National Assembly for Wales

I call the Members to order. 

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

Yes. Band B of our twenty-first century schools and education programme will see a further £2.3 billion invested in our education estate from April of next year, and, subject to approval of business cases, all local authorities and colleges in Wales will benefit from those investments. 

And it's the case that the Government has committed to use public-private funding through the mutual investment model of £500 million to partially fund the cost of the building of new schools. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance told me that individual school building schemes would not be of sufficient scale individually to qualify for funding, and instead schemes would be brought together in batches across Wales to be of sufficient scale to qualify. However, the Wales Audit Office produced a report in May 2017 in which they said that, to date, most councils had resisted procuring projects in batches, that protracted consultations on one or two controversial projects that involve merges or closures could potentially delay all the projects in a batch and that failure to collaborate would pose a significant risk to the revenue-funded element of the programme.

Having looked through previous discussions in this Chamber and in committee on the mutual investment model, I find the Government has provided inadequate information about how it's going to resolve these issues. With that in mind, would the First Minister, in the first instance, outline how the Government is addressing the batching problems, but, in the longer term, would he commit to a debate in Government time in order for all Members to scrutinise this funding model effectively?

The reason why we've chosen strategic partnering to deliver MIM education projects is that it allows for the capital value of individual projects to be much lower than they would be under single procurement. So, we encourage, of course, bundling to happen in order for the cost to go down, amongst other reasons. The successful strategic partner is granted the opportunity to deliver the aggregated pipeline of MIM education schemes—that's up to £500 million in value—and that represents an efficient and agile way to deliver single or small batched schemes at a local level with values as low as £15 million, because, without that, every individual local authority or further education institution would need to run a full procurement for each of its individual MIM projects, which is impractical and time consuming. We would encourage local authorities, of course, to take a bundling approach so that their own costs are brought down and, secondly, of course, to make sure that they are able to deliver projects that otherwise probably wouldn't be delivered because they are smaller in scale. 

Twenty-first century schools, First Minister, as we've heard you many times say, is about improving the school estate across Wales. In my own electoral region, the Vale of Glamorgan Council are proposing to shut a small rural school that has a good role to it, has a bright future ahead of it—Llancarfan school. I appreciate you can't talk about the specific case, but surely it is not right to use twenty-first century school money to shut a viable school that has a bright future, and, indeed, the argument the Vale council have put forward doesn't even talk of closure; it merely talks of relocation. That is not what twenty-first century schools is about, is it?

Well, as he puts it, the objective of twenty-first century schools is not to close schools; the objective of twenty-first schools is to provide the appropriate premises for children and young people to learn in. I know, of course, that in many parts of Wales that has meant that new schools have been built and that existing schools have been closed for any number of reasons. He's right to say, of course, that I can't comment on a particular proposal that's before the Vale of Glamorgan council, but we're proud of the fact that twenty-first century schools has delivered new buildings and refurbished buildings for so many children and young people across Wales. 

There is huge demand for the additional capital funding allocated for twenty-first century schools projects from the Welsh-medium sector, which is excellent news, of course, and demonstrates a desire to support the Government's ambition of a million Welsh speakers, but there isn’t sufficient funding to meet that demand by any stretch. Over £100 million-worth of applications for funding have been made for projects to increase Welsh-medium education across Wales. Will there be more investment for Welsh-medium schools or Welsh-medium education in this Assembly term?

Well, of course, we have made great investment in education and we’ve maintained the high level of education spend. For example, if you look at what we spend on education, you can see that the spending has increased over the years—1.8 per cent in 2017-18, and that’s more than any other country in the United Kingdom. But it’s true to say, of course, that there is more demand for Welsh-medium, which is to be welcomed. Of course, every local authority, through the plans that they have, should ensure that that demand is catered for, and we must also ensure that the teachers are in place so that the schools can grow and prosper. Of course, we will invest, of course, in Welsh-medium education and we’ll work with the LEAs to ensure that their plans are strong.

Well, there is a statement later on, of course, this afternoon, but I think it's right to say that while  many aspects of the withdrawal agreement are needed, the political declaration on our future relationship needs to set out the intent of both sides to negotiate a long-term relationship that clearly reflects the position in 'Securing Wales' Future' before the Welsh Government would support any agreement. 

I thank the First Minister for his answer. I wonder if he can provide his view and analysis on the Northern Ireland backstop in particular and its implications for Wales. As ever with the UK Government, the rhetoric and the reality do not appear to match even when we've got the detail of a 600-page withdrawal agreement. The UK Government is arguing that the Northern Ireland backstop will provide Northern Ireland with two open borders: one with the Republic and one with Britain. But if there is regulatory or non-regulatory divergence between Northern Ireland and Britain, surely that means that there'll be a hard border in the Irish sea. Is that the First Minister's understanding of the withdrawal agreement and the backstop in particular? And would he agree, therefore, that that would be bad news for Welsh ports and the Welsh economy generally? Or is he aware of any other proposal that the UK Government might have, such as unilaterally deciding not to check any goods that come from Northern Ireland, whether there's a backstop or not?  

Well, there lies the issue. Of course, there are some checks now, particularly in terms of animals and food checks, but they've been there because the island of Ireland is one area as far as biosecurity is concerned. The concern I've always had, and it's not addressed in the withdrawal agreement, is that barriers would be put up, yes, through the middle of the Irish sea, but that affects Wales as well, because, clearly, what I don't want to see, as I've said many times in this Chamber, are any fresh barriers being put in place between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, particularly barriers that would lead to trade moving more easily through the Scottish ports into Northern Ireland. The withdrawal agreement is not clear as to how that would operate. The focus has been on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic but there is no focus on the maritime border between Wales—and England for that matter—and the Republic of Ireland, which is lacking in the agreement.    

First Minister, while your Government has been playing politics frankly since June 2016—[Interruption.]—by grandstanding and attacking the Prime Minister, the truth is that Theresa May has been working very hard to negotiate a deal with the European Union, which delivers for Wales and which respects the outcome of the referendum—and I remind everybody—in which Wales voted to leave the EU. Now, I accept that the deal that was put forward by the Prime Minister last week is a compromise. I accept that it won't please everybody in this Chamber, but what it will do—. [Interruption.] What it will do is protect jobs, protect the interests of Welsh businesses, protect the environment and protect Welsh people's rights. Now, in spite of the support that has been shown for this deal from the CBI, from the Institute of Directors and from the various farming unions, including our own farming unions here in Wales, Jeremy Corbyn, of course, has ruled out supporting the deal, and he ruled it out without actually having read the detail of the deal. Have you read the deal, and will you assure us that you will do the right thing and support the deal that is in front of us, which is pragmatic and the only way to get an orderly exit from the EU? 

Well, there is no point asking me; he needs to ask his own colleagues in London. It's not a question of this being a Labour versus Conservative debate. There are many, many of his colleagues in London who are dead against this deal. That's the reality of it. He needs to convince Jacob Rees-Mogg first, with respect, as he's a member of his party. David Jones—on his own doorstep, he can try and convince David Jones. The problem is this, isn't it: the withdrawal agreement does address some of the issues, but not in a way that is secure enough or permanent enough. There are some other issues that need to be resolved as well, particularly with regard to the backstop. The real problem is that I can't see any way that this is going to get through the Commons. That's the problem, and the Conservative Party needs to examine whether or not it has the votes to get the deal through the Commons. So, the problem is not so much the deal, even though I have issues with the deal, particularly in terms of how long it will last, but that we don't know whether this deal will get through the Commons, and therein lies the problem within the Conservative Party and the massive splits that are within it.

First Minister, as well as the withdrawal agreement, as you've regularly pointed out, there was also the political declaration on the future relationship that was published at the same time. Whilst we cannot change the withdrawal agreement, because we're unlikely to get any changes and amendments through the EU in that situation, this can actually still be changed, and the council aren't meeting until Sunday. Are you having discussions with the Prime Minister to ensure that the Welsh voice is actually going to be heard in any changes to this declaration? Because as you've pointed out many times before our committee, the Welsh voice hasn't been listened to very often in London. It's time now it should be listened to in this future declaration on future interests.

I can inform the Chamber that I'll be meeting with the Prime Minister tomorrow to discuss that and other issues.

Questions now from the party leaders, and on behalf of the leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. First Minister, other nation states within the European Union will decide at a summit this weekend whether the draft agreement on exiting the European Union works for them. Do you think it works for Wales?

No, because I’ve always been in favour of remaining within the single market and within the customs union.

We are a very long way from what was proposed in the referendum two and a half years ago.

The agreement on offer is miles away, actually, from the promises made and voted on in June 2016. It probably doesn't please anybody at this point. I think we're agreed on that. Where we don't agree is how to protect Wales's interests in the event of the UK ceasing to be a member of the EU, however that happens. Now, the Supreme Court is busy considering whether a Scottish continuity Bill is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. If the court agrees that it is, the Scots will have a powerful legislative shield against the Westminster power grab. Yet, while you have raised concerns about the nature of UK withdrawal as is being proposed at the moment, at the same time you're proposing this afternoon that we repeal the Welsh continuity Bill—the only thing preventing the Tories from legislating in devolved areas without this Assembly's consent. Now, given that the Supreme Court will come to its decision on Scotland within a matter of weeks, why not delay withdrawing the Welsh continuity Bill until we understand the lay of the land at the Supreme Court?

Well, of course any ruling by the Supreme Court will have an effect on Wales. Let's say, for example, the Supreme Court were to say that the Scots have that power, then that would cover us as well. But if they say that there's no power to do it, the Scots have nothing, and we have an agreement. That's the issue here. We have an inter-governmental agreement that was reached by two parties. Part of that agreement was to withdraw the continuity Act. If we don't do that, we will have breached the agreement, and that means of course that we have shown bad faith as far as the UK Government is concerned and as far as we are concerned. It's also worth, of course, bearing in mind that that agreement was reached after many, many months of negotiation, and that agreement is something that cannot lightly be thrown away. Now, I know he takes the view that he doesn't like the agreement. I understand that; it's been made clear in the past in this Chamber. But we have an agreement as a Government to protect Wales, and we intend to make sure that that agreement is honoured, at least on our side.

Wales has too few levers as it is, and what happens in taking away the potential powers of the continuity Bill for Wales is that you weaken those powers that we do have. The legal argument is that Wales had a stronger case in the Supreme Court than Scotland did.

But, moving on, just over a week ago your party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, told the German newspaper Der Spiegel that Brexit cannot been stopped. Since then, we've been told that what he actually meant was that Labour on its own can't stop Brexit. Now, opposition parties on the 'remain' side of the argument have been very open to the notion of working in a cross-party manner to halt Brexit. Rather than prevaricating—and, to be honest, I'm done guessing what's going on in Jeremy Corbyn's mind—don't you think that the Labour Party now should be entering into urgent talks with us, the SNP and other parties at Westminster to co-ordinate efforts to secure a fresh vote with 'remain' on the ballot paper? I know you've been advocating going down the general election route instead, but surely you can see now that what we really need is a people's vote?

Let me explain where I think we are. First of all, I think there's been a complete failure of politics in Westminster. We know that, because we had a referendum in 2016 on an idea. People now can see what the outcome is, and I do think that there is every justification in saying to people, 'Now you know what the reality is, what do you now want to do?' That could be done either through a general election or a public vote. But what's clear is, that public vote would have to offer the option of whether to leave, on what basis to leave, or, indeed, whether to remain, on the basis of what we know now. I can't see, where politicians in Westminster have failed, or a Government in Westminster has failed, that there is anything wrong with going back to people and saying, 'The circumstances have now changed, what do you now want to do?' If they still want to leave, then, of course, they have the opportunity to say so. But I do think we need trust the people on this.

Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, how do you consider the early stages of the new rail franchise to be progressing?

With great difficulty, because there have been enormous problems, as we can see. I'm glad that Transport for Wales has issued the apologies that is has. It had been affected by storm Callum and it has inherited quite an elderly fleet. But we did say—we were honest at the start—it would take some time to replace the trains that we wanted and to get the kind of service that we want to provide to the people of Wales.

First Minister, only a number of months ago, your transport Secretary stated that the new rail franchise would be transformational. We are now just over one month since Transport for Wales—[Interruption.]—since Transport for Wales took over the Welsh rail franchise, and already—

I can't hear the leader of the opposition, and I don't think the First Minister can as well, so can you please be quiet and allow the leader of the opposition to be heard?

Diolch, Llywydd. We are now just over one month since Transport for Wales took over the Welsh rail franchise, and already we have a public full-newspaper-page-spread apology that you've referred to. Now, the apology states, and I quote:

'We know that you, our customers, deserve better from your rail services in Wales and the Borders, and this is not what you expected from your new operator.'

Unquote. And do you know why, First Minister, this is not what people expected? I'll tell you why. Because, yet again, it is your Government who is responsible for these services, and you are, once again, failing to deliver on your promises. You promised a high-quality, affordable and accessible train network in Wales, but the reality for passengers is that Transport for Wales's morning commuter train from Chepstow and Caldicot to Newport and Cardiff has been cancelled 16 times in the last 20 weekdays. Blaenau Ffestiniog, Betws y Coed and Llanrwst have had no trains all day on seven of the last 20 weekdays. And the 08:40 train from Aberystwyth to Shrewsbury was cancelled on four days last week. This is an absolute shambles by your Government. So, First Minister, instead of public relations-inspired apologies, what measurable action is Transport for Wales taking to address this appalling start to the franchise?

I have to say, this is weak ground for him. How does he justify the fact that Wales only gets 1 per cent of rail infrastructure investment? Nothing from him about that. How does he explain—? Yes, I know it's difficult, but it's true. How does he explain the fact that it was his own party that cancelled electrification west of Cardiff, despite the promise that was actually made? So, this is very weak ground for him.

But, we did say that we would transform the rail network in Wales. We didn't say we'd do it in a month. After 15 years of a franchise that was let before, after many, many years of underinvestment in the track, by a Conservative Government, we said that we would transform the network, but we were upfront and said it would take time to do it. Of course it would. Some of the problems on the trains are to do with the track, which we have no control over, and some of them are to do with the fact that 30 per cent of the rolling stock was impacted by storm Callum.

But I have to say to him, I don't think people will find it realistic when he says, after 15 years of rolling stock being used, that everything was going to change in a month. Really. We said that that wouldn't happen, but we have, of course, outlined a plan for the future and we will deliver a train Service for the people of Wales and keep our promises, unlike his party.

Since your Government has taken over this franchise, services have got worse, and that's just in a month, First Minister. Now, the previous franchise agreement made no allowance for growth in passenger numbers and no provisions for extra train capacity. Since that franchise was first let in 2003, passenger numbers have increased by around 75 per cent. This created chronic congestion, a lack of appropriate rolling stock and years of underinvestment in relation to rail services across Wales.

You were asked repeatedly to publish the tender specification against which the potential rail operators were to bid in order to win the current contract. You have repeatedly refused to make that document public. Transparency is, of course, a key component in ensuring that the Welsh public have faith in Transport for Wales going forward. First Minister, in light of these deteriorating services, will you now release that tender specification in full. in order to help restore the public's confidence in your Government's oversight of rail services in Wales, and so that we can fully assess your Government's role in this continuation of failing of Welsh commuters?

The document will be published. We always said it would be—suitably redacted, of course. But, I mean, really, four weeks into the franchise, he is critical—after 15 years of the franchise being run from Whitehall, after eight years of a Conservative Government when no extra money was put into rail investment in Wales, no extra money was put into infrastructure, no extra money was put into rolling stock, no money was allocated for electrification. We've seen the shambles in England with some of the franchises there. Chris Grayling has been hauled over the coals for it. There's no vision in England. There's no money being set to one side. Despite that fact that we have called for rail infrastructure to be devolved, with an appropriate Barnett consequential, which will be 6.2 per cent, the Tories have refused, because they're happy with a situation, it seems, where Wales gets 1 per cent of rail infrastructure investment. That is absolutely wrong given the fact that Scotland gets a far, far better deal. What we've offered the people of Wales is a vision for the future. We've said that by the end of next year, the pacer trains will go, there will be partial electrification, there will be new trains, they will all be air conditioned, and people will be able to experience a service that's far, far superior than the service the Tories tolerated for so long from 2010 onwards. 

Leader of the UKIP group—Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, there is an ever-increasing list of building projects in Cardiff dealing, supposedly, with student accommodation. In the last three years, there have been 23 separate developments opened, approved or put under construction in Cardiff. If you stand on the junction of City Road and Newport Road in Cardiff, you can see eight separate developments, either under construction or newly opened. There are also now instances in both Newport and Cardiff of blocks of so-called student accommodation where the flats are being rented out commercially. The flats inside these blocks do not go to students because there isn't a big enough demand from students. Do you think that a suspicious pattern may be developing whereby universities and private developers are gaining planning permission for so-called student developments and then deliberately changing their use afterwards?

Of course, a change of use requires an application to the local authority. If he has any evidence at all to back up what he's saying, I'd be glad to hear it. 

Well, it is, as you say, a matter for the relevant local authority in part, but I feel that this is an area where the Welsh Government should be concerned. I think you do have an important role to play in monitoring this. I have raised this issue with your housing Minister, who said she's keeping an eye on this, but she did point out that it may fall close to the remit of your planning Minister. So, there is a danger, in my view, that this could fall through the cracks. We do need to look at why there has been such an increase in this so-called student accommodation.

Currently, student accommodation is exempt from business rates. This is because the student flats are classed as domestic dwellings and therefore fall under the council tax regime rather than business rates. Business owners on Maindy Road in Cardiff recently found out that they will have to leave their business units to make way for a six-storey building comprising 143 student flats. There's a motor repair garage that has been at this site for 40 years. Not only will this change have a detrimental effect on the local community, but the taxpayer will lose thousands of pounds due to business rates not being paid by the owners of the student flats. Is this not a case, First Minister, of universities and developers exploiting loopholes in the planning rules simply to maximize their profits?

He seems to think that people who live in private flats pay business rates. They don't. They pay council tax, just as students do. There's no difference. So, I can't see what point he's trying to make there. If somebody purchases a flat in a block of flats that has just been built, they pay council tax, not business rates. 

I thank you for your answer, but there has been a certain amount of concern about this, even within Cardiff council. Cardiff council's planning officer, Lawrence Dowdall, has recently stated that Cardiff may now have an oversupply of student accommodation. Planning committee member Wendy Congreve, who is a Lib Dem member, described one recent development as 

'a cynical use of the planning process. It's nothing less than a commercial development through the back door and must be resisted. 

'We developed too many of this type of accommodation, and surprise, surprise they are now being turned into commercial, lucrative developments.' 

I think you do need to be concerned about this, because this possible flouting of the rules may affect your ambitions for affordable housing in Wales. Commercial developers, when they build new housing estates, have a legal obligation to provide an element of affordable housing. Developers building so-called student blocks are under no such obligation. So, you could have universities working with private developers to get their properties on the commercial market by the back door, while all the time avoiding the need to provide affordable housing. Do you think your Government should be having a word with the developers or monitoring this situation in any way?

Well, I think he should be careful here, because he's effectively accusing universities of being part of a scam, in effect, without any evidence. I come back to the point I made earlier on: he has made suggestions, and I've not seen any evidence from him to back up any of his suggestions, apart from what he says, but nothing to back it up. But I'm pretty sure our universities are not engaged in commercial property development when they have many, many thousands of students to house anyway. We should celebrate the fact that Cardiff and other universities across Wales have been so successful in attracting students from around the world, because they add to the research and learning capacity of those universities and, ultimately, add to our economy. Universities are huge drivers of the economy because they attract so many students, and I've not seen any evidence that suggests that universities are deliberately trying to build student accommodation with a view to then changing the use of that accommodation to make money through commercial property. 

In April, we introduced a grant scheme to provide hydropower project in Wales with grants towards their non-domestic rates bills. The scheme provides 100 per cent rates relief to community hydro projects and caps the increase in rates for other hydropower developments.

And Plaid Cymru was very pleased to ensure that business rates relief for community energy projects as part of the budget agreement for this financial year with the Government, but there is no assurance to date that the business rate relief will be available for the next financial year or for ensuing years. These projects clearly need long-term assurances so that they can plan for their future, and without that assurance, it’s difficult for them to plan and to collaborate with community groups and local charities, and, indeed, it’s difficult for new initiatives to be set up. So, will you commit to ensuring that these business rate relief schemes are available permanently for these hydroenergy schemes?

Well, it’s difficult to do that, of course. That is something for the next Government to consider and it depends on the amount of funding we receive from Westminster, but, of course, we understand how much of a help this has been for hydropower, and we will consider the situation when we know more about the financial position in the next financial year onwards.

First Minister, I think it's fair to say that we could be using the business rate regime far more imaginatively to target support, whether that be for hydroenergy projects, as Siân Gwenllian has alluded to, other renewable projects or, indeed, our high streets, and we know full well the problems that have afflicted some high street businesses in areas such as Monmouth in my constituency in the wake of revaluation. 

You mentioned your successor; will you leave a note for your successor, whoever that might be—I think that's the way it's done in Labour circles—to look again at this whole area of business rates and ways that the tax could be reformed to actually help rather than hinder the economy over the longer term, not just the next budget or next two budgets?

I think in the Conservative Party it's a gangplank that's used mainly, isn't it, to deal with changes of leadership? Any note or notes that I leave will, of course, be electronic. We are, of course, moving towards being a paperless Government. 

From our perspective, we will always try and use the non-domestic rates regime in innovative and imaginative ways. We've done it, of course, with the small business rate relief scheme, which helped so many businesses across Wales, and we will look to see what might be possible in the future, depending, of course, on what moneys are made available through the block grant.

First of all, can I thank the Member for the work that he has done on behalf of those workers? We have held discussions with Schaeffler, and an offer of a two-tier approach to support the company has been accepted. A meeting will be held in early December to develop a taskforce with members of the Schaeffler management team, and the consultation period is still in operation, of course, until early January. What the support is aimed at doing, of course, is to help those who work there at the moment and to see what beneficial uses for employment the site could be put to in the future.

Thank you, First Minister. I warmly welcome that news. I met with the economy Secretary last week to urge the Government to engage with the plant, so I'm delighted that that has now happened. When I met with the UK managing director of Schaeffler, they made it clear that their decision to begin the process of closure had nothing to do with the workforce, which, they stressed, had been excellent. But, it's essential that they now properly engage with the consultation process. Would the Welsh Government make clear to them that if they decide they no longer want to continue the plant, we will not put up with them cutting and running? This town has provided nearly 50 years of building the profits of this business, and they owe an obligation to us to work with us constructively to see if we can keep manufacturing in that plant.

Yes, the conversation so far has been positive. I would expect that to continue in the future—there's no reason for them to change their minds. They've been working with us, as a Government, and the emphasis will be very strongly on finding a new use for the site, providing employment for all those who've worked there and others in future, and, of course, to provide support for those workers who will now, possibly, be looking elsewhere. But, as we have always done when situations like this have arisen, we will be there to support the workers involved.

Can I associate myself with what Lee Waters has said about the commitment that the workforce has shown over a period of very many years to that company, and how much they've contributed to their success? I hope that the discussions that you're having will have a positive outcome, but I have to say there's a faint sense here of shutting the stable door after the horse has already gone, and it may be that it's too late to change Schaeffler's mind—I hope that I'll be proved wrong in that, and I'm pleased to see the efforts that are going in.

But, in terms of other manufacturing businesses that may feel that their future is greatly jeopardised by the possibility of Brexit, what more can your Government do to engage with them proactively before they reach the point that Schaeffler has done and they've actually made the decision to leave? As has already been put to you again this afternoon, the most effective way, of course, to deal with these situations would be a people's vote and a decision for us to remain. But, in the meantime, and in the absence of that, what more can you do to engage proactively with particularly international companies in the hope that we can prevent them from getting to the position that Schaeffler has got to?

There are occasions when we get notice of potential closures and we're able to help those companies, and have done in the past—Tata being, I suppose, the most obvious example. But, there are occasions when we get no notice, and this was one such occasion. If we'd known that there were issues there, we could have obviously looked to help the company, but they'd already taken the decision.

As far as the way we operate goes and what we can do in the future, we have the EU transition fund, of course, of £50 million, which is there to help businesses to transition, helping them with training so that they are competitive when Britain leaves the EU. Of course, we continue to work on other ways, working with the business community, in which we can help them to overcome the incredible uncertainty that they're facing at the moment.

Since 2011, the Welsh Government has supported over 16,200 jobs in manufacturing. Through the economic action plan, we will support futureproofing business investment to help companies sustain, compete and grow.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Clearly, the advanced materials and manufacturing sector discussed in the economic action plan is one of the areas where we're going in the future—very modern technologies. But, we still have many manufacturing sectors that are still relying on older technologies that need updating—Tata being an example of one of those plants. The Welsh Government committed millions of pounds of investment into the power plant. Can you give us an update as to where that money is? Can you also look at what other actions you might be able to take to help companies like Tata, which want to improve productivity and efficiency, but are having difficulties, perhaps, in sometimes getting that extra support?

Well, the investment in Tata is going well. Of course, Tata themselves have invested in blast furnace 5. We continue to talk to them about what kind of package would help and what would be lawful, of course, under state-aid rules. In fact, I had a meeting some 10 days ago with a representative of Tata as we look to take things forward. Tata are definitely keen, of course, to stay in Wales, and particularly in Port Talbot and the other plants around Wales, and we will continue to work with Tata, as we always have done, to secure Welsh jobs. 

In June, the annual Barclays and SPTS Technologies' Voice of Welsh Manufacturing event was held in Newport. One of the topics of discussion was skills shortages and the shift from vocational qualifications to university degrees. First Minister, what is the Welsh Government doing to tackle the misperception that exists regarding the well-paid and rewarding roles that careers in engineering and manufacturing offer in Wales?  

We are seeing the growth of apprenticeship schemes. I think in the 1990s the UK lost interest in apprenticeships, and concentrated overly on academic courses. We now see, of course, not just bigger companies but smaller companies offering apprenticeships. Jobs Growth Wales was an example of that to give people the training they needed to get a job and, of course, we have a commitment to create 100,000 apprenticeships for all ages across Wales. It's through creating those apprenticeships that we create the opportunities for people, and show them that there is a worthwhile alternative to the academic route and, of course, in ensuring that, making sure that people have the skills they need to be employable in the future. 

First Minister, my region has lost far too many manufacturing jobs in recent decades, and while I welcome your Government's actions in securing new manufacturing investment, such as the Aston Martin deal, this doesn't replace the loss of manufacturing output in South Wales West. First Minister, how will your Government ensure my region benefits from such investment, particularly as the region has excelled in the automotive supply chain in the past?  

Tata is one example, of course, and Ford is another one. We've work very, very closely with the companies through some very difficult times, at times, to make sure that Ford with its 1,700 jobs in Bridgend is still there and looking to the future. What we have done, I believe, is replace many jobs that were low paid, low skilled, with jobs that are higher paid and higher skilled. That's where we need to be. Competing with those who have low labour costs is not Wales's future. It was tried in the 1980s and 1990s, and unless you are willing to pursue lower and lower wages, then that is not something that is an option to you. That has meant an emphasis on skills. It's meant an emphasis on attracting high-quality investment and high-quality jobs, and that will continue to be the aim of the Government. 

We expect health boards to have suitable resources in place, including staffing, to provide services to meet the needs of their local population.

On a number of occasions over the years of devolution, Welsh Government has produced pots of money to reduce waiting times if they've become excessive. In 2017-18, the median waiting time for knee surgery in Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board was 339 days, up 95 days on the previous year. Over 61 per cent of those currently waiting for trauma and orthopaedic operations are waiting over a year. How do you respond to my constituent, let's say Mr LB, who's been on a waiting list since 8 December 2016 for bilateral total knee replacements? The health board wrote to me this month, saying, 'We estimate we won't be able to offer him a date for surgery now until May 2019'—over 500 days. Mr LB says he has nothing but the greatest support from his GP and his consultant, but he's a virtual cripple at 63, in constant, excruciating pain.   

It's very difficult, of course, to pass comment on an individual. I have no doubt that where somebody's waiting for an operation they are in pain, and they will be anxious to know when that operation will take place. They'll also be anxious to know what resources are being made available in order that the time waiting for an operation is expedited. What I can say is that the number of whole-time trauma and orthopaedic surgery consultants at BCU increased from 23 in 2009 to 29.2 in 2017. That's reflected in an increase across the whole of Wales. At the end of August this year, there was an 11 per cent reduction in the number of people waiting over 36 weeks for orthopaedic treatment in the BCU area, and that is reflected across the whole of Wales. So, additional resources have been made available to appoint more consultants and surgeons, and we are seeing that reflected in the reduction in the number of people waiting. And as far as Mr LB is concerned, I can give him the assurance that we will continue to look at how we can provide more resources and I hope that he gets his operation soon.

First Minister, we often hear in the winter period of orthopaedic operations and other planned surgery being cancelled because of winter pressures. How confident are you that the arrangements that have been put in place by the local health boards and by the Cabinet Secretary for health for this winter will avoid those levels of cancellation that we have seen in the past? 

Well, there's always a level of cancellation that takes place beforehand in order to create the spare capacity for the winter period, given the winter pressures that we've seen over the last few years, although I would argue that certainly last year and the year before, those pressures were dealt with even though they were substantial and took up a lot of staff resources and time. Of course, health boards have to have in place their winter plans, which over the past few years have proven to be durable and I've no reason to suspect that that won't be the case this year. 

Yes. I've just realised I'm not wearing one, so I apologise for that first of all. To promote the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and White Ribbon Day, we are holding a Facebook live webinar, Ending VAWDASV in Wales; funding four community communication activities; and encouraging more of our male staff to become White Ribbon ambassadors.

