National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. Before we proceed with the First Minister's questions, on behalf of the whole Assembly, I would like to convey our deepest condolences to everyone affected by the shootings in Christchurch and, yesterday, in Utrecht. I'm sure, over the last few days, and especially today, our thoughts are with the loved ones of those who have deceased and those who are injured. As an Assembly, we condemn extremism in all its forms and must now redouble our efforts to nurture kindness and tolerance in the face of such hate that we have experienced. Can I now ask Members to stand with me for a moment of reflection, please?

Thank you.

We now turn to item 1 on the agenda this afternoon, which is questions to the First Minister, and the first question this afternoon, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board are making improvements to vascular services at present. These improvements were agreed after a public consultation in 2013. I do not intend to instruct the health board to conduct any new consultations on this matter.

Whilst you were at Buckingham Palace, this place heard that the health board had misled the public on the issue of downgrading the service in Bangor. Since then, a prominent member of the health board has resigned in protest—a very grave step—and yet your Government still doesn’t intend to intervene. Isn’t the truth of the matter that it’s the political agenda of the Labour Party that is responsible for favouring a hospital that is in a marginal seat, at the expense of services to patients across north Wales?

Deputy Presiding Officer, that is totally untrue. I know that the Member is reflecting what local people are telling her, but, fundamentally, what is happening here is not a matter of process, but a matter of creating new services that are sustainable for people throughout the whole of north Wales. That is why the Royal College of Surgeons and the Vascular Society support what we do. And that is why we're doing it—not for any reason other than the advice that we have received from people working in the field, people who have—.

We are doing it, Dirprwy Lywydd, because of the advice that we have received from those organisations in the best possible position to provide us with the advice we need—the royal colleges, the Vascular Society. They are the people who have explained to us the current arrangements are not sustainable. It is as a result of their advice that we will provide a service in north Wales that will be right for patients. Eighty per cent of services will continue to be delivered locally, but, when you need a specialist service, when you need a service where you need facilities and a team of people who carry out these procedures enough times during the year to have the professional accreditation that they need, to have the experience that keeps them performing at the best possible level of their professional skills, that's what people in north Wales will have as a result of these matters.

The changes will be implemented on 8 April, and that, I am sure, is the best way to deliver services for people throughout north Wales.

I would like to withdraw from any party political inferences on this very important matter, but I do endorse the calls by Siân Gwenllian for a new consultation, and the reason being that I believe there are a number of people very, very concerned about this. We've got a petition of over 5,000 signatures. I thought this was made on a clinical decision as you rightly point out. However, I'm informed quite reliably that some of the consultants are actually refusing to move. So, that surely is quite a grave issue. As Siân has rightly pointed out, such are the concerns about this issue that Bethan Russell Williams has resigned.

Now, in an open letter, Mark Polin and Gary Doherty have advised that there should be better outcomes for patients in north Wales, but note that currently out-of-hours emergency services are, in fact, provided at Ysbyty Gwynedd or Wrexham Maelor. It makes no sense at all for this decision. So, I would ask if you would consider looking at another consultation. Six years we are now down the line.

Can we come to the question, please?  

Will you reconsider and actually invest in those services at Ysbyty Gwynedd, so that those medical teams can feel confident that they can carry out emergency vascular services for those people who badly need them? 

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm sure the Member wants the best possible services for the residents in her constituency, and that is what this change will deliver. A further delay now would simply unravel everything that has been put in place. And she will know what's been put in place: £2.3 million from the Welsh Government for a vascular hybrid theatre, and, as a result of concentrating that service on one site, the health board has been able to attract six additional consultant vascular surgeons, an additional consultant interventional radiologist, four vascular junior doctors, extra vascular specialist nurses, a dedicated 18-bed vascular ward. All of these would be put at risk if we said to all of those people who have been attracted to this new service, and it will be one of the very best services in the whole of the United Kingdom—. If they thought we were pulling the plug out of it now—those people can go to jobs anywhere they like in the United Kingdom—we would lose them to north Wales. Your constituents would not have the service that's going to be on offer to them.

I am confident, Dirprwy Lywydd, that once the new service is there, once patients see what it offers to them and to their families and others who need a specialist vascular service, patients in north Wales will appreciate it very fast. And, as we know, patients in Wales are very quickly and very powerfully attached to the new service they have, and I'm sure they will be amongst its strongest supporters. 

NHS performance, including hospital waiting times, forms part of my regular meetings with the Minister for Health and Social Services.  

I thank the First Minister for that reply. Is the First Minister aware that, in the period of July to December 2018, ambulances were waiting outside hospitals in Abergavenny and in Newport for over 5,000 hours and, therefore, they couldn't respond to emergencies. Given that the average ambulance crew is two on these occasions, that's 10,000 crew hours that have been lost. The handover time target in these cases is 15 minutes, but as regards the Royal Gwent Hospital, that target was only met for half the time.

Now, these figures were revealed in answer to a freedom of information request by a Mr Eddie Blanche, who said he had seen ambulances served by welfare vans outside the hospital to supply waiting crews with hot drinks and toilets because they were expected to wait there for such a long time. So, if it's bad enough they have to give them a bus to have their rest in whilst waiting to unload patients, then this is an issue that needs to be addressed now. He says, 'It's scary. I'm worried that people will start dying if the problem isn't fixed'. When does the First Minister think the problem will be fixed? 

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, the figures that the Member quotes are freely available; they don't need to be got through a freedom of information request, because we make that information available in the public domain all the time. Of course ambulance handover figures are a concern to us, because they reflect pressures in the system as a whole. Over this winter, we know that handover times have improved, rather than got more difficult. We know that, since we moved to a different way of measuring the success of the ambulance service, we have been able to demonstrate that those patients who need that service most urgently get it most quickly and effectively all across Wales, and strenuous efforts go on through the ambulance service, through emergency departments, through the people who work in that service, to go on improving what we are able to offer, and those efforts will continue into this year.

What discussions has the First Minister had in order to improve waiting times?

Well, those discussions go on with the Minister on every available occasion because there is a great deal to discuss and there is a great deal to be pleased about here in Wales. Thirty-six-week waits 41 per cent lower in December 2018 than the year previously; diagnostic waiting times 54 per cent lower than a year ago; nearly nine out of 10 patients in Wales wait less than 26 weeks from referral to treatment, and that number in Wales is rising not falling; our cancer waiting times are improving, whereas across our border they are at the worst they have been ever since those figures began to be recorded. And Dirprwy Lywydd, perhaps most remarkable of all, at the point where our health and social care services meet, our performance in relation to delayed transfers of care outstrips anything elsewhere. Delayed transfers of care figures fell again in December, despite winter pressures, and 2017 and 2018 are the two best years in terms of delayed transfers of care figures ever since those figures first began to be collected 13 years ago.

One of the reasons that those figures are better, though, is because we've simply got patients stacked up in corridors rather than actually in cubicles being seen by medical professionals, and you will know that one of the regions that has the worst emergency department performances is north Wales, where we have the Betsi Cadwaladr health board in special measures for all sorts of performance-related problems, with Wrexham Maelor posting the worst figures in the whole of the United Kingdom, not just in Wales, and with the second-worst performing hospital being Glan Clwyd Hospital in Bodelwyddan.

And it's not just unscheduled care; it's also the planned care and operations as well. If you look back to December 2012, 87 per cent of patients received their treatment within the 26-week target time for orthopaedic surgery versus less than 60 per cent in December 2018. So, you're suggesting that things are getting better. The figures speak for themselves in terms of them getting worse and worse. When are patients in north Wales—when are my constituents—going to see this situation turned around, and when are those hospitals going to hit the targets that your Government sets for them?

Well, Llywydd, the point the Member made at the beginning clearly cannot be true. Delayed transfers of care figures are not affected by the way in which people are received into our hospitals; they're all about the way in which people are discharged back into the community, and Betsi Cadwaladr university health board is part of the success of the Welsh NHS and our social care services in that regard. In fact, the greatest improvement of all in relation to delayed transfers of care figures is to be found in the north of Wales. Of course we are concerned, the Minister is concerned, at the difficulties that have been experienced at two hospitals in north Wales over this winter. Their performance distorts the performance of the whole of the NHS, where, elsewhere, improvements were to be found. We go on, we go on investing, investing in the physical layout of those hospitals, investing in the professional leadership of those departments and, together with the health board, we are confident that there are plans in place that will lead to further improvements in elective and in emergency care.

Thank you. We'll now turn to leaders' questions. The first party leader today is the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Could I first join in the chorus of hallelujahs around the land that greeted last Saturday's game and the Grand Slam victory, and can I wholly endorse your suggestion, First Minister, made last night on the steps of the Senedd, that when we have the powers to confer honorary Welsh citizenship, then Warren Gatland should be there in the front of the queue? But, of course, we'll have to achieve independence before we have that opportunity for real.

The first issue I want to raise with you today relates to a matter very close to my own heart and, indeed, my own life, which is LGBT+ equality. First Minister, do you believe that faith schools should be allowed to operate differently from non-faith schools in the way they approach their teaching about sexual relationships? I raise this because, as ITV Wales has shown, in this case in the context of Catholic schools, there is confirmation on websites and, indeed, in the testimony of teachers that the belief that gay relationships are morally unacceptable is being presented to children and young people in 2019. Your education Minister, it's reported, is content to continue to allow discretion to Welsh faith schools to teach relationship and sex education in line with their own beliefs. Is that something you support?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, first of all, let me say how much I enjoyed last night's events. I saw the Member there and many other Members behind him, and from all parts of the Chamber joining in with those celebrations.

As far as relationships and sexuality education is concerned, there are consultations that are being carried out at the moment both in relation to our current curriculum and the new curriculum. There are complex rules about the way in which faith schools have certain freedoms, which are not, therefore, directly in the hands of Welsh Government Ministers, but let me address the nub of his question, which is that it is entirely unacceptable to me that the sorts of views that he reported should be expressed in any of our schools, and I want to associate myself directly with what he said about the unacceptability of those sorts of views being promulgated in any classroom, of any sort, and in any part of Wales.

I welcome the First Minister saying that this is unacceptable. The point is, of course, to do something about it. In the 1980s, I was told myself, 'I hope to goodness gracious that you don't end up gay.' It wasn't acceptable then, it's certainly not acceptable now, and it's the duty of Government, where we're talking about publicly funded schools—it's the duty of Government to make absolutely clear that should never be on a school website, that should never be the experience of a teacher. So, it's the responsibility of Government to show that there is no discretion, not even in this case. It's not complex: it's very simple as far as I'm concerned.

Turning to another matter, if I may, last Saturday, I took part in the United Nations anti-racism day march in Cardiff alongside your deputy, Jane Hutt. On that march, there were many members of the Kurdish community in Wales who were expressing their hope that this Parliament—indeed, your Government—would be the first in the world to express our solidarity with the Kurdish hunger strikers across Europe. They're protesting against the isolation of the Kurdish leader, Abdullah Öcalan, who's been imprisoned by Turkey since 1999 in conditions that contravene the Turkish state's legal obligations in relation to human rights. As you know, the protesters include Imam Sis, a resident of Newport who has been on an indefinite hunger strike since 17 December last year. First Minister, can you confirm that you will be supporting the motion we have tabled for debate, expressing solidarity with Imam Sis and with the Kurdish community?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to return, to begin with, to the point that the Member made in his opening question, and just to be as clear with him as I can be that the Government is doing exactly what he would wish us to do in engaging with that sector and making clear what our position is and what we believe their position should be as well, and if there is evidence that he has that things are happening that should not happen, then we would certainly want to act on anything that we can pass our way. There is no difference of purpose between us at all on that matter.

The Member then refers to the debate that will happen tomorrow on the floor of the Assembly. My colleague Eluned Morgan will reply to that debate. We will observe the proprieties in relation to the responsibility that we have as a Government while engaging with the substance of the matters that the Member referred to in his second question.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what the First Minister’s just said, so perhaps in responding to my third questions when I’ll raise another issue, he could perhaps just explain whether you’re going to support the motion or not.

To turn to another battle for justice for a language and culture of a stateless nation—not the Kurds in this case, but Wales and the Welsh language—and an area where you have set a laudable aim of creating a million Welsh speakers, and particularly increasing the use of the Welsh language in the workplace, in a report published this morning, the Public Accounts Committee expresses concerns about the delay in delivering the recommendations of a report that proposes a way forward on the internal use of the Welsh language, and the possibility of making skills levels in the Welsh language essential for Welsh Government staff, which is still awaiting agreement from the Government board, two years after they were made. The Government’s explanation to the committee as to why you have sat on that report produced by your senior civil servants without taking a decision was that you were eager to be enlightened by other prominent institutions and organisations. But given the disastrous record of Government on Welsh in the workplace, do you agree that any effort by a Minister to bring pressure to bear on any other public body to dilute their commitment to the Welsh language—for example, in employment policy—would be unacceptable and contrary to Government policy?

Deputy Presiding Officer, we want to see organisations throughout Wales promoting the Welsh language in the workplace. We do it here in the Senedd, and we do it internally in Welsh Government, and we are learning lessons—for example, from North Wales Police—and what we want to do is draw on those lessons learned, and draw on what is happening and what is effective in Wales, and to do more in the public bodies to promote the Welsh language, and to give people who are able to use the Welsh language the confidence to do so, and to do more to help them to improve their skills. The Minister is working on that agenda each day.

Thank you. Leader of the Opposition, Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and with your indulgence, can I also take this opportunity to shout 'hallelujah' across the land and congratulate the Welsh rugby team on their fantastic win? And it was also a pleasure to be at last night's event.

First Minister, why have mothers and babies been put at risk at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I don't believe that mothers and babies are now being put at risk because action has been taken—very significant action taken—with the support of the Welsh Government, with the intervention of the royal college, to attend to some disturbing information that came to light. Those actions, I think, are succeeding. There is more for the health board to do, but I believe that the health board is seized of the urgency of those issues; that it has acted on the information that has come forward; that it has a plan in place to carry out further actions; that we will track those actions, together with the royal college, to make sure that not just the board itself, but people outside the board, have confidence in the measures that they have taken and that mothers and babies in that part of Wales can be confident in the service that they are receiving.

Well, it's quite clear, First Minister, that your Government failed for too long to get a grip of the dire situation faced by mothers and families under the care of Cwm Taf university health board. It has been several months since we heard the horrifying news of the loss of 26 babies under this health board's care in the space of two years. And, after a surprise visit by the healthcare inspectorate, they've recently highlighted staffing issues responsible for poor quality of care and increased risk to the safety of patients. And indeed, the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales report is clear, and it said, and I quote:

'We were concerned about the potential risk to the safety of patients.'

Now, women facing childbirth have the right to expect high-quality care during this difficult time, and the best chances of delivering a healthy baby, but it seems this isn't always the case across some parts of Wales, First Minister. Even in my own constituency, there are grave concerns that the specialist midwife-led maternity unit at Whithybush hospital could now be downgraded to a day service, which will, undoubtedly, risk the safety of mothers and babies. So, can you be clear here today about what steps you are putting in place to end the postcode lottery of maternity services across Wales?

Dirprwy Lywydd, first of all, let me be absolutely clear so that the Member need not go on repeating it, that there is no risk of the sort that he has just described to maternity services at Withybush hospital—services that I, myself, have visited, which have some of the most impressive people you will ever meet providing services to women in that part of the world. And there are no proposals of any sort to make a change in the service provided there. I hope that that is helpful to the Member so that his mind and the minds of anybody else can be set at rest.

In relation to the position in Cwm Taf, what the leader of the opposition just described, Dirprwy Lywydd, was the checks and balances that we have in the system here in Wales that allow concerns of the sort that he has identified to be brought to the surface. He referred to the surprise visit of HIW; that is exactly the reason why we have an independent inspectorate able to carry out work in that way. And, of course, it was the concerns that came to light, as a result of that visit and of other actions, that led to my colleague the health Minister taking action in relation to the escalation status of that health board, and to institute other measures—people from outside the health board to come in to report on what they've seen, to give a hard-hitting account of some of the difficulties that they identified, and then to work with that health board to make sure that those matters are put right, and the service that that health board quite rightly prides itself on having provided to that local community can be reinstated in relation to the future services for women and children in that part of Wales.

First Minister, of course I accept that your Government has made statements of intent to address the issues at Cwm Taf, but last week's headlines again shone a light on the Royal Glamorgan Hospital's surprise inspection by the health inspectorate following the tragic deaths I mentioned to you earlier. Now, the inspectorate warned of significant staff shortages that continue to risk the safety of patients at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. It has also highlighted the poor working conditions of the remaining highly trained and hard-working medical professionals at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, which are adversely impacting the health, morale and even the safety of midwives and other team members. Now, this came around the same time that we challenged you about shocking statistics that show that we are heading for a midwife staffing crisis in the coming years across the country. Considering that the escalation status has been raised at Cwm Taf, time is of the essence to hear what assurances you, First Minister, and your Government can give to prove that you are tackling problems with this health board and that you are working to protect the mothers and babies of this area. And when will we now see the promised report into what went wrong at Cwm Taf, to which your Minister committed back in January?

Well, I thank the Member for that question, because it allows me just to put on the record the actions that the health board itself, with the support of the Welsh Government, has taken since the events, which were published last week but happened before Christmas, have taken place. Because the health board has certainly not ignored any of that information. It has instituted changes to staffing, to oversight of staffing. It has changed the way in which services are provided between the Royal Glamorgan Hospital and Prince Charles Hospital; it has further changes that it has in line, it has changed the way in which weekend rotas are organised and overseen. These are really practical steps that have been taken in response to the information that the Member referred to. The Minister has been to Cwm Taf, he has met with midwives there. Their training, their oversight is really important in this. It is why, Dirprwy Lywydd, we are training record numbers of midwives through the training system that we have here in Wales—numbers that have gone up, I think, every year for the last three years, as we prepare for the workforce that we will need in the future. These are simple, practical measures that we are determined to take, that the health board is determined to take, and, together, they will lead to real improvements in the position that was identified during that visit by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales.

Thank you. Leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I also add my congratulations to Warren Gatland and the Welsh rugby squad for the achievement of another grand slam? Let's hope that the unbeaten run continues up to the World Cup, during the World Cup and, hopefully, throughout the World Cup this coming autumn. [Interruption.] No, not the rugby.

First Minister, one of the areas that you're very interested in is pay inequality. In your personal manifesto, which you brought out last year, you said that, and I quote,

'We must bring fresh energies to tackle inequality in pay'.

It seems to me that one of the causes of pay inequality in Wales is that we have a number of people in public sector organisations who appear to be on ludicrously high salaries. For instance, we have the chief executive of Cardiff council, which is run by your Welsh Labour Party, on a salary of £170,000 a year, which is significantly more than the Prime Minister, and yet this is a council that can't even organise a bus station for the city. Would you agree with me, First Minister, that one way of tackling low pay and pay inequality is to put an end to the ludicrously high salaries of people like the chief executive of Cardiff council?

Well, first of all, Dirprwy Lywydd, that was not the sort of pay inequality to which I was referring. I was referring, of course, to the much more mainstream ideas of gender pay inequality in the public services here in Wales. I am, myself, a believer in a system in which there is a multiplier between the pay of the lowest paid in an organisation and the highest paid in an organisation, and that that should be at an agreed and fixed rate, and then you get pressure on pay inequalities to raise the pay of those at the bottom of the pay scale, who are far more numerous in number, of course, rather than a populist focus on individuals in other parts of the spectrum.

Well, you've advocated the multiplier. We will look into that and see how effective that is and how effectively you're actually overseeing that in Wales in terms of local government. The Cardiff council chief executive is only one example of the problem that I'm highlighting today. We do have an increasing number of public sector officials in Wales on six-figure salaries. Now, we are in an era of austerity, as you keep telling us. Local councils are having to close down facilities because of their budgets being cut. But the top tier of council officials seem to be some kind of protected species who are still allowed to take home ridiculous salaries. We have the nonsense of Caerphilly council, also run by Welsh Labour, where a dispute over pay to three senior officers has led to the council wasting more than £4 million. We have a chief executive there who hasn't come into work for six years, and he's being paid £130,000 a year to do precisely nothing. And still, the situation hasn't been resolved. First Minister, how do you tally your constant wailing about austerity with the fact that we have a tier of fat-cat bureaucrats in Wales in the public sector, which is overseen by you, who are making such extraordinarily high sums of money?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, if the Member is interested in the multiplier, then the facts and figures are there for him to take an interest in that topic. He will find that the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid in the Welsh Government is the narrowest in the public sector in Wales, and that's because we are in charge of the Welsh Government. The Member's interest in local government would be better pursued directly with those councils who have the responsibility for the matter that he is raising.

I see that you have, once again, tried to evade your scrutiny of local government, which clearly is under the overall oversight of your Welsh Government here at the Assembly. The Caerphilly situation has been dragging on since 2012, so I think it now warrants some public comment from you, bearing in mind as well that one of your previous roles was as local government Minister. So, this ongoing fiasco has certainly been on your watch. In human terms, the salary of a chief executive who is being paid to stay at home would more or less cover the cost of running Pontllanfraith leisure centre, which is threatened with closure. First Minister, would you agree that the closure of facilities like leisure centres is the human cost of your Welsh Labour Party bending over backwards to help out its cronies in senior management positions in the Welsh public sector?

Well, it's nonsensical, Dirprwy Lywydd. It doesn't strike a chord, even with those sitting around him. Let's be clear: the position in Caerphilly is one that is not satisfactory to anybody, but there is a process, which is there, that we are all bound by. It is nothing at all to do with any individuals or any organisations. The Welsh Government discharged its part of that responsibility in appointing an independent person to oversee the next stage in that process. I gave an undertaking to Hefin David, the local Member, when I was the Minister responsible, that as soon as the current system has worked its way through, we will institute a review of it. It is not satisfactory. It does not work. It does not deliver for local residents or for the council itself. But, when you are in a process, you have a legal obligation to see it through. People can make as much nonsense of it as they like. In a mature democracy, if there is a law that you have to abide by, then that is exactly what we will have to do. Then, we will see how that law can be changed, so that there is a more satisfactory process for the future.

I thank the Member for the question. The Welsh Government's strategy is to deploy all the actions available to us in order to help eliminate plastic pollution; legislation, education, grant funding, infrastructure investment and fiscal measures are all strands in that strategic approach. 

