each having equivalent population increases.

Alongside Flintshire, the councils with the largest cuts of 0.3 per cent included Conwy and Anglesey, although Conwy and Anglesey are amongst the five local authorities in Wales where 30 per cent or more of workers are paid less than the voluntary living wage. Prosperity levels per head in Anglesey are the lowest in Wales, at just under half those in Cardiff, and Conwy council has the highest proportion of over-65s in Wales at 25 per cent, compared to Cardiff on 13 per cent, which has the smallest. It is great that more of us are living longer—I'm in my 60s—but this adds to cost pressures in those counties with higher populations of older people.

In her reply, the Minister again stated:

'The splitting up of that pot is done via the democratic processes of the WLGA.'

How does the finance Minister therefore respond to the statement made by the WLGA to Wrexham.com that:

'The WLGA does not play a role in deciding the settlement nor does it have full details of the settlement or authorities' allocations until it is published'?

Lo and behold, four of the—. Mike, yes, certainly, Mr Hedges.

Two quick points. Will you agree with me that what we should be seeing is the Welsh Government publishing the calculations so that we can all actually see how you get to those numbers? If those were published, then we'd see who was right and who was wrong.

The second point I would like to make, and I hope you would agree with me, is that the amount of money the Welsh Government gives—. It used to be called the 'rate support grant', it was the money that was given out to support local authorities after their rates were taken into account. And we know that Monmouth has an average band—a median band property in Monmouth is band D, and in Blaenau Gwent, it is band A.

I've always found that actually, the Welsh Government and WLGA have been perfectly willing to share those briefings on those calculations. The problem at core isn't the way the calculations are done, because I accept they're done correctly; it's the formula, which is now nearly two decades old and needs reviewing.

And, lo and behold, four of the five authorities to see the largest increase in 2020-21 are Labour-run councils in south Wales. The Vale of Glamorgan, previously Conservative-run, has gone from a 0.1 per cent decrease this year to one of the highest increases, at 4.9 per cent, now it's run by Labour. However, four of the five bottom authorities in terms of funding increases are again the same authorities in north Wales.

Compared with a top increase of 5.4 per cent in Labour-run Newport, Conwy is twenty-first out of 22, with a 3.4 per cent increase; Wrexham, twentieth, with 3.5 per cent; Flintshire, nineteenth, with 3.7 per cent; and Anglesey, eighteenth, with 3.8 per cent; while Conservative-led Monmouthshire is again bottom, with a 3 per cent increase. This massive distortion in funding will disadvantage the worst-funded councils when seeking to tackle the funding pressures recently identified by the WLGA. So, how does the Minister respond to the letter sent to her in October by Flintshire County Council, signed by its leader and the leaders of all groups, which said,

'Flintshire has engaged with Welsh Government to make our case over a series of budget-setting years. We still contend that as a low-funded council per capita under the Local Government Funding Formula we are more exposed than most',

adding

'We would welcome a private discussion with you over our case for support'?

How does the Minister respond to the statement by the leader of Monmouthshire that,

'I am disappointed with this settlement. The UK Government gave sufficient resource to the Welsh Government to do significantly better than this and they have failed local government in Wales again. Furthermore,'

he said,

'we yet again see massive distortions in the funding received by some councils in comparison to others. A differential between 3% and 5.4% is ridiculous in current times. Something needs to be done to address this variation'?

How does the Minister respond to the statement by the leader of Conwy council that,

'I am disappointed that yet again Conwy and North Wales is not receiving its fair share of funding'?

How does she respond to the constituent who wrote asking how Wrexham having the third lowest increase in Wales can be justified when Wrexham has

'three of the four wards with the highest poverty rates in Wales'?

How does she respond to the statement by the leader of Wrexham that,

'I am furious with the settlement from the Welsh government, it’s a disgrace the way Wrexham is being treated receiving crumbs from the table once again'?

And, finally, will the Welsh Labour manifesto for 2021 include the commitment that will be in the Welsh Conservative manifesto to an independent review of the local government funding formula to ensure that all local authorities are provided with a fair settlement that provides the sustainable resources they need within the pot available?

As the Member who leads on local government for Plaid Cymru, I'm very pleased to take part in this debate this afternoon.

We're all aware of the pressure facing local government services and the financial pressures that are increasing, and these were clear back in the days when I used to be a county councillor in the City and County of Swansea, and pressures are worsening and budgets are becoming even more tight. It's true to say that there is additional funding for local government in this draft budget, but it's insufficient to respond to the increasing demands for local government services, as Rhun and Helen have already mentioned. There is so much mention made of preventative services, and it’s in local government that a number of those services are placed, for example, environmental health, housing, education and, of course, social care.

Yesterday, as we've already heard, we heard about the challenges facing the health service in Hywel Dda with winter pressures meaning cancelling treatments that aren't emergency treatments. And indeed, winter after winter, if not year after year, a vast percentage of patients on our acute hospital wards are only there waiting for social care arrangements to be made. They're healthy enough to leave hospital but they can't leave. Six hundred pounds a day is the cost to be in a bed in a hospital. Six hundred pounds per week is the cost to be in a residential home. When close to have the patients on some wards today—. On some wards in Wales, almost half of the patients are healthy enough to leave those hospitals on a medical basis. That situation is appalling. We need to take steps now to change the situation—a step change is needed now. These people are in our hospitals and they shouldn't be there. The arrangements should be made for them. We need to make that step change now.

As well as the lack of beds and the lack of staff, those are the perennial problems that still pose challenges. As others have said, we've been dealing with these issues and we've been discussing them year after year. We need to step up to the plate and take action, as Helen Mary Jones said. So, bearing in mind all of the funding going into social care at the moment, but into a system that is failing and is piecemeal in nature, with patients still suffering, and indeed dying prematurely, a care system that is expensive and complex, with care staff on short-term contracts and zero-hours contracts, and with a lack of training and so on—we all know about these issues—isn't it time to have a radical scheme, a new plan, and have a social care service for Wales that is funded from general taxation, exactly like our national health service, and working in partnership with that service and funded from general taxation, a national care service for Wales, exactly like our national health service? Thank you very much.

Like others in this debate this afternoon, I want to give a welcome to the budget and the commitment that's running through the budget to providing the funding that is available to public services. I want to particularly welcome the £8 million additional funding for additional learning needs. It's something that I've spoken about on a number of occasions. The £20 million we allocated to additional learning needs in delivering the reform agenda, the transformational agenda, is not sufficient at present, given the time taken to deliver this reform. So, it is right and proper that there is money provided for additional learning needs education and it is right and proper that that money is ring-fenced for additional learning needs. And I welcome that very much. 

I also welcome the more general support for funding for education. We had an excellent debate, I felt, here some weeks ago, some months ago, on how we fund our schools and I'm glad that the Government and the Minister have ensured that there is additional support for education as part of this budget.

I also welcome the funding for climate policy. We've seen dramatically and tragically recently the impact of climate on people and our planet. I think it's right and proper that we do ensure that we do provide for climate policy within the budget.

Can I say, I regret very much the tone of Conservative interventions in this debate on the funding for local government? It's right and proper that we debate and discuss funding for local government and it is right and proper that we have a debate about whether the formula is sufficient and actually delivers the funding that it requires. It's right and proper that we have that debate. But both in the opening Conservative contribution and the more recent one, there was an allegation or an insinuation that funding is somehow fixed to go to one part of the country rather than another part of the country, that people in north Wales are pitted against people in south Wales or elsewhere. I regret that very greatly.

I think you'll find that, if you look at the average funding settlements over the past 20 years, the evidence is pretty clear in terms of which areas tend to get the larger increases or smaller reductions in the revenue support grant versus those that don't. It's for the Welsh Government to explain, but would you agree with me that one thing that we do need to try to bring, in order to have confidence in the local government funding formula, is that the Welsh Government should initiate an independent commission in order to look at this formula to get it right and fit for the future?

I've heard Conservative Members here over the years making this point and Conservative councillors telling us not to touch it— [Interruption.] The fundamental point—[Interruption.] The fundamental point I make, though, is a different one—that is, the destructive way in which the debate was framed. It's north against south, east against west, rural against urban. Blaenau Gwent was eighteenth, I think, in the current range of funding. It's never been first, it's never been top, but I've never, ever made an allegation of the sort that's been made from the Conservative benches this afternoon, and I would invite Conservative Members to reconsider their tone and approach to that debate.

Can I also say that I do regret that the Government is not finding the funding to support the continuation of bus subsidy at current levels? We heard at Finance Committee that there is going to be a cut in the subsidy available to provide for bus services. I will say very gently to the finance Minister that it's all very well to deliver electric buses for some of us, but if we haven't got any buses at all, quite frankly that's not very much of a commitment. So we do need to see—. And if the Government is able to look at the budget during this process, and to ensure that there is an increase in the subsidy available for bus services, that would be very much appreciated.

But the fundamental point I want to make, rather than simply looking at budget lines, is this: we have seen here not quite Theresa May's words become reality—that austerity's over—but we've seen a loosening of purse strings and we've seen additional funding for public services. I regret that we're not also seeing the radical reform of public services to ensure that that money is well spent. The debate we had on education funding wasn't simply about the amount of funding, but the complexity of the structure of that funding leaving this place and arriving in the classroom. There's no purpose at all in increasing the quantum of funding available if the system remains so complex as to ensure that teachers and others aren't able to access that amount of funding. So we don't simply need to increase the funding available in the traditional, old-fashioned way, but we also need to reform the way in which we operate our public services, and this is more important today than it has been in the past, because when you read the budget documentation, whether it's the chief economist's report, the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis, or even the Welsh Government's own tax policy report, the word that comes at you time and time again is 'uncertainty'—uncertainty about tax revenues, uncertainty about the tax base, uncertainty about future funding levels, uncertainty about future economic performance, uncertainty about our ability to both deliver the funding required and raise the funding that we need.

In a position where you have future uncertainty, where you have resources available, it is my view that the Government should have been far, far more radical in what it is producing today. It was the Conservative approach to simply increase all budgets by a fair degree, which we all welcome in the short term, but the radical budget would have been a budget for reform, a budget that would have ensured that our public services don't just receive the funding they require to survive next year and this year, but are in a fit state to survive in the long term. I agree very much with the point that Huw Irranca made earlier in this debate about the squeeze being faced by local government, but if we continue to fund the health service at current levels, as we all commit on all sides of this Chamber to do, then all other services will suffer as a consequence of that single decision.

You will need to bring your contribution to a close now.

And I will do so, Presiding Officer. You are very gentle and very sympathetic to me, I agree.

Don't push me. [Laughter.]

I ask the Government, in closing, to not only deliver the funding levels, but deliver the radical reform that a Labour Government should be doing to ensure that we have public services fit for the future.

This has been a fascinating debate. I hope the Minister is listening to this and bearing in mind that it's a debate on a statement and we're all looking forward to hearing some answers to questions in your response to this debate.

And I think the first of those questions I'm going to steal from Helen Mary, which is 'how?' And, unfortunately, Alun Davies has nicked all my thunder here because I want to talk about school funding, because I want to know how you intend to see that any increase in the budget reaches schools in Wales, something which, actually, needs immediate attention this year and can't afford to wait for the results of the Sibieta review. Because in the last decade—and we can argue about the amounts on this—Wales has seen a sustained decade of lower spending per pupil than in England. It's had effects.

We're in this position at the moment where we have a lower number of teachers hoping to train here in Wales. We've had a bigger drop in numbers of teachers than in other parts of the UK, and I see nothing in this budget about how to attract additional teachers. There is money in there; we're talking about CPD and how to get existing teachers ready for the new curriculum, but it doesn't say anything about we're going to increase the number of teachers. It doesn't say anything about how to improve teaching resources. The lack of those was noted in the PISA comments—sorry, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on PISA. It actually made a point that there's an issue in Wales about teaching resources, and I didn't see anything either, although obviously I could have missed it, about how schools who are not seeking twenty-first century school funding for brand-new schools, how on earth they're going to be able to afford just to carry on the day-to-day maintenance of the schools that they have when that's one of their major sources of complaints. And it goes back to a point that Mike Hedges made earlier about prevention. Oh, you're trying to take—

I've got a quick intervention. Of course, you know the money that local authorities hold, some of that is for some of these major repairs. If I talk about Plasmarl school in your region and my constituency, they've had a new roof, and they've had full electrical rewiring. So, that's what the money held centrally is partly used for, and it is what you've just asked for. 

But, of course, not all councils have that money, to that amount, held centrally.  I'm very pleased for Plasmarl school, actually, and I'm going to come on to the indicator based assessments here in a minute. Because the point that did impress me in your earlier comments was about prevention. And, of course, schools are not just about academic education; they're community builders. To me, they're one of the great preventative services, and as Mike himself mentioned there, if we educate our children in a way that we would all want to see, I think, they ought to become the engines of our economy as well.