Thank you, First Minister. I'm attending the White Ribbon event today, sponsored by Joyce Watson, and will attend the Black Association of Women Step Out's Light a Candle event at Llandaff cathedral next week. As the First Minister is aware, for the past eight years BAWSO has led the Light a Candle multifaith event, bringing together more than 250 individuals to commemorate international White Ribbon Day.

But the horrific statistics still prevail. In Wales and England two women a week are killed by a current or former partner and 10,000 women a week experience sexual abuse. Will the First Minister join me in acknowledging the UN rapporteur Professor Philip Alston's report last week, in which he states that single household payments and delays of five to 12 weeks before universal credit is paid out gives more leverage to a controlling and violent partner? And will he join me today in encouraging the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd, to halt universal credit and address this punitive policy that so adversely affects women facing violence and sexual abuse?

Yes. She will see that, as if by magic, I now have a white ribbon attached. But she raises a hugely important issue and can I commend her as well for all the work that she's done in raising awareness and in combating violence against women over the years? We of course condemn all forms of abuse and violence. We work with specialist violence against women services in Wales to raise awareness of violence against women. And, of course, we support third sector organisations to deliver direct service provision to support and protect victims. It also supports preventative work—hugely important and of course that formed part of the legislation we passed a few years ago. Much work has been done to raise the issue of domestic violence to make it more visible in the public mind, but there is still work to be done in order to prevent physical and mental abuse and, sadly, those deaths that she mentioned. 

First Minister, there's always more that can be done and I recognise totally the commitment of the Welsh Government to this issue, and indeed the commitment of most of the parties in this Chamber to the fact that too many women, too many young girls, too many teenagers are being beaten up. I have two particular bugbears and I would like to know what you think you as a Government, and we as an Assembly, could do to try to alleviate this. 

The first is the endlessly grim storylines of dramas, thrillers, soaps and films, where almost all of the victims are women, all young girls, all teenagers, who are constantly the ones being beaten up, being threatened, being violated, being raped and being killed in horrific ways. And it sends out a pernicious message that actually that's what happens to women, and it isn't acceptable.

And my other big bugbear is with the, at times, asinine judiciary system that says because a 17-year-old is wearing a pair of lacy knickers, 'Hey, it's okay to go and rape her.' These are terrible and until we stop this, this story of victimhood and fear will transmit all around our young girls.

And I have two teenage daughters and I resent them growing up in this culture that they have to take changes, they have to wear the dark clothes, they have to not be bright and sparkly in case some guy comes along and says, 'Oh, I'll 'ave a bit of that.' And, of course, it sends out the wrong message to our boys, because they're not bad, but there's a casualness, there's that, sort of, 'Hey, it's okay, everybody does it, let's do it.' So, the media, and I don't mean newspapers per se—I'm talking about the entertainment industry; what a great word, 'entertainment'—and the judiciary have got to get real, and they are a real part of the jigsaw puzzle to stop us having to constantly campaign to protect our women, our teenagers and our girls, and it's disgraceful.

I don't think I can add much to what the Member has said. She puts it so powerfully herself. When she mentioned the fact that women and young girls are particularly portrayed as victims, I started to rack my mind as to some of the programmes that I've seen recently, and she's right. I hadn't actually spotted it, so I'm grateful to her for raising that issue, and she's absolutely right that the promotion of victimhood encourages people to make people victims, and I think that is certainly a strong issue there and it's something that I think will need to be examined in the future.

Secondly, she's partially right, I think, to say that about the judiciary. I think that, in their defence, younger judges particularly are very well aware of the world around them and, of course, what is appropriate to say and what is not appropriate to say. I think that, certainly, when I was in practice, some of the older judges at that time perhaps were of a different era. But the judges that I know would be very, very much aware of the need to be sensitive and appropriate, and certainly they wouldn't, I'm sure, say anything like that in a summing up.

But I do wonder whether we've gone backwards. I do, because it seemed until quite recently that the issue of gender equality and the issue of respect were something that was a never-ending journey towards a more positive outcome. I'm not sure it is. I don't believe that Wales is a safe place for women to come forward with allegations, I have to say, and that is something that we all recognise as political parties, and we all recognise that steps have to be taken with regard to that. So, there's much work to be done. But that work, of course, is driven forward very strongly by the kind of representations that she has made and others in this Chamber have made, and the representation that she has made and those of my friend from the Vale of Glamorgan and others in this Chamber will always be strongly supported by me.

First Minister, there's no doubt in my mind that we've gone backwards on this agenda, and I fully support what's been said by Angela and by Jane Hutt, and I'd like to focus on what you can actually do about this. You could improve education on this front so that every child is absolutely clear what is and what isn't acceptable. You could do something about the welfare benefit system. The fact that this area isn't devolved is something that you could do something about, if you were prepared to take responsibility for welfare benefits. The best way to tackle violence against women would be to ensure that demand for support services is met. Shrinking budgets have meant that this isn't always happening. In 2016-17, the latest statistics available from Women's Aid show that 249 survivors of domestic abuse could not be accommodated by refuges in Wales because there was no space available in the service that was contacted when help was needed. Now, that same report found that there had been an overall loss of up to 5 per cent of funding for the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence specialist sector in this country.

Apart from launching yet another review, how do you intend to tackle this grim picture and become the feminist Government that you aspire to be?

Well, we have provided, of course, funding to local authorities and third sector organisations for the implementation of the 2015 Act. We fund the Live Fear Free helpline and of course £969,000 of capital funding grant to acquire, maintain or upgrade fixed assets, such as buildings and equipment. But I take the point that what we need to be doing is making sure—well, two things: first of all that there is consistent coverage across Wales of refuges, but also, and I was struck by this when I visited an organisation in Cardiff last week where I talked to women who had horrific stories of what they had been through—the point that they made to me was that you need a safe place to live but you also need help to get your confidence back and help needs to come from people who are familiar, not general counselling but counselling that is specific to that person. So, it's massively important that we take that on board in the future to provide that consistency as well, so that it's not simply a question of, 'Let's move someone to a safe place'—that's important—but 'How can we help that individual who has gone through the most horrific experience to help to rebuild themselves and their lives?' I saw an example of it in Cardiff, and that, I think, will be a challenge for the next Government: how can we make sure that that consistency is achieved?

I want to thank the National Federation of Women's Institutes, who, as an organisation, have really helped to take this message about standing up and calling on men to stand up to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls. They reach the parts that others can't, their organisation reaches every aspect of people's lives where they live, and they have a huge part and huge influence in changing this agenda. But one of the things I think that we really need to focus on, and it was brought up this morning, is the gender stereotyping from an early age and the role that the Government can play, and is playing, in doing something about that. It isn't always the case that girls must be girls and boys must be boys. That feeds into actions, sometimes very negative actions, perpetrated on one by the other in later life.

So, I suppose my question to you, First Minister, is that, moving forward, we spread those messages—and I know we already are doing it—more forcefully and more evenly across Wales so that there isn't pressure put to bear on boys behaving in a particular way and girls behaving in a particular way.

Yes. This is reflected, of course, in the This is Me campaign. I don't think we should go, as the Member said, to a situation where boys and girls are expected to behave differently. There should be respect on both sides because that suggests that girls should behave in a specific way—and the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire alluded to this—in order not to put themselves in danger, which is a profoundly offensive position to be in. Why on earth should women be in that position where they feel that they're not able to dress in a particular way or not able to behave in a particular way, otherwise they've brought something on themselves. That clearly is not where we want to be, so it's absolutely right to say that we need to look—and the new curriculum, of course, will be looking at this—at how we promote healthy relationships in schools—that's important—and, of course, to make the point that respect is all around: that when people are out, when they're out at night, that the respect is there for every individual and that nobody should fear being judged or treated in a particular way because of the way they behave or dress.

Well, I'm extremely concerned about the fact that many of our most vulnerable people, in the Cynon Valley and elsewhere, are struggling to deal with the complexities of universal credit. The UK Government must urgently address these issues before they move existing benefit claimants to universal credit.

Thank you, First Minister. I share all of your concerns and also the concerns raised by my colleague Jane Hutt in relation to victims of domestic violence and the impact of universal credit upon them. But so many vulnerable groups are set to suffer as a result of this roll-out, and Citizens Advice have published new research showing that some single, working disabled people will be more than £300 a month worse off because of flaws in the design of UC. In addition, those without a carer and unable to work could be £180 a month worse off when they make a new claim.

With the recently departed work and pensions Secretary having acknowledged the damage that universal credit is causing, but also having made big promises on protecting the most vulnerable, will the Welsh Government make representations to her successor to ensure that these are not just more empty words from Tory Ministers in Westminster?

Well, we've repeatedly written to the UK Government, and will continue to do so, urging them to reconsider this damaging policy and to commit to targeting more support to help lift people out of poverty. We all see, of course, the flaws of universal credit, and the Member will be aware of the representations we have made.

Finally, David Melding.

First Minister, I agree with many Members here that more should've been done to learn from the roll-out process and to do that as quickly as possible. I welcome Amber Rudd's decision that that will now be speeded up, especially by listening to expert advice and experience of those who have now moved to the new system. But the new system is one that has been widely welcomed in making it simpler and ending the cliff edge between benefits and working, and that is the vision that I think we should all share—to have a benefits system that really does enable people to reach their full potential.

I think the problem lies not necessarily in the idea, but in the implementation. And we know that there are design flaws in universal credit—that was highlighted in a recent Citizen's Advice report on the impact of universal credit on single, disabled people. So, for example, the work allowance can only be accessed through the work capability allowance. This means that someone must be assessed as not fit for work to receive targeted in-work support. Well, that's one example of where the system breaks down. It's hugely important that people don't suffer because a system is not working as it should.

Thank you, First Minister.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. There are two changes to today's agenda. The First Minister will make a statement shortly on the draft agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, and as a result the oral statement on reforming dental services has been postponed until 11 December. 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.

Leader of the house, just a couple of weeks ago, I met with Adrian Farey, one of my constituents who runs a long-term sustainable woodland project in the Elwy valley region of my constituency. It was visited by the Minister for Environment just last week, and I was very pleased that she enjoyed her visit there to learn more about the organisation that he runs. But this is precisely the sort of model, I think, that will help to make our rural communities sustainable, and help to encourage and promote the use of local and sustainable wood products in the future. I would be grateful if the Minister for Environment could bring forward a statement on the support that she might be able to offer to projects like Adrian Farey's and others across Wales in terms of promoting the use of local timber in local construction projects.

Can I also call, leader of the house, for a statement on the future of business rates for independent schools in Wales? There's been quite a bit of concern amongst independent schools across the country. There are 20 in Wales at the moment, with thousands of students in them. They add around £87 million to the Welsh economy and generate £22 million-worth of taxes here in Wales. You'll be aware that there have been some concerns about the prospects of business rates being charged on independent schools. Now, clearly, I understand that we will want to have a debate, perhaps, on these things, but I do think that it's incumbent upon the Welsh Government to give some clarity to the sector, given the significant numbers of people who are employed in it and the significant numbers of pupils who rely on the excellent education that is provided in independent schools across the country.

On the woodland project, the Minister has mentioned that she very much enjoyed her visit there, and I think is very happy to bring forward a general statement on woodland management in Wales and the contribution of our woodlands in particular to climate change and adaptation thereof.

In terms of business rates, we've had several roundabouts on the subject of business rates for independent schools and I think that's much more likely to come up in terms of a debate from the opposition parties than it is likely to be the subject of a business statement from the Government.

Leader of the house, can I ask for a Government statement on screening services, particularly as I've had representations recently concerning Bowel Screening Wales? It operates as a bespoke screening service, as you know, yet is sort of vaguely part of the NHS, but basically stand-alone as well. Bowel Screening Wales does excellent work, however if someone who has had a previous bowel problem, and a negative bowel screen as part of the bowel screening programme, then develops a new bowel symptom, this cannot be dealt with by Bowel Screening Wales, as they only do stand-alone screening at pre-determined intervals, despite the fact that it's a surveillance service. So, the situation at the moment is that if people then develop a new bowel symptom, despite being under surveillance by Bowel Screening Wales, they're directed back to their general practitioner, who then has the binary choice of urgent referral or routine referral that can take months. Surely, could there be a third way in such a situation of a fast-track referral if a new problem arises when a patient is already under Bowel Screening Wales surveillance? Thank you.

The Member raises a very important point, and, Llywydd, I'm very pleased to say that, on my sixtieth birthday, I received a bowel screening kit from NHS Wales. It was amongst the less expected presents that I received on my sixtieth birthday, but was possibly the most important one. I think it's very important that people take part in that screening; it's a very important thing that we should all do. 

I'm not familiar with the issue that he raises. I suggest he writes to the Cabinet Secretary, and, if that raises an issue of more significance than that, I will arrange for a statement. Otherwise, I'll make sure that the reply is available to all AMs. 

I wanted to raise two issues with the leader of the house. The first is the Which report, which came out last week, revealing the fact that two thirds of banks have now closed—over the last 30 years, two thirds of banks have closed—and this has left communities without access to a local bank, and leaving high streets empty. In Cardiff North, we've lost banks from Rhiwbina, Whitchurch, Birchgrove—nearly every community. And, in fact, one bank is still empty—in the centre of a shopping centre—that had closed years ago. I know we have debated in the past in this Chamber the issue of banks and bank closures, but perhaps—. Would it be possible for the Government to have another look at this issue and just see if any more can be done to help some of these communities?

And, secondly, I wondered if it might be possible to have a debate on Lyme disease. One of my constituents from Cardiff North is campaigning on this issue, and, in fact, we held a meeting in the Pierhead today about Lyme disease, wanting to raise the profile of the disease, the fact that it is little known and that there are many different complications from it. And there have been debates in the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and will be in the European Parliament, but it does seem it is a little-known disease that causes a huge amount of misery for those people who are afflicted with it. 

Two very important points indeed. In terms of the banks, it is something, as she's already acknowledged, that we've discussed frequently in the Assembly, and it is very disappointing that, despite affected communities and political representatives challenging the decisions—across the Chamber, actually; I think it's something we've all expressed concern about—the banks do continue to press ahead with their closure programme. And there's no doubt at all that many citizens, older citizens in particular, are not comfortable with online banking, and also small businesses in rural areas have a need for cash and there's a big problem about how long they travel and where they might get the cash from, and there's also a problem with the ATMs starting to close down as well, as people move to cashless systems. 

Ideally, we would like to see businesses and individuals across Wales having access to the banking facilities they want, and, where possible, mitigate the loss of any branch and cashpoint facility in Wales closing. But, unfortunately, we have some limited powers in this regard. However, we have been in discussion on the role of the post office in addressing banking needs. We recognise there are issues around that, and we've been working with them to discuss them, around the capacity, privacy, disability access and so on at the post office, but that's very much an ongoing part of the discussion about whether they can substitute for some bank branch services. And the other thing is that we're investigating the possibility of establishing a community banking model for Wales. We're in early dialogue with a range of stakeholders, promoting the idea of a community mutual bank for Wales, and that would be able to offer support appropriate to the level of development around Wales. I'll keep the Member informed as the proposals for that develop. 

In terms of Lyme disease, in Wales, as well as everywhere else in the UK, cases of laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease have been increasing in recent years. This is partly as a result of better reporting, increased testing and increased awareness by the public and healthcare professionals. The Member will be pleased to know that we've recently communicated a comprehensive guidance on Lyme disease to healthcare professionals across Wales, and the NHS has developed appropriate public awareness materials. And I'm very pleased to say that that's an ongoing programme of public awareness and medical awareness across the piece. 

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on WWF Cymru's claim that one in 15 wildlife species in Wales is at risk of disappearing altogether? They say that global threats to wildlife and habitats identified in the 'Living Planet Report 2018' are echoed in Wales. Species under threat include hen harriers and water voles. We have seen a comeback in red kite numbers in Wales, thanks to better protection and dedicated conservation programmes. So, may we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on what action she will take to halt wildlife decline and to protect the habitats of threatened species in our beautiful country? 

This is very much a central plank of most of our land management systems and indeed most of the support in the rural development fund, around what we can do to increase biodiversity and wildlife habitats. It's a very important function to understand how bioservices, biosystems, can be monetised in that way so that people can be encouraged to do it. We have fallen behind in the UK in terms, for example, of tree planting, and we have very low amounts of tree planting in Wales. We are looking to see if there are systems in place that can increase the range of habitats and biodiversity available across Wales. It is something we're very concerned about. The Minister for Environment is shortly going to be consulting on a climate change adaptation plan, which will include looking at the loss of biodiversity and habitat change, and I encourage all Members to respond to the consultation on that plan as early as possible, making the points that Mohammad Asghar has pointed out to us. 

Leader of the house, I've got three matters that I'd like to raise with you this afternoon. You'll be aware of the interim report of the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty. It was a very hard-hitting report pointing out that cuts and austerity are a political choice, that Wales faces the highest relative poverty in the UK, and that 25 per cent of jobs pay below the minimum wage. The report says, and I quote:

'In the absence of devolved power over social security benefits, the Welsh Government’s capacity to directly mitigate the reduction in benefits is limited...benefit changes are one of the structural causes behind the increase in poverty, rough sleeping, and homelessness in Wales.... Universal Credit may exacerbate the problem, particularly in light of the Welsh Government’s inability to introduce flexibilities in its administration, unlike its Scottish counterpart.'

This strongly says that you could help people if you were prepared to take over control and responsibility of the administration of benefits. So far, the Government has resisted that, despite the difficulties that we've heard about just this afternoon in this Chamber. So, can we have a debate in Government time on this UN report, with specific focus on the devolution of the administration of welfare? 

I also wanted to flag up the homophobic attack on Gareth Thomas. Now, I am sure I speak for most of us, if not all of us, in this Chamber when I say, 'Diolch yn fawr iawn, Alfie' for taking a stand and for seeking an educative restorative response from those responsible. Restorative justice can be very effective, especially when we're talking about young people. So, I'd like to see a statement from Government outlining its approach to hate crimes in general, like the homophobic attack on Gareth Thomas, and also to tell us what it's doing to fund and support restorative justice opportunities.

The final matter I'd like to see in Government time is an apology. We've already heard this afternoon that rail services since this new franchise have got worse, and the company issued a full apology to its customers today. While your Government has responsibility for this, we had no such apology from the First Minister today. He still seems to be in denial. The most concerning line in the company's apology was in relation to extra buses that they are putting on, saying, 'This will continue for as long as is needed.' There are real health and safety issues now, and this simply cannot carry on. So, we need a statement from the Cabinet Secretary as a matter of urgency to say what extra action he can take to alleviate these problems. Customers are not prepared to take any more.  

Thank you for raising those three issues. Just in terms of the homophobic hate crime, I also want to add my voice in acknowledging the courage and the dignity with which Gareth Thomas met the situation he found himself in and the courage in coming forward in highlighting and tackling the issue of homophobia and his experience. I thought his piece that I heard on the radio about the restorative justice process was deeply moving and very interesting indeed. We have actually just recently talked in this Chamber about the hate crime awareness that we do.  We do continue to encourage victims of hate crime to report their experiences and build on the strong partnerships we've developed across the piece with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Victim Support Cymru and other agencies to reduce that kind of hate crime, and to hold perpetrators to account, and to enable victims to receive support and redress.

This is a key conversation on White Ribbon Day, the event that my colleague Joyce Watson AM was sponsoring earlier, and the issues that Jane Hutt raised in her question to the First Minister are still germane in this piece. Hate crimes are hate crimes no matter how they arise or which section of the population is experiencing them, and we are looking to work with our partners and Victim Support and hate crime awareness to see what we can do with restorative justice, and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for public services has been looking into this as well with a view to looking at what we can do in this regard. So, I'd be very happy to see if I can bring forward a statement to that effect. Actually, I think, given where we are in the cycle of Government, there's going to be a statement, I hope, on human rights towards the end of this Government's term, and I will make sure that I put that issue into that statement, because otherwise we'll be out of Government time. So, I'll make sure that that's included in that as part of that, because I do think the Member raises a very, very interesting point. 

On the other two points, the UN rapporteur's report is harrowing reading, I think, and says a lot of things that a lot of us agree with around the benefits system and the difficulties of living in poverty. I think this Government has done a great deal in its programme for government and its 'Prosperity for All' policy platforms in order to do what we can, but the Member will know that I and the Government completely disagree with her take on the welfare benefits regime, and my own particular view is that the UK is better to be redistributive, and the idea that Wales can stand alone in terms of welfare benefits is not one that I would cherish or relish in any way.

In terms of rail services, the First Minister, in answer to Darren Millar, gave quite a good run-through of where we are on rail services, Llywydd, and I don't think it requires any more addition from me.

On that very last point, I was going to ask for a statement; I'm quite surprised at how dismissive the leader of the house has been on that. Many constituents, over the last week, certainly, have contacted me, and it has been evidenced here today with the leader of the opposition's comments and the Member from Plaid Cymru's comments and hard evidence of trains just not turning up. I think in 16 cases there were no trains on one particular line—north, south, mid or west Wales, you can find examples of that. When the franchise was launched, Ministers were all over the press, and rightly so, because it promises much, and, if delivered correctly, will see an improvement. But Members in this house are getting berated, time and time again, by their constituents about the level of service that has happened over the last month. It surely is incumbent on the Cabinet Secretary to come to this house before the Christmas recess and highlight what action is being taken to address, hopefully, shortcomings that are in the short term, not the medium to long term. And I would hope that the Cabinet Secretary would welcome that opportunity to put on record what pressure he is putting on Transport for Wales and their contractors to up their game. Otherwise, it will be a dereliction of duty on behalf of the Government. I do hope that the leader of the house will reflect on the answer she just gave and make time for a statement for the Cabinet Secretary to come here before the Christmas recess to address these failings within the transport system here in Wales.

I wasn't being dismissive. I said that I didn't have anything to add to the comprehensive answer that the First Minister gave; I don't see how that's dismissive. The Cabinet Secretary will be answering oral Assembly questions as part of the cycle over the next few weeks, and there will be ample opportunity for Members to question him on specifics, but I'm afraid I think the idea that after one month of running a franchise we should have solved all the problems and all the rest of it is just not credible. We've been in charge of the franchise for one month. The Cabinet Secretary, in announcing that, set out a programme of action to do with the rail franchise, which the First Minister reiterated during First Minister's questions. I'm merely saying that I don't have anything to add to that at the moment, and, if you want to ask specific questions of the Cabinet Secretary, you will of course be very free to do so.

I’d like to ask for an update on ongoing parking problems along the A5 in the Lake Ogwen area in my constituency. Over a year has passed since local representatives asked for action and a particular plan to find a swift resolution to the problem in this area. Six months have passed since the Minister received a feasibility study of the problems, but, again, there has been no progress made. In a written question from me, asking when that feasibility study on the parking problem would be published, the response I received was that the report was being translated. So, there are two issues arising that I’d like you to look into. Is it common practice to take six months to translate reports, and, secondly, what is happening in order to resolve the parking problems near lake Ogwen?

And, secondly, I’m afraid that, once again, I do have to ask about the timetable for the building of the Bontnewydd bypass. A session for prospective apprentices was cancelled recently, and there is no sign of any work on the site, and, naturally, therefore, people in my area are starting to become concerned about what is happening and they’re asking whether there is to be even more delay with the bypass.

On that second one, I'll ask the Cabinet Secretary to write directly to her and explain where we are in the timetable. I'm afraid I don't have that information with me, but I'll ask him to clarify.

On the first point, again, I didn't realise the timescale had slipped that much, and I'm more than happy to discuss with the Cabinet Secretary where we are on the timescale and let the Member know.

Could we have a statement on the M4 relief road? When you stood in for the First Minister on 23 October, leader of the house, you promised a binding vote in Government time and then said this was timetabled for the week commencing 4 December. We now have the business timetable through to Christmas and there's no sign of any motion on the M4. Did you misspeak?

Could you also perhaps give us the Government's perspective on the First Minister's interview on 15 November? Asked by BBC Wales whether he still intended to decide whether the road is built, the First Minister said,

'Yes, the plan is that I will take the decision'.

Is that the case, and, if so, isn't it just the planning permission that the First Minister would be determining, as opposed to whether the road would actually be funded and built? He then went on to say,

'The inspector's report has been received. It's more than 500 pages long, so it takes some time to digest and analyse',

as some of us know with the withdrawal agreement. But he then said,

'I've not seen the report yet, but I expect that the report will be ready for me to take a decision by the end of the month'.

Surely, if it's so long and complex, the First Minister should be given it as quickly as possible if he's genuinely going to take the decision himself rather than just rubber-stamp someone else's decision, and, while he's about it, could it be published so that we can all read it too?

Yes, in answer to this question, when I did stand in for the First Minister in First Minister's questions, I read out a very long and complex legal timescale and process that was attached to the point in time at which people can take various decisions, and so on. I'm more than happy to circulate that back to the Member. I made it very clear that there was a legal process in which we were, and that we were awaiting the various legal advices and summaries of evidence and so on, that the First Minister still hopes to be able to make that decision, and that the debate will then follow. I've also made it very clear in answer to Rhun ap Iorwerth, in answer to a business statement very recently, that we've space on the timetable for that to happen if it can, but that I could not be guaranteeing that it would. We will do it if we can. If it's not possible within the timescale, then, Llywydd, I will be very sure to make both Business Committee and this Chamber aware of where we are with it.

There was an event in the UK Parliament yesterday by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to mark three years since they had been campaigning for the drug Orkambi to be put on the NHS. We had a cross-party meeting here last week with regard to this important issue as well. Now, 'A Healthier Wales', your strategy, says that we need to be having more personalised care, more precision medicines on the NHS, but Orkambi, which could affect 200 people in Wales, is still not on the NHS. Now, I understand that Vertex, the company that has the drug, are now in discussions with the NHS in relation to putting in a new application to NICE, but we don't have that on the record anywhere from Welsh Government. So, I was wondering whether we could have an updated statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health as to his negotiations with the company and with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to try and make this drug realised on the Welsh NHS. If we did that, we could be leading on a UK level, because nowhere else does this drug exist in the UK, but, of course, the Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Norway—many other countries—already have the drug, which can look to the root cause of cystic fibrosis as opposed to only managing the symptoms. So, I would urge you for a statement on that.

The second statement I wanted to ask for was—. Alongside other Assembly Members in this room, we were at St Joseph's comprehensive school yesterday as part of the Youth Parliament debate, and one of the young students came up to me afterwards and said that she had been waiting on a waiting list for school counselling for over a year. By which point, she'd already sought private treatment because she couldn't wait on that list to get any treatment. Now, I know Lynne Neagle and others have been looking hard at mental health for young people, but it was very concerning to me to hear that from a young person when we have the school counselling processes in place in Wales. So, could we have an update on the situation here in Wales? Are there long waiting lists in schools across Wales? Is there something we need to get to grips with, because young people, of course, will be falling through the cracks if that is the case?

On Orkambi, the Cabinet Secretary for health went through the situation in response to his last lot of questions, where he outlined the process by which the company has to go through the process of getting accreditation via NICE. I'm not aware that anything has changed since he explained where we were with that. What I will do is discuss with him whether something has changed, and if something has changed, then I will make sure that Assembly Members are kept in the loop of that. But I'm not aware of that. If something has changed, I will make sure that there's an update. But he did go quite extensively through what the process needed to be for that to happen.

And, likewise, on the mental health issues, he went through the whole process of that. But again, I will discuss with him whether there's some substantial change or some evidence that's come to light. Perhaps the Member would like to share with me the story that she's just outlined, and I will undertake to discuss with him whether there's some issue there of general importance that we can come back on.

Leader of the house, I asked you last week, I think it was—it was certainly recently—about the availability of flu vaccine across Wales and whether we could have an update from the Cabinet Secretary for health on that availability. Since then, I've been inundated by more e-mails by people who've been unable to access the vaccine, one only yesterday from a patient of the Castle Gate practice in Monmouth, whose husband is 75 and was told that, because they are now prioritising for the over-75s, the vaccine wouldn't yet be available for him and to come back later when some arrives. I understand from Age Cymru that they've identified an issue that, early on in this process, some practices and community pharmacies underestimated the amount of vaccine they might need and so not enough was therefore in the system to be provided, and they're working on that. So, could you ask the Cabinet Secretary for health to look at all of this issue? Because, although I understand that there are going to be vaccines arriving, hopefully before the end of November, that hasn't been necessarily best communicated to patients, and many of them have been very concerned. So, hopefully this can be dealt with better in future.

Secondly, and finally, can I concur with the words of the leader of the opposition earlier and also the Member for South Wales Central, who sits behind me normally, with regard to the issue with Transport for Wales and some of those—whatever you might want to call them—teething problems, getting things back on track? There clearly has been an issue and it's important that, beyond the apology that they have given—and I respect the fact that they have been very quick off the mark to apologies to travellers—something there does need to be looked at.

My very own pregnant wife was affected by the problem recently, which you'll know from Facebook—I know many of you will be aware of that—where, I think, three successive trains didn't have sufficient carriages, so she wasn't able to get on. I was the one who got the flack for that, or got the earache later in the day, so it's in my interest for it to be looked at. So, if you could have discussions with the Cabinet Secretary about what could be done to try and alleviate some of these teething problems of the franchise, that would be very beneficial.

My sympathy with your wife. I also follow her on Facebook, so I did know about that. And, as I said, I haven't got much to add to anything else I said on rail. 

