National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

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

Llywydd, I thank the Member for that question.

Amongst our priorities for the coming year are the investment of record sums across our health and social care system, the training of record numbers of clinical professionals to create the workforce of the future and defending Wales against any attempts by the UK Government to put the NHS up for sale.

Well, First Minister, as you know, recent weeks have brought to the fore the current pressures that are facing the Welsh NHS—'winter pressures', as we like to term them, though the reality is that they are there for most of the year. Now, in the words of Dr Phil Banfield, the British Medical Association Cymru Wales consultant committee chair, he said 

'It is clear from the latest developments that things are getting worse not better.'

He also went on to state that

'Care will suffer if something isn't done about this now. This must be taken seriously. There is a real chance of lives being needlessly lost.'

First Minister, the BMA also go on to suggest, as many of us have in this Chamber suggested, the various things that need to be done to alleviate winter pressures and the kinds of areas that we need to look at, from increasing beds in hospitals, to increasing people's ability to come out of hospital and be supported in the community, to ensuring that only the people who need to go into hospital go into hospital. So, we're four years in, and this was a priority of the Welsh Government. Can you please tell us, in the remaining year that we have, whether or not you'll finally be able to address this very serious issue? And it is serious, because I want to end on this one note. Dr Banfield, who represents a great many people in the health NHS goes on to say that the staff pressures are intolerable, and that patients' lives are at risk. This is not an acceptable situation. 

Well, Llywydd, let me agree with something that the Member said at the start of her question, because nine of the last 11 months in the Welsh NHS have been the busiest months of that sort on record. So, she is right to say that the pressures in the Welsh NHS are relentless; that the demand grows all the time. But she then goes on simply to focus on the supply side, as though the answer to the health service is just continually to ratchet up the services that are provided, in pursuit of ever-growing demand. And that is not an answer to the health service. We do all of that. We go on every year. We have a record number of professionals working in the health service in Wales. We now have more people working in the NHS in Wales than in the whole of the British Army. More than 92,000 people are employed to provide the service that Angela Burns refers to. As a result of winter pressure planning, there will be 400 more beds, or bed-equivalent services, available in this winter than there otherwise would have been. 

The Member referred to the services that are there to keep people out of hospital. My understanding, from management information, is that we will have seen a fall in delayed transfers of care in December of last year because of the enormous efforts that are made by our local authorities to provide those services. But when you have a rising tide of people coming through the door; when those people are often elderly, where their needs are often complex, where they do need to be in hospital—. I agree completely with what Angela Burns said, but only somebody who needs to be in hospital should be in hospital. But the number of over-75-year-olds presenting at the front door of the Welsh NHS, who then need—and genuinely need—a hospital bed, has been at the highest it has ever been over this winter.

So, wherever we can, we need services that divert people from the highest level of intensity in the hospital sector, deescalating need, using community pharmacies before you go to the doctor, all of those things—they are all happening in the Welsh NHS, but they happen against a pattern of demand that means you have to run even faster simply to stand still. 

A fundamental challenge is to move towards a system that is truly preventative. We don't see that in terms of policy at the moment, and we don't see it in terms of how budgets are divvied up. So, will the First Minister realise that we need real prioritisation now? We need to find ways of moving towards a new kind of NHS, and of being able to invest in the preventative—including preventative infrastructure, sports resources, physical exercise resources, and resources for keep fit—or the NHS will be a bottomless pit. We need that transformation that we are not currently seeing.

Well, of course I agree, Llywydd. The things that we could do to prevent people from—. Sorry.

—to prevent people from needing access to the health service, that, of course, is a proper investment in the future; it's not an answer to the person aged over 75 who needs services in the here and now. The parliamentary review, in which parties across this Chamber participated, provides a bridge of that sort. It describes how you can incrementally—because that is the only way you can do it—shift the system so there is greater emphasis on prevention, and therefore a reduced need for people to seek help in the most intense part of the system. That doesn't help people whose needs for that sort of help are in the present day, and you can't not attend to those needs.

And prevention is not the responsibility of the national health service; prevention is something that you can only bring about where you have all public services invested in doing that and where you have a relationship with the user in which they too play their part. We talk often on the floor of the Assembly about co-production, and the need to capture the contribution that users make, and nowhere is that contribution more important to capture than if we are genuinely to have preventative services. Because most of all, that relies on what individuals can do to make sure that the harm that would otherwise happen in their own lives is avoided.

Minister, I see that a worldwide study has revealed that sepsis is now a bigger killer than cancer, and instances of it are increasing in England and Wales. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of this, and how is your Government going to ensure that the Welsh NHS is prepared for this over the coming year?

I thank the Member for that important supplementary question. I should just make it clear that sepsis numbers in Wales are falling and not rising, so the figures that were published are not Welsh figures—they have fallen in Wales since 2016. And that is because of some really groundbreaking work that has been done by clinicians here in Wales, led by some very far-sighted and committed clinicians, who have developed the early-warning signs system that we have for sepsis here in Wales, which is now being adopted in other parts of the health service more broadly, which makes sure that people are alert to those early signs that can easily enough be confused as a sign of something other than sepsis, to do the six steps that you need to take as a clinician to test for whether sepsis is what you're seeing in front of you, then to take rapid action. It's a really important issue, but I think we can genuinely claim that we have been in front of this debate in Wales, and that's why the figures in Wales have been falling.

First Minister, I've raised with yourself the situation in Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board many times, in respect of ambulance handovers. And it's fair to say that, in recent years, they have developed an excellent model, where they receive the patients from the ambulance, to free up the ambulances. But of course it also requires that there is the investment at the other end in terms of those who are in beds being able to leave; that they have the right social service support, and so on. Now, it is clear that, this year, that has been working, but there are considerable pressures, so I've had a number of examples reported to me.

I think there are two issues, really, that I'd like to consider. To what extent has that model that was developed in Cwm Taf been rolled out amongst other health boards? But secondly, what evaluation is taking place of the pressures that clearly exist at the co-ordination with the social services side, so that beds—people are able to leave hospital when they're ready to do so, obviously freeing up space, and also then freeing up the ambulance service? And I suppose finally on that is really the recognition, I think, of the professionalism and dedication of our ambulance services. Because, at this time of year, their responses and their commitment are second to none.

Well, Llywydd, I'm very glad to put on record the appreciation of the Welsh Government for all those who work at the front line of our health services under the unremitting pressures that have been there, not just over the winter, but as Angela Burns said, over many months before that. There is a lot that other people can learn from the Cwm Taf experience of handover of people from ambulances into hospitals and that's why we have a national approach to the development of ambulance services.

Mick Antoniw is right, of course, to point to the pressures that are there in our social services, as well as the health service. I mentioned in my answer to Angela Burns that there are 400 bed or bed-equivalent services being produced over this winter in addition to the normal services. About 160 of those are actually in social care, providing places where people can be safely looked after in the community, either rapidly discharged from hospital or preventing admission in the first place.

But, as I've also said previously on the floor of the Assembly, what local authorities are facing, in some ways, is a consequence of the success that they have achieved in reducing the need for residential care here in Wales. I remember reading predictions at the start of devolution that told us there would be thousands more elderly people in residential care in Wales by today and that we needed to start preparing for that. In fact, what local authorities have done is to strengthen community services so that that explosion in the need for residential care hasn't happened.

But when you are looking after more people—more fragile people, people with higher levels of need and greater intensity of service in the community—then the challenge of keeping those people well, keeping them active, returning them to their homes when they have an acute episode of care, is a genuine challenge. Of course we track it; of course we talk through the regional partnership boards and with our colleagues, and we will learn the lessons from this winter, as we begin planning—as we soon will—for the winter of next year. 

I thank the Member for that. We tackle domestic abuse through a range of initiatives informed by survivors. These include raising awareness and challenging attitudes through communications campaigns; training professionals; providing healthy relationships education; setting standards for working with perpetrators; and providing both revenue and capital funding to service providers.

Thank you for that answer. I know the Welsh Government has put in many different practices in relation to coercive control, which I welcome, and you will know, from the debate last week that we had on rape—the Plaid Cymru debate—I hosted an event with David and Sally Challen in the Senedd building. And what struck me was that many of the victims will just not know that some of the many forms of abuse that relate to coercive control is something that they don't identify in those relationships. And so trying to get to grips with that is something that—. When we had the police commissioners present they were saying that domestic abuse is an epidemic now and that coercive control-related incidents have risen exponentially within that particular police force. 

So, my question is, from that evening, we heard that the Freedom programme is very successful, will you be able to put that into schools? We know that it looks at belief systems of abusers and how they can change their attitudes.

And my second question is—. We had a roomful of people there, but we only had five or six men. Whether they are being abused or whether they are abusers, if they're not in the room they're not listening and they're not engaging in those processes. So, how do we make this a societal issue? 

And the third one is about how you can make sure that, when the current coercive control programme that you've got, as a Welsh Government, comes to an end, what are you going to do post that, so that we can make sure that we have people in these types of relationships in the future who are able to be supported and helped when they need to escape those relationships, but in a way that they can do with the support of society behind them? 

Well, Llywydd, I thank Bethan Sayed both for those questions and for the event that she hosted, which I know has attracted a lot of interest beyond the Assembly in learning from what was said and the question and answer session with David and Sally Challen. And it was said there, I know, that, for so many victims of coercive control the first step is to recognise that this is happening to them and to understand that this is just not a normal way that relationships are conducted. So, to take the specific questions in reverse order, the 'This is not Love. This is Control' communication campaign, which ran through last year, will have a successor. We will go on from there. It has certainly, we think, through evidence from police forces, seen a rise in reported cases of coercive control, suggesting that the awareness campaign is having an effect. But as the event here showed, raising awareness has to be the first step. I thought a very important point was made about how we broaden the conversation so that men as well as women are fully engaged in it, understand what is being debated and can be themselves, as Bethan said, victims of coercive control but also need to understand the part that they play in sustaining it in some relationships, or challenging it when it is seen.

As far as schools are concerned, then, of course, the new curriculum has a rounded approach to the way in which health, well-being and personal relationships are taught in our schools in an age-appropriate way, so that by the time young people are themselves involved in relationships, they are informed, they understand and, hopefully, are better equipped to be the sort of citizens we would like to see them be here in Wales.

I did attend the question and answer session with Sally and David Challen. Of course, coercive control also applies to children in terms of adults. Worryingly, analysis by the Children's Society has shown that around 85 per cent of sexual offences against children reported to the police in England and Wales do not result in any action taken against the perpetrator, and the figures they include are that 70 per cent of sexual offences against children under 13 are familial sexual offences; in other words, domestic or occurring within their family or home. How, therefore, do you respond to the call on the Welsh Government by the Children's Society to review the case for making the offer of debriefs following a child's return from a missing incident a statutory requirement, where there are frequently links between children going missing from home and their experience of sexual abuse or exploitation? They say this will result in improved intelligence gathering to help inform abuse and exploitation cases, young people being referred into services for support and in information sharing about at-risk children between the police and social care, noting that debrief is offered in England.