As we've heard, the UK education secretary has committed this £14 billion for schools in England. It's over a period of time, for which there will be a consequential of £2.4 billion to be spent as you wish in due course, Trefnydd. That's on top, of course, of the £135 million education consequential from this year's spending review, again to be spent as you wish. And I make this distinction between the education budgets and school funding, because you will say, and I'm sure you will to say to me, that the education budget has been protected, more money has gone into it, and I'd be the first to acknowledge and welcome the additional money going into those departmental expenditure limits, but that is very different from saying that school budgets are being protected. They come, as we know, from local government. Local government's had an uplift this year as well, but as Huw Irranca Davies mentioned earlier, they have taken a real hammering over the last few years, and because of the obscurity of the funding formulas for schools, which Alun Davies referred to, it's been virtually impossible to understand how this can be repaired very, very quickly.

I think we all have to acknowledge as well that, this year, more than any year, we've seen councils, teachers, school leaders, you name it, speak in numbers and with one voice in a way that we haven't heard before. They need the money, and even though the school IBA figures used in this year have gone up, and I'm going to welcome that in principle, we all know that those are just indicators. There is no obligation on local authorities to spend that money on giving that money directly to schools, at all. And to nick your metaphor, Huw Irranca Davies, some schools don't have the opportunity to start turning taps on, and that needs to be fixed yet.

So, if we're going to be talking about something radical here, if you're resistant to the direct funding of schools, Trefnydd, how will this budget guarantee meaningful growth in core school funding, and actually, not least for children with additional learning needs, because the money that was coming your way was £35 million for that, and £8 million to £9 million is not a fair reflection of the money that you're getting for additional learning needs?

I just want to finish very, very quickly and pick up on something that Rhun mentioned: a very flat settlement, if you like, for the Welsh language, and some very vague comments in behind that. I would really like to know if there's actually going to be extra money for Cymraeg i Oedolion this year and whether the extra money for apprenticeships, which is to be welcomed, includes the work of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol in apprenticeships, or is that from a different budget. And—I'm not going to have time to get a proper answer on this, I know—what exactly is the comisiynydd's budget going to be, particularly as it seems that the requirements of their office are going to be quite different from what they had previously? Diolch.

I contribute to this debate in my role as my party's spokesperson on the environment. And, as some people have already suggested, there is a feeling of business as usual to this budget. And that is disappointing, particularly given the declaration of a climate emergency. As you've already heard, we would expect transformation in the way that the Government is using its budget to address that emergency. But let's be honest, if you were to look at this budget, and compare it to last year's budget, do you see any fundamental difference, any real difference? Is there anything in this draft budget that gives a clear signal that there has been a fundamental shift towards tackling the climate emergency in terms of the Government's priorities? And if you can't identify that fundamental difference, then it does bring to question the credibility of that declaration of a climate emergency, and, indeed, how serious this Government is in tackling the greatest challenge facing humanity today.

Now, of course, there are some items of individual expenditure that are to be welcomed, and I wouldn't fail to welcome any additional funding, but it's not to the extent that we would have hoped for. This £140 million of capital funding for decarbonisation has been referred to—it's not the only item, there are others. One hundred and forty million pounds is to be welcomed of course, but let's remind ourselves that this Government spent £100 million on preparations for the M4 relief road that will never happen. That puts that figure in its context, in my view.

Now, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales presented a 10-point plan last year to highlight where we needed to prioritise expenditure. And she talked about transport, housing, land use, and renewable energy. We have a hydro sector that is still waiting to hear from Government if there is going to be rate relief continuing for the next financial year, although, of course, they have made it clear that that would mean, without that change, many of those hydro businesses would be unsustainable. Now, the standards commissioner, sorry, the Future Generations Commissioner—there are too many commissioners, I fear— has outlined £5 billion over 15 years for retrofitting. That's a huge sum, but over 15 years it's a lot more affordable. But that isn't one-way expenditure, because it is spend to save, it creates growth. We can see how, according to the commissioner, Welsh GVA would increase by £2.2. billion by making that investment. It would save £350 per year for the ordinary family’s bills. It would also save more than £70 million a year for our health service in Wales, because it would help us in tackling some of the health problems facing people in Wales. So, we are talking here about the economic, the environmental and the social, and that’s the holy grail in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. But four years after passing that legislation, we are still waiting to see that shift happening in the way that the Welsh Government draws up and prioritises its budget.

And as a Member representing north Wales, I saw in the narrative of the budget that there is a reference to £200 million capital for the south Wales metro and the north Wales metro. But I see that £20 million of that—just 10 per cent of that—will come to north Wales. Now, I assume the Government—certainly after the general election—will be aware that there is an expectation among constituents in north Wales that they should see the investment and the job creation that they deserve, not necessarily the investment that they've seen in the past. I would call on the Government to scrutinise its budget carefully in that context, in order to ensure equity in terms of investment across Wales.

And I'll just close, if I may—like others, I was disappointed at some of the opening remarks from Conservative contributions to this debate. You're more than happy to rock up here today and take the plaudits for any increases in budgets; of course, we couldn't see you for dust when it was about taking the blame for cuts. You have the audacity to tell us here, in this Chamber, that we've never had it so good. I don't remember you coming here two or three years ago, or indeed during any of the previous 10 years of the Conservative UK Government, telling us that we've never had it so bad.

I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention. Will you take the opportunity—

Well, I've finished.

That's more than an attempt to take an intervention—

Well, that was very uncharitable of you.

No, it wasn't uncharitable. Llyr Gruffydd had been succinct in his contribution, and I'm particularly grateful for that. We have three remaining speakers and I'll call you all, and I urge you all to be as succinct as Llyr Gruffydd. Joyce Watson.

I will be succinct, and I will carry on in the same vein. I want to welcome two particular areas that will have a significant impact on women's lives. Because we know over the years that, with the Tory 10-year austerity—. And I refuse to call it 'austerity': it was a political choice to not invest in people's lives. That's what it was. Let's call it out for what it was. So, for those 10 years, women suffered significantly from that choice.

One of the areas that we are investing in, improving women's lives, is the £3.1 million towards period dignity for free period products in schools and further education, which will allow 140,000 pupils and 53,000 students to access free products. This is unthinkable, that we have to invest Government money, which we do quite willingly, and I'm going to make that clear, because of the failure in the system that has been run—the benefits system primarily—by the UK Government and it still is. So, I hope you'll apologise for that.

Another area where we are also investing, which is going to make a huge difference to women's lives is the £40 million childcare offer for Wales. It is the best in the UK. I know that some other people are carers, and I know there are male carers as well, but 30 hours of early education or childcare for children of working parents does help those parents to go back to work.

I know that some people would like to see improvements on that—we all would. But let's be clear: we made a choice, with the limited funds that we had, to invest in that to make sure that parents had an opportunity to go back to work so that they could, if they were taking up 20 hours of free childcare, have £90 at their disposal, in their pockets, to spend in their households so that they could at least try to negate some of the cuts that have been visited on those households by the 10 years of political choice not to invest in their families.

So, my question to the Minister is this: can you assure us that, moving forward, we will retain the best childcare offer within the UK, that we will fund that because it is the best route? When parents are working, it is the best route that the children have to ensure that they can come out of poverty.

I'd like to ask two very specific questions to the Minister—questions that I've asked many times in this Chamber and I've even had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in order to try and get answers to these questions, still to no avail. I have not received answers yet. But what I have asked on numerous occasions in the past is: how much has been allocated for improvements and job creation and economic development in the Valleys as part of the Valleys taskforce? 

I've also specifically asked how much and what type of investment we can expect to see in the Rhondda, over and above what you're already investing everywhere in buses, in empty homes and so on. Previous answers have mentioned expenditure planned for other parts of Rhondda Cynon Taf, but not the Rhondda. So, my questions are clear and specific and I'd be really grateful if I could have clear and specific answers this time. How much new money is the Valleys taskforce getting, and how much new money is the Rhondda—not Pontypridd, not Llantrisant, not Aberdare, not Mountain Ash, not even Blaenau Gwent—but how much money can we expect to be invested in the Rhondda as part of the work of the Valleys taskforce from this budget, and what can we expect to see as a result?

I think there's a lot to welcome in the Welsh Government's draft budget and I applaud Ministers for their commitment to invest in the public services that we rely on and indeed in the very future of our nation, and that's despite, of course, as other Members have referred to, Welsh budget is still feeling the consequences, very much so, of the impact of a decade of Westminster's ideologically driven and unnecessary austerity measures.

I just want to talk about one aspect of the budget that I know will be welcomed on high streets and towns and villages throughout the Cynon Valley, and that's the commitment to extend the Welsh Government's enhanced high streets and retail rates relief scheme for a further year. This support for retailers in Wales with a rateable value of up to £50,000 is a real benefit to the small businesses that I know are the backbone of the local economy in my constituency, and I'm sure it's the same in other constituencies up and down Wales. That's shops and retail units, but also the cafes, pubs and restaurants that lead to a thriving town-centre environment and that real community feel as well. We know that this intervention, backed by additional funding, means that over 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses in 2020-1 will receive help towards their rates. And importantly, I think, for businesses with a rateable value of up to £9,100, it means that their rates bills will be reduced to zero for retail properties. Higher values will receive a lifeline of up to £2,500, and that is, of course, in addition to the Welsh Government's permanent small business rates relief scheme.

Similarly, I think the additional discretionary rates relief allocated to local authorities to deal with specific local needs is really important, and it shows the Welsh Government's commitment to empower local government too. I welcome the Minister's announcement that she will double the money allocated to this strand of the package.

I think it's also important to remember that, combined, the Welsh Government's policy means that a higher proportion of small and medium-sized businesses receive support than is the case in England or Scotland. In Wales the scheme currently supports almost 70 per cent of small businesses here, and I think that's something we should be really proud of. The comparative figures for England are just 38 per cent, and 45 per cent for Scotland. All together, what this shows to me is we've got a Welsh Government that's on the side of small business in Wales and it builds on the pre-Christmas Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Order 2019. I'm proud to support the Welsh Government's draft budget today, and I commend the finance Minister for what I think is her first draft budget.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the debate that we've had this afternoon and most of the comments and representations that we've had from colleagues. And as I outlined in my opening statement, this is a budget that's taking place amidst uncertainty and evolving circumstances, and it's also a budget set in the long shadow cast by a decade of imposed austerity by the UK Government and despite claims austerity isn't yet over. And it's also a budget set with no clarity on our exit from the European Union or a clear picture on the outlook for public spending beyond next year. And we'll also, obviously, need to mange the consequences of the UK budget after we've finalised our spending plans for 2020-1. This really is the challenging backdrop to the debate that we've had today.

I reassure Suzy Davies that I always listen attentively to all contributions during my debates, and I will try and respond to as many of the points that have been raised this afternoon, but, of course, all of my colleagues look forward to attending their subject committees for scrutiny this week and next week, and there'll be opportunities to delve into some further depth on some of these issues as well.

Like Llyr Gruffydd I was really struck by being told by Darren Millar that we've never had it so good. I would love to see Darren Millar say that to the people who turn up at my surgery absolutely destitute and in despair, incredibly stressed and in anxiety with the situations that face them. People are struggling as a result of austerity and welfare reform. Tell that to people who are visiting foodbanks. Tell that to people who are working in the gig economy with zero-hours contracts and not knowing what kind of certainty they can plan on.

The Minister's inviting me to accompany her to her constituency; I'd love to have you accompany me to my constituency to meet patients who have been waiting 12 hours plus for attention in emergency departments, individuals who've been waiting two years for their hip, knee and shoulder operations, and to see the many people in schools who are concerned about the level of disparity between school funding in Wales—in Conwy and in Denbighshire—versus school funding over the border in England. I'd love you to come and explain to them why things are so bad here in Wales compared to over the border.

And I will come on to the issues of health and education as I move through my response to the debate, but I'll start off by saying that Welsh Government is really keen to do what we can to keep money in people's pockets. Some of the measures that we're taking across Government to ensure that we're tackling poverty actually mean that people in certain circumstances could be £2,000 better off in cash just because of the decisions that Welsh Government is taking to support them. Examples in the draft budget include £8.4 million for the pupil deprivation grant access, and that's funding for families to help buy school uniforms and sports kits, equipment for out-of-school-hours trips, and equipment for extra-curricular activities as well, and in the budget we're providing an additional £3.2 million to further extend the scheme to more year groups as a result of the success of that scheme so far. There's £7 million for free school meals in the draft budget, £2.7 million for the school holiday enrichment programme, opportunities for children between the ages of 7 and 11 to be more active, eat healthily, develop friendships, whilst also making the most of the local school facilities in disadvantaged areas during the summer holidays. An additional £1.8 million will be allocated in this draft budget to enable the extension of this programme to up to another 7,600 children, with £1.1 million for the Holiday Hunger Playworks pilot, providing an extension to the work that we're doing on this important agenda. Joyce Watson referred to the important funding of £3.1 million for period dignity; there's another £200,000 for the period poverty scheme as well. There's the work that we're doing to support people into training and employment. Joyce Watson also referred to us having the most generous childcare offer here in Wales, with £60 million in the draft budget for that, and that's an increase of £20 million on last year's funding for this scheme. And we have provided local authorities with the reassurance that, should the demand be even greater than that, we will look to fund any additional demand so that local authorities don't need to be worrying about that.