On the flu vaccine, the Member raises a very pertinent point. I think it's worth, Llywydd, me just repeating what the Cabinet Secretary has told people. For winter 2018-19, a flu vaccine specifically designed for older people has been licensed in the UK. The advice from the UK's expert panel on immunisation—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—is that this adjuvanted vaccine is expected to be more clinically effective in people aged 65 years or over compared with the other flu vaccines that are available, and that it is the only flu vaccine that is likely to be effective in people aged 75 and older. There is not a shortage of flu vaccines for over-65s. All orders submitted by GPs and pharmacists in Wales will be met. The delivery is phased due to demand. The manufacturer has confirmed that all orders will be delivered before the end of November.  I

It's important that the flu vaccine offered to at-risk individuals provides the best available protection. With the high levels of flu we experienced last season resulting in increased GP consultation rates and outbreaks at care homes and in hospitals, it's sensible to act on the expert advice to do everything we can. So, we're looking to people to choose the most effective flu vaccine for them demographically. I appreciate what the Member is highlighting, which is that delay in receiving the flu vaccine may be worrying for older people, but flu does not tend to start to circulate until mid December, so there's plenty of time yet for the flu vaccine to arrive and for people to be protected. The chief medical officer has already written to health boards, GPs and pharmacies with advice about planning arrangements for offering the flu vaccination to older people this season, in light of the availability.

We are aware that a very small number of practices, as I think Nick Ramsay was highlighting, didn't order the adjuvanted vaccine, as recommended by the chief medical officer, or did not order enough for their eligible patients. In those cases, or where deliveries of vaccines have not yet been received, we've asked health boards, practices and community pharmacies to work together to ensure that individuals can access the adjuvanted vaccine as soon as possible, prioritising those over 75 and those over 65 with medical conditions. We are working with Public Health Wales and the NHS to ensure that that vaccine supply situation does not impact on any uptake. So, I think we are working very hard to do that. We are not yet at the point where all of the vaccines have been delivered, and I think that should be very reassuring to Nick Ramsay's constituents. 

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item, which is item 3, is postponed until 11 December.

We move therefore to item 4: a statement by the First Minister on the draft agreement on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. I call on the First Minister, therefore—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's symptomatic of the handling of the UK Government’s Brexit negotiations that I am providing an update to Assembly Members amidst the worst political crisis I have seen. As I will explain, it is a crisis that could have been avoided. It is a crisis rooted in a reluctance to be honest about the difficult trade-offs needed in the negotiations, and an unwillingness to build a broad consensus, including with the devolved administrations, about the approach to the unprecedented challenges of leaving the European Union. Now, of course, we have the hard-line Brexiteers in the Conservative Party who are actively working to bring about a 'no deal' outcome, seeking to deepen the political crisis still further with a leadership election.

Today, Llywydd, I want to set out the Welsh Government’s position on the agreement and outline the next steps that need to be taken, and taken urgently by the UK Government. It's important, of course, to make the distinction between the withdrawal agreement and the future economic relationship that will need to be set out in the political declaration. Many aspects of the withdrawal agreement are desperately needed. Securing the transition period is absolutely essential to avoid the cliff edge in just four months' time. The protection of citizens' rights will secure the status of the EU citizens who have made their lives here, contributing to our economy and our public services, and also those of UK nationals who have chosen to live and work or retire elsewhere in Europe. It's shameful that the UK Government has used the EU and UK citizens as a tactical pawn in what is a party political chess game.

We fully recognise the importance of securing the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland to make sure that Brexit does not put at risk the peace and prosperity that agreement has brought to the island of Ireland. As I have said ad nauseum in this Chamber on a number of occasions, the border issues on the island of Ireland are at the very heart of Brexit and they demonstrate the failings of the latest agreement and those of the Prime Minister. We understand why, given the dangerous nonchalance of some in the Conservative Party about the Good Friday agreement, the EU-27 needs a robust guarantee that there will be no return to a hard border. Elements of the backstop are at best problematic, but they would never need to be implemented if the UK Government embraced a solution that recognises the importance of the closest possible relationship between the UK as a whole and the EU, short of membership. If the UK Government had adopted the position we set out jointly with Plaid Cymru almost two years ago for a future economic relationship that included full and unfettered access to the single market and a customs union, there would be no need to ever invoke any backstop arrangements. But what we have instead from the UK Government is a totally inadequate political declaration.

The real failure of the current deal is the worrying lack of progress in and lack of clarity of the political declaration. What has the UK Government been doing for the last two years? We have no idea what the UK’s future relationship with our largest and most influential trading partner will look like. The reason for this is that the Prime Minister is continuing with her failed strategy of looking inwards, focusing on managing the internal turmoil of the Conservative Party and not focusing on the needs of the UK as a whole and on the interests of Wales and the other nations. The political crisis is all of the UK Government’s own making. It needn’t have been this way.

The Prime Minister has spent the last two years, unfortunately, encouraging the expectations of militant, ideologically driven hard Brexiteers in her own party, and small wonder they feel let down by what she has tabled. She now, belatedly, needs to face down those in her party who will never support a relationship with the EU-27. She needs to listen to the views of the business community, the trade unions and the devolved Governments, and she could then begin to negotiate the right deal with the EU-27.

In Brussels, the EU-27 have been clear that if the UK Government moves away from its misjudged red lines and embraces a closer economic relationship—one that we set out in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—then a cleaner, more coherent and favourable deal can be achieved. And while we see the UK Government’s position moving ever closer to ours, by only doing so in the most reluctant way—kicking and screaming—the Prime Minister has lost all the negotiating advantage she could have achieved. 

Rather than platitudes under subject headings, with next to nothing on key issues like future migration and participation in programmes such as Horizon or Erasmus+, the political declaration needs to be based on a firm, mutual commitment from the UK and the EU-27 to a future relationship grounded in long-term participation in a customs union and the single market across all sectors. This is on offer. Michel Barnier has repeatedly talked about his preferred model being Norway plus, but progressing this has not been possible with a UK Government intent on clinging on to their red lines.

So what needs to change, before we could even consider supporting this deal? Well, perhaps relatively little in the withdrawal agreement itself, apart from ensuring that the backstop is never needed. And if our proposal of a long-term customs union is accepted, any theoretical case for the backstop largely evaporates. But we do need a fundamental rewriting of the political declaration and a fundamental change of mindset to be honest about the fact that the UK Government has made a clear choice to prioritise our economic stability over the soundbite of taking back control of our laws, borders and money.

No-one voted in the referendum, surely, for the economic and social catastrophe of a 'no deal' departure. We need to see a political declaration that sets out the intent of both sides to negotiate a long-term relationship that clearly reflects the choices of ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, something that is no longer unrealistic given the position the UK Government has already moved to. That approach would render the backstop unnecessary and would provide certainty for our people and our businesses that there won’t be another cliff edge in December 2020. And, in practical terms, it would almost certainly command a large majority in the House of Commons.

Time is very short until the European Council, but the political declaration is clearly a work in progress. Following my demand for an urgent meeting, at yesterday’s meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance set out again our view on the right future relationship with the EU-27.

Llywydd, the final position of the Welsh Government will be determined in the light of whether or not the UK Government at this late stage sees sense.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? Whilst I'm disappointed with the tone of today's statement, the First Minister does confirm that, to support this deal, relatively little in the draft withdrawal agreement needs to change. And so, Llywydd, my first question is: in that case, can the First Minister explain why on earth he and his Government are not supporting this withdrawal agreement?

Of course, as the Prime Minister has made absolutely clear, although this represents a significant breakthrough, it is not the final deal, and negotiations to produce a full political declaration are now taking place. Now, in today's statement, the First Minister has made it clear that he believes the UK Government's approach shows a lack of any meaningful engagement with the devolved administrations, but I have to say the First Minister has not extended any invitations to discuss the impact of the withdrawal agreement on Wales with me as party leader in this place. And, since I have been in this job, the Welsh Government has not extended any invitations to discuss Welsh Government legislation with me as leader, so it's a bit rich to talk about engagement if that engagement only ever seems to be one way. Therefore, does the First Minister agree with me that, rather than playing party politics, it would have been far better for Assembly leaders to have met and discussed the proposals and the impact these proposals will have on Wales and the operation of the Assembly? If the genuine view of the Welsh Government is to respect the 2016 referendum result and deliver a Brexit agreement that works for Welsh businesses and communities, then perhaps the communication channels have to be open both in Wales and in Westminster.

Llywydd, the tone of today's statement, and the First Minister's commentary on UK Conservative internal party relationships, is a bit rich when you look at the discipline of some Welsh Government Ministers, and does nothing remotely constructive to support Welsh industry. Indeed, it makes Wales look weak in leadership at a time when the country should be focusing on getting the best possible deal for its people.

The draft withdrawal agreement confirmed a time-limited implementation period that provides a bridge to the future relationship, allowing businesses to continue trading as now until the end of 2020—I hope that's something that the First Minister would welcome, and I'd be grateful for his comments on that implementation period.

The First Minister makes it clear in today's statement that the Prime Minister needs to listen to the views of the business community, but let me remind him that the CBI has made it clear that, and I quote:

'This deal is a compromise, including for business, but it offers that essential transitional period as a step back from the cliff-edge.'

Unquote. Indeed, he will also be aware of the views of the chief executive of Aston Martin, Andy Palmer, who has said that the draft Brexit deal was 'good enough'. Therefore, perhaps it's the First Minister who needs to listen to the views of the business community, who have made it clear that the Labour Party should work with business, not seek to control it. So, can he confirm what initial discussions he's had with business leaders in Wales, so that we can be sure their views will be accurately reflected when Welsh Government Ministers continue to discuss the impact of the draft withdrawal agreement with their Westminster counterparts in the coming weeks?

As the First Minister is aware, the Welsh agricultural industry is closely integrated with the European market, and I'm sure that he will have seen the comments issued by National Farmers Union Cymru, again cautiously welcoming the draft agreement as a step closer to delivering the free and frictionless trade that Welsh farmers want to see with the EU.

Of course, NFU Cymru has also made it abundantly clear, as well as the Farmers Union of Wales, that there are question marks over whether the draft agreement will secure parliamentary approval, and that Welsh farmers now look to their politicians to do what is best for the country. Therefore, in those circumstances, perhaps the First Minister could tell us what he is doing to ensure that Welsh Members of Parliament fully endorse the views of the farming industry in Wales so that all Welsh politicians will put the needs and sustainability of the industry at the top of their agenda.

Of course, there's still plenty of detail that's yet to be firmly meted out in the UK Government's draft withdrawal agreement. For example, one issue is around the lack of firm detail on the impact of this agreement on Britain's fishing industry, in which Wales plays a significant role. As I understand it, the British fishing industry continues to call for the UK to abandon the common fisheries policy and develop as an independent coastal state by the end of 2020, but there's some ambiguity surrounding access for EU vessels to British waters. Therefore, perhaps the First Minister could tell us what the Welsh Government's view is on this specific issue, and what representations he and his colleagues have made to ascertain what the draft withdrawal agreement will mean for Welsh fisheries.

In the past few weeks, the First Minister has made it clear that the last thing the Welsh Government wants to see is a hard border between Ireland and Wales, and I very much agree with him. He has said that there could be huge implications, particularly on the road structure leading to our ports. First Minister, the case for dualling the A40 in my constituency has been made since the 1950s, and I have continually asked Government Ministers in this Chamber about commitments to dualling this road. We've seen nothing since the creation of the Assembly to deliver genuine improvements to existing road networks.

The Assembly's External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report into the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports last year confirmed that Wales had previously not taken full advantage of the funding associated with the trans-European network. Therefore, in light of the Welsh Government's new concerns for the road structures around Welsh ports, can you now tell us what plans you have to genuinely start tackling these long-standing issues?

This brings me to the wider point about preparing for Britain's withdrawal from the European Union, where it appears as though there are plenty of issues that the Welsh Government could be addressing within its own competencies, yet there seems to be little evidence of real action being taken.

Whilst it's easy to criticise the UK Government, Government Ministers in Wales could and should do more to start addressing some of the issues raised in Assembly committee reports surrounding the implications of Brexit on Wales, rather than just commentating on UK Government policies and announcements.

Therefore, Llywydd, in closing, can I thank the First Minister for his statement? We on this side of the Chamber look forward to scrutinising the detail of this draft agreement and its impact on Wales in the coming weeks, and we look forward to working, where we can, with both the UK Government and the Welsh Government to prepare the best possible deal for the people of Wales.   

Can I thank the leader of the opposition for his comments? He asks what the issue is with regard to the withdrawal agreement. It's longevity, really. It seems to me that the agreement kicks the can down the road. Where will we be in December 2020? Will we be in exactly the same situation again? We've already had two years, and here we find ourselves in a situation where the agreement is not permanent. Our position is quite simple, and that is: we want to see full and unfettered access to the single market and to remain in the customs union, and anything that is short of that clearly is not something that we could agree to.

He is right to say that businesses and others have cautiously welcomed the deal, but that, I believe, is because they think the alternative is no deal at all, which nobody wants. So, I can imagine why people would want to support this deal for fear that there's nothing else on the table. I believe it is possible to look again at, certainly, the political declaration, and to be more certain about the way forward. That means making a commitment to the customs union and to the single market.

I have to say, I think the Prime Minister's painted herself in a corner on this. She needn't have run the general election last year on the basis of putting before the British people the vision of a hard-ish Brexit, which they didn't accept, and she has found it difficult to get out of the corner that she has found herself in. But I have to say, he makes reference to my tone. My tone is as of nothing compared to those of his own colleagues in London. His own colleagues in London have openly called for the Prime Minister to resign. They have been openly abusive, really, actually, in terms of the way they've described her. The reality is that I have been, I think, gentle compared to the tone that's been adopted by Conservative politicians, and this is the problem, isn't it?

Yes, there are those in my party that take a different view. There are some in my party in Westminster who are Brexiteers. There are not many of them, but they're there. The problem is that the divisions in the Conservative Party are so vast that it's very difficult to see how there can be any unity in that party around a vision for Brexit. He says 'playing politics'. The worry I have is: where does it end? There's no leadership because there can't be. We have a Prime Minister who's lost a lot of Ministers—Cabinet Ministers who've resigned. We have a number in her party who don't support her own policy. In those circumstances, he says that leadership in the Welsh Government is weak. Well, we can only point at London and say, 'Where is the leadership in London, given the circumstances that exist there?'

We have always been constant in what we've called for. We laid out our vision two years ago as to what we wanted. We do work with the UK Government; I will single out David Lidington as somebody who it's possible to work with and to discuss issues with. There is a relationship there. It's not consistent, because other UK Government departments see things in a slightly different light.

He mentions that there is a need for a bridge. That may be right, but a bridge to what? At the moment, we don't know where that bridge leads, and that is the problem. Two years ago, there was talk of constructing a bridge and, now, there's still talk of constructing a bridge. We don't know what the final destination actually is. Listening to the views of the business community, their view is quite simply this: they want certainty. And whilst this might provide a temporary level of certainty, it doesn't provide the certainty that they need, particularly with regard to their ability to access skilled labour.

As far as the agriculture industry is concerned, well, there are many issues there that need to be resolved. Market access is key; without market access, sheep farming, in particular, can't survive in Wales. The UK market simply isn't big enough to support the UK's own sheep meat industry, so it's not simply a question of supporting farmers; it's ensuring that they have access to their market as well.

The same is true of fishing. It's one thing to have sufficient access, as you would see it, to your own coastal waters, but when you're utterly dependent on exporting the fish, you have to ensure that you've got a market for those fish as well. It would be no good for the UK to be able to land more fish, even if that were possible, and I don't believe that's possible because of the low level of fish stocks. The reality is that most of those fish would have no market, so that has to be looked at as well.   

He mentioned the issue of the hard border. Work is being carried out through a ports group as to how that would move forward. I have to say to him, it would be Pembroke Dock rather than Fishguard that would be the emphasis in terms of freight. Fishguard tends to take people, Pembroke Dock tends to take freight and Holyhead takes both.

He says that nothing's been done to improve the road. Well, the Robeston Wathen bypass is there and the Llanddowror bypass is there, of course, heading off towards Pembroke Dock in the other direction. So, there have been road improvements there as well, but that's not the issue. The issue is not what happens on those roads, it's what happens at the ports.

If we have a situation where the UK Government decides to take a heavy hand in terms of customs, that will lead to delays and that will mean the need for accommodation at those ports rather than further on down the roads. We don't know what that will look like. We don't know what level of checks will be implemented. We assume there'd be no passport control because the common travel area has been preserved, but will there be an element of customs checks, how will they be carried out, will they be random, will they be heavy? None of these questions have been answered, so it's very difficult to prepare our ports for a scenario that's not yet clear. But, as I said, there is a ports working group that has been set up with the UK Government to look at this.

In terms of preparing for withdrawal, we're already on track for doing that. I've said before that a 'no deal' Brexit is not something that can be prepared for. It can't be militated against. It can't be seen as one option amongst many. It's a disastrous outcome and we have, through the EU transition fund and through working with businesses and with our farmers, put in place what needs to be done in order to promote Wales in the future, to give Wales more markets in the future by expanding our overseas offices. But of course, ultimately, if we cannot get the trading relationship right with our closest, biggest market—which will always be our closest, biggest market—then we will not get it right with any other market. 

I'm very grateful to the First Minister for the statement today. I think it was a useful and fair summary of where we currently are. What I was struggling to discern in it was a strategy as to how we go forward, how we avoid the political cataclysm that is opening up in front of us.

It is, of course, I think, the key salient fact of the draft withdrawal agreement—all 585 pages—that it doesn't mention Wales even as a footnote. Even the 1888 version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica did better than that. And it says something pretty central, doesn't it, about the attitude of the Westminster Government to Wales and the devolved administrations? The First Minister himself has rightly complained about the fact that the draft agreement wasn't even shared in advance with the Welsh Government. Indeed, perhaps the First Minister can say whether the same is going to be true of the redraft—the 20-page version of the political declaration that we're told is being worked on at the moment. 

But in the light of that, surely the Welsh Government's decision to place its trust in the Westminster Government in handing over our powers to them is at best naive and at worst reckless. Can the First Minister explain—I understand the point that he made earlier at First Minister's questions in terms of wanting to keep to the inter-governmental agreement—but can he explain the timing, not just in the light of the case that is before the Supreme Court, but also the very simple fact that the UK Government may collapse in the next few weeks? Therefore, why not postpone this decision to see how things develop, as he said, at this time of the greatest political crisis probably in our lifetime? 

Plaid Cymru has clearly said that we will not support the withdrawal agreement as it currently stands. It rips Wales out of the single market and the customs union. It actually ignores Wales completely and our particular interests, and it's silent, as the First Minister said, in terms of the parameters and the shape of the future economic relationship.

I'm glad to see that we're going to have a meaningful vote on the meaningful vote, to use the parliamentary jargon of the day. Can the First Minister confirm that we will also have the opportunity for a range of amendments that will reflect the range of views between parties and also within parties, in terms of possible solutions to the political crisis that he referred to? And in particular, can we have a commitment to allow those Members on his backbenches who take a view of unequivocal support for the people's vote as probably the best solution going forward—not just on his backbenches but also on his frontbenches, as we've heard during the course of the leadership campaign—so that we can have a free vote for those Members who wish to voice that position?

You mentioned that you asked for an urgent meeting of the JMC, which took place last night. Can you say, given that these are extraordinary times, whether you've sought a meeting of the plenary of the JMC before you leave office? We agree with you that there have been two years of prevarication, time is not on our side now to provide a workable solution going forward, whether that's single market membership, membership of the customs union, whether it's a people's vote. Do you agree that now is the time to extend article 50 in order to allow us that time to provide that sensible way forward?

Finally, I note his earlier remarks that, actually, there's been a complete failure of Westminster politics. I couldn't agree more. I was down in Westminster earlier today meeting with the First Minister of Scotland trying to provide some kind of sensible way forward, trying to find common ground among opposition parties in order that we actually can provide the kind of leadership that's been sadly lacking. Would he agree, though, that that vacuum of leadership that's certainly characterised the Conservative Government has also been at play within his own party at Westminster because of divisions within the Labour Party at the Westminster level on this issue as well? Surely we should take the opportunity, when it comes to a vote in this Parliament, to provide the kind of leadership that has been lacking and send an unequivocal message that we do want to see, at the very least, Wales retaining its membership of the single market but, better still, for us to have a people's vote to remain within the European Union.

I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for his comments. He asks about the strategy going forward. There will be a debate in this place either next week or the beginning of the week after. Our understanding is that the vote in Westminster will take place in the final week of Westminster sitting, which is a week after, of course, the Assembly rises, so it'll be essential that there is a debate in this place so that the MPs can be aware of the views of AMs. I understand that discussions have taken place around holding it possibly Thursday next week or possibly another day. It would have to be, I think, a specific day allocated for such an important debate, rather than trying to shoehorn it into Government business between now and Christmas. So, I certainly accept that that needs to be done.

I can say to him that Cabinet agreed a motion yesterday. That motion needs to go, of course, to our group, as he can imagine. It tries to be as all-encompassing as possible. It includes, for example, the need to look at extending the article 50 period. I think that's inevitable if there is to be a look again at the political declaration particularly. It also, of course, makes reference to the need for the public to be involved and the need for there to be options on the table that do not exclude any option, and that will form part of the motion, and perhaps that's something that he can see when that motion is produced.

He is right to say that neither my colleague the First Minister of Scotland nor I have access to these documents at what I think is an appropriate time. I could understand a reluctance in Government to share documents with another Government for fear of what might happen to those documents. Well, I've said over and over again that if we receive documents in confidence, we'll keep them in confidence. If we breach that confidence, all that happens then is that we don't get those documents again. Besides, of course, a lot of documents could be shared with me on Privy Council terms, which would mean that those documents could be shared in confidence at that time.

He mentions the inter-governmental agreement. He takes a different view to me on this. My view is that we have an agreement. Part of that agreement was that the continuity Act would go. As I said, Westminster could simply repeal it anyway with one line, but what the continuity Act has delivered for us is an inter-governmental agreement, which has been signed up to by both Governments. There is no indication that the UK Government would want to move away from that. It may be that there's a new Government in Westminster in the next few weeks, or a new leader in Westminster in the next few weeks, and the same is true here, although I doubt very much that any of my successors would want to move away from that agreement. So, I think that, having sought and negotiated an agreement, it is essential that we keep good faith with that agreement and honour our obligations under it.

He mentions the JMC(P). I am meeting the Prime Minister tomorrow. We have made representations regarding JMC(P). The date that so far has come back is a date where I can guarantee I won't be there because it's after my time as First Minister. So, we are seeking to have a JMC plenary sooner than that. It is essential, and it would be hugely important.

In terms of, well, leadership in Westminster, we've all seen what's been happening in the last few days. It does nobody any good to find a situation where it's not possible, almost on an hourly basis, to know whether the Government will survive or not. In the business world, that's something that they certainly wouldn't welcome, which is why, of course, we've urged the UK Government—and we've worked with Plaid Cymru on this, with the White Paper—to adopt a pragmatic, sensible approach to Brexit that recognises the importance of the single market, and unfettered access to it; that recognises the importance of the customs union to Wales; and recognises the importance of providing certainty whilst delivering on the referendum result. So far, of course, we are far from that position.

I, too, welcome the First Minister's statement, and like the leader of Plaid Cymru, I think it is, by and large, a fair summary of where we are now. And I certainly agree entirely with the First Minister in his criticisms of Theresa May and her conduct of the Brexit negotiations. I wonder if he'd agree with me that the catastrophic outcome of two years of utter incompetence in these negotiations has produced the greatest national humiliation for Britain, certainly political humiliation, since Suez.

Theresa May does have a certain genius. Last year, she contrived to make Jeremy Corbyn look electable and to come within an ace of winning a general election that she need not have held. This year, she has contrived to produce a deal for leaving the EU that is even worse than staying in. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Prime Minister's actually been intent upon sabotaging the whole Brexit process. I mean, it's absolutely irrational to me to do no preparation whatsoever for leaving the EU, during the last two years, on WTO terms, then to run negotiations so close to the wire, as we are now, which has limited everybody's options, including her own, and then to agree this transition deal—so-called transition deal—which seems to be worse than staying in, unless there's a subtext here that we're actually in Hotel California, where you can book out but never actually leave.

And I note that Monsieur Barnier this week has been talking about extending the transition deal, even to beyond the projected date for the next general election into 2022–23. And I certainly agree with the question that he poses in the statement: what on earth has she been doing for the last two years? I don't think she's been so much managing the internal turmoil inside the Conservative Party as actually causing it in the first place. This is a deal that has been designed by a remain Prime Minister, endorsed by a Cabinet of remainers, to ensure that Britain never actually leaves the EU. We won't even leave in name only because this deal commits us to regulatory alignment with the EU for an indefinite period to come. And after we leave the EU, of course, we won't even have a voice, let alone a vote, on the laws that are going to be made and which we'll be obliged to implement.

It can't be explained, in my view, by incompetence alone. This is treachery by an establishment determined to frustrate democracy, and we've seen it before: in Denmark, in France, in Ireland, in Holland, where referenda have been held, the people voted 'no', but they've been told, 'You've got to keep on voting until you vote the right way.' [Interruption.] So, we remain, as a result of this so-called deal, inside the EU, subject to its regulations and directives, as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, in which we won't even have our own judge, without representation in the Commission, without representation in the Council of Ministers.

And furthermore, whereas under article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, we have the right to leave, under this deal the EU has a veto upon whether this deal is concluded or not, enforceable at the orders of the European Court of Justice. That's the opposite of taking back control, which was the Prime Minister's stated objective. At least at the moment we have 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers. After 29 March next year, we will have 0 per cent of the votes. And we are paying £39 billion of taxpayers' money for the privilege of giving up what little control we currently have. And, in the process, we are prevented from taking advantage of the greatest boon of leaving the EU, which is to enter into free trade deals with the United States, Australia, India, China, et cetera, until an indefinite period, and possibly permanently.

The EU has got everything that it wanted out of the Prime Minister, and more. We have a £90 billion a year trade deficit with them. They export £340 billion-worth of goods and services to us. Why on earth would the European Commission want to allow us to enter into free trade agreements with other countries to undercut their prices on cars, food, clothing, footwear, et cetera? Of course they don't want us to reduce taxes on fuel because that would make our industries more competitive with them. And the most shocking thing—I'll conclude on this—about this agreement is that, as regards Northern Ireland, in future, laws will be made for Northern Ireland in which Dublin has a voice and a vote, but Belfast and the UK do not. That is the very reverse of partition.

The leader of the Conservatives during his questions to the First Minister—[Interruption.]—I'll come to you in a second—talked about the need for engagement. Well, the Prime Minister has gone behind the backs of two Brexit Secretaries to make far-reaching concessions to Brussels, and twice tried to balance the Cabinet to agree with her plans in ruthlessly plotted manipulations at Chequers and No. 10. There was no engagement with the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, let alone with the Welsh Government. And a 558-page, densely worded document was produced for people to comment upon at five minutes' notice. The Conservative and Unionist Party is certainly no longer a unionist party. This is not a deal but a capitulation. I wonder if the First Minister would agree with that description. 

It's rather strange, Llywydd, that I find myself standing up to almost defend the Prime Minister against attacks made on her rather than on me because it was all about what was happening in Westminster. I have to say that what is noticeable about Brexit is that those who smashed the window have run away and left those who didn't want the window smashed to put it back together again while claiming that they are doing it in the wrong way. I did notice that those people who said it will be the easiest trade deal ever and all that nonsense that we heard that hasn't come about—. And what is the narrative now? That the EU is being unreasonable. Well, the EU is looking after its own interests. And this idea that the EU needs us more than we need them, the EU doesn't see it that way at all, or not as the EU-27. Their view is, 'Well, we'd like to give the UK a good deal, but, actually, there's a whole world out there that we can talk to and we can trade with—big blocks that we can sell our goods to.'

Now, he asks fairly what's been done in the last two years. Well, when you have David Davis and Boris Johnson in place for so long, the question is answered. I'm not sure what David Davis did, if I'm honest with you, in terms of moving this forward. Boris Johnson seemed to think that any problem could be resolved by a quip of some kind. His greatest contribution to the job of Foreign Secretary was to jeopardise the release of a British national in Iran because of something that he said. So, she did not choose her personnel wisely when it came to her Brexit Secretary and her Foreign Secretary. And here we go again: 'This is treachery by an establishment.' No evidence at all to back that up, despite the fact that there are many leavers, of course. David Davis was a leaver, Dominic Raab was a leaver, and yet, despite the fact that he was the one who put this agreement before the Cabinet and then decided to leave, and David Davis, a leaver—he was the Brexit Secretary—are they part of the establishment that was so treacherous? And here we have the start of a narrative: 'All this would be fine if it wasn't for traitors in our own ranks.' The stab in the back theory. Now, where have we heard that one before? The British people have been stabbed in the back by people who sold them down the river. That's familiar ground from another country nearly 100 years ago. Perhaps we see now why Tommy Robinson will be so welcome in UKIP because of the historical parallels that seem to be playing out. 

And when it comes to free trade agreements, I have to say to the Member: a free trade agreement with America is no substitute for having a good agreement with Europe. It's further away and it's a smaller market. India is further away. Australia is both a small market and even further away. None of these markets will make up for the European market. And I have to say to him: these countries, India particularly, will say, 'If you want a free trade agreement with us, we want our people to be able to move and to arrive in Britain without a visa.' They're not going to accept visa restrictions at all. They will want something close to freedom of movement for their own people, and then what's he going to say at that point? He's opposed to freedom of movement for European nationals. Does that mean he supports it for Australian nationals, for Indian nationals, for American nationals? That's something that UKIP have never addressed. 

And then, of course, finally, he came up with a comment that belies, really, the sort of raging free-marketism of many in UKIP. He said that we would lose out on the opportunity for cheaper cars, cheaper food, cheaper clothing and cheaper footwear. What of the British workers that work in those sectors? What does it mean for our farmers if we allow in inferior—inferior—food products to undercut what they produce? What does it mean for our car workers if we allow in cars that are produced at a much lower cost that don't meet our current environmental standards? His view seems to be: let's cut the standards right down and let them in, undercut our own workers. Clothing, footwear—all these industries that are important to Britain. I do not believe that those who voted 'leave' voted 'leave' to jeopardise their own jobs. Many, many people said to me that one of the reasons why they were voting 'leave' was because they felt that their jobs were insecure and their lives were insecure. They will never vote for anything that looks like a laissez-faire, low-regulation economy. That's exactly what—I was going to say the leader of UKIP, but it's a rotating chair—the Member has said. That is not, I believe, what the British people voted for, it's not the vision that they voted for. I believe what they want is a sensible Brexit that protects their interests and the interests of Wales. 

