National Assembly for Wales

I call the Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question, Neil McEvoy.

First Minister, not so long ago you described it as odd that Wales doesn't have its own—

You need to ask the question on the order paper. 

Excuse me; I do apologise. It's not on the order paper. Ah, here you go. Sorry.

Don't blame the order paper, Mr McEvoy. [Laughter.]

Via Sport Wales, we have provided £537,000 this year to Cricket Wales to support the development of the game across Wales.

Diolch, and thank you for your patience there. Not so long ago, you described it as odd that Wales doesn't have its own national cricket team. And it seems more odd now that Ireland is a full test member of the International Cricket Council, and Scotland is beating England in one-day internationals. So, where is Wales? I think many people here find it bizarre that a team called England, with no Welsh players, playing under the English flag, three lions on the shirt, can be described as Welsh. Now, Glamorgan, who have had reservations about the Welsh team, are calling for someone to produce a business plan to explore how to have a successful county side and national side. So, will your Government support Glamorgan's suggestion by commissioning a feasibility study into a Welsh national cricket team, or will you let Welsh cricketers and fans continue to be so badly represented by England?

Well, ultimately, it's a matter for Cricket Wales and for Glamorgan Cricket Club, and not for the Government. There is no doubt that there would be a severe financial impact if we were suddenly to compete in our own names. There's a question mark as to whether Glamorgan would survive, whether the stadium would be viable, and, indeed, what would happen in terms of the financial support that Welsh cricket receives. I understand that there will be many who, in their hearts, would like to see a Welsh cricket team, but, of course, there are financial realities here that have to be observed and, for me, I think it's best left to the cricketing authorities. 

First Minister, like many sports across Wales, cricket at grass-roots and amateur level is coming under significant pressure, both financially and from a participation perspective. Now, on the weekend, you may have seen that the Welsh Rugby Union announced a pilot that would see junior rugby moved to the summer season. Now, whilst I certainly acknowledge that some of the reasons put forward by the WRU are understandable, can I ask what discussions your Government has had, or will be having over the coming weeks, to ensure that the game of cricket in Wales is not significantly squeezed or harmed by this decision, as it is surely in everyone's interest that all sports in Wales, including cricket and rugby, have their own space to thrive?

It was an issue that was raised with me over the course of the weekend. There is significant overlap already between the sports. There was a time when people would happily play rugby in the winter and cricket in the summer, and the overlap wasn't there; it certainly wasn't there when I was in school, when we played on sloping pitches with a dull ball and one pad—that was the way to learn cricket, if I remember. But the serious point is this: it's important that cricket is able to appeal to young people, as young as possible. The situation has improved. I know, when my son was younger, he could play football at six, rugby at seven, but cricket not until 11. That did change very quickly and he did take part in some cricket. What's important is that cricket continues to appeal to children at the youngest age possible, and, in fairness, that is something that's happening now. So, cricket should be able, to my mind, to hold its own. 

One of the most powerful tools, surely, for encouraging youth cricket in Wales would be to have a national cricket team that young people the length and breadth of the country could aspire to and find role models in. You say that this is not a matter for Government. Let's perhaps explore what might be a matter for Government. You have a major events unit, for example, that funds a host of events in order to put Wales on the map, in order to market Wales, in order to bring economic benefit to Wales. Would Welsh Government look at the possibility of even using major events funding to get the ball rolling on a national cricket team for Wales, as, if you like, a permanent major event that could bring real national benefits? 

The major events funding is there for one-off events, not for continuous revenue funding. But he is right to say, of course, that it's a good way of showcasing Wales. But we don't just attract events to have Welsh teams in them, if I can put it that way. We've just had the Volvo Ocean Race. There was Welsh participation, but there wasn't a Welsh team. The point was to bring the attention of the world to Cardiff Bay, and to Wales, and to see what we could host. The same with the Champions League—yes, there was Welsh participation, clearly, but there were no Welsh teams in it. So, I think it's hugely important that we are able to showcase ourselves as a nation that can host major events. We've done that incredibly successfully. We are by far the smallest nation, for example, to host the Champions League, and Cardiff is the smallest city to host the Champions League. We've done it, and there's no reason why we can't do it again. It shouldn't just be tied to whether or not there's a Welsh team in the event as to whether we then support that event.

The Wales animal health and welfare framework implementation plan—snappily titled—sets out the framework group and Welsh Government priorities for animal health and welfare, and the Cabinet Secretary will be making a statement on companion animal welfare later today.

Thank you very much for the reply, Minister. Since May this year, every abattoir in England is required to have CCTV cameras installed in all areas where live animals are kept. Official vets will have unrestricted access to footage, to reassure consumers that high welfare standards are being enforced. Does the First Minister agree that this is an effective way to prevent animal cruelty, and when will the Welsh Government make CCTV compulsory in our abattoirs in Wales?

Well, there are a number of controls already in place in abattoirs. Official vets are present in every single one of them. The larger abattoirs, which process the majority of animals, have CCTV, and official vets are able to access footage if they suspect welfare standards are not being met. That said, we are determined to improve standards and practices where it's necessary and reasonable to do so, and the £1.1 million food business investment funding package will assist small and medium-sized slaughterhouses to improve their facilities, including the installation of CCTV.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, prostate cancer is a cruel condition, which, if diagnosed early enough, has remarkable success rates—90 per cent plus. Regrettably, obviously, screening in some parts of the UK leaves a lot to be desired. In particular here in Wales, regrettably, the ability to get access to the multiparametric MRI scanner for four health boards is non-existent, and people do end up having to pay considerable sums to have that scan undertaken. In England, for example, where that scan is available, it has a 92 per cent detection rate. With the four health boards, which total 700,000 men within those health boards, unable to attract that type of screening, what commitment can you give, as First Minister and as a Government, to roll out the screening so that, whatever part of Wales you live in, you will have access to that screening, so that, if you do require surgery or intervention, it can be done in a timely manner?

An important question, and one that deserves a detailed answer, if I may, Llywydd. I can say that health boards in Wales are able to offer multiparametric scans, in line with the current guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. That guidance currently recommends the mpMRI for people with a negative biopsy, to determine whether another biopsy is needed, and whether the management of a proven cancer will benefit from staging of the tumour. The what's called 'PROMIS trial' indicated that people with suspected prostate cancer might benefit from having their mpMRI prior to biopsy. NICE is reviewing its guidance and is expected to issue recommendations in the early part of next year. In the meantime, evidence is being considered by the Wales urology board. It's fair to say there are different views among the clinicians about the implications of recent evidence, with some health boards implementing elements of a revised approach. What I can say is that, if NICE recommends pre-biopsy mpMRI for suspected prostate cancer, then we would expect all health boards to amend their care pathways accordingly. In the meantime, health boards will continue to consider the evidence and pathway reforms through the Wales urology board.

I thank you for that detailed answer, First Minister. Regrettably, 10,000 men a year die from prostate cancer—it's the biggest killer of men. And some universality around the screening programme must be a compunction on the Government because, actually, cancer doesn't rely on postcodes—it's universal, it is. On the bowel cancer screening programme that the Welsh Government have, it has been called, at the moment, a very postcode lottery-driven screening programme. In particular, one in four individuals were waiting in excess of eight weeks to have their screening procedure diagnosed, and actually put into practice if intervention was required. Nine hundred people a year die of bowel cancer here in Wales. If, ultimately, we had a better, more robust screening system and a wider screening system that actually took into account 40 years and above, then we could drive those numbers down even further. Given that we know the importance of screening and, in particular, bowel screening, what action is your Government taking to shorten the waiting times that will remove that one in four—25 per cent of people—waiting in excess of eight weeks to get the results that they require, because it cannot be right that, where the condition is treatable, just waiting too long on a waiting list has a detrimental impact on your outcome?

With screening, it's a question of who you target for the screening, because you can't screen everybody. Which elements of the population are particularly susceptible to a particular type of cancer, because it's not physically possible to screen everybody? We want, of course, to see consistency across the health boards. They're able to access the new treatments fund, if that's appropriate for what they wish to take forward. What I can say is that, when we look at our urgent suspected cancer route, for example, the vast majority of people started definitive treatment within the target time of 62 days—88.7 per cent—and 96 per cent of patients who are newly diagnosed with cancer not via the urgent route started definitive treatment within the target time of 31 days, in March 2018. So, the vast majority of people do get the treatment that they should get within the right amount of time. But, of course, we rely on specialists in order to advise us to make sure that we can see how we can improve screening where that's necessary. 

Those improvements are desperately needed. As I said, Bowel Cancer UK says it is a national crisis that one in four people are waiting eight weeks or more for that screening process to be undertaken. But what we do know from the weekend's announcement that the UK Government made is that there will be a considerable uplift in the spend available to the Welsh Government to spend on health and social care here in Wales—[Interruption.] These screening—. Well, I can hear the chuntering from the Labour backbenchers, but the reality is that money is coming over to the Welsh Government.

Now, it is perfectly right, under the devolved settlement, that you choose where to spend that money. From these benches, we believe that that money should be spent in the fields of health and social care to make those improvements in prostate, bowel and other treatments available to patients here in Wales. Now, will you commit today to making sure that any money that is made available to the Welsh Government is spent on those key areas, so that we can see the improvements that we desperately need in diagnostic tests, waiting times and staff recruitment, which other parts of the UK that are committed to delivering it in the health and social care budgets will see? We need that commitment, First Minister. Will you make it? 

Well, the first thing we have to see is how much money we'll actually get, because there are two important points to make here: first of all, we have been informed that that money, whatever money we get, will be the source of funding to deal with pay increases. So, the lifting of the pay cap will have to be financed through any money that we get via the source that he has mentioned. So, that's the first thing to mention. There's no extra money on top of that. Secondly, of course, it's never the case, is it, that we get a lump sum of money to pay for a particular area, such as health or education? What happens is, of course, as he knows, is that it's delivered via the block grant. What we don't know is that, if we get the increase in health, whether we will then see decreases everywhere else—in local government, in education, in all those areas that are devolved. Now, those, of course, are removed from the figure that he's just mentioned. So, until we know firstly how much money net there will actually be—we know about the £1.2 billion—and until we know, of course, how much money—we've got a fair idea—that the pay deal will cost, we won't know how much money is available to spend. Until those factors are resolved—and nobody is able to do that yet because we don't know what any increases or not in our block grant will be in the autumn—and until we know the definitive net sum of money, it's very difficult to make any commitments at this stage. 

The leader of the UKIP group, Caroline Jones. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the Prime Minister announced over the weekend that there would be a £20 billion a year birthday present for the NHS in England. As a result of Barnett, Wales is expected to receive £1.2 billion. On Sunday, a Welsh Government spokesman said that a decision on the allocation of funding would be made by your Cabinet in the usual way. So, First Minister, have you made that decision yet, and will you be using any extra moneys we receive for health and social care? 

Well, the only commitment that we have made is that we will lift the pay cap—unusually, because normally we don't make those promises before we know how much money is allocated. So, that will have to be paid for from whichever sum of money we get from the UK Government; there's no extra money for it. And as I said in the answer earlier on, it's not going to be £1.2 billion. We don't know whether there'll be cuts elsewhere that will bring that figure down. Until we know what the final figure is, it's very difficult to give any commitments in terms of spending. 

Thank you for that answer. My concern here is that mental health issues account for around a quarter of all health problems, yet we're spending as little as over 11 per cent of the entire NHS Wales budget. We have seen a 100 per cent increase in demand for child and adolescent mental health care services. We know that depression affects 22 per cent of men and 28 per cent of women over the age of 65. We've seen a large rise in instances of self-harm, and each year around 300 people in Wales die from suicide—this is about twice the number of people killed in road accidents. We are clearly not doing enough to tackle mental health in Wales. So, First Minister, will you commit to using some of this additional money, whatever it may be, coming to Wales in order to ensure that mental health funding is based upon a robust assessment of healthcare needs? 

Yes, and in particular, of course, to look at prevention. That's hugely important. With CAMHS, she is right to say that there was a significant increase in demand for CAMHS and we met that demand by allocating—if I remember—£8 million a year towards CAMHS in order for them to meet the demand that was there. Mental health, as she will know, is a key priority for us in 'Prosperity for All'. We want to make sure that mental health is seen as something that is a priority for all governments in the future, and that will shape any spending decisions that we take if there's any extra money on the table. 

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. As I've highlighted before, many times, one in four of us will suffer from mental ill health. A friend or a work colleague could be battling depression for years—we wouldn't know about it, because, unfortunately, there is still a stigma attached to mental health issues. We all have to be more open about mental health: we wouldn't try to hide a broken leg, but we will try to hide depression. Sadly, as a result of stigma, many people end up taking their own lives. If we recognise the signs and offer non-judgmental support, many lives could be saved. So, First Minister, will you commit your Government to ensuring that as many people as possible are trained as mental health first aiders, and will you look at adding the training to the school curriculum and encourage large employers to have mental health first aiders alongside the normal, required first aiders? Thank you. 

I'm not sure that first aid is the way to deal with it. That suggests something that is acute, something that's just arisen. I think it's more long term than that. I take the point that the leader of UKIP is making in terms of how we deal with people who don't exhibit any external signs of depression. I've seen it at close hand, I've got a fair idea of how it operates in people, but it's not always obvious to those who are not familiar with the individual involved, and that is difficult, of course, because the external signs are not there. If you break a leg, it's obvious: the signs are there. That's why I want to make sure that when we look at mental health, we don't just look at it as a service designed to help people when they get into crisis, that we do look at ways in which we can help young people particularly—that's important, we have a counsellor in each secondary school in Wales—but at what more could be done, for example, to look to help people who are not obviously in need of help. They are the people, quite often, of course, that the system needs to identify. How that's done, of course, we will take forward with practitioners, to see how we can create a service where there is more focus on prevention and less on dealing with symptoms when they become obvious. 

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Does the First Minister agree with the environmental lawyers ClientEarth that the Welsh Government's plans for air quality lack clarity and detail?

Well, we are looking at air quality and how to improve it. I'm not going to agree with a firm of lawyers, obviously, that are not Welsh Government lawyers, but there is a challenge, of course, to improve air quality in the future. 

Air pollution is responsible for 2,000 deaths per year in this country. It's a public health crisis, and it's your Labour Government's environmental legacy. That's why Plaid Cymru this week has launched a campaign, clean air week, and my colleague Simon Thomas yesterday launched a comprehensive report on hydrogen's role in the decarbonisation of transport. Now, I would urge the First Minister to read this expert-led, in-depth report and to take heed of its recommendations.

First Minister, this crisis warrants urgent action. Given that a road in Caerphilly is the most polluted outside of London, will you support our calls for a clean air Act for Wales that would phase out the sale of diesel and petrol-only vehicles by 2030?

I think that's too early; I don't think the technology's ready. I do look forward to a time when electric cars become the norm. I don't think the technology's there now in terms of the range, but I think it will become available very, very quickly.

If I remember rightly, 2040 is the target the UK Government has set, is, I think, probably pessimistic, but such is the development of the technology in this field, I think we will get to a position where it will become a realistic option. As somebody who has been driving a hybrid car, the battery in my car only gives me a range of 28 miles. Now, that's the problem. We need to make sure that the technology is right to move ahead, in the way that she has described—she's right.

In the meantime, what do we do? We can't do nothing. Well, firstly, we need to make sure that we remove areas where traffic is idling with engines on—that affects air quality—and, of course, to see more modal shift, and that means, of course, moving ahead with the improvements we're going to see in our rail infrastructure, to make it more comfortable for people to travel by train, in air-conditioned trains that are more frequent, and also, of course, moving forward with the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 to make sure that where we see new developments—at cycle paths, for example—they're an integral part of those developments, so that people feel they don't have to travel by car.

So, there are two things: first of all, creating that modal shift, and, secondly, of course, looking to encourage ways to ensure that battery cars have a much longer range in the future, and that it's much easier to charge them, as well, than it is at the moment. I think that's when we can get the real change.

I take it, then, from your answer, that you disagree with Labour-led Cardiff council that has called for a ban on polluting vehicles by 2030? Why is Labour so unable to be consistent on any single policy area? The lack of urgency, willingness and the lack of being able to do things differently is costing people's lives. You can laugh and mutter—it is costing people's lives.

Now, you have already lost a case against ClientEarth and you face further legal repercussions if solutions aren't found quickly. Let me once again emphasise the scale of the problem here. Air in Cardiff and Port Talbot is more polluted than air in Birmingham and Manchester, despite the huge differences in population. This is the environment that your Government is creating for future generations. First Minister, as a very first step, you could ensure that the planned automotive park in Ebbw Vale focuses on the development of hydrogen and electric vehicles, putting Wales at the forefront of the clean transport revolution. Will you at least do that?

I wonder if she or others on the Plaid benches drive a hybrid car or an electric car? Silence. Well, practise what you preach—that's what I would say.

Try doing it in Aberystwyth. When you put in the infrastructure, we will do it.

Well, Simon Thomas—[Inaudible.] [Interruption.]

Allow the First Minister to respond, please.

Simon Thomas is right. He is right to say, 'Try doing it for Aberystwyth.' He's quite right, I don't dispute that all, which is why the technology isn't ready yet. But it does need to be moved forward. Of course, I notice that nobody even drives a hybrid—it's something I've been doing for three years.

Anyway, look, the point is this, isn't it: how do we create clean air? That's an important point. Port Talbot has a steelworks in it, and that means, inevitably, that the air quality there may not be as good as it would be in places where that industrial operation isn't there. But we need it to be there, and, in fairness, Tata have made a great deal of effort and taken many strides in reducing their emissions over the years, and that has had an effect on Port Talbot. Port Talbot also has a traffic problem that is not easy to resolve, which will need to be looked at in the future. Cardiff—well, yes, I think it's right to say that it's probably easier to drive an electric car in Cardiff if people are commuting a short distance, and that's something to encourage and the infrastructure is being—[Interruption.] Well, she makes the point about the ministerial fleet when nobody in her own party is driving that kind of car, given the long distances. [Interruption.] Yes, but I am not the one, am I—? [Interruption.] I am not the one saying that we should move to battery-operated cars as quickly as possible. They are. 

Cardiff city council is.

Practise what you preach.

The second thing is, of course—and in the short term—that the way to do this is to encourage more people out of their cars, and also, of course, to ensure that people are able to use the public transport network as conveniently as possible. We are doing that, despite the criticism that Plaid Cymru launched at the rail franchise—the only people who criticised it. We will make sure that the whole of Wales has the best rail structure in Britain. We've shown the way for the rest of Britain. It's no longer any good for people who use the Valleys lines services to travel on ancient trains with no air conditioning and an unreliable service. That's going to change. People will have the trains that they deserve and people will be able to access the cycle routes that they deserve. People will see, as we've taken powers now over buses, an integrated bus and train and light rail network. That is what we offer the people of Wales—a real vision to plug that gap until such time as the technology is available and the range is available for battery-powered cars.

The 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and the economic action plan set out the actions we are taking to improve the economy and business environment across the whole of Wales.

First Minister, I met with a relatively new business in my constituency recently called Composites Cymru, which produces carbon-fibre components for vehicles. The business is now looking to expand in order to produce other products too. I’m sure that you would agree with me that it’s important that we do everything that we can to support a business like this, by securing access to funding so that the business can grow and so that the local economy can benefit from that growth. So, can you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to ensure that small businesses, particularly small businesses in rural areas, can access financial support, so that they can grow and develop for the future and improve the local economy?

Well, of course, we are committed to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and small businesses, and we’ve invested £86 million up until 2020 to ensure that small businesses and SMEs receive the information that is needed by them, and receive guidelines and also receive business support through the Business Wales programme. It’s a pleasure to see that there’s been an increase of 10.6 per cent in businesses in Pembrokeshire since 2011, and, of course, the investment that has been made in the broadband system has made a huge difference in ensuring that businesses can remain in more rural areas and that they do  not feel that they have to establish themselves in less rural areas.

Aberdare and the wider Cynon Valley will benefit from an increase to four services per hour in 2022. More immediately, the Sunday service trial that's currently operational will be made permanent from December 2018.

Thank you, First Minister. I welcome those comments on the rail aspect of the metro, but I think it's important to note that, from its inception, the metro project has been promoted as an integrated transport solution. The geography of the Valleys means that it's often our most impoverished communities that can be furthest away from the train links on the valley floor. So, for them to benefit from better access to the jobs market, it is crucial that they're served by strong bus links that feed into those train services. So, First Minister, what reassurances can the Welsh Government give that those bus links remain at the heart of the metro vision?

Well, Members will know the frustration that many of us feel when constituents come to us and say, 'Is there anything you can do about this bus route that's been cut?' And the answer is, 'Well, it's nothing to do with Government. It's all from the private sector, apart from subsidised routes.' Well, that has to come to an end, because, in most parts of Wales, there's effectively a private monopoly on bus services. They can do as they see fit in terms of which routes they run. Now that we have responsibility and control over the bus services in Wales, there's the opportunity to create that integrated bus, light rail and train system that we've wanted to see for a long times in Wales. She's right to say that there are many cross-Valleys routes, for example, that are not being served by rail, but are important in terms of what they deliver through bus services. Now we can start looking, from phases 2 and 3 and beyond, at a properly integrated public transport system for the whole of Wales, and these are exciting times.

First Minister, we're already seeing, from the population statistics for Rhondda Cynon Taf and Aberdare, being very important, that there's an increase in population of people who are between 30 and 40, as some people are relocating to those areas to purchased family-sized housing. This is leading to a larger and more diverse social mix, which itself regenerates areas like Aberdare. But an essential part of this, to rebuild on this trend, is to ensure that the metro provides excellent transport, because a lot of younger people do not want their lives ruled by the car and facing congestion points.

They don't; you're quite right. They are more enlightened, I suppose, than many of the generations older than them. We are looking, of course—the Member for Llanelli has offered his strong support for that, I'm glad he considers he is a part of the younger generation, but I'll not comment on that. We are looking, of course, at a system of half-price travel for young people, as well, to make it easier for them to access the network that we will have in place, but the Member is quite right to point out that we have to make sure, as we encourage people out of their cars, that we have a rail system that is good enough to attract them onto the trains. For too long, they've had to put up with uncomfortable trains with condensation running down the windows, with indifferent punctuality. Those days must change, and they will change as a result of the new franchise.

First Minister, the improvements to the service in Cynon valley will obviously come through to Pontypridd, but are probably unlikely to go as far as providing benefits to Pontyclun, where you have a population from Pencoed to the surrounding area of around 100,000. The main benefit that, probably, people in Pontyclun will see is that there will be more trains going through Pontyclun, but not necessarily stopping in Pontyclun. At the moment, there is one train an hour, two at peak times, normally of two carriages, and there is incredible frustration in terms of people actually even being able to access the service at all, because of the congestion. I wonder if this is something Welsh Government would have a look at to ensure that, in this growing area, this vitally important area, a part of my constituency, there will be very specific improvements to the rail service, to the frequency of trains, the quality of trains and the number of carriages to enable them to deliver people, whether it be from Pencoed through Pontyclun to Cardiff or vice versa.

My daughter travels to Cardiff on a Monday and a Tuesday. She is somebody who lobbies me constantly on this issue. She sees the overcrowding on the trains. She gets on at Bridgend, but, of course, with the stops at Pencoed and Llanharan, then at Pontyclun, she sees the overcrowding that takes place there with a two-carriage train in the early morning. Bear in mind, of course, that the last franchise was let on the basis that there would be no increase in the passenger numbers at all. That was unfathomable thinking at the time. That is not what we've done this time around. So, it does mean looking at more frequent services to serve his constituents. It'll mean, in time, as well, of course, looking at the old coke works line up to Beddau to see whether that can be used—probably light rail—to link back into the mainline to provide a service for people at the stations from western Talbot Green, I suppose, onwards and upwards up to Beddau.

The Welsh Government and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in Wales have worked together to develop a joint framework to support positive change for those at risk of offending in Wales.

Virtually every piece of research that has looked at the size of prisons has shown that smaller prisons have better outcomes for prisoners and communities as compared to large prisons, and superprisons, particularly. So, if you are serious about reducing the levels of reoffending, then would you commit, if and when these issues are devolved, to plough a new furrow in Wales and to move away from this model and ensure that we don’t see more superprisons being developed here in Wales?

Yes, we will. I think we must reconsider both the justice and the courts systems in Wales, and especially, of course, the prisons and the institutions for young offenders. So, this is something that we’re considering at present, because if we’re going to see the devolution of the justice system, then we must have a policy. But there's no point having a policy once devolution takes place; you have to have one beforehand, and this is something that we, as Government, have foreseen and I know that this is something that the Minister is considering and developing at present.

First Minister, I'm sure you would agree with me, key to low reoffending rates is training prior to release. I recently opened a very successful jobs fair at Prescoed open prison in my constituency—it was hosted partially by Careers Wales—where ex-offenders had the opportunity to meet with employers, both local and from further afield, to see how they could best apply valuable skills that they picked up whilst in prison. I thought that this was a very worthwhile scheme. Prescoed has an excellent record of rehabilitation. Can you tell us—whilst I appreciate that prisons aren't devolved—what the Welsh Government is doing to support organisations like Careers Wales, so that ex-offenders, whilst they are in prison, do get that valuable opportunity to retrain so that upon release they can reintegrate with society and give society back those skills that they picked up in prison?

Well, youth offending teams have played a significant role in reducing reoffending amongst young people. They've looked to support prevention, early intervention and diversion. As someone with significant experience in representing young people at the sharp end in the courts, what I would find is, yes, they can quite often get released from a young offenders' institution, having had training, but they fall back into the same peer group and into the same habits. So, yes, training is hugely important—I very much welcome what's been done at Prescoed—but also, of course, those teams will know that it's hugely important to move people away from a peer group that might have got them into trouble in the first place, and often away from drugs as well, because the rate of reoffending with people who have abused drugs is enormously high. So, I think it's a holistic approach that's needed, but what he's described as happening in his own constituency is a hugely important part of that approach.

The 'NHS Wales Planning Framework 2018/21' sets out the principles that health boards should follow when developing their integrated medium-term plans. We have also set out our vision for the future of health and social care services in the long-term plan, 'A Healthier Wales', which was launched last week.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. As he knows, a significant part of Mid and West Wales is within the Betsi Cadwaladr health board area. As of the end of March, there were 5,714 patients that were waiting more than nine months for treatment in hospital. Under Betsi's current plans, many orthopaedic patients will still be waiting more than a year for treatment, and 4,200, generally, will wait more than nine months to be treated, whereas in Powys, that nine-month wait has actually been eliminated. Betsi also says that there's a systemic deficit of 13,500 patient pathways on the basis of patient demand, so that must mean that they are not being funded properly to provide a suitably comprehensive system of healthcare for the people of that region. Is it acceptable to the Welsh Government that, under Betsi's plans, this is a health board that is actually planning to fail?