First Minister, I'm sure you agree with me that the 2.3 million tonnes of plastic pollution from packaging that is being generated across the UK at the moment is a major public health and environmental issue. We have recently learned that plastic pollution is a very efficient transmitter of E. coli and other waterborne diseases, which would die if they were simply relying on water as a transporter. In addition to that, we know that plastic particles are ending up in a lot of the food that we currently eat. So, in light of these very serious public health and environmental issues, what action can the Welsh Government take, as a matter of urgency, both to ensure that we get a deposit-return scheme introduced across Wales as soon as possible, and to ensure that extended producer responsibility is in place properly in Wales?  

Well, I want to thank Jenny Rathbone for that very important supplementary question. She is right to point to the renewed concerns that there are about pre-production plastic pellets as a source of microplastic pollution. This issue was discussed at the recent British-Irish Council meeting in Glasgow, where Ministers from across the United Kingdom came together to identify actions that can be taken to respond to that emerging concern.

The Member is also absolutely right to point to the importance of extended producer responsibility. Currently in the United Kingdom, it's estimated that producers pay approximately 10 per cent of the overall cost of recycling their packaging waste, and that simply cannot be right. We have to do more to bring the actions of producers into line with the polluter-pays responsibility. That's why we are consulting jointly with the UK and Scottish Governments on proposals to introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging on a UK-wide basis.

My colleague the Deputy Minister Hannah Blythyn has arranged a briefing session for all Assembly Members on the 28th of this month, which will deal both with EPR and with deposit-return scheme proposals. I'm quite certain that the Member will be attending, and I hope that many other Members here will be able to be at that meeting as well.

First Minister, we can see plastics all around us. Just go out into the bay area and you can see plastic bottles floating in the corners of the bay. Despite much of the rhetoric in this institution and beyond, sadly, plastic pollution is a huge issue that we singularly seem to be failing at combating in any meaningful way at the moment.

We just had the cross-party group on forestry, over lunch time, resurrected recently. They highlighted the role that forestry can play in bringing alternative products forward instead of plastics, such as straws, for example. It is critical that the Welsh Government gets its act together on its targets for replantation, especially on the NRW estate. They are 6,000 hectares behind on their schedule. Can you commit the Welsh Government to redoubling its efforts in the forestry sector, so that those alternatives can be developed here in Wales, and the alternatives can then be offered to the public at large, so that they can reduce their plastic consumption? Because without those alternatives, we'll continue to be blighted by plastic pollution.

I thank the Member for that question. I entirely agree with him that we have to make far greater efforts right across the range of actions that Governments can take, that industry can take, and that individuals as well are able to take in our own lives to reduce the use of plastic products. And alternative products to plastic are certainly a very important part of that whole effort. The Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs only last week opened the new Frugalpac manufacturing facility in Wrexham, and that is a facility that produces fully recyclable coffee cups. And just as we see plastic bottles floating around, so we see far too many disposable cups that are left by people where they happen to end up using them.

On forestry, I agree with the Member: of course that has a part to play in creating alternative products that will allow us all to do more—more in our own lives, as well as the way we act together—in order to reduce the use of plastics, the generation of plastic pollution, and the harm that that does in our environment.

I thank the Member for that. Following development by pioneer schools, draft guidance for the new curriculum for Wales will be made available in April. This is the result of an intensive period of design and development, and that will continue in the months ahead.

Thank you for that answer. First Minister, a recent report by the Assembly's health committee heard evidence that physical education and physical activity are generally not receiving sufficient priority in schools. We've already heard in this Chamber that it appears that many schools are falling short of providing the legally required two hours per week. We know that physical education helps tackle obesity, and there are many more benefits.

We have just seen a momentous sporting weekend. The Welsh national squad is now ranked second in the world, we have world-class cyclists, and several Welsh sports personalities are on the global stage. I'm sure you will agree with me that Welsh schools have the perfect platform right now to inspire children to participate in PE. How will your Government embed this into the new school curriculum?

I thank the Member for that. Of course, I agree with her about the importance of physical education, physical literacy, in our schools and the contribution that that can make to stemming the tide of obesity, which we know from other figures—we discussed it here in the Chamber only a week or so ago—that we know is there in the population. But there is a tension, and the Member's question points to the tension, between the lessons that we learned from the Donaldson review, which are about setting clear purposes for the curriculum, developing the different areas of learning and experience, and then allowing those professional people who are closest to the population that they are serving—that's school leaders, the teachers in the classroom—to allow them the professional freedom to apply those principles and those guidelines in the circumstances in which they find themselves.

Physical literacy is part of the whole way in which we expect the new curriculum to be developed. It's always tempting—we hear it around the Chamber many times, where people will agree with the general proposition that there should be a national framework and then local flexibility to apply it, but then everybody wants to say, 'Ah, but, why isn't this on the curriculum? Why isn't that on the curriculum?' And before you know where you are, we have worked our way back from the sort of approach that we have all, across this Chamber, I think, said that we want to see here in Wales, back to something that becomes even more prescriptive.

So, I'm agreeing with the Member's basic proposition about the importance. I'm trying to persuade her that the way we are doing it will deliver the outcomes that she wants to see, and trying to dissuade her from her belief that the way to secure physical education is to make the curriculum prescriptive in that area, because then we would just open up the curriculum to yet further ideas about how we can narrow it down from this Chamber, when we want to allow the professional abilities, freedoms, skills and understanding of teachers in the classroom to deliver on the curriculum that we are developing here.

First Minister, last Friday, I attended a question time-type event at the Neath College campus for young students, and they expressed a very deep interest in the future curriculum. One of the questions that they raised with me—and I'm sure this will be in the curriculum—is the education of citizenship, in one sense, and political movements, because, clearly, they will be looking at votes at 16 and 17 in years to come, and the Assembly is going to put this Bill through. I'm assuming that, amongst those things we all want in the curriculum, this will be part of that curriculum. But, also, what are you going to do as a Government to ensure that it's in place for 2020-1, because the curriculum probably won't be in till around 2020. These young people will be past that. How are we going to ensure that young people have the education so that, when they partake in the democratic process, they have an understanding of that process and what it can mean?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I've attended many meetings on the Welsh Government's proposal to lower the voting age to 16 for local government elections, and I know that it is the Llywydd's view that that should be the case for Assembly elections as well. When I was in front of sceptical audiences, including sometimes young people who were sceptical about their ability to discharge that responsibility, one of the arguments that I felt had most impact on sceptical audiences was the argument that, if you have voting at 16, you have a period when young people are still in education and when you can provide them with the sort of information and grounding in both the structures of democracy, the understanding of political concepts, the democratic rights and responsibilities that you can prepare people for that responsibility at the age of 16, you can inculcate the habit of voting early, and we know that people who vote in the first election that they have a chance to vote in are much more likely to go on voting in subsequent elections, and those who miss out the first time are less likely to vote the second time, and if you haven't voted in the first or second elections you have a chance to, the chance of you turning up on the third occasion is very much diminished indeed. 

So, the point that the Member makes is really important. We are working with the Electoral Commission, with the Commission here in the Assembly, to make sure both that the humanities area of learning and experience will deliver this in the classroom, but that we make an extra effort in the meantime to make sure that those young people who will hope will have the very first opportunity to vote at the age of 16 and 17 are as well prepared as we can make them for that new possibility. 

I thank the Member for that. North Wales is featured in all Visit Wales marketing activity, including its current Year of Discovery campaigns in the United Kingdom, Ireland and in Germany. There is also, via competitive application, financial support given to partners to collaborate on particular projects to market the north Wales area.

Thank you for that response. But with the north Wales growth deal hopefully moving forward, and the approach by the North Wales Economic Ambition Board as team north Wales that Visit Wales should invest more in supporting the regions to target our UK domestic market while leaving Visit Wales to focus on Wales's profile internationally, how will the Welsh Government engage with our regional destination marketing organisation, North Wales Tourism, representing approximately 1,500 tourism-related businesses in north Wales, who are doing a great job already with their 'Go North Wales' brand, but could do a great deal more if more support from the Welsh Government and Visit Wales was forthcoming?

I thank the Member for that. I agree with him that fantastic efforts are made by tourism operators in north Wales to promote the area and to make it an attractive destination to visitors from the rest of the United Kingdom, but also from the rest of the world. We've talked already this afternoon, Llywydd, about Japan, and when Wales is in Japan for the Rugby World Cup it will be a major opportunity for us to showcase Wales as a destination for visitors from that part of the world, and north Wales operators particularly have already worked very hard to increase the number of visitors from Japan visiting north Wales. In fact, 27 of the top 30 Japanese tour operators now include north Wales on their UK itineraries, and that is a tribute to the work that has gone on in the region to promote it as a destination. We will continue to work through the regional tourism forum from north Wales to make sure that the work that is done by Visit Wales to promote the whole of our nation fully reflects the needs of north Wales and goes on making it such a successful destination for visitors in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. 

We’re all also aware, of course, that it’s not just rugby that's played in this country; there’s an important football match tomorrow at the Racecourse in Wrexham, and there’ll be many thousands of people visiting north-east Wales. Sporting events are very important in terms of the tourism offer that we have in north Wales, as it is in Cardiff, of course, therefore, the question I want to ask is: what work is the Government doing jointly with Wrexham football club, the local council and the football association, in order to redevelop the Racecourse to ensure that we do have more opportunities such as this one, and that it's not just one football international every decade that comes to north-east Wales, but that we see that happening regularly?

Thank you, Llyr Gruffydd, for that question. What he says is true: when you mention Wales throughout the world, people immediately think about sports, and that’s the first thing people think about when they think of what happens here in Wales. And, of course, I receive information almost on a weekly basis from the local Member in Wrexham about what goes on at the Racecourse. She sends Wrexham’s football results to me almost every Sunday, and both she and Ken Skates are working on the things that Llyr Gruffydd has raised, to develop what’s going on Wrexham and to draw more matches to Wrexham, and to use the north-east to attract more people into the area.

I thank the Member for that. A defective culvert contributed to the closures to which the Member refers. It has now been replaced and local road conditions will return fully to normal by the end of this week.

I thank the First Minister for his response. Now, the A465 in that area is not just the only A road out of the Cynon Valley, it's also a very significant road regionally, linking, as it does, the Heads of the Valleys, as far afield as the midlands, down to west Wales and is, if I am correct, the only road in Wales that is classed as part of the trans-European road network. So, I'm sure you'll agree with me, First Minister, that effective maintenance of that road is absolutely crucial.

Two weeks ago, Rhondda Cynon Taf council took the unprecedented step of issuing legal notice against the South Wales Trunk Road Agent for not maintaining a major highway. And some of the criticisms levied against them were: not being able to access the correct pumps when RCT council was able to access them from a different supplier; not maintaining or monitoring the pumps to a sufficient standard, leading to the road reflooding; and inadequate signage in the village of Rhigos, leading to complete chaos for residents of that village, with all this traffic then attempting to flow through a minor B road.

With all of those issues, First Minister, what confidence can we have in SWTRA, moving forward, to maintain this road properly and not cause chaos to the residents of my constituency, to commuters and to local businesses?

Well, I understand, Dirprwy Lywydd, the concerns that have been caused locally by the events on the part of the road to which the Member refers, and, of course, she's quite right about the significance of that part of our transport infrastructure. I've discussed all of these matters with Ken Skates, the Minister responsible, and there are, I think, two different issues at stake here, Dirprwy Lywydd. There is the underlying issue of what has caused the difficulty at the culvert in the first place. And I know that there are many different explanations that are suggested locally, and as a result the Minister has asked his officials to be in contact with the local authorities so that a piece of work can be put to hand so that we get to the underlying difficulty that caused the culvert to collapse in the first place. There is then a set of issues about the way in which an immediate response was provided to the difficulties experienced earlier in the month, and I take very seriously what the Member has said. I think, however, there is also some other evidence that some of the mandatory signage that was put in place to divert traffic was ignored by some drivers, and there have been reports to the police where it was felt that that was done in a deliberate way.

The second flooding incident to which the Member referred took place after diesel-powered pumps, which were in place, were tampered with overnight—fuel was stolen from them and the pumps stopped working as a result. In response to that, SWTRA and its contractor has had to put in place 24-hour site supervision of the pumps with a four-hourly inspection of them, including right through the night. Following that, there have been no further failures. We will learn the lessons, they will learn the lessons of what has taken place, now that the road has been repaired and is just about to be fully reopened.

Our policy is to support local authorities to build council housing at significantly increased scale and within the shortest achievable timescale.

Can I again stress the importance of building council houses to deal with the housing crisis facing Wales? Will the First Minister join me in sending congratulations to Swansea on their new council homes new being occupied and also those under construction? But what more can the Welsh Government do to overcome the constraints on councils building council dwellings in large numbers, which is what you said in your first answer?

Thank you very much for that. I'd certainly agree on congratulating Swansea on the work that they are doing, particularly the innovative housing methods and doing all of this at the same time, I know, as having to concentrate on reaching the Welsh quality housing standards, which the council is very close now to completing. I think that there are three different things that we can do to speed up and increase the number of houses being built by local authorities in Wales. The Member, I know, will be pleased to know that the borrowing cap will be formally lifted on Welsh local authorities on Friday of this week, when the necessary legislation that we have to complete will be brought to fruition. So, funding will be, for some local authorities, certainly, more plentifully available than would otherwise be the case. Secondly, there is the whole business of skills, knowledge and capacity. We will have to do more, and the sector will have to do more, working with housing associations and others, to make sure that local authorities have the ability, beyond money, to take on this additionally important role that we want to see them discharge. Thirdly, we will need to look to see what we can do at the Welsh Government level. My colleague Rebecca Evans instituted a review of our affordable housing strategy. That will report at the end of April. Two of the 10 work streams in that review are specifically involved in looking at ways in which we can get local authorities in Wales building more council housing and building them more quickly.

Thank you very much, First Minister. 

Item 2 on the agenda this afternoon is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Minister for Finance and the Trefnydd—Rebecca Evans.

There is one change to this week's business. The First Minister will deliver a statement: update on EU negotiations. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

I would really like the Minister to provide a statement on the horrendous flooding that occurred in north Wales and other parts of Wales, actually, this weekend. We were really hit badly in Aberconwy and I saw things I've never seen in any other flood prior to. The A470 was closed the whole length of the Conwy valley and the reinforced railway at Llanrwst is now dreadfully damaged and it will be several weeks before that is in use again, after having some money spent on it only recently. Houses and businesses were flooded in Dolwyddelan, Betws-y-coed, Maenan and, indeed, Llanrwst, where again the Dutchdam did not work—and that is a flood alleviation scheme, quite an expensive piece of kit that was put in, and it's not the first time that it's failed, so I would really ask that a statement is given on that. To the west, Gwydir castle and gardens, the only grade I listed gardens in Wales, saw its sandbag defence give way and a terrifying fast-flowing torrent.

Trefnydd, this incident this weekend absolutely caused so many problems for me in Aberconwy and my residents. We had young people being rescued from the roof of a car—it's in all the national newspapers. And, frankly, there's a huge contention now that the flood alleviation scheme that has been put in place some years ago—whilst it's benefiting some, it's actually having an adverse effect on others. I've called a public meeting for 5 April—that's all I can do at the moment as an Assembly Member. I am really imploring this Assembly—this Welsh Government—to please make a statement and provide some reassurances for my residents, for people now. My businesses are facing thousands and thousands of pounds' worth of damage; some are not even able to open. There needs to be further support, and there needs to be a new look at the flood defences in Conwy. Thank you.

Thank you very much for raising this issue. And it does give me the opportunity to express our thanks to all of those in Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities and the emergency services, who worked so tirelessly over the weekend to respond to the flooding events across the country.

We had a statement on flooding and flood defences just last week from the Minister, who outlined a £50 million programme of investment for flood and coastal risk management across Wales. And that means that, over the lifetime of this Government, we'll invest over £350 million in flood and coastal erosion risk management in Wales. I think we can say that we have received reports of assets working well over the course of the weekend, including in Llanrwst, Conwy valley, St Asaph and Bangor-on-Dee, where the flood schemes in place did reduce the number of properties flooded. We know that around eight homes were flooded, and around 40 properties have had their gardens flooded as well. And, clearly, our thoughts are with those people, because it's a terrible experience for anybody to go through. We know that NRW have reported defences and procedures in place at Bangor-on-Dee performed well, protecting 381 properties within the flood warning area. Conwy County Borough Council report that telemetry systems it installed on culverts, using Welsh Government funding, have also worked well and allowed them to view and identify areas where debris was blocking water courses, to enable them to send out teams to those areas to remove those blockages quickly. And, of course, the remote cameras installed at Plas Isaf in Llanrwst worked well during the flood event, providing council staff with a warning of potential blockages to water courses, allowing them to have the time to send teams to clear the area, ensuring that the risk of flooding to properties was removed.

So, I think that the evidence does seem to be that, certainly, defences did work well, protecting a large number of properties. It will be several days of course before the full impacts have been identified, and I will ensure that the Minister writes to you ahead of your meeting on 5 April, so that you do have the very latest on Welsh Government action in this area.

Trefnydd, I call for two statements. The first: Estyn and the school organisation code of the Minister for Education have both noted the need to look at the possibilities of federalising thoroughly before schools such as Felindre, on the outskirts of Swansea, are closed. Now, as the governing bodies at Felindre and Lôn Las school, nearby, have unanimously agreed on the principle of federalisation, isn’t it the role of the education authority in Swansea to assist Felindre school in every way possible to bring this about? Now, there’s no mention of this in the cabinet papers of the city and county of Swansea this week. So, is it possible to have a statement on what oversight the Welsh Government has in terms of ensuring that our counties follow national guidance, such as the school organisation code, and what sanctions are in place if they fail to do so?

And, secondly, Trefnydd, you will be aware that last Friday the independent review into the Swansea bay city deal was released. That review, conducted by Actica Consulting, was commissioned, of course, by both the UK and Welsh Governments. What flows from this report is a number of recommendations for change in order to improve governance and speed up delivery. It is clear from reading the report that there are frustrations from both the UK and the Welsh Governments' perspective and from the regional local authorities in terms of how the city deal is progressing. It raises a number of questions as to the effectiveness of the structure of the Swansea bay city deal. What strikes me is that there is much improvement to be made in terms of the working relationship between the Welsh and UK Governments and the local authorities. When the first recommendation looks to encourage, and I quote, 'direct and regular face-to-face' talks, you know that something is not quite right. In a scheme of this magnitude, you would expect direct and regular face-to-face talks to be a prerequisite.

What is also striking is the slow pace at which cash is being released by Welsh and UK Governments. Recommendation 7 makes reference to the fact Welsh and UK Governments should ensure that funding is released immediately for Yr Egin, Carmarthen, and the Swansea waterfront projects. The theory behind the city deal structure in Swansea bay is that funding should be provided by both Governments early on to front-load the funding profile of projects, enabling them to be delivered. However, we have a farcical situation whereby Yr Egin development in Carmarthen has been built, has been officially opened last year, and is nearly fully occupied, yet the UK and Welsh Governments have still not released the funding. People are rightly asking, 'What is going on here?' Now, I appreciate that there's an informal briefing to AMs arranged for tomorrow morning, but a number of Assembly Members will clearly not be able to attend that session due to the need to attend committees here. With that in mind, could I ask the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport to bring forward a statement on the Swansea bay city deal in this Chamber so that we can discuss in public the next steps for the city deal? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for raising both of these issues. As you say, the Deputy Minister has offered a briefing to Assembly Members tomorrow on the Swansea bay city deal and the independent review that was undertaken. I realise that some Members won't be able to attend that, so I will speak to the Deputy Minister to explore whether there's another opportunity for Members to have that opportunity to have a face-to-face discussion with him in the first instance to go through that report. And, of course, the economy Minister will be taking questions in the Chamber tomorrow afternoon, so this would be another opportunity to raise that issue there. 

I'm very well aware of the issues facing Felindre school, but also Craigcefnparc school, both of which are in my constituency, and I've certainly, in my AM role, made representations on behalf of the community. I would encourage you to write to the education Minister if there is any lack of clarity in terms of the role of Welsh Government in the decision-making process and the advice that we provide to local authorities in these kinds of circumstances. 

The biggest killer of young women is cervical cancer, and I think there's a great campaign going on at the moment across the UK to get young women to overcome any embarrassment they have about their bodies and to come forward and have cervical screens, which can save their lives in many cases. But I'm dismayed to read that, in England, there is absolute chaos in the laboratories, where they're amalgamating laboratories from 50 to nine, and that's producing huge delays in the rate at which people get the result of their screens back. I just wondered if you could give us an update on what the state of the laboratory testing is in Wales, and whether we've been protected from such chaos that has been developed by the UK Government. 

Thank you for raising this issue. We're certainly in a very different place in Wales to the position that England is finding itself in, because, of course, we're the only country in the UK to offer high-risk HPV testing as the primary test to all people attending for cervical screening. This is a more sensitive and more accurate test, and its use will prevent more cancers than the previous test, which is still the test used across the rest of the UK. We know that over 99 per cent of cervical cancers are caused by high-risk strains of HPV. Public Health Wales, which delivers the cervical screening programme, successfully rolled out our approach in September. Cervical Screening Wales prepared for the implementation of the new screening for several years, so they've ensured that they maintain staff and sustain the service throughout that transition to the new test. So, we haven't had the same issues that they're seeing across the border. 

I'm glad that you mentioned the new campaign, which is being launched currently. It's called #loveyourcervix. It's just been launched this week, I believe, and it's to encourage young people particularly to go for their test, because we know that, even though we have a good story to tell in terms of how quickly we can give people their test results, actually we are seeing a decline in the number of people showing up for screening, particularly younger women, who are the demographic of most concern to us. 

Organiser, could I seek two statements, or certainly one statement and some confirmation from you? Confirmation, in the first instance: when on earth will we get the decision from the Welsh Government around the environmental impact assessment on the Barry incinerator? I seem to stand up here every month, and I think we're into month 13 now. The Member for the Vale of Glamorgan and the Deputy Minister is sitting there; the First Minister is sitting there. The Welsh Government gave a commitment in February of last year that it was minded to instruct that an environmental impact assessment would be required for the incinerator in Barry. We are now in March 2019. Last week, NRW issued a notice to say that they were content for new conditions to be applied for the discharge from the plant. I don't blame NRW, because, from my meetings with NRW, they have no role to play in this decision, they don't, as to whether an EIA is required or not. So, can we today at least have some confirmation of when that might be with us? Because when people hear other Members in this Chamber talking about the future of this institution in Barry, they most probably do question what is the worth when commitments are made in this Chamber and they're not seen through. And can we have a 'yes' or a 'no' at the very least, please?