First Minister, we were given very, very clear assurances during the referendum campaign and subsequently that there would be no denial of workers' rights, no reduction of workers' rights, that those would be protected all the way along. But when one reads the agreement, or the draft agreement as it's set out, superficially it seems quite attractive, because it talks about non-regression. But, First Minister, you will know, as well as I do, that non-regression clauses have very little legal status, are effectively unenforceable, have been rejected as giving any real grounds of support to workers' rights in European law and indeed in British law. The actual clauses that are set out there are ones that really aren't worth the paper that they are written on. Now, that's the view that I've taken of this, and I've also consulted with some of the country's leading employment lawyers, and this is what they say: they say it is therefore abundantly clear that the commitments on non-regression of labour standards and compliance with international labour organisation, the European social charter obligations, will be ineffective and will not achieve what the Government set out in its White Paper; in particular it will be almost certainly be impossible for trade unions and workers to rely directly on these commitments anyway. It is even more abundantly clear that these commitments do not even begin to meet Labour's fourth test of: does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom?

Do you agree, First Minister, with that analysis? And in this Assembly, as well as the debate that takes place in Westminster, one of our fundamental commitments is that working people in Wales will not have their rights taken away from them, and that this draft agreement, as it stands, significantly undermines and removes protection from Welsh workers in terms of the rights that they've enjoyed up until now? 

Well, yes I do. We know that there are many in the Conservative Party, and indeed we've heard it from UKIP today, who take the view that this is an opportunity to whittle away all those rights that have been hard-earned for so many years. They see it as a burden on business, whether it is a right to statutory leave, which 20 years ago didn't exist—there were workers in Wales who had no right to leave at all—whether it is statutory maternity pay, whether it is maternity leave or adoption leave. All these things are seen as unnecessary burdens by some on the economy, which they would like to do away with. But he will know, as I will know, that there are many, many people who, even though they voted 'leave', didn't vote for that vision. They wanted greater security, not some kind of buccaneering attitude that left them behind. So, yes, I am greatly concerned about where we will go in terms of social rights, in terms of workers' rights, but one thing that the Welsh Government will resist absolutely is any attempt to dilute those hard-won rights that workers in Wales and the rest of Britain have had for some years. 

I'd like to thank the First Minister for his statement and also for your swift actions, First Minister, last week, in writing to the Prime Minister, jointly with Nicola Sturgeon, calling for a Joint Ministerial Committee as a matter of urgency. As far as the draft withdrawal agreement is concerned, I'm dismayed by the apparent disregard and low level of importance given in the political declaration with regard to future relationships with the EU. We've been focusing on this as a committee, taking evidence from the Welsh and UK Governments as well as partners in private, public and third sectors. Do you share this dismay? Will you be relaying these concerns on the political declaration to the Prime Minister when you meet with her tomorrow? As the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said yesterday after the JMC, which was called in order to respond to your letter, the focus should now be on Wales. Will you be asking her, as Mark Drakeford has, to claw a bit of time to think about the future of her country—a country that has four different Governments, each with their own responsibilities? And, First Minister, at a fair funding Brexit round-table meeting last week, where the socioeconomic context of the impact of Brexit was discussed, questions were asked about the impact of the draft withdrawal agreement in addressing the poverty and inequality caused by this Tory UK Government in its relentless pursuit of austerity. The question was also asked in terms of the draft withdrawal agreement about the protection of equalities and human rights. I support Mick Antoniw in this point and thank you for your response to his questions.

But, finally, in terms of securing Wales's future objectives, what will it mean for the Welsh Government, this draft agreement, already investing in our poorest citizens and communities, as we experience a disregard in terms of consultation on future prospects for funding, in terms of the shared prosperity fund, following the loss of our structural funds?

Can I thank my friend and Member for the Vale of Glamorgan for her comments? We were promised that we wouldn't lose out on a single penny of funding, and that's a promise we intend to hold the UK Government to.

I think one of the lost opportunities here was that the Prime Minister very much took the view before the general election that she was the one who would take this forward and did not see the need to engage the devolved administrations at that point. Now, I think it's probably fair to say that if the Conservative Party had won with a handsome majority of 90 to 100 seats, then I daresay that we wouldn't be in this position where they have to talk to us as they do today. But that's not, of course, what the outcome was. Of course, the lost opportunity was that if the Prime Minister had not painted herself into such a corner, a hard-ish Brexit corner, there might have been the opportunity to work with the UK Government on the kind of Brexit that we would have wanted. We maybe would have been in the position where we could have said, 'Okay, look, we need to leave the EU, people have voted for that, but let's have full and unfettered access to the single market—that's important to us. There is no better alternative to the customs union, so let's stay in the customs union.' Now, if that had been the attitude of the UK Government at the start, that would have been close to our position; we could have been in a position where we could have been supportive, but all that was lost. It's a hypothetical question.

And now, what the UK Government finds itself in is a position where nobody is happy. Remainers are not happy, leavers are not happy, we're not happy, the Scottish Government isn't happy, the DUP—well, they're rarely happy, but they're particularly unhappy at this point. And where does that leave us? The problem is that this wasn't handled as it should have been at the beginning, but this situation could have been avoided. I'm not saying that it would have been avoided, but it could have been avoided. But sadly, of course, it was that lack of consultation and engagement that led us to this position, and certainly I hope that in the future lessons are learned by UK Governments that in order to be more effective, they have to talk to us and, of course, have to make sure that we feel that we're not just listened to, but that what we suggest is actually taken up. Because it's happened, of course, with Brexit. They have moved onto our turf—not entirely, but certainly in part—but much of this could have been avoided two years ago if the lines of communication had been more open.

First of all, I also want to reiterate how shameful it is that Wales has not been consulted meaningfully on the withdrawal agreement. It's not good enough, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance said yesterday, just to listen to what we say and then go away and we hear no more. The last of the Labour Party's six tests is: does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? And it certainly does not. Does the First Minister believe, in fact, that the withdrawal agreement meets any of those six tests that the Labour Party has put forward?

The withdrawal agreement lays out how EU citizens and families and UK citizens will be protected after we leave the EU. Those are people who have chosen where they would live under the freedom of movement, which, up to now, has been our right, within the EU. Now that we're losing the right of freedom of movement, does he not agree that the uncertainty about who is going to be able to stay in this country and who will come here in the future is causing great uncertainty for businesses? I had a meeting yesterday with a company director from Cardiff North of a medical products manufacturing company who relies heavily on European staff. He was telling me, in fact, how much he felt for those staff at the moment, because they were so uncertain—they felt so uncertain about their future. And, of course, we have had some information laid down in this withdrawal document today, but we don't know what the future will hold. He is very uncertain about how his company, which is a very valued company in Cardiff North, will prosper in the future, with the future proposals for immigration and no freedom of movement, and, of course, we do know what the CBI's view is about the Government's plans for immigration.

So, doesn't he agree as well that some of the rhetoric that has been used around the immigration issue does not foster good relations—Theresa May's words were that her deal will stop EU nationals 'jumping the queue'—and how unnecessary it is to use that sort of expression? It's building up division again, and I think we had such a spike in hate crime when we had the referendum, and there are more hate crimes now being reported than have ever happened before, and I think it behoves us, all of us politicians, that we must be very careful with the words that we use in order that we, in this very, very difficult time, don't increase the feelings of insecurity that many of our citizens have as a result of this very divisive vote and the very divisive politics that we're experiencing at the moment. So, has the First Minister got any comments he could make about that particular issue?

Yes. It was certainly very much an issue in the aftermath of the referendum that we saw a spike in hate crime. One of the things that I did was to go and visit communities around Wales—a Polish community in Llanelli, of course, and I went to a meeting in Swansea—just to reassure people that the Welsh Government and the people of Wales are welcoming, and that it wasn't the case, as some people did believe, that they would somehow be thrown out of the country very soon, even to the extent that one person said to me that she feared the knock on the door. That's how bad it was as far as their perception of what might happen.

On the issue of citizens' rights, the withdrawal agreement does take us further and provides some kind of certainty compared to where we once were, but, of course, what businesses are saying to me is that, yes, they understand the point that there is a need to get skilled labour and professionals in the health service—we've all talked about that—but also there's a need for unskilled labour as well, people who are going to work in jobs that are not as highly paid, which are unattractive in a climate of full employment, such as the abattoirs. I keep on mentioning them; I'm not running a kind of vendetta against them, but they do find it difficult to recruit because the nature of the job is unpleasant for most people. Where will they get their people? If they can't get their people from the EU, that means they won't be able to function, and people who live locally won't be able to get a job there either, because the opportunities won't be there. So, these things have been missed by the UK Government.

And, of course, the tragedy of this is that people celebrate the ending of freedom of movement. What does it mean in practice? It means that UK citizens will not be able to travel and live freely in 26 other countries that they previously could—it's a wall. However, if you're Austrian or German or French, you can travel to 26 other countries, but not freely to the UK. So, actually, you can travel to all these countries around Europe without any restrictions. If you're Irish, you can travel to them all—UK and every other country in the European Union. So, what in fact has happened is that restrictions on freedom of movement have actually applied more strictly to our own people than to anyone else in Europe, because it's our own people who now won't be able to live and travel and work as they used to, whereas every other citizen in Europe will be able to do it, except they won't be able to come to the UK in the same way. So, actually, it's been a self-defeating action to limit the places where UK citizens can actually go and live long term, and work long term. Those strictures will not apply to other countries in Europe. So, it shows that what we've done here is not actually to create a situation where immigration is in some way better controlled in the UK; it's meant that UK citizens will now have controls put on them when they have to travel to other countries in Europe.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item, therefore, is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on international student mobility. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement. Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Only 2 per cent of Welsh students at universities currently spend time abroad studying, volunteering or undertaking work experience as part of their studies. At a time when it’s never been more important for our students and graduates to be global citizens, for there to be stronger cultural and economic links between Wales and the world, and for even greater academic and employability outcomes for our students, we need to ensure that international opportunities are an aspiration for many more students. 

I want to see the number of Welsh students who spend time abroad as part of their studies double by the end of this Government. As someone who benefited hugely from time studying abroad as an undergraduate, I know how such an experience broadens horizons, expands key skills and ensures connections that last a lifetime. Research from Universities UK points out that these gains are particularly significant for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, it is these students who too often miss out on, or don't even apply for, these transformational opportunities.

We have made a start on addressing this by targeting Generation UK—China student mobility funding towards widening participation. Today, I'm announcing a new international student mobility pilot, which will make a significant contribution to our ambitions to increase opportunities and raise aspirations. We have been developing the pilot in discussion with British Council Wales as part of our response to the Diamond review's recommendation on support for students who choose to study overseas.  It will focus on Welsh-domiciled students at Welsh higher education institutions and it will run for three years from 2018-19. The pilot will offer a mix of opportunities for Welsh students at Welsh HE institutions, including study, volunteering and internship, ranging from two to three weeks to eight weeks. Our scoping study showed that it is these sorts of opportunities that will lead to the strongest take-up.

This will help to encourage participation from a wider group of students, hopefully including those with, for example, caring responsibilities or in employment, and will avoid duplication of any schemes already available. I believe strongly that Government should invest in these opportunities, but there is also a responsibility for universities to step up. On that note, I am pleased that many Welsh universities have signed up to Universities UK's Go International campaign to double the percentage of undergraduates who have an international placement as part of their university programme.

We are investing £1.3 million in this pilot over the next three years, and further details on those mobility opportunities will be published shortly. Of course, there are already good examples of work taking place within the sector with the support of Government, and I'd like to take the opportunity to mention these today also. We were recently able to support the Global Wales project with European transition fund investment worth £3.5 million. This funding will not only support the promotion of Wales as a study destination, but will also support outward mobility opportunities for Welsh students in Global Wales's priority markets, such as Vietnam and the United States. These opportunities, as part of our wider international education programme, are important for social mobility, employability skills and soft power links for Wales. 

The Seren Network goes from strength to strength, and I was delighted earlier this year to secure a new partnership between Yale University and Seren. This new partnership resulted in 16 Seren students having the opportunity to participate in the Yale young global scholars summer programme. Let me tell you, Members, this was a life-changing experience for all that took part. This exciting partnership will continue and expand in 2019. These relationships with leading global universities have also offered us the opportunity to lever engagement in our wider education reforms, and I hope to make further announcements on this very soon.

As I mentioned earlier, our new investment provides additional and new opportunities. It will not duplicate existing schemes. We are clear in our view that the United Kingdom should continue to participate in Erasmus after Brexit. Wales benefits hugely from our participation in Erasmus+, allowing people to study and undertake work experience and volunteering in another EU country. In fact, the total funding awarded to Welsh projects amounts to some 6 per cent of the UK total Erasmus+ funding awarded since 2014, and that is above our population share. The call for the 2019 projects has just been announced by the British Council and I would encourage Welsh institutions to submit applications.

In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, I am determined that many more of our students, from all backgrounds, benefit from the transformational experience of spending time studying, volunteering or undertaking work experience abroad. International experiences benefit individual students, strengthen overseas links for our universities, and promote bilateral exchanges for Wales with communities and countries across the world. Thank you.

I welcome the statement from the Cabinet Secretary. As someone relatively new to this portfolio, I was actually shocked myself to learn only 2 per cent of Welsh students currently spend time abroad studying and volunteering or carrying out work experience. It is heartening to hear your statement that you do intend to double that figure by the end of this Government. But of particular concern to me is how the opportunities do present themselves for those from disadvantaged backgrounds—our care leavers, disabled students. And I ask how the new international student mobility pilot that focuses on Welsh higher education—how will you be hoping this will extend, if at all, to the further education sector? Because, to me, it's important that children from both sectors are able to experience the opportunities that present. So, if not, why is this not the case? It is crucial that our under-represented groups do have the same opportunities to go on international— you know, courses away. And I just simply cannot see why that would not be the case. So, if the Cabinet Secretary could enlighten us further. 

Can I thank Janet for that question? Could I make it absolutely clear that the reason why we are going for relatively short periods for the pilot is to allow for students that do perhaps have other responsibilities, who could not afford the time to take a year abroad, which is perhaps traditionally what many students would see as a period of international study?

These short placements, for two to three weeks up to eight weeks, will allow for, we believe, following research that has been undertaken on behalf of Welsh Government by OB3 Research and the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods—. This gives us the optimum chance for the highest level of take-up. These particular grants are available for those studying in Welsh higher education institutions, as recommended by Diamond. But that's not to say that there aren't significant opportunities for international study in the FE sector. Of course, in many areas, FE colleges are delivering A-level programmes to our Seren students and are participating in the Seren programme. You've just heard me say about our new links with Yale University, and we are hoping to build upon those. And FE colleges have been particularly successful in drawing down Erasmus+ funding. Both our school sector and our FE colleges have excelled themselves. As I've said, we have had a greater than population share of the resources under Erasmus+ that has looked to fund a range of very exciting projects in FE that have allowed FE students studying at academic and vocational colleges to have periods of study abroad.

The challenge we have now, Janet—and perhaps you can help us with this—is convincing your colleagues in the Government in Westminster to allow us to continue to participate fully in the Erasmus+ programme. And, at the moment, it is far from clear, after 2020, that we will be able to do that. The Westminster Government is currently undertaking a value for money study. We have been more than happy to support that review with all the data from Wales, which I believe makes a very strong case for continued participation in the scheme. The universities of Wales and the colleges of Wales are very clear on their desire to continue to participate fully in Erasmus+, as is the students' union of Wales. It seems, though, that, at this moment, those voices have not been listened to.

And I would, once again, reiterate the experience of Switzerland, who left the Erasmus+ programme—decided they could do something better on their own. It ended up costing them more money for fewer opportunities. We should learn from that and not think that some UK-alone scheme would be a satisfactory replacement for ongoing continuation and participation in Erasmus+, which is, as I said, what this Government wants, what the students of Wales want, and what the universities and colleges of Wales want.

Apologies for my late arrival. Thank you for advance notice of this statement. Following Brexit, it needs to be ensured that international students continue to be welcomed to Wales and are aware that they are valued. It also needs to be ensured that students from Wales are encouraged to be outward looking and to seek opportunities to study abroad. Plaid Cymru believes that students from Wales should be able to study in the world's best universities and have the opportunity to live and to work abroad. Our 2016 manifesto pledged to provide first-time students financial support for Welsh-domiciled students enrolling as undergraduates in universities outside the UK as well as expanding our support for Erasmus+. as has been mentioned already today. to get more young people to see the world and to have enrichment from those experiences. It is therefore welcome to hear the Cabinet Secretary is launching an international student mobility pilot as part of the Welsh Government's response to the Diamond review's recommendations on support for students to study overseas. 

You mentioned there is £1.3 million in the pilot and that further details are to follow. I'd just like to ask when those details would follow, considering that we would need to scrutinise how that investment is being put in place by the Welsh Government and whether that money would be enough or whether it could be used in different ways or whether other parties may have ideas as to where that money could be utilised.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give not just this Chamber but the international student community assurances that they will not only be welcomed in Wales but also valued? I understand that this scheme is about taking Welsh students out into other countries, but it does work both ways. If we attract international students to Wales, it will broaden the experiences of students here in this nation of ours, and it will allow for us to meet people we would never otherwise have met—in my case, my husband, so, I am very thankful that we had that opportunity here in Wales. 

What representations has the Welsh Government made to the UK Government in securing continued Welsh involvement in international student exchange programmes post Brexit? Do you see a role for some form of continued Committee of the Regions in helping facilitate continued co-operation in this area, something that I and my colleague Mick Antoniw, who currently sit on the Committee of the Regions, are looking into?

How does the Welsh Government plan on mitigating the cost of losing EU students post Brexit? We are seeing a decline in applications, and as I said in this Chamber only recently, Wales is already way down the league table in terms of EU student numbers and applications. So, a further reduction is going to be very hard for the HE sector to absorb, when, almost certainly, we will see an even further decline in EU student numbers as a result of Brexit. 

What plans does the Welsh Government have in place if we are unable to remain part of the Erasmus scheme? And do you share my concern that the increased anti-EU-national language being used by the Prime Minister as part of her hard line against EU freedom of movement and to sell her proposed EU deal risks putting continued co-operation on this front in jeopardy?

Finally, will the Cabinet Secretary consider a pilot scheme to provide support for students to study further afield for the whole of their degree programme, as recommenced by Diamond? I think that this would be something to look at in the round so that we can encourage young people to not only do part of their degree abroad but to do all of their degree abroad and to bring that wealth and talent back to Wales. 

Thank you for the series of questions, Bethan. Let me be absolutely clear, Welsh universities and colleges are open for business, and not just to international students, who, as you say, bring a depth to our university towns in what they bring with them, but also, of course, faculty as well. International faculty is a key strength in our sector, and a significant number of our lecturing staff in HE institutions in particular are international lecturers. They are very welcome in our universities and help make our universities as strong as they are.

That is the message that myself, Universities Wales and Global Wales are taking to the world—the very strong offer that Wales has with regard to higher education and further education. One only has to look at the student satisfaction surveys that show that Welsh universities rank higher amongst students for their satisfaction at their experience than across the border in England or in Scotland. We have excellence in research and excellence in teaching, and we have a wide variety of institutions, either city based, like here in Cardiff, or on the coast, whether that be in Bangor or Aberystwyth—we have a real mix, so something for everybody. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that what international students and faculty can be assured of if they come to study or work in Wales is a very warm, warm welcome from our communities, who value their contribution very much indeed.

With regard to the ongoing challenge of recruiting international students, of course, this is not helped by the determination of the UK Government to include students as part of the immigration figures. Nobody sees international students as immigrants, only Theresa May and the Home Office. Poll after poll after poll show that the public do not view international students in this way, and international students come here, they study here, they learn their skills here and the vast, vast majority of them then take those skills back to their home country. So this idea that, somehow, they should be included in these figures is highly damaging—highly damaging—to the HE sector, not just here in Wales, but across the United Kingdom. 

I have had meetings with Sam Gyimah and my Scottish counterparts in this regard to talk about international student recruitment as well as ongoing opportunities for British students to study abroad, particularly as part of the Erasmus+ programme. I am due to meet with them again shortly. I've invited them all here to Cardiff, and I'm very glad that they have taken the opportunity to agree to that invitation, where, once again, we will sit as a group of education Ministers to try and form a common understanding of the challenges that face us all and to try and put those messages across to the UK Government. 

With regard to European student recruitment into Wales, it should not be unexpected that we have seen a drop in those students as our student support package has changed. It was an inevitable consequence of a very generous offer that EU students were able to avail themselves of under the previous regime; that financial incentive has now been removed, as we move through our Diamond packages. Actually, the year before, we outperformed the other UK nations in terms of international and EU student recruitment, so it should not be unexpected. But that does mean we have to redouble our efforts, alongside our partners in HEIs and FE colleges, to spread the message of the strong offer that we have here in Wales.

This is why I recently was with Global Wales in New York, alongside the vice-chancellor of Swansea University, hosting a Study in Wales event and, most recently, in Vietnam, where we were able to negotiate with the British Council a significant tranche of new Chevening scholarships—Wales universities having the most of them—to attract Vietnamese students to our country, and we will continue to support our university colleagues in their recruitment activities, where we can add value to them. 

This is initially a pilot for short periods of study abroad. As I said, this is a result of research that has been done by WISERD on behalf of the Welsh Government, because we feel that this is where there is the largest demand. Demand for international placements has been growing steadily in Wales, but at 2 per cent, we lag behind England and Scotland in the number of Welsh undergraduates who avail themselves of these opportunities. This is an attempt to supplement what we're already doing to increase those opportunities, especially for those students, as I said, from particularly disadvantaged backgrounds who have been least likely to apply for previous opportunities or for study abroad in the round.

We will continue to keep under review, given the financial constraints that we're currently working under in the higher education sector, whether we would move to a situation where we would fund entire degrees in international universities. We are not in a position to undertake that at this moment, because we believe that there are other pressing needs on the higher education budget in Wales, and our priority for the Diamond dividend is to reinvest in expensive subjects and to increase resources going into the sector here at home. 

What a good point the Cabinet Secretary makes about international students, and the action she's taken in this Chamber that contrasts so severely with the Conservative UK Government's cynical policy of discouraging international students coming to this country because they affect immigration figures. The Conservative benches in this Chamber should be ashamed of the Conservative Government and that policy.

So, this is a very good focus on opening Wales and opening the world to Welsh students. One thing I'm particularly interested in and would welcome is the focus on students, which you've just mentioned, from disadvantaged backgrounds. What I also ask is: it's not just students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but students—future students—who live in communities of multiple deprivation who may not be from disadvantaged backgrounds themselves. So, I'm talking about Valleys communities, particularly places like Senghenydd and Bargoed in my constituency. I went to school in Bargoed. When I was in school, I wouldn't have considered international study—it wouldn't have been on my mind. I didn't come from a disadvantaged background, but it just wasn't in the culture of the school.

So, if we're going to encourage students to travel abroad, I think we need to look at how primary school students and secondary school students are educated in the value of international study. People can say to them, 'Well, look, you can get abroad—you can travel abroad—and this will be great for you'. It wasn't until I was 25 and travelling abroad to China to teach that I realised the value of international study. I tell you something: I wouldn't have had the confidence to do it when I was 18.

You make a very good point, because often these are issues to do with aspiration and actually creating that spark within the individual to seek out these opportunities. The research shows us that people from a disadvantaged background are least likely to seek out these opportunities, so this is about raising aspiration.

As I said earlier in answer to Janet Finch-Saunders, some of the strongest projects that Wales has seen in the Erasmus+ programme are, actually, school-based projects, and that's really, really important—that Erasmus is not just seen as a university programme. It's actually available for schools and FE colleges, and schools are engaging in that very well at the moment.

But, as you know, one of the four purposes of our new curriculum is to create global citizens ready to play their part, here in their own communities but also in the world. So, hopefully, our new curriculum will, from the very earliest ages—from three years old—begin to teach children about their place in their community, but also the fact that they are a citizen of the world and there are opportunities for them out there.

One of the reasons why the opportunities are limited to two to three weeks to eight weeks is because those are seen as more desirable. It's a big leap, isn't it, to take a year living away from home and moving to a country for a year, but the ability, maybe, to go for two to three weeks or up to eight weeks is a much more manageable proposition and an accessible one and an attractive one. We believe, following the research that has been undertaken to inform this policy initiative, that that's where it makes the biggest difference.

We anticipate that between 400 and 500 students will be assisted by this pilot. It'll be operated by the British Council Wales, which already has systems in place for other opportunities. Hefin, if you had have met the very sparky 16 and 17-year-olds from schools across Wales who went to the Yale global scholars programme, you would've been in awe at their confidence, their aspiration and their ability to compete on a global stage with other young people and to hold their own. The confidence that that has given them to come back to Wales and to set their aspirations even higher for what they can achieve has been remarkable. If we can provide more of those opportunities for more of our students, I feel that at least part of my time in this job will have been very well spent.

Thank you for your statement. I think this is a very important issue, because there's a real danger that, as we have this threat of leaving the EU, we will become an inward-looking country when we are part of a global economy. We can't get away from that. This idea that we somehow can hack it on our own is pretty frightening.

Anyway, I want to pay tribute to Cardiff University in particular, who have been focusing a lot of effort into ensuring that, as far as possible, they encourage all young people who are studying there as undergraduates to build in some sort of international experience. That's absolutely as it should be, because they've already done the research that shows that studying abroad improves their employability, their confidence and their broader education. So, well done, Cardiff University, and I'm completely terrified at the fact that only 2 per cent of Welsh students overall go abroad.

But focusing back on the very important point you make about the significance of students from disadvantaged backgrounds going abroad, I heard what you said to Hefin David and the importance of having these short-term international experiences. But I doubt if they're going to be in Vietnam or the United States, given the distance involved—are they? I think, surely, we need to be focusing on our biggest markets, which are in Europe. We're not going to be able to move our country to some other part of the world. I just wanted to ask what you're doing to ensure that disadvantaged students are taking up the opportunities of this new £1.3 million because, otherwise, we know they will be taken up by the less disadvantaged students who will always have families that would probably be able to make arrangements for them on their own. 

Could you just explain why you have not considered extending this opportunity to FE students who are studying, just as importantly, the technical skills that are also going to make them employable and make an important contribution to our economy? Those are my two questions. 

Thank you very much, Jenny. I'm very happy to join you in congratulating Cardiff University for the significant work that they have done in this particular field. We have been very careful in trying to design this scheme to complement what our universities are already doing, and it's certainly not to absolve them of any responsibility that they need and are taking in this regard. 

As I said in my opening statement, perhaps this work is more important now than it ever has been as we approach Brexit. Wales has never been an insular country. Our outlook has always been global and international. Only last week, in her Welsh language speaking assessment, my daughter talked of the Welsh people who were there at the signing of the declaration of independence for the United States of America. We have sent our people out into the world, who have created and done amazing things. At this time more than ever, we need to increase Wales's soft power. We may not have responsibility for foreign affairs in this Chamber, but that does not absolve us of our responsibility to get Wales out into the world, and what better way, what better asset do we have to sell our nation than our young people? They are our best asset, and that's why I'm determined that more of them should have the opportunity. 

Of course, we want students to continue to have opportunities in Europe; that's why we're fighting so hard for the Erasmus+ project. But I can assure you, Jenny, it's only six hours and you can be in Boston, and with the new flight from Cardiff to Doha, you can be in Vietnam in less than 12, so the idea that an eight-week programme isn't long enough for you to go to some of these places, I would argue, is not the case. We will be looking for the British Council, who will be administering this scheme, to help us collect data to make sure that a wide range of students are taking up these opportunities. As I've said throughout this, one of my guiding principles in this job is equality of opportunity and closing the attainment gap. That attainment gap isn't just about qualifications; it's about an opportunity attainment gap as well, and I hope this programme helps us to achieve that. 

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning on the review of the funding formula for further education. I call on the Minister, Eluned Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Welsh Government is seeking to build an economy that works for everyone. Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that we do all that we can to boost living standards, encourage growth and productivity, and also address deeply ingrained regional economic and social inequalities.

The FE sector is at the heart of this agenda, yet over the past five or six years it is also one of the sectors that has been hardest hit by the austerity measures imposed on us by the UK Government. With this in mind, I commissioned a review of the FE funding methodology to ensure that it is fit for purpose to deliver what learners need and what employers want, and also to ensure fairness across the whole of Wales, not just for full-time learners but also for part-time learners.

The changes introduced in 2014 have achieved their objectives. We no longer deliver isolated qualifications, but we have in place a comprehensive, skills based, learning programme, courses that have a defined purpose and outcome, and a redesigned and sharpened curriculum offer. Generally, our institutions are financially stable. However, in 2017, a Wales Audit Office report recommended that we should review the funding methodology to reflect the changes in demography and local need.

To deliver this recommendation, the Welsh Government has been working with the FE sector to align funding for full-time learners more closely with the approach adopted around sixth-form funding, thus reflecting relevant demographic changes. While the current programme approach to funding delivers the main qualification and underlying skills that employers in each sector require, learner choice remains the main driver for which programmes are delivered at each college. The choices that learners are currently making do not necessarily chime with the needs of local employers or the economy, and therefore it’s possible that some people choose courses where there is no clear progression pathway, which could lead to people being trapped in low-paid jobs. 