Llywydd, I think there are a number of different strands in that question. The Member began by rightly pointing out that children who are sexually exploited are more likely to have that occur to them within the home and with people they know than with strangers. Children who run away from residential care provided by the state are in a different position. They are vulnerable in a different sort of way and to a far wider range of potential perpetrators.

I am not aware of the very specific point in the Children's Society's advice. My understanding from the cases that I myself have dealt with is that when a young person runs away and are returned, they are almost always spoken to and their experiences explored with them. Whether that is a debrief interview in the sense of the Children's Society's report I'd need to look at in greater detail, and whether there is a case for making that statutory, when, as it would seem to me, it would simply be good practice on the part of any childcare social worker, to have explored with a young person on return what has happened to them in the interim, I'm happy to look at that as well.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the Welsh Government's latest figures show that over 12,000 cattle were slaughtered due to bovine tuberculosis. This is an eye-watering 24 per cent increase on the previous year. These figures are the highest on record. Where is your Government's policy going wrong?

The Government policy is certainly not going wrong on the basis that the Member has just outlined. Let me begin, though, by recognising the enormous impact that TB has in the farming community, the trauma and the hurt that occurs in farming families when TB occurs in cattle, but the slaughter figures are the result of greater sensitivity in testing, greater testing regimes—. We are discovering more TB, and, therefore, the slaughter figures are up. It is not that this is TB that wasn't there before. It was there before, and it went undetected, and because it was undetected, it continued to pose a risk of further onward transmission. So, the fact that we are discovering more TB, and I understand all the distress that that brings—but the fact that the slaughter figures are up is not for a moment by itself a sign that the policy is failing.

Well, First Minister, you've just said it yourself: you are finding more incidents of TB. And let's be clear: your policy is not working, otherwise the number of cattle slaughtered due to bovine TB would be decreasing, but, instead, we're seeing an increase. And whichever way you want to look at this, the fact remains that the Welsh farming sector is under a huge amount of pressure. This morning's farmhouse breakfast hosted by the Farmers Union of Wales gave us the opportunity to hear more about the challenges facing Welsh farmers, and bovine TB was certainly at the top of their agenda.

First Minister, you're right, I myself have had first-hand experience of seeing just how difficult and devastating bovine TB can be for those farmers affected by the disease, and they expect and deserve more from the Welsh Government. The unsustainably high number of cattle being slaughtered in Wales is down to your Government's failure to tackle this disease holistically, and in the meantime, farming communities across Wales are feeling isolated, ignored and neglected.

So, with that in mind, First Minister, and in light of the very serious impact that bovine TB is continuing to have on Welsh farms, both financially and emotionally, can you tell us what new action the Welsh Government will now take to push ahead with the eradication of bovine TB in Wales? And can you also tell us what reassurances you can offer Welsh farmers that your Government is listening and that you will protect the sustainability of the farming industry for the future?

Well, in terms of the Welsh Government listening, Llywydd, I myself addressed the National Farmers Union council yesterday afternoon, as I did to the FUW's annual conference last year in Aberystwyth, as I met with the FUW with Lesley Griffiths to talk with them specifically about TB. I want to recognise the sense of strain that there is in farming communities here in Wales as we leave the European Union, with all the uncertainty that that brings for farming communities, and that is very real, as they told me yesterday when I met with them, alarmed by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say at the weekend about not pursuing regulatory alignment, for example.

As far as long-term indicators of TB in Wales are concerned, there's been a 37 per cent decrease in new incidents over the last decade, a 4 per cent decrease in animal slaughters over the whole of that period, and there were 393 fewer herds under restrictions at the end of 2018 than at the end of 2009. We do need to do more. I acknowledge that. It's why I met with Professor Glyn Hewinson, with Lesley Griffiths, not last week but the week before—the world's leading expert in bovine TB who we have brought here to Wales, we have established with a new institute in Aberystwyth under the Sêr programme, drawing in other major figures from this world. He said to us that he thought there were new things that we would be able to attempt in Wales as a result of the research that he is carrying out and that what we will need is a differentiated package to deal with TB. TB is different in different parts of Wales, the underlying causes are different in different parts of Wales, and as a result of his work and the work that we're doing with others, for example in the Gower, where we have a very particular project hand-in-hand with farmers, we will find new ways of tackling a disease that has such a devastating impact on farming families.

It's quite clear, First Minister, that farmers and farming unions don't think that your current policy on bovine TB is working and that's why it is crucial now that your Government reconsiders this policy in order to tackle this disease in a much more holistic way.

Another pressing issue raised with me this morning, where the Welsh Government also has responsibility, is in relation to nitrate vulnerable zones. There are some very serious concerns regarding these proposals that could impose huge burdens on farmers and, as a result, force many out of business. So, farmers are rightly seeing these proposals as another blow to the agricultural community. At the very least, a regulatory impact assessment must be published, given the enormous impact your Government's proposals will have on every farm in Wales. First Minister, NFU Cymru are absolutely right to say that the Welsh Government is testing the Welsh farming industry beyond its limits. Will you therefore confirm exactly what the Welsh Government's plans are for nitrate vulnerable zones in Wales, given that you promised to introduce these at the beginning of this year? Will you now publish a detailed regulatory impact assessment of these proposals and will you now make it crystal clear exactly what support will be made available to those farmers who will be financially disadvantaged by your Government's proposals?

Well, Llywydd, we were committed to bringing forward regulations at the start of January, and the reason that we have delayed that for a number of weeks is exactly in order to be able to carry on the conversation with farmers who have come through the consultation process with some new ideas as to how the purpose of the regulations can be delivered in practice. But let me be completely clear: the Welsh Government will not step back from tackling pollution in agriculture here in Wales.

Pollution incidents are too high—they have been growing, they do damage. They do damage to water courses here in Wales, they do damage to the environment and they do damage to the reputation of the farming industry, just at the point where the reputation of food production here in Wales needs to be at its very best. That is why, following years of a voluntary scheme agreed with the NFU, which is not then honoured on the ground, we will move to regulate, but we will do it alongside our farming communities, in discussion with them. That's why we have held back in bringing the regulations forward, because there may be ways in which we can achieve the aims that we will not stand back from in a way that farmers would find more practical in the way that it is applied. And then we will provide financial support to assist them—not to reach the standards that are already there in regulations and that every farm in Wales ought already to be meeting, but to meet any additional regulatory burden that will come through the pollution control. Five million pounds in next year's budget to help tackle pollution to water quality. We will work with the farming community. This is the right thing to do. We want to do it alongside them, but that does not mean for a moment that we will stand back from the challenge that agricultural pollution poses to us here in Wales.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Despite repeated public safety concerns, the then justice Secretary at Westminster, Chris Grayling, pressed ahead with the part privatisation of the probation service in 2014. A year later, Conner Marshall from Barry was murdered by David Braddon, who was under the supervision of a privately run community rehabilitation company. This has turned out to be one of the most catastrophic policy decisions by a Westminster Government. Conner's mother Nadine, who was in the Senedd today, has led a tireless campaign to get justice for Conner. First Minister, how can we best honour his memory and her work?

I thank the Member for that question and begin by agreeing with him that the destruction of the probation service, often referred to previously as the jewel in the crown of the England and Wales criminal justice system, is a stain on the record of the previous Conservative Government and a stain that had such devastating practical consequences in the case to which Adam Price has referred. I pay enormous tribute to the campaign led by Conner's mother. I know what an impact that has had on the wider family and on her own future. I know that, because she met twice with my predecessor as First Minister to present directly to him her and her family's experience and to ask for our help in putting pressure on the UK Government to right the wrongs that had been done, which was assiduously followed by my predecessor.

The Member asked what could we do to mark our difference here in Wales. Well, I have long argued that the probation service ought to be devolved here in Wales. I first gave evidence in 1995, on behalf of the National Association of Probation Officers, to a commission that was preparing legislation for devolution and argued there that the probation service and youth justice ought to have been on the early list of services to be devolved, because the things that a probation officer relies on to discharge their responsibilities effectively are all devolved already. If you're looking for a mental health service, it's controlled in Wales. If you're looking for a course for somebody to go on to improve their prospects of employment, it's devolved to Wales. If you're looking for somewhere for somebody to live, housing services are devolved to Wales. The alignment between the probation service and the services that are already devolved is so strong that probation ought to be devolved so that the dedicated staff who still work in the probation service, under often impossibly difficult conditions, would be better placed to do the job that they want to do, and we could have a probation service of the sort that we would want to see here in Wales.

Thank you, First Minister. When the system was privatised, as we know, eight organisations were awarded the contracts worth just under £4 billion. Working Links was the company supervising David Braddon. In 2015, the year of the murder, The Financial Times reported that staff were writing to the company complaining of excessive workloads. Last week, the coroner concluded that the management and supervision of the newly appointed probation worker responsible for David Braddon was woefully inadequate. However, it's not clear that much changed in the intervening period. The inspectorate of probation report in July last year reported that 60 per cent of reporting officers thought their workload was unmanageable. Were the concerns raised by probation workers brought to the attention of the integrated offender management Cymru board or the all-Wales criminal justice board, on which the Welsh Government is represented for the reasons that the First Minister has just outlined, and, specifically, were the boards aware of any increased risk, potentially, to the public in south Wales at the time of Conner Marshall's murder as a result of the shortcomings identified? 

Llywydd, what I can say in general is that our concerns about the fate of the probation service, about its privatisation, about its break-up into component parts, have very regularly been raised through the machinery that we have here in Wales and in our contact with the UK Government. Indeed, I very well remember myself the strenuous efforts that we made while Chris Grayling was embarking upon this wholly misguided reform, where we argued that Wales should be excluded from it, because if there was a market anywhere—and I would have doubted that very much—if there was a market that could be used to provide services, there was no market in Wales. There simply weren't providers out there waiting to take on this work. So, we argued strenuously at the time that we should be excluded from these reforms, because they simply were never going to work on the ground here, and we conveyed that through all the different mechanisms that we had. 

Llywydd, Adam Price asked me a very specific question at the end as to the boards' discussions of a particular item. I don't have that information immediately to hand, but I'm very happy that we will find it and let him know the outcome.FootnoteLink

First Minister, you make the case very eloquently that, certainly, probation should have been devolved long ago, and it's certainly the case, I think, that had the justice system been devolved then we wouldn't have followed the disastrous changes that the UK Government implemented, and I think you have to ask: could it be that an innocent life would not have been lost? Obviously, the Thomas commission has issued its report, making the case broadly for the devolution of justice and policing. It should be noted in this context that the actual name of the new community rehabilitation company that took over from Working Links is, actually, and almost inexplicably, the Wales division of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, which in some ways say it all, doesn't it, about the predicament that we're in? Is the First Minister able to tell us when the Welsh Government will formally respond to the Thomas commission recommendations, and will that response be a positive one in terms of its core proposal, which is the devolution of justice and policing and probation? And wouldn't that be the best way of honouring Conner's memory?