The health Secretary updated Members last week on the progress made in some areas. He was also clear about the significant challenges that do remain, and the support that will be in place for the next phase of work. It's right to say that some services have been de-escalated. Maternity services, of course, in a very difficult place at one point, were de-escalated as a special measures concern in February, and that demonstrates what can be achieved with focused action and support, and that is the model that we plan to use in ensuring that there is further de-escalation in the months to come.

Of course, we do know a little bit better now what is happening in Betsi Cadwaladr, and what support the Welsh Government is offering that health board, simply because we have raised it here so many times that we've finally managed to get an answer. I wonder, now, First Minister, if you might be able to enlighten us as to the types of levels of support that the Welsh Government is offering the Hywel Dda health board, which, as you know, is in a form of special intervention. They've already been in it for over two years. We don't want to see their situation deteriorate or continue for as long as the Betsi Cadwaladr health board situation has. Surely the objective is that you go in, you give them the support, they put themselves right, and then they come back out of special measures. That's the way we should be running our health boards. So, perhaps you can just give us an overview of what you're doing for Hywel Dda health board, because I've found it exceptionally difficult to try to get some real, clear, crystal-clear answers on this matter from the Cabinet Secretary for health.

Well, I can say that in 2015-16 and 2016-17, we did provide Hywel Dda with additional non-recurrent funding of £14.4 million as short-term structural support in recognition of the financial challenges facing the board. On 23 May, the health Secretary announced the findings of a review that partially confirmed the view that Hywel Dda faces a unique set of healthcare challenges that have contributed to the consistent deficits incurred by the board and its predecessor organisations as well. As a result, £27 million of additional recurrent funding has been released to the health board during this financial year. That will place the health board on a sounder funding basis going forward, and of course it will help the board to develop and transform services in the future.

I don't know, First Minister, if you've had a chance to see the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales's report on the distressing case of Ellie and Chris James of Haverfordwest, whose son died in Glangwili hospital. There were a host of failings described in that ombudsman's report, compounded by the decision to describe their son's death as 'stillborn', despite the fact that he had signs of life after being born, and that in itself was as a result of several failings, including, for example, failing to monitor the heartbeat. This happened in Glangwili, with a young mother being taken from Withybush to Glangwili. A failure to escalate—something we were told wouldn't be happening when the services were taken from Withybush to Glangwili, of course. I hope you'll join with me in extending deepest sympathies to the family and the circumstances that they have suffered. But, in particular, I'd be interested to know what specific steps you're taking in line with the ombudsman's conclusions that the health board should implement the recommendations of this report now, and whether you're taking any further direct action to ensure that, there, we have the highest standards of neonatal care in our health board area.

Nobody could fail to be moved by what these parents have gone through. Of course I join him in expressing my enormous sympathy for what has happened to them—of course. All of us, I'm sure, in this Chamber will more than empathise with the situation that they find themselves in, of course.

Well, what should be done as a result? First of all, the ombudsman's report was clear in its findings that the care provided was unacceptable—by more than one hospital, but unacceptable. The health board has accepted the report's recommendations in full. They have sent their action plan to us. Officials will now monitor the actions taken by the health board to ensure that the recommendations within the report are implemented. There has already been a great deal of learning and improvement in practice as a result of what is, of course, a very sad case, and we will ensure that that continues. As part of the learning process, I can say that we expect all NHS organisations to reflect on this case to identify any learning to improve patient care within their own respective organisations as well. So, yes, Hywel Dda will take action. That action will be monitored by us.

Yes, the financial support we provide to businesses plays a vital role in helping them to start, to sustain and grow, and of course to enable them to deliver wider economic benefit. But businesses receiving such support must satisfy grant terms and conditions, and any breaches may result in the recovery of that grant.

Thank you for that answer. You will know that Celtic Wealth Management had a grant from your Government for financial services, but instead decided to use that money to rip off steelworkers in the Port Talbot area, and other people with defined pension benefits. This effectively amounts to cold calling and is something that is unethical. I'm wondering why it's taken you seven months to even comment on this in any way, shape or form, and why you are not taking decisive action as a Government to root out the problem in relation to this particular firm. If you go on their website, there is now no longer any information on it. There are 44 steelworkers in my area taking class action against Celtic Wealth Management and other bodies that are involved. If you are going to be delivering grants, why were you not able to check what they were doing before you gave them that grant, and what are you now doing to ensure that this particular company does not receive further money from this Government?

Well, the subsequent practice by a business does not mean they were engaged in that practice when the grant was received, but she's right to say that, in 2014, Celtic Wealth Management did receive an offer of financial support. If there has been a legal mis-selling, that will be a breach of our conditions, and we will take action to recover any money that we have given them. Now, the first thing that has to happen is, there has to be an investigation, to my mind, by the Financial Conduct Authority and by the other regulators. They're responsible ultimately for enforcing the laws governing financial services, but we will continue to examine the situation. As I say quite clearly, if there is a breach of the conditions of the financial support that we have provided, we will take action to recover that money.

In your interim annual report on grants management 2016-17, it states that the Permanent Secretary was to chair the improving efficiency board with the aim

'to reduce bureaucracy by identifying administrative work which is of low value, or which could be undertaken less frequently or in a different way or not at all.'

The work started in May last year and was to complete in 2018 by being taken on at pace. Has that work now been completed? Have there been any financial savings for your Government? And, if there have been, are they more or less than you expected? And are you anticipating more applications for grants now that there's more money available to meet them?

Well, there's less money, because we get less money from the UK Conservative Government. So, it's not as if there is a sudden windfall of money that we can draw on in order to help businesses. But we continually look to improve our offer to businesses in terms of grant funding, particularly through removing duplication, because the temptation sometimes is to create a number of different grant schemes in order that different applications are able to fit properly. Now, that can lead to a proliferation of grant schemes in time, and the work that's ongoing is looking at slimming down, potentially, the number of grants that are available and simplifying the way in which they're applied for. 

First Minister, there are now 143 accredited employers paying the real living wage in Wales across the public, private and third sectors, helping to address the pay and gender inequalities in the workplace. With the Welsh public sector spending approximately £6 billion annually through procurement, will you update the Assembly on the adoption of the code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains, which commits companies to sign up to consider paying the real living wage? 

Well, I can say that 86 organisations have already signed up to the code, which commits public, private and third sector organisations to a set of actions that tackle illegal and unfair employment practices. The four supporting guides that make up the code contain tools and advice to help put those commitments into practice. They include, for example, tackling unfair employment practices and false self-employment, tackling modern slavery and human rights abuses, implementing the living wage through procurement, and blacklisting. All organisations that receive funding from Welsh Government either directly or via grants or contracts are expected to sign up to the code. 

And, finally, question 8. Lee Waters. 

Currently there are no medicines containing melatonin licensed in the UK for the treatment of neurodevelopmental disorders in children and young people. We are guided by the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group.

Thank you, First Minister. Families with children with neurodevelopmental conditions often report that getting a child to sleep is one of the most stressful and difficult times of the day. One constituent came to see me recently. They couldn't settle their son until four in the morning, causing chaos in the house and stress for the whole family. When children do get to see a specialist, they're often prescribed melatonin as a way of settling them until they get into a routine, but that's not currently licensed for children, and GPs won't prescribe it. Given that, in the Hywel Dda health board, there's still a waiting list of some 18 months to see a specialist—though this is improving—this does cause great stress for families who are unable to get help from primary care and unable to get to see a specialist consultant. We must do better in offering them something, First Minister, to help them and their families deal with this very difficult condition. Would he look to see what is practicable within the constraints, and, even better, try and remove some of the constraints?

The difficulty is that it's not licensed for use at the moment. Now, medicines licensing is not devolved. Once a medicine is licensed, the use of it then is governed by NICE and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, but, of course, for GPs, GPs are governed—I know Dai Lloyd is over there—as I understand it, by rules that tell them what they cannot prescribe, not what they can prescribe. So, it is possible for a GP to prescribe melatonin; it's a matter for individual prescribers. There's no restriction on GPs doing that, but, of course, any GP is going to ask the question, 'Well, is this something I should be doing? Is it something that I regard as clinically safe?' That's inevitable, and they do take clinical responsibility for the medicines that they prescribe. The British Medical Association does say to GPs that they should not prescribe beyond their own knowledge or capability—sensible advice—and I can imagine GPs being nervous about prescribing what appears to be a medicine unlicensed for use in children.

The next step has to be to look at evidence to make sure that it is licensed for use in children, and then of course to move on from there. What I can say, however, is, in the meantime, we have established a new service to assess, diagnose and provide ongoing support for children and young people with neurodevelopmental conditions, and we are investing £2 million a year to do so.

Thank you, First Minister. 

The next item, therefore, is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house to make the statement. Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The statement 'The Best Start in Life: Making Early Years Count', has been withdrawn from today's agenda. Timings for other items have been adjusted accordingly. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement, found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could we have a statement either from the First Minister, or a letter from the Permanent Secretary, outlining the way the operational protocol was put in place for the QC-led inquiry? There have been various reports in the media that I would suggest cause grave areas of concern and do need explaining. I do draw the leader of the house's attention to some of the comments that refer to:

'Mr Bowen can only go as far as the permanent secretary will allow'

and 

'The permanent secretary, acting on behalf of the First Minister'.

Also, the advice that was given to civil service employees last week on the intranet, obviously, that's available to employees, in the Permanent Secretary's name and also the head of human resources and director of governance, also causes grave concern, I would suggest. I'd be most grateful if—and I'll be guided by you on this, who the appropriate person would be to address this, whether it's the Permanent Secretary herself, via a letter to Assembly Members, who could clarify some of these areas so that we can have confidence, or the First Minister via a statement. I do hope that the leader of the house will facilitate such response that can close off some of these areas of concern that have been highlighted recently.

I'm more than happy to discuss with the Permanent Secretary the best way of making sure that Assembly Members are fully informed as to where we are with the inquiry and what the protocol entails. 

Last week, leader of the house, I asked you whether we'd be likely to discuss a legislative consent motion arising from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and you assured us that was highly unlikely. Since then, however, the Lords have voted in favour of requiring the Secretary of State to pass primary legislation within a period of six months following Royal Assent of the Bill—that's the EU withdrawal Bill—to place on public authorities a duty to apply EU environmental principles after Brexit and setting up an independent body with a purpose of ensuring compliance. 

Now, those requirements and duties are precisely what was suggested in our amendments to our still extant continuity Act—long title available. You told us at the time not to press, though we did press, the amendments, but they were rejected by the Government on the basis that you'd take the first legislative opportunity to do that yourself. But here we have the Lords—. Because public authorities are not defined as England only. This is the problem, it just says 'public authorities', so it could easily be seen, in the context of an EU withdrawal Bill that is England and Wales in terms of legislative application, as applying here in Wales. So, we have the Lords suggesting that this should happen, we have the promise from Welsh Government of doing another thing, and it strikes me that this is, in fact, something that this place should assent to, except, of course, we can't, because it's all bound up in agreements. If things are ping-ponged and then the Lords and the Government agree, it doesn't get back to the House of Commons, doesn't get debated again, and, in effect, having been assented to in the Lords, this is now part of the Bill, and us passing an LCM is symbolic—or not passing it, as the case may be, is symbolic. But I would nevertheless be interested to know whether the Government intends, in the interest of procedure but also of visible transparency, to present an LCM to the Assembly so that we can have our say on this debate.

Plaid Cymru is particularly interested because we tried to make the amendments, but I think other Members here are also interested in some aspects of this. It just draws to attention this crazy way of trying to legislate for devolved Governments and devolved Parliaments when you're actually caught up with the most archaic way possible that Westminster performs its legislative duties in ping-ponging back and fore without the ability for anyone, really, to have a proper say in things that really impinge on our powers. So, I would appreciate a statement on that now. 

And, if I can turn to one other matter that's happened this week, which I think is of great relevance to the Assembly, the Assembly itself voted on a backbench debate, I think it was, to support the legalisation of medical cannabis and the availability of that. We were ahead of the debate in doing that, and recent events, of course, and a very particular family—but other epileptic children, I know, are affected by this, and there's been some very limited prescribing of medical cannabis. The curious thing is that the UK leads the world in the production, development and exporting of medicinal cannabis, and we can't legislate to have it available for patients ourselves. Cannabis can be a dangerous drug, and this is a separate argument to whether we should decriminalise cannabis or not for the purposes of drug control, but a powerful drug—all powerful drugs—have medicinal effects, and if we can allow opiates to be used on a prescription and led by a GP, then why on earth can't we allow cannabis or cannabinoids to be used in a similar way?

Now, the UK Government has said that it will set up an expert commission to do this, but this is an area that is devolved in terms of prescription policy and in terms of payment. So, can we have a statement from the health Cabinet Secretary in particular saying how Wales now can be part of this debate? It's one thing to have an expert panel in London—we want to be part of that, we want to know how it applies in our communities, and, since we have voted as an Assembly, I assumed there would be a lot of support for that to happen.  

Yes, well, two very important points. On the second point, the last, because it's fresh in my mind, yes, it was very interesting, wasn't it, the swiftness that that agenda moved forward in the light of one particular case, although, actually, I'm pretty sure all of us could highlight other cases—perhaps not quite as stark, given what happened—but it certainly underlined it. And Simon Thomas is right—we all broadly took that view. I will discuss with the Cabinet Secretary where we are and make sure that he updates Members in the most appropriate way, but I know it's a matter of great interest to a large number of us. It's always interesting, isn't it, how one single case can suddenly grab the headlines and move a whole agenda forward in that way. 

Anyway, that leads me on to the chaotic way of governing that you mentioned earlier, and I couldn't agree more. The LCM issue is a live issue. We discussed it in Business Committee this morning, Llywydd, as you know. Our current position is that it was made very clear on the floor of the House of Lords, and has been made very clear to the Government, that there is no intention of legislating on behalf of anyone other than England and English public authorities, but I completely agree that the wording is less than optimal, shall we say, and the ping pong is also less than optimal. 

I just wanted to be very clear that it was on the basis that we have that assurance that we are not going ahead with an LCM, and not on any other basis. I think we'd also like to make it very clear—and I know the Llywydd feels this as well—that we would have wanted to take an LCM to state our view should it have been the case that we were not assured that it was out of scope that they were going to do it for Wales. So, the principle is a very important part of it here. But we are assured of that—we've been assured of it as a Government and, in fact, it was said as part of the debate. But I actually welcome the opportunity to say now our position is that the LCM is not required because we have been assured that they are not intending to legislate on behalf of Wales. In all other circumstances, we would have wanted to allow this Parliament to make its point of view known so that, by the time the Bill was ultimately passed, Members who were voting on that Bill would be very clear what our view was, even if it wasn't in time to affect a particular section of the Bill. And I know the Llywydd agrees with that. 

So, just to be very clear on that point—. But I agree with you that this is not, obviously, a very good way of dealing with what is the single most important thing that's happened probably in our generation; I couldn't agree more. But just to be clear on the environmental thing, the statement that I gave holds. We will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity and, of course, should they legislate in that regard for Wales then that itself would need an LCM, just to be clear, so there would be another opportunity. But the principle is right, and we agree with Simon Thomas. Other than for the assurances, we would want to make that point very clear as between Parliaments, but we have been given those assurances, and on that basis we do not think an LCM is necessary.    

There are two issues I wanted to raise, and the first one was the issue of progress on eliminating hepatitis C. I think 12 months ago we had a very good cross-party debate about the aim of eliminating hepatitis C in Wales by 2030, and the Government responded with a series of actions. I wondered if it would be possible to have a statement outlining the progress that's been made in the different health boards on delivering those actions. That was the first one. And the second one was, on the weekend, the UK Government designated 22 June Windrush Day, and I wondered if the Government itself had any plans to mark that day. 

On that second one, I'm delighted to say that I'm hosting a Windrush celebration in the millennium centre on the twenty-second, and I'd be very glad to see a large number of Assembly Members there. Anyone who can get there will be very welcome indeed. It's a very important thing to celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation—the entire generation, not just the people who came on the Windrush itself, of course—to the culture and development of Wales. They've had a very, very significant role in the culture and development of Wales as a nation, and they certainly deserve to be celebrated for that. 

In terms of hepatitis C, a patient notification exercise is currently being finalised in order to reach out to patients who were diagnosed with hepatitis C at a time when the treatment wasn't available. A national specification for testing in community pharmacies is being developed at the moment, and targets for our substance misuse services are being developed in order to increase testing in those services. We're currently engaged in negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry to agree a new funding deal for hepatitis C treatments, and we're also engaged with counterparts in England to consider the details and potential benefits for Wales before any final decision is made. I'm sure the health Secretary will update us as soon as those negotiations are complete. The Member has been very assiduous in advancing this for her patients, and I'm sure the health Secretary will keep her informed in particular. 

Cabinet Secretary, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on Welsh Government policy towards setting up fix rooms for drug addicts in Wales? In November 2016, I raised this issue in the business statement following the news that a pilot project was being set up in Glasgow. The business Secretary at the time said that it was clearly a very important issue and she was sure a statement would be forthcoming. Now, the chief executive of the charity The Wallich earlier this month said that fix rooms for drug addicts would bring so many benefits that it would be ridiculous not to have them now. Could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary and Welsh Government on this very important issue? I want to know why there's been silence for so long please.

The Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that we did publish a response, but he's also indicated to me that he'll recirculate it to make sure Members are kept in that loop. 

Leader of the house, you may be aware that the Welsh Government last week confirmed that over £36 million of public money has been spent on developing a business park at Felindre in Swansea, yet despite being in public ownership for 20 years, Felindre business park remains empty. You may also be aware of other parcels of land in South Wales West that have been labelled as future business parks but remain empty—land in Glynneath, for example, just off the A465, owned by the Welsh Government but not even included within Neath Port Talbot's local development plan, or the infamous piece of land at Baglan, which has been empty for so long that the Ministry of Justice thought that it could be used for another purpose. It seems that there's a major issue in terms of how the Welsh Government is going about investing in these areas, how it goes about targeting sectors and attracting companies to these sites, and how it ultimately is failing to develop jobs in these areas. Now, with the Valleys taskforce looking to deliver even more land for business or industrial use, we are looking at the potential of south Wales being flooded with available industrial land, yet severely lacking in terms of ideas on how to fill them. So, would the Welsh Government therefore commit to bringing forward a statement on how it plans to develop jobs on land that it owns in Wales, and how it plans to move from a position whereby sites are empty to a position whereby sites are actually providing quality employment for local people?

Well, I don't entirely agree with everything the Member said there, but it's a very important point, what the Welsh Government does with Welsh Government-owned land. We have developed a whole set of data points to be able to identify public-owned land, not just Welsh Government-owned land, because sometimes it's important to assemble sites in that way. And we have been working, as part of the Valleys taskforce, very much on a project to make sure that we can do just that. The Cabinet Secretary for public services, who's in charge of the Valleys taskforce, will be updating Members on the Valleys taskforce, which will include the issue of Welsh Government-owned land and what we can do in order to maximise its benefits, as part of his update on the Valleys taskforce shortly. 

Cabinet Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary for health, well-being and sport actually issued a written statement outlining the decision to change the boundaries for Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Cwm Taf health boards. This has some important consequences for my constituents and Neath Port Talbot Hospital, which is serviced by clinicians from the Bridgend area, and also, many departments are linked and managed by the Bridgend side. Now, we haven't had an opportunity to question the Cabinet Secretary on this, and that very important question on the details of finance. For example, how is the deficit going to be allocated, how is the servicing and the funding for the different parts going to be worked out? So, all those service agreements. Now, I appreciate that there are elements to be discussed. Would it be possible to have an oral statement from the Cabinet Secretary, so we can explore the opportunities as to who's going to fund this? Because I attended a carers event in Neath Port Talbot Hospital last week, and they're fighting for £10,000 just to get some caring services going, and yet we may be talking of larger sums than this just to do this management. Can we have that oral statement so that we can explore the details of this proposal to ensure that, actually, it will, in the long term, continue to deliver for the people in my constituency?

Llywydd, I'd just like to point out that, obviously, that covers my own constituency as well, so Members should be aware of that. The Government announced on 14 June that, from April next year, Cwm Taf university health board will be responsible for healthcare services in the Bridgend county borough council area, as Dai Rees has just said. Those are currently provided by ABMU, and all the Assembly Members in the ABMU health board area, I know, have just received a communication from the chief executive there about some of the arrangements. The Cabinet Secretary has indicated to me that he's happy to meet with interested Assembly Members to discuss some of the issues and to tease out some of the specific details. I know a number of Assembly Members have indicated a wish for that to happen, and so we'll arrange for that meeting to go forward as soon as possible.

I call for two statements. Firstly, to add my voice to the voice of Simon Thomas earlier regarding the provision of medicinal cannabis on prescription. We heard of the case—it was well publicised—of Billy and Charlotte Caldwell. You may recall that, in January, I led a debate in the Assembly, as chair of the cross-party group on neurological conditions, highlighting that this wasn't about one person, it was about multiple people, with multiple conditions, who were already being forced to access cannabis illegally, rather than having individually distillated prescriptions to meet their particular needs. After that debate, I hosted Billy and his mother Charlotte in this Assembly, and they told us their story. We heard that Billy used to suffer up to 100 seizures a day until he began treatment with cannabis oil, following successful treatment in Los Angeles by a children's epilepsy specialist, and he became virtually seizure free. On return from Los Angeles, Charlotte told us, he became the first person to be prescribed medicinal cannabis on the UK NHS. Charlotte has been campaigning for medicinal cannabis from the NHS, recognising the desperation felt by many families fighting to be afforded the same access that she fought so hard for. And she was adamant, and remains adamant, that this is a separate issue entirely, and must not become confused with debates over recreational use, or broader drug legalisation—a valid debate, many people may feel, but not relevant to this debate. She contacted me again in May, after her doctor was summoned to a meeting with Home Office officials, and told to desist writing his prescriptions. After that, I wrote to the Home Secretary, urging him and his officials to urgently contact her to find a resolution and a way forward. We heard that the UK Government has now set out plans for an expert clinical panel to look at individual cases, and I know, in January, I was calling on the Welsh Government to put in place preparations within the Welsh NHS for potential prescription here. Adding to Simon Thomas's comments, I would be grateful for a detailed statement acknowledging the issue and detailing how the Welsh Government proposes to address this, in alignment with the UK, but also in the devolved context, and hopefully add its voice of support, a voice that sadly wasn't fulsome when I led the debate in January.

Secondly, I want to add my voice to calls by Andrew R.T. Davies earlier, in questions to the First Minister, regarding prostate cancer diagnosis in Wales, and for a statement accordingly, on this date when Prostate Cancer UK has produced figures following research they've carried out across the UK that don't put Wales in a particularly good light. More than 2,500 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer each year in Wales; about 600 will die in Wales each year. I had a letter from the Cabinet Secretary only last week, to a constituent, again saying he can't see any reason why a patient in north Wales with suspected prostate cancer should have to pay privately for an mpMRI scan if they've been found to have a negative biopsy. I've repeatedly told him—and I have numerous constituents who come to me who have gone to the community health council stating they have had to pay and still haven't had justice. The figures referred to by Prostate Cancer UK were from a freedom of information request to health bodies across the UK asking them about the use of the scans before biopsy. They found that whereas across the UK only 13 per cent of health bodies were not providing it, the figure in Wales was 50 per cent, and they said, 18 months after the promised trial first proved that the mpMRI scans before a biopsy could radically boost detection of prostate cancer, in their words, that

'Wales is lagging behind other parts of the UK in terms of making this breakthrough diagnostic available, putting Welsh men at a disadvantage.'

Well, let's put some action behind the rhetoric about Wales leading the way and Wales wanting to show the rest of the UK how things should be done. This shouldn't be happening. We need action pre biopsy, we need action pro biopsy and we need these men's voices to be heard at last. 

Thank you, Mark Isherwood, for both of those points. As you said yourself, they have already been aired today. The First Minister gave a very long response to Andrew R.T. Davies—well deserved on such an important topic—and I've already indicated to Simon Thomas what the position on medical cannabis is. I'm sure that we'll take that forward as soon as possible. 

I'm sure the leader of the house has seen the upsetting images of desperate people slumped over park benches and in shop doorways following the use of various substances. It's not good for anyone, but it's particularly bad for children to witness, I would argue. Now, in the light of recent stories of high numbers of deaths from drug overdoses in some of our former industrial towns, as well as incidents elsewhere, where the problem of county lines drug dealing networks has been highlighted, I'd be grateful if we could receive a statement from the Government addressing the following points: first of all, the extent that local authorities and health services are able to cope with this issue, particularly given that the county lines networks are exploiting vulnerable people often homeless people; secondly, whether the Government supports the north Wales police and crime commissioner Arfon Jones's call for safer injecting rooms to be piloted—international examples show that these rooms save lives; thirdly, the extent that this Government is working with the non-devolved criminal justice system to address this growing problem; and, fourthly, whether the Government shares my view that we need to move away from seeing drug problems as criminal justice matters and instead moving towards public health, as they view them in Portugal. I'd also be grateful to know if the Government shares my concerns and lack of confidence in Westminster's ability to debate these matters in a rational way. 

On that last one—starting, again, as I always do, backwards, for some reason—I completely agree with you. Of course, the criminal justice system often makes the situation worse, not better. In my own constituency, it's obvious that particularly young people who are caught up in this need assistance and not punishment. That's very much part of the debate about the role of the criminal justice system in this. We're very much wanting to catch the county lines perpetrators and not the people who are caught up in the substance misuse. I couldn't agree with her more. I also agree with the safer injection rooms. There's a very good project in Swansea, actually, that has done this. The Swansea drugs project has done very good pilots on that and the outcome is plain to see for everyone.

Substance misuse is a real issue. I myself have just been talking to the multi-agency safeguarding hub here in Cardiff about the best way to approach some of the multi-agency issues. This is really complex. It crosses across devolved and non-devolved things but it also crosses across a whole range of other issues. I think I've said this before, Llywydd, in this Chamber, but the MASH here in Cardiff is well worth a visit if you haven't visited it to see what their multi-agency approach to this is, because it's very obvious that you need an approach to stop the organised crime part of it, you need a public health approach for the substance misuse and you need a social response to some of the social issues that allow people to fall into this situation. It's a hugely complicated picture and we do have a large number of multi-agency responses already. 

I will discuss with Cabinet colleagues—. Some of that is in my portfolio and some of it is in others. I will discuss with Cabinet colleagues in terms of bringing forward some statement on how we're co-ordinating that across the Government, because it is a very important point.

Can I ask for a further update on the Welsh Government action to support people working for Virgin Media in Swansea? Has the Welsh Government taskforce been allowed access to talk to staff and provide details of potential other employers?

Can I ask a second question? As the Cabinet Secretary's well aware, living in the same area, there's been huge success with the development of Llandarcy, SA1, Swansea Vale and Baglan energy park within the former west Glamorgan area. Is it not true that it is beneficial to try and develop one area at a time rather than having them competing against each other, and isn't Felindre next on the list?