Secondly, could I seek a statement from the Deputy Minister for transport in relation to the developments around the improvements to junction 34 from Sycamore Cross in the Vale of Glamorgan? Some people would call it 'improvements', some people would call it 'vandalism of the countryside'—you can be anywhere in between. This is about the proposals to deliver a new road linking junction 32 to Sycamore Cross on the A48. There are works being undertaken at the moment on certain sections of that road, and I think an updated position of what the new Minister's position and view is about Welsh Government support for this project would be most welcome. As I said, there is a new Minister in position now and, if this project is to go forward, it would have to have Welsh Government support, both financially and politically, for this project to be delivered. So a statement of intent would be appreciated to understand. 

Thank you very much. On the Barry incinerator, I'm afraid the position remains as it has thus far in that, as soon as the legal advice is available to us, then we will be able to provide that decision. Unfortunately, I'm unable today to give you a date for that. 

On the issue of your query regarding junction 34, of course, there's the opportunity for you to raise this matter directly with the Minister during his questions tomorrow. Alternatively, if the opportunity doesn't arise, I would certainly recommend writing to the Minister for that clarity. 

On Thursday, we'll observe the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and it comes just after the horrific race-based far-right attack that killed 50 people and wounded just as many as they were worshipping in New Zealand. And yesterday, of course, there was another terrorist attack in the Netherlands. Many people are feeling nervous, understandably, in the current climate, so what can the Government do to reassure people, especially those Muslim citizens of Wales who may be feeling especially exposed, that their concerns are going to be taken seriously? This is particularly important in the light of populist politicians and others joining in with hate speech against them. What also can be done with the social media companies who've been held responsible for fuelling and multiplying this hatred? I'd like to see a statement in response to those questions. I'd also welcome some sort of agreement in principle of an open and united show of solidarity to indicate that, as citizens of Wales, we are all one and that we abhor racism, supremacism and hatred in all of its forms. So, will you agree to that in principle?

Today's publication of a House of Commons committee report describes how some women have found themselves having no other option other than to turn to prostitution as a result of the Tories' benefit reforms, which have been, of course, driven by austerity. It's no wonder that many women have found themselves pushed into this predicament. The House of Commons Library estimates that, looking at all the changes to taxes and to benefits from between 2010 and 2017, 86 per cent of the reduction in Government spending is spending on women. The fact remains that all women, no matter what job, background or circumstances, but especially those women working in the sex industry, have the right to be safe. Our aim, surely, should be towards working towards a world where all women are free from abuse, sexual violence and assault. Sex workers' voices must be heard and they must be included in that vision. And that's why I've given my backing to the Make All Women Safe campaign. What plans does the Welsh Government have to look into this matter in detail in Wales, which is clearly affecting more and more people as welfare reform doubles down?

Thank you for raising both of those issues, and I'd certainly agree with you that any kind of race-based discrimination, or discrimination of any kind, but particularly in the context of what's happened over the past few days, has absolutely no place at all in Wales. And you'll be pleased to see that the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip has just today provided a written statement that outlines Welsh Government's approach to this issue, particularly the discussions that have been had with the police and other services in order to ensure that the Muslim community in particular is supported not to feel vulnerable and fearful at what is clearly a very, very difficult time.

On the House of Commons report, of course, later on today we have a debate on the impact of welfare reform and, as you say, many women are finding themselves pushed into sex work as a result of finding themselves in poverty as a result of welfare reform. Welsh Government has been engaged on this issue. I was at an event with Julie James in her previous capacity, when she was in charge of equalities, which was an event alongside the police and other organisations looking to support sex workers, particularly in that case in Swansea, but I know a lot of good co-operative and collaborative work goes on across all sectors to support women who find themselves in that position.

Further to my recent request for a statement on rip-off prices for through train tickets via Bridgend, can I repeat that call? I had an interesting Twitter exchange yesterday between me, my constituent and, fair play, a very engaged Transport for Wales Twitter account operator, and it revealed that (a) the same ticket from Maesteg to London, compared to Bridgend to London is £31 more expensive, when a ticket from Maesteg to Bridgend is £2.60; secondly, that disparity didn't exist, my constituent insists, prior to TfW, although TfW refute this; but thirdly, TfW say that this is Great Western Railway pricing policy over which they have no say whatsoever. Now, that's fascinating, because we are only two or three stops up the line for a £31 difference. So, could we please have a statement from the Minister that clarifies the responsibilities of TfW and GWR on through ticket pricing through Bridgend, and whether it's acceptable that passengers on the Llynfi valley line are, due to their auspicious ostentatious wealth, their yachts and second-home apartments in downtown Manhattan, expected to pay for the privilege of subsidising poor inter-city travellers from Bath or Bristol or even Bridgend in their wealthy mansions down there?

Secondly, could we have a debate on climate change, following the protest by young people under the climate strike banner? Now, this would allow the Minister, who's here today, to set out her ambitions for Wales to lead the way by turning Wales into a nation where it is genuinely an active travel nation, where it is more natural to cycle and to walk and to take public transport rather than to slump behind a steering wheel; where we respond positively to the Institute of Welsh Affairs report to move to 100 per cent renewables by 2030 and create 20,000 green jobs per year in renewables every year; where all new homes are zero carbon or positive energy; where we accelerate our programme of retrofitting older homes, creating more green jobs; and where we halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity and so much more? Now, some people will criticise these young people for taking a day skiving off school, but I have to say that I thank them for reminding us of our privilege and our responsibility as politicians to tackle global warming and for Wales to lead the way, even if the UK has lost its way. Wales now needs to live by the adage 'Be the change you want', and a debate would allow the Minister to hear ideas of how we could do this and to set out her stall on how Wales can be that global leader.

Thank you very much. On the issue of train ticket pricing, I know that the Minister for Economy and Transport will write to you shortly on this matter, but it is a historical issue that goes back to the point of rail privatisation in 1998, and journey flows allocated to rail franchisees were allotted to the primary operator, which is normally either the operator whose services are direct over the specified route or the operator whose service operates over the greater part of that route, which is why, in some cases, it will be GWR and, in others, it will be Transport for Wales. So, the issue is highly complex and I'll certainly make sure that you do get a full response to that query.

With regard to climate change, clearly it's one of the greatest threats facing all of us, but I certainly encourage young people to be having their say and to be shaping the debate and to engage with Welsh Government in order to bring about the actions that we need to strengthen our response to climate change. You'll be pleased to know that the First Minister is launching our first low-carbon delivery plan on Thursday of this week, and this sets out the actions we'll take to meet our first carbon budget. These actions will cover key emissions sectors, such as transport, agriculture, land use, buildings, power and waste. As part of that launch, we have included young people and they'll be speaking at our launch event as well. So, once that plan is published and Members have had the opportunity to look at it, we'll bring it back to the Assembly after the Easter recess for a chance to discuss it.

Trefnydd, could I ask for two statements, please? I'm aware of a peak-hours embargo on abnormal load movements, including abnormal load movements of carrying caravans, on almost all roads in the greater Manchester police area. From 1 April, vehicles will be stopped and not allowed to continue their journey during peak hours, as I understand this. This will affect a number of holiday parks in mid and north Wales because Hull is a centre for the UK caravan manufacturing industry, and timely and effective distribution of caravans is, of course, essential for the viability of the sector. So, I'd appreciate it if the economy and transport Minister could liaise with greater Manchester police and a statement could follow to clarify the impact on Wales in this regard, as, clearly, there is a significant impact in regard to these movements affecting the tourism sector here, and, as I understand it, there hasn't been any consultation. So, I would be interested if the Welsh Government has been consulted on this particular issue.

Secondly, the recent high river levels and flooding downstream of Clywedog has been a concern. I did hear your response to Janet Finch-Saunders and recognise a statement was issued last week, but my specific concern centres on the management of the draw-down from the two dams in my constituency and I would be grateful—. It would be helpful to receive a statement on the Welsh Government's current position on the management of water levels at Welsh dams and, in particular, of course, the two that I'm interested in, Clywedog reservoir and Lake Vyrnwy. 

Thank you for those issues. On the first, I'll certainly ensure that the economy Minister writes to you with regard to any discussions that we have had with Manchester police or the local authority there in order to ensure there is smooth movement of traffic so that it doesn't affect our tourism industry in your part of the world particularly.

And may I suggest that you write to the environment Minister on the issue of the draw-down from the two dams that you're particularly concerned about?

Trefnydd, further to the points raised by my colleague Leanne Wood, I'm very grateful to the Deputy Minister for equalities for her written statement in response to the dreadful occurrences in New Zealand and now, of course, in the Netherlands. However, I would ask Government to reconsider whether we could, in fact, have this presented as an oral statement to enable us to scrutinise and to further challenge the Government on what actions are being taken to counter far-right extremism and extremism of any kind.

Of course, the written statement sets out a lot of the existing work that's already going on and that's work that, certainly, all of us in Plaid Cymru would strongly welcome, but the Deputy Minister in her statement refers, of course, to the vigil that was organised on Friday by the Muslim Council of Wales. I was very pleased to see the First Minister and other senior politicians there. I was very glad to represent Plaid Cymru. The Deputy Minister, I'm sure, will remember us being very strongly challenged by one of the young Muslim speakers, saying, 'You have to do better'. And I'm afraid that I rather feel that what we've got in the written statement is a statement of what has already been done, and it is good, but I think it's incumbent upon us across the political spectrum to provide reassurance, but also to look at other additional actions. I, for example, would be very interested to see the Government committing to funding some research to look at what are effective strategies for dealing with extremism of all kinds and to counter its growth, because we know that some of the current strategies being taken, for example through the Prevent programme, are not always successful.

So, I would ask if you could possibly reconsider—. I mean, ideally, a debate in Government time would be best because we can contribute fully, but, failing the time for a debate—and I appreciate how much time pressure there is in this Chamber—and if a debate is impossible, I would ask the Deputy Minister to bring the written statement as an oral statement so that we can ask further questions. 

Thank you very much. Of course, the Deputy Minister was here to hear your contribution. I'm sure that she will give it some further consideration.

May I start by joining the leaders from across the Chamber and the First Minister in congratulating the Welsh rugby team on their fantastic win this weekend? They should be incredibly proud of what they've achieved over the last weeks, and I'm looking forward to seeing them coming back from Japan at the end of November with the World Cup and bringing the tourism trade with them, as the First Minister's already alluded to previously.

Llywydd, I know that the Member for Blaenau Gwent has taken a keen interest in the Irn-Bru Cup, and that's why I hope he, along with the Trefnydd, will wish Connor's Quay Nomads all the very best for their final versus Ross County on the weekend. Everyone in Deeside is fully behind the team, and I look forward to making the journey up to Inverness this weekend and meeting with a fan who's flown from Australia for the game. That's how important it is to the people of north Wales.

But, Llywydd, don't worry, the sport doesn't stop there, there's more to come. At the end of the month, I'll be lacing up my boots. I'll be coming out of retirement and playing for the Offside Trust versus the cast of Hollyoaks. But on a more serious note, Deputy Llywydd, will the Trefnydd make a statement and arrange for the relevant Minister to make a statement on what's being done to support charities like the Offside Trust who support victims and survivors of child sex abuse so that we can ensure we do stamp out abuse in sport once and for all? Thank you.

Thank you very much to Jack Sargeant for raising what is a really serious and important issue. I remember, when I was in the sporting portfolio, I was very keen to explore how we could best work with the governing bodies to ensure that children and young people were safe when they were taking part in sport. I know that the current sports Minister will write to you with an update on those kinds of discussions. And, of course, I take every opportunity to wish the Connah's Quay Nomads the best, as I do most teams—[Laughter.]—and I thank Jack for raising this again.

Could I request two statements, please, particularly if they're not raised in topical questions tomorrow? The first is one on the situation with Dawnus construction, and while I thank Welsh Government for the short written statement that was received at the end of last week, I think it would be very valuable for Members to have the opportunity to ask questions, for the collapse of such an important company to the Welsh economy is definitely worth an oral statement, I think.

Secondly, I would just endorse Dai Lloyd's request for a statement on the Swansea bay city deal. While I share his frustrations regarding the speed at which some of the money is being released, that's hardly surprising when you consider that there have been some serious questions raised about risk management, possibly in conflicts of interests across the city deal governance structure. If we could have an oral statement on that, I think that would be extremely important because the future of this is serious and it's such an important opportunity for our region, which, of course, includes your constituency, that it would be a shame if we don't get a chance to discuss it fully. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You'll remember that Ken Skates did make a written statement on Dawnus immediately following the news at the end of last week, and officials are monitoring the progress of administration proceedings. We'll certainly be working with the administrator, once appointed, to ensure the best possible outcome for everybody who is affected. Officials are also working with partner agencies in the private sector to support direct employees who have been affected by the news. And we realise, of course, that this is a very upsetting time for everyone concerned, and we'll seek to support the individuals affected into new and secure long-term employment.

Welsh Government has also engaged with the Construction Industry Training Board to try and ensure that there can be new placements identified for apprentices so that they can complete their training programme. And, of course, there will be some significant impacts to the Welsh supply chain, so we're working with the Development Bank of Wales to support those businesses who have been affected.

Obviously, there will be some significant ongoing Welsh public sector contracts that are affected, and we will work with the administrator to ensure that the delay, disruption and any additional costs are kept to a minimum. I've spoken about this issue to Ken Skates this morning, and I know that he will welcome the opportunity during questions tomorrow to provide further information and to keep the Assembly as up to date as possible.

I, too, would like to ask for two statements from the Government this afternoon, firstly on the media and access to news in Wales. We've heard in recent weeks that two commercial stations serving Wales are withdrawing their locally produced breakfast shows, and we heard last week that Radio Wales is withdrawing Good Morning Wales and replacing that in May. Taken together, this is a significant issue for a country that is already very short of access to news and current affairs about not only the governance of Wales, but what happens in this country. And I hope that the Government will be able to take a view on these matters and provide an opportunity for Members to discuss and debate these issues and then look forward to how we might address the very real issues facing us in terms of a news and current affairs deficit in this country.

The second statement I'd like from the Government, if possible, is to follow up the motion that the Welsh Government laid in front of Members some weeks ago that included a commitment to start to prepare for a public vote to allow the public to have a final say on any negotiations or any deal with the European Union. Now, I'm aware that the First Minister is making a statement on the negotiations around the European Union crisis, if you like, later this afternoon, immediately after this statement. But I would like to hear from the Welsh Government on what Ministers have been doing to deliver on the commitment made both by Welsh Government and then supported by Members across the whole of this Chamber to begin preparations for such a vote to take place. It would be useful for Members, I think, to understand what actions individual Ministers have been taking and what actions the Welsh Government has been taking in order to promote this policy and in order to ensure that a public vote takes place to enable all of us to have a democratic final say on issues around Brexit and the European Union.

Thank you very much. In relation to commercial radio in the first instance, obviously, the sector makes a vital contribution when we consider the importance of ensuring plurality of services in Wales. As a Government, we certainly don't want to see the further relaxation or removal of the current localness rules on commercial radio. We've regularly emphasised this to Ofcom, and in addition, we've raised this issue in the context of the Assembly's Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee's inquiry into radio in Wales. We appreciate that commercial radio operations must be financially viable in order to be sustainable, but we do urge Ofcom to engage with the industry to identify other options to support the sustainability of commercial radio, without relaxing those localness rules, especially in relation to local news provision.

With regard to the issue of BBC News, BBC Cymru or BBC Wales's breakfast provision in future, I understand that there have been proposals to change that, and I would suggest that you raise your concerns directly with the relevant Minister, who will be able to make representations on your behalf.

And, as you say, we do have a statement from the First Minister on Brexit as the next item in the Chamber this afternoon, and I would suggest that you raise the issue during that statement.

I call for two statements. First, on apprenticeship funding, a week ago, in the Chamber, the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport delivered a statement on apprenticeships and investing in skills for the future. During his contribution, he said, that there is

'a conjuring trick taking place by the UK Government on the funding of apprenticeships, because we were not given additional funding to reflect the levy. The levy is...a tax on businesses and we've not had the funding passed on—£120 million or so was cut by the Government in England on public sector apprenticeships, and, lo and behold, £120 million appeared in our budget to fund this scheme.'

However, a letter dated 20 July 2018 from the UK Home Secretary to Eluned Morgan, who was then Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning, said that the amount of money being passed to the Welsh Government under the Barnett formula has been guaranteed in the spending review. The sum uses £128 million in 2017-18, rising to £133 million in 2018-19 and £138 million in 2019-20. So, could we have a statement clarifying (a) how much the Welsh Government received under the previous system, (b) how much public services in Wales are having to pay into the levy, which the Welsh Government then has to compensate with the amount it receives from the UK Government, and (c) confirming that it is actually receiving the figures covered in that letter from the Home Secretary last July, or otherwise if you have evidence to the contrary?

Secondly, could I have a Welsh Government statement, please, on support for standard gauge heritage railways in Wales? And I'm sure that many of us love our heritage railways. I've been asked to bring to the attention of elected representatives an article in the Denbighshire Free Press earlier this month on Llangollen Railway's Corwen project. This said that volunteers building the link between two Denbighshire towns say they need £10,000 to finally complete the project. They've completed 10 miles of the line between Llangollen and Corwen since trains stopped running 45 years ago, a platform has been created, but a gap remains in the embankment between the new station in Corwen and the rest of the line, and the aim is to fill that gap. The project for the terminal is costing about £1 million. Approximately £600,000 has been down to the work of volunteers, and they want to, hopefully, complete this before the summer season, because attracting people to join the train at Corwen is essential and the town will benefit from the additional visitors too.

If I could call for a statement on support for our standard gauge heritage railways—because we know the Welsh Government does support our narrow gauge heritage railways—and applaud and see how we can support that massive volunteering effort, which is not only delivering heritage projects, but also offering so much to the tourism and broader economies of areas that so much need that stimulus.

Thank you for raising that. I will certainly write to you with the clarity you require relating to the apprenticeship levy, and I will also make sure that the appropriate Minister writes to you regarding the standard gauge heritage railways, but I will take this opportunity to join you in congratulating the volunteers on the work that they do in order to preserve this part of our heritage and our history, and also to promote and enhance tourism. 

And finally, Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for health on the recent findings with regard to cervical screening in Wales? Cervical Screening Wales said that a third of women under 30 years of age are snubbing invites to be tested for cervical cancer, which is really a dreadful disease. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer among young women. As with all cancers, the earlier the disease is diagnosed, the better the outcomes for the patient that can be achieved. Can we have a statement from the Minister on what action he intends to take to increase the number of young women having this vital screening in Wales?

And the second statement I would like to have in this Chamber is on community cohesion and safety. In the light of what happened in New Zealand, I hope this country will set an example as the most loving, understanding and for cohesion among the communities and the well-being of everybody who lives in this part of the world, and debate it in the Chamber regularly, to guide the world on how we live and how we improve our standard. Thank you.

Thank you very much. On the issue of cervical cancer, I refer you to the answer I gave to Jenny Rathbone earlier on this afternoon, but recognise, as you say, that earlier diagnosis is extremely important, which is why the turnaround times for cervical test results in Wales—we work very hard to ensure that we exceed our target of 95 per cent of results being received within four weeks, with actually 99.2 per cent of women receiving their test within the standard time, so I think that that is a testament to the work that's going on in that area. But as I said earlier, we're certainly not complacent, and would encourage Members to get involved with the #loveyourcervix campaign, which is particularly aimed at young women, who are currently the group who are least likely to attend for their screening.

I can only agree with and echo your point about Wales being a loving, understanding and welcoming country, and I hope that that was reflected in the written statement that the Deputy Minister put out earlier on today.

Thank you very much, Rebecca Evans.

Item 3 on the agenda is a statement by the First Minister on an update on the EU negotiations, and I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last week saw another opportunity for the UK Government to take meaningful steps to avoid the disaster of a 'no deal' Brexit. Either the Prime Minister would succeed in getting her deal through the Parliament, clearing the way for a brief extension to article 50 to pass the necessary legislation, or Parliament would instruct her to ask the European Council for an article 50 extension in any case. A series of parliamentary votes would give the UK Government an opportunity to put an end to the uncertainty damaging our economy, and impacting the lives of communities across the UK and abroad.

But, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will reach the end of the week having made no progress at all. Despite the expressed view of the House of Commons, the UK Government hasn’t requested an extension as of yet, or hasn’t said publicly that leaving without a deal is off the table. The disastrous failure of the Prime Minister’s deal for the second time confirms what we have known from the outset. The Democratic Unionist Party and the European Research Group are the very groups who want to see a 'no deal' Brexit, and relying on them to vote in favour of an agreement that doesn’t satisfy them, and doesn’t satisfy those of us who want to minimise the economic damage of Brexit, was utterly absurd.

The only thing that the Prime Minister succeeded in doing last week was to further damage our country’s interests, and make it more likely that we will leave without an agreement on 29 March.

Last week, Dirprwy Lywydd, we witnessed the contrived drama of Mrs May’s last-minute dash to Strasbourg to hail a new set of recycled commitments from the EU-27. These commitments were already implicit or explicit in the withdrawal agreement agreed in November and which the Prime Minister reneged on in January. We then looked on in amazement as she failed to secure the endorsement of her own law officer for the claims that she had made.

And, by demonstrating the truth—that the EU-27 had done all they could to make the deal acceptable without abandoning the EU principles of solidarity between member states and respect for the single market—the Prime Minister has helped the EU-27 show that any irretrievable breakdown of these negotiations is down to the political mismanagement of the Tory Government.

The result is that we are now at the cliff edge. There is no guarantee that the Prime Minister’s blackmail Brexit will pay off. If, as now seems likely, she asks for the article 50 extension without any clear plan, it is by no means certain that the EU-27 will achieve the unanimity necessary to agree it. If they do, they may set conditions, including the requirement to hold European elections in two months’ time, which the UK Government in turn may refuse.

And, even if an extension is agreed, we will be in unknown territory. Far too often in this process, Dirprwy Lywydd, the myopic little Englanders of the Brexit movement forget that there are two Parliaments that have to ratify any deal. The European Parliament has to vote on it by 18 April—its last plenary session before its election—or the process will need to start with a new and potentially very different European Parliament later in the year.

Now, even without the intervention of the Speaker of the House of Commons yesterday, it was clear that the Prime Minister had run out of road. By the third day of votes last week, her Cabinet had splintered. The Brexit Secretary closed the debate by putting forward the motion for the extension and urging MPs not to vote as he himself intended, alongside five other Cabinet Ministers.