Would the Minister give way? Could I just say on that, when you actually humanise that story—I speak to constituents in very low-paid working families who, regardless of the criticism of how much further we could go with the childcare offer, tell me that they're £200 or £250 a week better off because they're not now paying for childcare and they've been able to expand their shifts in work as well and bring more money into the household. We don't have control of welfare, but things we can do are making a material difference. The danger, however—and I wonder if she'd agree with me on this—is it's a bit like when we introduced the winter fuel allowance for pensioners. It happens now, it arrives in the cheque, people say, 'Oh, we've always had that', but they only have these things because there's a Labour Government here or in Westminster.

That's absolutely right. All of these things that we're doing to ensure that people keep money in their pockets are political choices that we have made about the way in which we spend our budget, and the kind of draft budgets that we put before this Assembly year on year. So, other examples would be the education maintenance allowance—£30 a week for 16 to 18-year-olds living in low-income households. I hear Rhianon saying 'You won't get that in England', and she's absolutely right there. There's £4.4 million for the Welsh Government grant for further education, so that's up to £1,500 for a full-time course, or £750 for a part-time course for students aged 19 or over, again from those low-income households. And I could go on and on, including things such as the £244 million we're investing in the council tax reduction scheme. The discretionary assistance fund—£12.6 million, providing urgent financial assistance to people who really do find themselves destitute, to be able to buy food, pay for their gas and electricity and buy other essential household items. Again, we're looking to see what we can do always to bolster that particular fund, because we know how important it is to people who apparently have never had it so good.

So, across Welsh Government we can see that there is around £1 billion of funding that is going directly into anti-poverty schemes across all portfolios, and I think that's something that we should all be very proud of, because it does differentiate this as a Labour Government budget as compared to others.

There have been questions as to what we expect to achieve from our additional funding from the NHS. Well, of course, we continue to expect NHS Wales to make progress in reducing waiting times, and ensuring that the focus really is on those people who are currently waiting the longest. I know that NHS organisations are due to submit their budget plans for 2020-1 at the end of January, and we'll be looking for those plans to deliver improved performance for patients next year. And I know that the health Minister looks forward to examining those plans, and he'll then approve or not approve those plans.

Some of the specific things that you can see in our draft budget today in health includes investment from NHS Wales in the major trauma network for south Wales, west Wales and south Powys. And the aim of that major trauma network is to enhance patient outcomes and experience across the entire patient pathway from the point of wounding to recovery, and that network will improve patient outcomes by saving lives and preventing avoidable disability, returning more patients to their families, to work and to education.

We're also investing in new treatments, with £16 million per year being allocated to health boards to support our commitment to invest £80 million over the course of this administration, taking the time that people wait for those treatments from 90 days now just down to 10 days, and I think that's something that we should be very, very proud of.

We're also investing in precision medicine, through genomics and cell and gene therapies, and this approach to diagnosis and treatment will mean that patients will have access to more personalised diagnoses and treatments, with greatly improved outcomes. And, again, there was a question about primary care, and we'll continue to be investing in primary care, increasing the primary care cluster funding in the next financial year by £10 million, and that will be focused on implementing the primary care model for Wales and collaborative working through those primary care clusters.

In 2019-20 we announced an increase of £25 million in the general medical services contract, taking it up to more than £536 million. And in addition, the primary care development fund of over £40 million is supporting the primary care workforce and cluster working. And, of course, there's a really strong emphasis on prevention and early intervention in our draft spending plans, and some of the new spend includes the £5.5 million to support the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy. And there are also a number of really important capital investments as well. So, we're investing over £374 million in the healthcare infrastructure in Wales in 2021, and some of that will support some really major projects. For example, the final construction phases of the Grange hospital in Cwmbran, and the next phase of refurbishment of the Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr, and I think that that's exciting times for the NHS in Wales.

Questions were raised with regard to the local government settlement and how we arrive at the sums of money that local authorities receive. I think any suggestion that there is anything biased about the decisions that are made through the formula are absolutely shameful. There is absolutely no evidence that any authorities, any rural authorities or other types of authorities, are being disadvantaged through the local government funding formula. The core revenue funding we provide to local authorities every year is distributed according to a relative need formula, and that takes account of a wealth of information on the demographic, physical, economic and social characteristics of authorities. But it is a fact that, generally, the allocations to north Wales authorities this year are below the Welsh average, and that is due to the lower relative change in population and the pupil numbers in comparison to the rest of Wales as a whole. Now, that's a feature of the funding formula, and that funding formula has been developed in consultation with local government through the distribution sub-group, and that's a technical working group whose members do include senior local government officers from across Wales. It does include the Welsh Local Government Association and independent experts, to ensure the fair treatment of those different factors. And included within the formula are a number of indicators that account for the varying degrees of population sparsity across authorities, and they use schools as part of the formula. And all of these things are very, very closely overseen by the independent members of the distribution sub-group to ensure that there's no bias, either in favour of or against the interests of any particular authority.

In terms of making the information public, the details of the formula and its application is set out in the background information for the standard spending assessments, and that's commonly known as the Green Book. The Green Book is published annually, and it also includes the formula and calculations that are used to determine the standard spending assessments for each individual service area. It will be published here in Wales after the local government settlement has been published, which is the final publication, which is scheduled for 25 February.

I'm going to be really, really quick now, Llywydd, in addressing some of the issues on school investment. And of course, we are increasing our investment to local authorities, who are the primary way in which money gets through to schools. So, we have £1.8 billion going into education across local authorities and the education MEG. There was some specific questions relating to, for example, the three-year allocation of funding. Well, we're unable to provide the three-year allocation of funding; schools in England have been able to have a three-year settlement, but of course we only have that one-year settlement, so we can't provide the level of reassurance and certainty that we would like to. ALN—really pleased that we've been able to provide additional funding within additional learning needs, and the post-specialist placements funding as well. Both of those have increased, and those don't relate to the ALN transformation programme—that's extra, additional funding on top.

Decarbonisation has been absolutely crucial to our ambitions this year. And what I really want to make clear is that, actually, the additional £96 million, as part of that £140 million of capital expenditure, is just a part of the picture. So, where you'll see most of the exciting things happening, in terms of decarbonisation, they're already happening within portfolios within the rest of the budget. So, you'll see examples through the level of social housing grant that we're making available. All housing now—all social housing—is built to the Welsh housing quality standard. That's part of our decarbonisation agenda, but of course you won't see it in the additional funding. And the same for all of the items in our low-carbon delivery plan, and the work that Ken Skates is leading on through the economic action plan, which is driving sustainable growth and combating climate change. Because that's one of the calls to action for private businesses, which they have to do if they want to access the economic futures fund. And of course it plays a major role in the economic contract as well.

I just want to reassure Members there have been no cuts to the Welsh language budgets, and I know that the Minister will be able to provide further information on that. It's one of those situations where you see money moving between lines within the budget, but the sum doesn't actually add up to a cut, as it were.

So, I think I've already set out our approach to taxes in my opening remarks, and of course you'll have seen it in the documents. There are no secrets on the way, there's nothing that we're hiding, as Darren Millar was suggesting—that we might be introducing new taxes within the year; this isn't going to happen. So, despite all of the challenges that we've discussed, I want to re-emphasise that the investments that we've taken in this budget, and over the term of this Government, have protected our valued public services, and helped us to invest in our priority areas, with a view of supporting our ambitions for a more equal, more prosperous, and a greener Wales. Thank you.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is a statement by the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language— update on trade policy. I call on the Minister to make the statement—Eluned Morgan.

Thank you, Llywydd. As the UK prepares to enter into a new phase of negotiations that could fundamentally alter the Welsh and UK economies for decades to come, trade policy has come to the fore. The general election has made clear that Brexit will happen, and with it the potential for multiple parallel trade negotiations arises. And it's worth noting as well that the general election also saw Welsh Labour's share of the vote exceed that in 2010 and 2015, and all Senedd elections, other than in 2011. So, the Welsh Government still has a clear mandate to speak up for Wales across the UK, particularly on devolved issues.

The Senedd passed a motion in December calling for a formal role for devolved institutions in negotiations on international agreements. The External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee has also published a report providing more detailed recommendations. All of those appear to me to be sensible, and I will respond formally to them in the next month. I'm keen to work closely with the committee to ensure that they remain informed on developments.

Securing a meaningful role in international negotiations is therefore our absolute priority in the coming weeks, as preparations for negotiations ramp up. We want to ensure a clear role for the Welsh Government, so we will need robust mechanisms, not just for us to effectively represent Wales, but for the integrity of the union as well.

We are eager to ensure a clear role for the Welsh Government in all aspects of future trade negotiations. We aim to be constructive partners, and we believe a collective UK position, reflecting and respecting different priorities across all nations of the UK, can only be a source of strength in undertaking complex negotiations with powerful trading partners.

You can be clear that the EU will seek to balance the priorities of all 27 member states, involving them in setting a mandate and informing negotiations. This is part of what makes them formidable negotiators. The UK can equally balance the priorities of the four nations of the UK, and its negotiating hand will then be the stronger for it.

As a United Kingdom, it's essential that we learn lessons from the article 50 negotiating process and avoid repeating the same mistakes made by the previous Secretaries of State. There are two specific aspects that I want to highlight, but there are others. These are: first of all, the need to build consensus, and the second is being open about the trade-offs that are inherent in any trade deal.

Firstly, across the whole of the UK, we must build a shared vision, based on what we want our economy and future trading relationships to look like in future. This vision needs to be based on evidence and engagement with key stakeholders. All nations of the UK need to come together to develop and agree negotiating mandates. And these mandates will balance the interests of all parts of the UK and all parts of society, not just those in England. Scrutiny and debate are an essential part of any democracy and these should be embraced as a mechanism to improve trade policy and build cross-party consensus. This will then avoid subsequent Governments seeking to reopen or renegotiate agreements, when they come into power.

When the UK Government reintroduces the trade Bill, which deals with replicating existing EU trade agreements, we will press the UK Government to preserve the amendments that led to this Senedd giving its consent. But, if they now introduce legislation to provide a basis for the negotiation of new international treaties, we will demand that we too will have a role as devolved institutions, and that that role is then embedded in the new legislation. In the same vein, we will also seek support in the House of Lords to amend the withdrawal agreement Bill to formalise such a role with regard to EU negotiations.

A broad consensus also needs to reflect views of businesses, communities and citizens across the United Kingdom. We should at least match the EU and US by demonstrating transparency and encouraging public debate. We stand ready to work constructively with the UK Government to help build this consensus, and this includes being clear about how to protect our NHS in trade deals.

It's worth pointing out that our trade negotiations with the EU will be unprecedented, as they'll ultimately lead to increasing barriers to trade, rather than removing them. All scenarios envisaged by the Tories lead to increased friction with our closest and most important trading partner. And all the credible evidence shows that the benefits associated with ambitious trade agreements with the US, Australia and New Zealand combined will in no way compensate for the reduction in trade with the EU. We recognise the benefits and opportunities of new trade deals, but our immediate priority must be to minimise the impact of new barriers to trade with the EU.

So, this brings me to the second key issue. We need to be open and transparent about trade-offs associated with each trade deal—the trade-offs between multiple negotiations taking place in parallel. Choices will have to be made, and there will be winners and losers.

Within individual negotiations, we must not to lose sight of the interests of consumers, as well as producers. In some cases, the benefits for consumers of lower prices would outweigh the risks to uncompetitive sectors, for which a phased period of adjustment could be negotiated. In others, the need to sustain jobs and protect employers from predatory practices in other countries will clearly be paramount. We also need to balance our economic interests from our wider responsibilities under the well-being of future generations Act, and we want to ensure that we promote, not undermine, environmental and labour market standards and global action to tackle the climate change emergency.

One clear trade-off between different trade negotiations is the degree to which the UK prioritises a close trading relationship with the EU against an ambitious trade deal with the US. Each will seek alignment with their regulations, such as for food safety. So, continued alignment with the EU could limit the economic cost to the UK and maintain the integrity of the UK internal market. On the other hand, aligning with the US will have a higher economic cost and risks fragmentation of the UK internal market as well as the potential of weakening the union.  