Yes, well, on that point, absolutely. It's important to have a strategy, as I said, across the public realm, to make sure that you do optimise the use of that and that you don't have competing priorities. What we don't want to do is have a race over competing investment in a particular area. It's also important, as I said, to combine the public realm so that you can do land combinations or building and land combinations, or road network and land combinations. So, the Member is quite right to point that out.

In terms of Virgin, we have been assured as a Government that employees will have access to time off and support to apply for other jobs, where that's appropriate, to keep their skills and talents in the area. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that we've had good co-operation from Virgin. I will make sure to have a conversation with him to make sure that the pressure is kept up so that we do make sure that the vast majority of those staff have their very highly developed skills retained for the benefit of Wales's economy.

I wonder whether I could ask for one or possibly two statements as this covers two portfolio areas, please. I hope you'll join me in congratulating Glasgow, which has just become the first city in the UK to make emergency life-saving skills compulsory on the secondary school curriculum there, something their director of public health has been applauded for leading the way on there. 

As it's also the anniversary of the Cabinet Secretary's statement on the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan for Wales, I wonder whether we could have an update on that, covering these four points specifically: the first is the role of co-responders, who were mentioned in the statement a year ago. I'm still waiting for a letter from the ambulance trust promised to me by the Cabinet Secretary to explain why more recent rumours were circulating that the role of co-responders was going to be diminished rather than included. Could we also hear an update on the number of schools that are now taking up emergency life-saving skills voluntarily; the place and progression of emergency life-saving skills on the curriculum that's currently in development—I appreciate that that is not the Cabinet Secretary for health; and also whether there's been a big upsurge in the registration of defibrillators, given that more and more organisations are themselves deciding to provide them? Thank you.

I wasn't aware of Glasgow, but I'm obviously happy to congratulate them on that. That's quite a complex area. I'll chase up why you haven't had a response to the letter that you were promised, but I will discuss with a range of Cabinet colleagues the best way to update the Chamber, Llywydd, because that's quite a complicated cross-Government piece. 

Firstly, I'd just like to take the opportunity to welcome Ysgol Bryn Deva to the gallery upstairs. It's actually my primary school, so it's really great to see them here today. 

I'd just like to move on, leader of the house, to this weekend, and this weekend is, as many of you know, is the Great Get Together, a day inspired by the late Jo Cox MP. I'll be holding my own events in the constituency in Alyn and Deeside, and I trust that all Members from across the Chamber will be supporting them in their own communities as well, with that truly great event. Leader of the house, this Saturday is International Women in Engineering Day. As a former engineer, I am keen to see all of our future generations, including women, enter the industry of engineering and manufacturing. A survey in 2017 indicated that 11 per cent of the UK engineering workforce is female. Now, that's up 2 per cent since 2015, but the UK as a whole still has the lowest percentage of female engineering professionals within Europe.

I know that the Welsh Government is working extremely hard on this matter, but would the leader of the house join me in paying tribute to those women within the engineering workforce currently and those thinking about going into the engineering workforce and agree with me that we need to do more to change perceptions and encourage young people, both male and female, to consider engineering as a viable and rewarding career in the future?

Absolutely. Well, in good tradition of doing everything backwards in the order I'm asked in, that's very much a matter after my own heart and very much a soap box of mine. I do chair the Welsh Government's women in STEM—although it should be 'STEMC' because it should have computer science on the end—board, and we are working very hard to make sure that we can get good role models out into schools to make sure that all our young people, actually, not just women, take up engineering. We could certainly do across the board with more engineers, but particularly more women engineers. I have discussed with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, as part of the economic action plan, what we can do to reward companies that particularly target getting more women into STEM, and rewarding the STEM careers as well. So, I'm delighted that Jack Sargeant has highlighted that issue, because it's a very important issue and, I know, dear to his heart as well.

I'm always delighted to welcome schools to our gallery, Llywydd. I think they were here earlier. I think they've probably gone off for a tour now. They were sitting just opposite me, and I certainly noticed them. There may be some still there. There was certainly a whole school up there earlier. I'm always delighted to welcome them.

They're still here. 

And it's also great to be able to highlight that it's the Jo Cox Great Get Together weekend, and I do hope, Llywydd, that a large number of communities across Wales will take that opportunity to get together and to see that we do indeed have more in common than that which divides us. 

They're behind you, Minister. [Laughter.]

Oh, there we are. Good. 

Leader of the Chamber, a couple of week ago, I asked the First Minister some questions about the new Wales and borders rail franchise, but he seemed to completely miss the point of my question. I asked specifically whether the rail infrastructure itself on the core Valleys lines was being handed over to a private company. I asked whether the Welsh Government had agreement from Network Rail to hand over the infrastructure to private companies. I asked whether the staff in Network Rail would be handed over to a private company also. Now, I don't want to talk about the trains or be told that you have some deal with the trade unions. I was asking for passengers who want to know whether rail safety is being privatised by this Government in Wales, because that went very badly last time, with the Hatfield disaster. So, the public really do need a statement on this. 

Rail safety was very much a priority of the Cabinet Secretary in looking at the rail franchise, and he has included it in a number of his statements, and there are many opportunities for you to question him on it. But I will, Llywydd, make sure that the issue of rail safety is highlighted the next time rail is discussed in the Chamber. 

Leader of the house, in February, Welsh Ministers stated they were considering making a screening direction to Biomass UK No.2 Limited, developing the Barry incinerator, under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017, citing that the characteristics of the development fall within the EIA regulations. I'm curious what the delay is in progressing the screening. Can the leader of the house find out from the environment Minister whether she would disclose any correspondence with the developer on this matter since February?

Secondly, can I have a statement following the National Audit Office report, which concluded that the Department for Work and Pensions has not achieved value for money on its early implementation of universal credit? Last week, two disabled men won their cases, having lost £175 as a result of universal credit—a week, that is. This is of great concern, of course, because universal credit is now being rolled out in Wales. 

Yes. On that last point, I think we're all very deeply concerned about the fundamental flaws of universal credit, and we're very disappointed that the UK Government is persisting with the roll-out, given the National Audit Office's really quite scathing report about the effects that it has. Llywydd, many Members in this Chamber have highlighted the issues with universal credit and the hardship that many of their constituents have, none more assiduously than Jane Hutt. We're very concerned that the high cost of administering universal credit outweighs any of its perceived benefits, and we're all aware of the number of people who are really pushed towards food banks and so on, with the delays in the payment and the various things that people have highlighted around the assessment process and so on. The Minister for Housing and Regeneration has already written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ask for her views on how alternative payment arrangements can be offered to claimants on the basis of a much more informed choice to help those who are most vulnerable. We know that the situation is very concerning indeed, and Rebecca Evans—the Minister who has responsibility for that—is keeping a very close eye on it and has already written on a number of occasions. I will investigate with her whether it's worth writing again in the light of this.

In terms of the Barry biomass, I'm aware that residents of Barry have been waiting a long time for the decision in respect of the environmental impact assessment. We're currently looking at the environmental information produced by parties including the developer and the Docks Incinerator Action Group to inform a way forward. I'm afraid I don't have an exact timescale, but we are anticipating a decision within the next few weeks. And I most certainly will ask the Minister to write to you with regard to any correspondence with the developer that she's had.

We're out of time on the statement, but two very succinct, quick questions, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, this lunch time I was pleased to host the Agricultural Law Association event in the Senedd, attended by my colleague David Melding and a number of other AMs. The subject was the devolution of taxation and the impact of primarily stamp duty—land transaction tax—on rural communities in Wales and the agricultural community. I wonder if we could have an update from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the roll-out of tax devolution. It strikes me that many people still aren't really aware of the mechanics of that devolution. We're currently seeing issues with the LTT, but, obviously, next year we have the devolution of partial income tax as well to Wales. So, I wonder if we can have an update on what communication has happened between Welsh Government and people across Wales to make sure that these changes are fully understood and appreciated.

Yes. Actually, we're very pleased with the way that the tax arrangements were implemented—the historic tax arrangements for Wales—because it was all done digitally. It was a very complex project and, actually, there were no problems at all, which is always very pleasing, Llywydd.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance is always very anxious to have occasions on which he can wax eloquent about tax. I will certainly discuss with him when his next statement updating the Chamber will be.

Equally succinct, hopefully, Jenny Rathbone.

At lunch time, the cross-party group on gambling and the cross-party group on children and young people combined to hear very important and rather disturbing evidence from Professor Samantha Thomas, based on the research she's done in Australia on the way the gambling industry is targeting children and young people. And lest we think that this is a problem confined to Australia, she visited two schools yesterday here, in the Vale of Glamorgan and Pontypridd, where the young people were able to identify who all the gambling companies are, the colour of their logo, and the jingles and the jokes they use in their advertising. And this is the way in which the gambling industry is targeting children and young people. In Australia, they've now banned advertising before the 8.30 p.m. watershed. I wondered if we could have a statement from the relevant Welsh Minister as to what our policy is going to be to protect children and young people from becoming gambling addicts.

Yes, I share the Member's concern about this, and we discussed it quite recently in the Chamber. The Cabinet Secretary for health and I wrote to the Advertising Standards Authority, and we've had quite a comprehensive response. Llywydd, I'll investigate what the best way of sharing that with Members is and make sure that it's shared as soon as possible as it reiterates a number of the issues that Jenny Rathbone's just raised.

Thank you to the leader of the house.

Before we progress, can I just apologise to the Chamber for the musical accompaniment this afternoon? We think we've identified the source—it's wind related. I'm hoping that it will cease soon. [Interruption.] No jokes. I shouldn't have even mentioned that.

We'll move on, therefore, to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the autistic spectrum disorder strategic action plan. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Government re-affirmed our commitment to improve the lives of autistic people in November 2016 when we published the new autistic spectrum disorder action plan, backed by £13 million of investment in new services. Today, we published the first annual report on the delivery of the action plan. I am pleased to reflect the achievements of all those involved in responding to the challenges we have set. The real progress made this year reflects on our vision for delivery. Innovation and collaboration have helped to establish a strong basis for future success.

The most significant achievement this year has been to establish a national integrated autism service, creating consistent support for people with autism. It has been a time of great energy as new ways of working are established between agencies working in partnership in what is a complex environment. There is great pride in the achievement that the integrated autism service is open in Cardiff and Vale, Cwm Taf, Gwent and Powys. It will be launched next week in north Wales and will open later in this financial year in Western Bay and west Wales. I am very pleased to see that we are receiving very positive feedback. This includes participants reporting that this is the first time that they have felt listened to.

The progress we are making would not be possible without the support of the ASD national development team that is hosted by the Welsh Local Government Association. It published its annual report today also, and I understand that a statement highlighting that has gone around to Members from the WLGA. The team is working with regions to develop the integrated service and to promote engagement and good practice across Wales. The team has a long-established role in raising awareness of autism, publishing a wide range of resources and information, which is freely available on their ASDinfoWales website. 

Just two of the team’s notable achievements over the last year include the extension of the Learning with Autism programme. In addition to the primary school scheme, the secondary school and early years schemes have been launched and are being rolled out. Eighty schools have now completed the primary school programme, with nearly 13,000 children becoming autism superheroes. The Can You See Me? campaign is also being delivered, aimed at improving awareness of autism in local communities. The campaign film and resources are being rolled out in partnership with local parents, carers and businesses across Wales. Successes so far include awards achieved by Merthyr Tydfil shopping centre and McArthurGlen Bridgend shopping outlet, and training has been provided to Swansea City Association Football Club.

Although we are making good progress, we know that there is still much more to do. We continue to look carefully at the issues that autistic people say matter most to them to inform future action. Waiting times for assessment is a priority for many, and since 2015, we have invested an additional £2 million a year in children’s neurodevelopmental services, introducing a new 26-week waiting time standard from referral to first-assessment appointment, which we are now piloting. We want to make further progress, and this year, we are looking at good practice in some areas that is already achieving results in reducing waiting times, with the aim of replicating that success and good practice across Wales.

I understand that for parents of autistic children, the most pressing issue is often to ensure that their child is receiving the right educational support to help them achieve their full potential. Earlier this year, the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 was passed. That will pave the way for the transformation of support for children with additional needs up to the age of 25, creating a unified legal framework that will put learners and their parents at the centre of how to plan and meet their needs. The reforms will also focus on skills development in the workforce to deliver effective support for learners, and there will be easier access to specialist support, information and advice. The new system will be rolled out in a phased approach from September 2020. 

Over this Assembly term, we want to focus all our efforts on delivering the ASD strategic action plan, embedding the new integrated service, and delivering on all our other commitments. I have considered carefully the calls for autism legislation and the proposals contained in the draft Assembly Member-led Autism (Wales) Bill. It is clear that we are all focused on ensuring that we invest in autism services in the longer term. The difference between us is in how we seek to achieve those aims.

I do understand that the prospect of autism legislation that is specific is attractive to many. It's clear that the intention of the draft legislation, as we have seen it, is to underpin existing duties and expectations on public bodies to provide services and support for autistic people. Public bodies are, of course, already required to provide needs-based services for people who require care and support—autistic people and their carers already have the same entitlement to access to services, just as every other citizen in Wales. 

We are already delivering some much-needed improvements in autism services. I don't believe that costly and resource-intensive legislation will bring additional benefits for autistic people beyond the practical commitments to improve services that we are already completely committed to. In my view, it would be better to invest time and money in ensuring that we deliver on our firm commitments and to ensure that there is a focus on continuous improvement as the new services that we are putting in place become established.

To further support service improvement, I intend to highlight the needs of autistic people and the requirement to meet those needs across statutory services by introducing a code of practice on the delivery of autism services. This is already being developed in partnership with autistic people. It will provide clarity on the support that people with autism can expect to receive and provide guidance on how services can adapt their practice to meet the individual needs of people with autism. We will be consulting on our plans later this year, and I encourage everyone to engage with that consultation to make sure we focus on the issues that really matter. We will also update our delivery plan and reflect the feedback we receive on service delivery.

The calls for improvement in autism services are not falling on deaf ears. We are taking action to achieve the improved outcomes that everyone wants to see. We are raising awareness of autism across services, improving access to assessment and diagnosis and putting in place additional specialist support in every region of Wales. We will continue to listen, and I will keep an open mind on the potential need for autism-specific legislation in the future, if it becomes clear through evaluation that the improvements that we all want to see can only be delivered by taking this route.

Thank you for your statement. I have to say the vast amount of autism-related casework my office is handling and the personal stories from outside of north Wales we're receiving indicate that huge sums of money continue to be spent getting it, sadly, very, very and sometimes tragically wrong. How do you respond to concerns raised with me that one of the four integrated autism service, or IAS, areas where the service has been launched are now saying they just want to become a diagnostic service and lose their support worker function? Another area is already making representations that, despite already receiving an extra £150,000 to £170,000 annually from local authorities and health boards on top of their IAS funding, they can't cope with the level of referrals they're receiving, and these are medical, not social referrals, not focused on prevention and intervention. Concern has been expressed to me that the majority of people accessing current non-IAS services will disappear or present in crisis. There is a concern about the lack of numbers being picked up by the IAS and the lack of services from IAS to pick up the slack from third sector bodies that, progressively, are losing local support, despite being supported sometimes by hundreds of local members of the autism community.

You referred to the 26-week waiting time standard from referral to first-assessment appointment. What measures have the Welsh Government put in place to take action when health boards aren't meeting that target? Is the waiting-time data being updated quarterly, and if not, what action is the Welsh Government taking?

How many autistic people have benefited from employment as a result of the Getting Ahead 2 programme? Did the Welsh Government achieve accreditation in the 'positive about working with autism' charter last year, and how is it maintaining its accreditation this year and beyond?

How many people have accessed the integrated service in each of the four health boards where the service was launched, which professionals have received awareness training, and what are the priority areas, as we look forward, on that? Of course, in addition to awareness training, which is often led by non-autistic people who are professionals in the medical or caring professions, which have a medical focus, what action are you taking or will you take to address the massive deficit in autism acceptance and equality training led by trainers who are autistic people or members of the autism community, focused on autistic and non-autistic people working together to overcome the disabling barriers in society?

Has the advisory group agreed a work plan? Will the Welsh Government publish that work plan if it has? How is the Welsh Government responding to the recommendations contained in the interim independent evaluation of its autism strategy and integrated autism service, which found weaknesses and inconsistencies in both assessment and diagnostic services for adults with autism and in support services for adults and children with autism? It said

'Success requires a co-productive approach involving staff, service users and carers in the design, implementation and evaluation of the IAS.'

But there are concerns about the top-down approach, which they said had 'stifled this'. 

With the service being launched in north Wales on 27 June, as you said, what action will you be taking when you learn of stories that I raised last week, such as those of the judicial review proceedings settled recently, prior to a full hearing, when Flintshire council agreed to provide a formal apology and make a damages award after failing to assess and meet the needs of an autistic young person with additional needs, and to take full account of her parent carers' needs? That's just one case. I have I don't know how many similar cases—primarily but not exclusively in Flintshire—at the moment. How would you respond to the Flintshire parent who e-mailed me yesterday regarding the response to her Flintshire CAMHS complaint, which said, 'Your daughter doesn't have an ongoing anxiety condition', and was simply an apology for poor communication, but they'd been forced to a private psychiatrist because of lack of care, who has diagnosed the daughter with severe PTSD, depression and anxiety? She says, 'We're now glad we're getting treatment and a recommendation for home tutoring, thanks to our private psychiatrist, but my daughter should have received this when she asked Flintshire CAMHS for help six months ago.'

I've nearly finished, but a key issue is the genderised issue. I've raised this many times, but I'm still almost daily receiving casework where girls clearly requiring autism diagnoses are being told they couldn't possibly have a diagnosis. A letter, for instance, from the health board here:

'It's difficult to marry the description of difficulties given by some families with the information from teaching staff who report no or minimal issues in the school environment. This is not indicative of children with ASD',

when a wealth of national and international research and evidence directly contradicts that, in relation to the masking and coping strategies that many children, and particularly girls, adopt.

You say that calls for autism legislation—

No, I'm sorry. [Interruption.] Well, you've had several questions and you're well into six minutes, nearly, so if you can say it within the next 30 seconds, you can get your last question in.

How can you possibly say that unless you bring in statutory duties to provide the support from statutory services that these people and countless others need, that you're going to be able to meet their needs with this service? Until and without enforcement of your existing legislation, such as the social services and well-being Act, how can you possibly tell how well you're doing currently?

Minister, and you don't have to answer all that set of questions, or we'll be here till tomorrow.

Regrettably, I recognise your point, Deputy Presiding Officer. I won't be able to answer the more than a dozen different points put, with respect to the Member and others who wish to respond. But, to be fair, a number of those, the points raised, are individual ones, and there are some more general ones. If the Member wants to write to me with the detail that he has set out, then I'll happily ensure that the appropriate person responds to him. And, of course, I will also be at the cross-party group tomorrow to answer questions and have a conversation with people there.

I think there are a couple of points that I'd make in response to what the Member said. Thinking about his final point about the need for legislation or otherwise, actually, part of the answer is what you were saying about the enforcement of existing duties that are already set out, and the challenge in making those rights real. Part of what we are seeking to do in investing in the integrated service is to make that real. It's also what the code of practice is aimed at trying to highlight and to try and make real for families. So, this isn't a way of trying to say that we think that you are wrong and the examples you are raising are not true. I recognise that, for lots of families, this is a real and significant challenge for children and adults with autism too. This is about how we actually make sure they really do get to achieve their potential. I have some personal insight into this as well, from my own family, so I do understand that this is not an easy challenge that should be glibly dismissed or glossed over. That's why, even in these most difficult financial times, we've invested £13 million into the service. It's why we should all take some pride in the roll-out of the integrated service, and the feedback that we're talking about is direct feedback from families themselves about the difference that the service has already made, and that is a real difference—it is not simply something concocted or a work of fiction to try and get through a challenge here.

Our challenge, though, of course, is not just about understanding what has been successful when the service has been rolled out, but to understand how we try and adapt and apply that learning to the areas where the service has not yet been rolled out. It is also, in accepting that there really is positive feedback to the integrated service, to recognise that it isn't perfect—no human service ever is—but to understand how, in those examples where the service has not met the needs of those individuals and their families, we learn from that to inform improvement, because that is the point: there will not be a standstill time. I will have more to say on waiting times after the pilot has been completed, and I will of course make sure that that is publicly available. My hope is that they become official statistics, in which case, they'll be readily available on a month-to-month basis for all Members to scrutinise. But, no doubt, we'll continue to discuss these general themes, not just today but for a significant period of time to come, in particular as I expect that the Member will be producing his Bill before we go into summer recess.

I'll try and keep my comments brief. I think that I have about four questions here. In terms of the statistics that are gathered, a target has been set of 26 weeks in terms of waiting for the first assessment—and the data is being gathered. When are we going to have this data being published, because I think that any data that's available has to be published?

In terms of passing the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, the concerns about the lack of resources to support that Bill have been very evident. Could the Cabinet Secretary explain which resources the Government intends to provide to support local authorities in implementing that Bill?

There is a piece of legislation that's starting its journey through the Assembly. The statement has rejected the idea of legislating, and cost is one of the main arguments against that legislation. Will the Cabinet Secretary accept that the legislation itself won't cost anything? That is, the cost will stem from any financial implications stemming from the content of the legislation that will mainly deal with embedding the right to services in law. If you intend to meet those objectives by improving services, there will be no real additional cost, but at least having legal guarantees—and this is where legislation is useful—will give some certainty to a minority group that their services won't be the first to go every time local authorities face financial challenges.

I think that's the third one; so the fourth one is that the statement doesn't mention employment. Just 16 per cent of adults with autism are in full-time employed work, and only 32 per cent are in any kind of employment. Could the Cabinet Secretary provide more details about how you intend to reverse this situation, because years of partnerships and encouragement aren't working, obviously?

Thank you for the questions. On your final point, there's a recognition that we seek to achieve a cultural change. This isn't simply about families with people with autism, but actually about the support they receive in the workplace and the attitudes of different employers. Within the report published today, you see direct examples of people who have been helped by the service to remain in employment if they are in employment, or to seek employment as well. The challenge is how we don't set up a service to fail, but how this is part of wanting to change our national conversation and trying to change the amount of practical support that is available to businesses and to their employees. But I recognise that there is a significant road to travel here, just as there are in a number of other areas, but that is part of the commitment that was set out in the integrated service.

I'll deal with your point about waiting times now. The 26-week target: there will be more information available internally, within the Government, this autumn as we look again at the roll-out of the waiting time standards. We need to be certain, before we roll out the target and we start publishing information, that it is robust and reliable. All of us have had experience in the past of trying to roll out waiting time standards with them not been available, and then—where they've not been ready in the robust way that they should be, rather—that then causes a lack of confidence in what the figures are. I'm not trying to hide the figures; I’m not trying to make sure that they only come out when they look good for me. I'm really interested in making sure that they're actually genuinely reliable, because I expect there will be a variation in learning between different parts of Wales. But I want to make sure that they are robust, that they can be relied upon, and that they help to drive some improvement in measures that actually matter and have real impact on families.

On your point about the cost to legislation, there is always a cost to legislation, not just a cost to this place in the mechanics of running, but there's a challenge here in terms of the cost and in terms of the time and resource that is available to practitioners, to the policy team here centrally, and what that then means in terms of diverting that attention to go into a legislative process as opposed to being focused on improvement. Legislation won't produce more money. We will still have the sum of money that we have available to the Government, and we'll still have to make choices about that, together with our partners in other services. I'm most interested in understanding for the people delivering the service and taking part in it the difference it's made, and what our real prospects are for delivering the sort of improvement that, as I say, each of us in this room would want to see.

Your point about statutory services—we already have statutory requirements for ourselves, the health service, local government and partners to achieve and to deliver on. We need to make sure those are made real, and that's part of the reason why I'm moving forward with the code of practice, because I do recognise that there will be people who will understand and who will tell their own story about what has happened, and about where their needs have not been met in the way in which we envisaged the legislation would do. I think we have to get that legislation right and make those rights real, and that would, could and should make a real difference to those families as well.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and for providing an advance copy of the 'Autism Spectrum Disorder Strategic Action Plan: Annual report 2017/18'. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government are investing in services and that progress is being made. However, the evaluation of the integrated autism service and the autistic spectrum disorder strategic action plan interim reports, by Dr Holtom and Dr Lloyd Jones from People and Work, make it clear that there has been a failure to drive systemic change that has helped create a postcode lottery of support for adults on the autism spectrum.

This is not news to any of us who have been campaigning for an autism Act. The Welsh Government might have good intentions, but people living on the spectrum are not seeing delivery on the ground. Despite the roll-out of the integrated autism service, many parts of Wales still have no clear pathways to diagnosis. The interim report highlighted the fact that, although funding has not been an issue when it comes to establishing the new integrated service, the regional partnership boards had little capacity for developing the service.

The fact that the first integrated autism service was established appears to be down to the hard work and dedication of the national ASD lead, but as the interim report highlights, this is a lot of strain to place one person under. Success or failure shouldn't rest upon the actions of a single individual. Cabinet Secretary, what actions are you taking to ensure that future roll-out plans are not reliant on a single individual, no matter how talented?

I recognise that one of the key achievements of the strategic action plan was the introduction of the 26-week waiting-time target for neurodevelopmental assessment. Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm that this target is being met by all health boards? If not, do you have a timescale in place for when you expect all health boards to meet their targets?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, while I remain unconvinced that Wales does not need an autism Act, I am prepared to work with you in order to deliver improved services for people in Wales on the autism spectrum, and hopefully in 12 months' time you will have convinced me that legislation was indeed unnecessary. I look forward to seeing what progress can be made in the coming year. Diolch.

Thank you for the comments. I think I've dealt with the challenges and the points about waiting times already. I recognise what you say about your current view on legislation, but being open to the possibility that if we may be able to make sufficient improvement, the prospect of more legislation may not be something you would support. I think there is a challenge here about the practical purpose of the legislation that Paul Davies is minded to introduce. I would say it's about a shared objective, about improving services, about making sure there is greater certainty for families about the support that they can expect, and to make sure that the needs of people with autism are properly met.

That is why the integrated service that operates in four regions is important to us, because if you think about the practical services we will need to deliver, the experiences of those families in those areas interacting with the service, their awareness of the service, and equally the front-line staff that we will need to deliver that service—to be fair, you made points about staff as well, and in particular not relying on a single individual to deliver the whole service, and I recognise that a service wholly reliant on an individual is not a sustainable model to roll out across the country. We can, though, say that the integrated service is seeing a welcome increase in autism expertise as more clinicians are being recruited. The model that we've provided is actually more attractive to staff who want to come in to work in a way that is joined up with other health and care professionals. Crucially, we're seeing families respond to that and recognising that they are having their needs listened to and met. As I said earlier, that will not always be perfect, but it is a real improvement that we are delivering. 