The Secretary of State for Wales took the precaution of voting twice: once for, and once against the motion in the name of his own Prime Minister. That motion was only passed with the votes of the opposition. We have a Government that continues to suffer defeat after defeat, a Cabinet as divided as ever, and a Prime Minister unable to unite her own party, and certainly not the nation. On the single most important issue for that Government, there is no leadership, no collective responsibility and no control. 

Surely, Dirprwy Lywydd, the moment has arrived when the Government, with or without the Prime Minister, has to change course to build a cross-party consensus—not to try to peel off a handful of rebels and malcontents, but by securing the support of party leaders from across the House of Commons—and to make that the basis on which we seek an extension to article 50.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, this will not happen if the Government and the bulk of Tory MPs are painted into a corner by the Prime Minister’s red lines: 'no' to the single market; 'no' to a customs union; 'no' to a sensible approach to migration. The disastrous strategy set out in her Lancaster House speech is being played out to its disastrous conclusion. We have worked hard to prepare Wales for the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit, but there is only so much we can do to mitigate what would be an unmitigated disaster for Wales.

We continue to represent our national interest at every opportunity. Vaughan Gething last week attended the first four nations ministerial health meeting. We have held meetings this week of our own Cabinet and our own Cabinet sub-committee on EU transition. The Counsel General and Brexit Minister will be speaking to David Lidington this afternoon, having met MEPs in Strasbourg last week.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, as I’ve made clear repeatedly in this Chamber, in our view, there are two ways in which progress could be made. We continue to advocate the policy we have taken ever since the referendum: a form of Brexit that puts the economic interests of our country ahead of political posturing and grandstanding, and which puts jobs before grandiloquent but empty phrases about taking control of our money, our borders and our laws. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, not only is our plan right in principle, but we believe it is deliverable in practice. Renegotiating the political declaration in this fashion, by committing to participation in a customs union and the single market, together with dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union, would be welcomed, as we know, by the EU27 and, we believe, could be achieved quickly and outside the withdrawal agreement itself.

Last week, this Welsh Government published draft clauses to show how such changes could be anchored in primary legislation—another example of Wales injecting creative solutions into an otherwise deadlocked process. That deadlock, Dirprwy Lywydd, is the product of the toxic mixture of incompetence and intransigence that has become the hallmark of the UK Government. It is because it is so difficult to have faith in its ability to secure an orderly Brexit that we continue to support a second public vote if that deadlock cannot otherwise be broken. That is the position we have set out in this Chamber, and I repeat it again today, but no-one, as we know, should assume that it would be straightforward.

A second vote is a proposition that is yet to secure a majority in the House of Commons. It would require a longer extension than 30 June, with all that it implies for European elections. And a second referendum campaign would be fought in a way that would inevitably be divisive. But let me reiterate again: if the House of Commons decides that a public vote is the way through the morass that has been created, then the Welsh Government will support that course of action.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we stand on the very precipice of the cliff. With just 10 days before we are due to leave the European Union, there is no deal, and there is very little sign from the Prime Minister of a willingness or a plan to find a new deal. Let her change course. Let her put the needs of the country before those of her fractured party. Let her reach out to others who are willing to help, and let her do it before it is all too late.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon?

It is with regret that, for some politicians, across all parties, the process of leaving the European Union has been used as a political football, and I'm disappointed that the First Minister has chosen to contribute to this through his consistent opposition to anything and everything the UK Government has done to break the deadlock. I'm sure many people across the UK feel great frustration that with so little time before we leave the EU, the constant to-ing and fro-ing continues to dominate the political landscape. And I had hoped that at least in this institution, the people of Wales could be sure of a mature debate on what is quite simply the biggest issue facing us as Assembly Members. Therefore, my first question to the First Minister is to ask what immediate discussions he's had with both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition at Westminster to ensure that the transition away from the European Union is dealt with robustly, fairly and without the need for political point scoring.

As the First Minister is aware, last week MPs voted to grant an extension to article 50. Of course, the length of that extension will depend on whether the Prime Minister's current deal is finally approved by Westminster. The First Minister is fully aware that I've supported the Prime Minister's deal because I believe it will respect the result of the referendum, but it would also ensure that our businesses will be able to continue trading on a reciprocal basis with the European Union. However, if the deal is finally approved, then of course article 50 will have to be extended in order to get the legislation through. Perhaps the First Minister could tell us what representations he has made regarding the extension of article 50. However, I have to tell the First Minister that I think it will be unacceptable to the people and businesses of Wales for the First Minister to encourage the extension of article 50 past June, aggravating the frustration and adding the distraction of the European elections to the Brexit process. Many people will question the relevance of these elections to an institution we are due to and will be leaving.

The First Minister has just said in his statement that taking control of our money, our border and our laws is an empty phrase, but this is exactly what the British and Welsh people voted for, and it is this that the Prime Minister is trying to deliver on. However, I am very pleased that the First Minister wants to see dynamic alignment with the social, environmental and labour market standards of the European Union, but the Prime Minister has pipped him to it, and has committed to strengthening them once we actually leave the European Union.

I agree with the First Minister that it's of critical importance that absolutely everything is done to mitigate the impact of leaving without a deal, particularly for Welsh businesses, many of whom are heavily integrated in European markets. The First Minister will be all too aware of the severe impact that EU tariffs coupled with a potential 'no deal' Brexit scenario could have on many smaller producers and supply chains across Welsh industry, especially Welsh hill farmers, who will be hit by higher tariffs. With little time on our hands, perhaps the First Minister could update us on what emergency discussions he has had and is having with Welsh business leaders.

As I've said before in this Chamber, I'm keen to constructively work with the Welsh Government where I can in order to best protect Wales's interests, and I want to reiterate that commitment this afternoon. Of course, the critical events in recent weeks could have a serious effect on the UK's ability to develop international trade deals, which will be crucial in helping to develop the Welsh economy post Brexit, as would the First Minister's party's wish to bind us in the EU customs union—the very definition of which denies us the ability to have a say in trade deals. When the First Minister formed his Government, he was quick to establish a Minister with direct responsibility for Brexit, and a Minister with direct responsibility for international trade. In light of those appointments, can the First Minister tell us what official guidance and assessments he's received from both departments on the impact of leaving the European Union, and Wales's ability to be involved in trade deals internationally in the future? Perhaps he could also confirm what work the Welsh Government has already undertaken to develop its own international trade strategy, so that Wales can hit the ground running once we leave the European Union and work with the UK Government's Department for International Trade.

Deputy Presiding Officer, Wales and indeed the rest of the United Kingdom is in unchartered territory. It's important that we do not lose sight of what's important here, and that's respecting the 2016 referendum result and ensuring the smoothest possible transition away from the European Union. In the past, the First Minister has shared my concerns over the constitutional character of the UK post Brexit, and Wales's place in that. Therefore, perhaps in response to my questions this afternoon he will also take the opportunity to update Members on the Welsh Government's assessment of the impact of Brexit on Wales in a constitutional context.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we on this side of the Chamber will work where we can with others to protect Wales's interests, both nationally and internationally. I look forward to hearing more about the Welsh Government's plans for Welsh industry post Brexit and I hope that the First Minister will now work constructively with the UK Government in the coming days and the coming weeks.

I thank the Member for a series of important questions. I want to refute what he said at the very beginning, because the Welsh Government certainly has not taken the view of being opposed to anything and everything that the UK Government has attempted in this field. We gave a modest welcome to the Florence speech, when the Prime Minister began to move back from the red lines that she'd set out in her Lancaster House speech. We gave a modest welcome to her Chequers plan. The problem that the Prime Minister has had has not been with the Welsh Government over that matter; it has been her difficulties in securing support from within her own party. How many Cabinet Ministers walked away from her Government as a result of the Chequers plan? And how many has she continued to lose on almost a weekly basis ever since? Where the UK Government has moved in our direction, we have sought to welcome that and to encourage them to do so. In the end, it has always been the Prime Minister's instance that her most import audience are those who sit behind her and who are irreconcilable to her plan that has been her undoing.

The Member asks when I last spoke to the Prime Minister; I spoke to her last week. I met the leader of the opposition just before the start of this half term, and I've discussed with them both. I'm very pleased to see this afternoon that the leader of the opposition is meeting party leaders in the House of Commons to try to do what the Prime Minister should have been doing now for many weeks, which is to reach out to other parties to find a different centre of gravity in the House of Commons where a deal could have been done.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I take absolutely at face value what the leader of the opposition says about wanting to play a constructive part himself, and I hope that he will use his position as leader of the Conservative Party in Wales to put the views that are so important on behalf of Wales to the Prime Minister herself, because I agreed with what he said about the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit in tariffs and non-tariff consequences on the Welsh economy, on our manufacturing sector, on our agricultural sector. Those are major, major difficulties that lie in our path should a 'no deal' Brexit take place, and any words that get into the ear of the Prime Minister about those difficulties are welcome.

The Member asked what we are doing to make sure that we are in touch with Welsh businesses. Well, we continue to encourage Welsh businesses to use the Brexit portal that we have established—30,000 visits to that. But it's one thing to visit the portal, it's another thing to take its advice and to do the diagnostic work that companies need to do to prepare themselves for the challenges that lie ahead. We are using our EU transition fund to continue to support businesses and other sectors in the Welsh economy to prepare for that world.

What we won't be able to do, Dirprwy Lywydd, is to indulge in the fantasy that exists among Conservative politicians that the world is simply waiting for a buccaneering Britain, that when we turn our back on our closest and most important market, that that will be replaced by these deals that are to be struck all around the world. There is no evidence for that at all. The Member knows perfectly well that the deals we already enjoy through our membership of the European Union are being denied to us the other side of the European Union. Far from having more trade deals around the world, we will start with far fewer than we have as a result of our EU membership.

Let me end with the very important final point that the leader of the opposition raised: the constitutional character of the United Kingdom the other side of Brexit. This is an issue on which my predecessor, the Member for Bridgend, has played a leading part across the United Kingdom, in trying to concentrate the minds of others on forming those ways of working inside the United Kingdom that will be necessary for it to go on operating successfully once we leave the European Union. Work was set in hand by Carwyn Jones and the First Minister of Scotland and the Prime Minister at a meeting of the JMC plenary in March of last year. That work is yet to be completed, and it is very difficult indeed to find people in the UK Government with the interest or the energy to work on that agenda when they are so overwhelmed by the difficulties that Brexit has created. But we continue to work on it, we continue to work on it with colleagues in Scotland, and we look forward to returning to that JMC plenary with a comprehensive report on all the different work strands that were agreed, because on them depends the orderly conduct of business across the United Kingdom when the European Union is no longer there.

First Minister, my colleagues at Westminster are meeting with Jeremy Corbyn as we speak, in order to explore cross-party co-operation in achieving, even at this late stage, a collaborative approach. We hope greater clarity will emerge about Labour's real position on Brexit. Last week, BBC Wales reported that a senior source inside the Welsh Labour Party—who may or may not be sitting, who knows, on your frontbenches—said that your lack of clarity over a people's vote was causing tensions in your Cabinet. They called your policy unsustainable and confusing. Your own AM—Torfaen's Lynne Neagle—described your position as ridiculous and unconvincing. Now, in your statement today, you said a second referendum would be divisive, possibly indecisive, though you would support it subsequently, if the House of Commons did first. It's difficult to conceive of a weaker endorsement of the case for a second referendum. You're rowing further and further away, First Minister, from the policy that we endorsed in this place in January, so much so that, if, miraculously, Jeremy Corbyn u-turns again, adopts a policy of a people's vote, following his meeting with Plaid Cymru this afternoon, you'll end up actually passing each other, facing opposite directions, like sinking ships in the night.

And then there's the question, First Minister, if another referendum were to happen, which way would you and the Labour Party campaign and vote? Interviewed by Sky News on Sunday, Jeremy Corbyn seemed, finally, to come off the fence. And then he got back on it. First, he conceded that there should be another referendum, on what he termed a credible deal to leave the European Union, by which he meant a deal negotiated by Labour to set up a new customs union and close alignment with the single market, and an option to remain in the EU. When he was pressed as to how he would vote in such a referendum, he answered that it was his preference to recognise the result of the 2016 referendum. Obfuscation is dead, long live obfuscation. What did he mean by that? First Minister, perhaps you can tell us here now. My colleagues in Westminster will certainly be asking him. But your statement today suggests that it's your preference too to secure your version of Brexit over a 'remain' result in any future referendum.

Finally, can I turn to the analysis for your Government by King's College London Professor Jonathan Portes, which has found that Wales will be harder hit than the rest of the UK by the proposed £30,000 minimum salary for skilled migrants who look to come to the UK from 2021? He said that, while average full-time earnings for the UK as a whole are not far off £30,000, in Wales they are significantly below that. Consequently, they would be a huge barrier to Welsh businesses seeking skilled professionals from abroad. He recommended a £20,000 minimum salary to apply to Wales. So far, the Welsh Government—as far as I've been able to find out—hasn't expressed a view about the results of its own research. So, First Minister, do you agree with Professor Portes, and, if so, what are you doing to persuade the UK Government to take his recommendations on board?

Well, Adam Price began by referring to the collaborative approach that is being attempted elsewhere, and I am very glad about that. And I am very glad that Members of his party, and other parties, will be coming together in order to try and find that different way through the House of Commons. 

In the middle part of what Adam had to say—he is obsessed with people who are not in this Assembly, and who are not answerable to it. So, I will simply speak for myself and the responsibilities that I discharge here. I believe that the Welsh Government has been consistent throughout and that there is absolute clarity in our position. It may be complicated, but it is clear, and it's the one that I've set out this afternoon—that there is a deal to be done on the basis of the proposals that we have consistently supported since they were first formulated in discussions with Plaid Cymru here in the Assembly, and we continue to support those proposals. I know the Member has moved far away from them in recent times, and, of course, he's quite entitled to do that, but we have not. We continue to believe that they provide a prescription that could work for Wales and that's my position today. 

It does no-one any good, when saying that they are in favour of a position, not to look at the difficulties that position might also entail. While I support—I say it again; I've said it so many times here—a second public vote as a way through a deadlocked House of Commons, it doesn't do anybody any favours not to look at the things that would have to be solved in the path of that solution, and that's what I tried to do this afternoon. And to dismiss them as though they didn't exist, as though a second referendum would not be divisive—. This issue is divisive in this Chamber, this issue is divisive in our society. If we have another vote—and if that's what we need, I will support it absolutely—then we know that there will be people who will take strongly different views on it, and to shake a head and to act as though that were not important does not do justice to the significance of that decision. 

What would the Welsh Government's position be were there to be a second referendum? Well, I've said this clearly many times as well—that if there is a second referendum, and remaining in the European Union is on that ballot paper, then nothing that I have seen in the last two and a half years leads me to believe that the advice we gave people in Wales in the first referendum was the wrong advice. We advised people then that people's future in Wales was best secured through continued membership of the European Union, and that would be my honest advice to people if we had another chance to vote on that. Wales's future is best secured through membership of the European Union. Now, many people here disagree—of course, they do. That's why I said that the debate would inevitably be one that would divide us. But that is my honest view. Nothing that I have seen in the meantime has changed it. It would be a difficult view to put to many Labour voters who take a different view to that. But if we have another public vote, and remaining in the European Union is on the ballot paper, the advice of this Government will be that that is in the best interest of Wales. 

Let me turn to the very final point—[Interruption.] Sorry, Dirprwy Lywydd. The very final point the Member made was about the Jonathan Portes report. It's the second report that Professor Portes has provided for the Welsh Government. I was very glad of a chance to meet him and to discuss his first report. What he does is to pinpoint two of the major flaws in the migration policy put forward by the UK Government: it's insistence on an arbitrary salary cap and it's insistence on an arbitrary division of the workforce into skilled and unskilled. Neither of those things work for Wales.

I spoke at length to the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee asking him whether he had done any analysis of those propositions on the Welsh economy. He told me that he hadn't. It's little wonder that Professor Portes—the leading expert on these matters in the UK—comes to a conclusion that says a £30,000 salary cap would be inimical to the interests of businesses, public services and universities in Wales. And describing people who work in our social care system as low skilled and, therefore, not needed to be recruited from other parts of the world flies in the face of the work that people from other parts of the European Union do every day in Wales providing services to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. We will support the conclusions of the Portes report, and when we've had a proper chance to digest it and to discuss it with the author, then we will make clear our conclusions from it.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? Though, by the six o'clock news tonight, some of it may be redundant, as the shambolic Government in Westminster runs around trying to change it and produce new definitions of its own existing deal to keep it on those papers. There are a couple of points I want to raise with you. We've obviously heard arguments about where we are with the process, and we are now less than 10 days away from exit under the law—as we know is there in law at the moment—and the decisions of the UK Government over two and a half years have actually got nowhere on this process. But we are now in a position where we know, if a 'no deal' exists, we now have tariffs being introduced. They were announced last week and published last week by the UK Government. Perhaps you can give an indication as to how those tariffs would impact upon the Welsh economy, particularly in relation to Welsh ports, because part of those tariff discussions include no tariff between Northern Ireland and Ireland, which clearly would encourage Irish businesses to transport their goods through Northern Ireland on to Liverpool because there'll be no checks on that aspect either? That would impact very much upon Welsh ports. The discussions you're having with the UK Government as to how they will secure investment and the productivity of those Welsh ports will be critical.

In relation to the discussions on an extension, we don't know how long it will be, we don't know what she intends—she's talking about a short one and a long one. We don't even know whether, as you say, the EU-27 will agree to it either, because there has to be a purpose and I've not yet heard a purpose. Has she given you a purpose in any discussions she's had with you as to what that extension will actually try to achieve? Because we all talk about it, but we don't know what the intention is or what it's purpose will be. 

Do you also agree with me that we are playing games and there are serious consequences to those games, because of the relationship she's having with the DUP behind closed doors? It is clear from the information we're getting that there's a possibility of the DUP being offered a seat at the table in trade negotiations. What will happen to both the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation to that operation? But also funding—what argument is going to be put into place as to how she can justify giving more money to the DUP, when we again get nothing out of this and therefore we see an impact upon our economies as we crash out without a deal because 60 per cent of our exports go to the EU? So, where are we with that?

The leader of the opposition highlighted businesses' preparation for a 'no deal', but can you also give us information as to what you're doing with local government, because, again, local government will be seriously hit, and public bodies such as health bodies, because we all know the implications for our health services of the 'no deal' scenarios? Unfortunately—not what a lot of people would want to happen next week—we are moving closer and closer and closer to a 'no deal' scenario.

I do have a conspiracy theory that perhaps the UK Government and the Prime Minister in particular likes to move towards this because it suits their needs—an extension, a long extension to come back with—. That's going to push Brexiteers into accepting her deal. It's clearly a move, and based upon her actions last week, where she promised a free vote on Tuesday night after she lost the vote in the House by 149—she got up and actually promised a free vote to her party on a 'no deal'. On the following day, she actually then changed her mind and whipped her Members against her own motion. So, how can she be trusted in reality to actually deliver on commitments she's made at the despatch box? Because she promised this at the despatch box, and that's an important aspect. We have to have confidence in a deal being offered by the Prime Minister. If our Prime Minister is not even meeting her own promises to her own party, how can we trust that coming to us?

On the trade agreements again, First Minister, we had a discussion last week on the LCM on the Trade Bill, but I'm going to ignore the Trade Bill for the moment—let's look at the continuity trade agreements that were being discussed. I understand six are now done, but can you confirm as to whether the Welsh Government had sight of those trade agreements prior to them being signed? Have you insisted upon seeing other trade agreements prior to signature? Because these have a major impact upon the Welsh economy and these are changing policy. They're not as simple as a carry-over; there are changes to policy as a consequence of these. So, where are we in getting the situation of having a Welsh voice in those agreements before they are signed.

Can you also tell us—? Legislation—one of the arguments she's using for an extension is because we haven't got time to put all the legislation through. How much legislation is still required by us in this Assembly based upon UK Government doing legislation there first, because, clearly, there are going to be parts of the legislation that we can't do until they've done theirs? So, where are we in the timetable of getting ours completed and do we have an idea that, actually, they will all be done by 30 June—preferably 23 May, because that's another date that is being discussed for the European elections?

And finally—.

And finally, yes—[Laughter.] Do you agree with me that one of the biggest mistakes last week was not supporting Hilary Benn's amendment, whereby they could actually get a consensus on a position on a possible solution in the House of Commons, which would actually let us know exactly the type of vote that could take place and the sort of agreement that could be in place if we knew what the majority of the House of Commons agreed on?

Well, Llywydd, I'll do my best to be as quick as I can in answering those questions. Of course, David Rees is absolutely right that our ports are affected by the tariff model that the Government has suggested across the island of Ireland. It's been a long period of education of UK Ministers about the fact that we have ports in Wales and the important job that they do. And he's quite right to say that the current suggestion would be to the detriment of Welsh ports, because goods will inevitably travel from south to north and come into the UK from the north part of Ireland. 

As far as the DUP is concerned, I see that the First Minister of Scotland has written to the UK Government this afternoon, setting out concerns that we would certainly share about the way in which reports of discussions with the DUP are emerging, in which somehow the DUP would have a seat at the table in trade negotiations. It's absolutely astonishing, Llywydd, that any suggestion of that sort could be made with a single political party not even in administration anywhere in the United Kingdom and to the neglect of administrations in Wales and in Scotland. The continuing suggestions that yet more money might be poured down the throats of the DUP—I'm glad austerity is over in one part of the United Kingdom, but it is fundamentally unfair and entirely in breach of the statement of funding policy that money should be passed to one part of the United Kingdom for responsibilities that are shared elsewhere. And that includes England, as well as Wales and Scotland.

As far as local government is concerned, our discussions with them focus on food, particularly food in schools, food in residential care homes, food for older people who rely on domiciliary care, and making sure that, in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, there are systems in place to protect the most vulnerable.

In relation to the health service, we have for the first time, I believe, now had to commit money in relation to a 'no deal' Brexit. You've heard my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for health, talk about a warehouse that we have had to deploy in Newport. We do so because it is necessary to protect the interests of the Welsh health service and Welsh patients against a 'no deal' Brexit.

Will the Prime Minister's blackmail Brexit succeed? The way that she continually tries to persuade people to go into the lobby in support of her, because otherwise something even worse might happen—well, it's a game of Russian roulette, and our futures really ought not to be being negotiated in that way. Can the Prime Minister be trusted? Well, I think I reported to the Chamber last week that, when I was in Brussels during our half-term break, I was struck by the strength with which good friends of Wales and the United Kingdom reported their belief that the Prime Minister's actions in backing the Brady amendment had marked a fundamental breach of faith. She supported an amendment against the agreement that she had struck with the European Union. How could they feel confident in going on negotiating with someone who was prepared to do that?