Llywydd, we will certainly be making a positive response to the Thomas commission. One of the recommendations was greater co-ordination of the work that turns out to be going on right across the Welsh Government in this non-devolved area already—one of the striking things that Lord Thomas said he found that he hadn't necessarily anticipated.

Yesterday we had the first meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee that I will chair to oversee the implementation of the Thomas commission's recommendations and the wider work of the Welsh Government in the justice field. There will be a debate on the floor of the Assembly here in Government time very shortly, in which we will report on the steps we have taken immediately after the publication of the report. I understand that there is a conference planned for April of this year led by Swansea University, which will be a further opportunity to bring those interests together, because, Llywydd, let's not forget that lots of the recommendations in the Thomas commission are aimed at the profession here in Wales—things that the profession itself needs to do to strengthen its ability to provide the service of the sort that the Thomas commission envisages. That April conference will be an early opportunity for us to report on progress, and to do it with those other interests that are necessary if we're to make a success of the recommendations in Wales.

Brexit Party leader, Mark Reckless.

First Minister, a key element of city deals, at least as the UK Government has promoted them over the past eight years, is to integrate transport on a regional basis. Does Cardiff council's announcement last week mean that a different approach is being taken in Wales? Not only does one council area, Cardiff, appear to get a disproportionate share of public transport investment for the Cardiff city region, we're now told that Cardiff council wants to make others pay for it by charging non-Cardiff residents £2 a time to bring their cars into Cardiff city centre, while exempting all Cardiff's own residents. First Minister, do you support taxing Newport, Bridgend and the Valleys to pay for Cardiff?

Well, Llywydd, I think the Member confuses a number of different strands in trying to tie the city deal and its mechanisms and its funding with the proposals for consultation that Cardiff council have produced. I'll just draw the Member's attention, in case he's not had an opportunity to see it yet, to a letter issued by my colleague Ken Skates on behalf of the Welsh Government to the leader of Cardiff council. The letter is in the public domain, and I'll just quote from the relevant paragraph: the Welsh Government needs to consider in detail the proposed introduction of any new demand management mechanism by the council and its impact on the wider region around Cardiff, which includes some of the most deprived communities in Wales. To this end, I can confirm that the Welsh Government is now commissioning a detailed study into demand management approaches, their benefits and challenges, to inform a national position on this issue, which can help contribute to regional positions in relation to it.

I'm glad to hear the Government will be looking at this in detail and responding to the consultation. However, doesn't this go to values? Average pay in Cardiff is £583 per week. In Blaenau Gwent, it is £458 per week. Why should people who earn £125 less per week pay a new tax while people who earn £125 more a week are exempted? What does that say about the values of the First Minister, his party and his Government? While he may respond in general in due course, why can't he say now that it is wrong for Cardiff council to seek to make everyone else pay a congestion charge while exempting its own residents? We learned in the draft budget that there are to be swanky new electric buses at twice the normal price for Cardiff, yet bus services in Ebbw Vale have been halved in frequency as Welsh Government makes real-terms cuts to bus subsidies. [Interruption.] And the junior Minister heckles. His budget—real-terms cuts to bus subsidies. Those are the values of this Welsh Government. The head of Welsh Treasury told Finance Committee last week that this was because Welsh Government could give capital support, but not more revenue. First Minister, is this really true? Wouldn't new buses reduce operating costs and attract more passengers, therefore reducing the need for revenue subsidy? And if UK Government can rip up Treasury rules in order to get investment out of London and to the north of England, why is it that Welsh Treasury is insisting on an approach that denies investment to the Valleys in order to concentrate it in Cardiff?

Well, Llywydd, it is the normal farrago of ideas that we are offered by the Member. Swanky new electric buses are being provided in Newport and Caerphilly as well. Does he not want to see them there either? Does he not want to see the £29 million that we have put in our draft budget for next year to support electric vehicles here in Wales? Of course we need to see new forms of public transport, because we have to persuade people to come away from the car and to use different forms of transport. Cardiff is the most commuted city in the whole of the United Kingdom—70,000 vehicles travel into Cardiff every day. If we are serious about air quality, if we are serious about the climate emergency, then we can't just look the other way and say, 'Never mind; just let it carry on.' Now, fairness is at the heart of how that problem must be solved, and that is absolutely in the heart of the letter that Ken Skates has provided to the leader of Cardiff council. But dismissing all the ways in which we can make a difference in the future as though they were of no relevance to people who live either in the capital city or in the areas that surround it is no way at all to approach what is a fundamentally serious public policy challenge here in Wales, in our capital city and far beyond.

I thank the Member. The health Minister published a written statement on 15 January setting out steps further to improve ambulance services in Wales, including transfers between ambulances and receiving hospital departments.

Thank you, Minister. The Wales Air Ambulance charity had its busiest year in 2019, its hard-working team responding to 3,627 emergency calls—up 1,200 from 2018. The aircraft can travel over 2 miles per minute and reach anywhere in Wales within 20 minutes. Now, the effectiveness of reaching, treating and transporting patients is clear, so I now support the air ambulance's aim for it to become a 24-hour service. David Gilbert OBE, chairman of the trust, has said:

'with the help of the Welsh public, we want to make our vision of providing a 24-hour service a reality'.

An extra £1.5 million is required for this. What steps could you as a Welsh Government take to help make a 24-hour air ambulance service a reality?

I thank the Member for that, and just want to say how much I share the positive view that she has expressed of the Wales Air Ambulance, the fantastic work that it does. The air ambulance has always been very clear with us as a Government that it doesn't want public money directly paid to it, because it thinks it would compromise its ability to raise money from the public, which it does year in and year out in such a fantastic way, with so many committed volunteers.

We support the charity in other ways. We do support it by training, particularly the paramedics that it employs. We support it through the EMRTS service, the emergency medical retrieval services that work closely with it, and we certainly support the work of the Wales Air Ambulance by explaining to people the fantastic work that it does, how making it a 24-hour service will allow it to do even more in future, supporting it in the different places in Wales from where it operates, and making it clear to people in Wales that it has the full support of the Welsh Government in its work and in its ambition. 

The Welsh Government invests directly in key elements of the rich heritage and culture of Newport. At the same time, we act with others—the local authority, private businesses, the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Cadw, for example—to promote the city's many attractions, both at home and abroad.

Thank you, First Minister. As you said, we have a very rich and diverse history in Newport that we're very proud of, from our Chartist heritage to our majestic transporter bridge and maritime history, the splendid Tredegar House and our Roman fortress at Caerleon.

Last week, it was a pleasure to welcome the Deputy Minister to Caerleon for the reopening of the National Roman Legion Museum. While the museum has been closed to the public for renovation, the educational visits continued, with over 20,000 visitors last year. In Caerleon, we have a Roman legacy with an amphitheatre, baths and barracks that rival anywhere in the UK. However, to make the most of this wonderful site, National Museum Wales, Cadw and Newport City Council, along with Welsh Government, must all work together to promote Caerleon as a popular tourist destination, not just within Newport, but within the rest of Wales and to attract visitors from further afield.

Firstly, will the First Minister join me in recognising the important educational work of National Museum Wales's offer to schools and our young people in Caerleon, and also look at practical ways that the Welsh Government can redouble its efforts to support Newport council, National Museum Wales and Cadw to come together to ensure that what we have to offer in Caerleon is maximised and utilised fully?

Can I thank Jayne Bryant for that? I see that the Deputy Minister is a regular visitor to Newport, having been to the transporter bridge recently as well, and I look forward to developing possibilities for making more of that attraction in Newport in the future. 

Of course, Jayne Bryant is right in what she says about the importance of the ancient Roman town of Caerleon—the most complete Roman amphitheatre in Britain, the only Roman legionary barracks on view anywhere in Europe—and it's great to see that the work that has been done to repair it, some of the essential work to the roof of the museum, has now been completed and that it's open fully to the public.

I want to just pay tribute to the people who work at the museum for the way in which they kept those educational services going, even when the museum itself wasn't open to the public in the way that it had been previously. It's a really important part of what it does to make sure that those live experiences that it offers to young people—that bring the history of Caerleon and Wales's history alive for them—now continues and develops. And, of course the Welsh Government will work, as I said in my original answer, in partnership with the local authority, with Cadw and others, to make the very most of that really important site. 

Llywydd, we are tackling climate change by reducing emissions and building resilience. In south Wales, we are investing in public transport, low-carbon buildings, decarbonising our energy system, improving biodiversity, and building resilience to the impacts of climate change in areas such as flood prevention and natural resource management.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I'd like to return you briefly to the issue of road congestion and the impact on climate change. I very much welcome the consideration that's now being given to the issue of congestion and pollution from traffic into Cardiff. Of course, that traffic doesn't miraculously appear in Cardiff, it goes through constituencies such as mine into Cardiff, and that congestion and pollution is felt all through quite a large number of our constituencies. But, in particular, the solution to congestion and pollution is not just in Cardiff, it lies much further through.

In order to win the support, I think, of the many people in the Pontypridd constituency and further afield, it seems to me that consideration of the whole issue of congestion charging is dependent on a number of principled assurances I think people want. The first one is that the costs do not disproportionately fall on the poorest communities. The second one is that a proportion of the proceeds are redistributed and invested within our broader transport system. And that, thirdly, there is an affordable public transport alternative available, First Minister.

I thank Mick Antoniw for those additional points on this matter. Of course, he is right that traffic that flows through his constituency and very often from his constituency into mine and then onwards into Cardiff is generated elsewhere. I just want to recognise what Mick Antoniw said about the need for this to be tackled. The idea that you can simply ignore it and look the other way is simply not an answer to what we face. But the answer that we design has to have the sorts of characteristics that he mentioned.

I said in the answer to my previous question, for those who were here to hear it, that the Minister's letter puts fairness at the heart of the Welsh Government's response to it, and that redistribution of any sums raised, so that they benefit areas outside Cardiff, is integral to any plan as well. And of course, affordable public transport of the sort that I know the Member has particularly campaigned for, for the reopening of former railway lines that would serve his constituency and provide that sort of affordable public transport, has to be integral to the plan as well. And it is why, in the answer that I provided to Mark Reckless, I read that part of the Minister's letter to Cardiff Council that places all of those things in that wider context.

Llywydd, we work closely with the four police forces and our police and crime commissioners in Wales and other partners, including the Welsh Local Government Association and Public Health Wales, to support victims of crime and to reduce the risk of people becoming victims of crime. 

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. A number of months ago, I asked you if you would support my call for the fathers of children conceived by an act of rape being barred from gaining a right to see those children. At the time, you refused to give me a straight answer, saying that it was not a devolved matter, despite the fact that you in this place often call on the Westminster Government to act on matters that are not devolved to this place. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Cymru is devolved, though, and can make recommendations to the family courts in Wales that a family court in England or elsewhere in the UK might not, and so are social services devolved.

How can a victim of rape ever find anything near closure if she has to worry that, one day, her attacker may come back and be a part of her child's life, and that her child may be forced to have contact with the person who raped their own mother? So, I'm asking you for a second time: do you agree with me—and you do have some of the levers necessary to be able to do this—that the family court shouldn't grant the fathers of children born from rape any access rights to see those children, and will you make an effort to bring about such a ban in Wales? If not, why?