You mentioned the interim evaluation report. Again, it honestly reflects that there were differing visions and priorities at the start, but those are largely resolved, and each region where the service is rolled out is proud of their achievements and recognise they've made a real difference. That's the point. We want a service that won't just be something that a politician can stand up and celebrate and wave around an annual report, but a service that people would recognise—the people who work in that service, the people who interact with that service and take part in the services that are provided would recognise—as making a real difference, the difference that all of us wish to see for these families. 

Thank you very much for your report. It's very heartwarming to know that there's good work going on with our schools to ensure that they are as inclusive as possible. Where possible, we need to be including young people with autism into mainstream schools, but where it's not possible we obviously need to ensure that we have excellent services for those with the greatest disabilities. So, I think that's definitely to be welcomed. 

I just wanted to ask you about the services available for adults on the autistic spectrum. One of the voluntary organisations that works with people with autism is Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru, which is based in the city centre of Cardiff in my constituency. They mainly support people with Asperger's. They've had hundreds of referrals, mainly from Cardiff and the Vale, but also from other south-east Wales local authorities. I think, whilst assessment is important, support services are also important. One of the examples that was given in the ASD development team's annual report was support to ensure that employers and employees, where the employee has autism, understand the needs of each other. There was a case study there that was very good that was done by Cardiff and the Vale and I'm sure there's a lot more work needed to be done there.

But, I think my main question really is: how integrated is the national integrated autism service in relation to prudent healthcare and operating both with people who have autism as well as the voluntary organisations who support them? What role does the voluntary sector play in delivering the autism strategic action plan? How does the autistic spectrum development team decide which voluntary groups they work with and which ones they fund? Because Autism Spectrum Connections Cymru doesn't receive any funding at all, even though they're obviously supporting hundreds of people.

You raise an interesting point. I think the real examples in the national ASD development team report will see a range of different age ranges in there, from children to teenagers to adults and older adults as well. It's about how they've been helped at various different points through their life stage, and actually lots of people go through life without having a diagnosis and the potential support that can mean. Lots of people manage to cope, but it's about what coping looks like that's actually still allowing someone to achieve their potential. There's a challenge there about having a diagnosis that they will find difficult later in life as well. The challenge about how integrated the service is, though, is still about understanding the needs of the population and understanding how those needs are met.

I'm sure there will be a variety of third sector groups that will be providing services and support and, as ever, there is a challenge about how those services are run, funded and then signposted between different people. Lots of people in the third sector don't look for money, they look for acknowledgement of what they do and that they're part of being the answer. I couldn't comment on the particular organisation referred to and the fact they aren't funded through the service. If you want to have a specific conversation about that, I'd be happy to do so, but I don't want to get into a more general point, because what I don't want is that there's somehow—sometimes, when you announce money around a service, it's as if people want to bid into that service as opposed to how do we make the whole service work to meet the needs of the population. That's what I'm most interested in. If you think the particular group that you referred to could be part of that answer, then I'm happy to have a conversation with you about that. 

As the Cabinet Secretary has said today, he is, of course, aware of my intention to bring forward primary legislation to help improve the lives of people living with autism in Wales, and I'm very disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary in his statement today is currently ruling out the need for primary legislation. I would urge him to reconsider his position, because it's clear from the two consultations I've held that there is overwhelming support for a Bill, and I hope, therefore, that he and the Welsh Government will reconsider their position and engage through the legislative process and help deliver an autism Bill that this institution and the autism community can be proud of.

Now, I accept that the Welsh Government has made some progress in some areas, although I think it's clear that the Welsh Government's introduction of a code confirms the fact that the current strategy clearly isn't meeting the needs of the autism community. The autism community has overwhelmingly made it clear that they favour legislation, given their responses to my consultation. Therefore, does the Cabinet Secretary at the very least agree that the views of service users in Wales must be at the heart of any direction of travel for autism services in the future?

The Cabinet Secretary has today made it clear that he intends to introduce a code, and, of course, the problem with introducing a code is that it can always be revoked and it cannot be changed or amended by this Parliament once it is presented to this place. However, my proposed autism Bill will enable Members to amend the legislation through the legislative process, and an Act will ensure a level of permanence to the delivery of services, as well as giving autism a statutory identity. And so perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can tell us how he believes a code will address these concerns and how a code will deliver the improvements in services that the autism community wants to see.

And, finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, given that the Government does not believe in currently introducing legislation, can he confirm that the Government will therefore be giving its backbenchers a free vote when my Bill travels through the legislative process, given that some of his colleagues have been supportive of placing services on a statutory footing?

On the final point, any legislation that comes through this place, the Government won't, at this early stage, be negotiating or outlining how we'll look to work with members of our own group, with members who support the Government. We'd need to see the detail of any legislation and to take a view on it, Paul, and it's important that we do that. I don't think people would agree with the fiction that there's somehow not a view on it, and I'm being honest about this. We've had an honest disagreement about the right way forward to improve the lives of people with autism, and we can continue to disagree, but I don't want to set out that level of disagreement or the nature of it in a way that isn't honest. I don't want to try to say something here that you and I know that I wouldn't really agree to do and support. 

Part of our challenge is that, the legislation in England, I can't see any real evidence that it's led to a significant and sustainable improvement in services. And so I'm looking for whether legislation will really deliver and deliver the sort of improvements you and I both want to see, and be a better way to do that than the path we've set out with the resources we have already made available. I think lots of people have a lack of faith that politicians will deliver on their promises and sometimes that leads to people saying, 'Change the law and that will make sure that services happen.' Actually, it still requires a variety of different decisions to be made, and that includes the budget choices we made, and it includes the work we've already done with different partners to deliver the four integrated services that are making a real and positive difference to families in those four parts of the country, and that we are committed to rolling out. 

And, in terms of a code and the point and the purpose, well, you know as well as I, because we've had these conversations in the past, that the code is about trying to make sure that we deliver on the responsibilities that actually exist already within statute, to make sure that they're real rather than illusory or simply talked about and pointed to in a piece of legislation but not made real for people. And I know from my previous life—I'm a lawyer in recovery as opposed to a lawyer who's been dragged back into it, looking at my poor, misfortunate colleague Jeremy Miles. I used to be a lawyer, and so I'm well aware that, in dealing with the law, the rights that people have are only real if you can enforce them. And what does that mean? And it's always better to help to give people advice so they can actually deal with their rights and responsibilities in a way that doesn't require the involvement of lawyers. There's a challenge there about making sure that it's a real way of working, and the culture change that we talk about—that's what we're trying to deliver and make sure that that leads to an improvement in service.

And on your point about whether people should be at the centre of our direction of travel, yes, that's absolutely right—you see that in a range of different areas across the Government, a range of different activities. That's why, in my initial statement, I made it clear that people with autism are part of helping us to draft the code that we're looking to. So, we'll continue to involve people with autism, we'll continue to listen to them, their real lived experience, to make sure that the shared objectives we have are being delivered upon. That's the aim and objective of this Government, and that will continue to guide us in our approach to services and any future debate about legislation.

There have been so many good questions raised today, some good points made. I want to focus on two things, really. Generally, this Government makes policies sound good—the lovely buzz words—but the reality at the sharp end and the front line is somewhat different. I wanted to focus firstly on integrated autism services and referrals. Because, in Rhondda Cynon Taf, there have been none; in Powys, there have been none; in Cardiff, 10; and, in Gwent, 130. So, the first thing is: how do you explain the disparity in that, and what can be done to improve matters? Secondly, the autism-aware businesses, which sounds really good on paper—it sounds good listening to it in the Chamber, but I wondered if you'd outline to everybody in the Chamber, and the public, exactly what you have to do to become an autism-aware business.

There's training and support provided to businesses to become autism aware. I'll happily send a note from the annual report about those businesses that have done it, the ones that I've mentioned in my statement, and the sort of training that they've undertaken to become autism-aware businesses. And, again, it will depend on the nature of the business, about those people and what they're doing in their interaction. So, I'll happily send a note on—

Will you give way?

No. There's no giving way on a statement.

I'll happily send a note—[Interruption.]

No, there's no giving way on a statement.

I'll happily send a note on what that looks like, rather than getting into a row on an important issue across the Chamber. And I don't quite recognise the figures that you've quoted on the activity of the integrated autism services. In the report that's been published today you can see the nature and the range of different activity that's undertaken by each of those integrated services. And so, in each area, you'll find people coming in to the service, being supported, and achieving different outcomes. I am a little puzzled about the figures that he's provided. If he wants to write to me, setting out where he's got those from, I'll happily respond to him and make sure that there is a level of priority about that too.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 on the agenda this afternoon is the statement by the leader of the house, 'Refugee Week—Wales, a Nation of Sanctuary'. And I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This week is Refugee Week, a celebration of the contribution that refugees make to our society, and an event to encourage better understanding between communities. This year is the twentieth anniversary of its launch, and Refugee Week organisers are asking people to take part by doing one simple act to support refugees. This can be as simple as having a conversation with a neighbour who is seeking sanctuary, or learning a few words of the language from a refugee’s country of origin. All of us here in this Chamber could do one very important, simple thing, and that is to show our support for refugees and asylum seekers in Wales by embracing the concept of Wales as a nation of sanctuary.

I hope that some of you were able to hear from the wonderful Oasis World Choir before Plenary today. The choir is comprised of refugees and asylum seekers from across the globe, and they have come here today as part of Refugee Week. Some of them were in the gallery earlier—I think they're probably not anymore. But I am sure that Members will want to join me in welcoming them here to the Senedd.

The Welsh Government’s 'Nation of Sanctuary—Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan' has been developed in response to the recommendations made by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, '"I used to be someone": Refugees and asylum seekers in Wales'. The plan is currently out for consultation. It has been co-produced by the Welsh Government, refugee support organisations, public sector organisations, and, most importantly, asylum seekers and refugees themselves. We are fully committed to doing everything we can in Wales to support people seeking sanctuary to rebuild their lives and fulfil their potential.

Wales is a welcoming nation. It is immediately apparent from talking with people seeking sanctuary and those who support them that most refugees who come to Wales are extremely grateful for the support they receive here. We can be proud of that fact. Nevertheless, we still have much to do to ensure refugees and asylum seekers can integrate effectively and rebuild their lives. As a Government, we are committed to equality of opportunity and upholding human rights. We believe in the fair treatment of every person, especially those who are most marginalised and have most difficulty accessing the help they need to meet their basic needs. 

The Welsh Government firmly believes that the integration of refugees and asylum seekers should begin on day one of their arrival. This approach is essential in ensuring the best possible outcomes for individuals and communities. We know there is strong public support for recent arrivals to learn English or Welsh—or both, bearing in mind that many refugees have excellent language skills—and we want to support them to do this. Supporting volunteering schemes for asylum seekers and refugees would contribute to Welsh society whilst also supporting language acquisition, improving mental health and increasing the employability of individuals. We are aiming for a holistic approach, where the actions in the plan complement each other to achieve overall positive change for refugees and asylum seekers.

It is important to emphasise that integration of people seeking sanctuary is not all about one-sided giving. Refugees bring a wealth of experience and a range of skills and abilities to Wales. The NHS in Wales has benefited from the Welsh Government-funded Wales asylum-seeking and refugee doctors group. This is delivered by the Wales Deanery and Displaced People in Action, supporting refugee doctors to have their existing medical qualifications recognised and find employment in the NHS. This scheme is estimated to have saved taxpayers at least £25 million over the last 15 years, empowered refugees to utilise their skills to give back to Wales, and saved countless lives too.

Some of the issues raised by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee inquiry in 2017 can only be resolved by the Home Office. It is no secret that we are often frustrated by the UK Government's decisions in relation to asylum and migration matters, but we have to accept that these matters are not devolved to Wales. Nevertheless, we have advocated for increasing financial support for asylum seekers awaiting decisions, additional money for local authorities who support asylum seekers in their area and improved asylum accommodation standards, amongst other issues. Unfortunately, to say the least, the UK Government does not appear to have incorporated our recommendations in the design of their forthcoming asylum accommodation contracts or significantly increased financial support in the asylum system. We will do what we can to mitigate the negative effects of UK Government policies on community integration in Wales and will seek to work constructively with the Home Office to identify and raise concerns where they arise.

Our nation of sanctuary plan focuses on proposals within the devolved areas that the Welsh Government can influence. The plan outlines the breadth of work that we are undertaking to ensure that the inequalities experienced by refugees and asylum seekers are reduced, their access to opportunities increased, and that relations between these communities and wider society are improved.

We have prioritised the key issues that refugees and asylum seekers talked to us about during preparatory work for this consultation. This includes ensuring individuals can access information and advice to help them orientate themselves to new surroundings, supporting opportunities to learn the language and to find employment, findings ways to avoid destitution, and improving access to health services.

In developing the actions we have sought to prevent the most harmful problems experienced by refugees and asylum seekers in Wales. These include homelessness, mental health conditions, poor accommodation and the risk of destitution. We have already made some encouraging progress in some of these areas but there is much work still to be done to improve outcomes.

We are continuing to consider improvements that we can make to support those seeking sanctuary, including looking at extending eligibility for education grants and concessionary transport to asylum seekers. These are complex and delicate areas, where a rush to extend eligibility could have unintended consequences for asylum applications. We also need the UK Government to recognise our desire to ensure that all members of Welsh society can integrate, and agree not to undermine this intention by placing Welsh Government funding streams on the list of prohibited public funds in the immigration rules. We are committed to the principle of extending entitlement in the interests of community integration and personal well-being, but we need to work through potential issues carefully to ensure that we make things better for people at risk of destitution and not worse.

Our work continues in respect of our support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. While we were ultimately not asked by the UK Government to welcome as many children to Wales under the Dubs scheme as we planned for, we have been able to provide safety and a fresh start for a small number and we wish them well in their lives here. Together with the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care and with our counterpart Ministers in the Scottish Government, we have lobbied the UK Government regularly on a range of matters about these children. The replies we have received have not been as positive, proactive or as helpful as we would have liked, I'm sorry to say, Deputy Presiding Officer. Nevertheless, we have made progress on the actions recommended by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee in relation to these children and we will continue to do so.

As I mentioned, the nation of sanctuary plan is currently out for consultation and the plan will continue to be developed and be amended to reflect the responses and suggestions received when the consultation period closes next Monday, 25 June. The plan comprises actions that we are seeking to take in the remainder of this Assembly term. Therefore, it forms an important part of a long-term aim for Wales to be a true nation of sanctuary for refugees and asylum seekers.

There is a Refugee Week stand in the Oriel this week, including a new film produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and an opportunity for members of the public to state what simple act they can do to support people seeking sanctuary in Wales. I was very pleased that we were able to do that this lunchtime together, Deputy Presiding Officer. I urge you all to visit the stand and include your own act. I would also like to thank the members of the Oasis World Choir who came here today to sing for us. Let us demonstrate to them how democracy can work to benefit all the residents of a nation, and that Wales, a small nation, punches above its weight when it comes to providing sanctuary. Diolch. 

Thanks very much for your statement in Refugee Week. I don't think you're going to find any real disagreement with the information and the sentiments that you've expressed. You say that all of us in the Chamber here should do one simple thing to show our support for refugees and asylum seekers by embracing the concept of Wales as a nation of sanctuary. I'm pleased that I ensured that that was in our 2016 Welsh Conservative manifesto as a commitment and, as you might recall, I sponsored and hosted the Sanctuary in the Senedd event at the back end of 2016 accordingly. 

You referred to support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. When we had a statement in November 2016, it was the time that we'd heard that the horrible Jungle camp in Calais was closing down, and that the British and French Governments were registering unaccompanied children who were hoping to join relatives in the UK. I then asked whether the Welsh Government had any indication of whether those figures provided were accurate, or how many of those children had come, or were coming, to Wales. I'm wondering whether you have any more up-to-date information now, 18 months down the road, over whether—and in what volume or what number—those children arrived here, and what particular support they might have received. 

You refer to integration of refugees and asylum seekers. Again, you might be aware that early last month I hosted an event in the Assembly called 'Let us integrate through music and art', put on by the North Wales Association for Multicultural Integration, of which I'm honorary president, and Cwmbran-based KIRAN, Knowledge-based Intercommunity Relationship and Awareness Network, born, they say, out of necessity to have an engaged community where members have knowledge of different sociocultural backgrounds. Only two weeks ago, I had a meeting here with the Welsh Refugee Council, the North Wales Association for Multicultural Integration and the charity CAIS, who are working in partnership to break down barriers and increase understanding of each other's cultures. So, in terms of supporting the integration message, how are you engaging with these trailblazing organisations that are doing their own bit and increasingly building a joined-up network themselves to deliver that integration message in practice in our communities, on our streets and in our rural areas too across Wales? 

Sadly, as you know, some refugees and asylum seekers become victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, and I know I'm slightly going off piste here, but there are a number of charities again working in this area, including Haven of Light in north Wales, who are having a modern slavery forum on 12 October. So, in terms of this agenda, how are you engaging not just with the commissioner but with the other agencies working together, statutory and third sector, regarding the particular refugee and asylum seeker issues applying to this group of victims?

My final question relates to acceptance of refugees. The figures published for refugees resettled in Wales last year show that Merthyr Tydfil and Neath Port Talbot were the only councils that accepted no refugees, in the figures they provided. Carmarthenshire was highest with 51, and Swansea with 33. In north Wales, Denbighshire had 21, but falling to five in Flintshire and only two in Conwy. So, how are you helping local authorities establish this understanding and awareness of the critical mass and the will to ensure, perhaps, a better distribution, so that the lead established in one part of Wales can be replicated elsewhere? Thank you.   

Thank you for that series of questions. I don't have the exact number here, so I'll write to the Member about the exact number of children who were under the Dubs scheme. But there were some serious issues around why we weren't able to take as many as we would like and I'll make sure that the Member has a communication about the exact number.

We have worked extremely hard to make sure that we work together with our stakeholders to ensure that we have as integrated a set of responses as possible. We've delivered on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee inquiry recommendation to train social workers, for example, in the age assessment of children and young people, and, earlier this year, five sessions were held across Wales and nearly 100 social workers and advocates have been trained. There's a toolkit that accompanied the training, which has been revised and will be published soon, as a result of our engagement with stakeholders as we work very hard to make sure that we have as much as possible a seamless response.

We also work very hard to make sure that we do integrate learning from the modern slavery action plan, and of course Wales has been at the forefront of having the modern slavery co-ordinator, and we have our regional co-ordinators working hard as well to ensure that we have as up-to-date a stakeholder plan as possible. But in the end, migration and asylum policy is not devolved to the Welsh Government. Many of the solutions to many of the difficulties faced by asylum seekers and refugees have to be found by the Home Office. The real issue for us is how to reduce the impact and prevalence of destitution, the non-devolved welfare system and asylum decisions and eligibility for funding, all of which are real driving factors behind those living in this situation.

We're very disappointed at the lack of co-operation on the new accommodation contract, for example. Just very recently, we've been having to lobby the UK Government yet again, along with Scotland, because the UK Government has not wanted us to set up a panel of experts to help inform decisions on the accommodation strategy, Deputy Presiding Officer. So, we are very disappointed with that because we think that saying it's commercially confidential is clearly not the right way forward for that. One of the big issues with integration is ensuring that asylum seekers and refugees are placed in accommodation in the right communities with the right support around them.

The Member did raise why there is patchy take-up in the stats that he quoted, but, of course, they're not the ongoing stats. Neath Port Talbot, for example, has taken a large number of people in the past. And there are issues around the funding as well, because only around 55 per cent of the funding is available and there's a big issue with the Barnett formula and the way that some of the schemes have been put together so that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't access some of the funding that is available. So, we have worked very hard to make sure that the UK Government understands that, sometimes, the juxtaposition of several policies has unintended consequences for people in this category.

The aim of creating a nation of sanctuary in Wales is one that Plaid Cymru supports, of course, and supports fully and is campaigning for, but I do think it's important to recognise that there are a number of barriers in trying to deliver that ambition. Many of those barriers emerge from the way in which the public debate on migration has far too often been steered by prejudice, misinformation and incorrect perceptions. Now, any attempt to integrate asylum seekers and refugees must recognise that and try to create a cultural change as well as a political change. So, can you outline what your Government is doing to put right this prejudice and perception?

Today's statement acknowledges that many of the problems facing refugees and asylum seekers come about as a result of issues that emerge from the Home Office. For example, we know that visas have been rejected for over 2,000 doctors in accordance with UK migration policy. Unfortunately, your party has refused to allow the Welsh Government to issue visas based on the needs of the Welsh workforce. Bearing in mind the grave need for doctors in Wales, are you willing to reconsider your position in this area?

Changes to benefits and the introduction of universal credit will have a far-reaching impact on the lives of refugees. The Welsh Refugee Coalition have stated that we need to find ways to mitigate the negative impacts of welfare reform on refugees, as well as monitor that. And you will know—you've heard me saying it on a number of occasions—that devolving elements of the administration of the welfare system would enable us in Wales to mitigate some of these ill effects and create a more humane system. So, can I ask you once again to look carefully at those possibilities and to learn lessons from Scotland?  I believe that refugees and asylum seekers would welcome a commitment from your Government today to at least consider this possibility and to bring a full report to this Assembly that would look in detail at the benefits and disbenefits of this. We haven’t had that thorough analysis to date and I think it would be beneficial to have that.

Your statement mentions accommodation for refugees and, at the moment, the Home Office is deciding which private provider will provide accommodation to asylum seekers in Wales over the next 10 years. So, can you outline what the Welsh Government intends to do to ensure that the quality of that accommodation is improved and that the provider itself is held to account for the duration of that contract? We know that homelessness, unfortunately, is a major problem among refugees and asylum seekers, and last week Crisis published its ambition plan to put an end to homelessness in the UK. Part of that project talks about immigrants and the necessary legislative changes required. So, can you commit to look in detail at the Crisis recommendations and lobby for the change that they are calling for in those areas that are non-devolved?

And finally, I want to discuss the scrapping of the MEAG grant to the local authorities—this important grant in terms of educational attainment for ethnic minorities. This is crucially important to ensure that language skills are taught in an appropriate way to children who don’t speak Welsh or English. But the scrapping of this grant is going to make it very difficult for the children of refugees and asylum seekers to learn both languages of our nation. So, my question is: don’t we need to bring back the MEAG? After all, language skills are crucial in order to integrate refugees and asylum seekers fully in our nation of sanctuary, and that, ultimately, is the best way of dealing with prejudice and being welcoming in the true sense of the word.

Thank you for that. There's a range of different issues raised there. Obviously, the whole point of Refugee Week is to combat some of the media representations. I entirely agree with Siân Gwenllian that a large part of the problem has been some of the—I don't know how to describe it—hysteria and hyperbole. Its really very detrimental reporting, and entirely untrue, usually. I think I'm prepared to say that it's completely untrue, in most instances, around perceptions about asylum seekers and refugees. Actually, poll after poll has shown that many members of the public can't tell the difference between the words 'migrant', 'asylum seeker', 'refugee' and so on, which shows in itself some of the hysteria that's been around this situation, and there's a wider debate to be had about the whole issue of migration in that context as well. But anyway, that's the whole point of this week, really, and that's why we're having this statement and it's why we're highlighting it. Because, Deputy Presiding Officer, we really do want to highlight the huge benefits that people who are, after all, fleeing the most appalling circumstances—that the skills and talents that they bring to our society and our culture are to be applauded and recognised. That is entirely the point of this, and I concur with her on that.

As I say, we do have a programme for recognising doctors' qualifications. I chair the faith forum here in Wales on behalf of the First Minister—he chairs it and I co-chair it with him and, often, I'm the chair in practice. We had a very vigorous debate about how we could extend that programme out into other health clinicians, and, actually, all asylum seekers and refugees who have professional qualifications that are required in our country. And anyway, we want to enable people to use their skills to the maximum advantage. I don't agree that we should be trying to take over immigration policy in terms of extending visas, but I do agree that we should be lobbying the UK—we have done very successfully—around not having ridiculous policies about restricting the migration—never mind asylum seekers and refugees—of people with essential skills for our NHS and other areas of our economy. It doesn't make any sense at all.

In terms of the administration of welfare, Deputy Presiding Officer, I fear that you are going to cut me off short if I start going into all of the detailed arguments on that, but it's suffice to say that we are not convinced that we would be able to mitigate some of the worst effects of the welfare system simply by administering it slightly differently. We will be looking in detail at the Crisis report, but we have had a very successful collaboration with the Asylum Rights Programme, delivered by the Welsh Refugee Council in consortia, which includes Tros Gynnal Plant, east Bawso, Asylum Justice, the City of Sanctuary, and Displaced People in Action project. So, we have had a good, co-ordinated piece across Wales, which has seen, we hope, the culmination of this very good plan in response to the committee's report, and I will just remind, Deputy Presiding Officer, everyone in Wales that the consultation finishes next Monday.

Leader of the house, in terms of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report and the responses Welsh Government has made, I wonder if you could provide further detail and assurance with regard to a few matters.

Firstly, the community cohesion plan: the response from Welsh Government was that that would be published in summer 2017 and would include specific actions in terms of more positive narrative around refugees and asylum seekers who've settled here in Wales. So, given that date of summer 2017 and the fact that it hasn't yet been published, I wonder whether you could tell me when it will be published and what steps the Welsh Government is taking in regard to that need for a more positive narrative here in Wales.

And with regard to the guardianship service, I know that there is currently a consultation on action to explore opinions on establishing such a service, and I wonder again what time frame there is for that work, and at what point the Government will be in a position to clarify whether there will be such a scheme.

On accommodation, leader of the house, there was a lot of concern around the right-to-rent checks, which I know you're very much alive to, and the fact that that could lead to discrimination. We call for an immediate assessment of the impact of the UK Immigration Act, and, indeed, the need for that assessment was accepted, so I wonder whether it has taken place, and if not, when it will take place, and also when the right-to-rent checks are expected to be introduced here in Wales, because we're not yet aware of that.

Just two final matters quickly, Dirprwy Lywydd—

Very quickly, please.

Very quickly. The draft consultation plan doesn't always include time frames for delivery, so I wonder whether the finalised plan will have clear dates for delivery of each action, and whether there will be Welsh Government funding allocated to the commitments made in the draft action plan. Diolch.

We have made a lot of progress in the last year, but we are very frustrated, as I said earlier on: the UK Government's refusal to share details of the contracts—of the forthcoming asylum accommodation support contracts—because, as John Griffiths has rightly pointed out, the accommodation system is crucial to ensuring the well-being of those claiming asylum. And, of course, the system will inevitably impact on Welsh public services and asylum seekers living here because of all of the issues that arise as a result, including poor mental health, poor integration and so on. We have made a number of attempts to gain access to the contracts, but we've not been successful. That doesn't mean we've given up, we are continuing to lobby very strongly on that.