Legislation needed here does depend, as David Rees said, on statutory instruments that have to be passed through the House of Commons. We are ready. We are confident that we are in the right place; whether they are is a different matter.

And finally, on the Hilary Benn amendment, Dirprwy Lywydd, shall I tell you something that happened to me that is more or less unique in my own experience? I was knocking on doors in the Newport by-election last Thursday evening, as many Members here were no doubt as well. I knocked a door and a man came to the door and he immediately said to me, 'You must come in, you must come in.' I had no idea what I'd done, but what he wanted me to do was to see the result of the vote on the Hilary Benn amendment. So, I stood in his front room and saw it happen, and I absolutely share your reaction to it. It was a moment when the House of Commons could have taken control of this process, and to lose that vote by two votes was, I think, deeply disappointing to those of us who hoped that that was a moment when a different course of action could have been embarked upon.

Well, I enjoyed the First Minister's evisceration of the Prime Minister and the utter political shambles that she and the Conservative Party have created, but I think the greater shambles is that of the opposition, because, in spite of having what I believe to be the most incompetent Prime Minister in 250 years, the leader of the opposition has not profited in any way from what has happened and Labour are still apparently 10 points behind in the opinion polls—[Interruption.] But the—[Interruption.] The establishment elites—[Interruption.] The establishment elites are now quite clearly and openly determined to frustrate the Brexit referendum that we had two and a half years ago. The Labour Party, Plaid Cymru, the Conservative Party, even, are determined not to deliver on what the people voted for in 2016. Let's just remind ourselves, shall we, that 406 constituencies out of 650 voted to leave; 247 Conservative constituencies voted to leave and only 80 to remain; 148 Labour constituencies voted to leave and only 84 to remain; and yet, in this place, 49 of our Assembly Members voted to remain and 480 out of the 650 MPs also voted to remain. There is a remainer majority by a very long way both in this Assembly and in the House of Commons, and it is determined, absolutely determined, come what may, at any cost to stand in the way of what the people voted for and—I'm pleased to have Alun Davies nodding in acquiescence over there—[Interruption.]—to vote against what the people voted for just two and half short years ago. And last week the House of Commons proved it, because it voted against leaving the EU on the Prime Minister's so-called deal, it voted against leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms, also called 'no deal', and it voted for extending article 50. By no stretch of the imagination can that be called voting for Brexit in any shape or form. And, as Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, said:

'It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the UK indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.'

That is the shambles that Theresa May has created and which the Labour Party doesn't really disagree with. Actually, it wants to go even further than Theresa May in giving away all the cards that we had in our hand and to stay inside the EU. Is the First Minister concerned at the gulf that is developing between the people who voted for Brexit by a majority—56 per cent in Newport West; as the First Minister mentioned that constituency, I thought I'd quote that figure—and the political elites? There is a poll published by ComRes in The Daily Telegraph today, which asks the people various questions: do they trust MPs to do the right thing by the country over Brexit? Sixty-eight per cent disagree. Another question: 'It has felt as if the EU has been trying to punish the UK over Brexit.' Sixty-one per cent agree with that proposition. If the UK left the EU without a deal on 29 March, with that be the best possible outcome? Forty-three per cent agreed with that proposition; only 30 per cent disagreed.

The policy that the First Minister and the Welsh Labour Government have is wholly at variance with a very, very large proportion of people in this country and indeed a greater proportion than those who support his view. What does he think it will do to democracy in this country if, at the end of this process, there is, in effect, no change? Once this deal goes through, if it does, then Britain's membership of the EU could be prolonged indefinitely. And, yes, it could be postponed until 30 June, but nothing's going to change between now and 30 June and then, of course, all the pressure will be on to extend it beyond that, and so on ad infinitum. Why would the EU possibly want to give us any concessions when it's already got everything that it ever wanted? That's the key question that we have here, I believe. What is going to be the health of British democracy in future if it is betrayed by those to whom the people have entrusted it?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, you think that the debate on Brexit moves beyond parody, and then you find yourself being accused by Neil Hamilton of belonging to the establishment and an elite. At that point, I feel the boundary where you thought there was no further scope for extending it finds itself extended yet further.

Do I worry about the democratic health of our country? Of course I do. It's why I said what I said in my statement. My worry is not his worry, because he always wants to paint this in a way that appeals to the populist instincts of his supporters. I worry about the relationships between people. I worry about relationships between people who take strongly different views on this matter and where I really, really believe every one of us has to act carefully when we put our view forward in respecting the views of others who take a different point of view. If we're not able to do that, then the threats to our democratic health are real, and those things are on the surface and close to the surface of this debate.

The real danger we face, though, Dirprwy Lywydd, is not the one that the Member refers to at all. The real danger we face is that 10 days from now we could have left the European Union without any deal of any sort and nobody—but nobody—told people in the referendum that that's what this was all about. We were to leave the European Union in one of the easiest negotiations that would ever have been conducted. We were to leave the European Union in a way in which all the advantages were to be on our side and none of the disadvantages. If we leave the European Union on 29 March without a deal of any sort, then the impact here in Wales will be catastrophic and the impact of that on our democratic health really is something that we should all be worried about.

And finally—and very briefly—Alun Davies. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the First Minister for his statement this afternoon. I will say to him that I regret very much the tone he used when he described the opportunity to provide for a public vote and to provide for a final say for the people of this country. It is, of course, the policy of Welsh Labour, of Labour, it's the policy of the Welsh Government, it's the policy that he himself placed in front of Members some weeks ago and asked this Parliament to adopt as the policy that we would want to see pursued. I do, therefore, believe that there's been a very clear undertaking, given that the Government of Wales will not simply describe the problems and the difficulties facing us, but will proactively seek to prepare for a vote to take place. And these are two different things. It isn't simply rehearsing academic arguments. It's saying that this is the most important issue facing this country at the moment. We know there's a mess in London. We know there's a mess in Westminster. We know that the UK Government cannot agree with itself, let alone anyone else. We know that they don't know what their policy is today, tomorrow, the next week. We know all of those things. But what we have to do in this Parliament and this Government is to do better than that and to do more than that, and that means to be true to what we believe in, and not to equivocate, not to find words in which to find different ways to escape our commitments, but to argue clearly for those commitments.

So, I hope, therefore, First Minister, you will be very, very clear in committing to the policy that the people of this country should have a final say, that the Welsh Government will campaign for a remain option and to campaign to remain, and what we will do here is accept there is no such thing as a jobs-first Brexit, but what is important to us is the principle—the principle—that the people of Wales and the people of the United Kingdom should have the final say on any agreement reached.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I could not have been clearer this afternoon in setting out the policy of the Government because it has been the policy of this Government ever since we started to debate it here. It's been repeated and repeated in resolutions, put down by the Government and carried in this Assembly, that there is a way of leaving the European Union that can protect jobs and the economy here in Wales. But if that is impossible, and the House of Commons is deadlocked, then the decision should go back to the people. And it was the Welsh Government that put a resolution in front of this Assembly that asked for preparations to begin so that we do not lose that opportunity by default—that we've simply ran out of time in order for that to happen.

What I won't do, Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro, what I will not do, is to pretend on the floor of this Assembly that, somehow, we are in charge of things that we are not. In the end, a referendum does not lie in the hands of people in this Assembly, and we should be honest about that. Nor will I pretend that if that is where we end up, that that is somehow a difficulty-free option. Because there are difficulties that lie in its path; there are practical difficulties and there are political difficulties as well.

The Member asked me if there were to be a second referendum and 'remain' were to be on the ballot paper, well, I say again, as I have said here, that the position of the Welsh Government would be that we remain in favour of Welsh membership of the European Union. I say that despite the difficulties that I think there would be in it because that is the honest position. But it is honest as well to explain to people that even if you are, as I know the Member is, strongly committed to a second vote amongst the people, that has issues that have to be faced in it as well, and it does nobody any good to act as though those could simply be wiped away in a burst of rhetorical enthusiasm.

Okay. So, we move on now to item 4: the Animal Health and Welfare (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Chair. These regulations make amendments to the Registration of Establishments (Laying Hens) (Wales) Regulations 2004, the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Wales) Order 2007, the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Wales) Regulations 2007, and the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Wales) Regulations 2014. Changes made by the regulations include omitting the reference to

'acting as a member state in the welfare of animals'

and the Time of Killing (Wales) Regulations 2014.

In relation to the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Wales) Regulations 2007, correcting references to EU directives as EU directives will not form part of domestic law on exit day. In this instance, the definition of 'zootechnical treatment' has been taken out of the relevant council directive and inserted into these regulations. Supplemental provision has also been made to replace various references to the National Assembly for Wales to 'Welsh Ministers'. These amendments reflect the status quo. Such amendments supplement those provisions that confer additional functions on the Welsh Ministers.

Finally, changes to the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (Wales) Regulations 2014 have also been made that will end the mutual recognition of certificates of competence for slaughter workers issued in other member states. Continued recognition of certificates would open up potential enforcement issues, as we would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate issued in another member state. In the event of slaughter, it breached the requirements of the retained EU legislation or domestic legislation. The European Commission has confirmed certificates of competence issued in the UK will not be recognised in other member states after the UK has left the EU. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed there are currently no slaughtermen with a European-member-state-issued certificate of competence working in Wales. I move the motion.

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

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. With regard to these Animal Health and Welfare (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, we considered these regulations at our meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on 11 March and reported two merits points to the Assembly under Standing Order 21.3.

First of all, we considered the way in which the explanatory memorandum, paragraph 4.6 in particular, explains why regulation 2 refers to ‘EU Regulations’ is not helpful, either to the Assembly or to the end user of the legislation. The meaning and effect of legislation, including how it interacts with other legislation, should be transparent to those scrutinising it, and, even more importantly, to those affected by it. In its response to our report, the Welsh Government said:

'Due to the volume of legislation that is required to be in place before exit day in order to ensure the Welsh statute book is operable, it has not been practicable to provide further detail on the relationship between...the [EU Withdrawal] Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.'

Given the public importance of the meaning and effect of legislation, we are disappointed by the Welsh Government’s response. As our own report demonstrates, we do not consider that it would have been an onerous task to explain clearly how revised EU law will operate on exit.

Secondly, regulations 5(4) and (5) appear to remove a reciprocal arrangement between Wales, as part of the UK, and EU member states or public authorities in those states. If so, this is removing a reciprocal arrangement of a kind mentioned in section 8 of the 2018 EU Withdrawal Act, in which case, the Welsh Ministers have no power to make regulation 5(4) and (5) unless they have consulted the Secretary of State. Neither the preamble nor the explanatory memorandum to the regulations refer to such consultation.

In this context, we believe that good legislative practice requires preambles to statutory instruments to refer expressly to the fulfilment of any statutory conditions, such as a duty to consult, that must be fulfilled before the statutory instrument can be made. In its response to our report, the Welsh Government confirmed that the Welsh Ministers have consulted with the Secretary of State and we note and welcome that the explanatory memorandum has now been amended. Thank you.

I now call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to reply.

Thank you, Dai Lloyd for your comments and observations. Obviously, we would not wish to be making legislation in the way that we're currently having to do, and you will have heard me say previously in this place that if we'd taken the decision to make all EU exit legislative corrections for devolved areas solely in Wales, it would've required about 200 statutory instruments and at least four Bills to be laid in the Assembly, in addition to business-as-usual legislation. And it would've only been possible to pass the necessary Bills in time by following a fast-track procedure, which, again, would limit scrutiny by the Assembly. That said, I absolutely took the comments that came from members of CLAC on board and a decision was taken, for instance, to change the procedure to be followed in the case of this SI, and also, as Dai Lloyd noted, the explanatory memorandum was amended accordingly.

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

We move now on to item 5, the Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move the motion.

Thank you, Chair. I move the motion. These regulations amend the following four pieces of domestic subordinate legislation in the field of agriculture: the Agricultural Subsidies and Grants Schemes (Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2006; the Rural Development Programmes (Wales) Regulations 2014; the Common Agricultural Policy (Integrated Administration and Control System and Enforcement and Cross Compliance) (Wales) Regulations 2014; the Common Agricultural Policy Basic Payment and Support Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2015. The corrections do not change the policy position in these areas. The amendments are technical in nature and are designed to retain the status quo following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.

Changes made by the regulations include the following. Regulation 4 omits reference to the 'co-ordinating body' in the Common Agricultural Policy (Integrated Administration and Control System and Enforcement and Cross Compliance) (Wales) Regulations 2014 to reflect the fact that the concept of 'co-ordinating body' is being removed from the retained EU regulations by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Regulation 5 amends the Common Agricultural Policy Basic Payment and Support Schemes (Wales) Regulations 2015 to correct references to EU legislation. These references are fixed in time as they refer to scheme rules used when the basic payment scheme launched in 2015. Regulation 5 corrects those references to make it clear they are references to the pre-exit EU legislation. A technical amendment is also made in regulation 5, to recognise that Welsh Ministers established a national reserve for Wales in 2015. Following the UK's withdrawal from the EU, this national reserve will be maintained in accordance with the retained EU legislation. These regulations will ensure the Welsh Government has the necessary regulatory framework to take forward its commitment to continue to deliver the CAP schemes. A consultation on any changes to Wales's agricultural support is scheduled later this year, once the responses to the 'Brexit and our land' consultation have been considered.

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

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. This is item 5, the Common Agricultural Policy (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. We considered these regulations at our meeting of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, again on 11 March, and we reported one merits points to the Assembly under Standing Order 21.3.

Our report focuses on the complexity of this legislation and highlights that greater clarity would have been helpful in describing its effect as a consequence. The regulations demonstrate the difficulty for the scrutinising body and for those affected by the legislation of understanding the effect of EU exit-related statutory instruments in the field of the common agricultural policy.

Amongst many barriers to understanding, a particular example seen in these regulations is the difficulty of understanding exactly what versions of EU instruments are in force at any particular time as part of domestic law under the EU withdrawal Act. We recognise that the complexity and opacity derive from the EU withdrawal Act, that’s fair to say. However, we consider that it is incumbent on the Welsh Government to seek to explain better and more fully to the Assembly and to citizens how each piece of Welsh EU exit legislation fits into the whole picture of UK and EU legislation—current and intended—on the particular subject matter. The appropriate place for this would appear to be the explanatory memorandum accompanying statutory instruments.

However, an additional concern is that end users of legislation may not be aware of the existence of explanatory memoranda or able to access them easily, and we would ask the Welsh Government to give consideration to how this situation could be improved, so as also to improve access for the citizens of Wales to the meaning of legislation.

We welcome the Welsh Government response to our report regarding the specific concerns we raised about regulations 4 and 5 of the legislation, but note that it did not comment on our wider concerns that I have just set out. Thank you.

Thank you. The Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to reply.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and in relation to the point you say that I did not refer to, I think Dai Lloyd made a very pertinent point, that we need to look at how people outside of this place are able to access the legislation, because we have such a huge body of legislation going through now to prepare for day one, post Brexit, that clearly something could be missed. So, I would be very happy to look at that.

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

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the analysis of the impact of the UK Government's welfare reform on households in Wales, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this important debate about the latest analysis published last week on the impact of the UK Government's welfare reforms on households in Wales.

I would like to first turn to the amendments that have been tabled. I don't think that it will come as a surprise that we reject the amendment from the Conservatives, which at best seeks to play down the impact of welfare reform and, at worst, attempts to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the devastating effect that it's having on the lives of the most vulnerable and the least well-off in Wales.

In respect of the Plaid Cymru amendment, I want to be clear that this Government has already committed to exploring the case for devolving the administration of aspects of the benefits system. We will look further at the evidence of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, which is currently being considered, assess the experience of Scotland to date, and then provide an evidence base to look at things that may be taken forward. We will, of course, need to look at how we can ensure that any transfer of functions is accompanied by the necessary funding.

This report brings together key statistics, analysis and evidence on the impact of both already implemented and proposed welfare reforms on households in Wales. The report highlights the substantial benefit cuts announced by the UK Government since 2010 up to the end of January 2019—a period where we have witnessed significant change to the system—and outlines the individual and cumulative impacts.

The UK Government has recently signalled some positive changes, such as an increase in some universal credit work allowances, but these are relatively small in scale. We know that the overall effect of these benefit changes is regressive, with the largest impacts felt by people on the lowest incomes, especially those with children. We also know that many benefit cuts are only partly implemented, with the spectre of further significant cuts looming large. Relative child poverty in Wales is estimated to increase substantially, with the reforms pushing an extra 50,000 children into poverty by the time they are fully enforced. The stark reality is that the double whammy of welfare reform and the agenda of austerity is hitting those least able to bear the burden the hardest. And, it does not stop there.

There is also a disproportionately negative impact on the incomes of several protected groups, including disabled people, Bangladeshi and Pakistani households at a GB-wide level and, of course, women. These negative impacts, for the most part, are the result of changes to the benefits system, in particular: the freeze in working-age benefit rates; the two-child limit in tax credits and universal credit; the abolition of the family element; and changes to disability benefits. Last week's spring statement provided a timely platform for action to end the benefits freeze. Sadly, neither announcement nor action were forthcoming, despite the freeze pushing many families deeper into poverty.

This report also makes clear a number of issues of concern with the roll-out of universal credit to date, focusing on three key areas: the impact on rent arrears, food banks and applying for universal credit online. The Trussell Trust, along with the parliamentary Work and Pensions Committee, are rightly calling for an end to the five-week wait for the first payment of universal credit. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions admitted on 11 February that the main issue that led to this increase in food bank usage could have been the fact that people have difficulty assessing their money for universal credit early enough.

In terms of personal independence payments, evidence summarised in this report suggests that huge and harmful problems exist and persist with the eligibility assessment process. Deputy Llywydd, all who are here in this Chamber will be familiar with some of the perverse problems that people have encountered when applying for personal independence payments. There are real concerns in relation to the ability of contractors to conduct accurate eligibility assessments, which is reflected by a significant and increasing proportion of appeals being found in favour of the claimant.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to me, setting out a number of changes to health and disability benefits that the UK Government is looking to ensure. A commitment to reviewing the assessment process is welcome but, as they say, the devil will be in the detail and delivery of this. We have repeatedly and robustly made clear this Government's concerns to the UK Government, calling for a halt in the roll-out of universal credit, and seeking urgent change to the most damaging policies, such as the two-child limit. The UK Government has made some changes, but these do not go far enough.

The Welsh Government does not have the resources to meet the entire shortfall resulting from these UK Government welfare reforms, estimated to be £2 billion by 2020 for Wales, but we will do all we can to support the most vulnerable people and do the right thing by them as they try to deal with the disproportionate and unfair impact of these reforms. Through our financial inclusion work, we provide grant funding of almost £6 million a year, which is used to fund projects such as Better Advice, Better Lives that deliver advice services within all 22 local authority areas. And when a share of the financial levy for the provision of debt advice services is devolved to the Welsh Government, I anticipate this will increase our current grant funding to approximately £8.5 million from April this year.

We know that our advice service funding is making a real difference to people’s lives. During the last year, the funding supported over 73,000 people, helping them to access almost £60 million of welfare benefit income. I recently visited Bargoed Citizens Advice, one of the pilot areas for the new help-to-claim service for universal credit, and saw for myself some of the digital difficulties being experienced and what a lifeline this support is in making a claim for universal credit.

Our discretionary assistance fund is playing a crucial role in supporting those most in need and has supported 214,300 people, with awards to the most vulnerable people in Wales, with over £44 million in grants since April 2013. The fund has seen a peak in people making contact for assistance. Deputy Llywydd, when I actually visited the centre that takes the calls from people trying to access claims for the DAF and the emergency assistance fund, the evidence suggests from there that, for a lot of these people, this is a consequence of the roll-out of universal credit. Therefore, we are increasing funding by £2 million this year, and for 2019 and 2020.

In order to meet the additional free school meal costs associated with the roll-out of universal credit, we will be providing additional funding of £5 million to local authorities in 2018-19 via a grant scheme. We are also making a further £7 million available to local authorities for free school meals in 2019-20.

Our childcare offer is supporting working families across Wales and is helping second earners into work and enabling parents who work part-time to increase their income by working more hours, which is critical to tackling in-work poverty.

We know that austerity is placing huge financial pressure on both our public services and our people, so we are providing £244 million annually to support the council tax reduction scheme. Almost 300,000 vulnerable and low-income households in Wales continue to be protected from any increases in their council tax bills, of which 220,000 continue to pay no council tax at all.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms is something that many in this Chamber and in communities right across the country don't simply have acute concerns about, but are downright and rightly angry about. So, I look forward to the contributions to this debate on the analysis of the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms on households in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Diolch. In 2010, the UK Government inherited a cycle of hopelessness, with deep-rooted, multigenerational worklessness and dependency in too many places, and Wales lagging behind. Now we have record employment and UK wages are rising at the fastest rate in over a decade. And newly published Office for National Statistics figures show that personal well-being levels and mental health scores improved in the UK after 2011.

I move amendment 1, which acknowledges the Welsh Labour Government's analysis of the impact of welfare reform. We regret, however, its politicised nature and the omission of key areas of change, including UK Government changes to personal income tax allowances since 2010 and to the roll-out of universal credit and personal independence payments. We also regret the absence of meaningful Welsh Government poverty reduction targets. In consistently blaming the UK Government for causing deprivation in Wales, they seek to dodge the reality that it is they who have held many of the levers to tackle poverty over 20 years. And, as last October's Equality and Human Rights Commission report 'Is Wales Fairer?' found, poverty and deprivation still remain higher in Wales than in other British nations. Wales is the least productive nation in the UK and median weekly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland. Damningly, ONS figures on employee earnings in the UK 2018 also showed that average earnings in Wales were lower and had grown slower than other UK nations in the previous year. In fact, 20 years after devolution, Wales has the lowest take-home pay amongst the UK nations.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'UK Poverty 2017' report found that 60 per cent of working-age adults in workless households were in poverty compared with 16 per cent of those in working households. The Welsh Government itself has admitted that employment is one of the best ways to tackle inequality. The House of Commons—[Interruption.] Sorry, who's speaking? Yes, sorry.

Thank you, Mark, for giving way. Thank you very much. If we accept that there are high levels of disadvantage and deprivation in some of the communities and some of those on the lowest incomes are being most affected by minute little changes, I ask him to listen to the voice of Conservative MPs, and indeed Ministers, who've spoken out on this. When Esther McVey acknowledged that people with a transfer to universal credit, some of those people that you were just talking about, could be £200 a month worse off as a result of the switch, they'd be poorer, including people who are in work. She said,

'I've said we made tough decisions, some people will be worse off',

or even Amber Rudd, who said universal credit has caused a surge in the use of food banks. You can't deny, surely, that the tax and welfare changes have hit those people you were talking about the worst.