To bring change to this position, and to move towards a situation that closer aligns the needs of our economy with the training delivered, officials have worked to align college courses with the recommendations of the regional skills partnerships. The aim of these partnerships is to ensure that employer needs are considered in the recommendations. These are used to influence the planning processes provided at every college. If colleges introduce plans that do not reflect the RSP recommendations, they will not be approved. Furthermore, my officials will ensure that delivery is in line with those plans and will adjust funding when appropriate.

I intend to appoint an independent advisor to review how we can enhance the current arrangements in terms of the partnerships and their ability to have an impact on skills provision in their regions that meets employer need.

The FE sector is a responsive sector and I fully expect them to embrace this improved methodology, to work collaboratively and regionally, and to ensure that each and every one of our FE learners is given the best possible start in the world of higher education or employment. 

We need to be constantly striving for improved learner outcomes, and I am keen to see an increase in the trend of successful completion and we will explore options, in consultation with the FE sector, to incentivise colleges to ensure they meet annual targets for learning outcomes, ensuring improved standards year on year. And where a college does not meet that target, I'll withhold funding in the following year. I'm pleased to say that, in the past decade, the outcomes achieved by colleges have improved by 20 percentage points. But we must be constantly striving to improve the standards.

Alongside the changes to full-time provision, I'm also proposing to change the way part-time provision is funded, planned and delivered. The introduction of funding frameworks in 2014-15 I'm afraid coincided with a 37 per cent decrease in the funding available for part-time learning, with a further 50 per cent the following year. So, since 2015-16, the volume of part-time provision has varied depending on the numbers of full-time learners, and the offer is inconsistent across Wales.

Part-time funding is prioritised for basic skills, including digital and English for speakers of other languages provision, as well as giving all learners the opportunity to attain GCSE English, Welsh and mathematics. Delivering to those with the lowest level of skill has long been a core part of each college’s mission. In future, part-time provision will be prioritised to the proportion of the population who only hold a level 2 qualification. That'll ensure that all learners with a qualification level below level 3 will have equal access to the amount of part-time funding that is available wherever they live in the country.

As with full time, I expect colleges’ part-time provision to be influenced by the regional skills partnership recommendations. This review has also refined the sparsity uplift to reflect the increased costs of delivering in rural areas, although additional work will be undertaken in 2019 to refine the sparsity uplift to ensure we identify and fund the optimum curriculum entitlement in rural areas

I'm also changing the way we fund the post-16 Welsh baccalaureate. Currently, A-level and equivalent programmes are funded at the same value whether the Welsh bac is being delivered or not. This is because, where the Welsh bac is not being delivered, providers are expected to deliver, as a minimum, three Essential Skills Wales qualifications. However, data has shown us that this is not necessarily happening as expected, with learners missing out on important skills development. Therefore, from 2019, the Welsh bac will be funded as a separate qualification and funded as equivalent to an A-level. I'll also be looking at how we can implement this change within vocational programmes from 2020.

Other elements of the FE funding methodology will continue to be considered during the next academic year for implementation in 2020-21. For example, the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol was tasked with developing an action plan for Welsh-medium education in FE in partnership with Welsh Government officials. I have this week received the final action plan and I'm considering the advice, which will be the basis for future support for the sector. So, to align this with these new developments, a review of the Welsh-medium uplift will take place next year, bringing a more cohesive direction to Welsh-medium and bilingual education and training. Research will also be carried out on the deprivation uplift, and we'll review the additional funding for learning support for those with additional learning needs, with a revised allocation to this budget being announced.

In line with the announcement of these changes to the FE methodology, I intend to write to each of the FEIs to set out my expectations for engaging with this new methodology and to broaden its inclusivity, in particular in relation to people with disabilities and their access to FE provision and apprenticeships. I'd like to recognise the commitment that the FE sector has given to this review, and I believe that the new arrangements will better suit both learners and employers.

Finally, I'd like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Welsh Government will be providing funding to enable further education lecturers to be awarded a pay deal in 2018-19 and 2019-20 that is commensurate with that received by school teachers. I'm pleased to say that funding will also be provided to extend the pay deal to other FE staff, which highlights the recognition that FE makes an important contribution to the economy of Wales.

I'm so sorry to have taken so much of your time, but I think it was important to set out exactly what the changes will be in future. Diolch.

I thank the Minister for her statement today. Further education is crucial for the future development of the skills base of the Welsh workforce and for the future development of the Welsh economy as a whole. According to ColegauCymru, the economic impact of FE colleges in Wales to the local business community is £4 billion a year. However, the FE sector has been chronically underfunded for many years by Welsh Government. Make no mistake, this has been a deliberate policy decision and responsibility lies with the Welsh Government also. So, can I ask the Minister, given the importance of the further education sector, if she regrets the lack of support it has received from the Welsh Government?

I welcome plans to improve the methodology, what she's been saying a few times in her statement—what the Minister referred to. Does she agree that any changes should not be introduced in such a way that they destabilise the sector or otherwise impact negatively on learners' outcomes and meeting business needs? Colleges have been successful in attracting income from outside the core Welsh Government budget, but this is no substitute for core Welsh Government funding. Will the Minister join me in congratulating colleges on funding innovative ways of attracting commercial income and what is she doing to support their efforts?

Central to the funding question is the benefit it delivers for training and skills. So, can the Minister say how the review fits with the employability strategy and its focus on helping people return to work? The Minister referred to part-time learning—the number of part-time learners at further education institutions has fallen by nearly a quarter. Could the Minister expand on her plans to reverse the serious decline in the number of part-time learners in the FE institutions?

Finally, the Minister will be aware of the threat of industrial action currently facing the FE sector. How confident is the Minister that her proposed pay deal will address the problem of low morale that has seen lecturers leaving the sector due to the in-year budget cuts faced by the sector since 2015? I look forward to her reply. Thank you.

Well, nobody wanted to see the kind of cuts that were imposed on the FE sector, but that was a deliberate decision by the UK Tory Government in relation to austerity. That is the consequence of the cuts. We have to make decisions, we have to prioritise, and this was the decision that was forced upon us, that we did not want to take, but we had to take, because of that austerity decision, which is a political decision. That was a political decision that you did not have to make. But let me tell you about the sector itself. Compared to England, our FE sector is the model of stability, and I think that the coherence and the financial stability of those FE colleges is something that the Welsh Government has been working very diligently on over the past few years. So, I am confident that those colleges are in a much, much better place than any of the FE colleges are in England.

In relation to colleges being able to derive additional income, I'm very open to that. In fact, I would encourage them to do a lot more of that, but in order to do that, I think they need to become a little bit more flexible to respond to the needs of learners, who may not be able to fit into the hours that colleges currently provide. So, I'm hoping that they will be more responsive. One of the things we've done to try and encourage that is to put £10 million on the table to say, 'You can access this pot if you can provide learning to people that coincides with the kind of priorities and the local skills that we've identified are needed.' And we've asked them to provide that and they've been really responsive and that's good. But I think that's the first step. I would certainly like them to become a little bit more flexible, so more than anything, I would like the public sector to really take a much better role in terms of engaging with the private sector so that they can be delivering these courses, rather than the private sector.

You're talking about part-time learning again. The cuts have been significant and that's why what we've had to do is focus on specific areas. So, we've focused on basic skills, on digital and on English for speakers of other languages learning because we've had to, because that is what has been forced upon us by the UK Government. 

Just finally on the industrial action, I'm really delighted that we have been able to come to a conclusion on the industrial action. There will now be parity in terms of pay for FE college lecturers with sixth-form lecturers, but we've gone further than that—we've also helped to make sure that it's not just college lectures, but other people who are in the support services, some of whom are on very low incomes, who will also benefit from this additional support that the Welsh Government has put on the table.

Thank you for the advanced notice—it's timely, given that we have a debate on further education this time tomorrow also. We've always recognised in Plaid Cymru that, to have a successful highly skilled and productive economy, we need the facilities and the institutions that are world class, competitive with a clear mission and a plan to deliver. And further education is something that needs to be available to everyone throughout their careers and not just at school. So, it's one of the reasons, as part of the most recent budget agreement that Plaid Cymru pushed for, where we could, to secure extra money for FE, although we recognise that it's not enough and we understand the challenges that remain.

We do welcome the announcement of funding to allow a pay deal for college lecturers, which is commensurate to those achieved by teachers, and we have been calling for this for some time. It's also good to hear that funding will be available to extend that to FE staff as well, as we know that we have to achieve parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications and a fairer pay structure. But I would just like to probe the Minister further. We still know that there's going to be the potential for strike action in December. Do you think that this pay deal will go far enough in relation to the wider workload issues that are facing the sector?

So far as the other elements in the statement go, I am puzzled on some of the other announcements. The current funding and allocation framework was put in place in 2013. Today, we have this announcement covering the next few years, but there's no information as to how long colleges can plan ahead based on this announcement. How long a period do you envisage that the announcement today will actually last for?

The purpose of the proposed tertiary education and research commission for Wales is to provide oversight, strategic direction and leadership for the post-compulsory education and training sector, so why are you bringing forward piecemeal reform of funding for the sector now, rather than waiting for the commission to be in place to strategically review the needs of the sector? We know, based on the Hazelkorn review and other statements made by the education Secretary, that the whole of the post-16 landscape is being proposed for a major legislative overhaul. Will this mean that these announcements today, in reality, will be up in the air as soon as or if that process begins? Can you give us some more detail on when the wider legislative agenda is being planned for?

According to the statement, and I quote:

'College plans that do not reflect the RSP recommendations will not be approved.'

You also say that you intend to appoint an independent adviser and to review how we enhance the current arrangements with regional skills partnerships and their ability to have an impact on skills provision. Is the Minister confident that RSPs are equipped to make the right recommendations to colleges to ensure that employers' needs are met in those plans? Some in the sector have told me that they have no real power, no real accountability and no real direction from Welsh Government. It's my understanding that only one of the three RSPs currently have staff. RSPs need to be hardwired into the wider post-16 landscape in the way that they currently are not. Will an independent adviser be able to provide a better way forward? Although, again, I think it's something that could and should be done as part of a wider strategic change in the sector. How, for example, will the John Graystone review be worked into this announcement? They've already reviewed the RSPs—how will you be taking this into regard? There seem to be further reviews into aspects of the uplift to the formula, but I want to understand why you feel that's necessary. Have we had enough reviews in this area, or have they had enough time yet to bed in? I'd like to understand why you've made that decision.

My final question is: you've explained in the statement that part-time provision has seen drastic cuts over the last few years, and we would obviously agree with that—not agree with the fact that it's been done but agree with the statement. You say that part-time provision will be prioritised to the proportion of the population who only hold a level 2 qualification. Have you carried out an impact assessment on how this will affect different groups of learners at different levels, and have you discussed this with the sector?

Yes, just first of all on lifelong learning—I think it is critical. I think the role of FE in lifelong learning is terribly important. One of the key issues we have in our society today in terms of problems is in-work poverty, so the question is: how do we get people out of that situation? The answer, I think, is to upskill them while they are still at work. To do that, we need to provide a more flexible system. So, I'm trying to encourage the FE sector to try and get into that position so that they can be responsive and not just leave it to the private sector, as I said earlier. 

I am very hopeful that the money that we've managed to put on the table today will avoid strike action, but then that is a matter—the relationship between the college lecturers is one between the unions, the college lecturers and ColegauCymru. So, that's the relationship. What we can do—. We're kind of slightly outside the system, but we've been very pleased to be able to support them in this instance.

In terms of planning ahead, I understand what you're saying: the Hazelkorn review is coming. The problem is, it's still quite a way out, and what I don't want to do is to wait before we incentivise, before we start moving these colleges. If we wait for the Hazelkorn review, we could be waiting a significant number of years, and I don't want to be in that position. So, some of this is about getting us to the situation where we're on a par with sixth forms. We're looking at the methodology, for example, in relation to how they're paid, related to demographic changes—that's something. That's what's done in sixth forms. So, we're gradually getting into the same kind of position. And, of course, we needed to respond, I think, to the National Audit Office report. So, that was another incentive for us to get moving on this particular issue. 

On the RSPs, we have of course had the review by Dr John Graystone. That was specifically targeted at governance. It was specifically looking at governance. The RSPs have responded, are responding, to that. The terms of reference are now clear for the public. There was an issue about public accountability. Minutes of the meetings are now being put on websites and things. So, the transparency of the process is much better. I hope that in appointing somebody to overlook the RSPs, we will get a better degree of consistency between the RSPs. I think they're doing a good job, and I'd like to encourage them to keep going, but I'd like to have somebody who has an understanding of both the RSP, the employment situation, and the further education sector, to really make sure that we are in the right place on this. It's critical, I think, that we get this right. 

And then, on your last point, which was about—I can't remember what it was about.

The part-time provision—

Part-time provision. Yes, part-time provision—absolutely, we are concerned about this and that's why we've had to prioritise. We have done some analysis to have a look at how this would impact. Of course we've been speaking to the colleges about this. We've had to prioritise. We're really making sure that there's consistency. When we've decided where to prioritise, though, we've decided that we want to upskill and focus on those with the lowest levels of qualification in relation to part-time.

Can I thank the Minister for her statement, and can I also basically applaud the Welsh Government's decision to actually fund the pay awards both for lecturers and for support staff? Because so often support staff are not thought of in these discussions, and they are the crucial pin that actually allows the whole process to work. So, I'm very much pleased with that.

A couple of quick questions for you, Minister. I agree with Bethan in the sense that part-time provision is crucial. We need to look at how we address this issue. Now, your statement says you're going to prioritise those who only hold level 2 or below, but we can't ignore the level 3s, because they are the ways in which we can upskill our workforce and provide people opportunities to move on and, as you highlighted in your answer, to actually better themselves out of in-work poverty situations. So, can you give us reassurances that you will also be supportive of programmes above level 2 if there's evidence to demonstrate that that need is there by the regional skills partnerships as well?

In the RSPs, will you also confirm that they will look not just at regional needs, but national needs, because very often what is good in a part of Wales might not be appropriate for another part of Wales? But we don't want to stop the social mobility of the students to travel. For example, something in south-east Wales—if it's only delivered in south-east Wales, we shouldn't deny people in south-west Wales or west Wales the opportunities to actually gain skills that might allow them to move into those types of professions.

You also indicated that you will be doing the financial or checking the financial—funding, basically. You won't pay if the plans are not delivered. How often will you assess those plans to ensure that they are being delivered? Are you also going to assess the financial management of the colleges to ensure that they are delivering on the outcomes that they should be delivering on? We've seen how FE colleges grow, some of them quite large, and some have spin-off businesses as a consequence of putting extra funding in, so what I want to make sure is that they are delivering on the objectives set by Welsh Government for the funding from Welsh Government.

Could you also tell me—? In your statement you highlighted that you've done some of these things—parts of the uplift have been looked at—but then you talk about that other elements will be looked at in the next academic year. Well, what elements will be looked at in the next academic year? Will they be all the remaining elements, or will they be a proportion of those elements, and some looked at in the year after that? I suppose the most important thing is: how are you going to ensure that the hit that FE took—and we all recognise the hit that FE took—is not irreversible, that we are going to deliver? Because there are many people out there who need access to those access courses, to return-to-work courses, to get them back into the opportunity of working. That is an area sometimes we forget about—the adult education aspects, which bring that person back into the world of educational learning and give them the enthusiasm to move on and gain work places.

I'm also delighted that we've managed to find the money in terms of the support staff. Some of these people are on extremely low pay, so I think it's really important that we've managed to find that money and to support them. As you say, they are essential staff in terms of making the colleges work, so I'm delighted that that has happened.

In terms of upskilling, I think everybody recognises that this is the sector that's taken a huge hit. Nobody wanted that to happen, and, if austerity ever ends, I'm sure that this will be a sector that will be considered in terms of really trying to re-instigate the kind of priorities that we had for the sector. I think, particularly in terms of our commitment to adult education, this is a historic thing that we've really stood by, I think, in particular in our party, and I think what we need to do is to try and re-instigate that situation. But that's very difficult unless austerity is lifted, so—.

But, in relation to sparsity and rural, one of the things that we'll be looking at is making sure when we revise this further—is to ensure that people have access to a broad curriculum. So, how far away do you live from a plumbing course? It costs a lot more to put on a plumbing course in a rural area simply because you can't perhaps get the numbers you would get in an urban area. And yet people in rural areas need plumbers. So, we are looking at ensuring that there's a kind of baseline of courses that are necessary, and it may be that we'll be saying, 'Well, we will subsidise those so that there is a broad curriculum', and that's one of the things we want to examine further.

On the planning functions, there's the funding formula, but that goes hand in hand with the planning formula for these colleges, which now have to interlink with the regional skills partnerships. And what we're saying is, 'You have made an agreement. These are the things that you agreed in your plan that would be delivered. If you then don't deliver, then there will be clawback.' That will be done on an annual basis. And I think you're absolutely right: FE has had a hit in the past and, when possible, I'm sure that we will find the money to be able to reinstate the money that, sadly, has had to be cut.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 7 on our agenda is this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration on investing in early intervention and cross-Government approaches to tackle youth homelessness. And I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a Government, we have demonstrated our commitment to tackling and preventing all forms of homelessness through new policy initiatives and significant investment. This includes an additional £10 million of funding in the next financial year, as previously announced by the First Minister, to specifically address youth homelessness.

Today, I'm setting out how that funding will be allocated to support a suite of cross-Government measures, offering a mix of evolution and space for innovation, providing opportunities for new approaches to housing solutions and support, as well as opportunities to build on existing services and tools to better recognise and respond to young people at risk of homelessness.

To strengthen our evidence base and to inform our funding and future policy decisions, the Wales Centre for Public Policy was commissioned to deliver a report into the causes and prevention of youth homelessness. One overarching message from the report was the need for cross-Government action, something I fully recognise, and why, earlier this year, I established a cross-portfolio and cross-sector ministerial task and finish group to advise me on both youth homelessness and housing first. I am grateful for the work of that group, which, alongside discussions with ministerial colleagues and my engagement with the End Youth Homelessness Cymru campaign, and my discussions with young people with experience of homelessness and the risk of homelessness, has informed the allocation of the funding that I am announcing today.

The WCPP report sets out a complex set of interrelated factors that can culminate in causing a young person to become homeless. The report then sets out a five-part typology of prevention: structural prevention, systems prevention, early intervention, eviction prevention, and housing stability. A further report from WCPP then uses this typology to map current provision in Wales, providing a strong basis for informing the allocation of funding I'm announcing today, as well as future policy development. 

The report makes it clear that, if we are to eradicate youth homelessness, we need to tackle its root causes by identifying those who are at risk earlier, and putting in place measures to reduce risk factors. It highlights strong evidence to support co-ordinated, multi-agency approaches, including the Geelong Project, which centres around a collaborative model between schools and youth services, using a screening tool to identify those at risk, and then providing a flexible and responsive practice framework. Many of the Geelong principles are already visible within the education system and youth service in Wales, where we have a track record of successfully taking forward this kind of early intervention approach. Our youth engagement and progression framework has allowed earlier identification of those at risk of not being in employment, education or training, the brokerage of appropriate support, and the monitoring and tracking of progress.

The actual numbers of young people who are not in employment, education or training are the lowest they've ever been, reducing every year since the framework was introduced. The First Minister visited the Hanger Youth and Community Centre in Aberbargoed yesterday to see how it works in practice. We know the same warning signs of young people potentially becoming NEET are also good indicators that a young person may be at risk of family breakdown or youth homelessness. There is, therefore, a clear rationale for building on this approach and working with partners to explore the considerable potential to strengthen the framework for a wider purpose.

I'm therefore pleased to announce that £3.7 million of funding will be allocated to the youth support grant to further evolve and strengthen the existing systems and services, with a focus on youth homelessness prevention, drawing on the principles of the Geelong model and adapting them for the Welsh context. The funding will also provide for training and resources to support school-based counsellors, education welfare officers, youth workers and other front-line staff to ensure they are equipped with wider knowledge of homelessness and the links to other risk factors in order to better prevent young people falling into homelessness.

It is imperative that the Geelong principles are embedded throughout existing services to ensure the seamless identification of young people at risk of homelessness and the services available to them. The £3.7 million of funding will therefore also be available to fund a youth homelessness co-ordinator within each local authority to drive forward this collaborative agenda.

The WCPP report recognises that an essential component in tackling youth homelessness is housing stability, which requires the provision of a variety of support and suitable accommodation options for young people. The Supporting People programme currently funds a range of projects to help young people access and sustain accommodation, and the affordable housing review is considering some of the wider structural questions.

However, the WCPP report tells me that there is a clear need to promote and encourage new and innovative options to both house and support young people. I'm therefore pleased to announce £4.8 million of funding to establish a brand new innovation fund to develop suitable housing and support options for young people. These might, for example, include housing first for young people, or projects specifically for young people leaving custody or leaving care.

It is vital that we understand the current landscape of housing options available to ensure that this investment is driven by the needs of young people. As such, I'm in the process of commissioning a short piece of work to assess current housing options for vulnerable young people, with a view to better understanding the gaps, and seeking to build on and develop the options available.

Another aspect highlighted in the WCPP report is what they describe as systems prevention. We know that children leaving the care system are at increased risk of becoming homeless. Many care leavers report being unsure how to manage household budgets or problems, feeling lonely, and, like many young people, they need support to transition to independent living. In recognition of this, the Welsh Government supported the development of the care leaver accommodation and support framework, through Barnardo’s Cymru, specifically for young people leaving care in Wales.

My department has been working closely with the social services department to identify barriers to effective implementation of the pathway and other measures that might be needed to support care leavers. A joint housing and social services led group is being established to sit under both the ministerial homelessness task and finish group and the looked-after children ministerial advisory group, which is chaired by David Melding, to strengthen the arrangements in place to successfully transition young people from care into independent living.

I'm also pleased to announce that £1 million of funding will be allocated to the St David’s Day fund, with the effect of doubling it and strengthening the availability of direct financial support for care leavers to support them to transition to and sustain independent living and help prevent them falling into homelessness. This funding seeks to provide some of the practical financial support to care leavers that others might expect from mum or dad, enabling their successful move towards adulthood and independence.

Successful systems prevention also involves a wider awareness amongst all professionals working with all young people about the risks of homelessness and the services and the interventions available to support young people. As such, I am allocating £0.25 million for new, targeted communications and engagement work. This will take two forms, one specifically for young people and the other for professionals who work with young people, to raise awareness, understanding and the take-up of services available. We'll work closely with the End Youth Homelessness Cymru campaign, whose expertise will be invaluable to test and advise on the approach.

The WCPP report highlighted the complexity of navigating the information available to young people. Therefore, in addition to targeted communications, I am also allocating £0.25 million for tenancy support work, including work with Shelter Cymru and its existing helpline, to ensure young people have wide access to information, advice and support services.

Deputy Presiding Officer, there is already a plethora of work going on underpinning this agenda across Government, including work on adverse childhood experiences, the whole-school approach to mental health, and a wider focus on emotional and well-being support for young people. It is important we continue to complement, align and strengthen existing pieces of work through joint working, and this funding is deliberately a mixture of innovation and evolution in order to do just that.

The funding allocations I have announced today take a collaborative and preventative approach to this complex issue, and demonstrate our cross-Government commitment to tackling youth homelessness. Thank you.

I am very pleased to welcome this statement. In particular, I would commend the following elements: I think the focus on NEETs is absolutely right, that is a major risk indicator. As the Minister said, this is a complex problem, but it needs an approach that really ensures that young people have as full lives as possible. Therefore, they need to be doing something constructive with their lives as well as having a secure home. So I think the NEETs issue is absolutely right as a key indicator. 

I'm pleased to hear about the £4.8 million that's going to be invested in an innovation fund, which will support measures like housing first. I have to say I think the housing first model is particularly relevant in terms of youth homelessness and enabling young people to keep tenancies going with that sort of support, and the fact that we don't give up on them. So, if things happen and there are issues to be resolved, we don't evict and they're given a second or third chance, whatever it takes. That housing first model, with the wraparound support from various agencies, is key. So I do welcome that aspect of the announcement particularly.

Can I thank the Minister for the reference to care leavers? I also commend the work of Barnardo's in this area. I'm also pleased to see a doubling of the St David's Day fund to help independent living. Carl Sargeant was determined that the St David's Day fund would establish this concept of the bank of mum and dad and apply it in this key area. 

I also think that, for care leavers, it is usually housing that becomes the most dominant need for them. I think educational attainment is a really important thing for young people in care, but when they leave care—although they may still be in some form of education—housing is then very, very pressing. And there I think corporate parenting really means a sort of housing first approach. I also welcome what you said about the need for all public agencies to be aware of the risks of homelessness that face some young people. And, again, we have that approach for looked-after children, that corporate parenting, that it belongs to everyone, it's not just children's services, but it goes across all public agencies. So I welcome that reference in your statement. 

However, there are a couple of things that I think I should press for an answer on, just to see what the Welsh Government's thinking may be. There's no target in your statement for the ending of youth homelessness. Now, I know when we make those sorts of announcements, they are declaratory, but I still think they set important objectives. Now, in Scotland, they have halved youth homelessness since 2010. In England, there's a target to halve homelessness by 2022, and to eliminate it by 2027. I think we should set some targets as well. I don't expect you to do that in your reply, but I think you could find there's an all-party approach to this and that we would all sign up to that commitment and to the priorities and the financial costs that would then have to be met. And I think that would set a very clear vision of when we want to end this scourge. But there's much that is useful in this statement, and I'm pleased to commend it. 

I thank very much David Melding for his contribution and for his welcoming of the announcements today, and I really would like to begin by thanking David for the work that he does, and he has done for many years, as a real champion for children and young people in care and leaving care. I commend him and, again, thank him for the work that he does on the ministerial advisory group as well.

I'll address immediately the issue raised regarding targets. When the First Minister announced the additional £10 million last year, he said it would be his intention to eradicate youth homelessness in Wales in 10 years, so that would be by 2027. I am under no illusions as to how difficult a task that is going to be.

In the first instance, it's very hard to grasp a figure of how many young people are homeless, because many of them don't necessarily identify themselves as being homeless. If they feel unable to stay within the family home and are sleeping on a friend's sofa, for example, they don't identify as homeless, but we would certainly consider them to be so. Equally, young people can become homeless as a result of the family losing their home as well. So, we understand that the estimate of young homeless people is around 7,000, and that figure is a figure given to us by the End Youth Homelessness Cymru campaign. I think that really does give us an idea of the magnitude of the job ahead of us.

David Melding referred to the St David's Day fund. I'm really pleased that we're able to add additional funding to this, because we have seen the impact that it's already been making. Since its launch just last year, it's helped over 1,900 care-experienced children and young people to receive funding to support their transition into adulthood. Case studies show that the funding has been really used very flexibly and creatively by local authorities to meet the needs of those young people in the same way that birth parents might support their children.

So, for example, the fund has been used to pay for driving lessons to enable care leavers to access employment and education; bridging payments to enable continuity of tenancy and residence, or due to an unexpected shortfall in benefits, for example; enrolment on courses; materials for study; laptops for further and higher education studies; and also clothing and uniforms for work as well—so, all the kinds of costs that young people can incur in their move on to adult life. So, it's a really exciting fund, and I'm glad to see the difference that it's already making.

One of the really exciting parts of the statement today for me, I think, is that innovation fund. I really do want to have that space where we can come forward with good ideas, because one thing I've learned in the year that I've been working closely with this sector is that it is a sector brimming with good ideas and a desire to move forward and look at solutions and opportunities. So, I'm really looking forward to the kind of schemes that will come forward.

Just for clarity, there'll be a bidding process for that funding, and the criteria are currently finalised for that. The funding sits within the homelessness prevention grants, and there'll be a panel within the Welsh Government to assist us in determining which will be the successful programmes, but, absolutely, housing first could be one of those of kinds of programmes.

I was really pleased to have the opportunity to visit the Rock Trust in Scotland, which was the first ever housing first project in the UK. It started in 2017, so it's still early days there, but they are very enthusiastic about what's being achieved there. I liked it when David Melding used the phrase 'whatever it takes', because that, actually, is the Rock Trust's approach to housing first—it is about whatever it takes.

I've also been very clear with local authorities that our housing legislation must be seen within the spirit of it as well, rather than just discharging the duties to the letter of the law. An example would be a young person who risks homelessness. There's an immediate intervention by the local authority to try to prevent that homelessness, but, for one reason or another, it doesn't work out. Well, they've discharged their duties, but, actually, the spirit of the law would mean that they keep going back to ensure that that young person doesn't become homeless. So, we've been very clear with local authorities on that.

Again, the point that David Melding raises about wide-ranging understanding of the risks of youth homelessness and how to identify it is important, and is, again, something that has been identified as suitable for further funding in my statement today. Thank you. 

Homelessness is a political choice; it is the consequence of several policies and it can be solved through policies. Indeed, the numbers of people rough sleeping were a lot smaller a decade ago, thanks to policies that aimed to support people being in place and a social safety net that was, in fact, better than it is today. I appreciate the statement that you've given us. We've waited over a year for this information, and I don't want to undermine the work of Wales Centre for Public Policy, but they do tell us things that we already did know. For example, tackling the root causes, reducing the risk factors, cross-Government working—these are things that should have been put in place before now, and are things that we already knew. So, I want to frame my response in relation to that.  

Now, you attended a Crisis conference, and I know that you spoke at that conference. I wanted to know whether you would be in support of the recommendations specifically made for your Government, some of which I'll read out here today. So, 

'Place a duty on all relevant public bodies to prevent homelessness and to cooperate with local housing authorities in relieving homelessness.'

Introduce strict time limits on the use of temporary accommodation of no more than seven days, and this should apply to all homeless households.

'Abolish the priority need criteria.

'Introduce a duty to provide immediate emergency accommodation to all those with nowhere safe to stay until priority need is abolished'.

Abolish the local connection criteria for rough sleepers, and ensure it no longer presents a barrier to assistance for anyone threatened with or experiencing homelessness. These are many suggestions that have been put in place by the sector, and I believe should be responded to. 