We've also raised a number of the committee's recommendations with the UK Government where responsibility lies wholly, or partly, with them. And there will be some improvements in the future: that includes equality training for the asylum accommodation providers that we're very pleased to see be included; a complaints process that is independent of the accommodation provider; and some additional advice during a move-on period for new refugees. But we haven't been successful in all of the areas, as I've said a number of times.

So, therefore, we are looking to see how we can reduce the impact and prevalence of destitution in a non-devolved welfare system. We've taken some time to develop the new plan, as John Griffiths pointed out, to ensure that we co-produce the plan with refugees and asylum seekers, and the organisations that support them, to ensure that the plan will actually make a real difference to well-being. I'm reluctant to commit to a very definitive timescale, but I understand that that's gone very well, and that we hope to publish something reasonably soon. It is very important that that plan means something to the organisations that contribute to it. I don't want to cut that process short; I think that's very important indeed. And, of course, we'd very much like it to have realistic, impactful outcomes. So, I will be ensuring that those exist, and I'm sure that the committee will take a very close interest in that. I'm very happy to discuss that with the committee, as we go along.

The last thing I wanted to say is that we have funded a series of focus groups with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people to understand more about their views and experiences of the services they've received. That report will also be published soon and will help inform our future work, including the work on the plan. So, we hope to work very closely with the committee in the future.

Britain has a proud tradition of welcoming refugees, from the Huguenots in the seventeenth century to the Ugandan Asians in the 1970s. We should—indeed, must—maintain that tradition. The problem we have today is that the distinction between true asylum seekers and economic migrants has become blurred. This is especially true for the general public. We therefore have an unfair backlash on true refugees, for instance those fleeing the war in Syria, to whom we have a huge moral obligation to take in our fair share, because we allowed ourselves to get involved with the uprising against Assad, and whilst we would, of course, not uphold his form of regime, it has become clear that any type of regime is preferable to the wholesale carnage and destruction that has ensued from the west's involvement in yet another country of the middle east.

For hundreds of years, we have taken in refugees, but these have been numbered in tens of thousands per year. These people were easily accommodated and integrated into our society. The Ugandan Asians are a prime example of this. However, over the last decade, we have been faced with accommodating hundreds of thousands each year, which, of course, impacts on our ability to provide all the infrastructure and societal needs of these people, which again impacts on those who most desperately need our aid. This is not just a concern here in the United Kingdom. Social unrest and economic stress is being felt throughout Europe in the face of unprecedented migration levels. The inability to discern between true asylum seekers and economic migrants is causing disruption and opposition in such countries as Germany, Italy, Belgium and Spain.

We must, therefore, have proper border controls so that we can truly assess those who have a desperate and proper need for asylum, but with stricter controls on those who come here for economic reasons. UKIP of course supports all the measures proposed in this statement. We recognise the trauma that many of these displaced people have experienced and we acknowledge the necessity to provide interventions to help make these people welcome, comforted and fully integrated into our Welsh society. So, I just have one question for you, leader of the house, which is: what work is being done to make the distinction between asylum seekers and refugees and economic migrants to the public in general?

Well, I'm glad you support the principle, but I fundamentally disagree with your argument, I have to say. Refugee Week, as I said, started in the UK in 1998 as a direct reaction to hostility in the media and society in general towards refugees and asylum seekers. It's now one of the leading UK initiatives working to counter this negative climate, as I said to Siân Gwenllian earlier, defending the importance of sanctuary and the benefits it can bring to both refugees and host communities, and it's widely celebrated in many other countries—Australia and the United States, for example, and France held their first Refugee Week in 2016, so it's a spreading good-news story.

I simply don't like—. Well, first of all, the statistics that David Rowlands quotes are just not something we recognise here in Wales. Migration here is tiny. As somebody who has spent most of my life abroad because my family were economic migrants, where my father sought work around the world in order to give a better life to his family, I simply cannot find it in my heart to say that somebody fleeing war is a proper refugee, but somebody fleeing starvation or grinding poverty is not. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, I cannot agree with a single thing, other than the general support, that David Rowlands said.

Can I welcome the statement, during Welsh Refugee Week, on the Welsh Government consultation, 'Nation of Sanctuary—Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan'? The fact that this plan has been co-produced with the Welsh Refugee Council and other partners is an indication of the forward-looking inclusive approach taken by the Welsh Government, drawing, in large part, from the recommendations of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report.

This year, we celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the founding of the NHS, and I'm pleased you've drawn attention to early action I took as health and social services Minister to support the Welsh refugee doctors programme—the refugee doctors wanted to contribute their skills to the NHS. As a result of a pioneering training, language and support scheme, their skills were soon put to use, resulting in over 85 refugee doctors registered with the General Medical Council, practising over the past 16 years. What a contribution. Leader of the house, will you join me in congratulating these doctors, working across the NHS in the UK, as a result of this initiative, due, in no small part, to Aled Edwards of Cytûn who came to me and said, 'We can do this, Jane', and we did?

But also, can we, across the Chamber, thank all those in our constituencies who supported the Syrian refugee scheme, with my town of Barry providing a welcome and support to families over the past three years—families who are now settling and contributing to this community with their skills and talents? I'd particularly like to thank the voluntary Rainbow group, a black and minority ethnic group, who provide friendship and personal and social support to BAME women in the Vale of Glamorgan. But I am concerned to understand whether the Welsh Government is getting due respect and co-operation in terms of the integration of these families into our communities from the Home Office, who are obviously leading that scheme. I'd be grateful for your response to that. Also, leader of the house, you'll be aware of community initiatives across Wales, such as Croeso Llantwit, which is following Croeso Narberth, welcoming a Syrian refugee family to Llantwit Major. Finally, as patron of Bawso, I do want to acknowledge the work that's carried out by this specialist charity, supporting women escaping violence, including refugee women.

Yes, of course, I'm very happy to acknowledge the work across Wales of a large number of organisations who have worked very hard to co-produce our plans with us, and who, of course, work daily to make sure that refugee and asylum-seeking people across Wales are integrated. The Croeso movement, we hope, will spread even further; it's a great initiative. But, as I said, there are a large number of other organisations who've worked carefully with us, because we very much want this plan to be something co-produced with the communities, so that it really is meaningful to them.

We're very grateful to the committee for producing its comprehensive reports, and we've worked very carefully through the recommendations with the communities in order to support them. There are a number of very specific things that we can say. I've said something about the disappointment around the accommodation, but we will be working with local authority partners to make sure that where we can intervene, we do, and that people do live in accommodation that's fit for purpose. As I said, there are a number of other improvements around the complaints process and so on that can be put in place.

We also recognise the real issue with destitution, and so we've put a number of advice services in place to assist people to find the help that they need. I would, Deputy Presiding Officer, like to say again to the UK Government that we very much want them to not place Welsh Government funds on the list of 'no recourse to public funds' scheme, so that, here in Wales, we can make sure that we do not have destitute refugee and asylum-seeking people on our doorstep and that we can extend our public funding to them appropriately.

I think the first thing that I want to say today is that I'm sure some of us have seen the scenes in America where children are being literally ripped out of the arms of their parents and the damage that is being done to both the parents, but also to the children, and to the nation. So, with respect, I would ask if you will condemn those actions. I'm also pleased that we don't follow those actions here in Wales. It is absolutely appalling, it is absolutely inhumane and I cannot believe—and I'm sure nobody else can here—that you can have a President of one of the richest countries in the world actually standing up and saying that that is an acceptable form of behaviour. So, thank you for allowing me time to say that today.

It is in that vein, I suppose, that I rise here today. There is an article in The Guardian, and I have a copy here—it's not rubbish, so maybe I can hold it up—and it's a study about suicide that has happened because the system is so slow when it comes to processing—very often—minors. They are told quite clearly that at the age of 17 and a half, if they're not settled, that they would have to leave the country, and they've already been through hugely traumatic situations where they have suffered both physically and mentally to get to the stage that they are. They then find that all their hopes and dreams are somehow dashed by the system's inability to cope with them. I know that the system isn't down to us, so my question is this, particularly focusing on two groups, and one of them is the unaccompanied minors who find themselves destitute, very often, and then they become desperate, and then they harm themselves, and then, finally, they take their own lives. And that has happened here in Wales as well. I remember going to the Hay, Brecon and Talgarth Sanctuary for Refugees, and giving a keynote speech while they were remembering one of their own, and the devastating impact that it had had on those people, as a group, who'd done everything they could to assist that individual into a life worth living.

The other group that I'm very keen to focus on is those—and they are, more or less, women—who find themselves victims of sexual violence and rape, and all that goes with that, but it isn't exclusively women: some males are also subject to that. I note, in your statement, that there is a scoping exercise that will ascertain the key difficulties that are faced by asylum seekers and refugees who have experienced that, so that you can take some action. I look forward, leader of the house, to the outcome of that. And have you any indication whatsoever of when we could expect the results of some of those scoping exercises?

Joyce Watson raises a number of very important issues. As I've said, we've had five sessions across Wales, and nearly 100 social workers and advocates have been trained in age assessment of children and young people, so that we do not have some of the miscarriages of justice that we have seen in the system. We'll be publishing a series of information and advice resources that will assist social workers to support unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people, to advise on current and potential foster carers, and to advise the children and young people themselves. This meets the commitment to produce that information in the UK Government four-nation safeguarding strategy for unaccompanied asylum-seeker children, to which the Welsh Government has contributed. I know the Member has a real concern around the modern slavery issue here, as well as people particularly fleeing sexual violence, who are often captured by people who are very exploitative in that regard.

We funded a series of focus groups with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people, to understand more about their views and experiences of the services they've received in Wales. As I said earlier to John Griffiths, that report will be published soon, and will help inform our future work, including the final refugees and asylum seekers delivery plan. We've also supported the delivery of training to current and future foster carers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, as we seek to ensure that children have the best possible experience. I share Joyce Watson's horror at some of the scenes that we saw in the United States. We've been working very hard to ensure that the UK takes very seriously that, as part of the Brexit process, we stay part of the protocols in Europe that allow family reunification, because that is a very significant part of what our membership of the European Union has brought, and I really, very much, want to keep hold of that, if at all possible.

Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you very much for calling me to speak on this very important consultation, which I hope will move us to being truly a nation of sanctuary for refugees and asylum seekers, but I don't think we should ever underestimate the amount of daily racism and prejudice that asylum seekers and refugees do face. I support very strongly that this plan is being made in conjunction with refugees and asylum seekers; I think that's absolutely crucial. And I think it's a very important message that the leader of the house gave, that it's all our responsibility to make people feel welcome. Great examples of that have been mentioned. I know that Narberth and Llantwit Major have been mentioned today, and I know that Hay, Brecon and Talgarth's City of Sanctuary group has been doing events all over Powys in village halls, giving refugees a day out in the countryside to make them feel welcome, and that's been very successful. But it is, as the leader of the house said, not a one-way system because we do gain so much from people who have come here to our country.

I wondered if the leader of the house could update us about whether there has ever been any progress about asylum seekers being able to work, because one of the biggest issues that I've faced with asylum seekers is sometimes their inability to take up a job because of the policy from the Westminster Government. Many people have said to me, 'All I want to do is work', and they haven't been able to do that.

The Welsh Government-funded initiative that Jane Hutt put forward about doctors getting their qualifications is absolutely great. I was very pleased that the leader of the house said that this could perhaps be considered for all other qualifications. So, I don't know whether there are any actual plans to do that. If there are, perhaps you could tell us the details.

Then the other issue that I feel very concerned about is asylum-seeking young people who want to go to university, because these asylum claims drag on for years sometimes. I've had lots of examples of young asylum seekers, or children who are asylum seekers, who have not been able to take up places in university because they haven't been able to get funding. So, I don't know if there's any progress on that, or anything that the Government can do.

I'd just like to end by mentioning a great initiative in Llanishen High School in my constituency, which has just been awarded School of Sanctuary status. Sian Owens, a member of staff there, has spearheaded a fantastic awareness-raising programme where the young people have gone and spoken to different groups, have learnt about what happens in detention centres, and have received training from HOPE not hate. It really seems a fantastic initiative, and I'm sure she'll want to join me in congratulating them on what they've done.

Yes, that's a really great initiative. The more that can be encouraged to ensure that young people have a mutual understanding of how they got to be where they are, and what they bring to the classroom, the better.

She asked a number of questions, which I can just quickly say something about. We are very interested in looking at schemes to recognise other qualifications, but actually what we want to do first is see if we can extend the medical one to other clinicians, and then extend it out. I'm due to have conversations with various Cabinet Secretaries about how we can take that forward as part of the work that we were doing, because I'm very keen that we should allow people to make the full contribution that they can make to our society.

In terms of the work, we haven't made any headway, I'm sorry to say, about allowing asylum seekers to work, but there is even an issue with volunteering, because you're only allowed to volunteer with a charity. In large parts of rural Wales, if you can't volunteer with a business, then you're not really going to be able to volunteer at all. So, I've made that point forcibly a number of times to UK Government Ministers, and we are hopeful that they will at least look at that bit of it. But there's no meeting of minds on the subject of work in general.

In terms of what asylum seekers give back—and after all, Deputy Presiding Officer, this is a celebration of refugees and asylum seekers, and we've hit a somewhat doleful note with some of the problems—I will just highlight that, in my own constituency, as well as in many others that many Members have already mentioned, there is a brilliant asylum seekers' writing project. They write the most incredible stories and poems, sometimes about their experiences, but sometimes just general things. It really is a great scheme. I have a number of books that, for a small donation to a charity of my choice, I can share with you. You can just read them in my room if you're not prepared to put your hand in your pocket for the charity, but I do have a large supply of them, should Members want to take advantage of that, because I support that project.

I just want to say this: Refugee Week is an umbrella festival. The events have a wide range of arts, voluntary, faith and refugee community organisations, school student groups and more, and they include arts festivals, exhibitions, film screenings, theatre and dance performances, concerts, football tournaments and public talks, as well as creative and educational activities in schools. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, despite the gloom and despondency that we seem to have been experiencing, which I understand entirely, I do want to emphasise that this is a festival of a celebration of the contribution that refugees and asylum seekers make to our society.

Finally, Bethan Sayed.

Thank you. I wasn't going to speak and then I felt that I wanted to, because I've done quite a lot of work in this area, and when somebody mentioned earlier 'these people' I suddenly thought of the fact that they're not just 'these people', they have names: Ahin Ahmed, Ibrahim Saba are just some of the ones that I've met. I think that, sometimes, we talk about people without considering that they are actually humans in our society, and I think that's how we need to frame the debate, and that they have so much to give to us as well. So, the positivity I would like to bring is not only that we help them, but they can help us, be it through new cultures, be it through new ways of living, new rituals that we can learn about, new foods or new tastes, and I think that's something that we should all take away from those who come to Wales.

I think it's important, would you not agree with me, that organisations such as Bloom in Swansea and the Swansea Humanitarian Aid Response Project are worth mentioning? Because there are many unsung heroes in all of this—volunteers who are either retired or young people who are juggling, helping asylum seekers by translating, just trying to be as supportive as they possibly can, and delivering goods to others. I visited an asylum seeker last week and her pram was falling to pieces. Within five minutes of me asking on Facebook, somebody had delivered me a pram and I took it to her on Saturday. This was a really expensive piece of goods that she would just not have been able to have afforded if it wasn't for the hospitality of somebody that I knew. So, I think that's the positive that comes from all of this.

The only issues that I had was wanting to raise with you some questions with regard to the Syrian resettlement scheme. That's coming to an end soon, so I'm just wondering whether you know that there's going to be sufficient follow through, and because those funding streams are coming to an end that we know that those Syrian refugees are not going to be left isolated, and are going to have the support mechanisms around them.

I would also say that the housing allocations are simply not up to scratch at the moment. I'm visiting families who are on top of hills, pushing prams, without access to bus routes, and they feel isolated. They're in the house all day, and do you know what? I think that the UK Government want that to happen, quite often. They want them to stay in their houses, isolated, because they don't want them to make friends, they don't want them to feel part of a community, because that serves them when they come to the decision to deport them, quite often. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I think that has something to do with the allocations and where those houses are. So, I would urge you to use all the influence that you have in relation to that.

For example, in Neath Port Talbot, we simply don't have anywhere that sells halal food. They've got to take the trip to Swansea to find that food. I've written to Tesco, I've written to different outlets in Neath Port Talbot, asking if they can provide halal food, and they simply say no, they don't have the demand. Well, if that's the case, how are they accommodating those very people who are the most vulnerable, who will only eat that food in their everyday lives?

The thing I wanted to finish on was this: I was shocked the other day, again visiting a family, who said that her children were refused a school uniform grant because they weren't Syrian refugees. Allegedly there's no two-tier system, but if her children who are from a different country are deemed not as important as Syrian refugees, then that's going to create tension between refugees and asylum seekers that we simply do not need in an age where they already feel persecuted. So, if you could do anything in relation to sending updated guidance to schools, I would be very grateful for that.

On that one, if you want to write to me with the specific details, I can do something about that. We do not like the two-tier system, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Welsh Government is doing everything it can to minimise the discrepancies by ensuring that all refugees are eligible for Welsh Government schemes in Wales. So, we're doing our best. A two-tier system has been put in place by the UK Government, but we're doing our best to make sure that that doesn't happen.

I'm afraid I share Bethan Sayed's cynicism about the accommodation strategy. I think it's both a money-saving thing and a thing that forces people not to integrate as well as they might. A large part of what we do is attempting to make sure that that doesn't happen, so it's a little bit of a push-shove thing.

But I just wanted to go back to what she started with, really, Deputy Presiding Officer, because Bloom and SHARP are two organisations I'm very familiar with in the Swansea area, but there are, right across Wales, and it is absolutely heartening that when you do put an appeal out on social media or one of those puts a little list up of things that they particularly need for a family, the people of Wales are incredibly generous in their response to that. It always brings a smile to my heart, anyway, to see that happening, because after all, Deputy Presiding Officer, we really are a nation of sanctuary.

Thank you very much.

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on companion animal welfare. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to update Members on what we're doing to continue to improve standards of animal welfare in Wales. In this statement, I will be focusing on companion animals, or pets.

Animal welfare is a priority for the Welsh Government and the Wales animal health and welfare framework group. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, there is a duty of care on all owners and keepers of animals to ensure their welfare needs are met, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. We will not tolerate the ill treatment of animals, and those who commit the worst acts of cruelty should face tough punishments. This is why we have agreed to work with the UK Government to increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years. We are also working with the UK Government and other devolved administrations to ensure animals are recognised as sentient after we leave the EU. Our position is clear: we fully agree animals are sentient beings and the possibility of that not being reflected in legislation is a concern.

In 2016, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Cymru made a case for the introduction of an animal offender register in Wales. A task and finish group was established and engagement with stakeholders undertaken. Careful consideration of the evidence was carried out and the group recently submitted its draft report to me, with the final version due by summer recess. Due to the absence of practical solutions that would enable the creation of such a register and the lack of UK-based evidence to support the impact that some stakeholders believe one would have, the group does not recommend the development of a register at this time.

I am grateful to the members of the task and finish group for carrying out this work, and in particular RSPCA Cymru, the leading third sector prosecutor of animal welfare cases in Wales. I read the recommendations of the 2014 Wooler report with interest and, in particular, the recommendation for the RSPCA inspectorate to receive statutory status under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I have asked RSPCA Cymru to consider this recommendation and to provide me with evidence of whether it would be workable in Wales.

We've introduced a number of pieces of legislation in recent years that underline our commitment to continue improving standards of animal health and welfare in Wales. We've introduced a welfare-focused licensing scheme for licensed dog breeders and the requirement for dogs to be microchipped. We've banned the cosmetic docking of dogs' tails and the use of electronic shock collars on cats and dogs, and I am proud that Wales was the first UK nation to implement such a ban. 

As part of our ongoing commitment to raising standards of responsible animal ownership, I've asked for the microchipping regulations, which have now been in force for two years, to be reviewed. Research will be undertaken into levels of compliance and enforcement, and whether more needs to be done to ensure traceability. I've also asked for consideration to be given to whether there would be a benefit to extending the regulations to include other species, including cats. The introduction of the Welsh dog breeding regulations led the way in addressing welfare concerns at dog breeding establishments in Wales. This was the first and remains the only legislation of its kind in the UK.

In 2017, a survey carried out by local authorities, in partnership with the Welsh Government, served as an opportunity to assess the standards currently applied in Wales. Further projects under the partnership will be progressed this year. In Wales, we demand high standards from our licensed breeders and sourcing a healthy puppy that can be seen with its mother, or rehoming an animal from a reputable animal welfare establishment, is the first fundamental step towards being a responsible owner. Yet the illegal importation of puppies, driven by huge demand, continues to be a problem. We already work closely with operational partners and stakeholders to deal with illegal imports, but more needs to be done. Potential owners must be informed of the poor conditions often endured by these animals, as well as the disease risks they may pose. I believe the potential banning of third-party sales is worthy of investigation and I will be discussing options with officials. Education is a key aspect of this.

Potential and existing pet owners must consider the future when deciding whether or not to own an animal, including how to meet its welfare needs and the costs associated with doing so. However, I do understand people’s circumstances can change. I would like to explore what veterinary provision, assistance and advice is available to people who need help in caring for their pets. This could be during times of illness or emergency, such as fleeing from a violent household. I would like to see a collaborative approach, with information readily available for people when they need it. Officials will discuss how this can be approached with Animal Welfare Network Wales. 

Partnership working is a fundamental aspect of improving standards, and we are fortunate to have a knowledgeable and dedicated animal welfare sector here in Wales. Many of these organisations have worked and continue to work closely with the Welsh Government as members of the animal welfare network group. We have recently worked with the network to review our existing species-specific codes of practice, as well as supporting the development of a new, voluntary code of practice for sanctuaries. The purpose of the codes is to explain what a person needs to do to meet the standards of care the law requires. It is my intention to lay the revised codes of practice for horses and dogs before summer recess, and for a consultation on the revised cat code to commence in the autumn. I will also be asking the network to review the rabbit code, and to identify if there is a need to introduce any new codes, such as for racing greyhounds, primates and other exotic pets. 

Embedding a culture of responsible ownership cannot be achieved in isolation, and I am grateful for the dedication and passion shown towards animals in Wales. There is always more that can be done but we are proud, as a nation, to be leading the way in raising standards of animal welfare.

Thank you. Paul Davies. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon? I believe it's important that animal welfare is a priority for any Welsh Government, and I'm also pleased that there are plenty of discussions taking place at Westminster around driving up animal standards. Indeed, it's good to see that Governments at both ends of the M4 are committing to this agenda. 

Of course, the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill 2017 would increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences from six months to five years' imprisonment, and it would ensure that animals are defined in UK law as sentient beings. Of course, I'm pleased that today's statement confirms the Welsh Government support for this Bill, therefore perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could confirm whether it's still her intention to bring forward a legislative consent motion in the National Assembly to allow this obligation to extend to Welsh Government Ministers. And perhaps she could also provide an update on what discussions she's had with UK Government counterparts on this specific Bill, given its impact on Wales. 

The Cabinet Secretary will be aware of the UK Government's recent consultation to introduce a ban on third-party puppy sales, which would mean pet shops and pet dealers cannot sell puppies unless they have bred them themselves. I note that today's statement confirms that the potential banning of third-party sales is worthy of investigation, and that the Cabinet Secretary will be discussing options with officials. I'm sure the Welsh Government is also monitoring the outcomes of the UK Government's consultation, but perhaps she can tell us a bit more about the options she has so far discussed with her officials. 

Of course, a ban on third-party sales of puppies goes some way to tackling the puppy trade in the UK, but there's scope here to look at a range of measures to tackle this problem, such as perhaps tightening regulations around the breeding and selling of puppies. I note from today's statement that in 2017 a survey was carried out by local authorities in partnership with the Welsh Government, which served as an opportunity to assess the standards currently applied in Wales, and that further projects under that partnership will be progressed this year. Given that we are now roughly half way through this Assembly, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could give an assessment of the effectiveness of the current dog breeding regulations and also expand on what type of partnership projects will be carried out this year. 

Now, this afternoon's statement tells us that the current microchipping regulations will be reviewed and perhaps extended to other species, such as cats, and I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what initial discussions she's had with cat welfare organisations and the animal welfare sector more generally at this stage about this review, and the impact of extending the regulations to other species. 

One of the more difficult issues that I believe needs tackling is in relation to the scale of unlicensed activity and the rise in the online sale of pets in Wales, as the invisibility of this trading system has resulted in many online sellers being able to avoid pet breeding and vending legislation, and it crucially pays no regard to an animal's welfare. Therefore, whilst I'm pleased that today's statement looks at a series of measures around animal welfare, perhaps she could tell us a bit more about the specific action that her department intends to take in relation to the buying and selling of animals and, in particular, online trading. 

Now, another important animal welfare campaign that has gained significant attention recently is in relation to sanctuaries, and the Cabinet Secretary will be aware of the YouGov poll for RSPCA Cymru in 2017, which found that 83 per cent of the public in Wales believe the Welsh Government should make animal sanctuary owners obtain a licence and be inspected to set up or operate such premises. It's clear that there's an appetite for the Welsh Government to do something here. I accept that today's statement confirms the development of a new voluntary code of practice for sanctuaries. However, I'd be grateful if she could give us her initial thoughts on how animal welfare establishments should be monitored to ensure that they are meeting the highest possible welfare standards, and perhaps in the first instance she would consider providing a clear-cut definition of the phrase 'animal welfare establishment' so that there can be no ambiguity in talking about what sorts of establishments any new codes would apply to and to ensure that all sanctuaries are included within this definition.

Of course, today's statement confirms that the Welsh Government has committed to looking at reviewing a range of codes of practice for companion animals, and I'm pleased that more work will be done in the autumn as it's crucial that all codes are kept up to date and extended where they need to be and that they are considered alongside other portfolio areas, as often animal welfare guidance can have an impact on other Government policies, such as health and housing.

Therefore, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement? I look forward to scrutinising the Welsh Government's progress on its animal welfare policies as they develop. Thank you.  

I thank Paul Davies for that series of questions. You started off around the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, and I made our view very clear in my statement, and I mentioned that we are working with the UK Government, because I think it's really important that we do maintain a comparative sentencing regime across England and Wales. I think that's important so that the enforcement agencies have clarity, the courts have clarity and also the public have that clarity. So, I think it's very important that we do work together with the UK Government in relation to that.

You asked me if I will confirm that I'm bringing forward a legislative consent motion, and I do confirm that I will be bringing forward an LCM for those aspects of the Bill that obviously then apply to Wales. I've had discussions around this both with the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Michael Gove, and also with Lord Gardiner, who's a Minister with responsibility for animal welfare.