We've been clear that the evidence overwhelmingly points to prioritising our relationship with the EU as our most important trading partner. This reflects a broad consensus amongst businesses and academics. It also recognises the twin realities of an aggressive 'America first' policy: that without a substantive EU trade deal, we'll need to rely on World Trade Organization rules. And there's still a possibility that we could leave the EU with no deal, which will cause unnecessary economic damage across the UK. This will be particularly dangerous at a time when the WTO appellate body for resolving disputes is being undermined by the United States. The self-imposed and unrealistic time constraints from the UK Government only serve to weaken our position in both negotiations.

Within the Welsh Government, we're building new capacity to rise to these new challenges and to identify the new opportunities that will arise. We're bringing together our work on EU negotiations, future trade negotiations with third countries, the development of common frameworks across the UK, and our thinking on the UK internal market. As a small, agile and outward-looking country, we can support the UK Government in helping identify regional impacts of trade policy options and trade-offs. We can draw on our networks across Wales, and make connections across policy areas that are difficult for large Whitehall bureaucracies to identify.

We're going to establish an expert stakeholder advisory group to inform and test our trade priorities for Wales as the negotiations progress. This will ensure that Welsh businesses, civil society and consumers will have a voice, and I'll of course keep the Senedd updated on our work on trade policy.

So, my priorities in the coming weeks will be to make progress on establishing formal intergovernmental machinery and securing a clear role for the Welsh Government in future negotiations. And as a part of this I'll press for transparency in UK trade policy, starting with agreeing negotiating mandates across the UK, and for those to be published. I'll continue to make the case for prioritising our trading relationships with the EU, whilst exploring opportunities for future trade deals that offer opportunities for Welsh businesses and consumers. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you. Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank the Minister for an advance copy of her statement today? I'm a little surprised by the tone of the statement, because, of course, you say you want a close working relationship with the UK Government and yet you do everything that you can to offend them in terms of the things, frankly, that you have just said. 

To start your statement by lauding the Labour Party's performance in the recent general election, when you lost a significant number of seats in Wales, I think many people would find pretty rich, including on your own benches.

You also, of course, made a number of idle threats about what you're going to do if the UK Government don't listen to you. You're going to table amendments in the House of Lords and you'll put the kibosh on this and the kibosh on that, when the reality is that you have very little ability to stop whatever the UK Government wants to do. So, as I said in my contribution in First Minister's questions today, I think it would be far better if you had a team UK approach when it comes to trying to get the best possible deals for Wales when it comes to our future trade arrangements internationally, rather than having this combative approach all the time. Now I'm the first one to say that I'm very combative myself and to acknowledge—[Interruption.]—and to acknowledge my shortcomings in that respect. However, I do think that when it comes to intergovernmental relationships it's very, very important to get off on the right step. We have a new UK Government, we have a new Secretary of State for Wales and a new Wales Office Minister as well, and I think, frankly, it would be far better if the Welsh Government was making warmer noises in respect of that relationship, going forward.

You also, of course, seem to still be harking back to pre-general election debates—the same old shroud waving about the damage that Brexit is going to do to the Welsh economy. Now, it's up to you whether you want to keep that scratched record on the table, still going around and around, but, again, I'm not quite sure that's helpful. I think the people of Wales and the people of the UK have moved on, frankly—they want to get Brexit done, they're supporting a UK Government, which has a very clear and a significantly bigger mandate than your Government has here in Wales in terms of the arithmetic in this National Assembly, and I think that, instead of that scaremongering, what you should be doing is talking up the opportunities for Welsh businesses and looking for the places that you think can be identified where Welsh business internationally would be able to prosper.

You mention in your statement that you're going to establish an expert stakeholder advisory group. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the timetable for the establishment of that group, how big you think it needs to be, which industries should and shouldn't be represented on it, whether that will be a formal stakeholder advisory group where members will be paid, and, if so, what are they going to be paid, because I do think that there will potentially be—given the influence you clearly want to exert in every single trade deal, given what you've said in your statement, I do think there will be a capacity issue, an expertise issue and challenge for you within the Welsh Government if you want these sorts of levels of influence, if, effectively, you want a seat at every negotiating table, which I think frankly is a bit impractical. 

I, for one, trust the UK Government, with the Wales Office and the Department for International Trade, to represent all parts of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's interests as a whole. And, of course, there will be trade-offs. Within England also, there will be trade-offs between different regions within England, let alone between the different nations of the United Kingdom. And, of course, it's for Her Majesty's Government, frankly, to weigh those in the balance, and decide which trade agreements should proceed and on what basis.

Now I accept—I accept—and I think it's absolutely right that the Welsh Government should be informed, should be kept up to date, should be allowed to state its priorities. I think they're all perfectly reasonable things for any Government to do. But I think to suggest—. And I think the direction of travel with what you were saying was almost that you'll have a veto on things, and perhaps you can tell us whether that's your stated intention as a Government. That will not necessarily be very helpful. So, I look forward to the publication of your international trade strategy. I think that you could do with one, because I'm not quite sure that we got all of the detail that we needed today. I know that you've got an international strategy, but I think an international trade strategy would be quite helpful in terms of where you want the investment to come in from, where you think we can do business in the world as a small nation within the UK. And, if you've done any of that scoping work then perhaps you'd be able to share it with us as Assembly Members.

But I want you to know this, in closing. I want you to know this: on this side of the Chamber we're prepared to work with the Welsh Government and the wider stakeholder base here in Wales in order to promote trade. One of the things that we have called for over the years is for the Welsh Government to appoint trade envoys from all political parties and no political parties in order to make the case for improved trade relationships between Wales and the wider world. Will you now consider doing just that in order that we can make a team Wales within a team UK approach really work for the benefit of everybody?

First of all, listen, I recognise that we lost seats in the general election, but we still won more seats than the Tories and that means that we do have still a mandate to speak up for the people of Wales. We have our own mandate here in this Chamber and that is our responsibility, and that's why we do have a responsibility to make sure that we are feeding in to these trade negotiations.

I've got to tell you that, actually, we are keen to engage constructively with the United Kingdom and have been engaging constructively with the United Kingdom Government. I've already had a significant number of conversations with the new trade commissioner, Conor Burns, and we were hopeful that the new ministerial body that was going to be set up to look at the trade issues across the different devolved departments—. That was meant to meet just before the general election, so we are looking forward to seeing that again. We are disappointed, however, at the fact that we've been talking about the concordat and what that relationship will look like for months and we'd like things to move on, because we are really short of time now.

So, we of course are keen to make sure that we engage and we will continue to engage with the UK Government. Of course we now accept that Brexit will happen, but also I think we've got to be clear that we believe—just because there's been a general election that doesn't mean that we don't believe that there will be damage as a result of Brexit. Academics have told us that that's going to be the case, economists have told us that that is going to be the case, and the fact is that 60 per cent of our trade in goods is with the EU. So, anything that is going to build barriers between us and the EU is likely to have a negative impact and I don't think it's remiss of us to point that out.

We will be setting up this expert advisory group and I'll give you more information on that next month, but what I can tell you is that we've already carried out some extensive analysis about the key sectors that export in Wales. We have yet to analyse that information, but the key thing for us to do when we do go into these negotiations is, where possible, the strength of our argument will be much greater if we're able to base it on evidence. That's why getting this expert advisory panel, I think, is crucial.

I've not said anywhere that we are asking for a veto in relation to trade. We recognise that the UK Government is the lead partner in relation to trade. But, obviously, when it comes to devolved issues, then we expect to have a major say and we would want to make sure that this Assembly also has an opportunity to feed into that. 

Just finally on the trade envoys, I've been meeting with some of the UK trade envoys just to make sure that they're aware of what the Welsh offer is and that's something that we're planning to do a lot more of in future to make sure that people understand what the Welsh offer is, and some of that will come out in the international report next week.

I would like to thank the Minister for her statement today and wish her a happy new year at the beginning of a crucial year for Wales. 

You say that the Welsh Government now recognises that the UK will leave the European Union, and Plaid Cymru agrees. Now that the Conservatives have a majority, we know as a fact that we will leave the European Union at the end of this month. We will therefore use all of our energy from here on in to do everything within our ability to safeguard Wales’s interests and its people’s interests as that process proceeds. So, I welcome this timely statement today.

It’s a cause of concern that inter-governmental structures are yet to be established, as you’ve just mentioned, in order to enable Governments and devolved Parliaments to influence the trade negotiations before they begin. There was some mention, and you’ve already referred to this, about establishing a joint ministerial committee, or a JMC, specifically in relation to trade. Can the Minister provide us with an update as to whether there is any intention to establish that body, because, without it, it’s very difficult to see how your Government will succeed in ensuring that Welsh interests are represented? Could I also ask whether you've had an opportunity to meet with the trade Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, since the election, in order to emphasise the need that Wales’s voice should be heard?

I agree with you that the work of scrutinising the Trade Bill in Westminster will be crucial. Therefore, can you give me any idea as to how this Parliament will have an opportunity to contribute to that work, as it will have a direct impact on our economy here in Wales? I am interested in your plans to introduce amendments to the Trade Bill in the House of Lords. Can you give us any ideas as to what kind of amendments you will seek to introduce?

Turning to the detail of the trade deals that will be negotiated by the UK Government, there was a heated debate at the end of last term as to what would be the best approach in terms of safeguarding our health service in light of possible threats of a trade deal with the United States. Plaid Cymru wants a Welsh veto over any agreement, but your Government’s stance, as you've just said, was that ensuring an official role for the Parliament would be more appropriate. So, have you made any progress in trying to secure this?

America, of course, isn't the only nation that we will be making trade deals with. Australia and New Zealand, as you've already mentioned, will also be high on the list. Now, I know that the Welsh agriculture sector will want to hear a firm, robust statement from you that your Government will do anything it can to safeguard their interests during these negotiations, because many are concerned that cheap lamb and beef from these nations could flow into our market, putting Welsh farmers at a disadvantage. I would also urge you to make it clear to the UK Government that an investor-state dispute settlement would be unacceptable for us here in Wales, as this would enable businesses to sue the Government for providing public contracts to public bodies.

Now, you've mentioned that we need to prioritise trade with Europe, rather than the nations that I've already mentioned, so I would like to know whether you have any plans to introduce a continuity Bill to ensure that our regulations keep pace with changes in Europe.

And, finally, all of the issues that we've discussed today are happening in the absence of an international strategy from the Welsh Government, and such a strategy is crucial now in ensuring that the Government operates in a co-ordinated manner and does strive towards specific targets and outcomes. It's not good enough that this still hasn't been published, with us leaving the European Union in 24 days' time. So, can you ensure that you will publish that strategy for this latest deadline, which is the end of this month? Leaving the European Union will pose huge challenges for us as a nation, but we have survived such challenges in the past, and, in order to ensure the best outcome for the people of Wales, each and every one of us in this Senedd is duty bound to roll up our sleeves and to work hard for the future of Wales, and that means having a robust trade deal in place. And I do very much hope that you will be willing to meet that challenge, Minister.

Thank you very much, and a happy new year to you too. I do agree with you that our major aim now is to ensure that we safeguard the interests of Wales, and my concern too is the fact that the ministerial forum still hasn't met. It's not because of a lack of intervention and requests from us; we have been asking this month after month. Unfortunately, the general election came in December, because a date had been set. There was, in the command paper that was written on trade in 2019, a commitment to create that forum, so we are confident that it will come into being. I haven't met Elizabeth Truss yet, but I have had several meetings with the person who is taking the discussions forward, Conor Burns, and I've spoken to him on several occasions.

In terms of scrutiny, I do think it is vital that this Senedd does have an opportunity to scrutinise any agreements that are reached. Of course, in terms of the amendment in the Trade Bill that was paused in the House of Lords, what was disappointing was that we'd succeeded in having many things agreed whilst that went through the House of Lords. I have discussed this with the Minister and he was very clear that he would be content to ensure that those were respected when the new legislation comes forward, when this new legislation is tabled in Parliament.

I do think it is important that the Assembly should have an opportunity to scrutinise, but it’s interesting to see, isn't it, in terms of the withdrawal agreement Bill, that there has been pushback from the Conservative Government in terms of what the role of Parliament in Westminster is in terms of to what extent they can see what happens as the discussions and negotiations go ahead. I think it would be very difficult for us to ask for more here than they receive in Parliament in Westminster. But I'm sure there will be a great deal of pushback against that, as the legislation goes through both Houses of Parliament.

Of course, our priority is to ensure an agreement with the European Union. I think, in terms of a continuity Bill, it’s too soon for us to look at that, so we need to see to what extent the current situation can be respected. And with regard to the international strategy, I can say to you that that will be published next week. Thank you.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement today, and in particular her appreciation of the committee's work and the recognition that she thinks we actually have provided some sensible recommendations? But I have a few questions. The thing that's been pointed out—and I think it's important for us to remember—this is not about leaving the EU, that's done and dusted, we all know that, I'm trying to actually make that clear, but this is about how Wales can benefit once we have left the EU and to ensure that any trade deals that take place are to the benefit of the people of Wales and not detrimental to the people of Wales. That's crucial for us to understand that. Forget the arguments, this is about our future and getting it right. 