Now, I know that you've said that you want to put finance in towards housing first. My portfolio has changed, but I don't know whether you have announced the results of the pilots, or is this new money an intention to scale up the housing first initiative, given that you've analysed that it is a good thing? 

When you say that there will be £3.7 million funding available to fund youth homelessness co-ordinators within each local authority to drive forward this collaborative agenda, what discussions have you already had with local government in this regard? I'm getting countless e-mails from local government saying that they're stretched to the limit. Have they had any intervention as to where or how they would use this money to best effect?

And I'm a bit confused as to what the targeted communications and engagement work will be with the £1 million put towards that. How will you be engaging with young people? How are we going to be able to track the development of progress in this regard, and what work will you then be doing with—? You only mention one organisation here today. How will you be working with the wider sector to ensure that everybody in this field will be able to partake in it?

You say that it's hard, potentially, to reach the target in 10 years' time, but we've been waiting a long time for a target to end youth homelessness. We need to be able to have intermediate targets to understand how you will be able to reach that goal, how you will be involving the sector and how, ultimately, you will be involving young people who are actually homeless? Because time and again, they feel disenfranchised, they feel as if they're not being listened to and they feel isolated. How can we ensure that they are key to the delivery in this regard?    

Thank you very much for those questions. It is a shame that they do fail to recognise the huge amount of work that has already been going on that has been supported by Government over a long period, not least through the Supporting People grant, which I know both our parties have a particular interest in. So, one example would be the Swansea Young Single Homeless Project. That is an organisation where young people are valued for the contributions they make, and they have fixed-site services called Drws Agored, providing an emergency service for nine homeless young people. So, that's very much at the sharp end of preventing those young people from turning to rough sleeping. And they also offer floating support services to vulnerable young people up to the age of 25, who require some support to maintain their tenancy. That's just one example. I've been to see Llamau also to see the fantastic work that they're doing, also funded by Welsh Government.

So, I think it is unfair to suggest that, all of a sudden, we've woken up to the challenge of youth homelessness. Actually, work has been going on in the area of youth homelessness for many years, and we've seen a youth engagement and progression framework every single year, reducing the number of children and young people who are not in employment, education or training. So, I think it does do a disservice to the people working day in, day out in this sector to try and ensure that young people don't become homeless, and the investment that Welsh Government has been making in this agenda for a long period.

So, in terms of how we would want to measure those targets, actually I think we need to be realistic and expect, potentially, an increase in the number of people we do identify as being homeless in the short term. That would be as a result of that communications activity that we would be doing and the awareness raising that we would be doing in terms of helping those people working in youth services, in schools and so on, to identify the risk signs that a young person might be rough sleeping. I know many of us were at the launch of the End Youth Homelessness Cymru campaign and we heard there very much and very directly from young people with personal experience of rough sleeping how they felt that the signs that they could be rough sleepers weren't even noticed by those people working most closely with them. 

On the issue of priority need, I've already committed to commissioning a review of priority need—I understand very much the issues there relating to priority need. However, I would say that young people are very much already considered to be in priority need. So, young people aged 16 or 17, by definition, are considered a priority need, and those between 18 and 20 who are at particular risk of sexual or financial exploitation are also considered to be priority need, as are those people up to the age of 20 who've spent time in care. I'm very interested in what our review of priority need will show us, but those young people are currently considered priority need. And also the issue of local connection will be considered as part of that wider review of priority need, as I've already told the Chamber previously. 

In terms of input from the wider sector, the ministerial advisory group—or the ministerial task and finish group, I should say—has representation very, very widely across the sector from all organisations, from the youth justice sector to local authorities to the End Youth Homelessness Cymru campaign, and police and so forth. So, it is widely represented in the sector and does very much respond to that point that tackling youth homelessness does have to be a cross-sectoral responsibility. 

In terms of housing first, those pilots are ongoing. We have now identified additional funding, which I announced recently, for some trailblazer projects that are taking that housing first model to the next level by ensuring that they are working very closely with mental health services, with domestic violence services and with substance misuse services as well, to try and ensure more of an integrated approach to meet those needs of people.

Just to finish on this particular point, the housing first network has produced a housing first standards document, which we have agreed now in Welsh Government. So, for a service to consider itself as housing first, it must meet all of those standards, because one of my concerns was that there are some excellent projects out there calling themselves housing first, not adhering to the Welsh Government's housing first principles, and that was a concern. So, whilst rapid rehousing models are very much in need, housing first isn't for everyone, but we do need to stay true to those principles of housing first if we intend to call those projects housing first. 

I very much welcome the attention you're giving to this important subject and the joined-up approach that you're giving to it. I absolutely agree that NEETs are a real indicator of potential youth homelessness, and one of the things we need to do in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary for Education is ensure that all our schools are paying attention to the well-being of all their young people—in some of our schools I'm afraid they're all too keen to get rid of people who require extra support and that is really something we need to stop happening. 

At one level, I'm quite surprised that you're having to invest so much money in training and resources to support school-based counsellors and education welfare officers, because I would have thought that they would already be pretty familiar with the complexities of this problem. But on the other hand, reflecting on the inability of some schools to support appropriately young people who are having difficulties, maybe that is what's required. 

Yesterday I visited the Grassroots project in Cardiff, which is in Charles Street in the city centre. This is a youth project that's been going for nearly 40 years. There was clear evidence of the excellence of their work—a joined-up approach, just opposite the youth housing office and literally down the road from the Jobcentre Plus where people had to go and claim their benefits. But, in addition to that, I met several young people who'd clearly been involved with Grassroots for several years, and this has obviously become an organisation that they've come to trust. And, in many cases, it's an excellent success story, and the quality of their work is really outstanding.

I was very pleased to meet a young man who has only recently been diagnosed with autism, aged 25, so we obviously weren't doing the right thing when he was in school. He's at the moment struggling, he's between jobs, but I was very pleased to hear that Autism Initiatives is helping him get some independent housing. At the moment, he's living with his mother, but obviously he doesn't want to go on doing that, so it's great that another organisation that specialises in autism is available locally to help him with that aspect.

Another was a young parent who was living in truly appalling private sector housing. I know that it's not in my constituency and I know the Assembly Member is aware of it. And she obviously was making a really good fist of being a parent of a child who looked very contented and was thriving, so good luck to her after many years of being supported by Grassroots.

And thirdly I met a vulnerable young woman who simply is not ready for going into independent housing. If we gave her a tenancy, it would break down almost immediately. And therefore I'd like to ask you, Minister, what work we are doing to focus on the supported housing that many young people who fall homeless actually need to enable them to subsequently be able to successfully support a tenancy? Because it seems to me that we need foyer accommodation, such as is provided by St Basils in Birmingham, where they've got 29 different hostels to support young people, including some with families, to ensure that we put them on the right path before they go into their own homes, which then fall down. It's exactly the same housing first principles as we apply to people with addictions and people with mental health problems of all ages.

I know that Llamau do some work and they have some hostel accommodation, but I just wondered how much focus there has been on ensuring that it is available across Wales, because, obviously, the work done by Grassroots—their street-based outreach work—identifies that at least one third of these young people are coming from elsewhere outside Cardiff because nobody wants to be the only trans person in the village and people who are just getting judgmental attitudes rather than empathy are bound to come to our cities. So, I think if we could just focus on the sort of supported housing that is needed to ensure that the most vulnerable of our young people are successfully enabled to get back into living a successful life.

Thank you very much for those comments. I'm particularly interested in the Grassroots project in Cardiff, so I'll be sure to try and have a visit there to find out more about what's happening and again will look to the example that you've given of St Basils in Birmingham, because I think it's important that we do look to best practice wherever we can find it.

You mentioned the young man with autism who was being supported into independent living. I'm pleased to see that that individual now has the support that he needs. I've been keen within this portfolio to reflect on previous responsibilities I've had, and one of the things that we have introduced is some new guidance on housing specifically related to how best to offer support to people with autism, and that is as a result of the work that we've been doing more widely through the ASD strategic action plan—again, a piece of work that we work on right across Government.

You also referred to a young person just not being ready to move on to independent living, and that very much does reflect the kind of discussions we've had within the ministerial task and finish group, where we heard of young people who thought they were ready but weren't. And again that's the kind of example I gave to David Melding where an individual needs that second chance, a third chance or however many chances it takes to get support in order to be able to move on to independence and adulthood.

One of the pieces of work that is going on across Government, again, is some wider work regarding the 'When I am Ready' policy, but not looking at it just in terms of young people within the foster care environment, but actually residential care more widely. So, I think that that will be an important piece of work moving forward as well. The Llamau example that you gave, I'm very familiar with that. I've been to visit them in Cardiff and had the opportunity, again, to speak to some of the young people who've been very positively impacted by the services that they've been able to have.

I will say, the innovation fund that we've announced today, I'm keen to see how we can link that up with Welsh Government's capital funding, so there could be potential for further services of that foyer type that you described potentially coming forward as projects under that. The foyer model very much does inform some of the Supporting People work that already goes on at the moment, and it certainly does bring forward those Geelong principles that I referred to earlier on in my statement.

Thank you very much, Minister, and apologies to those who already were on the list to speak, but we have run out of time.

Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 (Repeal) Regulations 2018. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. In opening this debate, I'd like to begin by reminding us why this piece of legislation, the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, as it then was in the first place earlier this year.

We developed the Bill, as the First Minister said repeatedly on the floor of the Assembly, as a fallback measure; a measure designed to protect the devolution settlement in the event that the UK Government would not amend its European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in a way that removed the very real threats it contained to our devolution here in Wales and the National Assembly's freedom to legislate in areas of devolved competence. I don't think there's any doubt that had the EU withdrawal Bill been enacted as originally drafted, it would have seen a real clawing back and centralisation of powers to Westminster. That is why we embarked upon a long and detailed process of negotiation involving the Welsh, Scottish and UK Governments, in which we secured a new agreement that provides strong protection for vital Welsh interests.

The agreement we reached has ensured that not a single devolved responsibility has left this Assembly. Areas already devolved remain devolved, and the necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that this continues to be the case. Devolution is entrenched in the inter-governmental agreement, not diluted by it, and not undermined by it as the EU withdrawal Bill, as originally enacted, certainly would have done.

All of that was demonstrated last week, when the UK Government published its first quarterly report about the operation of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as it now is, and common frameworks. That report that's been made available to the Assembly pointed to the significant joint progress on common frameworks and the continued collaboration to ensure that the statute book is ready for exit day. As a result of that significant joint progress, there are no proposals to freeze the current EU rulebook beyond our membership of the European Union.

We are achieving everything we set out to achieve by agreement, as we always argued we could. This progress has been welcomed, not only by ourselves, but by the Scottish Government as well. And as my colleague Alun Davies has said, the agreement established a parity between administrations that is in the best interests of Wales and of Wales in the United Kingdom.

That approach is also being reflected in the development of statutory instruments under the EU withdrawal Act that modify EU-derived law, so that it is operable at the point of our exit from the European Union, and that is action that becomes all the more urgent as the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit has strengthened over the time since the inter-governmental agreement was drawn up. Where the statutory instruments contain provisions about devolved matters, the UK Government is seeking the consent of Welsh Ministers, in line with its commitments under that IGA, before they are laid in Parliament, and we are notifying Assembly Members when they are laid.

The reality is that we have obtained every drop of leverage to be extracted from the LDEU Act and now is the time to ask this Assembly to do what we as a Welsh Government committed to doing in the inter-governmental agreement—to repeal the Act. This is now urgent. As the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has noted, a programme of corrective statutory instruments is already under considerable time pressure. Repealing the Act will remove one hurdle that impedes the progress of UK secondary legislation, which, in turn, has a knock-on effect on our own programme. If we do not do so, the risk of an unmanageable legislative log jam here in the new year will increase, and that is not in the interests of Welsh businesses or of Welsh citizens. In any event, the challenge we are facing now—how to persuade the UK Government to adopt an approach to the withdrawal deal that is capable of commanding a broad political consensus, rather than one that threatens to bring us to the very edge of the most dangerous cliff—is not one that the LDEU Act can help us to address. The Act has done its job. It is time to move on. That is why, in line with the enhanced procedures set out in the LDEU Act, the draft regulations to repeal the Act were laid for 60 days, providing an opportunity for representations to be made. That 60-day period has expired, and Members will have seen from my written statement that only one representation was received during that time. I thank the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for its ongoing engagement with the legislation and its consideration of the draft regulations. There was nothing in what the committee said that stands in the way of repeal. It is in Welsh interests that we now do so and I ask Members to support the motion approving the regulations that will enable the Act to be repealed today.

Can I thank the Government for bringing forward this motion today to repeal the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act? As the Government and all Members of this Chamber will be acutely aware, we opposed this Act when it was put before the National Assembly as an emergency Bill, using emergency procedures—a significant piece of legislation that we had just 14 days to scrutinise. We said at that time that is was an unnecessary Bill because we were confident that an agreement could be reached between the Welsh and UK Governments that respected the devolution settlement and that accommodated the concerns, the quite rightful concerns, that some people had in this Chamber, and that the Welsh Government quite rightly had with the originally drafted EU withdrawal Bill, as it was at that time. And, of course, that inter-governmental agreement was secured within weeks of the emergency legislation having passed through this National Assembly. We welcomed, of course, the ongoing engagement that there has been as a result of that inter-governmental agreement in respect of the Brexit process and ensuring that the legislation, which has been adopted by the UK during its membership of the EU, will continue to be in place going forward.

Now, I have to say that I think that it is disappointing that there's been quite a significant delay, actually, in fulfilling the commitment that the Welsh Government made to the UK Government as part of that inter-governmental agreement. You said that you would repeal this Bill and I think everybody was expecting that it would happen much more quickly than the many months that it has taken before you tabled this motion today. But I think you're quite right, Cabinet Secretary, to say that this Bill offers no leverage in the future to the Welsh Government or the National Assembly for Wales, in terms of squeezing anything more out of the UK Government in terms of respect for the constitutional settlement. We've seen many legislative consent motions, some of which are going through the committee stages, which were discussed at the Business Committee this morning—the Fisheries Bill, the ​Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, and I'm sure that there will be many others. Where there is an issue that needs to be considered by this Assembly, quite rightly an LCM will be brought forward. We always felt that the LCM process was the backstop, if you like, for securing the powers of this Assembly and making sure that there was proper respect for devolution. I think that not only the inter-governmental agreement has made sure that that is the case, but, of course, the very practice of the UK Government Ministers since that agreement has come into play has demonstrated very much that there is a great deal of respect from the UK Government in terms of the settlement.

So, I do hope that other parties will be as responsible as the Welsh Government has been in respecting the decision that was made to agree with the UK Government a clear protocol for ensuring that there was a proper workable solution to protecting those rights and taking forward those laws, which had already been adopted in terms of UK legislation, and to make sure that the Welsh voice is heard as part of that process. I was very pleased to hear you refer to the progress that has been made in terms of the UK-wide frameworks, and perhaps in responding to today's debate you can just elaborate a little bit further on those. I know that, as far as colleagues in the UK Government are concerned, they've been very pleased with the engagement that there has been from the Welsh Government, and indeed the Scottish Government, in the development of those frameworks, and the Northern Ireland team—if I can call them that, because obviously there isn't an Executive at present—and I do think that it's incumbent upon all of us to work together to make sure that those frameworks are in the best interests of the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as making sure that Wales is afforded a significant voice at the table when those frameworks are developed. So, we will be supporting this motion today.

It's strange, Llywydd, looking back over the last 12 months or so at the journey that the continuity Act has taken since it was first mooted, and, indeed, contrary to Assembly folklore, I was not the first Member of this place to raise the prospect of a continuity Act on the floor of this Chamber. The person now occupying the role of Counsel General for Wales was the first Member—he was ahead of me, which probably explains why he has risen to bigger and better things in the meantime.

It's been clear from the outset, though, that Members from almost all sides were able to agree that legislating in order to uphold devolution in the context of EU withdrawal was appropriate and necessary. I happen to believe that it was among the finest hours of this Parliament that we acted across party lines in the interest of something far greater than ourselves as individual politicians or as individual political parties: our very political nationhood. And let's not forget that was at stake when the withdrawal Bill was first drafted. I think tribute also should be paid especially to those who crafted the continuity Bill in the first place. This was not an easy piece of legislation to draft. It is highly technical and intricate and it is a credit to its authors. 

Like the Welsh Government, I would much rather there not be a need at all, or in the first place, for Welsh continuity legislation. It has always been my view that the UK Government, if they really cherished this union, if they genuinely respected the nations of the UK, then from the outset the mechanics of EU withdrawal could and should have been negotiated between the nations of the UK before article 50 was even triggered. I believe that an 'accession in reverse' model of withdrawal could have accomplished this comfortably. The UK Government chose not to engage with the devolved Governments on the basis of respect and partnership, and they deliberately decided not to do so at every stage of this process since the referendum. Continuity legislation, therefore, became essential, because there was no other way of securing the wishes expressed by the people of Wales in two devolution referenda.

It is, Llywydd, with great sadness that the consensus that brought about the continuity Act has now evaporated in light of the inter-governmental agreement between Welsh Government and the Westminster Government. I genuinely and sincerely disagree with the Cabinet Secretary in terms of the continuing need for continuity legislation. I believe the continuity Act is still needed and should remain on the statute book, and I believe so for four primary reasons.

Firstly, I believe the inter-governmental agreement fails to deliver the safeguards needed to ensure Welsh laws are free from unilateral interference from Ministers in London. Indeed, Llywydd, section 6 of the agreement makes it clear that UK Ministers can make changes in devolved fields even without the consent of Wales. Secondly, now that we know the UK Government's intention through the draft withdrawal agreement, given that we know it fails to meet the aspirations of securing Wales's future, it makes no sense to facilitate the UK Government's withdrawal agreement through repealing our legislative shield. That seems to me to be a clear contradiction politically.

Thirdly, I do not believe the UK Government is in any position to be trusted to even attempt to seek agreement with Welsh Ministers on the future implementation of the withdrawal Act. They have form for breaking the Sewel convention, let's not forget, and in their new-found desperation I've no doubt they will do so again without a second thought.

Fourthly, I find the timing of this proposed repeal puzzling. We are awaiting the judgment of the Supreme Court on the Scottish continuity Act. Would it not be best for Members here to make a proper decision on whether or not to repeal our legislation in full knowledge of the legal and constitutional ramifications that that judgment will provide us with.

This issue, Llywydd, for me has always been bigger than personalities, parties and even politics itself. I very much fear that precedents set now during these extraordinary times may linger well into the future and cast lasting doubt over the ability of this place to legislate in key areas, and could well normalise a new-found Westminster habit of legislating in devolved matters into the future. I simply believe that no-one has the right to use Brexit or any other crisis as an excuse to change Welsh devolved laws without the agreement of the democratically elected Members of this Parliament. What's at stake here goes beyond a piece of legislation. This is about enshrining in Welsh law all those rights and standards that we cherish so that no-one can take them away from us. We often talk of future generations in this place. The generations that will be affected by decisions like this one today are countless, and I urge Members to reject the repeal of this much-needed continuity Act.

I'm pleased to take part in this debate and would like to express my thanks to Steffan Lewis for the integrity of purpose and principle that he's brought to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee in his role, particularly developing, of course, in those early days post the Brexit referendum, 'Securing Wales' Future', the paper that has stood the test of time since its inception. But I do support the Welsh Government motion today, which is no surprise, as I welcomed the outcome of the Cabinet Secretary's negotiations, which resulted in the inter-governmental agreement earlier this year, and which reflected our proposed amendments to the UK Government withdrawal Bill. I welcomed his statement last week, which provided the assurance and evidence that the route he took was the right one, and delivered the outcomes we called for to safeguard our powers.

Now, if you recall, as a result of the EU withdrawal Act, following the achievements of the inter-governmental agreement, the EAAL committee supported the need for the UK Government to report to Parliament on matters relating to frameworks and any use of the so-called section 12 freezing powers to temporarily maintain existing EU law limits on devolved competence. We called for our Standing Orders to require such a report to be laid before the Assembly within a day of it being laid in Parliament, and it was indeed laid, and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's statement on 13 November.

Can I again acknowledge the importance of the inter-governmental agreement? It was the Cabinet Secretary who succeeded in getting the UK Government to change its position so that all devolved powers and policy areas should rest in Cardiff and Edinburgh, unless there are areas where common frameworks can be agreed. As a result of intensive negotiations over the past few months, we have this positive outcome with regard to these UK common areas, and I think it's worth putting on record again today what the UK Government ministerial foreword said last week:

'On the basis of the significant joint progress on future frameworks, and the continued collaboration to ensure the statute book is ready for exit day, the UK Government has concluded that it does not need to bring forward any section 12 regulations at this juncture.'

Again, the positive impact of this outcome is clear as it goes on to say:

'Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to commit to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks, where it has been agreed they are necessary or where discussions continue'.

The Cabinet Secretary has indicated a positive response today from the Scottish Government to this outcome as well. So, taking forward the continuity Bill was important, but it was always a fallback, as the Cabinet Secretary said, and the First Minister—and the Cabinet Secretary said that on a number of occasions during the debate about the continuity Bill—and that the preferred outcome would be to see changes in the withdrawal Bill to reflect our roles, powers and responsibilities. It was leverage that was needed, as the Cabinet Secretary has said. And it must be acknowledged that is the result of cross-party action, and the impact of this leverage is so important, and we must record it clearly today; it is evident.

And I recall an article by Ian Price of the CBI in the Western Mail at the time of the inter-governmental agreement. He was taking the long view when he said the deal was very good for the Welsh economy and its people and:

'What has been agreed...is a sensible collaboration between the Welsh Government, Westminster and Whitehall to agree a common way forward on areas that impact the whole of the UK'. 

So, I'm sure businesses in Wales will be welcoming the Cabinet Secretary's statement last week and Welsh businesses will be reassured, in the context of so much uncertainty as to the state and terms of Brexit for Wales, and agree that the integrity and purpose of the inter-governmental agreement must be safeguarded.

So, it's for that reason that I support the repeal of the continuity Act. As the Cabinet Secretary said devolution is entrenched in the inter-governmental agreement and this is the positive outcome, which has commanded respect in the Houses of Parliament as well as this Chamber and the UK Government. 

Can I say what an honour it is to speak about what I still call the continuity Act, a law passed by this Assembly using its legislative powers? We haven't passed that many laws using our legislative powers, and it owes much to the craft and artistry of my colleague here, Steffan Lewis, although he was obviously deflecting attention onto others in his speech.

Now, there's been much talk of respecting the result of a referendum. Well, how about also respecting the result of the 2011 referendum in Wales, when 64 per cent of the Welsh electorate voted for the National Assembly for Wales to gain more powers—more legislative powers? Wales has not voted to lose powers, yet the Wales Act 2017 has seen us lose powers—193 retained fields. And, with the EU withdrawal Bill, legislative consent was granted by this Assembly on 15 May this year so that powers in 26 devolved areas—powers that we always had since 1999; devolved powers—were frozen for up to seven years. Our devolved powers limply given away; any leverage we ever had gone—in agriculture, environment, fisheries, public procurement and the rest. Public, public—[Interruption.] Plaid Cymru voted against that. Scotland refused such legislative consent as well. Mark Drakeford, in summing up on 15 May, was proud to call himself a unionist and trumpet the common frameworks aspect of the EU withdrawal. Shared governance was the talk of the day. A new spirit of respect and trust would break out between the Governments of these islands. Westminster and Welsh Government would be equal partners in these new sunlit Brexit uplands. Wales would be involved and respected in all decisions in devolved frozen matters.

And the reality? Well, the Royal Welsh Show this summer—that gave us a view of the new order. The main foodhall full of Welsh produce branded with red, white and blue union jacks—no Welsh language—'Food is Great—Britain & Northern Ireland.' Very, very pithy. The UK Agriculture Bill and Welsh Government's consultation on the future of agriculture blithely following the policy in England in ditching single farm payments despite farming in Wales being totally different and more akin to farming in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are retaining single payments.

The tortuous Brexit negotiations—is Wales involved at all? Welsh Government complains they're not being listened to. Is there shared governance? The shared prosperity fund—Wales does not know what's going on with the replacement for European funding. Much eloquence from Labour Members last week, and from a couple of Labour Members in First Minister's scrutiny on Friday, about Westminster ignoring Wales. Five hundred and eighty-five pages of a bad Brexit deal with no mention of Wales; a bad Brexit deal that Labour here opposes. One hundred pages on Northern Ireland; zero on Wales.

Now, 'We have an inter-governmental agreement', Labour say—the non-statutory, non-enforceable inter-governmental agreement. Surely, it's in jeopardy, tied to a Brexit deal that Labour here opposes. The present Westminster Government pays precious little attention to it. Government has been coming back here saying they don't listen. What hopes has our non-statutory inter-governmental agreement got with a different UK Prime Minister or with a Labour UK Government Prime Minister? What hopes? Inter-governmental, non-statutory agreement—I'm not holding my breath. 

With rampant uncertainty all around, we need to keep the devolved powers that we've always had. What a mess. The Welsh continuity Act is on the statute book. Let it stay there. 

I'd perhaps like to thank Plaid for promoting my question at the scrutiny of the First Minister so widely on social media. It always does my career the world of good. [Laughter.] Can I also say, though, that, on the several occasions I've raised those questions, they were raised very sincerely, and the points that Steffan makes and the challenges you make are very valid ones and ones that do deserve, I think, considered replies. I think it is a question of considered judgment and strategy as to where we go on this. 

I have to say, I've been in two minds about the issue of the continuity Act, as I will call it, as it's much loved, as to what it represents and what it will achieve. Certainly, when it was introduced, it was absolutely vital. We had clause 11 in the Bill, which clearly was an agenda that took away powers. It certainly gave us leverage. It was certainly a very effectively drafted piece of legislation and I think put forward very, very succinct arguments that set the parameters in terms of how we see Welsh powers returning from Brussels. And I think it set exactly right the constitutional position.

The point about it is, though, is that a consequence of that was that we then came to the inter-governmental agreement, and, that inter-governmental agreement, the question now is: is the continuity Act better than, does it put us in a stronger position than, the issues that arise from the inter-governmental agreement? And that's a very serious question to ask, that Steffan has asked, and that I've asked that as well. I've thought about it very, very carefully, and I want to say this: the first thing about the inter-governmental agreement—which is, I think, a remarkable piece of negotiation by Mark Drakeford, by the Cabinet Secretary, for a number of particular reasons—. Firstly, it is based on a recognition of those very devolved powers that we have argued—it actually enshrines as a matter of principle those devolved powers that we say belong to us, that are part of the devolution settlement. Secondly, it doesn't involve the transfer of any powers elsewhere. Thirdly, it actually incorporates an enhanced Sewel process. It's quite remarkable. When we were at the inter-parliamentary forum, when we were down in Westminster and in the House of Lords, telling the House of Lords members that they now actually have a veto on steps that might be taken by the UK Government to override the refusal of consent from this place—I think it's actually quite a remarkable step forward.

I'm not actually sure that when the UK Government negotiated this they were actually aware of what they were doing. It's quite remarkable. I've never been in favour of the House of Lords or in fact giving it more powers, but on this particular occasion I'm perhaps prepared to make a bit of an exception. Importantly, what it also does is something that is very important to us at this present moment, and that is the development of frameworks. Whatever happens, we need a mechanism for those frameworks to proceed. Now, if we don't repeal the Act, and if the inter-governmental agreement collapses, does it therefore provide us with any silver bullet of protection? That's the question I've asked myself, and I can't say where it does. At no stage do we at any stage challenge or are we able to challenge that, ultimately, the sovereignty of Parliament enables it to override in all sorts of ways. 

Steffan asked another very important question as well: should we wait until the Scottish judgment? Do you know, I would really like to wait until the Scottish judgment? I know there are pressures as to why we have to do this now, because of the potential of collapse of the inter-governmental agreement at this current moment in time, but the adverse side to the Scottish judgment is this: firstly, if it's successful, it doesn't put us actually in a stronger position; if it is adverse to us, it actually puts us in a much worse position. We not only don't have the inter-governmental agreement and the protections there, you then have a judgment of the Supreme Court that is confirming the power of Westminster to override on constitutional matters. So, I don't think it gives us that particular silver bullet that we actually want. 

I don't think that it also—. Our taking the position that we're taking now and repealing this, it doesn't take away the constitutional challenges, which are very fundamental challenges that still exist, in respect of the reform of the JMC, the fact that we do need a clearly delineated Sewel arrangement, one that is justiciable. We need, clearly, a more federalised constitutional structure. And, interestingly, the inter-parliamentary forum that we've been participating in—Dai Rees and myself as Chairs of our respective committees—is actually almost saying that very thing itself. So, at this moment in time, I think we have to separate this very carefully from some of the other political issues that are going on—the very serious issues at the moment as to whether the Government's going to collapse, whether there's going to be a general election, what the consequence might be of that, or, if there isn't a general election, of alternative constitutional steps being taken.

But, at this moment in time, in terms of all the things that we have responsibility for and are doing, are we better off as a result of the inter-governmental agreement that we've got, which makes us clear in the position that we're in and the powers we have and sets a clear structure for that, or are we better off by throwing that away and relying on a piece of legislation that can be so easily overturned? The answer I've come to is: it is correct to repeal this. Strategically, it is the most prudent decision and the best decision in the interests of Wales—not one I particularly want to take but I think, at this moment in time, it is the right decision to take and I think the recommendation from the Cabinet Secretary, our Brexit Minister, Mark Drakeford, is the correct one and he's put forward the correct proposal, and I think it is right that we do take the step that's being mooted today. 

Presiding Officer, I'm pleased to have attracted your eye. I'm very grateful. I hadn't originally intended to speak in this debate, but I do think Steffan Lewis has raised points that are important and deserve a response, in what I thought was a thoughtful contribution. I enjoyed Dai Lloyd's contribution, but I'm not so sure it was quite as thoughtful, but it was certainly plangent and full of that spirit that we're used to seeing from the Plaid benches. 