Llywydd, I probably can't go further than I did in my last answer to the Member. I want to recognise the importance of the points that she makes and the debate that she has engendered around this issue. The reason why I can't offer her the guarantees that she looks to me to provide is that the powers to do so do not lie in this Assembly. That was true the last time she asked me the question and it's true again today. A change in the law of the sort that she has asked me about cannot be brought about here, no matter how many times she asks for that to happen. So, I can't provide her with a guarantee, because it wouldn't be honest to do that.

The decisions that are made in the family court cannot be made by politicians. They are made in the family court with the advice of the professional workers who report on individual cases. Of course they should take very seriously the points that the Member has made. I agree entirely with that. But it's for—[Interruption.] The Member is trying to intervene, Llywydd, from where she is sitting, but the point she makes is no better for repeating it than it was the first time she made it. She asks me to guarantee something that is not in my power to guarantee. I won't do that, because that would be to offer a false assurance to people who, quite rightly, are concerned about the points the Member has raised and, I'll repeat, deserve to be taken seriously.  

I thank the Member for that, Llywydd. It's expected that tenders for the dualling of sections 5 and 6 of the A465 will be received next month. Ministers will then consider the project's full business case. Provided that remains satisfactory, we expect a contract to be let in the summer of 2020, with construction due to start by the end of the year.

Thank you, First Minister. I know you've been a strong supporter of this project, which has been so important to my constituents, not least in your former role as finance Minister when you put forward the mutual investment model that will ensure that this project is delivered. I know there have been some concerns about the impact of delays and increased costs in dualling earlier sections of the road, and this can be set against recent reports that geological survey work on the Hirwaun to Dowlais section wasn't carried out until more than a year after procurement of contracts began. In at least one case, exploratory drilling has been postponed until construction is under way. This surely must raise some concerns about how both costs and engineering techniques have been drawn up for this section thus far and, with that in mind, what lessons has Welsh Government learnt from the dualling of the A465 section 2, and how will they be applied to the dualling of sections 5 and 6?

I thank the Member for the important question. She is absolutely right to say that there are lessons to be learnt from the way in which the dualling of section 2 of the A465 has been carried out, both in the way in which contracts are drawn up and the way in which risks between the Welsh Government and the contractor are spread. Indeed, to turn to the specific point that Vikki Howells made, in that contract the collection of data—for example, through ground condition surveys—was the responsibility of the contractor; I think one of the things we will have learnt from that is that, in future, it would be better if the Welsh Government took responsibility for that, given some of the things that have transpired since. 

But I'm very grateful to Vikki Howells for the opportunity just to be clear—because I think there may have been some confusion about this—that section 2 of the A465 was not a mutual investment model programme, whereas the contract to be used for sections 5 and 6 is to be discharged through the MIM arrangement. It's a fundamentally different approach; it's a fixed price, lump-sum contract, in which the Welsh Government will not pay for the service until it is operational. That will incentivise the contractors to deliver the programme on time. The risk of cost increase and programme delays sits entirely with the appointed service provider in the mutual investment model. We will learn the lessons from earlier sections, but the model we will use for sections 5 and 6 will have all those additional benefits that we think, in this instance, using that form of contract will bring. 

Finally, question 8, Leanne Wood. 

Llywydd, I understand that the local health board will discuss this matter at its next public board meeting on 30 January. 

First Minister, I have a report looking at how communities served by the Royal Glamorgan Hospital will be affected if consultant-led accident and emergency services are removed from there. The worst affected communities are to be found in mid Rhondda. The towns and villages at the top of the Rhondda Fach and Fawr can access Prince Charles Hospital relatively quickly via the Maerdy and Rhigos mountain roads. However, Rhondda residents who regularly use that route know that that's a dangerous assumption to make because in the winter those roads are often closed. Do you support the retention of consultant-led services at the Royal Glamorgan accident and emergency department and its ability to deal with trauma admissions? And will you be prepared to listen to the views of both patients and staff, especially those concerns around travel times, before any final decision on the future of consultant-led A&E in that hospital is made?

Llywydd, I thank the Member for those points. I haven't seen the report to which she referred, and I haven't seen the paper that the board will take to its public meeting on 30 January. However, I do understand that the board is to offer local Assembly Members an opportunity of a briefing on Friday of this week, in order to understand what they are to report to that board. I certainly expect that the board would operate in the way that Leanne Wood has suggested, listening to the views of patients, of staff, and of elected representatives, and I hope that Friday's meeting will be a helpful start to that process. 

Thank you, First Minister.

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

Diolch, Llywydd.

There are two changes to this week's business. Firstly, the legislative consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill will be debated immediately after this business statement, with a vote then taken immediately afterwards. Secondly, the length of the debate on the Children (Abolition of Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill has been reduced in line with the number of amendments tabled. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically. 

Trefnydd, can I call for a statement from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs please, on the Welsh Government's efforts to protect endangered and threatened species in Wales? You may or may not be aware that today is Squirrel Appreciation Day around the world, and as the red squirrel champion in the National Assembly, I think it's very important that I take this opportunity to raise the important issue of red squirrel conservation across the country.

Since the 1940s, the red squirrel population has gone from covering the majority of Wales to having a population in just three main centres, one on Ynys Môn, one in mid Wales, and one in the Clocaenog Forest in my own constituency. Now, I know that there are many species represented by many individuals in this Chamber, but I do think it would be an opportune time to request an update on the action that is being taken by the Welsh Government to protect red squirrels, and, indeed, other threatened species across the country. 

I thank Darren Millar for the question, and wish him a very happy squirrel appreciation day, as the species champion within this Assembly. And, certainly, the Minister was here to hear your request for an update on action to protect threatened species, and I'm sure she'll give it due consideration. 

I want to raise the devolution of the criminal justice system. The past week has seen a significant strengthening of the arguments for devolution, in line with what already exists in Scotland and the north of Ireland. The tragic case of Conner Marshall has highlighted what many of us already knew—that the probation service privatisation has been an unmitigated disaster. How many other lives have to be lost before the probation service is sorted out? Will we ever fully understand the extent of the true cost of the decision to part privatise the probation service?

The Tory justice secretary has said that he's keen to press ahead with plans for another new prison in Wales, even though we have the highest incarceration rate in western Europe. The numbers of people dying because of substance use has reached an all-time high, and the rape conviction rates are plummeting from an already low level. It's clear that the English criminal justice system is not working for us. As the Thomas commission on devolving justice found, people in Wales are let down by the system in its current state. If Wales were running its own criminal justice system, we could have a focus on reducing harm and improving outcomes. 

In the First Minister's initial response to the Thomas commission, he promised to open dialogue with the UK Government following the election. Now, more than a month has passed since that election, so can we have a Government statement outlining whether that dialogue has begun? Can you also tell me what preparatory work that you personally have begun in terms of this Government's budget, because you can demonstrate that Wales is serious about the devolution of the criminal justice system to Wales, and that we are not content to see the findings of this commission kicked into the long grass by committing resources to the issue? Do you plan to do that?

Well, I would say, in the first instance, with respect, I think the First Minister has answered some of those questions. But there will be the opportunity to have a more detailed discussion in a debate in Government time, which I understand will be taking place in the coming weeks.

Could we have a statement or a debate on the provision of appropriate treatments for borderline personality disorder in a consistent way right across Wales? I've been approached by an articulate and very well-informed constituent—informed through personal experience and through academic research—who has raised the difficulty of obtaining dialectical behaviour therapy, DBT, in the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board area, and he's queried whether the same may apply across different health board areas in Wales. And we could also discuss, then, the extent to which an individual experiencing borderline personality disorder should be able to engage with clinicians on what the individual considers to be the most appropriate form of treatment for themselves, as opposed to simply accepting whatever treatment may or may not be available within one health board area.

Could we also have a statement on changes on train timetabling, to enable Valleys commuters to get to work on time in Cardiff? There are only two trains that leave Maesteg that are scheduled to arrive in Cardiff before 9 a.m. on weekdays. The first leaves at 6.44 a.m., arriving at 7.38 a.m.—plenty of time to get to work for an 8 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. start. However, the second was subject to a timetable change in November, which pushed back the departure train to 8.04 a.m., arriving in Cardiff at 8.54 a.m. if there are no delays. Minister, there are always delays—sometimes five minutes, sometimes 10 minutes, sometimes more. So it means that commuters who previously had understanding bosses who said, 'As long as you're at your desk by 9 a.m., don't worry, you're fine', are now regularly arriving at their desks later than 9 a.m., to find their bosses saying, 'You keep this up and you'll be out of a job.' So, I've written to Ministers, to Transport for Wales, to KeolisAmey, to Network Rail, and others, to put this train back to an earlier time when the May timetable changes come. So I'd welcome a statement on the May timetabling.

And finally, could we have a debate on the roll-out of universal credit, which, as I'm seeing in my surgeries week after week, is pushing many of my constituents deep into debt, into penury, and into despair? And can we have an update on the Welsh Government-commissioned research by Policy in Practice, which is designed to help the Welsh Government make policy decisions to best support local authorities and residents with universal credit, and understand how this is affecting families in Wales? We saw the research last year by Cartref, showing the impact of the freeze on universal credit, leading to an average 6 per cent cut to the income of people claiming working-age benefits since 2016. It showed that 84 per cent of tenants claiming UC now owe some rent to their housing association, whether through non-payment or technical issues. And those tenants on UC who are in arrears owe more than double the amount of rent compared to peers claiming housing benefit under the old system. So it would be good to have a statement or a debate on this, so we can really get to grips with the worst effects of this badly designed and poverty-inducing UK Government policy.

I'm grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies for raising three really important issues. The first he raised was regarding access to DBT for individuals with borderline personality disorder. Improving access to a range of therapies is a current priority for the Welsh Government, and over recent years, we have continued to implement our commitment to improve access to psychological therapies, and we provided an additional £4 million to health boards in 2018-19 to support that. A further £3 million was also made available as part of the mental health service improvement funding from this financial year. Improving access, quality, and the range of psychological therapies will, I can confirm, remain a top priority in the forthcoming 'Together for Mental Health Delivery Plan 2019-2022' and it is the intention of the Minister for Health and Social Services to publish that very shortly.

The second issue that was raised was the concern that Huw Irranca-Davies has raised previously in the Chamber, actually, in relation to access to Cardiff from Maesteg. In the first instance, it's an operational matter for Transport for Wales and KeolisAmey, which must meet the franchise commitment, and that is those two trains from Maesteg to Cardiff to arrive before 9 a.m.. But in recognition of the particular issues that he's described, I understand that Transport for Wales representatives have held a stakeholder workshop to look at this issue. The Maesteg-to-Cardiff morning service and the challenges you describe are currently under consideration, and I know that they'll be keen to provide an update following those stakeholder workshops. 