Minister, in your statement, you identified a few things, and I'd like to ask a few questions related to that. You talked about the JMC trade, and Delyth Jewell has already raised a question on that. It is important how far we're going on that, because we were told in the committee many times that this was being discussed, we're still not there. We are weeks away from departing the EU, when negotiation will then start on the future relationship, and we need to understand where we are with that and where the UK Government is with that and what they see it as. Because Europe has its own negotiators ready, Michel Barnier has been appointed and he has appointed his deputy. Their side is ready. Where is our side in the sense of the devolved nations?

Therefore, are you also having discussions with your Scottish counterparts to ensure that there's an unanimous voice together going into the meetings of the JMC to put this on the agenda, to make sure that Welsh and Scottish voices, and Northern Irish when they get into an Executive, are going to be heard as part of the negotiating process? Because I think it has been mentioned by the First Minister before—having that opportunity to have a say in the negotiating position is far more beneficial to all the parts of the UK than having to be told at the end of it all. So, as I said at the beginning, being able to go with it and therefore be part of it is going to be hugely beneficial to the whole of the UK, full stop. 

You also mentioned trade-offs. The question, I suppose, is what type of trade-offs will be acceptable, and will the Government come back to the Assembly to discuss those trade-offs, because what might be acceptable to Government may not be acceptable to the Assembly. And I've got an example, because we talk about data—data is an important commodity, but will data and transfer of data be one of those trade-offs? So, will we have—? People have data, businesses have data. But, if you pass that data on to certain companies in certain countries, who knows where it ends up? So, the question is: what is the trade-off, and will you come back to the Assembly with your consideration of what is acceptable as a trade-off? 

Will the Welsh Government be reviewing EU laws and regulations? Because you mentioned regulatory alignment, and it is likely that in a future relationship we will diverge. Otherwise, why are we leaving if we're not going to diverge? So, there will be divergence. But how will we in Wales look at those EU laws and regulations and will the Welsh Government be acting, through the statutory instruments, because I think the First Minister mentioned that yesterday, to keep regulatory alignment where we have devolved responsibilities so that our exports can meet still the regulations that the EU will be operating, even if the UK doesn't keep regulatory alignment?

Will you be operating through the Brussels office to strengthen the relationship with the EU? Because, once we're outside the EU, we will not have a direct link into the EU, but the Brussels office becomes an important component of the role Welsh Government have in setting up a discussion with the EU. We might not be negotiators, but it's always about influencing, talking, having an opportunity to expand our position so that the negotiating side on the other side of the table have a wider picture.

You also talked in your statement about the stakeholder advisory group. Can I ask where the information that you intend to give that will come from? Is that going to come from the UK Government? So, if you're going to give that information to the advisory group and ask for their opinions, will that be coming from—? Because it's all on the negotiations. Where will it come from? Will the UK Government be giving you the information that you can pass on to the advisory group, and will you be allowed to share that with the Assembly? Because very often we are told sometimes that Governments give Governments information and we can't pass it on because it's confidential. So, how will we know what the stakeholder group is doing and is it doing it properly—how can we scrutinise those processes?

You've talked about the Trade Bill and the amendments, and it's been mentioned by Delyth—and Darren—what happens if the amendments aren't accepted, but, first of all, the first question is: is the new Trade Bill the same as the old Trade Bill? Because we've seen changes in the EU withdrawal agreement Bill. Do you have any indication as to whether there will be changes in the Trade Bill? Because that Trade Bill did require an LCM; a new Trade Bill, an amended Trade Bill, might not require an LCM. So, have we any pictures of where the Trade Bill is at this point in time, and is it going to be the same one?

I think it is important for us to remember one thing, particularly on these benches. The transatlantic trade and investment partnership was a big issue. It was actually defeated by the European Parliament—they ruled certain things out. As mentioned, the investor-state dispute settlement issue was a huge matter. And it doesn't have to be the US, by the way, because Sweden is doing it to Germany now. We don't want a repetition of that, and therefore there is an important aspect as to how institutions across the UK—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament—have an opportunity to have a say on such things. I personally wouldn't want to see TTIP being enacted in any agreement here, but there's a very strong possibility that that might be reintroduced by the Americans, who, as we all know—and Donald Trump said it in his inaugural speech—put America first, and they will look to see exactly what they can do with that process. We need to be vary wary of these matters.

Are you winding up, please?

Yes, I will wind up, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is important for us all to remind ourselves that what we're trying to do is to ensure that our businesses are able to operate beyond Brexit, and therefore these discussions are crucial.

First of all, can I thank the committee Chair for the really good paper, which I was able to read over Christmas? I thought that was really useful, and I think, if people are interested in this issue, particularly the legal aspects of where we stand as a body here in the Senedd, that that is very much worth looking at.

Just on the JMC trade, I can't tell you—every single moment and opportunity we have we are pushing for that to be set up. One of the things that we are trying to do is to see if we can set up the terms of reference, so that we're ready to roll once it starts. I'm hoping, now that the election's out of the way, that we will see some speeding up of the situation. The key thing for me is that in the commendations by the UK Parliament in the past, what they've said is that they want to see, the UK Government wanted to see transparency and inclusivity as a core part of how they negotiate trade deals. Well, it's not quite as transparent and inclusive as perhaps we would have liked to have seen, but, listen, we are still anxious and keen to make sure that we have a constructive relationship.

Your other question was on devolved legislatures and to what extent we can work together. Well, hopefully, this cross-ministerial body will be a forum for us to do that, and there are opportunities, obviously, for us to meet with the other devolved legislatures prior to that. But it's not just about the devolved legislatures, there are actually lots of different Government departments that may not have the same priorities within the UK Government as the people leading on trade. So, Lesley Griffiths, for example, is very engaged in the future of agriculture. Now, they may have a different say and a different opinion on what that should look like, which may not be the same view as, for example, the Treasury department. So, we've got to look for our allies where we can in terms of this trade negotiation, and that's where this flexibility will come in, and we'll need to make sure that we build up those priorities.

There will be trade-offs. Flexibility and timings are things that we will need to bear in mind. The more we diverge from the EU in terms of regulations, the more difficult it will be for us to trade with them. So, I'm very clear that we in Wales would like to see that regulatory alignment remain as far as possible, because that means that 60 per cent of our trade continues to be able to access that market if they agree to that. Because it's not just about tariffs and all that; it's the non-tariff barriers that are as significant, if not more significant. 

On the Brussels office, I'll be going out to the Brussels office next week and will hopefully have an opportunity to talk to them about how they can help to inform us in relation to gaining intelligence from the Brussels side of things in relation to trade.

On the advisory group, I think it would be very difficult to imagine that we would be able to give information to an external advisory group that is not possible to give to Assembly Members, so I would certainly think that that would be a strange situation. But there is a UK Government advisory group that's been set up and there is a Welsh person on that group. They don't represent Wales, but we are making sure that we have a relationship with that representative. 

In terms of the Trade Bill, we don't yet know if the new trade Bill will be the same as the last Trade Bill. If there's continuity of trade agreements that were there in the past, then, obviously, it won't be such a problem, but if what they're suggesting is that they want to introduce new trade agreements, then we will want devolved bodies to absolutely have a say and a role in that process, which is slightly different.

On TTIP—listen, this was a really big deal in terms of the negotiations between the EU and the United States. It all crashed and didn't work, but I've got no doubt at all that the United States Government will be pushing to include the investor-state dispute settlement role in a trade negotiation. What that means is that if an investor country feels it's being discriminated against, it can seek compensation, but not through the courts. It's through some very opaque system that is not transparent, and that's something I certainly don't think that we would want to sign up to.

Thank you for your statement today, Minister. As someone who has actively campaigned for an independent trade policy for the UK as an independent nation, I believe in a global United Kingdom trading freely with the whole world. I think that this can provide the foundations for a bright and prosperous future for Wales. I agree with you when you say the general election made clear that Brexit will now happen. It confirmed the decision made in 2016 and the UK Government now has a clear mandate to get Brexit done, to coin a Conservative campaign slogan.

As a member of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, I look forward to your response to our report sometime during this month and discussing it with you in more detail after next month.

In the statement, you call for a clear role for the Welsh Government in future trade deals. Minister, can you detail what that role may look like, and point to where, in this current devolution settlement, the powers sit to enable this to happen? On devolved matters, yes, but any others? I do find that in this statement, in recent statements to the press by members of Welsh and UK Labour, your Government and your party are really critical of a trade deal with the world's largest economy, and our close ally, the United States of America. I do find this rather strange as, in 2017, the then First Minister, the Member for Bridgend, said on a visit to Washington DC, and I quote:

'In my discussions with American businesses, politicians and diplomats, I will be raising the importance of further developing free trade between our countries and the removal of barriers to make trade between us easier and quicker.'

So, Minister, when did the Welsh Government change its position on trade with the United States, and, more to the point, what message does that send to the 250 American-owned companies here in Wales? And let's remember that the US accounts for almost 40 per cent of inward investment projects.

Minister, leaving the EU also gives us the opportunity to intensify protection for animal welfare, like cracking down on the transport of live animals to the continent. I've spoken about this before. Whilst a ban on live animal exports is not currently possible due to EU free trade rules, a ban could be introduced once the UK leaves the EU at the end of the month. Will the Welsh Government look at ending the transport of live animals? That's another question I've asked before as well.

I agree that, after we leave the EU, taking back a seat on the WTO is very important, as we look to strike trade deals with a number of countries around the world. Minister, has your Government considered the possibility of actually hosting a new trade summit for Commonwealth countries? This could promote trade and also celebrate cultures, history and future relationships. We could be the first. Wales has a proud track record of hosting great events, from the Rugby World Cup, the Ryder Cup to the NATO summit. We have the talent and we have the capacity. We can all agree that we are leaving the EU, so now can we all agree to do all we can to make this work? Thank you.

First of all, of course we're interested in promoting trade. It's just that we're doing this at a really difficult time. The World Trade Organisation is currently in a situation where the United States have stopped appointing judges, so that anything that comes out of the World Trade Organisation now can only go so far in terms of the legal process, and people could potentially ignore what they are suggesting and challenge that, and that could take years to go through the system. So, at a time when our fallback position is to rely on the World Trade Organisation, this is not the time to be doing that.

In relation to trade, of course what we've emphasised is devolution is where we absolutely must have a say, where we have those powers. And you must remember that we went into the EU at a time when devolution didn't exist; we're coming out to a very different world, where those powers reside here. And it's great that the UK Government have recognised that and they are anxious to engage and involve us, because they know that, ultimately, we're the people who have to make that happen on the ground. So it's not in their interests either to sign up to trade deals that would be difficult to implement on the ground. So, we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, we want to engage; at the moment, they're not quite engaging in the way we'd like them to.

In terms of the United States, I'm absolutely clear that it's one of the biggest investors in Wales. As you say, you've emphasised the number of companies that have housed themselves here in Wales. It's one of our biggest export markets. All of that is being done without a trade agreement, don't forget. So, the point is, you don't always need a trade agreement to be in place in order to trade. And I do think, at this point in time, when we're kind of over a barrel in terms of the deadline we've set ourselves for the EU of a year, we've got a Trump presidency that is saying, 'Put America first', that's quite a difficult place to put yourself in—you're not holding many cards in that kind of situation. But let's hope for the best, and let's see what the UK Government can come up with.

I think Britain has a really proud record in terms of animal welfare. Certainly, when it came to the transport of live animals, the UK Government was really influential in terms of cutting down significantly the number of hours that animals were allowed to be transported within the EU.

In terms of the Commonwealth, this is something that many people say: 'Why don't we go back to the old days of the Commonwealth?' If you look at the amount of trade that we do with Australia, with India, with Canada, all of that put together doesn't amount to the amount of trade that we do with Ireland. So, you know, I think that we have just got to make sure that we get some perspective on where our nearest trade partners are, and trade gravity really plays an important role here.

I'd like to simply raise two issues with you this afternoon, Minister, and I'm grateful to you for the statement. First of all, to emphasise again the importance of inter-governmental arrangements and the machinery of Government. We do have some experience of working in international negotiations with the United Kingdom Government through our membership of the European Union, and we do have in place a number of templates that we are able to use, I believe, in order to ensure that we do have the sort of relationship that you have discussed and described this afternoon and at other times.

I believe that the memorandum of understanding that we agreed in 2012 for engagement with the European Union is a good starting point for a new structure that will ensure that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, particularly—but Northern Ireland arrangements as well—are able to work alongside the United Kingdom Government to ensure that we have a position that is supported by the whole of the United Kingdom and not simply the Government of the United Kingdom. I hope that that is important.