Thanks. Well, I'll be covering that in the rest of my speech, and I too have been writing to Westminster Ministers in relation to matters raised in my experience with constituents.

The House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee said in 2012,

'The principles behind Universal Credit have widespread support, which we share.'

And Labour's shadow work and pensions Secretary said in 2014 that

'Labour supports the principle of Universal Credit'.

Universal credit replaces a failing system, and the evidence shows people are more likely to get a job as a result, move into work faster and stay in work longer. However, as the UK Government states, any issues in its roll-out should and will be addressed. As the UK work and pensions Secretary said last November,

'I know that there are problems with universal credit, despite its good intentions.....I will be listening and learning from the expert groups in this area who do such good work. I know it can be better.' 

Speaking here last November, I detailed actions taken by the UK Government to address concerns over implementation of universal credit already then announced. Although the food bank network that you referred to opened in 2004, with the aim of a food bank in every UK town, the UK work and pensions Secretary also recently acknowledged that delays to payments have led to a growth in food bank use, and stated

'Already we have introduced 100% advance payments, budgeting support, direct rent payments to landlords and an extra two weeks' housing benefit payment for people moving from Housing Benefit to Universal Credit.'

Under personal independence payments, 31 per cent of disabled claimants are now receiving the highest rate of support compared to 15 per cent under disability living allowance. However, I have supported many constituents in successfully challenging PIP decisions while the health professionals carrying out their assessments exhibited a poor awareness and understanding of the barriers their conditions created for them. I have also written many times to DWP Ministers regarding this. I therefore welcome the work and pensions Secretary's statement that the number of PIP disability benefit appeals ruling against the UK Government—72 per cent last summer—was too high, and that she would be giving her attention to this, and other announcements including proposed integration of PIP, universal credit and ESA into a single information sharing service to reduce the need for applicants to submit information multiple times. Only yesterday I heard from a participating Welsh charity about their work with the DWP to support people with sensory loss into the workplace.

The Welsh Government should also play its part by, for example, responding positively to the call by Community Housing Cymru for them and Welsh local authorities to work with JobcentrePlus in Wales to co-locate services and enable applications for local authority benefits to be made at the same time as universal credit, and by publishing a robust plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and progress measures. Diolch.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne.

Diolch, and I move the amendment. It's no surprise that we've tabled this amendment. We've been pushing this agenda for several years now, believing that the only way we can really tackle the scandalous attitudes towards the poorest in our society is through taking responsibility for ourselves. It's worth noting at the start the impact the political choices that are austerity and welfare reform has had on women. As I outlined earlier during business questions, the House of Commons library estimates that, in looking at all changes to tax and benefits from 2010 to 2017, 86 per cent of the reduction in Government spending is spending on women. And today we've had a report from the House of Commons committee that describes how some women have no choice other than to turn to prostitution to make ends meet, and that is linked to welfare reform.

I don't need to reel off a long list of policies that have had a devastating, cumulative impact on the poorest people here in Wales. These policies are well documented, and as the recent proposed changes to universal credit illustrated, these impacts are quietly now being accepted, even by many Tories. It's been amusing on one level to see ex-Tories like Anna Soubry realise the scale of what has happened in their name, as illustrated on tv's The Last Leg recently.

It's the attitudes within the civil service that I really want to highlight today, because I don't believe we can really create a human social security system worthy of the name unless we change the way in which staff interact with people in need on a day-to-day basis. The long list of sanctions given to people experiencing tragic circumstances—for example, the man who was sanctioned for a missed appointment due to being at hospital with his partner who had just had a stillborn child—is illustrative of this. This system is callous. Now, reviews into sanctions have denied that there has been an official policy of penalising bereavement, and have highlighted regional inconsistencies in that policy. I've no doubt, though, that the DWP would have used those reports to identify regions not sanctioning people enough, and probably asked questions as to why. But the rest of us reading those reports would acknowledge that something much more complex is going on.

Official policy has been draconian and designed to punish the poor and, of course, has nothing to do with work incentives, as the DWP's own impact assessment on universal credit has shown. But more widely, these policies haven't been introduced in a vacuum—they've been part of a suite of policies that started when Lord Freud spent an entire three weeks reviewing welfare policy in detail for Tony Blair. Yes, that's sarcasm—what was really happening was it was an effort on the part of the Blairites to appease the Daily Mail. We know that appeasement doesn't work, so rather than change the way in which the tabloid media covers those issues around social security, the tabloids instead became more and more hysterical and inaccurate, when the real issues at the time were bureaucracy, inflexibility and the inability to support casual labour. That in turn created the culture whereby our entire political system was afraid of opposing many welfare cuts and the coalition, and it seemed seriously to think that the 2008 financial crash was caused by disabled people claiming too many benefits. That is a climate that can turn nasty very quickly and permeate throughout Government, as we've seen by the day-to-day interaction of DWP staff in sanctioning.

Which brings me to my final point here—the attitudes remain evident, even in the Welsh Government's report. Now, I know the Minister didn't personally write this report, but I'll give an example as follows. On page 2, the report refers to the removal of the spare-room subsidy. Now, that's a loaded political term—it's the term the Tories tried to use to counter the labelling of the policy of the bedroom tax. The real name for the policy, as shown in official documents at the time, is the 'underoccupancy charge'. But by using the Tory term here, the Welsh Government officials have shown just how internalised the narrative of welfare cuts has become.

All of this shows that the language we use to describe things matters and is rarely apolitical, and deference to Whitehall's terminology and mentality remains. That is one reason why we need devolution of welfare so that we can start to change attitudes and so that we can find some compassion. 

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate, but I wish we didn't have to, in many ways. John F. Kennedy once said:

'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'

I think that is the essence of what we are looking at here—it's how a society looks after those who face disadvantage. And by the way, disadvantage is not something that is a million miles away from any of us. The repeated analyses that have looked to see how many of us are one or two paychecks away from penury and from poverty is a reality. I myself—when I was working at the height of a former career in leisure management, doing exceptionally well, and the company was taken over and a whole raft of management was just stripped out by the new company—found myself in my mid-20s facing redundancy, in the City of London, paying high rent, still with myself and my wife there, and I spent six months not only getting my head together but also working as a night-time security guard on 12-hour shifts in the City of London surrounded by the wealth and the affluence of the mid 1990s in London, and working before the minimum wage through those long 12-hour shifts. I had a great time and met a lot of great people as well. But it just shows that, actually, for many of us—and those people who turn up in foodbanks are often people who are either in work or they've been working recently and a couple of incidents in their lives have pushed them beyond the brink. And at that point we expect the welfare and the tax system to support them to allow them to get back to work, and when they get back to work to actually make work pay. That is not happening, despite the very best ambitions—and I'm being generous here—at one time, of Iain Duncan Smith, who held this portfolio in Government, who went to the Glasgow housing estates, who spent six months there learning what it was like, who put in place a well-funded, at the time, proposal to actually turn around those communities, and then when he came back to Government George Osborne ripped the check book up and said, 'You can do all the stuff around the sticks, you can do some of the stuff around the carrots, but there'll be no money to do this.' It absolutely undermined what could have been a compassionate, thoughtful, well-structured, evidence-based way to actually help people back into work, give them the support that they need, and actually make work pay. That hasn't happened. We are here where we are now. 

I want to pay tribute to the many housing associations, local authorities, the credit unions, organisations like Christians Against Poverty and others, who are out there now on a day-to-day basis providing debt advice, money management advice, financial budgetary advice, holding people's hands as they try to reconstruct their lives, often because the tax and welfare reforms have pushed them into poverty. I also want to thank, of course, all those who volunteer week in, week out, not simply when we turn up as politicians to help them on one Saturday now and then, but actually those who every week, every day of every week, contribute within foodbanks like Bridgend foodbank, the Trussell Trust, the churches, the community organisers and others, who provide not only physical sustenance and literally food and nappies and deodorants and everything else to help people balance their budgets—this is in the sixth-most prosperous country in the world—but they also provide friendship and support as well. I want to thank as well all the local homelessness charities at this point, including Emmaus, The Wallich, Centrepoint and Shelter and the many others in Bridgend and throughout Wales as well. But we shouldn't be here—if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. 

The simple facts are, Mark, and I heard what you said, and I really appreciate the work you do as an individual Assembly Member, taking up cases on welfare and benefits for your constituents, as I do and as many others do—but the simple fact is these tax and welfare reforms have been deeply regressive. Even after the amendments, the analysis shows they are still deeply regressive. They're most deeply regressive because they hit those who are least able to defend themselves. It is women, it is particular ethnic communities, it is the young, it's those who do not have a voice—who need to come to you and me to ask for help. But do you know we're helping them against the system, despite the system? Why did not—? When I was a Minister, when I and Julie James and others wrote the letter to the UK Ministers to say, 'Do your own evidence-based cumulative impact assessment. Work out what the impact of these are.' 'No, there's no need to do it.' 'Why, what are you afraid of?' They're afraid of the very fact that it will show that these are punishing the poor. 

This has never been to do with balancing austerity on the shoulders of those who can most afford it—it's being done on those who can least afford it, and it is damaging them and it is damaging communities. When we talk about the distance, as was mentioned in a previous debate there, between the elite, the politicians, can you wonder why, when in a constituency like mine you have affluent areas who do not see this at all, it doesn't touch their lives, and yet in Caerau and in Gilfach and in other places, there are whole communities now who are suffering under this, and it will get worse? And I can't go through the details of the submissions that you will have seen, and I will have seen, and everybody will have had from Age Cymru on some of the changes that are yet to come and how they will impact on some of our older recipients of PIP and so on. I simply say to compassionate Conservatives, to people who genuinely really care about their constituents—we cannot hide our head in the sand any longer. This is punishing people, and if we think the distance isn't going to grow larger, it is. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. We have a duty to acknowledge the facts out there before we can actually come forward with the solutions. 

We have to face facts here today. It was all very well and good saying that we are going to take the politics out of this, but we can't take the politics out of a political decision that has been made, and that is to serve a whole system that sees people in poverty, in abject poverty, those people who can't see their way through tomorrow, the next day or the day after—people who turn up in our surgeries or people who write to us saying that they really don't know how they're going to go on. And we can't pretend that that wasn't a political choice. It is a political choice. Austerity is a political choice. It was a choice in two parts, really. The first part was to deprive any money to the public sector, and it is the public sector that was providing the help to those people who found themselves subject to these drastic welfare reforms. So not only did the welfare reforms cut the money that was going into families week in, week out, but the cuts then also into local government, the political decision to remove the funds, which were running at 65 per cent of GDP when you took over and now are 45 per cent of GDP—that was a political choice. So, there is less money all round. 

It's an absolute failure. It's an absolute disgrace, and I'm pleased that Leanne Wood did highlight the things that she did—the way that people are treated when they can't get to meetings, the sanctions that have been put on them. Who could really think that it is a fair system to put sanctions on people where they have to turn up to beg for their money, and if they can't turn up to beg for their money, then they're not going to get any money? You cannot excuse that as a non-political decision, because it is a political decision. 

I do want to raise the issue of Age Cymru, the welfare reforms that are yet to come, and I thought I'd focus on that because clearly other people haven't been able to do so. We're talking here about mixed-age couples and their pension credit and housing benefit criteria, which will be changing on 15 May this year, and will be making those households in future as much as £7,000 a year poorer. And these are families that are already poor in their own right. So, what are these changes? Well, at the moment, the oldest person can claim, and does claim, the pension credit allowance, regardless of the age of the younger person in that household. What will happen on 15 May is that both people will have to reach that pensionable age, and let's be clear here: we are talking mostly about women, who will be younger than their men—it's not exclusive; we know that—and we also know that they've increased the retirement age in any case for those women. We also know, and there are examples that have been given here today, that some of those women might have been out of the job market for some time for various reasons. And there is another statistic that is well-known, and that is the PRIME Cymru stat that anybody over the age of 65-plus looking for work is more likely to die before they are going to find that work. And that stat is really, really well known. It's substantiated, it's known, and yet here we have a Government saying to older people, 'You will go out and you will find work, because, if you don't, what you're going to find is that you are going to have to survive on £143 a week, because we've removed your entitlement.' Unless, of course, you happen to split up. If you happen to split up, the older partner will actually get a top-up, and he will have, if it's a he, £163 a week. Now, come on, let's get in the real world here. This is absolutely outrageous. Whilst the Tories recognised and paid some lip service to not affecting older people because they might vote for them, they've even removed those thoughts now. So, we're going to put people, from the cradle to the grave now, it seems, in poverty. It isn't from-the-cradle-to-the-grave social assistance.

Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate? Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to this considered debate today, and particularly Leanne Wood, Huw Irranca-Davies and Joyce Watson. You started off by talking about, actually, how a civilised society should be judged by how we treat our least well off and those who are suffering the most. Joyce, linking to that, you talk about the inhumanity of the current system and in particular the impact on older people, in particular women. Members in the Chamber talked today about how political things are or not to politicise things, but, actually, let's be honest, welfare reform and austerity are anti-women at their core. There's no getting away from that. We see the impacts and the evidence for that. I take what you say in terms of language. Language is often loaded and can serve to depoliticise, as you say, and also dehumanise as well. It's really acutely important, particularly when we talking about an issue like this. So, clearly there is—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

Do you accept the point that I was making about the officials who wrote the report being out of touch with the situation on the ground? So, for example, the report examines the decision to limit tax credits to the first two children but completely ignores the scandal of the rape clause. Do you share my concerns about this?

I don't think it's a criticism of officials directly or as individuals, but I do take on board what you're saying in terms of thinking about the language that we use. And, actually, this document is meant to be specifically a factual document, but I totally take on board that, actually, if we're not upfront and blunt about what these things actually are in practice, it does serve to depoliticise and dehumanise and shift the debate in a direction that we don't want it to go in, and we need to be more bold and upfront about that.

Clearly, there's still much more that the UK Government needs to do to address the systemic issues with the welfare benefits system and reverse the ideologically driven and damaging cuts, which are increasing child poverty. When you see the cumulative impact of these major welfare reforms that have been implemented or are still yet to take full effect, the impact of the UK Government's austerity measures is a stark reality that none of us can or should shy away from.

One of the many aspects that is worrying for those new universal credit claimants is for those seeking vital support with their housing costs, and many will not be able to afford to pay the rent to the landlord until their first payment is received. Local authorities where universal credit full service is already in operation are seeing increases in rent arrears for many tenants. This is causing and making worse debt problems for those in most need of support and has serious consequences for people who may face eviction as a result of not having any money to pay their rent. Some UK Government changes, such as the piloting of more frequent payments and direct payment of housing costs to private sector landlords, which the Minister for employment has outlined in his letter in response to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, will help to make improvements if they're fully implemented Wales-wide. However, these changes alone will not go far enough or fast enough to address the significant problems in the design of universal credit.

Deputy Llywydd, as outlined in my opening remarks, we will be opposing the Conservative amendment, which fails to acknowledge the scale of the problems that have already been demonstrated, and I also want to reiterate how we will be exploring the case for devolved administration of certain aspects of the welfare benefits system, looking at whether there is a way in which we could do things, administratively, differently, better and fairer in Wales. We've asked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to support us in taking this work forward. As part of this, we will also be following closely and with great interest the work of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee with regard to their current inquiry on benefits in Wales, options for better delivery.

This report makes all too clear the damaging impact of the UK Government's welfare reform in Wales. As we've heard here again today—and many of us are hearing and seeing first hand the distressing and devastating reality of this, whether that's in our correspondence, in our advice surgeries or in our communities. Prior to being elected to this Parliament, I campaigned for an end to the cruel and callous sanctions regime. This Welsh Government will continue to take action to address the effect of welfare reform and press for the reversal of the pernicious policies that are having a huge—[Interruption.]—harmful and hurtful impact on the lives of people here in Wales. Diolch. 

Are you giving way? No. Okay, sorry. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Before we move to debate Stage 3 of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, I will suspend proceedings for 10 minutes. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene, but could I urge Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please? Thank you.

If Members are ready, then we'll proceed to the next item on the agenda, which is Stage 3 of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) Wales Bill. 

So, group 1 is prohibited payments—termination of contract, and is the first group of amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3, so I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group—Minister.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have been tabled to address recommendation 6 made in the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee's report. They ensure that fees for exiting an occupation contract are prohibited. In particular, I'd wish to assure Members that the amendments prevent the type of check-out fees that tenants sometimes face when they end their tenancy; they are absolutely prohibited. However, there are situations where payments are permitted, such as where a contract holder terminates a fixed-term contract early or wishes to leave without providing the required notice under the contract by means of negotiation with the landlord.

We do not want to be in a position where a contract holder, if their circumstances change and they want to move elsewhere, is tied to a contract. Therefore, if the landlord and contract holder agree an amicable way out, agreeing a payment for early release from the contract or for releasing the contract holder from their notice obligations under the contract, then we should not prevent this.

The effect of the amendments to sections 2 and 3 of the Bill will ensure that contractual payments after the exiting of a standard occupation contract are prohibited. The inclusion of the wording in relation to payments pursuant to a term of standard occupation contract prohibits exit payments being required once a contract comes to an end. These amendments address Members' concerns about whether or not exit payments are prohibited in the Bill. Exit or check-out fees habitually charged by an agent or landlord at the end of the contract for things like collecting keys, cleaning or inventory checks will be prohibited. I accept Members' concerns that there should be no ambiguity regarding payments when exiting a contract and that payments for an exit fee were unclear. I want to leave no room for ambiguity and so I've brought forward this series of amendments. The amendments, as a package, will remove all doubt.

More particularly, payments where a contract holder wishes to terminate a contract early, such as the balance of any outstanding rent, would be permitted on the basis that they are not made in consideration of the grant renewal or continuance of the contract, but made in consideration of termination, and so will not be caught by the prohibitions.

In summary, amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 10 make amendments to sections 1, 2 and 3 to prohibit exit fees. I hope that Members will support these changes. The Stage 2 amendments made to section 17 will be moved by David Melding's amendment 46, if agreed, into the new Schedule 3, so that the amendments to the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 are all together. Amendments 23 and 24, as tabled, are a precaution should amendment 46 be rejected. I therefore ask Members to support these amendments.

Thank you. I have no speakers in this group of amendments, so the question is amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 3 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 4—can you move it?

Thank you, Llywydd. Formally.

Formally, thank you. So, the question is amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 4 is agreed.

Group 2, the next group of amendments, relates to drafting clarifications, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 5, and I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 5 is a minor drafting change to the Bill to clarify section 2(3) to ensure that we capture the relevant contract for services. Our aim here is to avoid any restriction on a contract for services if those services are provided by someone who has a right to occupy a dwelling. Common examples here include a caretaker or a nanny. This is a minor amendment that simply improves understanding of the provision rather than making any change to the policy itself. Amendment 28 is another technical amendment, made to section 23 of the Bill to ensure consistency with the changes made to sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. I hope Members will agree this improves the clarity of the Bill and will support the amendments.

Again, I have no speakers. Therefore, the question is amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. In accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 5 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 6.

Formally.

The question is amendment 6 be agreed. Any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 6 is agreed.

Group 3 is the repayment of prohibited payments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 55, and I call on Leanne Wood to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group. Leanne.

These amendments are to ensure that the court requires repayment of a prohibited payment from the offender directly to the person to whom it was paid. We've tabled these amendments again, because we think it's important that there is no room for debate here; any unauthorised fees must be repaid. Now, these amendments were rejected at Stage 2 because the previous Minister said, and I quote, 

'there is an important principle we need to consider here, which is to preserve the independence of the court. They will make such an order if they consider it appropriate under the circumstances'.

Our legal advice tells us that that is not the case. Our legal note says, and I quote: there are numerous examples of strict liability offences in law whereby the court has no discretion over levels of punishment if a defendant is found guilty of the offence in question.

So, it was quite clear to us at Stage 2 that the previous Minister was using technical legal arguments to reject an amendment, as is usually the case, knowing that the committee had no recourse to challenge this. So, it does suggest that we need to change the rules of this institution so that when legal arguments are made, a break is taken so that those checks can take place. So, I'd much prefer a debate today on the principle behind the amendments, which is that people should not be profiting from an unauthorised payment and that everyone knows full well you will have to repay those fees in court.

In regard to these two amendments, relating to the court ordering the repayment of prohibited fees, I already have an amendment further into this Bill in group 10, amendment 44, that will achieve this at the same point that a fixed-penalty notice is paid, whoever issues that fixed-penalty notice. Under the Government's amendments in group 9, the licensing authority, Rent Smart Wales, will inherit powers to issue fixed-penalty notices, and my later amendment includes both Rent Smart Wales and local authorities in its scope, which is to demand the repayment of prohibited fees at the point that a fixed-penalty notice is issued—very clear, and it delivers for the tenant who has been unjustly charged. Plaid Cymru's amendments in this group dictate that the repayment must be demanded by the court when an offender is convicted. So, I think that my amendments achieve a similar objective in perhaps a more efficient and less restrictive way, although obviously I accept that the Member has a different view, opposite. Whilst I do sympathise with the intent, I think I achieve that more effectively.

Thank you. I call on the Minister to—.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendments 55 and 57, brought by Leanne Wood, would place a duty on the criminal court, upon conviction of an offence under sections 2 and 3 of the Bill, requiring a prohibited payment, to order a landlord or agent to pay back the prohibited payment, or where there had been partial repayment, the outstanding amount, as she rightly said. Our view has not changed from Stage 2—that repayment of a prohibited payment should be a matter for the court to decide. She is right in saying that the amendment would fetter the independence and the discretion of the court, and she's also right to say that, sometimes, courts do have their independence and discretion fettered. But, in this instance, I don't think that that's an appropriate place to be, and I do object to the amendments on that basis.

I'm confident that the court, upon conviction of an offence, will be able to weigh up the relevant factors when deciding whether or not to make the order under sections 2 and 3 of the Bill, and I cannot support the amendments, which do affect the independence of the court and its ability exercise its discretion in this matter. I continue to believe that this is a matter for the court to determine. 

Thank you. I call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate. No? The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 55 is not agreed. 

The next group of amendments relates to revoking licences. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 56. I call on Leanne Wood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in this group.