The third issue was the issue of welfare reform, and particularly universal credit and the devastating impact that's had on many people right across Wales. Another piece of evidence that adds, I suppose, to our understanding of the impact of the roll-out of universal credit, is the piece of research I published on the council tax reduction scheme in Wales. And Huw Irranca-Davies has described the impact it has on people in terms of rent arrears. That is one piece of a suite of research that we've undertaken that relates to both council tax and non-domestic rates, and as we gather more of those pieces of research together, they will help inform our way forward, and obviously I'd be keen to update Members in due course. 

Could the Minister make a statement regarding the siting of small modular reactors in north Wales? We understand that the consortium led by Rolls Royce is considering building small modular reactors, with Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd tipped as a prime target. We also thought that there were plans to site one on the Wylfa facility on Anglesey and reports seemed to confirm that. But a statement from Horizon Nuclear Power has sought to make it clear that this is not correct. They say, 

'There are no plans to deploy a Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor at Wylfa Newydd site and recent media stories reporting this are not correct.'

Could the Minister comment on this statement? 

They added:

'Activity on the Horizon project is currently suspended, but we're working hard to establish the conditions for a restart using our tried and tested reactor design, which has already cleared the UK regulators' assessment process.'

They said that there is a

'planning application to deliver two of these reactors—providing enough clean power for over five million homes and a multi-billion pound investment to the region.'

Can the Minister give a clear understanding as to the position with both these sites? 

Can I ask you, in the first instance, to write to the Minister for Economy and Transport, who will, I think, be best placed to provide an update on his latest understanding of the situation? 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Organiser, the First Minister, in response to the leader of the opposition, did not confirm when the regulatory impact assessment was going to be made available for public consideration. This is a vitally important document to understand the impact of such proposals that the Government are considering at the moment around nitrate vulnerable zones to be implemented here in Wales. Could I implore you to work with the Minister to make that document available to Members, so that we can understand exactly what the regulatory impact assessment is telling Ministers and the impact it will have, should these regulations be implemented across Wales, as proposed, before the Minister decided to have further consultations with the farming unions and other organisations?

I do take the sincerity with which the Government is entering into those discussions, but these are big decisions that are going to be made here on an all-Wales basis. And the Government's own panel, which it set up with the regulator, Natural Resources Wales, signing up to the report that that regulatory panel came up with, was for a voluntary approach on these matters that would seek to address the agricultural pollution incidents that the First Minister touched on.

I would draw the First Minister's attention to the fact that, over the last 20 years there has been no substantial increase in agricultural pollution across Wales. The barometer has been between 190 instances at its top mark and about 120 or 130 instances at its lowest mark. And of those instances, only 20 to 30 have been severe. Now, one is one too many—I accept that. But when you think of the discharge of Welsh Water, for example, in sewage pollution incidents that happen across Wales, and the action of the Government doesn't seem to want to take on those particular issues, this does seem to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here, when you already have a deal on the table that the regulator has signed up to, and the organisations came around the table, discussed this, debated it and came up with a proposal. I would implore the Welsh Government to go back to that document and actually work to that document, rather than bring these draconian proposals forward. 

I know that the Minister with responsibility for environment, energy and rural affairs is really keen to keep on working alongside farmers and their union representatives on this particular issue. As you say, these are big decisions, which is why Welsh Government is taking the time that it needs in order to develop proposals and to consider them. I understand that the Minister will be receiving advice including the RIA within the coming weeks, hopefully by the end of the month, and, clearly, she'll be keen to discuss things further with stakeholders in due course.

Could we have a statement from the relevant Government Minister on the recent fire at Kronospan in Chirk, which has caused huge concern locally, of course? It's the third fire there in just three years, and it burned for a week, causing pollution across the town and further afield. Now, it took 48 hours for air quality monitoring equipment to be put in place, which missed, of course, the worst of the pollution, but nevertheless it detected formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen, in the air, which, as you can imagine, is causing huge worry to the population locally.

We need an explanation in the wake of these events. We need to hear what Welsh Government is doing to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Will you join with me in calling for an independent inquiry to establish why the fire raged for so long and also why the response from agencies was so sluggish? We also need independent air quality monitoring equipment to be permanently sited there. I understand that the current temporary equipment had to be moved up from Swansea. Now, local residents deserve a robust response from Welsh Government on this, and, at the moment, I'm afraid they're not getting it.

Also, could we have a statement from the education Minister in the wake of a highly critical report by Care Inspectorate Wales into Ruthin School, which was published recently? The report says, and I quote:

'The leadership, management and governance relating to safeguarding was found to be inadequate and as a result, young people were not fully protected.'

And the report identifies

'Significant and widespread concerns in respect of the wellbeing of young people'.

Furthermore,

'arrangements for dealing with concerns about young people's safeguarding were inadequate.'

Now, that's wholly unacceptable, and I'm sure you'll agree. So, will the Minister make a statement regarding the Welsh Government's role in safeguarding children in private and boarding schools? Will she also make a statement regarding the interventions available in schools based in Wales that are not subject to local authority control? What oversight do statutory authorities, such as child protection, have over private schools in Wales? And is there not a case to be made that when child safeguarding is at issue, then earlier intervention is required? This is the second report in a year highlighting concerns about safeguarding issues at the school and we need answers from the Welsh Government on these questions.

On the second issue, which you raised in relation to Ruthin School, I will ask the Minister for social services to write to you in response to the particular questions you had about safeguarding and Welsh Government's role of ensuring the safeguarding of children and young people in private and boarding schools, and also the oversight that the statutory bodies have, because those were some detailed questions and I'm sure that they require a detailed answer.

The first issue was, of course, the fire at Kronospan and the issues that related to the smoke as a result of that fire. The Minister has obviously been here to hear your comments on that and he's obviously taken an interest in it. I'm sure your officials would have been in touch with Wrexham County Borough Council, which, obviously, is the lead body in terms of responding to this. But if I could ask you to write to the Minister, I'm sure she'd provide an update on the overall issue.

I would, business manager, like to ask for two statements, if possible, from the Government. The first relates to a matter that was raised during First Minister's questions, and that is the congestion charge that Cardiff county council has proposed as part of their work to improve transport within the city. Many of us will welcome the vision that Cardiff local authorities demonstrated in their White Paper, and many of us will support their ambitions, but many of us will not tolerate a Valleys tax to pay for it. It's important, I believe, that any charge levied on citizens of this country is done so fairly and with equality at its heart. The congestion charge as proposed by Cardiff county council fails on both of those measures. It is, of course, the Welsh Government that has responsibility for the trunk road network and the major roads into and out of Cardiff. I understand that Cardiff city council, Cardiff county council, will take responsibility for those roads within the city itself, but up until the entrance to the city, they are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. It would be useful, therefore, if we could understand what the policy of the Welsh Government is on road charging and whether the Welsh Government were consulted as part of this and whether the Welsh Government has signalled any consent or support for this potential tax. And for many of us, we are immensely concerned about the way in which this was announced and immensely concerned about the impact it will have on our constituents. So, I would be grateful if the Welsh Government could provide us with a statement on those matters.

The second is—I would like to ask for a statement from the health Minister on issues around drugs and the spiking of drinks. This matter has been raised with me in the last few weeks. We had, last week, a very good, I felt, debate on rape and how rape is dealt with within the criminal justice system. I think many of us welcomed that debate and I think there was a broad agreement on all sides of this Chamber about the need to improve the experience of people who've been victims of rape within the criminal justice system. But we must also recognise—particularly young women are at threat from drinks being spiked in all of our major towns and cities, and particularly students and young women face an enormous impact and fear that their drinks can be spiked and they may be attacked when enjoying a night out. This is something that I think is of profound significance to all of us, and it's something that I hope the Welsh Government could seek to take action to address.

I'm grateful to Alun Davies for raising both of these issues. I think that the letter that the economy Minister has sent to the leader of Cardiff council does start to answer some of those concerns that you have, particularly in terms of Welsh Government's concern about fairness, but also the concern that any decisions should be taken in a way that is very much considerate of the impact on the wider region as well. So, I think that the work that is set in train as a result of that letter will be the starting point for those discussions, and I'll ensure that that letter is circulated to Members.

And on the second issue in terms of the spiking of drinks, I know that the health Minister is due to issue a statement in the near future that will launch the new substance misuse delivery plan, and, clearly, education and keeping people safe are very much at the heart of that particular plan.

Minister, may I ask for a statement from the Minister for Housing and Local Government about the housing support grant? Funding for housing-related support has fallen by £27 million in real terms since 2012. Local authorities, third sector support providers and social landlords say that, within current budget restraints, it is already difficult to meet the needs of people requiring support services. They claim that without additional investment in the housing support grant, there is a risk that services will not have the capacity to meet people's needs and that homelessness could get much worse in Wales. Could we have a statement from the Minister in response to these concerns about what action she will take to ensure services have the resources to meet the needs of people experiencing the effects of homelessness?

And the second statement I would like to ask for from the Minister for culture, please. I think the First Minister earlier mentioned heritage sites in Newport. It was very nice to understand his concern. But my concern is vandalism in heritage sites. Earlier this month, it was reported that appalling damage had been done to a burial mound dating back to the Bronze Age at Wentwood near Newport, and police say it could only have been done by off-road vehicles. It is not acceptable in any society. Before we promote our Newport heritage, our culture, we have to make sure it is adequately protected. So, Minister, can we have a statement from the Government that all of our heritage sites are properly protected from these vandals? Thank you.

Thank you for raising these issues, the first being the housing support grant. The particular issue you refer to is a part of the budget for 2020-1, and I would suggest, perhaps, that the appropriate place for scrutiny of that is within the budget discussions, so there'll be another opportunity to have those debates here on the floor of the Assembly, and also through the budget scrutiny process that committees are undertaking as well. So, that, I think, would be the appropriate place to be scrutinising elements of the 2020-1 budget.

I will ask the Minister to write to you in terms of how we are protecting our heritage sites in the round, but also with some specific thoughts on the issue of those off-road vehicles that you described, which clearly have had a very, very detrimental impact in the area of Wentloog, which you referred to.

I would like to ask for two Government statements. The first is on British Sign Language and the provision of courses, especially for the parents of deaf children. We received and debated a petition from Deffo!, which was supported by the Government and supported by Members across the Chamber, and people are saying to me at Deffo!, 'What's happening now?' Can we have a statement on what actions have been taken and what actions are planned following that petition, because there are serious concerns within the deaf community? I'm not sure I want to declare an interest: my sister is profoundly deaf and a member of the deaf community, but I'm not the parent of a deaf child.

The second request is on publicly available electric charging points. We're trying to promote electric cars; we're trying to promote green energy. Would it be possible for the Minister to make a statement on where they're planned for, when they're likely to be installed, how many are likely to be installed at each point and what type? Because I understand from one of my constituents that most of those at the Sarn service station are there for Tesla vehicles, not the more common charger. I'm not an expert in these things, but my constituent says that if you've got a Tesla vehicle, there's no queue; if you've got an ordinary electrical vehicle, there is a queue. We're trying to get people into electrical vehicles. There needs to be some sort of plan, and I'd like a Government statement on that plan.