It's also important—and I speak to the Chair as well, the Deputy Presiding Officer—to ensure that our democracy is able to keep ensuring that we have the methods and mechanisms of accountability to ensure that, whatever new structures are in place, there is proper democratic accountability for those structures. That speaks to this place—not to the Government, but to this place—and also to the arrangements that we have in place with the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament to ensure that there is proper accountability and proper democracy overseeing any new inter-governmental machinery that is put in place.

The second point that I wish to make is that of values. We talk, in terms of trade, sometimes as if that is happening within a vacuum. For me, trade and our approach and our policy has to be rooted in our values. When we reach agreements with third countries, then this isn't simply a matter of ensuring that we have the tariffs in place and the mechanisms at the border and behind the border in order to ensure that we have frictionless trade, but that we have a relationship of values as well, so that the debates that we have in this place—whether they are about sustainability or equality or welfare rights or the rights of working people—are also rooted into these agreements as well.

I was very pleased to hear you saying, Minister, that you are strengthening the capacity of the Welsh Government to address these matters. I believe that that is absolutely essential and important. But, it is also important that we don't just have the technical expertise and the structural ability to provide pressure and influence on these matters, but that we also do so with a strong sense of being able to deliver our core values.    

Thank you. I think that you are absolutely right. I think that some of the templates exist already and you've been a part of those mechanisms in the past, where the Governments of the United Kingdom come together, you come to a common, shared position and then you go and speak at the EU together. So, this is not rocket science. It's all there. It needs to be picked up. It's just that there has obviously been a paralysis for a very long time in Westminster, but let's see now if that blockage will cease to exist.

Democratic accountability, I think, is absolutely crucial, but there's no point in just putting that at the end of the process. Article 50 should teach us something. They can go and negotiate whatever they want. If they bring it back to Parliament and Parliament rejects it, then what's the point? It's a pretty blunt instrument. You've got to engage people earlier on in the process, and I think that that is really important. 

You're absolutely right in terms of values. That is important and that's why we have set that out in the paper that we set out, the trade policy issues for Wales, where we've underlined some of the key values that we see as being important in Wales: sustainable development, economic and social protection. We don't want to see a watering down of labour standards. Well-being of future generations: we want to make sure that there is transparency and fairness. All of those things we've set out already, so I think that that is absolutely fundamental to the way forward.

The Minister said in the statement that we must, in the UK, build a shared vision of the kind of economy and future trading relationships that we want with the EU. Of course, I applaud the sentiment, but it doesn't really bear much scrutiny because all the language of the statement and the attitudes that the Minister herself, in particular, has adopted in recent years, point in the opposite direction. She doesn't share the vision of the UK Government on Brexit at all.

In fact, the statement itself and what she said in reply to other questions earlier on point to the fact that she is still fighting the same debates that we had in the referendum campaign and the general election in 2017 and, indeed, even the general election just a few weeks ago, talking about the need for regulatory alignment. Well, if you go into negotiations on the basis that, 'Yes, we are going to ask for everything that you've got already and we're not going to give anything away', then you're inevitably not going to come back from negotiations with a successful result. No United Kingdom Government is going to pay the slightest attention to the Welsh Government if it carries on harping on about these themes.

The tune is exactly the same. All that's happened as a result of the general election is that they have changed the key. Otherwise, the tune is exactly the same as the one that they have been piping away at unsuccessfully for the last three and a half years. You would think that the Labour Party should at last have learned something from the devastating wipeout of the general election, particularly in Wales, where the Conservatives now hold an unprecedented number of seats at Westminster as a proportion of the total.

If the Welsh Government really wants to be taken seriously by the UK Government, they have to get behind the message that the UK Government itself is putting forward and has since Theresa May, of unlamented memory, departed the scene. Boris Johnson is a different kind of leader from Theresa May. He's going to take a positive, optimistic view of negotiations in the world, and he's going to play, I trust, much more hardball in our negotiations with Monsieur Barnier. Theresa May completely failed to deliver on the referendum result because she adopted the same frame of mind that, unfortunately, I think I still see in the person of the Minister who is making this statement today. I don't think that she particularly wants to be known as the Theresa May of Welsh politics, but she has a danger, I think, at least in this respect, of earning that sobriquet.

The Welsh Government adopted a policy for the last three and a half years of deliberate confrontation with the UK Government. That absolutely, totally failed. Now, it's time to not just open a new page, but actually a new book, if the Welsh Government is to have any influence at all over the UK Government, which I would like to see, of course. The interests of Wales are slightly different from the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom, the same as Scotland's are and the same as the north of England's interests are slightly different from everybody else's as well. The Welsh economy exhibits certain characteristics, in particular the importance of exports to the EU in Wales, which I acknowledge is much greater than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. But, when she says in her statement that we must not lose sight of the interests of consumers as well as stakeholders, I applaud her for that because everybody's a consumer in Wales. Everybody eats food, for example.

Agriculture is an important element in any future trade negotiation with the EU, but we can't just see this through the perspective of producer interest groups. We should see also the importance of negotiating in the interests of consumers. In Wales, particularly, as we're the poorest part of the United Kingdom in income terms and GVA, the interests of a larger proportion of the Welsh population is in getting cheap food and, indeed, cheap everything out of these negotiations: opening up markets, reducing prices, creating a more competitive economy within which to operate.

So, the frame of mind that we need, I think, for the Welsh Government, as for the UK, is firmness of purpose. No, we're not going to the negotiations as supplicants of the EU. They have much more to lose in total than we have—a £66 billion a year deficit with the EU in goods in 2018. We have a massive surplus in services with the world at large. That's not part of the negotiations with the EU. The EU is interested in doing the best possible deal that it can get for itself and we should be interested in doing the best possible deal that we can get for Britain. But if the Welsh Government sees itself as a kind of Trojan horse for EU interests in these negotiations, it will get nowhere. It will in fact further discredit itself and marginalise itself and be ignored by the UK Government, and that has further repercussions as well in terms of the relationships between the devolved Governments and the UK Government on other issues. So, I do implore the Minister, even at this late stage, to change the tone and change the mood music because that's the way to make progress.

I don't think I bear any relationship to Theresa May at all, other than the fact that, as my finance Minister has just pointed out, we're both vicars' daughters, as is she. But we are very, very different vicars' daughters. [Laughter.] Can I just say that—? Listen, I don't know which part of 'We accept that Brexit will happen' you didn't understand, but that's what we've made clear, I think, today.

The fact is that there is a vision for the United Kingdom, but there are also four parts to the United Kingdom and I think it would probably benefit the UK Government to remember that. What is important is that the vision for the United Kingdom isn't focused just on London and the south-east. For the first time now the UK Government, in the shape of the Tory Boris Johnson, is going to have to consider the needs of places where there is still a manufacturing base. So, I am hopeful that the UK Government will move more towards the Welsh position than they have in the past.

It is absolutely wrong to say that there is a deliberate effort at confrontation. I've a very good relationship with Conor Burns, the trade Minister. I'm just saying, 'Can you speed it up a bit because we're running out of time here?' In terms of balancing consumers, producers, of course we've got to get that balance right, but which consumers and which producers? What I'm not willing to see is cheap food be sacrificed for the 58,000 agricultural workers in Wales. That's a balance that we have got to discuss. I don't want to see that sacrificed. As a vicar's daughter I'm allowed to use these kinds of images on the altar of the city of London, so I think it's really important that we get all of this and we try and work together for the good of the country. It's in all our interests. If this is going to happen, let's make it the best deal possible for the people not just of Wales, but for the United Kingdom.

Finally, and briefly, Jenny Rathbone.

We should hope for the best, but we have to prepare for the worst. I'm afraid I can't share the sunny uplands of opportunity post Brexit. I'm unable to see them at the moment.

There's nothing but uncertainty on what the UK Government's position is going to be in these trading negotiations. As you point out in your statement, there will be winners and there will be losers. So, the thing I wanted to raise in particular were the issues of food safety and food security, briefly mentioned by Neil Hamilton. But the spectre of chlorinated chicken and hormone-adulterated beef still loom large in any negotiations that we might have with the United States, if we have already conceded watering down food standards in our negotiations with the European Union.

What will happen to our climate emergency carbon reduction commitments if we are content to outsource our food production to unregulated factory farm conditions, which are completely unsustainable in the long term? What does that mean for our food security as well as for the well-being of future generations, which obviously includes our global responsibilities? I don't know if you are able to shed any light on the UK Government's position on these matters, but they're not the sorts of things that are being discussed in the sloganising that we've heard from the UK Government to date. So, anything you can say on this would be useful.

Just very briefly, I'm aware that we're running out of time. So, yes, uncertainty is a big issue. In terms of food safety and security, there is the question of with whom are we going to align. Because if we do align with the United States, and we allow hormone-treated beef in, then the barriers with the rest of the continent will go up because they won't want that to enter their market. So, there are trade-offs, and the order and the sequencing of this is going to matter massively. That's part of the difficulty of having multiple negotiations going on at the same time. We've made it clear: EU comes first.

In terms of what we know from the UK Government, part of the problem is that we don't know what the negotiating mandate is. The Americans have published theirs. It's all transparent. We don't know what the UK mandate is. That's something we've really got to start getting on with, because we're running out of time, as I was saying.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 6 on the agenda is the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020. I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

I welcome the opportunity to bring forward these amending regulations today, and I'd like to thank the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for its report on the regulations. The Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Scheme) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 amend the 2013 council tax reduction scheme regulations. The scheme provides direct help to households across Wales by reducing their council tax bills.

The UK Government abolished council tax benefit on 31 March 2013, and passed responsibility for developing new arrangements to the Welsh Government. The decision was accompanied by a 10 per cent cut in the funding for the scheme. The Welsh Government responded by meeting the funding gap to maintain entitlements to support. The scheme currently supports around 280,000 of the poorest households in Wales. Amending legislation is needed each year to ensure that the figures used to calculate each household's entitlement to reduction are increased to take account of the rises in costs of living. The uprating regulations therefore maintain existing entitlement to support.

The financial figures for 2020-1 relating to working-age people, disabled people and carers are increased in line with the consumer price index, 1.7 per cent. Figures relating to pensioner households continue to be increased in line with the UK Government's standard minimum guarantee and mirror the uprating of housing benefit. In light of the postponement of the autumn budget, the Welsh Government has used provisional figures for some of the uprating factors where necessary. This is to ensure that we protect families on low incomes who have been affected by welfare reform from further cuts to their income.

In making these regulations, I have also taken the opportunity to include minor technical changes and to make additional amendments to reflect other changes to related benefits, for example amending the regulations to ensure that people in same-sex civil partnerships have the same entitlements as people in opposite-sex civil partnerships, same-sex marriages, and opposite-sex marriages. The changes will ensure that billing authorities assess entitlement to council tax reductions in a consistent manner.

These regulations maintain entitlements to reductions in council tax bills for households in Wales. As a result of this scheme, around 220,000 of the most hard-pressed households will continue to pay no council tax in 2020-1. I ask the Members to approve these regulations today.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We considered these regulations at our meeting on 9 December 2019, and we laid our report on 10 December. Our report identified one merit point for reporting under Standing Order 21.3, which related to a drafting point.

The regulations refer to article 3 of the Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019, which was made under section 3A of the Immigration Act 1971. We ask why it was necessary in these regulations to cite the enabling power in the Immigration Act 1917 when referring to article 3 of the 2019 Order. The Welsh Government's response cited precedent for the drafting approach that was taken. We did seek further clarification from Government, and we do welcome the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd's recent reply to us, which gave the additional background to the drafting choice that we had requested.

Finally, I would like to note that our report also highlighted implications in the regulations as a result of the UK's exit from the European Union. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you. The Minister to reply.

I'm very grateful to the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for the work the committee did in scrutinising the regulations. I was pleased to provide that clarity in terms of the drafting choice for the approach that the committee was particularly interested in. These uprating regulations will be required each year to ensure that all eligible households in Wales retain their entitlement to support and, of course, we are committed to bringing forward the regulations on an annual basis.

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

Item 7 is a debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill.

I'm grateful to Mike Hedges, Llyr Huws Gruffydd, Mick Antoniw and their committees for their thorough and considered approach to Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. I would also like to acknowledge the important contribution of the individuals and organisations who informed the committees' scrutiny through both written and oral evidence. The strength of feeling on this emotive subject, from both sides of the debate, was obvious during the evidence sessions. The Welsh public and third sector organisations have overwhelmingly lobbied for a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses. Using wild animals in this way, purely for our entertainment, cannot be justified. It is outdated and unethical.

The Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill aims to address ethical concerns by banning the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. A ban in Wales would allow for a consistent approach across Great Britain. The Scottish Government banned it in 2018 and a ban in England comes into force later this month.

I will now address the recommendations made by the committees in their Stage 1 reports. The Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee recommends that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. I welcome this recommendation, but acknowledge that it was not a unanimous decision.