Diolch. These amendments are tabled to give the court the power to revoke a licence for somebody who has been charging unauthorised payments. It would be a discretionary power, not mandatory, but there for the courts to decide. Now, at Stage 2, the previous Minister rejected these amendments on the grounds that it would undermine the role of Rent Smart Wales to decide what action to take. But, the point is that we are asking the courts to enforce this law and, as part of that, giving them a discretionary power to revoke a licence will help with the enforcement of the law.

Rent Smart Wales is in its infancy and still likely to be subjected to legal challenges from landlords in a way that the courts will not. It's likely that a landlord who has had a licence revoked by Rent Smart Wales could challenge this and use a lack of clarity on when licences should be revoked. It is, after all, a question as to whether or not someone is a fit and proper person that determines this, and a conviction in the courts for charging unauthorised fees can, of course, contribute to that. But, it would take time for those powers to be established, and therefore less likely to be challenged.  

Again, I have a lot of sympathy with Leanne's position here, but I will not be supporting this amendment. As I said at Stage 2, in Wales, we're in a unique position to have Rent Smart Wales in place, and the Welsh Government pushed and promoted this body to be transformative in the private rented sector. One of my later amendments—amendment 45 in group 11, which Plaid Cymru supported at stage 2—provides that Rent Smart Wales will be notified when a fixed-penalty notice has been issued. Another one of my amendments at Stage 2 promoted the idea that Rent Smart Wales should be able to issue fixed-penalty notices—something that the Government has now adopted. Rent Smart Wales will be notified of any rogue landlord activity, and I think that, as the lead authority in the private rented sector, it will be best placed to determine whether a licence is in need of revoking. Otherwise, what point is it being there? If my amendments pass, I think that Rent Smart Wales will be gaining a significant amount of responsibility, and this area of legislation will improve, removing the need for the amendments proposed in this group.

I call on the Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do object to amendments 56 and 58, which are the same as those brought forward on this matter at Stage 2. Our position is also the same—that the amendments inappropriately restrict the operation of the licensing authority. Removal of a licence under Part 1 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 may not necessarily be the best solution, but that is a matter for the licensing authority to decide. I would like to remind Members that section 20 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 provides that, in deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to be licensed, the licensing authority—currently Rent Smart Wales—must have regard to all matters it considers appropriate. And, amongst the matters to which the licensing authority must have regard is any contravention of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant matters.

Licensing arrangements require agents and landlords to show their fitness to operate. Conviction for an offence under sections 2 or 3 of the Bill would be a matter that the licensing authority must have regard to when deciding whether or not a licence is granted or revoked under section 25 of the 2014 Act. Fit-and-proper-person requirements under section 20 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 mean that, in deciding whether a person is a fit-and-proper person to be licensed, the licensing authority must have regard to all matters it considers appropriate, which will include whether or not there is a contravention of any provision of the law relating to housing or landlord and tenant law. A conviction for an offence would be a contravention, and the licensing authority must have regard to such contraventions in deciding whether someone is a fit-and-proper person to be licensed under Part 1 of the 2014 Act. This could mean revocation of a licence if the licensing authority is no longer satisfied that the licence holder is a fit-and-proper person to hold a licence.

As set out at Stage 2, there are also potential, serious unintended consequences if this amendment were to be passed. The amendments could create a perverse situation whereby a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act could be revoked by a criminal court. The same landlord or agent could continue to hold a licence to manage a house in multiple occupation whilst having a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act revoked by the criminal court. The amendment does not address these issues, which could mean we could see such anomalies.

Another unintended consequence of the amendment would arise if an agent or landlord decides to appeal against the decision of a licensing authority to revoke a licence under Part 1 of the 2014 Act. In these circumstances, the appeal would have to be heard in a residential property tribunal. Under amendments 56 and 58, if a criminal court could order the licensing authority to revoke the offender’s licence under section 25(1)(b) of the 2014 Act, these amendments would not work in tandem with the existing legislation. Rent Smart Wales would have to defend the revocation of a licence that they were ordered to revoke by a court, despite having played no part in the decision to revoke. Again, I do not see that these issues have been addressed in the amendment, which is unchanged from Stage 2.

For the avoidance of doubt, our expectation is that the licensing authority should have regard for these matters in their considerations. I've tabled an amendment to debated later, No. 25, which allows for guidance to the licensing authority on this matter.

These amendments are therefore, in our view, unnecessary and fundamentally flawed, and I would urge Members to reject both amendments.

Thank you. Leanne Wood. No?

So, the question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 11, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 7.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 7 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 8.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, amendment 8 is agreed.

Group 5 is permitted payments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9, and I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in this group.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 9 is a technical amendment. New subsection (3) of section 3 makes clear that a letting agent may enter into a contract for services with a landlord whereby the agent may provide lettings or property management work on the landlord's behalf, which would be required were a landlord not to be licensed by Rent Smart Wales to carry out such work.

I hope Members accept that the Bill should not intervene in the working relationship between an agent and landlord, which might otherwise have happened had we not made this amendment. This is not a complex or contentious provision to be added to the Bill, and I therefore trust Members will agree to it without issue.

I'm pleased to be able to support Leanne Wood's amendment 64, which removes any ambiguity that a Green Deal loan repayment can be made. I invite all Members to support these amendments.

Thank you. David Melding.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if I could quickly speak to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 64 in this group, which clarifies the uncertainty around Green Deal payments. I recall that there was some confusion at Stage 2, because I too brought forward an amendment in relation to this issue. I decided to withdraw the amendment to avoid any overlap. For similar reasons, I didn't resubmit the amendment at this stage, and I am pleased that the Minister reached out to work with Plaid Cymru to develop a proposal that encompasses all of our concerns, which reflects the Tenant Fees Act 2019 in England. So, we will be supporting this amendment today.

Amendment 64 is an amendment we've agreed with the Government on allowing Green Deal payments to be permitted as payments. It follows a recommendation by the committee and also some confusion, as was just outlined, at Stage 2 as to whether the legislation and amendments at that stage would have ensured that this was the case. But we've tabled this with the agreement of the Government in order to provide further clarity. Diolch.

Minister to reply to the debate. No? Okay, thank you. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 10.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, therefore amendment 10 is agreed. 

Leanne Wood, amendment 57. Do you want to move it?

Is this group 6?

No, it's just to move amendment 57. 

Oh, sorry. I move formally.

Move formally. The question is amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we will proceed to an electronic vote, and open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 11, no abstentions, 37 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Leanne Wood, amendment 58.

Move.

Move. The question is amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote, and open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 11, no abstentions, 37 against, therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Group 6 is on holding deposits. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 29, and I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group. Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Evidence given by tenant organisations in respect of holding deposits showed that, at times, there's been a degree of misselling on the part of some letting agents or landlords, where the offer made when the holding deposit is taken from the prospective tenant can be different to what is subsequently set out in the written contract. To a degree, this may sometimes be reasonable, reflecting, say, that after a reference check is made, more robust guarantor arrangements are needed, or another variation to the tenancy is required. However, amendment 42 aims to address a form of sharp practice where a tenant is persuaded into handing over a holding deposit, and where the difference in the final contract is not as a result of the circumstances of the tenant, but due to the letting agent overpromising or giving less than accurate information upfront. 

Amendment 42 inserts new paragraphs 10 and 11 into Schedule 2. New paragraph 10 sets out circumstances when a holding deposit paid to a letting agent does not have to be repaid. That is, if all reasonable steps are made to assist the landlord, who also takes all reasonable steps to enter into a contract, but ultimately the contract holder fails to enter the contract. New paragraph 11 provides that the exceptions in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, which deal with repayment if parties fail to enter into a contract, may not be relied upon unless information specified by Welsh Ministers in regulations has been provided to the contract holder before payment of the holding deposit. This ensures there are no surprises when a contract holder comes to enter into the contract. If information is not provided, a landlord or letting agent cannot rely on an exception to the requirement to repay a holding deposit. Consequently, it must be repaid. 

During scrutiny of the Bill, it became apparent that there was uncertainty over whether payment of a holding deposit gives a contract holder first right of refusal to rent the property. Amendment 36 clarifies that, in relation to a holding deposit, references to a contract holder are to the person who's right of first refusal has been reserved by the holding deposit. The deposit provides a guarantee so that, as soon as the necessary checks have been successfully completed, the prospective contract holder will be able to exercise their right to rent the dwelling, subject to the contract. There have been allegations that some landlords or agents take more than one holding deposit at a time to pressure contract holders to sign a contract. The amendment reserves the right of first refusal to the person who's right has been reserved by the deposit, clarifying to whom this right has been given.

Amendment 31 has been tabled to ensure an amount of a holding deposit in excess of one week's rent is a prohibited payment. We were concerned that there may be some ambiguity about the amount that could be charged, which could undermine the confidence of a contract holder as they start looking for a home. Contract holders will know the sum they need to pay is one week's rent or less. Anything over that sum is a prohibited payment.

On reviewing the Bill after Stage 2 we considered there was a benefit in clarifying provision in Schedules 1 and 2 around holding deposits, including to whom a holding deposit could be paid. This might be a landlord or a letting agent. Amendments 29, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 remove any ambiguity around who a deposit is paid to and who should repay it. 

Amendment 30 is a minor amendment to reflect that a person paying a holding deposit is a prospective contract holder at the point the deposit is paid rather than the contract holder.

Amendments 65 and 66 have been brought by Leanne Wood to provide for a 48-hour cooling-off period during which the contract holder can notify the landlord that they do not wish to enter into the contract and receive a refund of the holding deposit. We rejected the same amendment at Stage 2, and I ask Members to reject this amendment again, because it is likely to be prejudicial to other prospective contract holders as well as the landlord.

The purpose of a holding deposit is to reserve the property for a short period of time to allow for checks and paperwork to be completed by the landlord. It prevents other potential contract holders from seeking to enter into a contract on the property, giving a right of first refusal to the party who has paid the holding deposit. The landlord, having taken a holding deposit, should not be offering the property to other possible contract holders—something we've made clearer through our amendment 36. If amendments 65 and 66 were to be agreed, it's possible that a contract holder could put down holding deposits on a number of properties, knowing they will get their money back. This would mean that other contract holders would be prevented from agreeing a contract on a property in which the contract holder who'd paid the holding deposit had only a partial interest.

We made the point at Stage 2 that a cooling-off period may be appropriate where distance selling arrangements apply, and a cooling-off period would give an automatic right to cancel and rescind a contract shortly after the contract is formed. However, restrictions on distance selling arrangements are made because no-one else is deprived as a result, other than the seller, and because a contract has been entered into. My concern is, where a holding deposit is paid, other contract holders could miss out on finding a home and there's no binding requirement to enter into the long-term contract.

We've brought forward amendment 42 to address concerns raised during scrutiny that misleading information was being given to prospective tenants. I consider that setting expectations of the information to be provided to the prospective tenant, via regulations, at the point a holding deposit is paid will give sufficient safeguard against any sharp practice. I hope that the arguments I've set out against amendments 65 and 66 are sufficient in highlighting their disadvantage.

Amendment 67, also tabled by Leanne Wood, would prevent holding deposits being repaid if the contract holder knowingly and recklessly provides false or misleading information to the landlord. An identical amendment was tabled at Stage 2. I stated at Stage 2 that I did not consider the amendment necessary because we'd be introducing a criminal burden of proof that would be difficult to prove—that is, whether the contract holder had knowingly or recklessly provided false or misleading information. An agent or landlord would have to prove the contract holder knowingly or recklessly provided that false or misleading information. As I stated at Stage 2, failing a credit or reference check does not give sufficient grounds to retain a holding deposit under Schedule 2. I know this has been a concern raised by many stakeholders, and I can assure Members this is not a permitted exception, as it is not a ground reflected in Schedule 2. For these reasons, I cannot support amendment 67 and ask Members to reject it.

To summarise, therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm asking Members to support amendments 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, and to reject those tabled by Leanne Wood, which are numbered 65, 66 and 67.

If I can discuss the Plaid Cymru amendments in this group, which I'm not prepared to support, because I think that balance is not well-struck between the interests of tenants and landlords. I spoke to these amendments at Stage 2, but I think it's appropriate that I air my opposition to the whole Chamber at this stage.

By implementing a 48-hour cooling off period for the holding deposit, as Plaid Cymru's amendments 65 and 66 seek to do, we undermine the purpose of a holding deposit, and adversely affect the business model of the landlord. Forty-eight hours is a long time for landlords to be, potentially, in a position where they stop the business activity on that property and hold it. They may have had other strong notifications of interest, but, obviously, because they have the holding deposit, they cannot pursue them. A holding deposit is a form of commitment, and I think that we really do need to utilise this opportunity to rebuild the trust between landlords and tenants. So, I think it's unreasonable to put that extra burden on landlords, given that we are seeking to tighten up the law here profoundly in the interests of tenants, quite correctly. But then, this 48-hour period of grace for the tenants just takes away the reasoning to have a holding deposit, so I'm not prepared to accept amendments 65 and 66.

Additionally, I won't be supporting amendment 67 from Leanne because I believe that it will add a further complexity and confusion, and be a greater burden for landlords. The burden of proving, I quote, 'knowingly and recklessly' would fall on landlords, and I don't think that adds to its clarity or balance. I very much agree with the Government's position on this.

We will be supporting the several amendments moved in this group by the Government.

Amendments 65 and 66 provide for a 48-hour cooling off period, during which the contract holder can receive a refund of the holding deposit. These amendments were rejected at earlier stages, but with the Government committed to engaging with Shelter Cymru and NUS Wales on the way forward. So, I would like to hear from the Minister what the latest is on that.

Amendment 67 is to clarify that holding deposits cannot be retained as a result of minor discrepancies on the part of the contract holder, such as a failed credit check or referencing. This was rejected as unworkable at Stage 2, but our legal note regarding this says, 'I wouldn't agree with this, but it would place the burden of proof onto the landlord to demonstrate that the contract holder had provided misleading information knowingly or recklessly.' Alternatively, you can argue that the amendment simply gives the contract holder a defence and a means of recouping the deposit if they've made a genuine error when providing their details to the landlord through no fault of their own. So, again, I'd ask the Government: what are you doing to prevent profiteering here?

I think I set out our position pretty clearly in my opening remarks. Just to reiterate, amendment 42 represents a sensible and proportionate amendment addressing concerns about sharp practices at the point a holding deposit is taken. Our other amendments are technical, to clarify how holding deposits should be treated. I won't reiterate them, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Unfortunately, I remain of the view that amendments 65 and 66, brought forward by Leanne Wood, remain unworkable and could unintentionally disadvantage tenants looking to find a home. I appreciate that's not her intention, but I think there is a possibility of an unintentional consequence. As I said, amendment 67 essentially raises the bar to the same level as for offences, which could potentially lead to more disputes between landlords and contract holders. For that reason, I urge Members to reject those amendments.

The question is amendment 29 be agreed to. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed. 

Amendment 30 to be agreed to—any Member object? Sorry, Minister, I should have asked you to move amendment 30. 

Formally.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 30 is—. 

Minister, amendment 31.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Thank you. Therefore—.

Group 7, then, is default payments. It's the next group of amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 32 and I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendments and other amendments in this group. Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I've listened to concerns raised by Members and stakeholders regarding the need to make provision to prevent the charging of excessive or unreasonable charges in the event of a default. In particular, I'm aware of evidence provided of sharp practice in relation to daily charges for late rent payments, leading to significant debts being incurred by tenants. Amendments 27, 32, 33 and 34 seek to address this issue by making it an offence for an agent or landlord to charge a sum in excess of the prescribed limit set out in regulations provided for by amendment 35. I appreciate that Leanne Wood is seeking to also address the same concerns but cannot support her amendments as I do not believe they achieve the same policy objective.

A regulation-making power to set a prescribed limit and specifying descriptions of default payments under amendment 34 provides the flexibility to respond to changes in the private rental sector. Unreasonable default charges do not appear to be widespread but they do vary depending on the property and the circumstances of the landlord and tenant. Members will rightly be concerned about late rent payment charges and that will be our focus in setting a limit that prevents any exploitation of contract holders. Therefore, a flexible approach, using subordinate legislation, is more appropriate than attempting to stipulate a one-size-fits-all provision on the face of the Bill. This is particularly the case as we may want to amend the prescribed limit at some point in the future, particularly as the sector adapts to the broader reforms brought about by the Bill.

In proceeding with the regulations under amendment 34, we will ensure that we know all of the facts before prescribing what payments, if any, would be reasonable to require coming about as a result of an action of a tenant. It will also ensure that all evidence is presented to Members before they can consider whether to agree to the regulations I or any other Minister bring forward in the future. We will consult upon the policy to test the proposals with stakeholders and intend to do so as soon as possible after the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly. Leanne Wood's amendment is too narrow and will prevent us from establishing what may rightly be chargeable by a landlord in the case of a breach of contract by a tenant. Overly restricted in this way, more unscrupulous landlords may seek devious routes to recover money resulting from a perceived default, such as payments for late rent. This could undermine the wider reputation of the private rented sector as a whole.

I also think it is a reasonable expectation that tenants who are late with rent and perhaps sometimes consistently so may have to pay a charge for that. My amendment will put in place, through regulations, the necessary safeguards in this area. We know some landlords are also tenants themselves or have mortgages to pay. If they are not paid rent on time, they potentially cannot pay their own rent or mortgage, leaving them also open to potential default charges or even putting their home at risk.

Leanne's amendment 59 mirrors my amendment 27. The purpose of both is to ensure that any regulations brought forward to set a limit on default payments will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I'm sure that Leanne won't mind if I ask Members to vote for my amendment over hers as they achieve the same aim. I would also ask that Members do not vote for Leanne's amendment 63 as I have achieved our shared aim through my amendment 34. The amendment ensures that Welsh Ministers may prescribe through regulations a limit on payments required in the event of a default. Regulations follow the affirmative procedure. It therefore makes it possible for Welsh Ministers to prescribe a limit on default payments, ensuring that any excess is a prohibited payment. 

Amendments 32 and 33 give effect to amendment 34. They ensure that restrictions set out within the regulations on the treatment of a payment in default are made consistent with this subsection of the Bill.  

Can I again place on record why we'll not be supporting Plaid Cymru's amendment 62 in this group? Again, I don't think it strikes the right balance between tenants and landlords, and, as I said previously, trying to build a housing market that is fair to everyone ought to be central to what we are doing. By defining default fees as specifically as this amendment does and by deleting a breach in the terms of the contract from a qualifying default, I think that this would leave landlords vulnerable to actions that could be the clear and deliberate fault of the tenant and leave the landlords without any effective means of response. 

As the Government said at Stage 2, there may be other legitimate situations where the contract holder is at fault and where a landlord may seek repayment from the contract holder over the course of a contract, and these may differ from contract to contract. Such a restrictive limitation to a contract as the Plaid amendment suggests would be harmful to the relationship between contract holders and landlords. And landlords may be extremely reluctant to let their properties in this way with such a restriction.

However, if I could talk to the other amendments in this group, both Plaid and the Government have put forward similar amendments in relation to the prescribed limits on default fees. In this regard, I will be supporting Plaid Cymru's version, namely amendment 63 and its consequential amendment 59, because I do think that any prescribed limit that is set in regulations should be subject to the utmost scrutiny.

It remains a concern to us that default fees have not been defined by the Welsh Government. As you're aware, the committee in its Stage 1 report asked the Government to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 to put on the face of the Bill that all default fees should be fair and reasonable. Our amendments seek to both restrict default fees to only include late payment of rent and lost keys and to put an upper limit on the amount payable. 

At Stage 2, the previous Minister said that these amendments could be unfair to landlords but would engage with Shelter Cymru on the issue. So, I am interested to hear whether the new Minister has engaged with Shelter Cymru on this question and to hear what the outcome was. We are still concerned that landlords and agents will use the default fees to generate revenue now that they won't be able to charge fees. It's a potential loophole. 

The Minister to reply. 

I agree with the concern that Leanne Wood expresses—I agree with it, but we think that our amendments put a better regime in place, subject to the affirmative procedure of the Assembly, to ensure that we have a complete list of default fees that are prohibited, which can be updated as time goes by and which can take into account all other issues that arise. So, for example, the Tenant Fees Act 2019 in England allows for default payments only in a case of late rent or loss of keys, that's true, but it also, where the tenancy agreement contains any provision that has been breached, allows for the recovery of a payment. And so we wish to head off any suggestion that the contracts themselves could be adapted in order to disguise default payments of that sort, and we think that our amendments achieve that in a more satisfactory fashion. 

Thank you. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 32 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 33. 

Formally.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 33 is agreed. 

Leanne Wood, amendment 62.

I move.

Move. The question is that amendment 62 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment nine, three abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

Minister, amendment 34.

Formally.

Object.

Sorry, was that an objection? 

On 34, we object.

Object. Okay, thank you. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, one abstention, nine against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Leanne Wood, amendment 63.

I move.

Move. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 18, two abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 63 is not agreed.

Leanne Wood, amendment 64.

I move.

The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 45, one abstention, two against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

We now move on to group 8, which is regulation-making powers, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Our review of the Bill brought into focus some of the drafting around the regulation-making power to vary the meaning of 'permitted variation' of rent in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1. A permitted variation in relation to rent payable under a standard occupation contract means a variation agreed between the landlord and contract holder; variation made pursuant to a term of the contract that provides for rent to be varied; or a variation by or as a result of an enactment. Amendment 35 is a technical amendment to ensure that the regulation-making power under section 7 is not limited by paragraph 10 of that Schedule solely to making provision in connection with permitted variations. The Bill makes this clear. I hope Members will accept this change.

Amendments 48, 49, 51 and 52 tabled by David Melding would amend the Assembly procedure for making regulations to amend the definition of a permitted payment under section 7 and to change the level of fixed penalty under section 13 to a superaffirmative procedure and to set out the procedure to be followed. I cannot support these amendments and ask Members to reject them. When using these regulation-making powers, we will consult upon them as is custom and practice, either on the basis of a policy consultation or on the draft of the regulations themselves. The affirmative procedure provides for regulations to be laid, scrutinised by committees and approved by the Assembly. This is a proportionate level of scrutiny.

At times, it is more helpful to consult upon a policy proposal to test assumptions. A consultation on draft regulations may not be an appropriate way to engage stakeholders such as tenants. However, amendments 48 and 49 remove this option and create a longer drawn-out process, possibly discouraging engagement with the development of regulations. At Stage 2, we explained that regulations under section 7 are likely to be used to address changes of practice rather than to make a major overhaul to the permitted payments. There are relatively few permitted payments in the Bill, and whilst these may change over the years it is difficult to see how they may be added to in any significant way.