I can see the Minister responding positively to your request for a statement in relation to electric car charging points. There are currently over 930 publicly accessible charging point connectors across Wales, up from 670 in April of last year. So, clearly, we are starting to see some progress in this area, but Mike Hedges raises an important point, doesn't he, about the particular charging points being appropriate for the vehicles that people are choosing to drive? So, Ken Skates would have heard those comments, and I'm sure that he'll provide an update on that.

On the specific issue of BSL and the petition that Deffo! brought forward to the Assembly, I'll be sure to liaise with colleagues—I know that this is an area of interest for a number of our colleagues, actually, across Government, both in education and health—to ensure that you are provided with a suitable update.FootnoteLink

I'd like to raise an issue as a supporter of sport in Wales and of the need to celebrate Welsh sporting history, and also as a Cardiff City fan and elected representative of a not insignificant number and hardy bunch of Bluebirds fans from Anglesey—Holyhead in particular—who've been very faithful to the club over the years. Cardiff City Supporters' Trust has become aware of a valuable and irreplaceable collection of Cardiff City Football Club historic memorabilia that's due to be auctioned on 25 January. Now, the trust has urged Cardiff City Football Club to acquire the collection as the basis of a museum to celebrate the history of the club. There had been some reports that the items had been withdrawn from sale. It appears that they are due still to go for sale on 25 January. Time is running out to prevent this loss of a very important Welsh sporting heritage. Could I ask for intervention by the Minister for sport and sporting heritage, including making contact with the club to see what assistance might be given to keep this in public hands, or at least accessible to the public, and for a written statement on steps that might be taken by Welsh Government to support the club in acquiring this very valuable memorabilia?

Of course, the Deputy Minister with responsibility for sport has been here to hear your request for his intervention in this particular issue in terms of ensuring the memorabilia to celebrate the history of the club that you described is still accessible to fans of the club, and I'm sure that he will give it due consideration.

Through you, Minister, I'd like a statement from the Deputy Minister for children on child protection, because we live in a Wales where a vulnerable child, or vulnerable children, actually, in the care of private companies can allege abuse, it's not taken seriously, they will not be taken to a place of safety to be spoken to, if a child has learning difficulties they will not be given an advocate, they will not speak to a child protection specialist. And, if you think of the scandals all over the UK now about children having been through the utmost brutality in care, and if you look at the history of care homes in Wales—in this city, in fact—then my question or statement that I want from the Government really is: what is the Government going to do to protect children in Wales? It's a desperate situation. They must be listened to.

Safeguarding of children, and vulnerable children in particular, is clearly a priority for the Welsh Government, and I will certainly ask the Minister for social services to provide you with that update on what the Welsh Government's priorities are for child protection in Wales.

I endorse the comments about the fire at Kronospan and note that Wrexham council convened a multi-agency meeting to discuss this last Tuesday, and that the Clwyd South MP was meeting the chief executive of the council last Friday and is keeping the Secretary of State up to date on this.

But I call for two statements. Firstly, on cervical cancer prevention, you may be aware that this is Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Jo's Cervical Cancer Trust, which is campaigning to end the stigma around the human papilloma virus infection, or HPV, and to raise awareness of this really common virus and the role of cervical cancer screening in preventing cervical cancer, states the cervical screening programme in Wales is now testing all samples for HPV first, but notes amongst other things that many women still—. They hear regularly from women every day who feel ashamed, embarrassed, confused after being told they have HPV. Myths around HPV may further discourage women from attending their screening tests. So, could I call for a statement responding to their call for detail from the Welsh Government on the steps that the health Secretary is taking to increase understanding of HPV following the cervical screening move to HPV primary screening?

Secondly and finally, could I call for a statement on help for young people facing financial hardship? This is in the context of the charity established by Ally Elouise in Llandudno in 2015, which offers free loans of over 3,000 suits and prom dresses to hundreds of students who otherwise couldn't afford to celebrate finishing school. Ally has been awarded the Prime Minister's Points of Light award, and she e-mailed last week stating, 'I'd be grateful if you could share or promote this in order to help as many young people facing financial hardship as possible to attend their school proms this year.' I call for a statement accordingly.

Firstly, I would congratulate Ally on everything that she's achieved and the fact that she has received recognition for what is an excellent, practical idea that can really make all the difference to young people. We know the cost of attending a prom can really be prohibitive and a worry for some families, so I take my hat off to Ally and the ingenuity she's shown in ensuring that young people can enjoy what is a very special moment in their school, or the ending of their school, lives.

The cervical cancer issue that you raise is also extremely important, because we are due to have Cervical Cancer Awareness Week, and I know that Vikki Howells will be hosting an event for all Assembly Members in the Senedd to attend and find out ways in which we can all play our part in raising awareness of the importance of testing locally. The health Minister, as you were talking, was really keen for me to make the point that, actually, there's no shame involved in any of this, and that it is important that the tests are undertaken. We have more sensitive tests here in Wales, which will mean that we are able to intervene and save lives early, and also now, of course, we're rolling out the vaccinations to boys as well. I know that that's been really warmly welcomed across Wales.

And finally, David Rees.

Trefnydd, last week the Secretary of State for Justice in the UK Government reminded us that he still believed that there was a need for a new prison in south Wales. Now, we've had this debate before, where my community has been very vehemently against the location of the last proposal. But the question we had in that debate was whether we needed a new superprison, and what were the appropriate processes. Will you have a statement from the Welsh Government as to what discussions you've had with the UK Government on such ideas from the Secretary of State for Justice, and what actually he means by the benefits of a new superprison? Because, in the debates last time, we talked about the ways in which we can actually make lives better for prisoners, and to look at the way in which we pass justice over. We talked very much about the devolution of justice and devolution of prison services to Wales so that we could do it appropriately for Wales. Now, this statement seems to be ignoring all those concepts and once again looking to impose a new prison in us. So, hopefully we'll have a statement from the Minister, or whoever is the relevant Minister, in relation to actually what discussions are taking place and what plans he's having for Wales.

I will certainly ask the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip to provide you with an update on the latest discussions that may have been had in this particular area and the Welsh Government's approach to the relevant issues that have been raised.

Thank you very much, Trefnydd.

Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is the legislative consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. The motion before the Assembly today is important and historic. We need to consider legislative consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. In discussing this issue today, the Welsh Government will consider the Bill from the perspective of what is best for Wales. Deputy Presiding Officer, Brexit is going to happen. We must now focus on how Brexit happens, and how we can establish a relationship with Europe that safeguards the interests of Wales. That is the starting point in looking at the issue of legislative consent to this crucial Bill.

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I thank you and the Llywydd for the flexibility that you have shown over the debate, the timing of the debate, on the withdrawal agreement Bill, probably the most important piece of Westminster legislation we have had to consider in the 20-year history of this Senedd? Now, let me be clear about what this debate is not about. It is not about blocking Brexit; it is not about frustrating the Bill. It is about the form and not the fact of Brexit. It is about improving and not derailing the Bill. Brexit is going to happen—that is a fact. How Brexit happens, however, is anything but settled.

Will the First Minister give way? Isn't that exactly what you said in 2016 after the referendum? Given your actions for the last three and a half years, why should people believe you now?

Well, I think the Member may have been asleep for the whole month of December when a general election took place, and we have a Government that is clear that we are leaving the European Union. I thought that is something that he said he had campaigned for many years to bring about, and I have just said, as clearly as I can, on the record, that, whatever others of us may have thought, that is now a settled fact. What is not settled, and what is the subject of our consideration this afternoon, is how Brexit should happen, and the form of Brexit has twisted and turned many times already in the hands of successive Conservative Governments. Indeed, the Bill that we are asked to consent to today is not the Bill that the current Prime Minister would have asked us to consent to just at the start of December.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, the UK Government is pushing this Bill through Parliament at a speed in inverse proportion to its significance. That is both unnecessary and wrong. It is the most important decision taken by Parliament in a generation or more, and the legislation surely deserves the fullest and most thorough scrutiny. The failure to afford Parliament with the opportunity to do that has a direct impact on us here. Normally, we would come to the floor of the Assembly to debate the issue of legislative consent on a Bill knowing the final form that it was to be voted upon in Parliament. We still do not know that this afternoon. The fact that there is to be no gap between Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords means that our ability to put a proper decision in front of this National Assembly is also compromised. 

The question that is in front of us, though, is this: does this Bill as currently set out meet the interests of Wales? And the answer that this Government suggests to you this afternoon, the clear conclusion that we have come to, is that we cannot ask you to give consent to the Bill, because the interests of Wales are emphatically not met by it. A mandate for Brexit is not a mandate for bad legislation and, as far as Wales is concerned, this legislation remains very bad indeed. It will undermine our economy in damaging ways and, more importantly, Llywydd, ways that could be avoided. 

Let me just set out some of the ways in which this legislation damages essential Welsh interests. First of all, the protection of workers' rights, which was written into the previous proposed legislation, has been abandoned in the Bill that is in front of the House of Commons and House of Lords today. Provisions that were there in previous versions have been taken out of the Bill, and we can't imagine that that is accidental. A Government that was serious about protecting workers' interests would have left those provisions in the Bill, as a previous Conservative Government had been content to do. 

Secondly, Llywydd, the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol creates a whole new set of barriers to trade that simply weren't there under the previous deal. The analysis we published yesterday, carried out by the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, catalogues the inevitable friction and threat to business at Welsh ports that will arise as a result of the legislation. And it's worth recalling, isn't it, that these dangers were ones that the Prime Minister went all the way to Belfast explicitly to rule out when he promised the unionist community there that he would never agree to a border in the Irish sea. That border in the Irish sea has direct and detrimental impacts upon us here in Wales and we're asked to consent to those detrimental impacts, and this Government says to Members of this Senedd that we should not do so. 

Thirdly, dynamic alignment with those EU rules and regulations that are necessary to avoid new barriers to trade featured in Mrs May's earlier agreement but this too has now been abandoned. Now, instead, the Chancellor of the Exchequer openly boasts about diverging from the European Union as though it were an article of faith. Well, this is an article of faith that can only make life harder for Welsh businesses who trade with Europe and surely we should understand in this Chamber that the Welsh economy is more vulnerable in this sense than the UK as a whole because of our reliance on manufacturing and the rural economy. It is surely for supporters of this legislation to describe how they think that new barriers to trade brought about by deliberately departing from the common standards that allow our farmers—to go back to earlier this afternoon—to export to markets elsewhere in Europe more difficult.

The legislation takes us backwards and not forwards. It's not inevitable; it is the result of political choices by the UK Government and there is better legislation available. That is why we have worked so hard, Llywydd, with colleagues at Westminster over the last recent days to move amendments that would have put right some of the things that this legislation gets so badly wrong.