You talked about third-party sales of puppies, and you'll be aware of the campaign around Lucy's law. I know there's an event here at the Senedd, I think it's next month, that Eluned Morgan is sponsoring and I'll be speaking at it. Certainly, the petition that's associated with the campaign has gained over 100,000 signatures. That was debated in Parliament and I've asked officials to look at the regulations, because they only apply to England. There are specific conditions on dog breeding that are included. There's a requirement that a puppy can only be shown to a prospective purchaser if it's together with its biological mother, and I think that's something that is very worthy of consideration. I know that a call for evidence has recently closed, so we'll be looking at that very carefully. 

You mentioned the microchipping regulations, which I said I was going to have reviewed. They've been introduced now and been in force for over two years, so I think it is the appropriate time for them to be reviewed, and I think it's time that we also consider whether other animals should be microchipped. Certainly, I've had a lot of representation around cats being microchipped, so I've asked officials to look into that for me.

I think the point you raised about sanctuaries was very pertinent, and the definition of an animal welfare establishment, and that will be part of the scrutiny process that we're going to go through. I want to ensure that consideration is given to whether the code would be suitable for use as a statutory document. I think it's important that it has that status. So, again, I'm working with the animal welfare network to support their development of a voluntary code of practice for animal welfare establishments and sanctuaries, and I'll obviously keep Members updated.

Thank you for the statement here today. I have to say that I'm disappointed about the part in the statement with regard to the animal offender register here in Wales, especially given that you've made a statement without giving us any background information as to what actually happened as part of that review. I'm particularly disappointed to read that you think that, because there's a lack of UK-based evidence, that's something that cannot be then progressed. There's plenty of international evidence, and I wonder what work has been done in that regard. For example, there's a state-wide open register in Tennessee; in New York, there's a closed register for pet shops and animal sanctuaries and they must reference this before selling or passing on animals; Orange county animal register—again, in America—is maintained by the sheriff's office, and anyone convicted must submit information to that office, and anyone transferring ownership must check registry prior to any change in ownership. I mean, if we haven't got an animal abuse register in any other part of the UK, it'd be difficult to have evidence based on practice because it doesn't exist. That's exactly why people like myself were calling for a Wales-first, so that we could look into this, and also for UK law enforcement agencies to be able to use this particular information to profile people who would potentially abuse animals and then go on to abuse people in real life. I mean, this is really important, and I think it is a real missed opportunity, and I'd like to see the evidence that supports the conclusion. It's really hard to comment without seeing anything today.

With regard to various animal welfare codes, you mentioned quite a few in your statement, but you failed to mention the game bird code. When will this be reviewed? In conversations that I've had with the League Against Cruel Sports, this is not monitored at the moment. They would like to meet with you to discuss game bird welfare, so I'm wondering whether you would take up that offer to meet with them, because I feel that it is missing from these codes and it's just as important as codes for horses and for cats. 

In relation to cross-government work, I can't see anything in this statement in relation to how you're working with the housing sector. I raised with the Minister, Rebecca Evans, the statements that landlords are putting out: 'No pets, no DSS'. We are seeing a rise in landlords that are refusing tenants with pets because, potentially, they've had problems in the past. You say a lot in these statements about how we make people better carers for the pets that they have, but when they do have pets, they're often discriminated against, and those pets are really vital to their mental health, to how they operate in society. And so it's good to say, 'Well, we have to look after the animals' on one stage, but what about how animals can help humans? I think that's something that isn't really in this statement enough here today.

I'd also concur with the comments made by Paul Davies in relation to online selling. We are seeing a myriad of different people selling various animals online, and it does seem to be something that isn't regulated, isn't monitored, isn't something that anybody has a handle on. I think the welfare of animals is key here, because people are often breeding animals, they then realise they can't cope and then sell them in these ways that seem easy for them to offload the burden that they see that these animals provide on them, but, also, potentially, they're not doing it in the most ethical way. So, I'd urge you to look at that further too. 

Thank you, Bethan Sayed, for those questions. I absolutely recognise that you would be disappointed. I did stress that I'd only had the draft report and I will bring forward a substantive response to that piece of work before summer recess, probably in the form of a written statement, but I know you've taken a keen interest in the animal offender register, so I absolutely understand why you want to see the evidence. As I say, I've only had the draft report, but there was some positive actions—there were several positive actions, actually—within the report that I think are worthy of further work, so that piece of work will be undertaken now, and, as I say, I do commit to bringing a full, substantive response before the summer recess.

I, just today, discussed the link between people who abuse animals and domestic abuse with the violence against women national advisors. I also had a presentation from Dr Freda Scott-Park. She is doing significant work with veterinary practices to ensure that, where they see non-accidental injury of animals—that perhaps there is a link with domestic abuse. So, there is a big piece of work right across the UK being done, but I think—. You know, I have to listen to what the task and finish group have said, but there are other things that we can bring forward aside from the register.

You asked about the code of practice in relation to game birds, and I've agreed with DEFRA and the other devolved administrations that we'll work together to review and revise the code of practice. I don't have a timeline for that specifically, but there is a commitment that we will do that. If you want to send me a letter around the group that you want me to meet, I'd be very happy to look at that, diary permitting.

I haven't had a specific conversation with the Minister for housing around landlords, but I think it is obviously something that we need to consider. I heard you say that you'd mentioned it to the Minister, and I'll certainly pick up on that.

In relation to online selling—and I'm sorry I didn't answer Paul Davies's question about that—I was actually shocked at the amount of purchasing of pets online that goes on, and I've asked officials to look at this. You're right; it's not regulated, it's not monitored in the way that we would want. So, that is a piece of work that we need to do, and unfortunately, there is a market for it, and that market, even just in the two years I've been in post, seems to have increased, which is obviously of concern.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary; there's lots to welcome in your very important statement today. First, I'd like to seek some clarification on a number of points. On the possibility of introducing Lucy's law to ban third-party puppy sales, I welcome your comments about discussing options with officials. We know on welfare grounds that there's a growing chorus of recognition that it's a good step, and I'd like to place on record a tribute to the work of Friends of the Animals Wales and its inspirational founder, Eileen Jones, and also to Rhondda Cynon Taf council that was the first council in the UK to pass a motion condemning third-party sales. I know lots of AMs have already asked you questions about this, but how would you engage with third-party expertise that there is out there on this subject in order to take the issue forward?

Secondly, I note your comments about the difficulties in establishing an animal offender register. I wonder if you'd also be able to say a little about tackling dog fighting. You may have seen the recent case with five people being charged for offences relating to dog fighting in Wales and in the east midlands. How else can the Welsh Government help to tackle this abominable cruelty?

And finally, the comments around support at difficult times for owners are also important, and in particular help for people in accessing veterinary services. We've spoken frequently about the rising numbers of people using food banks in Wales. I understand the Trussell Trust now accepts pet food, and the Cabinet Secretary will know the first food bank for pets was, in fact, set up in Wales. Would the Welsh Government also look into feeding companion animals as part of the review?

Thank you, Vikki Howells, for those questions. I'll certainly join her in paying tribute to Eileen Jones and RCT council. There is a huge amount of work going on in relation to third-party sales, and I've asked the network to have a look particularly at this aspect of animal health and welfare.

You asked about dog fighting, which is obviously horrific and illegal, and we work very closely with the police. If anybody has any evidence of this, that's where they should go in the first instance.

In relation to the animal offender register, you will have heard my answers to Bethan Sayed, and, as I said, there are several recommendations within the draft report that I do think are worthy of further consideration. Even though the advice to me is not to bring a register forward at this time, I think the points that Bethan raised around looking at the evidence in detail—I certainly will do that. I've literally just had the draft report, so I haven't had the opportunity to do that yet, but I will do before I bring forward a statement in the summer.

I mentioned in my opening statement that I think we need to look at people who are struggling; circumstances do change. I mentioned about women fleeing from a violent household, and I had a discussion with the advisers today. So, I think we need to work with Dogs Trust; I know they help. We, actually, as a Government, have had two inquiries in the last few months about fostering pets urgently, and obviously we don't have the facilities to do that. So, it's about working with charities and with the third sector to see if that's available.

Thanks to the Minister for today's statement. I agree with the sentiments underlying the statement.

The majority of households that have pets have dogs, and there are several issues over the welfare of dogs, one obvious one being: in today's society, are they getting enough exercise and general stimulation? These days, a lot of households contain couples who are both out working during the day, so this can be a problem. So, we have to be sure that people purchasing dogs are involved in an appropriate lifestyle for owning dogs. If dogs are short of stimulation, they can exhibit behavioural problems such as anxiety, in some cases, or in others, aggression. They would then need to be dealt with through training classes. Now, training classes are mandatory for the owners of dogs purchased from a lot of rescue centres, but they're not mandatory for dogs purchased through other means like private sellers. I'm not saying that it has to be mandatory, but do we need, perhaps, to publicise more the benefits of putting dogs through training classes and do we need to do more to educate dog owners as to the welfare and costs of keeping their animals? I note that education is one of the themes in your statement today.

The microchipping regulations that were introduced for dogs you say are being reviewed. It seems sensible to introduce that with the increase in incidents of dognapping, particularly of expensive breeds. You mentioned that you are looking at whether there is a good case for the microchipping scheme to be extended to cats. I would think that there probably is a good case for it, but I know that you responded already to that when Paul Davies raised it, so you may not be able to say more on that issue today.

Can I mention horses? There isn't much detail in today's statement about horses, although I know that there is a revised code of practice that's going on. We know that the fly-tipping of sick and injured horses is at an all-time high, so this is a major issue. Indeed, the RSPCA claims that there is a horse crisis going on. One of the problems being that horses are relatively cheap to buy, but expensive to care for. So, one way of addressing it is to go back to the education angle—again, is there more that we can do to educate prospective horse owners about the cost and welfare of keeping horses? On a more parochial level, there's the case of people who have a single horse. Horses are actually herd animals, so keeping a horse all on its own is perhaps not a good idea for the animal's welfare. Now, there's a case that I know of—a couple of people near me who live two doors down from each other and each own a single horse. One of those horses in particular looks most forlorn and they'd probably be better off keeping the horses together in the same field. So, I suppose we're going back, again, to the issue of education. Are there any more specifics that we can do to promote education about the welfare of companion animals?

Thank you for those questions. I think you raise a very important point about individuals becoming dog owners—that was the one you spoke about. I think it is good for health and well-being. I've attended the education classes that Dogs Trust run, for instance, and as you say, it's mandatory if you get your pet from one of these establishments. I don't think we would look at making it mandatory, but I think we do need to be able to publicise it and I'd be very happy to see if we could put it on the website.

There's nothing further I can say around microchipping, but I think you're right; there is a good case for looking at microchipping cats, so that's a piece of work that's being undertaken at the current time.

You asked about the code of practice for the welfare of horses. The animal welfare network group reviewed and revised that code of practice in 2016. We also had a 12-week public consultation on the revised one last October and I published the summary of responses to the consultation just last month. We will be revising the code of practice and publishing it before the summer recess this year.

In relation to horses, interestingly, I went out for half a day with the RSPCA and every case that we visited, bar one, was in relation to the welfare of horses. I think you mentioned education in relation to people keeping dogs and horses, and I've had those discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, because we did look at whether we could put something in the curriculum, but you'll appreciate that the curriculum is pretty full. I think there is an issue around education, and again, we publish a great deal of information on our website and I always look at what we can do to publicise it further.

Cabinet Secretary, just a couple of slight variations on the issue of animal welfare. There's been a tendency to regard the welfare of animals, particularly in terms of medical fees, as something of a luxury, in the sense that value added tax is charged. We know that, for many people, the welfare of their animals is often dependent upon whether they can actually afford to gain access to medical services. I think it's well worth putting on record the fantastic work of bodies like the PDSA, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, and, in my constituency, Hope Rescue in Taff Street in Pontypridd—the work they do in terms of dog and animal welfare.

You mentioned that you, of course, have had discussions with your counterparts in the UK Government in terms of joint approaches. It seems to me that the issue of the regulation of veterinary fees is something that ought to be looked at. It seems to me there's very little clarity about veterinary fees. They seem to be largely unregulated, they seem to be increasing by about 12 per cent per annum, and then, on top of that, there's a 20 per cent VAT charge. Of course, if you're a commercial operator—if you're a farmer, for example—you can get back the VAT that you pay out, but if you're a pet owner, obviously, you can't. I really wonder whether, in terms of domestic pets and for animal welfare purposes, the issue of reducing VAT on veterinary bills, or perhaps even removing them altogether, is something that at least should be considered, should be discussed, but that there should be things also that Welsh Government and perhaps our counterparts could do in ensuring far greater clarity of veterinary fees for pet owners.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw raises a very interesting point, and I'm meeting with the British Veterinary Association next week, and it's something that I'll be very happy to raise with them. I've not had discussions around that with my UK counterparts, but I'll certainly speak to the BVA first to see what they would advise, but I'd be very happy to look at any joint approach that would help people in respect of veterinary fees.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, can I welcome the statement? I think the principle of responsible ownership that is mentioned towards the end of your statement is key, but I do think that more needs to be done with it. Several Members, including Gareth Bennett, have mentioned the need for education, and it is, after all, pet owners who are going to be able to deliver the maximum level of animal welfare. No matter how good our laws and regulations are, it is human behaviour here that is key.

I have to say, a couple of months ago, I visited Cardiff Dogs Home, and can I take this opportunity to commend their excellent work—it's a remarkably hopeful place, which is perhaps not what I was expecting—and also the friends of Cardiff Dogs Home as well, who exercise the animals twice daily, and, indeed, that's what I did do as part of my visit? But, anyway, the staff and volunteers there were talking to me about the problems they often have with dogs being abandoned, because they were acquired in the first place, irresponsibly, as fashion accessories—this sounds remarkable, but I assure you it goes on—and then, after six months or so, the novelty of having this fashion accessory, which you're showing off to your friends or whatever, wears and the realities of taking care of a sentient animal with a range of quite obvious needs means that they grow indifferent or even callous and the animals often get abandoned, and literally get abandoned—driven many miles and then thrown out of a car. So, that's the first point.

The second point, and, again, a couple of people have mentioned this, but I want to refer you to the work of the charity Cats Protection, which has highlighted the problem of pets being given up when people move into rented accommodation. They also mention that when people go into some form of care accommodation, it's often automatically the case that they have to give up their pets—in this case, cats—and these animals are often older animals that cannot be rehoused very easily. I think landlords and those running various forms of care accommodation, sheltered or whatever—residential homes—many of them can be quite easily made appropriate for companion animals. I think those in rented accommodation—indeed, I live in a condominium, and we have a presumption that you can have a pet unless there are very strong reasons not to have the pet, and that is a much better way of operating. It would be fairer, as well, which would cover people in some form of rented accommodation as well. I think that's a real issue, and I commend the charity for raising that matter.

Thank you, David Melding, for those questions and comments, and I'll certainly join him in paying tribute to Cardiff Dogs Home. I've visited several of these establishments since I've been in post, and the dedication of both the staff and the volunteers is incredible. I remember going to the Dogs Trust in Bridgend just before Christmas, and there were a lot of dogs there then, and you can imagine—. You raised the point about fashion accessories and people getting rid of pets after six months, and it's the same, obviously, with Christmas. A lot of people have pets at Christmas and then a few months later—. But I remember going to this one in Bridgend, and every dog had a Christmas stocking full of presents. The dedication of these people is just incredible.

In relation to the issue around landlords, I see the Minister for housing is in the Chamber now, so she will have heard that, and obviously Bethan Sayed raised it with me also, and I will certainly have a discussion with Rebecca Evans around this. I, too, live in rented accommodation here in Cardiff, and it's exactly the same. You are allowed a pet unless—you know, you have to make a case if not. So, I think there is a huge amount of work that we can do with landlords to make sure that the situations that you just described don't happen.

I'm not going to repeat, obviously, everything that people have said, but I particularly want to support what David Melding has said about, particularly, people who have had animals for a long time, and those animals are ageing, and are being subject, really, to a death sentence, because nobody will take them on.

But I also want to focus on the whole intention of what we're trying to do. What we're trying to do is advising people how to look after their animals in the right and most appropriate way. Yet, I did a very quick survey myself, and found that not many people knew we were doing this. They didn't actually know anything about this code of practice for companion animals amongst the general public, and I think that we need to do a piece of work, whether it's us or others.

But there is an area I want to focus on, and Vikki Howells has alluded to it, and that is dog fighting. Dog fighting isn't only bad for the animals, which of course it clearly is, but it is a whole network wrapped up, very often, with criminal activity, betting, drinking and also drug taking. It is very prevalent, I have been informed, in certain areas of Wales, and we really ought to be tackling this head on, because it is one of the worst crimes against the animal, and it has almost, in some places, become quite acceptable behaviour.

This is going to sound odd, but I'm going to bring in another area that I think we ought to think about when we're thinking about animal welfare. We also need to think about what we buy in our pet shops that might affect the ecology elsewhere, and I'm talking particularly here about tropical fish and whether we need to do a little bit of work around—because there is evidence coming out—the major damage to coral reefs because people are just simply going in to grab the fish that exist there, for people to somehow sit and look at in their tanks at home. The evidence has really come out of that Disney film, Finding Nemo, and people's children wanting a fish that looks just like that. So, there is a wider debate here, when we look at animal welfare, about the destruction that, very often, what we buy is affecting communities, quite seriously, elsewhere.

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for raising those three points. Around the codes of practice, we have a partnership approach in relation to our codes of practice and how we worked with the animal welfare network group to develop a communications plan to raise awareness of the codes of practice, so I'm very disappointed to hear you say that. So, I think there's a piece of work, certainly, I can do and we can do as Welsh Government, but I'm sure some of our partners will be very happy to help us. But, certainly, we have them on the Welsh Government website. They can be downloaded, they can be available as paper documents, and, also, you can get them on CD-ROM. I know that my officials have worked with stakeholders such as welfare organisations, pet shops, for instance, and veterinary surgeries to make sure that we distribute those codes of practice and raise awareness of them. I know that the RSPCA, in particular, have been very keen to use them as part of their enforcement activity to encourage the improvement of standards where welfare issues have been identified.

Around dog fighting, you're absolutely right: it's a criminal activity. I did have a discussion around dog fighting when I spent some time with the rural crime team up in north Wales, and I'm due to spend a further day with them in August. So, again, I'll raise it. I didn't think it was as widespread as you sort of implied, but I'm very happy to have a further discussion with them around that.

I don't think I've done anything in relation to tropical fish, so if the Member doesn't mind, I'll have a discussion with my officials and I'll drop you a note in relation to that.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon has been withdrawn.

Item 7 is the Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Wales) Regulations 2018, and I call on the Minister for Environment to introduce the regulations—Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The regulations that have been laid before the Assembly for your consideration today are the Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (Wales) Regulations 2018. These regulations have been introduced under powers contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. Under these regulations it will be an offence in Wales, from 30 June 2018 onwards, for anyone to manufacture any rinse-off personal care products that use plastic microbeads as an ingredient. It will also be on offence in Wales from that date to supply or offer to supply any rinse-off personal care products that contain plastic microbeads.

Welsh local authorities will be responsible for enforcing these regulations, and this enforcement role will be carried out in line with the published guidance. These regulations introduce an enforcement regime that includes civil and criminal sanctions, such as variable monetary penalties, compliance notices and stop notices. Civil sanctions provide flexibility and allow local authorities, when enforcing the ban, to distinguish between those who are striving to comply and those who disregard the law. These regulations provide for anyone who has a civil sanction imposed on them to appeal to the first-tier tribunal.

I met with marine stakeholders on 7 June, who impressed on me how important this ban is, and through our public consultation exercise, the introduction of this ban received widespread support. Deputy Presiding Officer, I commend these regulations to the National Assembly.

Can I say we are very keen to support these regulations that ban microbeads from personal hygiene products? These regulations have already been passed, and indeed they come into effect today in England and Scotland. So, we're pleased to see the Welsh Government following that course of action. So, at least, in the UK, we'll have a consistent approach.

I do believe this is a welcome and significant step, but it is only the first step. We need a shift in public policy towards the responsible use of plastic products and the banning of single-use plastic products. The condition of our watercourses: we heard evidence in the climate change committee only a couple of weeks ago, from a leading academic in Cardiff University, about the level of plastic pollution that is now being recorded in the sampling of Welsh rivers, and then getting into the animals. As far as our seas are concerned, the amount of plastic material that is entering—and a lot of it enters via wash-off, and also from fibres that are washed out of clothes as well—there's so much work we're going to have to do, but, of course, every significant journey requires the first step. I do think that one of the most remarkable changes in the last couple of years is how the public now are really pushing us, and we need to be imaginative in how we use regulations and our changes in law to deliver the quality environment that people deserve and future generations deserve. So, we are keen to support today's regulations.

Plaid Cymru will also support these regulations today. It's important to say, however, that we are of the view that we should go further in terms of controlling plastics of all types—micro and macro. These are regulations, as has been said already, which relate to materials that are washed off the body, used for personal hygiene products, but that leaves a number of other products—sun cream, for example—where one could still include these microbeads. It's estimated that between 4,000 and 7,500 tonnes of these microplastics are used every annum in the European Union. So, it is a task to get to grips with this plastic. It will start with regulations such as these, but, in my view, it will have to include a broader ban on microplastics, including those in domestic cleaning products, and so on. We are still calling for a levy on single-use plastics, and of course the possibility of a deposit-return scheme is something that should be welcomed, too.

Yesterday, I visited another shop—there are a number of plastic-free shops developing across Wales, which shows that the public is ahead of the politicians, because if businesses are pursuing customers, then, clearly, people are interested in this area. This shop, La Vida Verde in Llandrindod Wells, has the old pop bottles with a 30p deposit on them. So, you’ll get 30p back when you take your bottle back, which isn’t enough inflation, in my opinion. I think it was 5p when I was going through the gullies for the pop bottles many years ago. But it does demonstrate that people are ready for this change.

It’s also true to say that although we have good recycling rates in Wales, only 44 per cent of the 35 million plastic bottles that are bought every day—that’s every day, which is almost a plastic bottle for every adult—only 44 per cent of those are recycled, and a deposit-return scheme could be used to increase that to almost 80 per cent in that area. So, we look forward to hearing more about the discussions happening between the Government here and the Government in Westminster in terms of introducing a scheme of that kind.

David Melding mentioned the research at Cardiff University on these microplastics in the environment, which is staggering research, if truth be told. I just want to quote from that. We heard from Professor Steve Ormerod about research on the Irwell river in Manchester, where 0.5 million pieces of microplastic were found for every square metre—that's 0.5 million per square metre. Further research at Cardiff in the river Taff shows that microplastics are entering the food chain and are being found in birds that have been laid by eggs—or rather eggs laid by birds, I should say.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I almost answered that question myself there. These are the eggs laid by birds, which demonstrates that we in Wales have the highest level of microplastics in the eggs themselves—we are talking about very, very small microplastics here, but these are appearing in the eggs, and it’s the highest level in western Europe. This just shows that this is permeating through our water systems and our food chain, and it’s having an impact. Every time these microplastics travel, they can carry pollution, disease and germs, they can carry all sorts of other things with them, which can then be found in people and in wildlife too.

I understand that these regulations relate to microbeads—something that we specifically place in products—and much of the research talks about microplastics emerging from plastic that breaks down over a period of time and becomes microplastic, but it is true to say that we have to tackle in every way possible this unnecessary plastic. That’s the important point: it is unnecessary plastic. You can keep yourself clean without plastic. I think that’s a very strong message conveyed in passing these regulations this afternoon.

Thank you very much. I call on the Minister for Environment to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank both David Melding and Simon Thomas for their contributions to this debate, and for the support shown right across the Chamber for the microbeads ban. The ban is designed to protect the marine environment from further pollution, foster consumer confidence in the products they buy, will not harm the environment, and will support businesses by setting a level playing field.

On 5 June, at the Volvo Ocean summit, I was proud to sign the UN environment clean seas plastics pledge on behalf of the Welsh Government. The introduction of this microbeads ban legislation supports this pledge and is part of a wider package of actions already under way by the Welsh Government, and through partnership working, to reduce levels of plastic pollution entering our seas and oceans.

Both David Melding and Simon Thomas were absolutely right to point out that, as we welcome this legislation, it is just one step on the road to phasing out single-use and unnecessary plastics. I think, Simon, you particularly touched on microbeads in other products and also microplastics. In terms of other products, we are looking at a UK level to inform our approach to reducing pollution from microbeads in other products and gathering that evidence on the environmental impacts to inform further action to reduce the use of products containing microbeads.

Microplastics is another issue that is there on the horizon that is getting quite a bit of attention and I've asked officials to do some work on that, with a view to advising me on what we could and should be doing on that issue. Like you said, this is just one step, one piece of a very large jigsaw that we need to put together to take the action that we need. We were talking about startling figures and during the Volvo Ocean Race, the figure I learnt from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation was that if we don't take action on plastics, there'll be more plastic than fish in the oceans by 2050. That is a truly startling statistic.

So, as I said, we are committed to taking forward action on our route-map to tackle plastics. We're not only looking at actually increasing recycling and phasing out single-use plastics, but we're actually looking in terms of recycled content, the value of it, and the design of manufactured products within Wales, coupled with the work we're doing in terms of a tax on single-use plastic and the DRS scheme, which I hope to update Members on shortly in this place, and also the possibility for what we could take forward on a Wales-wide basis too. I've always said I'll give consideration to a tax, levy or charge on single-use beverage containers. So, it's one step in a whole suite of measures to tackle the scourge of unnecessary and single-use plastics. 

So, to conclude, Llywydd, I welcome the support of Assembly Members to move to approve these regulations. Diolch yn fawr. 

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

The next item is the Stage 4 debate on the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill. Before we proceed with that discussion, I understand that the Bill needs the consent of Her Majesty and the Duke of Cornwall. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 26.67, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services must signify consent before we can hold this debate. Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm that the required consents have been given? Can you confirm?

Can you confirm that the—

Llywydd, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall to acquaint the Assembly that Her Majesty and the Duke, having been informed of the purport of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill, have given their consent to this Bill.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, which allows us to move forward to the debate on Stage 4 of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to move the motion and open the Stage 4 debate for the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill.

We have of course been working on this Bill for a number of years. We first consulted on minimum pricing for alcohol in 2014, as part of the public health White Paper, and I would like to start by thanking my ministerial colleagues Mark Drakeford and Rebecca Evans for their work to shape and develop this landmark legislation. I'd like to thank Assembly Members for their support and for the scrutiny that has taken place during the passage of the Bill. In particular, I'd like to thank the three committees—the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee—for their scrutiny. I'd also like to thank external stakeholders for their continued engagement since the introduction of the Bill last October, but also in terms of their previous contributions, including their responses to the consultation on a draft Bill in 2015 that I led as the then Deputy Minister.

This Bill is specifically concerned with the protection of life and health. It provides for a minimum price for the sale and supply of alcohol in Wales and will make it an offence for alcohol to be sold or supplied by retailers from qualifying premises below that price. The minimum price for the supply of alcohol in Wales will be calculated by a multiplier of the minimum unit price that will be specified in regulations, the percentage strength of the alcohol and its volume. It will not increase the price of every alcoholic drink, only those currently sold below the applicable minimum price. 