Regulations under section 13 are most likely to be used to reflect cost of living changes so that the level of fixed penalty-notices is proportionate to the costs agents and landlords incur. In the event that a more substantive change was being proposed, the option for detailed scrutiny by Assembly committees is open under the affirmative arrangements. Both sets of arrangements will futureproof the Bill. The superaffirmative procedure could mean that six months is spent reviewing a relatively modest increase of perhaps less than £100 to the level of a fixed-penalty notice. I'm not persuaded that this is proportionate or appropriate.

Amendment 50 has also been brought forward, again from Stage 2, by David Melding to amend the Assembly procedure so that regulations to amend the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in respect of publicising letting fees should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I cannot support this amendment and urge Members to vote against it on the basis that the regulations would be limited to what is on the face of the Bill. As was argued at Stage 2, the regulation-making power here is very limited, allowing only for what is specifically provided for in section 19 of the Bill, which is that regulations may amend chapter 3 of Part 3 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to require a letting agent to ensure that any online advertiser publicises the agents' fees and to allow more than one penalty to be imposed on a letting agent in relation to the same breach of duty in chapter 3. We cannot divert from these provisions, so I'm unconvinced that the affirmative procedure is required for narrowly focused regulations such as these.

I ask that Members support amendment 35 and reject amendments 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52.

I hope the Assembly will indulge me now as a former Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I do think this is a very important part of the legislation, and when it comes to regulation-making powers, it's natural that other Members perhaps glass over a bit. But this really matters. The way this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will function and will be adapted is pretty much going to be determined by the type of regulation procedures we have. My amendments in this group, amendments 48, 49, 52, 51 and 50, all stem from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report for this Bill and provide that regulations made under section 7 and section 13 of the Bill are subject to the superaffirmative procedure.

Section 7, firstly, provides Welsh Ministers with the power to use the regulations to amend the list of permitted payments. The power is a Henry VIII power, as it will enable section 1 to be amended by subordinate legislation. The objective behind the regulation-making powers is to enable regulations to reflect any unforeseen changes in landlord behaviour and practice, and the Welsh Ministers are not permitted to remove the payments of rent from the categories of permitted payment. So, the established practice has been to seek the use of affirmative procedure for any subordinate legislation that would change primary legislation, and, for that reason, the CLAC committee welcomed that the Minister has, from the outset, drafted the Bill so that the affirmative procedure will be used for regulations made under section 7. So, I do acknowledge the strength of the drafting in that respect.

However, the committee also agreed that these regulations, which should enable the list of permitted payments to be altered—or would enable them to be altered—would benefit from the additional security that the superaffirmative procedure would allow: so, from affirmative to superaffirmative in this respect. Given that the Minister has committed to full engagement with stakeholders, I do not believe that placing this commitment in statute through a superaffirmative procedure would be onerous. This view is also influenced by the Minister's reliance, and, indeed, the Welsh Government's wider reliance, on the basic 'consult where appropriate' approach, but this approach lacks transparency—it's up to the Minister; we're not setting the terms—and may not instil confidence in those who will be affected by the changes that can be made through regulations. So, the power to amend the definition of a 'permitted payment' could alter the effect of the overall aim of the Bill as currently drafted or, by shortening the list of permitted payments, widen the number of criminal offences created by the Bill—very significant things.

Key stakeholders and relevant Assembly committees should have the opportunity to comment on draft regulations that would change a significant element of the legislation. The CLAC committee—. And I believe the regulations should be made via superaffirmative procedure—so, I agree with CLAC committee on that—which requires the Welsh Government to consult the stakeholders in advance of laying the regulations before the National Assembly. The period of consultation would also provide time for the relevant Assembly committees to consider the regulations in draft form. So, it significantly strengthens an affirmative procedure by requiring that level of consultation on the draft. So, I think it's very significant.

Section 13, on the other hand, enables an authorised officer of a local housing authority to give an individual a fixed-penalty notice if that officer believes the individual has committed an offence under sections 2 or 3 of the Bill. The amount of fixed penalty is, as of Stage 2, £1,000. Section 13 subsection 3 provides the Welsh Ministers with a power to use regulations to amend the level of fixed-penalty notice, and this power is a Henry VIII power, as it will enable section 13 to be amended by subordinate legislation. And, as in section 7, the CLAC committee—and, again, I agree with them—believe that section 13 regulations should be made under the superaffirmative procedure, which ensures key stakeholders will be consulted before the amount of the fixed penalty is changed. They consistently argue this when you impose a penalty and then change that penalty significantly. So, my amendment ensures that any regulations made under Schedule 1 paragraph 2(4) of the Bill are subject to the affirmative procedure.

In essence, I think these are important changes, potentially, to what is currently on the face of the legislation and requires wide consultation both with stakeholders and with the relevant committees. So, if a future Government wanted to increase the fixed penalty from £1,000 to £5,000, for instance, that, clearly, would be of huge significance, and to consult with letting agents and landlords on what they thought about that and, indeed, what tenants thought about it, would be key to ensuring that such a change—a dramatic change, really, in practice—was fully tested. As I said in response to the Minister's rebuttal to this point in Stage 2, when a Government Minister says—and, Members, wake up to this—'We do not believe that x, y and z would be a good use of your scrutiny time'—so, listen to the Government and be dictated to by the Government as to what scrutiny the legislature requires—you need to run a mile from the Government's advice. It is not impartial. I think it's fair for us to decide. If we want to invest that time in the scrutiny process, we should decide. And, as I said, when it comes to the level of fines, that is very, very significant.

This is not something that I'm suggesting casually; I've referred to the CLAC report throughout, which is itself highly selective, and, indeed, we do praise the practice where that's applied as well. The Government has listened and adopted it in many places, the affirmative procedure, but there are occasions when superaffirmative, which allows much fuller consultation—and I have to say, somehow, the Government is immediately disabled for consulting with tenants because it needs to use a superaffirmative procedure, whereas, if it's a private Government procedure that it determines, it's somehow magically enabled to consult with all the tenants at once, but, as soon as that's a public, statutory commitment, somehow it's compromised. Frankly, I don't think it's a very worthy argument in what has so far been a very good Stage 3 process.

Minister to reply to the debate.

Whilst I need to say that, obviously, I recognise the strength of the arguments made by David Melding and his constant championing of the scrutiny role of the Assembly in terms of the enhanced level of scrutiny for these particular regulations, as I set out in my introduction speech, because of the narrow nature of the regulation-making power, amending the permitted payments and fixed-penalty notices only, we consider that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for both, and, on that basis, I do hope Members will reject amendments 48 to 52, but support the technical changes we intend to make through amendment 35.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 35 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 36.

Formally.

The question is amendment 36 be agreed to. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 36 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 37.

Formally.

The question is amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 37 is therefore agreed.

Leanne Wood, amendment 65.

Moved.

The question is amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 65. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 65 is not agreed.

Leanne Wood, amendment 66.

Moved.

Moved. The question is amendment 66 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 66. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 66 is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 38.

Formally.

The question is amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed.

Leanne Wood, amendment 67.

Moved.

The question is amendment 67 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 67. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 67 is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 39.

Formally.

The question is amendment 39 be agreed. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 39 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 40.

Formally.

The question is amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 40 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 41.

Formally.

The question is amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 41 is agreed.

Minister, 42.

Formally.

The question is amendment 42 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 42 is agreed to.

Group 9 is enforcement authorities. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 11. I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Minister.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendments 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20 have been made in response to recommendation 3 from the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. The amendments provide a licensing authority designated under Part 1 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014—if that authority is not a local authority—with powers to enforce the Bill. The powers are equivalent to those given to a local housing authority.

The amendments replace references to a 'local housing' authority with an 'enforcement' authority and, for the purposes of Part 4, the local housing authority and licensing authority are enforcement authorities in relation to the area of a local housing authority. Amendments 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19 give effect to this change, providing greater clarity in the Bill, and I trust Members will support them.

Amendment 12 is a technical amendment to clarify that an authorised officer and enforcement authority may only investigate offences in respect of a dwelling located in the enforcement authority's area. Amendment 16 ensures consistency with the new references to dwellings 'in an authority's area'. Superfluous text from section 14 is also removed by this amendment.

Rent Smart Wales enjoys an excellent working relationship with local housing authorities across Wales, with a proven record of assisting them with a range of housing enforcement matters. In recognition that there may be a need for collaboration between the licensing authority and a local housing authority, we've included provision within amendment 20 so that the licensing authority obtains the agreement of a local housing authority so that it may exercise its functions as an enforcement authority. This safeguard will ensure that all parties are aware of any enforcement of offences, avoiding any duplication or confusion. These provisions mirror enforcement arrangements in Part 1 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014.

Can I just welcome these amendments, which will give Rent Smart Wales the power to issue fixed-penalty notices? I brought these amendments at Stage 2, and we were pleased to hear that the Government would bring in a more suitable version at Stage 3. I do believe that there's a need to give Rent Smart Wales additional powers to strengthen this legislation, as we're considering today, and reduce the opportunities for flouting the law to go unpunished. 

I would not want to see a position where Rent Smart Wales discovers that an agent is charging a prohibitive fee as part of its work under Part 1 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, but then is required to pass the enforcement role on to a local authority. Indeed, Rent Smart Wales agreed with this approach in their evidence, and they stated that it would be beneficial for them to have powers to enforce where appropriate, not as a lead authority, but to have enforcement powers. They described how this process currently works with the arrangements that are in place to issue fixed-penalty notices to take forward prosecutions.

Generally, it is Rent Smart Wales that takes forward enforcement action, but, where a local authority is already involved with a property or landlord, that authority may take enforcement action rather than Rent Smart Wales under that particular legislation. So, that's why we feel that a similar system should operate under this Act. We will be supporting these amendments today, which will make the system more robust and allow Rent Smart Wales to take action where appropriate. 

Thank you. Minister to reply? No. Thank you. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 12.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 12 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 13.

Formally.

The question is amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.

Group 10 is fixed-penalty notices. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 43 and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and any others in the group.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm happy to move both of my amendments in this group, namely 43 and 44. Amendment 44 stems from the same one that I brought forward at Stage 2 and builds on the amendments that the Government has already put in place, increasing the fixed-penalty notice from £500 to £1,000. My version increases the fixed-penalty notice from £1,000 to £2,000. I do welcome the fact that the Minister has moved somewhat with regard to a policy here, but I think that there was clear evidence from the sector that the proposed levels of fixed penalties were not high enough. It was really quite comprehensive in our evidence. It was surprising, indeed, that there was such unanimity from tenants and landlords and agents. I don't think £1,000 quite does it, however, and, in that regard, we need a more robust form of deterrent in this legislation so that rogue landlords and letting agents are truly deterred from any inappropriate action and it sends a very important signal.

The Minister did say that there would be provision to review the level of the fixed penalty and increase it in regulations. Indeed, I've just referred to that earlier. But I think that the initial fixed penalty has to be set at a level that is clearly a deterrent. Whilst, as I said, the Minister has shifted—let's remember £500 was set as the administrative cost to the local authority, and the model there was just to recover those costs. I do think that the extra £500 that is now proposed by the Government at least acknowledges there should be a clear element of deterrence beyond administrative costs, but I don't think that it's still enough to move to £1,000. So £2,000, I think, sends a stronger signal, and I hope that Members will agree. 

I do agree with what the Minister says that the ultimate deterrent is the potential loss of a licence from Rent Smart Wales. That, as far as the landlord is concerned, is a very powerful sanction. Because of that, I thought setting the fixed penalty at a higher rate still, say £5,000 as in England, wouldn't quite strike the right balance, because we should acknowledge the importance of Rent Smart Wales in Wales in the way we determine these matters. I'm pleased to put on record that I think it's a system that is now operating in practice with greater and greater efficiency, and it's an important part of our model to strengthen the rental sector in Wales and provide a fairer market. 

My second amendment, amendment 44, seeks to ensure that prohibited payments are recovered at the same point that a fixed-penalty notice is paid. This is, for me, central to this legislation. The context behind this Bill is that people were being ripped off with unjustifiable fees, making their housing costs more unaffordable than they already were. For most people, the least they would expect from this legislation would be for us to make those unscrupulous fees illegal and to put in place a repayment system that fixes the immediate issue and deters the landlord from undertaking such activity again in the future. As the Bill currently stands, immediate repayment does not exist. The court may order the fees to be repaid where there is a successful prosecution, but where there is no prosecution, if a prohibited fee is not repaid by the landlord or letting agent, a tenant will have to pursue the payment through the civil courts. There is consensus—I would say a very strong, overwhelming consensus—amongst all stakeholders that any prohibited fee should be repaid automatically, and there's a sense here that the Bill needs to do what it says on the tin. At the moment, it doesn't. Citizens Advice argued that—and I quote—we need, 

'An accessible method of redress',

and that the courts are not—and again I quote them—

'necessarily the place for them.'

It is important that tenants should be able to recover fees that have been charged illegally in the easiest possible way. Otherwise, tenants will not see the full benefits of this legislation, which, again, I think, is highly perverse. We therefore want to see the Bill amended so that there is a requirement for any prohibited payment to be repaid when a fixed-penalty notice is paid. I'm not convinced by the evidence from the Minister and her officials on this issue. Expecting tenants to go through a legal process to recover fees that were charged illegally is unreasonable and unfair. It is a significant omission within this legislation, and I hope the Assembly will agree to rectify this lacuna. 

In the committee, we noted with interest section 10 of the Tenant Fees Bill in England provides the enforcement authority with the power to require repayment of the prohibited fee. Without a similar amendment being introduced here, tenants in Wales will be at a significant disadvantage compared to tenants in England, and I don't think that is acceptable. We should aim for best practice. Please support our amendments.

Clearly, we should not be in the business of canvassing for more jobs for the citizens advice bureaux or any other advice agencies who have to support vulnerable tenants to enable them to navigate their way through the legal system, so I—. David Melding makes some coherent points, and I appreciate there are some later clauses coming forward later that the Minister is proposing that ensure that the enforcement authority has to notify Rent Smart Wales if the landlord hasn't complied or has accepted a prohibited payment. So, I want to understand exactly how Rent Smart Wales, in combination with the local authority, is going to ensure that any landlord who persists in asking for a prohibited payment and doesn't then repay it is going to be sufficiently deterred not to do it and to return the money they have illegally levied, if it is not through the method that David Melding is suggesting. 

I call on the Minister.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Amendment 44 seeks to enable enforcement authorities to use the fixed-penalty notice as a means to also request repayment of prohibited payments and holding deposits on behalf of contract holders. The matter was debated at some length, as David Melding said, at Stage 2, and the position remains the same. The primary route through which the recovery of prohibited payments should be pursued should be the court. To involve local authorities in these matters, even when they have been given the power to do so rather than being put under a duty, risks drawing them away from other enforcement matters. So, the first issue I have with this amendment is one of capacity. We should not forget that local authorities enforce a wide range of housing matters, many of which relate to the safety and well-being of contract holders, as well as the overall standards of properties in the private rented sector. These are vitally important and apply to everyone. They would now also be called upon to enforce the provisions under this Bill. Again, these apply to all existing and prospective contract holders, and the more resource that can be given to investigating offences, issuing fixed-penalty notices or bringing proceedings through the courts, the less likely the situation the amendment seeks to address is to occur.

The second issue is one of expertise, and who is best placed to undertake the work envisaged by the amendment. My response to this is that it is the court, as it is here where the contractual disputes are brought. The courts have the experience and capacity to deal with the type of dispute that might result from a prohibited payment having been made or a holding deposit not repaid. My view on this is reaffirmed by the fact that amendment 44 does not provide for enforcement of any requirement to repay. It is quite likely, therefore, that disputes would still be heard by the court if the landlord or agent chose to ignore the LHA's request for them to repay the prohibited payment. As such, the amendment does not provide any guarantee that the contract holder would be repaid the prohibited payment, as there would be no penalty for failing to do so and no means to require them to do so. This underscores my view that local authority efforts are best directed elsewhere.

I do, however, recognise entirely that there is a need to ensure that contract holders are supported in their efforts, if required. Currently, contract holders can take their own legal advice or can get free, impartial support from Shelter Cymru, Citizens Advice, or NUS Cymru if they are students. These organisations are highly skilled and experienced in dealing with redress for contract holders. But, I want to make sure that the process is made as easy to follow as possible for contract holders. In that regard, I want to draw attention to amendment 26 tabled by the Government, which places a requirement on local housing authorities to signpost and provide information to contract holders who may require assistance in obtaining repayment of a prohibited payment or a holding deposit, equipping a contract holder with all the information that they need, and putting them in touch with organisations who are experienced in providing advice, help and support that will ultimately help a contract holder in making a claim through the court, should that be necessary. For these reasons, I ask Members to reject amendment 44.

Amendment 43 seeks to further increase the fixed penalty to £2,000. Amendments made at Stage 2 responded to concerns that £500 may be too low to act as an effective deterrent. I firmly believe that, at £1,000, the fixed-penalty notice is set at a reasonable level and that further increasing it is unlikely to alter the behaviour of any landlord or agent. I suppose one could argue that a higher amount would create a revenue-making stream for the enforcement authority. However, receipts form fixed-penalty notices may only be used for the purpose of the authority's functions relating to the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, so there is little merit in making that argument.

Members may be looking across the border at the Tenant Fees Act 2019, highlighted by David Melding, which comes into force in England later this year. But their enforcement arrangements are entirely different to our own, and the Act itself is entirely different. Let us not forget that the enforcement authority has the option to move straight to a prosecution. In which circumstances, a person found guilty of an offence may face an unlimited fine. Our expectation is that the enforcement authority will select the most appropriate course of action—a fixed-penalty notice or a prosecution—based on their assessment of a specific case. Of course, the ultimate result of failure to comply with a provision of the Act could be, as David Melding acknowledged, the loss of the individual's or agent's licence, which is, in my opinion, a bigger deterrent and the reason why most people will not find themselves in this position.

Finally, should it become apparent that the fixed-penalty notices are not working as a quick and simple alternative to prosecution, which is what they are intended to do, we have the option of increasing the level of fixed-penalty notice under Section 13(3) of the Bill, should it become necessary in the future. The difference is that such a change would be based on the experience of enforcement authorities and the evidence of the effectiveness, or not, of this legislation. On that basis, I am unable to support these amendments and ask Members to vote against them both.     

Thank you. David Melding to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. You know, at certain points in Stage 3, we get to the heart of the matter, and this legislation, this Bill, is supposed to be about protecting tenants from unlawful payments. The one thing it doesn’t do efficiently is refund the illegal payment, and I just think that anyone watching this would be mystified. At least in England, whatever the deficiencies the Minister may see there, it attempts to do that.

The Minister made reference to my amendment and, you know, implied that it still lacked the power to be enforced. Well, at least it’s on the statute, and you could have brought forward an amendment to ensure that it is strengthened in terms of its enforcement provisions. You have all that power behind you in terms of your legislative capacity and advice, but you’ve chosen not to do it. And I think it is utterly perverse that we will now have a system where tenants have to go through a convoluted legal system that is already part of the problem. They don’t have the confidence or the wherewithal, often, financially to embark on that. Even if they could get advice, they are not necessarily going to be aware of it or feel strong enough to take it on. They may fear the resources that will be against them in terms of the landlord or the agent.

I do thank Jenny Rathbone for what I infer is support, insofar as backbenchers can give it under the whip. I know it’s not easy. But I do think it’s a sad state of affairs that this central defect has not been sorted out by the Government. We needed a quick and efficient method to resolve this. That’s why we brought in fixed penalties, so that the offenders don’t go themselves through a full court procedure, but we accept a very different principle when it comes to the tenants, and, I’m sorry, I think that is perversity gone way too far. It’s dysfunctional.

The second point, on the level of the fixed penalty, setting that at £2,000 instead of £1,000, I do acknowledge that £1,000 is better than £500. It does contain an element of deterrence, because it goes beyond the administrative costs. But, you know, in committee, we heard from reputable landlords and letting agents that they thought that £500, and even £1,000, wasn’t probably the level it should be set at. They want a fair market. They want to be protected themselves from the rogue operators, because the rogue operators undermine the business model of those who are in the market for the best intentions. And they would welcome £2,000, rather than £1,000. I mean, £1,000 is not much of a deterrent, I think, really, for what’s happened here, is it—you know, setting an illegal payment from tenants in vulnerable positions, chasing sometimes scarce housing, and then, you know, the difference in the power relationship, if nothing else. And I just think we need to set a much stronger sign here and now. I realise it can be altered in the future by regulations, but I think it’s for this Assembly to send out a strong signal, and I urge Members, even at this late stage, to back our amendments. They clearly strengthen the Bill, and they’re designed to do that. I think it’s for all parties to sign up to this much-needed reform of the market to make it more fair and efficient. I so move.

Thank you.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 20, no abstentions, 28 against. Amendment 43 is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 14.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 14 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 15.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 15 is agreed.

David Melding, amendment 44.

I move.

Moved. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 20, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 44 is not agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to enforcement authorities and information sharing, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 45. I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and others in this group—David.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The lead amendment in this group, amendment 45, places a duty on local authorities to notify Rent Smart Wales when a fixed penalty is paid. During the Committee Stage of this Bill we agreed with Rent Smart Wales that the process needs to be tightened to ensure that, when a fixed-penalty notice is paid, Rent Smart Wales is informed. This will help with their intelligence gathering and make the system much more robust. During Stage 2, 'The Minister said'—and I'm quoting—

'"Well, actually, that duty already exists because the local authority has to pass on information to Rent Smart Wales and can't withhold it"'.

But this seems to me to be very passive, and we should put this principle on the face of the Bill. I wasn't reassured by other comments that the Minister made. 

Again, in the Minister's account of why she thought the policy was currently robust enough, she talked about Rent Smart Wales requesting the local authority for this information, and again, that's not a duty. They have to make the request. How do they know that a fixed-penalty notice has been issued and paid? They'd need to be clairvoyant, presumably, to request that information, and it really is a very important notice. And what does it amount to? The local authority has to send an e-mail to Rent Smart Wales saying that a fixed-penalty notice was issued and then paid, and that then obviously can be part of the record that is held on that landlord or letting agent. I do believe that repeated offences, even if they're seen as de minimis, if they're repeated, repeated, repeated, themselves constitute a serious breach. So I think the intelligence gathering is really, really important to the robustness of this system, and frankly I am mystified why the government hasn't accept this amendment. But I have, Deputy Presiding Officer, in my role here, had to learn to live with many disappointments. [Laughter.]

I call on the Minister.