In their second recommendation, the committee seeks further explanation about the scope of the Bill, and specifically three issues. The first is why the ban does not extend to wild animals touring with travelling circuses. The objective of this Bill is to prevent the use of wild animals in travelling circuses on ethical grounds. Circus owners will still be able to keep their animals and to prevent them from doing so would go beyond this objective.

Secondly, the committee asked why the ethical argument for a ban on using wild animals in static circuses is weaker than for travelling circuses. Circuses by their nature travel. There are no static circuses in Wales and should an entity ever establish itself in Wales that could be considered a static circus it will either be caught by the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 or the animal exhibits regulations. A local authority would determine the appropriate licence.

Thirdly, the committee asked why the ethical argument for a ban on using wild animals does not apply equally to domesticated animals. There are not the same fundamental ethical objections to the use of domestic animals in travelling circuses. There are many activities involving domesticated animals travelling to give performances that are considered perfectly acceptable by society. For example, if it's acceptable for horses to be used in showjumping, it would be difficult to argue that they should not perform a similar activity in a travelling circus. It is more appropriate to regulate the use of domesticated animals in travelling circuses rather than ban this activity. This will be achieved through the animal exhibits regulations that I plan to introduce later this year.

The committee recommends amending the Bill to include provision for Welsh Ministers to issue statutory guidance to support the implementation of a ban and for the guidance to include clarification on the meaning of 'wild animal', 'domesticated' and 'travelling circus', and also clarification of when the informal display of wild animals outside the main circus arena would constitute an offence. I've already committed to producing guidance and stakeholders will be consulted on its formulation. However, it's more appropriate for the guidance to be non-statutory as it will not set out additional requirements or obligations. Rather, it will provide clarity on how the Act will work in practice, and this is consistent with the approach taken in Scotland.

The environment committee's final recommendations concern the impact on the circuses and their animals. The two affected circuses are based in England. Any decision on the future of their wild animals is likely to have already been made, given the imminent ban in England. We cannot force the circuses to rehome or retire their animals. If they keep their animals, as they have indicated, they may retire them or choose to use them in a different way. That is their prerogative, provided they do so within the law.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made one recommendation. The committee asked for the clarification on the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus', and an explanation of any differences from those used in the equivalent Scotland and England-only Acts.

The Bill defines a 'wild animal' as:

'an animal of a kind that is not commonly domesticated in the British Islands.'

Animals considered commonly domesticated in their country of origin but not of a kind commonly domesticated in the British islands would be 'wild animals' under the Bill. Our definition is similar to that of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and avoids the situation where the same species could be considered wild in a zoo but domesticated in a circus. The definition is similar to those in the Scotland and England Acts. There are some minor variations in the drafting, but I do not anticipate these resulting in a difference to the overall common effect.

A 'travelling circus' means:

'a circus which travels from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment'.

The definition recognises a circus is a travelling circus, despite there being periods when it doesn't travel. This is similar to the definition in the Scotland Act. The England Act does not provide a definition of travelling circus. Section 11 of the Bill provides regulation-making powers for Welsh Ministers to clarify these terms if there is any uncertainty in the future. The Scotland Act contains similar powers. The England Act does not. Why the UK Government decided to omit these is a matter for them.

I would also like to acknowledge the Finance Committee's consideration of the Bill. The committee recognises the financial implications are relatively small. There is a high degree of uncertainty concerning some of the impacts, because costs are unknown. Little additional information was forthcoming during the consultation exercise, but we believe any impact will be limited. Presiding Officer, I welcome this opportunity to debate the Bill and hear the views of Members.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to today's debate on behalf of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and to make a comment on the financial implications, which are expected, as the Minister said, to be minimal and likely to be so small as not to affect either the councils or the circuses themselves. I would like to place on record my thanks to all those who gave evidence or submitted their views to inform our work.

When the Bill was remitted to the committee, we thought this would be a simple, straightforward piece of work, but it became clear when we began taking evidence that this was not to be the case. This was not because of issues with the Bill itself. By and large, it does what it sets out to do: ban the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. But, the difficulty arose because of the grounds on which the Welsh Government is seeking to introduce the ban, and the apparent inconsistent application of the Government's ethical position. While the committee is unanimous in its continued support for the welfare of all animals, it was not able to come to an unanimous view on whether the Bill should proceed. A majority of committee members support the general principles of the Bill and, therefore, we recommend that the Assembly agrees to the general principles.

The use of wild animals in travelling circuses is undoubtedly an emotive issue. We heard convincing arguments from both sides of the debate about the need, or otherwise, to ban the practice. Wild animals have been performing in travelling circuses for centuries. Some would argue the practice has adapted over time to reflect society's changing tastes and attitudes towards animals. Those involved in the circus industry talk about their animals as an extension of their family, who are loved and cared for. They were keen to emphasise that the days of dancing bears are well and truly over. They told us that today's performances are about demonstrating the unique capabilities of wild animals, and are an excellent example of human-animal co-operation.  

Those representing animal welfare organisations argue that the needs of wild animals simply cannot be met in a travelling circus environment. They believe that these animals should be able to live their lives as closely as possible to their non-captive counterparts and with limited human interference. Some animal welfare representatives told us that making wild animals perform for entertainment is animal exploitation at its very worst, and have campaigned for decades for a ban.

It is difficult to reconcile these polarised views. But, what we have had to do when considering the Bill is remain focused on the fact that the Welsh Government is seeking a ban not on animal welfare grounds, but on ethical grounds.

Before moving on to the ethical grounds for a ban, I'd like to address the issue of animal welfare. Despite the views of animal welfare organisations, the Minister has made clear that there is no evidence that wild animals used in UK travelling circuses are mistreated, which is reassuring. These circuses are currently the subject of what the Minister herself has described as very strict regulations and licensing requirements. There is nothing preventing the Welsh Government from legislating to continue the current regulatory regime, but it has chosen not to. Instead, it is seeking a ban.

We know that Scotland and England have already legislated for a ban. The Minister has argued that Wales must follow suit to avoid becoming a sanctuary for UK travelling circuses that use wild animals. But, let's not lose sight of the scale of the issue that this Bill is seeking to address. There are currently two circuses and a total of 19 wild animals that tour the UK. This begs the question: why has the Welsh Government chosen to ban this particular practice on ethical grounds when there are a range of pressing animal welfare issues in urgent need of addressing? According to the Welsh Government, a ban is needed because using wild animals for performance is unethical. The problem for the Government is the lack of tangible evidence to back up its position. This became something we looked at—unethical or ethical—it's very difficult to prove, and it is often the view of an individual whether something is ethical or not.

The Government has had to rely heavily on the ongoing calls from animal welfare groups and on public support for a ban as evidence that the practice is unethical and that a ban is needed. Yes, public opinion must be taken into account, but it should not be the main source of evidence for legislation. Importantly, in the case of this Bill, it is not clear what the public really think. Is their support for a ban founded on ethical considerations, or on perceptions of poor animal welfare, which, according to the Minister, are unfounded?

Moving to the scope of the ban, this is where the Welsh Government's ethical arguments become particularly problematic. If, as the Government suggests, it is unethical to make wild animals perform for human entertainment, it follows that making those same animals perform for entertainment in other settings must also be unethical. But, the scope of the ban is limited only to travelling circuses. These same animals will still be able to perform in shows and other events, as long as they are licensed under the Government's new animal exhibits scheme. They'll also be able to take part in films. The Welsh Government is not applying its ethical position consistently. In our report, we called on the Minister to better explain why this is not the case.

Llywydd, I would like to end my contribution in the same place as I began. The committee's consideration of the Bill was not an easy task. This is the first Assembly Bill to be introduced on ethical grounds, and it has raised some interesting questions about this approach to legislating. Ultimately, the question of whether something is ethical is a matter of personal judgment, like moral judgment making. As was the case for members of the committee, it will be a matter for Members in the Chamber today to decide on which side of the ethical debate they stand. The committee, however—although, not unanimously—recommends that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill, and I hope that we will do so today. 

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

Thank you, Llywydd. We reported on this Bill on 4 December and we made only one recommendation. That recommendation relates to the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' provided for in the Bill. The Minister told us that the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' used in the Bill are the same as those used in the corresponding Scotland and England-only Acts. However, we noted that the definition of 'wild animal' in the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018 appear to provide a more detailed and specific definition than the definition included in this Bill. Now, whilst we acknowledge that the Minister wrote to us on 28 November to offer some clarification, the letter was received over five weeks after the Minister provided evidence to us and only one week ahead of our reporting deadline. It was not clear to us why it took so long after the evidence session to write to us.

As a result of those timescales, we had limited opportunity to consider the implications of the Minister's additional evidence. For that reason, we recommended that the Minister use Stage 1 debate as the opportunity to clarify the definitions of 'wild animal' and 'travelling circus' provided for in the Bill. We also asked that she explain how and why these definitions differ from those used in the equivalent Scotland and England-only Acts. And today, I welcome, obviously, the Minister's comments on this matter and the further clarification that has been provided today, as requested by the committee. Thank you, Llywydd.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, may I welcome today's debate on the general principles of the Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Bill? The Welsh Conservatives, of course, first called for a ban on wild animals in circuses in Wales back in 2015. So, it's a little unfortunate that Wales is actually behind the curve in implementing animal welfare legislation, with the UK Government passing a similar Act in England in July 2019, and the Scottish Government likewise in January 2018.

Nevertheless, the Welsh Conservatives agree with the principles of the Bill, and we support its aims of improving animal welfare by recognising that the needs of wild animals are best met in alternative environments and those outside of a travelling circus. However, we believe there are a number of improvements that could be made to ensure that the Bill is watertight, closing potential loopholes and reducing ambiguity within the legislation that could be still exploited.

There has been much debate regarding the definition of 'wild animal'. The definition of 'wild animal' is aligned with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, with the Bill also giving Ministers the power to make regulations on what animals may be regarded and not regarded as a wild animal. However, in its explanatory memorandum, the Welsh Government states that:

'it is possible there may be uncertainty or conflicting views regarding whether a kind of animal is to be considered wild or not'.  

Dr Rebekah Humphreys, in her evidence session to the Assembly's Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, notes:

'the term "wild" itself is a vague concept'.

Dr Humphreys therefore suggests that the animals covered by the proposed legislation could be included on the face of the Bill as a guide to assist enforcement.

Section 4 of the Bill provides that a 'travelling circus' means:

'a circus which travels from one place to another for the purpose of providing entertainment'.

Giving Ministers again the power to make regulations specifying an act of entertainment that is to be regarded, or not regarded, as a travelling circus. However, evidence given highlights a lack of understanding as to what constitutes a travelling circus. The definition used within the Bill should be tightened to prevent circuses from attempting to circumvent the legislation by re-branding as an educational attraction rather than an entertainment attraction. RSPCA Cymru recommends that the definition could be aligned with the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012, which defines a travelling circus as one:

'which travels from place to place for the purpose of giving performances, displays or exhibitions'.

With regards to strengthening the enforcement of the Bill, RSPCA Cymru has also argued that Wales should include provisions similar to the Scotland Act, allowing for police constables to be given the same power as an inspector defined within the Schedule. Furthermore, section 9 of the powers of inspection outlines that an inspector may examine or test anything found on the premises, including taking a sample from an animal. However, the Bill does not currently state that the sample must be taken by a professional, and thus professionals should be enabled to assist the inspector, particularly as the animals that are captured within the legislation may require specialist support. Moreover, the Bill in its current form does not include a power to seize any animal that is found on a premise and is evidence of a breach of the proposed legislation.

Some stakeholders suggest that not having the power to seize an animal limits the power of the inspector, and that some cases may require animals being rehomed if there are obvious animal welfare issues. Therefore, including an explicit provision, allowing for the seizure of animals if animal welfare appears to be inadequate, would allow inspectors to take efficient action against circuses or indeed individuals that appear to break animal welfare legislation.

We also have concerns regarding some unintended consequences of the Bill, including the lack of provision currently regarding the future of the wild animals that are currently used in UK travelling circuses following the implementation of such a ban. Circus owners may decide to give up their animals if it is no longer financially viable to tour with them, and we believe it would be useful if the Welsh Government produced guidance to circuses on the support that can be provided to them in developing a retirement plan for all wild animals, currently used to ensure that the welfare of the animals is maintained.

In conclusion, public support for banning the use of wild animals in circuses has been there for all to see. And I have to mention at this point the work that Mike Hedges did previously as committee Chair on Petitions Committee and the work there, and the petitioners. That was a real step forward in making this Bill a reality. This is a step in the right direction, and as a nation and Assembly we all want to see Wales leading the way and becoming the most animal friendly nation in the world. Diolch yn fawr. 