I spoke for the Welsh Conservative group when the Bill was going through its very speedy passage through this place. As an emergency piece of legislation, I think I'm right in saying it received less attention than any other piece of legislation that we have ever passed, and we have passed a couple of emergency Bills. And this, I thought, was really troubling. But the reason I particularly objected to the Bill was that I always thought it was a distraction. It was the inter-governmental agreement that was always central. And I argued this case very strongly then. I am pleased, actually, that both Governments—the Welsh Government and the UK Government—were able, despite the passing of the Bill and it becoming an Act, to work at that agreement and to secure it. 

The need for UK-wide frameworks has always been recognised over such fields as aspects of the environment and agriculture and other key areas—recognised by the Scottish Government; I think, in fairness, recognised by Plaid. And, indeed, these frameworks require powers that were previously vested in the EU to sit somewhere so that they could be crafted, and they do need to be crafted between the Governments, with, I argued then, the UK Government, with its capacity, taking the lead, but as a partner and not imposing. I do think that that is what has transpired. As has already been referred to in this debate, the UK Government has not driven over us—the section 12 powers have not been used.

However, I would finish with this, and this is the point where I do recognise some of the reservations and concerns that the Plaid Cymru group have: we now start with a model of shared governance. It's still a little clumsy—it's being crafted—but, in our post-Brexit existence, which will come into play sometime next year presumably, the way the UK deals with its inter-governmental arrangements and the need for shared governance over key areas, which does involve all of the Parliaments of the UK—that will really test the strength of the union. I think Steffan was hinting in his contribution, 'Where are the unionists? They need to be talking up this need for a new, more federal, perhaps, dimension'. I think Mick hinted at this as well. I agree with that and I think that will be the real test—it's how it will work after this obviously difficult process of leaving the EU.

But, as a piece of legislation, I never thought it was particularly necessary. It was part of the wider debate in the end, and let bygones be bygones, but I do think its time has now passed, and it is right, I think, to fully honour—for the Welsh Government to fully honour—the inter-governmental agreement, and that will strengthen its position in the future.

I do have great confidence that the Welsh Government's general approach—. It's critical of many of the priorities the UK Government has over its own domestic fields, but it has been prepared to work constructively and I do welcome that fact. It does give me a lot of optimism that our shared governance models will become more and more robust with time. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thanks to all Members who've taken part in this important and thoughtful debate. Let me begin by reflecting on what Darren Millar and David Melding just said. The point at which I don't agree with them is when they have argued that the continuity Bill was a distraction to the process of securing the inter-governmental agreement. In my experience of being in the room and in those discussions, it was integral to achieving the inter-governmental agreement. I'm very proud of the Act and what was achieved here, because it genuinely did provide us with leverage at a very important point in the process. The fact that we had it undoubtedly made the achievement of the sort of inter-governmental agreement that we were able to negotiate more likely, not less likely.

Our belief is that the IGA is better than the Act—that's why we regard it as right today to move to repeal of the Act. But I don't agree at all that the Bill and the debate here, and the fact that we put it on the statute book—that that did not play an integral and pivotal part in allowing us to get to that inter-governmental agreement. Darren asked why we had delayed in bringing the repeal forward. The reason for that is that we needed to allow the process that we had set out in the inter-governmental agreement to be demonstrated—we needed to see that it was being honoured on both sides. The report that was put in front of Parliament last week, I think, provides us with that evidence and allows us to move to repeal this afternoon.

Darren Millar asked about frameworks. It is because we are making such progress with frameworks that there is now no prospect of the freezing parts of the withdrawal Act being used. So, a great deal of work has gone on. We are now at a stage agreed in the Joint Ministerial Committee earlier this month that, in December, we will see the first of the frameworks come in front of the JMC for review. They are in fisheries management and support, animal health and welfare, hazardous substances planning, and nutrition. The Scottish Government, as Darren Millar said, has played a full part in all those discussions, and will be part of the JMC consideration of them in December, and then we will go out to consult with stakeholders who have an interest in those four areas, before they come back to the JMC for that final part of the shared governance that the IGA sets up and which is being delivered in that way.

Let me turn to the two Plaid Cymru contributions this afternoon. There is no doubting at all the integrity and the sincerity with which Steffan Lewis has played his part in the whole history of the continuity Bill and in the remarks that he has made this afternoon. And I share some of the things that he said, certainly the tribute he made to those who have crafted the continuity Bill; it was a very skilful and successful piece of legislation. And I agree with him, too, that too often the current United Kingdom Government is careless about the future of the United Kingdom, and it's been a constant part of what Wales has contributed to the JMC and other discussions—that we continuously put forward the need for time to be found before we leave the European Union for thought to be given to the way that the United Kingdom will operate when the rulebook that we share between us, through our membership of the European Union, is no longer there. One of the reasons why it is right to emphasise the inter-governmental agreement, however, is because it breaks new ground in that way. It moves us forward into territory where greater shared government in the future beyond the European Union is more likely, not less likely.

Steffan set out four reasons why he opposed the repeal of the continuity Bill. He said that the IGA fails to safeguard Welsh powers against unilateral action by the UK Government. But it does defend Wales against that. There are no unilateral powers that can be used without our agreement, and not with the agreement of the Government, but with the agreement of this legislature, because any move to freeze powers would have to be agreed by us and put to the floor of the Assembly here. He said that it didn't help us to withstand the withdrawal agreement, but the LDEU Bill is no shield against the withdrawal agreement. It simply doesn't operate in that area.  

He pointed to Sewel, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Minister at the JMC to try to get the UK Government to revisit Sewel and to find a more satisfactory way of entrenching the defences that it provides. But, as Mick Antoniw said, as far as the IGA is concerned, it extends Sewel. It requires a separate vote in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and not only a separate vote in both Houses, but those legislatures making that decision will, for the very first time, have an independent account provided by the Welsh Government of our perspective on the issue that they are resolving.

And as to the Supreme Court, I agree with what the First Minister says here on this issue—that the risk of the Supreme Court for Scotland is that it is left without an Act and without an inter-governmental agreement, whereas we have succeeded in an IGA that is not dependent upon Supreme Court action at all. That's why we come back in front of the Assembly this afternoon.

I'm going to say once again—I say it every time—. Dai Lloyd began by saying that the inter-governmental agreement allowed for powers in 26 areas to be frozen, and that they'd already gone. Now, not a single part of that is accurate. Not a single power has left this Assembly. Every single power on that list of 26 is still here. Not one of those areas has been frozen, not one of those areas has left the jurisdiction of this National Assembly, and the risk of that happening—[Interruption.] Of course. 

On that point, say I were to pick at random one of the 26—say food labelling or hazardous substances planning that we've always had here from Brussels—so, tomorrow, you could decide to legislate there, could you, or is it frozen and you could do nothing about it? 

No, let me explain because I really think I need to be clear what the position is. We are today still members of the European Union, so we couldn't legislate tomorrow because we are part of a common European rulebook. Your party, as I myself would want to say, believes that we will be better off remaining in the European Union. If those powers were to be frozen, and they haven't been in that area or any one of the 26, all that freezing would do would be to guarantee that the current rulebook would continue. That's what freezing means. It means the current arrangements—the arrangements we all support as part of our membership of the European Union—would go on being in place until something else was agreed to be put in its place. And nothing else could be put in its place unless it was agreed and agreed by this National Assembly. That's why the anxieties that Dai repeated this afternoon about powers being gone from the National Assembly simply don't measure up to the facts of the matter. Nothing has gone. All those powers are here. They remain here as they always have, exercised as they are now and have been since the start of the Assembly through the common European rulebook. [Interruption.]

I realise the clock's against us, but thank you for taking an intervention. Isn't the reality, though, that we are at the beginning of a protracted period of seven, eight years, over which there will be changes of Government at UK level, changes of Government here and non-statutory inter-governmental agreements could end up as worthless in the context of different opinions and different relationships? You clearly think you have a good relationship with people you've been negotiating with. That might not always be the case. 

Llywydd, governments can't proceed on that basis. Governments have to proceed on the basis that an agreement struck with a government is an agreement that goes on being honoured. That's why the fiscal framework has been successively negotiated with different UK Governments—Labour Governments, Conservative Governments—over 20 years. Those things go on being honoured as governments pass from one to the other, until you reach a point when it is renegotiated by mutual consent. You can't go on as governments always on the basis that you can't trust the person who you've just come to an agreement with.

Let me end, then, Llywydd, if I can, by thanking Jane Hutt and Mick Antoniw for what they both said, emphasising the importance of the inter-governmental agreement, explaining what a reversal of the original clause 11 it demonstrates and saying that we have reached a point where the LDEU Act, vitally important as it was at the moment that it was agreed, its usefulness has now been extracted in full. Now is the moment to repeal it because that is what is in the best interests of Wales.  

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

The next item is item 9, the debate on how we achieve a low-carbon energy system for Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to bring this debate to Plenary to explore the future role Wales should play in the UK and global energy system, stimulating a discussion regarding the future of energy in Wales. This is a challenging time given the uncertainties of energy in a post-Brexit world. What is certain is the need to decarbonise. In Wales, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 is our legislative vehicle acting on climate change. Next month, I will ask the Assembly to approve our interim emissions targets to 2050 and our first two carbon budgets. In March next year, we will be publishing our first low-carbon delivery plan for Wales.

I'm working across Government with my Cabinet colleagues through the decarbonisation ministerial task and finish group to deliver decarbonisation across all our portfolios. It's clear every one of us has to take action on climate change now and I call on the Assembly to support our efforts to decrease carbon emissions. This also delivers on the priorities I set out in my energy statement in September 2016.

My first priority is to use energy more efficiently in Wales. Improving the energy efficiency of the homes of low-income households is the most effective way in which we can tackle fuel poverty, whilst also reducing harmful emissions into the environment. We are investing £104 million in Welsh Government Warm Homes for the period of 2017 to 2021. This will enable us to improve a further 25,000 homes. Our Welsh Government energy service has invested over £55 million of zero-interest loans across the public sector in Wales over the last three years, supporting the ambition for a carbon-neutral public sector. We also need to ensure new buildings don't add to the retrofit challenge. We're currently scoping out the topics that will be in the review of building regulations and expect to go to public consultation in the spring.

My second priority is reducing our reliance on energy generated from fossil fuels. Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a hard-hitting report on the impacts of global warming. To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, the IPCC recommends scaling up renewable generation rapidly to provide around 85 per cent of the world's electricity by 2050. The report suggests a renewables-led system, supported by nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage would allow gas to generate around 8 per cent of electricity worldwide to provide a flexible base load and ensure that supplies are secure.

This means that we have to change our energy system. We're not going to create the scale of the change we need without difficult decisions that impact on communities in Wales. Last year, I set stretching but realistic renewable targets. These will help us decarbonise our energy system, reduce long-term costs and deliver greater benefits to Wales. We're already making good progress towards these targets. I just published an updated 'Energy Generation in Wales' report with figures to the end of 2017. The report shows that electricity equivalent to 48 per cent of Wales's consumption was generated from renewable energy; 529 MW of our installed renewable electricity capacity was locally owned, meaning the profits from this generation stayed in Wales. This represents good progress against our targets of 70 per cent of electricity consumption from renewables and 1 GW of locally owned generation by 2030.

New generation must deliver sufficient benefit to justify Wales hosting it, and this ties in to my third priority: to drive the energy transition to deliver maximum benefits for Wales. I expect all new renewable energy projects in Wales to include at least an element of local ownership, to retain wealth and provide real benefit to communities. Our response to the call for evidence on local ownership will be published in the next few weeks. We will be taking action to increase retention of benefit in Wales. I hope when people have more ownership of generation, the dialogue around renewable energy will change from, 'Do we want this?' to 'What do we need and where shall we put it?'

We also have a window of opportunity now to develop and grow our own innovative marine energy industry, which could help others across the globe to reduce fossil fuels. Marine energy represents a major export opportunity. We've invested in marine technologies, and the UK Government must provide supportive financial regimes for these emerging technologies that cannot yet compete on price alone with established technologies. The offshore wind sector is an example of early-stage UK funding during development, leading to cost-effective and sustainable energy generation. I hope we can find new sites off Wales's coast for offshore to contribute to our targets.

This example should now be followed for the marine sector. The UK missed the opportunity to be a global leader in offshore wind. We cannot afford for the same to happen to our marine wave and tidal industry. However much renewable energy generation we produce, we must also remove fossil fuel generation from the energy system to bring emissions down. The new energy generation report also shows Wales generated more than twice the electricity it consumed last year. Between 1990 and 2016, our emissions from the power sector increased by 44 per cent, whilst overall UK emissions from the sector reduced by 60 per cent. We host 19 per cent of the UK's gas-fired electricity generation, a key factor in this increase. We need to think about whether we are content to host new gas generation in Wales and, if so, how we can ensure it is compatible with carbon capture and storage. I'm keen to hear Members' views on whether Wales should only generate electricity for our own needs, or whether we should continue to be a net exporter.

As part of our work to reduce emissions, Welsh Government has made clear our opposition to fracking. I'm determined to use every possible lever to ensure fracking does not take place in Wales. This includes a strong opposition to issuing new petroleum licences or consents for fracking and the introduction of a much more robust planning policy. The recent consultation on petroleum extraction set out our preferred position. I will confirm our policy position and respond to the consultation before the end of the year.

We also need to consider the role of nuclear. If UK Government does consent to new nuclear in Wales, it will be the largest single investment in Wales in a generation, and our priority is to achieve a positive and lasting legacy for north Wales. We must also ensure we protect the local communities and environment.

In addition to current electricity use, we need to consider the impact of decarbonising transport and heat. Currently, there are around 2.5 million ultra-low emissions vehicles bought annually in the UK. There could be as many as 11 million electric vehicles by 2030. Charging an electric vehicle at home would almost double the electricity consumption of that home. Significant investment in renewables and infrastructure will be needed to serve this increasing demand, and we need clarity on what infrastructure is needed and where it should be.

As agreed with Plaid Cymru, I have committed funding to an energy atlas, and we recently agreed our approach on this, to offer support for regional and local energy planning. This will help ensure we maximise the value of energy opportunities within the city and growth deals throughout Wales. This delivers on my third priority of driving the energy transition to deliver maximum benefits for Wales. Regional whole-energy system planning will help us understand where we need more low-carbon generation and where our energy infrastructure requires investment. We are working with network providers on this, as, where they are sure new grid is needed, they can build this into their investment plans. Putting Wales at the forefront of the evolving energy frontier, we are creating demonstrators to encourage academics and businesses to develop new technology systems and processes. We are leveraging funding from the EU and other sources to help deliver our vision of a smart, low-carbon energy system.

The Sustainable Product Engineering Centre for Innovative Functional Industrial Coatings is changing the way we deliver buildings. They've developed several energy-positive buildings, including the active classroom at Swansea bay campus and the SOLCER house at Stormy Down. We're also supporting the Swansea University-led proposal to establish an active buildings centre in Wales. This will be an industry-led centre to speed up the roll-out of active buildings. The Welsh Government's innovative housing programme provides another opportunity to develop proofs-of-concept buildings. By doing this at scale, we tackle the uncertainties about whether efficient homes will be more expensive to build. Innovative technologies require new business models and changes in regulation. They also change the way we live and work in buildings. New models are coming forward, exploring new approaches to energy efficiency, generation, use and storage. All these initiatives help us capture Welsh value from the transition to a low-carbon energy system.

I have no illusions regarding the size of the challenge that decarbonisation presents, nor the uncertainties around how we might get there. There is no one single solution or technology that will guarantee delivery of our carbon targets. Given the size of the challenge, we will need to explore all avenues. Wales has an internationally admired suite of innovative research and development programmes to help us do it. So, I very much look forward to hearing all Members' views around the direction for a prosperous and low-carbon Wales.

Thank you. I have selected the five amendments to the motion, and I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 1, tabled in his name—Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. On 24 October, I was the only Assembly Member who voted to oppose nuclear power in Wales. I found that quite incredible given how much opposition there is to nuclear power from the public and supposedly from other politicians. If he were here, I would say to the alleged anti-nuclear Labour leadership candidate, the AM for Cardiff West, who voted to dump nuclear mud in Wales and who did not oppose nuclear power last time, 'Here is an opportunity to reject nuclear energy and put it on the record.' The same goes for the Labour AM for Cardiff Central, who also is not here. She claims to be an environmentalist and anti-nuclear, but said the waters just outside Cardiff were the go-to sites to dump mud dredged from outside Hinkley Point nuclear power station. I find that astonishing. The Labour AM for Cardiff Central also failed to oppose nuclear power last time. Well, the AM is not bound by the whip this time, so maybe—maybe—she may vote against nuclear energy.

A justification for some in not opposing nuclear power is that energy here is not devolved—it's not devolved to this Assembly. Well, just because a matter is not devolved, that does not mean that we should not have a position on it. Far from it, far from it. We debate Brexit, yet have no power here to deal with the dog's dinner of it made by the Conservatives. We're not just here to sit back and let the Conservative Government in England dump whatever they want on us. If we want to get some respect, we have to kick up a fuss and say 'no', in the national interest of Wales. So, that's why, today, we've got a new amendment that I've introduced, this time calling on the Welsh Government to oppose the use of nuclear power as a means to achieve a low-carbon energy system. Nuclear power is not low-carbon. It is not sustainable. There is a much higher carbon cost than for renewables. Nuclear power plants will generate as much carbon as gas-powered stations in the future. I think that's worth saying because I don't think many people realise that nuclear power stations will generate as much carbon as gas-powered stations in the future. That's because the grade of uranium is decreasing.

We're a country blessed with natural resources: water, wind, tides and even a bit of sun, sometimes. Why not use those natural resources and not import uranium, producing nuclear waste and taking huge risks with the future of Wales and the health of our people? Research by the federal Government of Germany shows that there are increased cancer rates around nuclear power stations, and that's one of the reasons why they're being phased out in Germany.

Now, if this Labour Government in Wales is serious about achieving a low-carbon energy system, then we must oppose nuclear energy and send a clear message to the Conservatives in England to keep their reactors out of our country. Support the amendment and oppose nuclear in Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is my pleasure to move the two amendments in the name of Darren Millar this afternoon. Just talking about the generalities of the debate, it is good that we do debate these issues. One thing that Wales has is an abundance of natural resources that if harnessed correctly, could help the energy footprint, not just of Wales, but of the rest of the United Kingdom. I did note that the Cabinet Secretary said that is a question we should pose to ourselves: should we be exporting our energies or should we be generating enough for Wales as a country? I would argue that we are well placed to help the rest of the United Kingdom meet its energy requirements. Indeed, it is very desirable for us to do that, with the host of energy generation that we could put to best use.

Talking to the two amendments, if I may, obviously the Wylfa Newydd proposal up in Anglesey is an exciting and dynamic proposal that has been on the stocks for many years now, and thankfully seems to be coming into fruition and the endgame. I do hope very much that the political groups here today will support the amendment that is before the Assembly, because it offers an exciting opportunity: an opportunity that the First Minister himself has said is transformational, not just for the north Wales economy, but for the economy of Wales as a whole, when we're talking of between 8,000 and 10,000 jobs at peak production of construction, with 850 permanent—well-paid jobs, I might add—being located in a location that has a historical perspective of hosting a nuclear plant, prior to the new one being established. I'll take the Member's intervention.

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. We won't be supporting the amendment, as it happens, although it's well known that I work very positively with the developers at Wylfa. There are a few things with this amendment that I would say are not consistent with certainly what I feel. Long term, I don't think nuclear is the answer; we've got to be clear on that. We've got to be clear about how transformational it is in the long term for the economy of Wales, as important as it is for my constituency. And also, when it comes to talk of an energy mix for Wales, Wylfa is part of an energy mix for the UK, not for Wales, in reality.

I find that remarkable, that intervention from the Member for Anglesey. I recognise the work that he has done as an individual, but it clearly shows that he has failed to win the argument within his political group, and therefore I fail to see how, when the reference in the amendment is quite clear to Wylfa Newydd specifically and doesn't widen any broader than that, he, certainly, as an individual, cannot support it, leave alone the rest of the Plaid Cymru group. I had assumed that the Plaid Cymru group were supportive of Wylfa Newydd, whilst they had a discussion and a debate around the wider issues of nuclear production and nuclear energy. Obviously, people will see the way the group votes today and know which side their bread is buttered on.

On amendment 3, I think this is a really important issue that was driven home to me by the residents around the Hendy windfarm development, which the Minister obviously chose to intervene on and actually gave permission to this particular development. The Minister did touch on communities being able to have a say and a stake in renewable projects and I do think that that's really, really important, but when residents of a locality find that they've engaged in the democratic process, i.e. the planning system and they've gone through the local authority and had an inspector look at the proposals as well, and on each and every occasion the inspector and the planning authority have said that this application is not suitable to be developed in this particular location, that really does undermine residents' faith in the process. And this amendment is put down tonight in the hope that Members in this Chamber will galvanise support to encourage the Minister to reflect on the decisions she has taken.

Only this morning some pictures were coming out from the location, showing that heavy plant was moving onto the site in defiance, I would suggest, of the planning authority's permissions to date along common ground. I would urge the Cabinet Secretary, if our amendment is defeated tonight, to make enquiries to satisfy herself that there is no work going on on the site at the moment, because it is causing a huge amount of concern. But obviously, I very much hope that our amendment will pass this evening, because it really does warrant a reconsideration on behalf of the Minister.

There is an exciting and dynamic agenda when it comes to renewables, but riding rough shod over local residents' confidence in the principle of having a fair hearing, putting their case and having that case heard and supported, and then undermining those cases, really does no service at all to the renewables sector. I do believe that the Minister does need to answer that in her summing up this afternoon, and I hope that she will do that. 

If I could galvanise the rest of the debate that we want to put forward from this side: we do believe passionately that Wales is well placed to play its part in lowering carbon emissions across the United Kingdom. We do have a natural abundance of opportunities to develop renewable energy here. Two areas that do need considerable consideration, though, I would suggest, and Government influence, are grid connections in particular, because there are many small renewable projects that could get off the ground if only they could get a grid connection and they could, in themselves, play a huge part in collectively coming together to raise our numbers in this particular field. And, I do believe that whilst it's not a devolved responsibility, if the Cabinet Secretary engaged with Ofgem to encourage them to be more proactive here in Wales, because they are the regulator and when it comes to combined heat and plant units being established, which the report touches on, there is a huge issue around the backlog of renewable heat incentive applications that really is deterring investment in that particular sector. Again, I do believe that that's an area that needs addressing, and hopefully Government intervention, to support the sector to make sure that people have the confidence to make those significant investments.

But I do hope that our two amendments carry tonight. The one in particular around Wylfa Newydd, which looks to invest in a community that is desperate for that investment to create quality jobs with decent, well-paid salaries, and the second amendment that we've tabled around the Hendy windfarm: it does require a second look, Minister. I do hope that you will give us the confidence—. I can see you shaking your head and saying that you will not be doing it. That is highly regrettable, and people will lack the confidence going forward that Ministers are adhering to the rules.

Can I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased that the motion and the Cabinet Secretary referred to the 'Energy Generation in Wales 2017' report, because that tells us a great deal of the story: namely, that 48 per cent of the electricity that we use in Wales comes from renewable energy, and that's increased by 5 per cent. That's positive, of course. What's less positive is that only 751 MW of capacity of installed renewable energy is actually locally owned by the community. Clearly that's an area where some work needs to be done, because not only are we eager to see the development of renewable energy, but we also want to ensure that the ownership of that energy is in the right hands. Sixty-three thousand renewable energy projects are under local ownership in one sense, but 94 per cent of those are solar PV schemes on domestic roofs. That's positive, of course, but it does show how much work remains to be done.

As we've already heard, we do have the natural resources, we have the natural capital in Wales, to be a world leader in terms of renewable energy. The question therefore is: why aren't we leading the world? What's holding us back? I would argue that both amendments that we've put forward this afternoon try to highlight those issues. In the first place we need the powers to achieve that potential and to deliver it. Secondly, we need the political will, but also the means to deliver that potential, too. We're calling for full devolution of all energy powers. Nobody would be surprised about that, I'm sure, but it is striking that the Westminster agenda in energy is moving in one direction and the political will here in Wales is going in a very different direction. We've already heard reference to fracking, which is one clear example of that.

The absence of those powers holds us back. Look at the Swansea bay tidal lagoon: if the responsibility for energy had been devolved, I have no doubt that it would happen. It would either have happened already or it would be being constructed as we speak. So, if we are serious about achieving much of our potential, then we do have to take ownership of the powers in order to deliver that ourselves.

The Institute of Welsh Affairs in its Re-energising Wales project has demonstrated that greater ambition and immediate practical action are required to realise the vision for 100 per cent renewable energy, and these actions include upscaling energy efficiency. Of course, you will remember our manifesto pledge for a multibillion pound retrofitting scheme here in Wales. It also mentions how building regulations could significantly increase energy efficiency. You've referred to that, but of course Plaid Cymru was the only party in this Assembly that wasn't happy with the very modest improvement in the Part L regulations that this Government brought forward a few years ago, and now of course we're playing catch-up. Onshore windfarms, offshore windfarms and futureproofing electricity grids—it's all there in the Re-energising Wales work. And of course it isn't just the environmental focus, the economic one is clear as well, because those kinds of investments, according to the Institute of Welsh Affairs, could support some 20,000 jobs annually across Wales during a 15-year investment period, with nearly £7.5 billion in total Welsh GVA created as a result.

You mentioned—well, I mentioned Ynni Cymru. You mentioned the energy atlas, and I'll come to that in a minute. Ynni Cymru, of course, is I believe one way of developing that stronger focus on community-orientated energy development. I've said it before and I'm going to say it again, because every time I get up in these kinds of debates I'll be saying it: we need to move away from the hub-and-spoke model of energy generation to a more dispersed spider web, where energy is used as well as produced locally. That will give us the resilience, and it's happening in Germany, in the Netherlands, in Denmark and other countries and we need to move in that direction as well. I welcome the energy atlas. I think it will help us with mapping out and modelling the potential of renewable energy resources throughout Wales. That investment will enable strategic energy planning that will as well facilitate a bottom-up approach to energy in the longer term.

I'm running out of time, so I will address the amendments very quickly.

Just to respond—well, I did respond to the first amendment about a fortnight ago, and I don't see that anything's changed since that point, so I will leave that there.

In terms of the second amendment, on Wylfa, well, the last thing we want is that nuclear should be part of the long-term energy mix. The whole purpose is that we move away from the hub-and-spoke model, as I said earlier, and not shackle another generation to that model. So, clearly, we're going to oppose that amendment. 

And on the third amendment, well, it's only right, of course, that local voices should be heard in any discussions around planning decisions, be it energy or anything else. And it's also right, of course, that having balanced the different factors and the different considerations, that the Cabinet Secretary should make a final decision on issues that have greater significance than simply the local—that is, they have national significance. So, we will also be opposing that amendment. 

We do have the natural resources here in Wales, we have the natural capital, so let's use it in a way that brings benefits to our people and, most importantly, brings benefits for future generations. 

I just want to speak very briefly in respect of the amendment that has been tabled by the Welsh Conservatives in respect of the Hendy windfarm. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that she made a very similar decision to this earlier this year in respect of a windfarm application in my own constituency, in the Denbigh moors area, the Pant y Maen windfarm, which was subject to a planning application that was submitted to Denbighshire County Council. That application was refused, an appeal was made to the Welsh Government, and the inspectorate then produced a report that recommended refusal—very strongly recommended refusal. Other Welsh Government-sponsored bodies, including Cadw, also objected to the development on the basis that it would impact on the view from nearby Bronze Age barrows and burial mounds, and that it would have a devastating impact on the landscape of the nearby Clwydian range area of outstanding natural beauty as well. And yet, for some reason, the Welsh Government—or the Welsh Minister—decided that her view was different to that of the inspector, different to that of the local authority and, unfortunately, this windfarm is now going to be developed.

I appreciate the point that Llyr Gruffydd made about the need for a national strategy perspective from the Welsh Government from time to time on issues that are significant, but this is a very small windfarm that is being developed, just seven turbines—just seven individual turbines. It's not huge at all. You could hardly say that seven turbines individually are of strategic importance nationally in the same way that Wylfa Newydd or a much more sizeable offshore windfarm, like the Gwynt y Môr windfarm, might be. So I am concerned that this is riding roughshod, frankly, over local democracy.

I think that the people in the area of the Hendy windfarm are facing now precisely the same sort of scenario. I don't think that it's appropriate and I think we need a planning system that is much more balanced and much more reflective of local people's views. So I would urge the Welsh Government to look again at the Hendy windfarm decision. We've already had one wrong, what we don't want are two, three, four, five or many others in the future. Let's get this right, let's sort the balance in the system out, so that we can have some confidence in it going forward. [Interruption.] I'll take the intervention. 

Can I agree with the comments—

I'll decide whether you take an intervention. Russell George. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Can I agree with the view that it's riding roughshod over the local community? This doesn't do anything for local democracy, when the Minister rides roughshod over the views of the local authority and the inspector as well. But could I specifically ask, when the Minister does respond to this particular amendment, that she also addresses the concerns about works being undertaken today that haven't yet had the proper permissions? And perhaps that needs to be reflected in the Minister's comments on this issue as well. 

I think it is incumbent upon the Minister to try to consider whether those works that are proceeding have the relevant permissions. Clearly, if they haven't, then they should cease forthwith. And I think that we have a Cabinet Secretary who has listened on many occasions to arguments that have been made by the Welsh Conservatives and taken forward decisions on the basis of the discussions that she's had with us, and I do hope that we are knocking on an open door today in respect of this decision too.