Can I, while I am on this matter, pay tribute to the enormous efforts that have been made by Welsh peers in the House of Lords? Peers of different parties and cross-bench peers as well, many of them former Members of this Senedd, but others too. It's invidious to mention anybody by name, Llywydd, but I do just want to mention Lord John Morris. The last time I had a conversation with Lord Morris, at the end of last year, he told the story of how, as a young man in his 20s, he was chosen to be the warm-up act introducing the main speaker, Clem Attlee, at the Carmarthen by-election of 1957. Here we are, more than 60 years later. Having served as Secretary of State for Wales under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, and Attorney-General in Tony Blair's Cabinet, there he was yesterday—90 years old he'll be next year—battling hard to get this Bill amended so that it could defend essential Welsh interests. If Lord John Morris can battle to defend Welsh interests, then surely we here in this Chamber should be able to do the same.

Let me for a moment, Llywydd, also enumerate the specific shortcomings of this Bill from a devolution perspective. First of all, the wholly offensive clause 21, where the UK Government is taking to itself so-called Henry VIII powers to repeal or amend any part of any Act of Parliament, including the Government of Wales Act 2006. There are Members of the Conservative benches here who have very honourably and over many years policed the boundary between powers given to Welsh Ministers and powers that ought to be exercised here on the floor of the Senedd. I haven't always agreed with some of the conclusions that they have drawn, but I have always admired the effort that they have made to keep that relationship honest. Today, they will be voting to support a Bill in which UK Ministers can amend the Government of Wales Act through secondary legislation and with no consent from this Senedd at all. How could we possibly consent to that?

We wish the Northern Ireland protocol every success, but support for devolution and peace in Northern Ireland does not require the unilateral rewriting by UK Ministers of the devolution settlement. That is what Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, battled so hard to persuade UK Ministers of on the floor of the House of Lords, but, despite every argument that he deployed, we've had no return on it at all. 

The withdrawal agreement Bill provides no assurance that devolved institutions will be given a meaningful role in future-partnership negotiations, for which it paves the way—negotiations that would have a major impact on matters within devolved competence. We should have a guarantee through the legislation that the voice of this Senedd will be heard in those negotiations, but, despite the amendments that we placed to the Bill, all those attempts were turned down. As the Counsel General has said, it cannot be right to oblige us to comply with international obligations that impact on devolved competence if we have had no part in agreeing to them. 

Finally, and most gratuitously, Llywydd, Government Ministers have so far rejected an attempt to add any recognition of the Sewel convention to a clause that asserts the untrammelled sovereignty of Parliament—a clause that my predecessor has memorably described as either a piece of constitutional graffiti, because it means absolutely nothing, or a clause that has a genuine attempt to trespass into the devolution settlement in a genuinely profound way.

Llywydd, I'm not under any illusion that a refusal of legislative consent from this Senedd will stop the Bill from being enacted, but I hope that, even now, the UK Government will pause for reflection about their approach to devolution and consider the damage they risk to the fabric of the United Kingdom. I note the suggestion in the letter from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the circumstances around this Bill are singular, specific and exceptional. The way for them to demonstrate that they really believe what they say is to follow the advice that we have provided about how Sewel could be codified to make sure that the singularity of this decision is genuinely upheld in the future.

The Bill sets the United Kingdom on a new path, one fraught with dangers, including dangers that are unnecessary and could have been avoided. They have not been avoided in the way that the Bill has progressed through the Houses of Parliament; rather, in this Bill, they have been increased and increased to the detriment of devolution and to the detriment of Wales. Our job is to stand up for our interests, as the Scottish Parliament will stand up for the interests of Scotland, and as I believe the Northern Ireland Assembly will do on behalf of their population too. That's what we have an opportunity to do this afternoon, and that's why I ask this Senedd to vote against the motion and to refuse our consent to this damaging Bill. 

I call on the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, David Rees. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The publication of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report on the EU withdrawal agreement Bill focuses on an analysis of the clauses in the Bill that we consider require the Assembly's consent. In the short time available, we have been unable to consider some of the broader concerns that the Welsh Government has put in its memorandum, particularly as some of these concerns relate to issues that were not included in the Bill on its introduction.

Broadly, many of the concerns we raised regarding the delegation of powers to UK and Welsh Ministers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 remain in relation to this particular Bill. However, in light of practical and political reasons we have decided against restating them in our report. We have instead focused on the provisions that require legislative consent, with a view to ensuring the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU law during the implementation period is not diminished, and that's highlighted the point: to ensure the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU law. So, it is about this institution that we've focused our report on, to ensure that's not adversely affected.  

We agree with the Welsh Government's assessment of the provisions in the Bill that require legislative consent, with one addition—clause 42—and hope that this report helps inform the Assembly's debate on the legislative consent motion this afternoon.

As a committee, we have been considering the question of the Assembly's role in considering EU legislation during the transition or implementation period, and we've been doing that since 2018. We have written to the UK Government and UK parliamentary colleagues on several occasions since then. We take the view that the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU legislation should not be diminished during the implementation period, though we acknowledge that the role might need to adjust to the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

Whilst we welcome the role provided to Westminster committees under clause 29, we believe it needs to be strengthened through the inclusion of a role for the relevant committees of the devolved legislatures when EU legislation is being reviewed, particularly when it relates to devolved areas of competence. On 8 January 2020, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make the case for two amendments to clause 29 of the Bill to include a role for those devolved legislatures. We've published this letter as an annex to our report on the legislative consent. 

Llywydd, I'm sure Members will be aware that Joan McAlpine MSP, who is Convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee in the Scottish Parliament, has also written to the Secretary of State in support of our proposed amendments. The case we made for these amendments is simple. Currently, the Assembly has a role in considering the compliance of draft EU law with the principle of subsidiarity. This stems from article 6 of protocol 2 to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This provision will no longer apply once the UK leaves the EU next week.

Clause 29 of the Bill provides for a parliamentary mechanism for reviewing EU legislation during the implementation period. In our report, we note that this does not operate on the question of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Instead, it's based on a question of whether a piece of EU legislation raises a matter of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. The Assembly's experience on reviewing draft EU law in the past has shown that, on occasion, there have been specific issues of interest to Wales that have arisen that were not identified at a specific UK level. For example, the possible impact on Welsh fisheries or a ban on drift-net fishing and changes to organic regulations for Welsh agriculture.

These issues, by extension, can be considered issues of UK national interest. We contended that the Assembly, in conducting a review of EU legislation with a focus on the areas of policy devolved to it, would add value to the overall UK-wide scrutiny process. Therefore, to ensure the Assembly's role in reviewing EU law during transition is not diminished, we wish to see an analogous role for the Assembly to be acknowledged in UK law, just as such a role is currently acknowledged in the legal text of the treaties. So, we are actually seeing a diminution of our role here.

Despite making this case to the Secretary of State, it appears unlikely that any amendment to clause 29 will be made. If clause 29 remains unamended, we will seek to work with committees in both Houses of Parliament to ensure that we can play a role in the consideration of EU legislation during the transition period, despite the absence of recognition for that role in the Bill. 

Llywydd, the committee put this report together with a view on some of the issues, and we did not make any recommendations, because we felt it was important to inform Members of the points that needed to be considered in this debate. As such, I want to perhaps include a personal view rather than a committee view on some of these points.

Llywydd, I do agree with the First Minister, and I think it's important to highlight this, this debate must not—must not—be about whether Brexit occurs or not. That's irrelevant. It is about a Bill that sets a law that sets out how we can undertake our duties in this Chamber and whether that law is good enough.

The Welsh Government has highlighted the weaknesses in this Bill and how it has quite substantially changed since the general election. Our job is to look at the interests of the people who elect us and seek to make decisions and take actions that improve their quality of life. The omissions in this Bill—which could have been included, but because of the choice of the UK Government were not—actually result in reduction of scrutiny of Government actions. It's important, therefore, that we ensure that we get those changes made. If they're not made, then we should not support a Bill that does not help us deliver on our role. A desire to get Brexit done in all haste should not be seen as a reason for us to abdicate our responsibilities and duties here in the Senedd.

I will be voting against this LCM today because I do not believe that this Bill delivers for us to do our job: ensuring that the interests of the people of Wales are met. If the UK Government had actually done something and accepted some of the amendments—. We've seen amendments put forward to the UK Government. We've put some forward to the UK Government. They're ignoring everything. They don't want that. They've scrapped an awful lot of issues they had in place. It is not a Bill that delivers. Therefore, I will oppose that to ensure that we are seen to be standing up for the people who elect us. 

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

Diolch, Llywydd. We took evidence from the First Minister about the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum on the European Union withdrawal agreement Bill at our meeting on 13 January 2020 and we reported last Friday, 17 January. Our report, with the unanimous agreement of the members of the committee, drew five conclusions. The first of these reflected observations we've made on many occasions regarding the fundamental role the Sewel convention plays in the operation of the UK's constitution. We concluded that, if the National Assembly decides not to consent to the Bill on the matters for which consent is required and the UK Parliament nevertheless decides to proceed in the absence of consent, this will have significant adverse constitutional consequences for the future of the Sewel convention and devolution.

Since then, we have seen the letter from UK Government's Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Stephen Barclay, indicating that, in the absence of consent from this Parliament, the UK Government will nevertheless proceed. This will be the first time that this has happened, and as stated by the Supreme Court in the article 50 Miller judgment, Sewel is a political convention and there are political consequences when conventions are broken. There clearly will be severe and adverse consequences to the already fragile constitutional structure of the UK.

We noted that the First Minister had sought amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords, which were intended to protect the interests of Wales. We concluded that these amendments did not undermine the primary objective of the Bill, which is to leave the European Union on 31 January 2020, but rather, sought to improve parts of the Bill in important areas. Now, as the First Minister has indicated, clause 21 of the Bill would permit the modification of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by UK Government regulations insofar as the UK Government considered such modification appropriate to implement the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. While such regulations would require approval of both Houses of Parliament, there is no formal role for the National Assembly set out in the Bill, and this is a concern because we do not know the extent to which the 2006 Act might be modified. 

We noted that one of the Welsh Government's amendments sought to address its concern about the breadth of power contained in clause 21. We also drew attention to the concerns of the House of Lords' delegated powers and regulatory reform and constitution committees about the breadth of the powers in clause 21. 

Our third conclusion, agreed with both House of Lords committees, that if clause 21 and its current format can be justified, the powers within it should be limited. Our fourth conclusion repeated our longstanding view that any modification of Schedule 7A or 7B to the Government of Wales Act, in relation to the legislative competence of the National Assembly, should be achieved via the process set out in section 109 of the Act. 

Our final conclusion expressed concern at the inclusion of clause 38 in the Bill—the parliamentary sovereignty clause. We consider it to be an unnecessary provision in a Bill that is primarily concerned with leaving the EU, rather than the broader constitutional framework of the UK. There are important debates to be had about the nature of sovereignty within the UK, but entrenching this provision in statute, and, in particular, in a Bill that is not concerned with the UK's make-up, or the devolution settlements, could well bring about unintended constitutional consequences. 