There is no doubt in my mind that banning wild animals from travelling circuses is the right thing to do. It was certainly part of the Plaid Cymru manifesto in the last election. The exploitation of wild animals for that end is unacceptable. Of course, we know that the attitudes of society have changed. A number of pieces of research and opinion polls show that. We know that 45 nations across the world have introduced a ban or restrictions to that end.

It is disappointing, and I echo previous comments, that the Government has taken so long to get to this point. Mention was made that we are behind the curve. Well, we were ahead of the curve, as the first part of the UK that was eager to legislate in this area. But, as it happens, we will now be the final nation nation in the UK to succeed in doing so. And, of course, as we've already heard, there was suggestion from the Chair that the Bill almost didn't receive consent in the environment committee to accept the general principles underpinning the Bill at Stage 1. It was only by a hair's breadth that the committee agreed to do that.

I voted in favour of allowing the Bill to proceed and I will do so again today, despite the fact that the Minister had made very heavy work of justifying why the Government has used ethical grounds for legislating in this area. Again, as we heard from the Chair, if it's unethical to allow wild animals to perform in travelling circuses, well is it therefore unethical for them to perform in other circumstances? Why only travelling circuses? Although there isn't a static circus in Wales, there's nothing to say that there won't be in the future.

The Government says that animals displayed for the purpose of entertainment in locations other than circuses will be regulated, and that's a good thing. But not on ethical grounds—it's on animal welfare grounds. The Minister failed to explain the rationale why one group of animals is protected on ethical grounds and another on animal welfare grounds—indeed, the same animals in different contexts in certain cases. But there we are. One witness told us that ethics have to be universal or they fail to be ethics. That's a suggestion of the quandary that certain committee members found themselves in.

But, having said that, we do have a Bill before us. It is very narrow in its focus, which will impact 19 animals—not 19 species, but 19 animals only. But I do think that we need to thank everyone who contributed to the evidence. We need to amend and improve the Bill, and the evidence that we've received was very strong from both sides and required a certain amount of balancing. And I want to pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned tirelessly for such legislation. I will refer specifically to one individual who is a constituent of mine and is here today, Linda Joyce-Jones, who has been in the vanguard in terms of this campaign and has campaigned tirelessly to achieve this objective. And I hope we will be a step further following this debate this afternoon. 

But we need to improve the Bill, as I've said, and that's become clear from the evidence that we've received. The Minister referred to this earlier: although wild animals won't be allowed to perform, they will still be allowed to tour with circuses. That isn't acceptable in my view. The touring and being kept in those conditions is as much part of the problem as the performance itself. And that is something that I would be eager to see the Government amending and correcting.

We need to strengthen the enforcement powers to include police powers, such as those that exist in Scotland. Now of course that would require consent from Westminster, but I do believe that we need to do that now whilst we are legislating on the issue, so that that power is in place should it be required in the future. We should also be able to ban offenders from keeping wild animals for particular periods in order to prevent reoffending. I would like to see the Government incorporating that into the Bill too. Now, the Government's intention is for this legislation to come into force on 1 December of this year. When the Bill was laid back in July and when we discussed the Bill last time in this Chamber, at that point I asked the Government whether it would be possible to bring it into force earlier. The Minister at the time said that she was very open to considering that and I would like to hear whether she is still of that view. Because I know on a practical level it might mean a great deal of work, but I would be eager to see a ban coming into force rather than us seeing another summer of wild animals travelling throughout Wales in these travelling circuses. So, let us implement this legislation urgently in order to prevent the use of wild animals in travelling circuses this year and not have to wait another year. 

The public sense and sensibilities with regard to the treatment of animals has changed dramatically over recent decades. What was acceptable in the 1950s is no longer acceptable in the twenty-first century. The welfare of animals, not their entertainment value, should be at the centre of any debate surrounding their use in circuses and indeed in any entertainment scenario.

Wild animals belong in their natural habitat. In the same way that animal fur always looks better on the animal, their natural habitat provides the best living conditions for any such creature. Travelling circus life severely compromises welfare for wild animals. Confinement, stressful transportation, forced training and abnormal social groupings are all a grim reality for the animals, highlighting why this outdated spectacle needs to be consigned to the history books.

There are also clear indications of the strength of public feeling against the use of wild animals being exhibited in circuses. Wild animals in circuses and other travelling shows do not achieve their normal welfare requirements. Evidence would therefore support a ban on using wild animals in travelling circuses and mobile zoos on animal welfare grounds. Their lives do not constitute either a good life or even an acceptable quality of life. 

Forty-five nations have either banned or restricted the use of wild animals in circuses. It is now time that Wales added its name to that list in banning altogether this form of exploitation of wild animals. We in the Brexit Party fully support this Bill, but we also support the recommendations of the RSPCA in their belief that parts of the Bill are too narrow with regard to stopping wild animals travelling with a circus, powers of enforcement and disqualification. A twenty-first century Wales should not allow this sort of entertainment to carry on. 

I'm not going to get into the almost metaphysical debate that's gone on about the ethical nature of the Bill, but I will support what has been said by Llyr Gruffydd and David Rowlands about the fact that animals travelling with the circuses need that level of regulation. I agree with that and I think that is something that needs to be strengthened in the Bill.

Llyr beat me to it. I was going to pay tribute to Linda Joyce-Jones as well. You said she's in the gallery. I can't see her, but she's a very welcome campaigner and we jointly hosted an event on 8 October calling for the ban of all wild animals, and all animals, in circuses and travelling shows earlier this year. So, this is something that is welcome and as other Members have said—I'm not going to rub it in, Minister—beyond timely. It's very, very welcome.

When young people come to the Senedd from schools, one of the things that I try and impress upon them is that we are doing real things that will affect their lives. In Tir-y-Berth, Circus Mondao exhibited wild animals there and there was a big protest in my constituency, in Tir-y-Berth—they called it Bargoed, but it wasn't; it was further up the valley. There were children from that area who had gone to the circus. And the question I've asked time and time again of those children visiting is, 'Are you in favour of wild animals in circuses?' Following the discussion and the kind of discussion that we have here, the result is almost always unanimous against—even those children who'd been to the circus. They're their audience. They'd been to the circus. They said, 'We don't need the wild animals in the circus', and therefore this ban is timely.

And you see Circus Mondao—they've attacked me on Facebook. I did a video following a First Minister's question that I asked. It had 14,000 views and got as far as Australia and they were attacking me for calling for this ban, so that tells me it's definitely worth doing, because, when you're attacked, you know that you're right. I think it's certainly—[Interruption.] It's certainly—[Interruption.] It's certainly—[Interruption.] Well, it's my rule of thumb; it's always worked for me [Laughter.] It's certainly the case—[Interruption.] It's certainly the case that it cleans up legislation as well. Before I was elected as an Assembly Member here, Thomas Chipperfield had had their circus licence application withdrawn because DEFRA were unhappy with the conditions in which some of their animals were being held, but they were still able to set up a public show in Tir-y-Berth because the regulations didn't apply in Wales. So, this legislation needs to address that and I think the fact that it is coming across the UK as a ban will address that.

Many of the people who were at the event I co-hosted with Llyr were calling for wider, stronger legislation, but we're also aware of the animal welfare licensing of animal exhibits regulations that the Minister has mentioned, and I would hope that there would be the opportunity to clean issues up through that as well, although I've also had representations from constituents who are concerned about the impact of that on dog shows. So, you know, you try and do one thing and something else goes wrong, as is politics. But I think, in short, I'm happy to welcome this legislation and, notwithstanding those reservations that have been expressed in this Chamber, pleased to see it proceed.

I welcome this piece of legislation. I did vote for it and I'm really pleased that it's here on the table. I agree with what Llyr has said and I also agree with what Janet has said. I think that's the thing: those people who support it would like to see it go, if possible and where possible, a little bit deeper and a little bit wider. I agree with—and I was going to quote from the RSPCA Cymru's response, but I'm not going to bother because I'm just going to waste time, but I believe and agree with what they have said, and I do think that we need to take note of what they've written to us, and I'm sure to you as well, Minister. When we pass this legislation, we'll be joining 50 other countries—my research said—and that does include England and Scotland, and I am saddened that we're behind the curve, but I'm also very pleased that we are now going to implement it.

I cannot in any way call this a form of entertainment. For some people, possibly, it might be. But, for the animals, my argument would be it isn't entertainment. So, I don't believe—and this is what we're trying to prevent—that any wild animal should be in a circus, and that view is shared with the 74 per cent of people in Wales who supported that in a 2015 poll. So, we are duty bound in cases like that, when we ask people and we go out and say, 'Is this what you’d like to see?', to try and implement that, and I'm pleased that we have. There is a real strength of feeling here.

I do also want to pay tribute to the people who have campaigned, successfully now, to see this at the table. It's never easy, is it, to be a lone voice or feel like you're a lone voice in trying to bring about change, but it is also a testament, isn't it, to the Petitions Committee, that that also drives change. I suppose that Dafydd Elis-Thomas, when he first put the Petitions Committee into being, could see the value of that as an avenue for change.

The Minister to reply to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Members for their comments and contributions today. I want this to be the very best piece of legislation, so I really do welcome people's comments and views about how we can make it a better piece of legislation and I look forward to working with Members going forward.

It is very, very difficult to put forward an ethical argument and I think that—. I'm sorry to hear Llyr thought I made heavy work of it, but it is really, really difficult because obviously ethics are a person, they're an individual sort of moral and ethical code, if you like. It's a very, very personal view. But I absolutely knew that we could not do this on welfare grounds. When I looked at—. You know, one of the advantages, if you like, of being the last country to do it, we could look at what's gone on in Scotland, we could look at what's gone on in England, who have taken the same routes, and we considered all options. I really want to assure Members that that was the case. Each legislative route presented risks and opportunities and I was absolutely convinced that we needed to bring forward this legislation. I think it's absolutely the right route for us.

Mike Hedges repeated what I said in committee: I do not want Wales to be a sanctuary for those two circuses. The fact that Scotland has already introduced the ban and England are doing so later this month, that's exactly what could have happened. So, I think, whilst there's no evidence of recent mistreatment of wild animals in travelling circuses, and I want to put that down on the record—. And I know that might be very unpopular with some people who gave evidence. There is not that evidence there. I think there have been two cases, two prosecutions in the last 20 years, so clearly the ethical argument, we believe, is the right way forward.

To Mick Antoniw, I hope I provided the clarity that you sought. I apologise that you did not get the letter from me as early as you would have liked, but I'm pleased to have been able to provide that clarification today.

Several Members raised similar points. David Rowlands asked about the scope—why the scope of the ban doesn't extend to banning wild animals touring with travelling circuses. Well, the objective of this Bill is to prevent the use of wild animals in circuses on ethical grounds. So, if circuses choose to keep their wild animals and use them in a different way, as I said in my opening remarks, that's their prerogative, provided they do it within the law.

Janet Finch-Saunders talked about the future of wild animals. Well, again, because Scotland have already brought forward a ban, and England are introducing one later this month, probably decisions about the future of the wild animals will have already been taken. Janet Finch-Saunders also asked about what if a travelling circus rebranded itself. I think you gave the example as an educational show, for example. The scope of the Bill is specifically about wild animals in travelling circuses and I think it's more appropriate that we regulate the use of wild animals in other settings at this time, rather than look to broaden the scope of the Bill.

Llyr Huws Gruffydd asked about the coming into force date. As I said, I'm very happy to look at it. Certainly the way the Bill progressed—and the UK Government have progressed much quicker than was anticipated and If that happens to us then, yes, I'd be very happy to do so. However, I think we need to look at if the circuses are travelling over the summer, normally the touring is finished by the end of November and that was one of the reasons we thought that 1 December would be the correct date. But, as I've said previously, I'm very happy to consider that. 

Janet Finch-Saunders asked why powers of enforcement didn't extend to the police. I don't anticipate that the police will be involved in the enforcement of this legislation. If you think about it, the offence is likely to happen in public and the animal would have to perform or be exhibited, so I think that there are unlikely to be many cases that would then require investigation. But if a police presence was ever necessary then obviously police officers could exercise their existing powers to enter premises to deal with such an offence. 

Joyce Watson, I think you're absolutely right about the Petitions Committee. If you think about the plastic bag ban, it's brought forward some fantastic ideas and I do pay tribute, as a couple of people have mentioned, to Linda Joyce-Jones and other campaigners. Certainly, I know if you have a circus in your constituency the postbag increases with people who think we should be bringing forward a ban. Certainly, as Minister, I've received correspondence every time a circus comes into Wales.

Janet Finch-Saunders also asked about the list of animals. I don't think it's practical to put a list of wild animals, or domesticated animals for that matter, on the face of the Bill because, clearly, they could change. So, I think we need to make sure that that's considered elsewhere.

So, I really thank Members for their contributions and very much look forward, I hope with the support of the Chamber, to the general principles going through to the next stage. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. And that brings today's proceedings to a close.