The Cabinet Secretary will know very well that I oppose the whole thrust of the Government's energy policy as an exercise in futility, because even if she were to succeed in all her objectives, what we gain in Wales is massively swamped by what's happening in the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the price of this policy is being paid for by the electricity consumers and taxpayers in Wales, and we've just heard of the effects that will be felt in the countryside of these windfarms—these excrescences that are being dotted around all over the hills of Wales. I drove down from Aberdyfi through mid Wales at the weekend and almost everywhere on the skyline you see these eyesores.

In addition to the points, which I totally agree with, that have been raised already by Andrew R.T. Davies and Darren Millar, I would like to ask why it is that the Hendy windfarm has been treated in a different way from that at Rhoscrowther in Pembrokeshire, where the same planning considerations arose. That was only five turbines; Hendy is seven. Rhoscrowther was turned down on the basis of its visual impact and the effect on the landscape. At Llandegley Rocks near the Hendy windfarm, you've got unspoilt landscape, scheduled ancient monuments, internationally important palaeontology of the Llandegley Rocks, it's the source of the River Edw, there's a huge starling roost there—2,000 to 3,000 starlings, a conservation species—which the developers plan to fell, and there are listed buildings very close to the site.

I agree entirely with the point that Darren Millar made that the effect upon the landscape—and let's not forget that one of the principal assets for mid Wales is its tourist potential—is wholly disproportionate to the gain in terms of the Government's energy policy. It's a relatively small project, and looking at this in a global context, it is totally insignificant. And I can't understand, therefore, why the Cabinet Secretary has decided to allow this to go ahead, when it can be of no gain practically to anybody other than the developers themselves, and I don't think that that is a sensible basis upon which Governments should take these decisions.

But I want to address now the wider considerations that the Government's energy policy brings up. Now, it would disappoint the Cabinet Secretary if I didn't mention China in this speech. As she constantly points out to me, this is something that I always raise and she's absolutely right, because I want to make this point again: China has 993 GW of capacity for generating electricity, and they have currently under construction another 259 GW of coal-fired power stations, principally. That's a 25 per cent increase on their current capacity; that is six times the entire generating capacity of the United Kingdom. If we close down the entire United Kingdom economy, of course we would cut our carbon emissions to a very small percentage, but China would, in the course of however long these new power stations take to build—five to 10 years—have made up for that reduction by six times. So, anything that we do in Wales that is responsible for only a minute fraction of 1 per cent of global emissions will be completely irrelevant in the debate on global warming. 

I'd like to read from a BBC article on its website only in September:

'Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery...259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development'.

So, this is something that has achieved considerable publicity, and I think it wholly undermines the whole argument for renewables at vast subsidies that are paid for by ordinary people, and Wales is the poorest part of the United Kingdom. There are 291,000 households in fuel poverty—the Government's own figures—that's 23 per cent of the households in Wales. People can't afford to pay these increases. The Office for Budget Responsibility last spring revealed in its economic and fiscal outlook that environmental levies this year will cost, throughout the United Kingdom, £11.3 billion. That's a rise of £2 billion over the last financial year. It goes on to say that the increase of £2 billion represents a rise in average electricity bills of about 5 per cent, so that's twice the rate of inflation. This is planned to go on and on and on each year for the foreseeable future until in 2030 it's estimated that at least a third of all electricity bills will be accounted for by environmental levies. So, the Government's policy is an exercise in futility, and the people who are really paying the price are those at the bottom of the income scale, whom I would have thought the Labour Party would have had an interest in helping rather than making their lives more difficult. 

I welcome the Welsh Government’s 'Energy Generation in Wales 2017' report. The report highlights the mountain we have to climb if we are to reduce Wales’s emissions by at least 80 per cent over the next 30 years. It is essential for our future survival that we meet these targets. As set out in the Paris agreement, reducing emissions was vital if we were to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees compared with pre-industrial levels, with an upper limit of 2 degrees. However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported last month that we would meet the 1.5 degree threshold in the next 10 years.

Unless we take drastic, immediate action, the world is heading for a 3 to 4 degree rise in global temperatures. Not a single member of the G20 is taking sufficient action to tackle global warming. And this is not helped by those who still believe climate change is a myth. At the weekend, the leader of the world’s largest economy, America, still clung to his woefully mistaken belief that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive. This in spite of massive loss of life to climate-related events in the past 12 months. Unless we take drastic, immediate action, deadly forest fires, catastrophic hurricanes and devastating floods will be the least of our problems. Even with a 2 degree rise in global temperatures, we will see entire countries disappear below the rising ocean, a 50 per cent increase in wildfires across Europe and millions of people displaced. We have to act now and we have to act fast.

As the 'Energy Generation in Wales' report highlights, 78 per cent of Welsh energy production comes from fossil fuels. If our planet is to survive relatively unscathed, then we need to reduce that to zero over the coming decades.

We need a true mix of renewables—solar panels and tidal power, but the answer doesn't lie in large-scale wind or solar farms. We need to move to a decentralised energy grid where every home, every village, every town and city produces its own energy.

Technology will be the key to averting a global catastrophe. Already we are seeing our homes become more energy efficient, light-emitting diode lighting uses 100 times less energy. Our appliances are now achieving power efficiency rates of 95 per cent. New homes are so well insulated they rarely need heating.

However, transport remains our biggest challenge. We need to move to all electric and hydrogen-fuelled vehicles a lot sooner that the UK Government’s target of 2050. Because of Wales’s geography, public transport will never replace all demand for personal transport. We therefore have to ensure that we replace the car, the lorry and the van with clean alternatives. But that is going to require significant investment in infrastructure, investment that we must make and must make now if we are to stand any chance of surviving our changing climate. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate? Lesley Griffiths. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Members for their contributions. I think it's very clear that we do need to reconsider Wales's historic role in supporting the wider UK energy system. I mentioned in my opening remarks the recent low-carbon delivery plan consultation, and that really made clear that we do need to fundamentally change our approach to power, heat and transport in order that we meet our decarbonisation objectives, in ways that achieve benefits for the people of Wales. And I don't doubt that this will need very difficult decisions, and I think it needs not just national leadership, but also local leadership too. 

We've got to take some bold decisions around building efficiency and futureproofing our building stock, and we also need to help businesses take a longer term investment approach to energy efficiency projects. And I think we also need to help them recognise that decarbonisation also provides opportunities and our economic action plan prioritises the decarbonisation call to action and the regional approach to its delivery, which will really fit well with our regional energy planning work.

On generation, our currently reliant on gas I really think puts us at a risk of missing our carbon target. I mentioned that we currently host 19 per cent of the UK’s gas-fired electricity generation but use only 5 per cent. So, given our responsibility for carbon, I believe that Wales should have complete control over the consenting and deployment of energy in Wales, as we called for in the negotiations for the Wales Act in 2017.

The marine sector is working really hard to persuade the UK Government that it’s worth backing and has a strong fit with their industrial strategy. I’m absolutely committed to working with partners to develop lagoon technologies in Wales and to also consider the case for supporting a new private sector-led project.

Overall, the future of our thriving renewable energy industry must be secured if we are to meet our renewable target. So, I do continue to lobby the UK Government to increase levels of investment in renewables. I’ve raised concerns about the exclusion of onshore wind, of which Members will be aware, which is the lowest cost form of generation, and also solar technologies from contracts for difference, the proposed closure of the feed-in tariff and the lack of funding to support wave and tidal technologies. I really do think that the UK Government must take some swift decisions regarding future support for small-scale renewables.

I believe that achieving 100 per cent of renewable energy generation would be extremely challenging. I think it would risk us, if we were relying on our neighbours, being able to keep the lights on in Wales. I’m sure that Members here would share my concerns about putting Wales in that position.

We will need significant investment in energy generation and networks in order to deliver our carbon targets in Wales. However, I think by doing it smarter, we can avoid unnecessary expense. Robust development plans can provide a basis for investment by grid operators to support clear future need. We’re also working to support energy planning to ensure appropriate developments are supported in national, regional and local plans.

If I can just turn to the amendments. We will be opposing amendment 1 brought forward by Neil McEvoy. As we’ve made very clear, nuclear is absolutely part of the energy mix. We will be accepting amendment 2 in the name of the Welsh Conservatives. We’ve invested significant time and resource into a comprehensive programme of support to maximise the potential lasting legacy from Wylfa Newydd. We will be opposing amendment 3. Members should be aware that Welsh Government can’t reconsider the decisions. I can pass no further comment. We’ve provided consistent support to communities as a vital part of energy development in Wales and anyone who wishes to question the decision on Hendy windfarm and the reasoning behind it, and the decision letter is there for people to see, can do it through the court.

The two amendments from Plaid Cymru—we will be opposing both. I mentioned that we've consistently fought for full powers over energy developments in Wales. However, we are part of a joined-up UK and global energy system and I think we have to recognise the way the system is funded and regulated.

In relation to amendment 5, you’ll be aware that, in discussions with Plaid Cymru, I did look at establishing an energy company for Wales. We had that recent call for evidence, which I’m sure Members are aware of, and we didn’t feel there was sufficient clarity on the purpose of what that energy company would do. But I’m very happy—I'm aware that Llyr is now taking this forward along with the energy atlas. I’d be very happy to have future discussions about it, if you can bring forward more clarity on how, really, it would benefit the investment that would be required to bring it forward.

I'd like to thank everybody—

Would the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes.

Thank you. Would the Cabinet Secretary possibly have discussions with the Scottish Government colleagues? They have recently produced quite an extensive report on the idea of a national energy company for Scotland, which could indeed be a model for us in Wales.

Yes, I have actually seen the report, Adam Price, but, yes, of course, I'd be very happy to have that discussion with colleagues in Scotland. But as I say, when we looked at it initially—I think it was about a year ago, but maybe a little bit more—we just thought that the significant investment that was needed couldn't be justified. But I'm very happy to continue to have those discussions. I will of course ask officials to look into the accusations, by, I think it was, two or three Welsh Conservative Members, that work's currently under way at Hendy. That's not my understanding, but of course I will ask officials to look into that for me, and just thank Members for their interest in energy and their contributions today. Diolch.

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

Item 10 on our agenda this evening is a statement by the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee on United Nations Universal Children's Day. I call on the Chair of the committee, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to make this statement today, on behalf of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, to recognise the importance of the UN Universal Children's Day. The United Nations Universal Children's Day was established in 1954 and is celebrated on 20 November each year to promote international togetherness, awareness among children worldwide and improving children's welfare. Since its establishment, 20 November has become an important date in relation to the progress of children's rights across the world. On 20 November 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted the declaration on the rights of the child. It is also the date in 1989 when the UN General Assembly adopted the convention on the rights of the child. Since 1990, Universal Children's Day has been used to celebrate the anniversary of the adoption of both the declaration and the convention on children's rights. More importantly, it is a day on which, across the world, children are honoured and time is taken to reflect on progress that has been made in promoting their rights.

The National Assembly for Wales has a great story to tell on its scrutiny of children's rights. In 2011, Wales became the first country in the UK to make the UNCRC part of its domestic law when we passed the Rights of Children and Young People (Wales) Measure 2011. The Measure aimed to strengthen and build on the approach the Welsh Government was taking to making policy for children and young people. It placed a duty on Welsh Ministers to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and required Ministers to publish a children's rights scheme, setting out the arrangements in place to have that due regard. These duties must be the cornerstone of how Welsh Government creates its policies for children. Welsh Government actions under this duty are something that this committee has and will continually monitor and scrutinise in order to ensure our children and young people are safe, well, happy and have their legal rights respected. 

The work of the committee has made a significant impact and has directly influenced change and improvement in service delivery for children and young people in many areas. I'm pleased by the progress we've made in scrutinising key areas of policy and legislation during the first half of this Assembly. At the outset of the Assembly, we set clear principles and ambitions for our work. One of those principles was that engagement with children and young people should underpin all the work we do, ensuring that their views and experiences are captured in a useful, sensitive and constructive way. We are now at the halfway point of the fifth Assembly, so this provides a perfect opportunity for me to update Members on the work the committee has undertaken on children's matters and how we have engaged with children and young people along the way. I, sadly, won't be able to cover all of these areas during the statement. Instead, I will concentrate on the ones where I believe we have made the biggest impact and have had the most engagement with children.

In our snapshot inquiry into youth services in Wales, more than 1,500 young people gave us their views. The feedback from young people was incredibly clear: when youth work provision disappears from a young person's life, the impact is considerable. This formed an essential part of our findings and recommendations. We were pleased to note the Welsh Government's renewed focus on these services following our report and the direction of travel appears promising, with the recent appointment of an interim youth work board. 

Despite a number of high-profile previous reports relating to advocacy services, the committee remained concerned that the most vulnerable children in Wales were still not being supported to have their voices heard about issues that affected them. This was despite the need for independent advocacy being a key recommendation in the Waterhouse report in the year 2000. The importance of ensuring vulnerable children have an independent advocate cannot be underestimated. So, in October 2016, we undertook a short, focused inquiry into statutory advocacy provision in Wales. We are pleased that, since our report, progress has been made and the committee's scrutiny is widely credited with ensuring that the national model for advocacy has been fully implemented and funded across Wales. 

As part of our scrutiny of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, we held a series of workshops with young people and held a conference for those working directly with children with ALN to help feed in views on how the Bill affected them. This engagement formed a vital part of our scrutiny and provided a clear insight into the needs of those children and how the Bill could be used to enhance the services they receive. One vital way in which the committee improved the Bill was to include a duty on local authorities and NHS bodies to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which came as a result of our representations and those of the children's commissioner.

Flying Start is regarded as one of the Welsh Government's flagship early years programmes. We chose to undertake a focused inquiry on the outreach elements of Flying Start because respondents to our 2016 consultation on the first 1,000 days of a child's life highlighted concerns about the programme's reach. Whilst there was general support for the aims of Flying Start, there was concern that the geographical targeting of the programme had the potential to create further inequality by excluding a significant number of children living in poverty. The committee's consideration of this matter led to positive change, particularly in relation to extending the outreach funding, meaning local authorities have more flexibility to choose to use their budgets to provide Flying Start services outside designated postcode areas. With over £600 million spent on Flying Start to date, our committee will continue to shine a light on whether this investment can evidence it is delivering improved outcomes in the early years.

The emotional and mental health of our children and young people is paramount. In our 'Mind over matter' report, we called on the Welsh Government to deliver a step change in the support available. We gathered extensive evidence and concluded that the urgent challenge now lies at the front end of the care pathway, with much more support needed for emotional well-being, resilience and early intervention. Failure to deliver at this end of the pathway will lead to demand for specialist services outstripping supply and will leave a significant proportion of children—the so-called missing middle—without the help they need. Our disappointment with the Welsh Government's original response is well documented, but I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretaries have reflected over the summer and established the task and finish group that recently met for the first time to consider a way forward. As a committee, we will not take our foot off the pedal on this and we've requested a revised written response to our recommendations by March next year. We will be keeping a focused eye on the Government's action in this area. 

The issue of the lack of suitable textbooks and other educational resources had been highlighted to the committee as a concern by those across the sector and most importantly by school pupils themselves. The provision of appropriate resources for learners, particularly for GCSE and A-level, is fundamental. The committee therefore undertook work to establish what could be done to improve this. To help understand the problems, we took evidence directly from a number of children through a series of video blogs. Hearing directly from the children helped us understand the nature of the issues they faced and the extent of the problem.

Although not part of the committee's work, on Universal Children's Day it would be remiss of me not to mention the Welsh Youth Parliament. I am grateful to the Llywydd and to the youth parliament project team for keeping me informed on progress. The establishment of the parliament is a genuinely exciting moment in the history of the Assembly. It is a true recognition of the value children and young people have in our democracy and should create meaningful and long-lasting ties between schools, young people and the Assembly. The election, as you know, to the first youth parliament is under way, with votes closing at the end of this week. I want to offer our committee's full support to the youth parliament and its members and I look forward to the committee working with the parliament wherever it can.  

There are many other areas of the committee's work that I could talk about that have impacted on children. We have done much work and we are committed to following through on all our inquiries. A current example of this is the follow-up we are currently undertaking on our perinatal mental health inquiry. Looking ahead, we have a heavy workload, with inquiries on the impact of Brexit on HE and FE and the status of the Welsh baccalaureate, as well as the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill work ongoing. There's also forthcoming legislation in the pipeline.

The Public Accounts Committee has today published its report on care-experienced children and young people. It is deeply concerning that the report finds that children in care across Wales are being let down because organisations aren't recognising their corporate parenting responsibilities. As part of our work programme, we will look closely at this report and the Government's response. As outlined, the committee will continue its work in relation to 'Mind over matter' and has committed to undertaking inquiries into school funding and obesity in children.

Finally, we will be undertaking work to consider the way in which the rights of the child Measure has operated in practice, and how that legislation might be improved further to put children's rights in Wales on an even firmer footing. We are committed to ensuring that children's rights are not just words on a page—we want to be clear that they're considered, respected and maintained across all Government activity. In closing my statement today, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to our work during this fifth Assembly, but, in particular, our thanks go to the children and young people whose contributions have played such a huge role in helping to shape policy and legislation in Wales. Thank you.

Thank you. I do have a number of speakers, so, if everybody is quite brief, I should get you all in. So, that's entirely up to you. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's so heartening, actually, to hear the Chair of the CYPE Committee. I know for a fact that your intentions and ambitions for our children in Wales are very genuine and laudable, and certainly your determination is very apparent. So, thank you for the work that you do, and I'm really pleased to be a member of your committee.

We, of course, today celebrate and welcome the UN Universal Children's Day, established in 1954. This year's theme for the day is 'blue', and we all look to build a world where every child is in school, safe from harm and can fulfil their own potential. However, in Wales, we are reminded through our own casework as AMs that the Welsh Labour Government has more to do to ensure that those fundamental aims are fulfilled. The recent children's commissioner's report goes some way in addressing some of the obvious failings, and she is very correct to highlight them. 

The fact that there are no children's rights impact assessments of last year's Welsh Government budget—and this was despite recommendations by the children's commissioner to have impact assessments for three children's issues: school uniform grants, minority ethnic achievement grants, and the all-Wales schools liaison programme. Of particular concern to me in the report is the fact that the Welsh Government have made very little progress in early interventions for children and young people's mental health. And, again, I would like to commend you again, Lynne Neagle AM, in the work that you've done in wanting a step change with the work that you've done previously. We're all very familiar with the inadequacy of provision for behavioural and emotional needs, not actually qualifying for intervention by child and adolescent mental health services, and that is despite many previous recommendations. It remains as of today that there remains little or indeed no evidence that—. Despite much rhetoric in this Chamber from Cabinet members previously, the Labour Government in Wales is not taking its own obligations seriously enough.

I would like to know how the recommendations in this report by the children's commissioner, particularly the red ones, where no recommendation was made on this topic this year, where it states that:

'The Welsh Government and local authorities should ensure appropriate state support for the communication needs for Deaf and hearing impaired children and young people and their families, including accessible and affordable BSL learning opportunities at a range of levels and the employment of staff in schools who are fluent communicators of BSL, to meet individuals’ needs.'

I just thought, in this day and age, that was a basic requirement, but it's one that the Welsh Labour Government still chooses to ignore.

Ending on a positive note, though, we are all heartened by the establishment of a Welsh Youth Parliament. It is a true recognition of our youth and their own value to our society, and I look forward to working with other parties across this Chamber on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, with my colleague Suzy Davies AM, to ensure that we really do enshrine those children's rights not only just in our thoughts or in our words, but truly in our deeds.

Thank you, Janet Finch-Saunders, for those remarks and for the kind words, which are much appreciated. A number of the issues that you raised were in relation to the children's commissioner's report. As you know, the children's commissioner will be before us on Thursday, and we'll have the opportunity to directly question plus follow up those issues then, and they are all very important issues that she's raised.

I agree with you on the children's rights impact assessments. This has been an ongoing concern for the committee, and you'll be aware that, last week, we held the concurrent meeting with the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and the Finance Committee, and I'm hoping that, as a group of committees, we can take forward those recommendations to make those impact assessments more meaningful. But what I would say is that there's a reason why children are singled out for a particular impact assessment, and that is because they don't have a vote, they don't have that kind of democratic say, so I think it is particularly important that we ensure that their rights are at the heart of what we do. Thank you for the comments, and I agree with you on the Youth Parliament.

I welcome the statement today. I think it's very important that we do celebrate this day, Universal Children's Day, and it gives us the opportunity to assess where we are in terms of children's rights. I am a member of the committee, and I'd like to thank the Chair for her statement. It gives a flavour of the committee's work, and I think she's covered the areas very comprehensively. I think she does refer as she goes through the different areas to the particular influence that she feels the committee has had on the Government. So, I don't know whether she could comment further on that. I think there are particular areas where there has been considerable influence, and I think it's been very good that we've been able to do the 'Mind over matter' report in particular, and I'd like to congratulate the Chair on her ferret-like nature in following that through—[Laughter.] Terrier, not ferret. [Laughter.] 'Terrier' is a better word. But, seriously, I think you have shown great leadership in that report, and I wonder whether you could comment on how the Welsh Government will respond to that.

As others have said, it is very exciting that we're celebrating the Youth Parliament. The voting is just about to finish, and I think it's a great step forward. I don't know whether she could comment in terms of how the committee could perhaps work with the Commission and with the Youth Parliament to see that move forward. But then I do want to comment that—I don't know whether the committee Chair can comment on the fact—we are really in a very difficult position in relation to children's rights, because we don't know what impact Brexit will have on children's rights, and also we have had the UN poverty report by Philip Alston, which has been referred to here today in the Chamber already. It's extremely critical of the impact of universal credit, and Alston said that levels of child poverty are

'not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster'.

It wasn't very encouraging, I thought, that Amber Rudd's response was to comment on the extraordinary political nature of his language. I wonder whether the Chair could comment on the fact that we are looking at all these areas within Wales where we believe we are making progress, but it's hard going in this climate where the actions of the UK Government are having such a terrible detrimental effect on children in Wales.

Thank you, Julie, for those remarks, and thank you for the ongoing very positive contribution that you make to the committee. I did give a few examples in the statement of where I think that we have been able to secure some change. You referred to 'Mind over matter', and, as you know, the committee was very disappointed with the Welsh Government's response to 'Mind over matter'. But the task and finish group has now been established. I am a member of it, as a fully participating member but retaining with an observer status, so retaining my ability to criticise and call things out if I'm not happy with things, and I will certainly continue to do that. I think that both Cabinet Secretaries, and hopefully across Government—everyone realises that the committee is absolutely determined to see what I think is a comprehensive route map for change in 'Mind over matter' delivered. We're not going to take our foot off the pedal; we're going to keep drilling down on it, because we don't want to hand this over to another committee in another Assembly. The time to deal with this is now.

Thank you for your comments about the Youth Parliament. I'm really keen that, once they're in post, we establish a strong working relationship with them. I think it will be important to listen to them about how they want to engage with us, rather than us saying, 'Well, we're the children's committee; we'd like to do such and such.' But I hope that, as soon as they are in place, we can start to have those discussions and that they know that we're as keen to work with them as possible.

You referred to the UN envoy report, which was certainly a very sobering report last week, with talk of destitution and people in extreme poverty, which of course has a massive impact on children. I hope that, when we do the work on the rights of the child Measure, that will include some scrutiny of the areas around child poverty, which of course are featured by the UN. But I think it also raises challenges for us as an Assembly, because, although things like universal credit have been visited on us by Westminster, we're going to have to try and pick up the pieces as best we can, and a common theme in the committee has been concern about where poverty and child poverty now sits in the Assembly, because it's not with a particular Minister and that does present challenges with scrutinising it. I hope that, going forward, we can look at that, and also with John Griffiths's committee, because we have to—. So many of these problems that we see, like mental health problems, start with people living in poverty, and we have to tackle them.

Thank you very much to Lynne for the statement and for providing this opportunity for us to put a clear focus on children's rights here in Wales tonight. I'm particularly pleased, as I'm sure we all are, that Wales adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2011—the first nation in the UK to do so. It is entirely appropriate that the Welsh Government should publish a review of its commitments to the convention next year, and this will provide us with a direct opportunity, as an Assembly, to scrutinise the implementation of the Measure. As we've heard, the children's commissioner is very critical that no CRIAs were carried out on the current budgetary proposals. Article 4 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child make it a requirement for every level of government to act in a way that is consistent with the convention. It states that there needs to be regular assessment of how budgets will impact on different groups of children, ensuring that the budgetary decisions lead to the best possible outcomes for the greatest possible number of children, also taking into account, as a central part of that process, children who are vulnerable. But the commissioner said last week:

'children’s rights appear to be an "add-on" within this budget',

rather than those rights being part of the analysis from the very outset, with that then leading to the budgetary decisions.

So, yes, the children's commissioner is very critical, and has every right to be so, but, to be fair, she also said that there are few examples of good practice. There are very few examples of governments working systematically to ensure that priority is given to children and children's rights as they draw up their budgets. So, Wales isn't alone in that regard. There are very few examples of states that are truly successful in budgeting in accordance with their commitments to the rights of children. So, why don't we in the Senedd of Wales show the way? We are the first in the UK to adopt the convention. Why can't we be the first Senedd—the first Parliament in the world—to put children's rights firmly at the heart of our budgetary processes? I would like your view, and, more importantly perhaps, the view of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on that particular point. It would be excellent if we were able to support that today, on UN Universal Children's Day.

Thank you to Siân Gwenllian for her comments. I'm very pleased to have her as a member of the committee as well. I completely agree with you on the children's rights issue. It has been a constant theme in the Assembly—that we are concerned that, despite this wonderful start back in 2011, there has been a dilution of that commitment in recent years for what seem like very worthy reasons, with things like the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. But, as I said earlier, there is a reason why we've singled children out, and we have to stick to that really. I hope that we can progress this, working with the other committees.

Another very positive suggestion that came out last week was to look back at the excellent work that was done, when Jane Hutt was Cabinet Secretary for Finance, around children's budgeting, because it isn't enough to just talk about these things; we have to make sure that they happen. I think that it would be wonderful if we, as an Assembly, could make sure that we do continue to lead the way in this area. I would be very, very enthusiastic about that.

I'm also proud to be able to speak on Universal Children's Day in this institution, which has done so much for the rights of children here in the National Assembly for Wales. We can be proud that the rights of children are at the cornerstone of everything we do. The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 ensured that Wales was the first nation of the United Kingdom to integrate children's rights into domestic law. John F Kennedy once said:

'Children are the world's most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.'

Though I'm sure that this sentiment is shared around the Chamber, I believe that we can all be proud that this Assembly's support for our most valuable resource is not confined to well-meaning statements, but is enshrined in legislation, and, on White Ribbon Day, the legislation around domestic violence, spearheaded by Carl Sargeant, has a valued place in ensuring the rights of the child.

We can also be proud of leading the way with the creation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales in 2001—something that has been replicated in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It's important that we, as politicians, listen to the voices of young people, and that is why I'm delighted to see so many youngsters across Wales engaging with the first election to the Welsh Youth Parliament. So, well done, to all of our candidates and, obviously, good luck to Islwyn.

Although there is much that we can be proud of, we must also acknowledge the challenges that still face too many children in Wales. It is right that we in this place acknowledge the pressures that are currently being placed on youth services, not least by the Tory Government's harmful and cruel austerity agenda passported to local government, which deals with the most vulnerable in our society. It is sobering to hear the UN rapporteur on poverty and human rights in his just-published damning report on poverty and the impact on children across the UK. This is now the second highly damning UN report on the UK Government's social policy, which is, in his own words, creating poverty and homelessness through a cruel and misogynistic welfare system, and in the report's words, failing the rights of the child. I am deeply concerned about the potential rise in youth homelessness, exacerbated by UK welfare reform and the UK Government's regressive policies. 

Despite this harsh backdrop, progressive steps are being taken by this Welsh Government. Just yesterday, I was proud to welcome the First Minister to my constituency in Aberbargoed to see the fantastic collaborative work going on between Caerphilly youth services, the Welsh Government and third sector groups such as Llamau—collaborative working for the individual child —and to announce an additional £10 million of funding for projects to prevent youth homelessness. That is real action and a real initiative. I welcome the Welsh Government's additional funding of £15 million, announced last week, to tackle the rise in children being taken into care. And I ask that all in this Chamber work together and call upon the UK Government to protect the rights of the child and to make another UN report on UK poverty and human rights unnecessary by ending austerity and not furthering the universal credit roll-out fiasco by ending it. I call upon everyone in this Chamber to call upon the UK Government to end that. Thank you.

Lynne Neagle, briefly, to respond.

Can I thank Rhianon Passmore for her comments? I agree that we have a very good record in Wales, one that we can be proud of, but we can't be complacent, especially at a time of austerity when there are such competing priorities. It's incumbent on all of us to do what we can to ensure that the rights of children are central to what we're doing.

Thank you for mentioning youth services. They are crucially important. It was our first inquiry. They're important to the most vulnerable children, but it's also important that we remember that they're there for all children, and that was a very clear message in our inquiry, that this should be universal provision that is open access for all children and young people so that everybody is catered for.

I agree again with your remarks about the UN report. I think it is something that we will have to look at. I hope that it's something that the committees can work together to look at, and I hope that everybody will convey the messages in it, because there is only so much that we can do on some things while we are still having some very adverse welfare reforms inflicted on us. At the end of the day, poverty is such a big driver for all the other issues like mental health problems, family relationship breakdown, et cetera. So, I hope that we can all work together on it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Item 11 is voting time and, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to proceed to the vote.

The first vote this evening is on the debate on the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018 (Repeal) Regulations 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 40, no abstentions, eight against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We now move to a vote on the debate: how do we achieve a low-carbon energy system for Wales? And I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil McEvoy. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment one, eight abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 40, no abstentions, nine against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 13, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 11, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, two abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

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