The legislation will also put in place a series of offences and penalties relating to the new system. It provides additional powers and duties for local authorities to enable them to enforce the minimum pricing system.

There have long been calls for the Welsh Government to do more to address the damage and health harms caused by the excessive consumption of alcohol, and this legislation does exactly that. Because when it comes to consumption, we know that the price of alcohol matters. By using price as a lever in this way, we can target and reduce the amount of alcohol being consumed by hazardous and harmful drinkers, whilst minimising the impacts on more moderate drinkers. This will help to improve a number of key health outcomes, including reducing the number of alcohol-related deaths and alcohol-related hospital admissions. And it's the formula on the face of the Bill that enables us to target cheap alcohol that is high in strength and high in volume—the type of alcohol that is disproportionately consumed by hazardous and harmful drinkers. It's worth noting that hazardous and harmful drinkers make up 28 per cent of the drinker population, according to research undertaken this year by the University of Sheffield, but they consume 75 per cent of all alcohol sold. 

During the passage of this Bill, many have cited the data on alcohol-related harms in Wales, and it always makes for difficult reading, and so it should. I want to repeat some of it here today. There were over 500 alcohol-related deaths in Wales last year alone and over 54,000 alcohol-related hospital admissions last year alone. Direct healthcare costs attributable to alcohol amount to an estimated £159 million in the last year alone. But even more of an issue is the devastation that lies behind those figures—the families, the communities and consequences for NHS staff and support services, as they all cope with the aftermath of alcohol-related death, disease and harm every day. 

This legislation provides us with an opportunity to make a significant difference. It gives us a chance to do more to address alcohol-related harm and, ultimately, gives us a chance to do more to try and save lives. Since we introduced the Bill to the Assembly last October, we've heard from a range of different public health experts and service providers. Many have recognised the difference that this legislation could make.

In written evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Welsh NHS Confederation stated that 

'There is compelling evidence, both from across the UK and internationally, that introducing a MUP in Wales would lead to significant improvements in health and well-being of the population.'

And in oral evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board representative argued that

'minimum unit pricing is an absolutely critical piece of a jigsaw, without which many of the other interventions we provide and the work that we do don't achieve their full benefit.' 

Alcohol Research UK have noted that the

'benefits will accrue more in poorer communities....Those communities are less resilient to alcohol problems.'

That said, there is no doubt that this Bill is novel and experimental. Only Scotland has introduced a minimum price for alcohol in this way, with their legislation for minimum pricing coming into force on 1 May this year. The experimental nature of this legislation is exactly why we have included a sunset clause and review provisions in the Bill, and those provisions have been widely endorsed. But I would like to use today's opportunity to reiterate that the review provisions in the legislation will be underpinned by a robust five-year evaluation, and I will continue to update Members as we take that work forward. 

I also intend to consult on the proposed level of the minimum unit price as soon as possible and, again, I will continue to update Assembly Members on our plans for this consultation and associated timings.      

Angela Burns. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, although I don't know why I should thank you in some ways because this Bill makes me despair. It is here that we have yet another example of Welsh Government rushing through shoddily constructed legislation in pursuit of a policy objective that none would argue with. Indeed, the Welsh Conservatives had a commitment to enacting measures in our last manifesto to tackle the prevalence of inappropriate alcohol use.

However, during all the committee phases and Stage 3, you have failed to impress, Cabinet Secretary, with your reasoning for refusing to ensure that there is greater clarity of, and clear measurement within, this Bill. You have refused to put the minimum unit price on the face of the Bill. There's no statutory starting point, and therefore the Bill can be seen as an incomplete piece of legislation. It leaves manufacturers in limbo, business in a quandary and does nothing to reassure ordinary people that you are not intending to be punitive, with devastating results for those on low incomes who have every right to enjoy alcohol as much as those whose wallets will feel less of an impact.

During evidence gathering in the Scottish Parliament's deliberations, strong evidence was heard that poorer drinkers will be affected disproportionately by minimum unit pricing, and concerns were raised in our evidence sessions along the same lines. Whilst on the subject of the Bill in Scotland, it does seem extraordinary to me that you were prepared to wait and see how the judicial challenge would pan out but you are not prepared to wait and learn from Scotland's experience with implementation of this novel legislation. That surely would have been helpful, given the raft of unintended consequences that could flow from this Bill, such as the issues of cross-border trade. Unlike Scotland, in Wales, our border with England is porous, is long and densely populated, with high levels of cross-border traffic, but these concerns were brushed aside.

I also remain unconvinced that the potential for unlicensed, smuggled and counterfeit alcohol was properly explored. But my biggest concern is that you could be replacing one addiction with another. A number of charities, including some working with the homeless, and others working with alcoholism and substance abuse, have highlighted the dangers of minimum unit pricing as a blunt, punitive instrument. There's a lot of talk about evidence in relation to this legislation, but little evidence to suggest that these concerns have been allayed or even properly examined. Indeed, the health committee heard evidence from users of an alcohol recovery centre who said that higher prices could push drinkers towards other, more harmful substances.

Additionally, the Huggard Centre, a Cardiff-based homeless charity that many of you will be aware of, warned that raising price alone for legal drugs such as alcohol may simply change one addiction for another and condemn people to a more entrenched and desperate life on the streets—their words, not mine. Consider, last week, the images we saw of young people on the drug Spice, which can be bought now for small change. How can we be convinced that putting up alcohol prices won't simply push more of the poorest in society towards substances like Spice?

The Welsh Conservatives are deeply sceptical that current drug and alcohol rehabilitation services will be enough to help those affected. Addiction is a mental illness, and we all know the issues that exist with the provision of mental health services. With north Wales losing the last of their residential detoxification beds and the third sector highlighting cuts to service provision elsewhere, additional support services do not look likely, and we would like to have your reassurance again that you will provide those.

In short, Cabinet Secretary, this is a sound policy objective, but I would never have brought such a poor quality Bill to the floor of this Chamber. It is simply not joined up, and the only thing—the only thing—that has rescued this Bill from an abstention by the Welsh Conservatives is the sunset clause, but even there, Cabinet Secretary, I issue a warning: you have rejected call after call by members of the opposition for rigorous monitoring of the effects of the Bill on areas ranging from the Bill's impact on addiction support services, on age groups, to the effect on those with small incomes. Nor are there commitments to measure the effects on domestic violence, on substitution, on alcohol-related hospital admissions, to name just a few of the consequences that we, the Welsh Conservatives, have raised at every stage of this Bill's passage.

But this sunset clause will be reviewed and voted on in the future by the Assembly of that day, and that Assembly, those Members, will judge you harshly if you do not collect credible, consistent, outcome-focused evidence that would enable proper scrutiny and sound judgment when reviewing the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill.

This is a public health Bill. Safeguarding, promoting and improving public health is surely one of the main duties that we have. The tools in the battle against smoking are ones that people expect us to use by now, and people support that. It's difficult to imagine any opposition to the smoking ban indoors now, and implementing that law was not difficult because people accepted its purpose—second-hand smoke is bad for you, and people recognised that.

We’re not quite in the same place with this Bill yet. There are doubts, and we shouldn’t ignore those, in terms of why we are doing this, how effective this will be, and we don’t have the full evidence yet. But the evidence is strong that using financial incentives—that is, changing the price of drinks—does affect how much people drink, and I support that as a matter of principle, and it has been part of the Plaid Cymru manifesto for some years.

Taxation is what we’d choose to use, as I’ve said before, but we don’t have the powers. I hope that we will have the powers someday, but, in the absence of that, setting a minimum unit price is an option that is available to us. So, after succeeding in strengthening the original Bill in several ways in its passage through the Assembly, we will vote in favour of this Bill today becoming an Act. We have strengthened it in many ways by influencing the scrutiny that there will be of this Act by the Assembly to evaluate its effectiveness. 

It is vital now that the Government brings very clear evidence to us about the appropriate level of the minimum price, and I do regret that the rushed passage of this Bill has failed to allow the kind of scrutiny that I would like to have seen on that price, but there will be another opportunity, through regulations, for us to be able to look again at that evidence, and measuring and evaluation will be vital in order for us to take the people of Wales with us on this journey. We’ve also insisted that, on the face of the Bill, there is a commitment to teach people about why this legislation can be a part of the suite of tools that we have to help public health.

There is a weakness here in the legislation, and I do regret again that the Government has failed to support that, in terms of looking at how we prevent profiting from this Act, as retailers have to sell alcohol for higher prices. We would have liked to have seen something in legislation that would have ensured that money came in the wake of this legislation to be spent on tackling misuse of alcohol and providing treatment for those who do misuse alcohol and those who drink to excess. We will have to look now at a voluntary levy, but I do think that an opportunity has been missed here. Certainly, I, in future, as we scrutinise and look for ways to strengthen this, will be looking for ways to ensure that there isn’t any profiteering from this.

We’ve heard several times concerns that people on lower incomes will be disproportionately affected, and I’ve thought a lot about this. Of course, it is a scandal that people on lower incomes are more likely to suffer disease or illness because of alcohol misuse: it is an example of social injustice and inequality of opportunity, and we have to tackle these issues through a broad range of policy measures. But what about the impact on people who drink to excess now, and the concerns that moderate drinkers on low incomes will suffer unfairly because of the financial cost? I hope that through the programme of education alongside this legislation more and more people over time will see that it will be possible to adapt their drinking habits in a way that will mean that there won’t be a financial penalty. I hope that industry will respond by reducing alcohol content, for example. People can drink drinks with a lower alcohol content or drink less. Because there is a message now, through this piece of legislation, that we can’t consider alcohol as something benign. 

Above all, let’s see this as a measure for our children. I hope that this legislation will be a tool that can lead to fewer young people in Wales starting to drink to excess, in the way that tougher regulations in the area of smoking has led to a reduction in the number of young smokers. The health of the people of Wales hangs in the balance here.

Calling the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to start by, again, thanking Members not just for contributions in the debate but for the scrutiny of the Bill as well. And, in understanding some of the concerns that Angela Burns has raised today, the tone of those concerns is different from the conversations we've had, but, to be fair, she has raised a number of concerns during the passage of the Bill, both in committee and around it as well. So, they're not new concerns, and I'm happy to acknowledge that.

There is something that we need to do in persuading Members that we're listening to what's happening, not just in getting a Bill passed on trust, but in then acting in that way afterwards. And that is why, as I said in my opening statement, we have an evaluation plan. We'll need to listen. We're happy to share information and work with the committee, which will continue to scrutinise what is happening, in addition to the sunset clause. Because I, of course, acknowledge this is a genuinely novel piece of legislation and we will want to be persuaded there is evidence it's made the real difference to the health of the country that we think it will do. But I don't accept the suggestion made that this is a rushed piece of legislation. We first consulted on this issue in 2014, and it's gone through proper and appropriate scrutiny during its time in the Assembly.

Of course, the Bill does place a duty on Ministers to take steps to promote awareness of the commencement of the legislation, and that includes promoting awareness of the health risks of excessive alcohol consumption and how this Bill and minimum unit pricing is intended to reduce that. That's why I was pleased to work with Rhun ap Iorwerth to bring forward amendments that we supported at Stage 3 to include those provisions in the Bill. And I also want to recognise that the commitment to minimum unit pricing has, of course, appeared in the last two Plaid Cymru manifestos.

But I want to end by re-emphasising that this legislation will not stand on its own. The legislation takes a targeted approach to a very real and evident problem in Wales today, and it will be supported by a range of additional action being taking forward to support those in need, in particular those areas that form part of the Welsh Government's wider substance misuse strategy, and I recognise the points made about how people, who we hope will seek help in larger numbers, need to be supported. But this Bill addresses the reality that Wales, like so many other western countries, has a problem with cheap, strong and readily available alcohol. This legislation is part of helping us to make an important contribution to addressing this issue and improving public health, and I ask Members to vote for it today.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions. So, I will defer voting on this motion until voting time. 

That brings us to our next item, which is a debate on the second anniversary of the EU referendum. I call on the First Minister.

Llywydd, I welcome this opportunity to open this Government debate, bearing in mind that two years have passed since the referendum and the vote to leave the European Union. I think it’s true to say that 23 June 2016 is considered an extremely important date in the history of this nation. That, of course, is when the decision was made to change our relationship with the European Union.  

We are not in this Chamber, Llywydd, this afternoon to debate that decision. As I've always said, it's our responsibility to focus our efforts to deliver the right form of Brexit, not to argue over the fact of Brexit. So, this afternoon, Llywydd, I want to open this debate by discussing the right form of Brexit for Wales.

We've spent a lot of time in this Chamber and in detailed inter-governmental negotiations discussing constitutional issues to make sure the withdrawal Bill genuinely recognises shared governance and respects devolution. Although that was vitally important, this perhaps is not the Brexit issue the people we represent expected us to focus on. While constitutional issues fascinate many, the majority of people will want us to concentrate on bread and butter issues. People in Wales are concerned about whether companies in Wales will take similar decisions to that taken by Jaguar Land Rover and move production from the UK amid the uncertainty created by the UK Government on Brexit. What matters most is that securing the right form of Brexit safeguards the economy, the jobs and well-being of the people of Wales and, indeed, the whole of the UK. Llywydd, all the evidence suggests that in the short to medium term, securing the right Brexit to achieve this requires continued close integration with the economies of our EU neighbours.

In our White Paper agreed with Plaid Cymru, 'Securing Wales' Future', we set out a Welsh plan for Brexit. We set out clearly how the right Brexit for Wales requires agreement for participation in the single market and a customs union. That was our position 17 months ago and no evidence has emerged to challenge our conclusion. Llywydd, in that document, we were clear that this might involve UK membership of the European Free Trade Association and, through that, the European Economic Area or a bespoke agreement to secure full and unfettered access to the single market. Now, clearly, participation in the EEA or EFTA would not, on its own, be sufficient, and that's why the Government will not support amendment 4. There's no contradiction, as suggested by that amendment, because we also need to be part of a customs union and we need barrier-free access for agriculture and fisheries, but it's telling that the European Commission has openly discussed a Norway-plus model for the UK.

So, in January 2017, we set out a viable informed position based on evidence and we've stuck to it. Because, Llywydd, the evidence is clear and compelling: nearly £3 in every £4 earned by Welsh businesses from overseas exports depend on our relationship with our EU partners. The latest statistics published on 7 June show that Welsh exports to EU countries increased by £649 million, or 7 per cent, over the last year. The EU is and will continue to be our most important trading area. Through the EU, we also access free trade agreements with more than 70 countries. With a hard Brexit, it would take decades to replicate that.

Businesses up and down Wales are working hard to grow their export markets, demonstrating that Wales is an open and outward-looking country, but these efforts risk being undermined by the chaotic approach to the negotiations by the UK Government. We are, of course, a little over nine months before—as a default—we leave the EU on 29 March 2019. You would have thought that, at this point, the UK Government would have a clear strategy in place. Instead, we have chaos and confusion on the vital question of our future economic relationship with our biggest and most influential market. On an almost weekly basis, we get a new statement from a Cabinet Member on some element of the deal that they want, only for that to be contradicted or toned down a day later. Two years after the referendum, this is simply not good enough.

In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister acknowledged that, for many sectors, particularly goods, the interests of industry within the UK require continued regulatory alignment with the single market and a frictionless relationship with the customs union. This alignment on both elements is essential for the frictionless borders that businesses up and down Wales need to make and to sell their goods. Only last week, the retiring president of the Confederation of British Industry said that without a customs union, entire manufacturing sectors that rely on just-in-time supply chains will simply disappear—his words, not mine. Llywydd, we in Wales know about the devastating effect of wholesale closures of key industries and we should have no trust whatsoever in those who are prepared to risk such an outcome in pursuit of an abstract ideological set of priorities. Yet the UK Government remains committed to their red lines that the UK will leave the single market and the customs union, even though these issues were never raised specifically in the referendum. 

On the customs union, it's becoming increasingly clear, even to the UK Government, that their two alternative proposals to resolve the conundrum of how to retain an invisible border, both land and sea, between the UK and Ireland are still to be free to have different customs regimes. Well, that simply does not work. You cannot have one entity in the customs union and one entity out of the customs union and an open land border between them. Two weeks ago, the UK Government published their technical paper on the proposed temporary customs arrangement, designed to provide clarity to their position—the so-called backstop. Now, I understand that the original title for this was the 'customs and regulatory alignment period'—would you believe that acronym—which would've given rise to what is, perhaps, a more appropriate description of the situation. But they had to drop this title, because while the paper proposes that the current customs arrangements remain in place, it's silent on the regulatory alignment required to achieve frictionless borders other than to say that this will be subject, and I quote, 'to further proposals'.

Following a tussle over who it is in the Cabinet who has hold of the steering wheel as the Brexit car careers towards the cliff edge, these arrangements are proposed to be time limited. So, instead of clarity, we had a half-baked solution to half of the problem, with the prospect of a self-imposed cliff edge. And the response from the European Commission? Well, they say key questions are unanswered. They say that this doesn't cover regulatory controls leading to a hard border and questions as to whether this is a backstop, given the proposal is time limited. Well, that's not good enough. The UK is having to put all its efforts into keeping its own troops in line, and is simply ignoring the fact that it is the EU we need to be negotiating with, not with Dominic Grieve and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

So, two years after the EU referendum, there is no viable proposal on customs, despite the implications for Northern Ireland, no clarity on alignment of the single market and no sign of the trade deals that we were told the world would be lining up to give us. We have silence and delay, confusion and chaos, when we need serious answers. Throw into the mix the abandonment of collective responsibilities, where Cabinet Ministers are seemingly free to air views that not only contradict, but are contemptuous of UK Government policy, and you have a potent mix that undermines the UK negotiating position and risks a hard Brexit that will result in lower investment, fewer jobs and depressed living standards, where a senior member of the UK Cabinet suggests that his own Prime Minister should be replaced with Donald Trump, and that person is still in the Cabinet.

That's why, Llywydd, the Government will not support amendment 1 proposed by Paul Davies, or amendment 2 proposed by Caroline Jones. The UK Government needs to deliver a clear position, and one that does not risk our future economic prosperity. Nor will the Government support amendment 3. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance has written to all Assembly Members, I trust, on this matter, addressing the many misconceptions regarding the inter-governmental agreement.

Now, Llywydd, we hear a lot about how inflexible the EU-27 are, but the European Commission has been clear that if the UK Government moves away from its red lines, a much more generous deal can be negotiated. So, the UK Government needs to face up to realities and face down the Brexit lunatic fringe. The UK needs leadership on the most important issue of the day, and deserves better. We have the opportunity, with this debate this afternoon, to call on the UK Government to go back to the drawing board, to rub out the red lines. Wales, and the whole UK, needs a Government that will argue for a dynamic and positive relationship with the single market, where the UK makes a positive commitment to working with the EU-27 to retain alignment with the single market as a regulatory space, and a new, durable customs union with the EU.

Llywydd, 'Securing Wales' Future' still provides the best basis for securing the right Brexit for Wales and, indeed, the whole of the UK. There is no evidence—there is literally no evidence—that has been adduced to support any other outcome being better than being in the customs union. So, Llywydd, I invite this Assembly to reiterate its support for the approach that we have outlined.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In a joint statement after the people of Wales and the UK voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016, the Presidents of the European Commission, European Council and European Parliament said, and I quote,

'We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible.... We hope to have the UK as a close partner of the EU also in the future.'

Now, contrary to offensive claims repeatedly made here that the people did not know what they were voting for, the well-publicised arguments for Brexit at the time were all about taking back control of our money, borders, laws and trade. I, in fact, checked the press this morning on the day of the referendum to see what they were saying. The Prime Minister has made it clear since that, instead of a hard Brexit, she seeks the greatest possible access to the EU through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement. As she said, we're leaving the EU, delivering on the decision made by the British people in the referendum:

'We're committed to getting the best Brexit deal for people, delivering control of our money, borders and laws, while building a new deep and special partnership with the EU.'

In contrast, this Welsh Government motion asks us to support the approach endorsed by Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, which would deliver none of these things, and a Brexit in name only. Further, as I said here last month, the think tank Open Europe told the external affairs committee in Brussels—and I quote—'It would be strange if the UK was in the customs union. The EU would negotiate trade agreements with third parties without the UK at the table.' If the UK is in the single market, they said, it would have to accept all the rules without being able to vote on them.

Whilst claiming to respect the referendum result, both the Labour Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have spent the last two years preaching doom and gloom, whilst promoting approaches that would undermine it. They claimed that the agreement secured by the UK Government last December, enabling both sides to move on to the next phase of Brexit talks, would never happen, that the Brexit transition period secured by the UK Government would never be agreed, before then taking the credit for it, and, excepting Mr Drakeford, that a way forward allowing this Assembly to give legislative consent to the UK withdrawal Bill would never be secured. Each time, they were wrong, yet they're doing it again as they seek to undermine current negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU, by giving away all our negotiating cards at the outset, and incentivising the EU side to drive a hard bargain.

Our amendment 1, therefore—[Interruption.] Surely if you say to the other side, 'If you refuse to come to an agreement with us, we'll fix it over here afterwards to ensure that we don't actually leave at all'—it's something along those lines. Our amendment 1 therefore

'Recognises that the UK Government is delivering on the decision made in the EU referendum to leave the EU and that its position in negotiations with the EU should not be undermined.'

For centuries, our enemies have sought to divide and destroy us, and as Scottish Conservative MP Ross Thomson said last week, 

'all the SNP cares about is grievance and independence'.

Well, the same applies to Plaid Cymru, where their spoiler approach would have disrupted the UK’s internal market, in which 80 per cent of UK goods and services are traded, destroyed jobs, and driven investment from Wales. As the Prime Minister said in March, the agreement we reach with the EU must respect the referendum, it must endure, it must protect people’s jobs and security, it must be consistent—[Interruption.] I'll take one intervention.

Just in terms of your point about enemies causing problems and disruption, can I just remind you it's the Foreign Secretary who has said that these negotiations would be better handled if Donald Trump was in charge? So, he should be directing his ire at his own side, rather than these benches.

Was it 79 or 80 Labour MPs that defied the Labour whip in the Commons last week over the withdrawal Bill?

It must endure. It must protect people's jobs and security. It must be consistent with the kind of country we want to be as we leave: a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant, European democracy. And in doing all of these things, it must strengthen our union of nations and our union of people. The EU, itself, of course, has two added incentives: the £39 billion it will receive if it agrees a trade deal, and the importance of access to the UK. For example, the external affairs committee heard that 10 to 15 per cent of the GDP of Germany’s 16 states is exposed to the UK market.

Labour’s position would mean continuing to follow a swathe of EU rules with absolutely no say in them. This breaks Labour’s Brexit promises, and does not respect the referendum result. Seventy per cent of Labour UK constituencies voted 'leave', and they want to see the result of the referendum honoured. People outside the Parliaments across the UK are getting a little tired of parliamentary games. They want to know when they’re going to get Brexit, when it will be delivered and when it will be done. They don't want to hear the same old stuff, the same old speech from the same old First Minister, month after month, year after year.

I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Caroline Jones. Just over two years ago, the Government published, at the taxpayers' expense, a glossy 16-page document, which went to every house in the country, predicting the end of the world if the British people had the temerity to vote for national self-government. David Cameron made speeches up and down the land warning of the dire consequences, assuming the role of the fat boy in The Pickwick Papers, who said, 

'I wants to make your flesh creep'.

The whole of the business and media establishment, Government, the civil service, were devoted to trying to browbeat the British people into voting to stay in the EU, and yet 17.4 million people—the largest democratic vote ever in the United Kingdom—voted to leave the EU. And in Wales, where a majority of the people voted to leave, the votes were highest in Valleys seats like Blaenau Gwent, which I think holds the prize for the highest percentage of 'leave' voters: two thirds voted to leave. Now, here, I—[Interruption.] Here, I join the First Minister in that part of his speech where he referred to the shambolic negotiations that have been conducted by Theresa May and her Ministers in the last two years. This indicates a total lack of preparation on the part of the UK Government for life post Brexit, which is, I think, a betrayal of what those 17.4 million people voted for. Theresa May is one of those people for whom her indecision is final because the Government ping-pongs around day in and day out, as the First Minister has eloquently described. I never thought I would say this about anybody, but actually Theresa May makes John Major look like a paragon of decisiveness. At the end of two years, nearly, since we had that vote, the upshot is that we're about to become just a non-voting member of the EU, it seems.

I'd like to quote from an article that was just a few days ago published by Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament, where he said,

'The United Kingdom is inching toward an open-ended transition period that will leave almost everything as it is. Brussels will continue to run our agriculture, our fisheries, our overseas trade, our employment laws. We shall continue to pump our squillions across the Channel. Our laws will remain subject to Euro-judges. Only one significant thing will change: we shall lose our representation in the EU institutions and, with it, our ability to block harmful new laws. Why is Britain, the world’s fifth economy and fourth military power, contemplating a form of thraldom that none of the EU’s other neighbours—not Albania or Ukraine, never mind Norway—would dream of accepting? Is it sheer ineptness, or do some of our officials actively want it?'

I think the answer to those questions is 'both'. I give way.

Thank you very much. It's ironic to have you quoting back at us that we're going to end up with the worst of all worlds, because that's exactly what the 'remain' campaign warned would happen, but we were assured by you and Nigel Farage that this would be a cinch—it would sort out all these trade deals within 24 hours. We said this was nonsense. You were the one who sold people that pup, and you are the ones who should be apologising for this con trick.

I'm certainly not going to apologise for the Government's failure in a negotiation of which I have had no part. If Nigel Farage and I had been in charge of the negotiations, the outcome would have been very different indeed. [Interruption.] So, I accept the implied compliment from the Member for Llanelli.

It's extraordinary that the Government has not played a stronger hand in these negotiations, because the truth of the matter is that the EU sells every year £135 billion more of goods to us than we sell to them. Trading goods, of course, is covered by the single market legislation, whereas in trading services, where it's the other way around, the UK sells to the EU £92 billion-worth of services more than they sell to us. The single market does not exist in financial services, so we do not get the benefit of the single market to the same extent as the EU. That should have been an enormously powerful bargaining counter in the hands of the British Government, but they've completely blown it. They've made no preparation for no deal. We've got a situation now where budget payments are going to continue to be made but not linked to a trade deal, which is what should have happened right at the start, and the security guarantee that the Government has given to the EU is unconditional without getting anything in return. As a negotiating ploy, they have absolutely failed. The EU has entered these negotiations as a hostile power determined to make them fail to help us remain inside the EU.

The Labour Party's position is absolutely incoherent because they want us to leave the single market but actually stay in the customs union to make it impossible for us to do free trade deals with the rest of the world. I'll finish on this point: Theresa May started these negotiations, saying that no deal would be better than a bad deal. Well, unfortunately, we will be leaving these negotiations with the bad deal. The Conservative Party, I think, has a lot to answer for in these negotiations, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. The result has been, actually, a betrayal of the British people.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Government's motion is one I can agree with. The Welsh White Paper offers the most comprehensive analysis of Brexit's effect on Wales, and this was, in large part, due to the excellent work of my colleague Steffan Lewis. Why, then, has the Welsh Government failed to stick to it? On powers, on the European Economic Area, and on a range of other issues, Labour is pursuing a Brexit that aligns more with the Conservatives than the White Paper co-authored with Plaid Cymru. At the very least, Labour are enabling or facilitating an extreme Tory Brexit.

An anniversary is a time for reflection, to look back to the referendum and to the campaign. The campaign in Wales for 'remain' lacked serious attention from the key players, and I'll illustrate this point with one example. In the months before the 2016 Assembly election, in anticipation of the EU referendum, I approached the First Minister with a proposal. I outlined a simple but effective plan to put in place the infrastructure for a Welsh 'remain' campaign made up of representatives of Welsh civic society. I proposed that the trade unions should form the core of this group. With their vast reach and interest in a 'remain' vote, I knew that a cross-party civic group could leverage the influence of the unions, of charities, of church groups and so on to reach the people who were critical to reach for the referendum vote.

During this period, you will remember, I'm sure, that we were also gearing up for the National Assembly elections, which happened just a month before the EU referendum. Many of us opposed the idea that the two ballots should be held so close together. However, once it became clear that that timeline was unmoveable, I turned my focus to the task in hand. My offer to the First Minister was a genuine one: join with me to build a civic society organisation to campaign for a 'remain' vote. It was always going to be difficult to advocate for the status quo. We needed to organise, organise, organise. I was told by the First Minister that the trade unions were too busy campaigning and fundraising for Labour for the Assembly election. The First Minister refused to use his greatest campaigning tool—the unions and others—for the national good. The First Minister was confident that 'leave' would not win. 'Look at all the other referendums', he said. Well, look where we ended up. They failed to use the office of First Minister to pull together a successful campaign, like we did in 2011 and in 1997. Had you done that, we might have had a different result, and I wonder if you regret that now.

Until recently, I'd believed that there was a remote chance that Labour would support policies that would see Wales take the least damaging path when it came to our exit from the European Union. Following votes on our membership of the single market and their deal with the Tories on the Assembly's powers, it's clear that that isn't going to be the case. That takes me on to Plaid Cymru's first amendment.

Would the Member give way?

The Government's claim that they remain committed to the White Paper is a claim that they've made again today, and I want to remind them of the exact wording. On page 20, the White Paper says any attempt to claw back powers will be 'firmly resisted'. When we agreed to co-author this paper, we did not consider firm resistance to amount to an agreement with the Conservative Westminster Government that sees powers in 24 to 26 policy areas clawed back, and herein lies the problem. The wording of the White Paper remains something that I am committed to. The Welsh Government, however, has pursued policies that are not reflective of it.

Let's take Labour's position on the single market. As reflected in the second Plaid Cymru amendment, the majority of Labour MPs chose to abstain on a key amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill that would have kept Wales in the single market. Now, I accept that the First Minister may say that he is committed to a future where Wales participates in the single market—

Will the Member give way?

Are you giving way, Leanne Wood?

—but the actions of his party do not reflect that. He says one thing and does another, and, for this reason, Plaid Cymru will be pressing both of our amendments to a vote, and we will be doing that to reflect the fact that, although we remain supportive of the White Paper, the actions of the Labour Party indicate that they are not. So, I therefore formally move both the Plaid Cymru amendments, 3 and 4. Diolch yn fawr.

The last two years have not produced a solution that is going to give the people of Wales who voted to leave what they wanted, which was control of their own destiny. The White Paper that was published two years ago was the most comprehensive strategy laid out to indicate what was needed, but clearly we don't have the powers that we would like to control what the UK Government has got up to. So, we're now in the situation where we are mere months away from what looks like an inevitable departure from the EU. 

The external affairs committee took evidence a couple of weeks ago from Professor John Bell, who is a leading legal expert based at Cambridge University. I think that what he had to say made it very clear to me that those who are campaigning for a second referendum to be put to the people of the United Kingdom are running out of time. Because, it is simply not possible for us to reverse a process that was started with the article 50 trigger, unless we also go through the process of consulting with the European Parliament and with the 27 other members of the European Union.

So, according to Professor Bell, the very last date that a referendum could be held is this November, because otherwise there is not time for the European Parliament to deliberate on whether they approve of that, were we to reverse the decision that was taken two years ago. Also, it would require us to obtain a unanimous vote by the other 27 Governments, which would mean a huge lobbying exercise with all these Governments that have frankly lost faith in us because of the way in which we've turned away from Europe. So, I would argue that D-day of 31 December 2020 looks inevitable.

I would like to confine the rest of my remarks to the bread-and-butter issues that the First Minister referred to, which is what most people are concerned about, rather than the minutiae of the constitutional issues that leaving the European Union poses. 

I think the hubris from the Prime Minister over the weekend, indicating that a lot of money could be invested in the national health service as a result of a Brexit dividend, is pure fantasy, because we have already spent most of the money that we might get back from the European Union. We're going to need it to set up the new regulatory agencies. We've currently relied on that work to be done by the EU institutions, and it's obviously much cheaper to do it in conjunction with another 27 countries than it is to do it on our own.

I want to look at the biggest bread-and-butter issue, which is food, and the substantial impact that Brexit has already had on the amount of money that households are having to pay for food simply because of the deterioration in the value of the pound. The UK imports approximately 40 per cent of the food we consume as a nation, and nearly all of it is from the European Union. We import £9 billion-worth of vegetables and fruit from Europe, compared with £1 billion-worth of fruit and vegetables that are grown in the United Kingdom. Ninety-five per cent of our fruit comes from abroad and half our vegetables are imported. If we were to not be able to stay in a customs union, that would lead to a massive spike in the price of vegetables and fruit because of the tariffs that would be imposed inevitably if we were to move to WTO arrangements. 

Looking ahead, though, we have opportunities to shape our future, because we currently subsidise all the foodstuffs we eat too much of—animal protein, fat, oils and sugar—and very few of the things we need to eat more of, mainly horticulture. So, we don't even know at the moment whether the pillar 1 payments will continue to be paid, which is currently 80 per cent of all farm subsidies. What would be the impact on our food production if pillar 1 payments are no longer made, and how are we going to ensure that we are still able to feed our population a healthy diet in the event of things going badly wrong in our relationship with Europe, which we are still going to be part of whatever happens? These are the major issues that we now face and we need to start planning for.  

Just to pick up where Jenny Rathbone left off with some of the figures that will impact Wales if we continue with this hardest of Brexits, as is likely to happen with the decisions taken in Westminster by two parties at the moment—we will lose as much as £5 billion from the Welsh economy. Many of us recall going into a darkened room over in Caspian Point to read the Government’s own analysis of the impact on Wales if we were to leave the single market, where the decline in Welsh GDP would be almost 10 per cent, or 5 per cent under some sort of free trade agreement, and even if we were to remain in the single market, it would fall by 1.5 per cent, because the areas that voted most strongly for Brexit are the areas that are going to suffer most as a result of the current Brexit proposals being espoused by the Westminster Government.

It’s true to say that a number of predictions as to what may happen if the nation voted for Brexit have turned out to be incorrect, but it's a fact, as Jenny Rathbone referred to, that the Bank of England has said that we are £900 per household worse off now, even though Brexit hasn’t yet happened, and that is down to the strength of the pound.

The single market is crucial to Wales, as is the customs union. Sixty-one per cent of exports go directly to the rest of the European Union, and that compares with less than 50 per cent across the whole of the UK. And if we look at growth, the English economy will grow 1.7 per cent this year, and the Welsh economy will grow by just 1.3 per cent, whilst Ireland, in the eurozone, will grow 5.7 per cent this year, and that is true generally speaking.

Therefore, the decision to leave the European Union is going to have a very detrimental impact on the most disadvantaged citizens of Wales, and we need to safeguard, and it is the job of this Assembly and the Welsh Government to defend those most vulnerable people with regard to the impact of decisions taken as a result of Brexit. That’s why I’m disappointed, not so much with the motion before us, because, as Leanne Wood said, we would be able to support the wording of the motion, but with the actions of the Labour Party since the vote, which have become more and more uncertain, and they have become more and more of a midwife to a hard Brexit proposed by a Conservative Government. 

When you vote for something as disruptive as Brexit, you have to be careful what you wish for. I don't think many of us expected that a Brexit vote would end up with a Prime Minister, under the title of 'Taking back control', appearing on The Andrew Marr Show and saying, 'Parliament can't tell the Government what to do', which is precisely what Parliaments are supposed to tell Government and has been since 1688 and has been since we had what the English like to call 'the glorious revolution', but I'm sure the Irish don't. But we have to bear in mind that this—[Interruption.] In a second, if I may. We have to bear in mind as well this line that we are strengthening the union. How do you strengthen the union—which, of course, Plaid Cymru is not necessarily in favour of, anyway, but, nevertheless, let's look at these arguments—how do you strengthen the union when what you're doing is impoverishing the weakest parts of that union, and when you know that the union itself has not delivered regional policy that addresses that? But the European Union, of course, has done that, but we're moving out of that. 

Just on that point, I'll give way.  

I just want to point out that the UK Parliament has told the UK Government what to do. It has very clearly said that it will not tolerate a hard Brexit, and that we have to acknowledge. 

I'm not sure if I completely agree because we'll wait and see what happens tomorrow with the further iteration of this process. What I was referring to, however, was the idea that the Prime Minister can actually get away with saying something as radical as that. I'm very interested in this because I have a Westminster and a Wales view in these sorts of things sometimes, and I just look at it from the idea of parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control and all the other things we were told by Mr Isherwood, and the reality is that the UK as a structure and as a Government in the UK is completely and utterly incapable of dealing with the biggest peacetime issue that we've seen for a century. It's completely and utterly incapable of doing it. And that just strikes me as something that leads to all sorts of contentious things that could flow on from that, including the future of the union itself. Now, Plaid Cymru is not here to defend the union, but we are here to defend our communities and we are here to stop anything happening in the next year or two that will take away from those communities the ability for them to control their futures and for them to have a realistic economic state in those futures.

I'll conclude, if I may, Llywydd, with a simple quote, which I think reflects very well on what the Labour Party's been doing over the last 18 months, and it says this:

'When the history books come to be written, and the path to Brexit analysed, Jeremy Corbyn's role will be seen as crucial.' 

That was in the Daily Mail. [Laughter.]

I don't intend to go over a lot of the statistics and the ground that we continually debate in this Chamber. So, there are two areas I wanted to focus on. One is what I call the 'conspiracy of incompetence', which I believe has taken over the Government, and the other is a more serious point in respect of the undermining of parliamentary democracy. In July 2016, David Davis said that, within two years, the UK could negotiate a free-trade area massively larger than the EU. And he was followed by Liam Fox in July 2017, who said—the International Trade Secretary said that negotiating a new British trade deal with the EU would be one of the easiest in history. 

We get to a stage now where the only things we seem to have agreed is that there's a £39 billion divorce bill, Northern Ireland is going to be in chaos, and the biggest danger that we face is absolutely no deal, and you wonder how we can get to a situation where a Government is bringing us so close to a dangerous no-deal situation. You can almost put it down to a conspiracy of incompetence, where you can almost see the hardline Brexiteers saying, 'The more incompetent we can be, the more likely we're going to get what we actually want to achieve.' That might sound as though that's really a bit of speculation, but then you have to actually listen to the actual words that came from Boris Johnson, one of the senior players in this, the Foreign Secretary. These are the actual words from Boris Johnson. Here we go:

'You've got to face the fact there may now be a meltdown. Okay? I don't want anybody to panic during the meltdown. No panic. Pro bono publico, no bloody panic. It's going to be all right in the end.'

And then he followed it on by saying,

'I am increasingly admiring of Donald Trump. I have become more and more convinced that there is method in his madness. Imagine Trump doing Brexit'.

This is from our Foreign Secretary. Well, the reality is that we don't need Donald Trump, because we've got our own Trump trio of Theresa May, David Davis and Boris Johnson. When I was reading this, I saw a tweet that came through that said that even Baldrick had a plan. [Laughter.]

Coming on to the point of undermining parliamentary democracy, the whole article 50 case was actually about the UK Government wanting to bypass Parliament, diminishing the actual role of Parliament. Even the EU (Withdrawal) Bill in the format it came in to us was about Government bypassing Parliament through the creation of Henry VIII powers and centralising Government. Of course, the Grieve amendment, which is coming up tomorrow, is again an extremely important matter, because this is about the fundamentals of giving Parliament a voice, and one would have suspected that the whole purpose of the Brexit referendum, as we were told, was about actually restoring parliamentary democracy.

Lord Hailsham in the House of Lords said the Government's offer 

'not only fails to deliver the promised meaningful vote...but is far worse...as the Government are seeking to make the promised meaningful vote impossible...It deliberately removes the possibility'.

And we see the response to this in the papers is that people who speak in such ways of talking about supporting parliamentary democracy are called 'traitors'. They're called 'enemies of the people'. We risk, I believe, a collapse of parliamentary democracy if the Grieve amendment or some subsequent amendment is not approved that gives Parliament a voice. And it is a total irony, isn't it, that we could end up with a situation where, as a result of the loss of parliamentary sovereignty, we risk having fewer powers in Parliament than if we'd remained in the European Union? There is, in my view, a significant threat to the rule of law. There is an undermining of parliamentary democracy. I believe the only way out of this is that we actually need a general election. We need a Government that actually has a new mandate, because at the moment all we actually have is a Government whose sole motivation, whose sole rationale for existence, is self-preservation, and that is not putting the interests of the nation first.

Can I start by perhaps reminding people I think, unfortunately, the UK will be leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 because Theresa May will hang on to power and will undoubtedly take us out, because she's made that abundantly clear? But the question is on what terms we leave, and that's the biggest question for all of us in our political careers, I think, coming ahead.

As Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee I've had the opportunity to actually see the complexities and the complications that we have faced over the last two years and will face in the future, and the potential consequences we must overcome because of these complexities. Can I put, at this point, on record the excellent work done by the Commission staff in always presenting us as Members with information as to the goings on both in Westminster and Europe so that we can have an understanding of some of the issues that are being raised throughout this whole process?

For our communities across Wales, and the whole of the UK, it's vital that we do leave the EU with the very best deal available to us, and, for me, there's no doubt that no deal on 29 March is a disastrous one for everyone. The noises coming from Brussels, unfortunately, over the last couple of days are that diplomats of the EU's 27 are prepared for a statement after next week's Council meeting that will express a view that a no-deal scenario is now a real possibility, particularly as the UK Government has continued to fail to produce a White Paper on its position on the future of the EU, and on any relationships. I hope they're wrong. I really do hope they're wrong on this, and that that statement doesn't happen. The stakes are far too high for everyone to simply walk away into the unknown of WTO rules. This uncertainty could become a reality. Just go and ask your businesses in your local constituencies if you don't believe me—

Will the Member give way? [Inaudible.]—says he wants a good deal, but he says he cannot conceive, under any circumstances, walking away. How could any business negotiate with another business in his constituency and hope to get a good deal if the other side knows they'll accept what they're given, whatever?

I'll come on to this, because it's a very interesting point. It's clear to me that the current Government has no negotiating skills whatsoever, is actually going into the negotiations not understanding that negotiation is a two-way process, and you have to understand both sides' arguments and where both sides wish to get to. It is clear that the UK Government doesn't understand that and is going into this thinking that it has the sole given right to actually dictate the way it wants, and not recognising the other side's position. That is not the way to negotiate, and, in fact, they might want to go to the trade unions and learn a bit about negotiations.

Now, the hard fact is that Theresa May actually fails to stand up to the hard Brexiteers in her own party, and, as has already been mentioned, those in her Cabinet in particular. So, there's a very real possibility that she cannot get a deal because they will not allow her to have one. That's going to be catastrophic for us. It will mean lower export figures, lower growth, lower investment, fewer jobs, and smaller incomes. That's what our constituents may face as a consequence of that. Terrible news for Wales, and, let's be honest, it's terrible news for the whole of the UK—every part of the UK.

Now, let's be clear, I've heard twice already today about the fact that, if we raise these issues, we are moaning and trying to derail the Brexit process. It's not about derailing. It's about getting the right deal for our people, the ones we represent. Failure to speak up is a failure to do our job. It is important that we make sure that the Brexit that will happen is done to give us the best options. People's resilience and determination to protect the future of the UK outside of the EU should not be confused or misunderstood as an intent to subvert it. It's just a smokescreen to hide the failures of a Tory Government. The challenge of building a path that offers a strong future outside the EU has been made more difficult by the failures of the UK Government, the weakness and the lack of a coherent strategy. It's damaging the UK; it's making us a laughing stock, to be honest, and there's no good in that. They don't have a strategy in place, they don't have ideas, they haven't told the EU what they want to try and achieve. What would you expect? If I went into negotiations, I'd know exactly what I wanted to try and do. The EU has told us what their negotiating stance is; they're not hiding it. We are. There we go.

We've seen throughout the discussions and we heard today from Neil Hamilton, 'Shift the blame to the EU.' Well, I'm sorry to say, 'Shift the blame to the Tories, because they're the ones that are failing.' The EU have been clear from day 1 what they want and what their target is, the Tories are just trying to protect and hide because they haven't got a clue what they want. It's important that we address this matter. Mick Antoniw has also said that tomorrow will be another interesting question when the debate comes back to the Tory party, 'Do you accept a meaningful vote or not?' It's chaos up there; it is total chaos and we are the ones paying the price.

There's a long way to go in these negotiations, there's a lot of work to be done and just to quote a famous person, Michel Barnier, because we all talk about him, 'The clock is ticking', and the lack of negotiating skills is not helping us whatsoever. Compromise and pragmatism are required and, inevitably, both sides will have to give way in certain areas—that's what negotiating means. Their job is to come to an agreed outcome that protects jobs and provides security for future generations of the UK and of the EU, and I second that: both sides need to look at it.

Llywydd, I've often stated that, on 23 June 2016, the British people voted to leave the EU; they did not vote to leave Europe. The question put to them was about the EU. They certainly did not vote to see us disadvantaged because the political elite in London failed to negotiate a good deal.

I'm moved to contribute briefly to this debate by the comments made by the leader of Plaid Cymru that she had her own cunning plan, two years ago, to create a campaign and approached the First Minister to do so. I have no knowledge of that conversation, but I'm surprised that it's taken her two years to reveal this cunning plan.

I would say this: she and I both sat on the steering committee in 2011 of the Yes for Wales cross-party devolution campaign, and it was hard enough in that campaign to get civil society and the churches and charities that she talked about to work together in any effective, meaningful way, and I was on that committee partly as a representative of civil society. It's a seductive fantasy, I think, that she's basing this argument on. Since then, the lobbying Act has been passed, which put the fear of God into charitable organisations that they could take part in a referendum campaign. I was part of some early conversations, about nine months before the referendum, with a loose group of civil society organisations to see if there was some appetite to do something similar for the EU referendum, and there really wasn't any will to do it. I'm as critical as anybody of the 'remain' campaign and as frustrated as she is in the result, but it is a seductive fallacy to suggest that the result that happened could've been saved had we all come together on a campaign.

Will you take an intervention?

I will give her the courtesy that she denied me, yes.

Do you think leadership has got anything to do with this and were trade unions bound by the same legislation that you're talking about?

The trade unions were bound by the same legislation. Of course it's about leadership and of course there are questions for us all to answer about the way that that referendum was conducted, and the timing of it was clearly unfortunate, but I think this is fantasy politics. And also, it misunderstands the depth of feeling amongst her own constituents about what that referendum was about. 'If only a couple of well-meaning worthies came together and got a little campaign going, all would've been well'; I wish that were so. I really don't believe it is so. I'm surprised it's taken her two years to reveal that and I think it's dangerous thinking to try and dig this up now, to try and score political points to suggest that she had the answer all along. It's nonsense.

I would say, the leaders of that Brexit vote, the foreign Secretary, David Davis and Liam Fox, are the ones now leading this negotiation to follow through the words that we all said were nonsense, but we should be holding them to account. The White Paper that we negotiated jointly between Labour and Plaid Cymru was a good moment, I think, in us looking at our common interests and I'm sorry that we're now starting to turn on each other. We should be turning our fire on the Tories who made promises we knew they wouldn't keep. And, instead of coming up with fantasy—I'm finishing at this point—with fantasy versions of history that all would've been well, I think, come on, we need to do better than that and turn our fire on those people who made promises that are now falling apart.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

The fundamental problem with the question of Brexit is this, isn't it, Llywydd, that, back in 2016, people were asked to vote for an idea and not a plan? We had a referendum in 1997, we had another referendum in 2011, where if people so chose, they could look at a document that would tell them what would happen if they voted 'yes'. There was no question about it, there was no ambiguity—it was there, written down in black and white. But the problem is that people were asked to vote for an idea, and there will be very different interpretations of that vote in this Chamber—of course there are. None of them can be proven or disproven, because the problem is that there are some that are very, very hard Brexiteers who are almost like religious fundamentalists that take the view, 'You must take all of this literally—people wanted to leave everything with an "in Europe" in it.' And I'm only slightly exaggerating there. And there will be others who are far more pragmatic, as we are, who look to get a Brexit that works for Wales. That's the fundamental problem here: the vote itself, the question itself, was flawed in terms of what people were being asked to do. 

I listened to what Mark Isherwood had to say. It is the case that people did not raise with me the issue of the single market or the customs union—they didn't know what they were. All they knew was what the European Union did, and even then they weren't sure because people said to me, 'I want to make sure that we get out of the European convention on human rights', which has nothing to do with the European Union. So, it wasn't the most well-informed referendum in that sense. I don't suppose there's any referendum that's particularly well-informed, because people always vote for reasons that have nothing to do with the referendum. I heard more people telling me that they wanted to kick the Tories than said to me they wanted to leave the EU. That's the reality of any referendum. 

Mark Isherwood also said—[Interruption.] Yes, of course. 

Isn't it the reality that there was no discussion of the customs union because the EU was set up as a customs union? It was taken as a given that leaving the EU meant leaving the customs union, and when the single market became part of the campaign, the 'Leave' campaign and particularly Michael Gove were absolutely clear that voting to leave meant leaving the single market, as well as the customs union? 

No, because you would have to be in the EU to be in the customs union; that's the whole point. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are in the customs union; they're not in the EU. If you look, for example, Turkey is in the customs union; it's not in the EU. The two things are not coterminous; that's the whole point, and here we are back again with the crux of the problem that in 2016, there wasn't a document that people could refer to that told them exactly what would happen if they voted a certain way. 

Will you give way on that point?

Can I say quite simply this to him? He will remember, as I will, although not everybody in this Chamber will, the series Fawlty Towers. There comes a point where the Major in Fawlty Towers makes the mistake of looking for Germans and Basil Fawlty has to say to him, 'War's over.' And the war is over. The EU is not a hostile power. The EU is not sitting there in Calais looking at the cliffs of Dover with malign intent. The EU is our partner and we need to make sure that we negotiate with them as a partner and not as a hostile power, as he put it. 

It would be remarkable if the EU didn't export more in value to the UK than the UK exported back to the EU. Quite simply, the EU is much bigger than the UK, of course it's going to do that. But the percentage of exports from the EU to the UK is much smaller than the percentage of exports that goes from the UK to the EU. That's the difference. It's not the actual volume; it's the percentage that is important. 

Again he makes the point that if he'd have been in charge we'd all be done. Well, Nigel Farage said we'd have a deal with the US in 48 hours. All right, he was saying it with tongue in cheek—well, you could never tell with him if it was tongue in cheek. In a debate he made it up as he went along; you couldn't contradict it. But the reality is, is he really saying that the US is waiting there to do a deal with the UK on terms that are favourable to the UK? I don't believe that. The rhetoric, surely, of the US President shows otherwise. 

I listened to what Leanne Wood said. I'll just remind her that she and I, on this issue, are on the same side. She reminds me of somebody playing on a rugby team who runs around the pitch trying to tackle members of her own side, rather than focusing on the opposition over there. They are the opposition over there. They are the people who are trying to deny a sensible Brexit to the people of Wales. [Interruption.] In a second, I'll let you in. In a second, okay. 

I said to her at the time I thought it was naive to have a cross-party campaign in the middle of an election. We spent all our time knocking lumps out of each other as part of the democratic process. The electorate weren't going to buy it a week later that we were suddenly all friends again. It doesn't work that way. The timing was wrong. She is right, I said to David Cameron, 'Don't have the referendum in June— 

That's why we lost.

—have it in the autumn so the elections are out of the way.' [Interruption.] If I've got time, Llywydd.

Yes.

Thank you. Well, I hope, First Minister, you're not going to disillusion me now, because I've just heard from Plaid Cymru that the fact that the remainers lost the referendum lies squarely on the shoulders of the First Minister.

The reality is David Cameron bears a lot of responsibility, I'm afraid, because I said to him, 'Don't hold it in June, hold it in September.' He thought he could win the referendum as he had in Scotland. That was the problem. He was still riding on what had happened in Scotland and, as a result, there was complacency there. It was something that I did say to him at the time.

I have to say to the leader of Plaid Cymru that she is suggesting that the focus should have been on fighting the EU referendum after the election was over, but her focus in the first week was doing a deal with the Tories and UKIP to get herself elected as First Minister. [Interruption.] I haven't got time, unfortunately. 

There are two more points that I have to make. First of all, Jenny Randerson made the—of all people. Jenny Rathbone made the point that we are not ready to deal with a customs union. Ports are not ready, I made that point last week. Nothing has been done in the ports to facilitate the movement of goods through the ports. The UK Government will blame the ports, I've no doubt about that, if there are delays in those ports.

Simon Thomas makes a perfectly correct point when he says that, in the campaign for the referendum, it was said time and time again—it was always the UK Parliament, we weren't mentioned—power must return to Parliament, except when Parliament doesn't agree with us. That's the Brexiteer message.

If you want to look for an interpretation of where people stand, people were offered the chance last year to vote for a hard Brexit as proposed by the Prime Minister and the people said, 'No thanks.' They said, 'We want something different, we don't want the Brexit the Conservative Party proposed.' It's time now for some realism. It's time now for some humility on behalf of the Conservative Party in London. But, above all, it's time for us to see leadership in London, as we have in Wales, to deliver a sensible Brexit, which is what I believe the people of Wales voted for. 

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

That brings us to voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung.

I will move immediately to the first vote, and that is on the debate on Stage 4 of the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Vaughan Gething. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 45, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the debate on the second anniversary of the EU referendum, amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 2. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Amendment 3. I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, three abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

Amendment 4. I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 43 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions, 15 against. The motion is therefore agreed.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.