Llywydd, in the light of the recent developments in the letter from the UK Government, in my capacity as Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I'd make these additional comments. The parliamentary process of this Bill is not yet concluded. It is right and proper that the concerns of this Parliament are reflected in this process, and, of course, the Bill has now been amended by the House of Lords, and its final format is not yet determined. The obligation is on the UK Government to seek and to establish consensus. Proceeding without consent would, in my view, spell the end of Sewell. The longer term constitutional consequences of this are not yet certain. I would also wish to make a personal point, and that is this: failure to achieve consensus and overriding Sewell, in the absence of any other constitutional reform, brings the process of disintegration and break-up of the UK one step nearer. 

Will you give way?

Yes I will. 

Of course, the principle of Sewel is based on the fact that consent is not withheld unreasonably, and that's quite a test as well. 

Yes, but the issue in this case is that the primary objective of the Bill is not something that is being objected to; it is the quality and stature and the composition of that Bill that is the issue that is of concern to us. And that is why Sewel is so important, because, by not seeking to achieve consensus, by not acting to obtain that, and to nevertheless override Sewel, is, in fact, a breach of the fundamental principles of the convention. 

So, the UK Government is, in my view, gambling with the future integrity of the UK. The case for a constitutional convention becomes greater day by day with every act of this Government. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. 

I'm pleased to take part in this important debate and lay out the position of the Welsh Conservatives. Today's legislative consent motion provides this Parliament with a clear opportunity to deliver the result that the people of Wales voted for in the 2016 EU referendum. Nearly four years after that referendum, we, on this side of the Chamber, believe it's time to finally get on with the job of leaving the European Union. It's time to deliver on the clear will of the people of Wales and the UK, and it's time to move our country on and explore ways in which we can ensure Wales's success on the international stage, post Brexit. 

Now, the endless uncertainty that has been caused by some politicians has done nothing to render confidence in our country. And so, following the clear mandate given to the UK Government at the recent general election, it's now time to get on with the job. Finally getting on with the job will end the uncertainty, and help restore confidence to the UK economy.

Members will be aware of the recent comments from Airbus, which reflect a new confidence. This is what the chief executive said recently, and I quote,

'We see great potential to improve and expand our operations in the UK this year.'

And Airbus are absolutely right to say that the Prime Minister's Brexit deal has made things more certain. And so, I hope Members will reflect on those comments, as well as the views of the people and communities that they represent, when they vote later on today.

Now, I know that the First Minister has claimed that leaving the European Union will make devolution across the UK vulnerable, and yet, the UK Government has made it absolutely clear that any decision currently taken by the devolved administrations will remain their responsibility after the UK leaves the EU. Indeed, the UK Government has also proposed that the vast majority of powers that are returned from Brussels should start in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And I'm pleased to see the UK Government operating from that perspective, and respecting the devolution settlement.

Indeed, I think it would be remiss of us all not to see that this agreement also offers some constitutional opportunities for the whole of the UK. For example, the Bill restores UK sovereignty by making British courts, rather than the European Court of Justice, the highest courts in the land, bringing vitally important judicial rulings closer to our people. However, I accept that our withdrawal from the EU will change the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. As Britain moves further along this process, the inter-governmental relations between each part of the UK will be profoundly critical in protecting constitution stability to the union. And it's important that Wales plays a full part in that.

Now, I also happen to believe that, post-Brexit, the Welsh Government has an opportunity to set an ambitious agenda for Wales by calling for further devolution of Wales's own natural resources, for example, so that we can harness its power and market it on the global stage. As my colleagues and I see it, far from reneging on environmental commitments, leaving the European Union could enable us to transform our environmental protections, with the introduction of a new Bill to set legally binding targets. There are opportunities.

Now, whether people like it or not, leaving the European Union will free Wales of EU laws, including leaving the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, where we have until now been bound by those EU rules. The Welsh Government will be free to develop sustainable policies to protect the livelihoods of Welsh farmers, and, indeed, Welsh fishermen. I believe now is the time for innovative thinking and ideas to transform those industries here in Wales. We should be much more optimistic, and not adopt the Welsh Government's sometimes dour approach of doom and gloom.

Llywydd, the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union in 2016, and, in last month's general election, they did speak loud and clear once again. The people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, and they want to unlock the opportunities that exist for us outside the European Union. We have clear instructions from the people and communities that we represent, and the overriding message from our country is that it wants to leave the European Union. Today, Llywydd, it's our duty to deliver that, and I urge Members to support this legislative consent motion, and start working together to make Wales a truly competitive global nation.

Sometimes in politics, it benefits us to take a long-lens view of how we ended up where we are. This will be my last contribution in this Chamber as my party's spokesperson on Brexit, as I'm taking on a new role that coincides quite fittingly with our timing of leaving the EU. It has been a curious honour—in equal measures, challenging and frustrating—to speak on this issue for my party during my first year as an elected politician. It is a role that I inherited from Steffan Lewis, who did such significant work, alongside the Welsh Government, in producing 'Securing Wales' Future'. That document set out a clear roadmap for leaving the EU that avoided erecting unnecessary barriers. And I'd like to pay tribute to Steffan once again for all his efforts in this regard. History will look kindly on his principled attempt to broker a compromise deal that reflected the close result of the referendum. But Westminster wasn't interested in compromise. Indeed, that was one of a catalogue of missed chances not taken by successive Westminster Governments to deliver Brexit in a way that worked—all the 'might have beens' that never were.

Since Westminster refused to compromise, Plaid Cymru concluded that we had no choice but to try to persuade the UK Government to gain a mandate for their specific plans, namely a second referendum. We worked with other parties to further the same, but well-laid plans were undermined by the hubris of Labour and the Lib Dems in Westminster, who convinced themselves that the way to beat Boris Johnson was to give him exactly what he wanted—a general election; an election they thought they could win when all the evidence suggested that Corbyn, Swinson and the circumstances gave them no chance. Well, we are where we are. They were proven wrong. Boris Johnson secured the majority he wanted and it is now inevitable that we will leave the EU in 10 days' time, and it will be a Tory hard Brexit that is delivered. So, our job now must be to scrutinise the plans and to defend the interests of the people we represent. 

There are five main reasons why Plaid Cymru has concluded we have no choice but to vote against the LCM today: (1) the Bill allows the UK Government to amend the Government of Wales Act without the consent of this Senedd—that is unacceptable; (2) it provides no role for the Senedd to scrutinise measures like trade that will have a huge impact on the livelihoods of the people of Wales; (3) the lack of economic impact assessments leaves crucial Welsh sectors and ports in the dark and vulnerable; (4) the Bill takes away rights from child refugees, workers and EU citizens and, potentially, the rights of Welsh students to study abroad; (5) the ruling out of an extension to the transition period is irresponsible and makes a bare-bones deal or a 'no deal' the most likely outcome. 

Llywydd, Plaid Cymru accepts that Brexit is happening and we will do everything we can to try to get the best deal possible for Wales. This debate is not about whether Brexit is going to happen—it will—it is rather about what kind of country we will become in the coming years, because this is unchartered territory. There's never before been an example of a nation state seeking trade deals whereby it looks to erect barriers and not take them down. It's a topsy-turvy world.

When he was giving evidence to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee a few weeks ago, the First Minister quoted a commentator who'd said that a Pandora's box was being opened by Brexit. Llywydd, Pandora's box is usually shorthand for wreaking untold chaos; it is the 'There be monsters' at the map's edge or, as David Cameron conceded, the 2016 referendum was likely to unleash demons, the likes of which we knew not.

But, it would also do us well to remember that after everything had come out of Pandora's box, one thing remained—hope. Hope can take many forms. It could be hope for trade deals; hope for security; hope for a better withdrawal agreement Bill that actually takes the views of this Senedd into account; hope for future years that again takes many forms. For those of us on these benches, that hope ultimately catapults us towards a Wales that looks to work internationally, that's outward-looking, that's a proud independent nation on the world stage. So, let's not only focus on the 'might have beens'; let's focus on the 'yet to comes' and underlying all of these things that greatest of catapults—hope. 

I thank the First Minister for his motion proposing that we give consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, as we should, following the decision of the people of Wales in a referendum. It's astonishing that the First Minister is voting against his own motion, in effect maintaining Welsh Government's opposition to Brexit. That argument should be over; it should've been over on 24 June 2016. The First Minister's predecessor told us then that it was over; that you respected the referendum; that Brexit was going ahead and it was a question of 'how', not 'if'. So, when you say the same today, as you said then, why should we believe you? No matter how many times the Welsh people tell you they want Brexit, you don't want to hear it: 'We know better. You got it wrong, so we've made you vote three times, but we're still going to vote against this today.'

You say that this Bill, that Brexit, how we leave, hasn't be subjected to sufficient scrutiny. The failure to attend Parliament, the opportunity to give appropriate scrutiny. What on earth do you think has been happening for the past three and a half years?

After the referendum, you chose to team up with Plaid Cymru to develop a document, 'Securing Wales' Future', effectively a Brexit in name only. Yet when Theresa May offered you such a remainer's Brexit, with a customs union, with dynamic alignment, you voted against it. Again and again, you teamed up with Plaid Cymru, in other circumstances with the SNP, to try and block Brexit happening. Scotland voted to leave, the SNP want to break up the United Kingdom, as do Plaid Cymru. You, as a Labour Party, as a Welsh Labour Government, are meant to respect the people you claim to represent, the people of Wales who voted to leave in a referendum and who want to stay within a United Kingdom.

So, First Minister, I thanked you and Labour and the Welsh Government last week for what you had done to inadvertently bring about Brexit, yet this week you refuse to recognise that there are consequences to the gamble that you took. First, you decided to turn down Theresa May's deal, despite it being pretty much what you had in your own 'Securing Wales' Future', despite the Counsel General saying he was quite happy with the withdrawal agreement, he'd just like, possibly, some changes to the non-binding political declaration. So, having done that, you now complain that bits of the withdrawal agreement that May was going to have are no longer there. Well, of course they're not. You gambled. We dethroned Theresa May in the European election. She tried to do that. She is no longer Prime Minister because of that. [Interruption.] I'd be delighted to take your intervention.

So, why do you say—? Thank you for taking the intervention. When you say those items with regard to employment protection are not there any longer, 'of course they're not', why do you say, 'of course they're not'? Why should they be taken out? What is the justification for taking them out when they were perfectly acceptable before? This isn't a game of poker; this is a game of good legislation. So, why do you say it was proper to take out the employment rights protection?

Well, because we had these laws before we joined the European Union and the European Union was there. We had far greater protections for workers' rights in this country than most of those European countries had, which had been gained, largely, by the trade unions. Yet you now ignore that and make out that it's somehow a gift from the European Union rather than from the unions that created your own party. [Interruption.] What happened? You had a balance in Parliament. Theresa May lost the majority. She teamed up with the DUP. You had that situation, you sought to exploit it. But, ultimately, on two occasions, you gambled and you lost. Firstly, you would not agree Theresa May's Brexit in name only, despite it being what you'd argued for when you said you respected the result of the referendum, and then, under Boris Johnson, you voted against the programme motion. There was a majority, just, at Second Reading, but you then decided to vote against that programme motion for a Bill that included many of the things you say you want—notwithstanding we had them before we joined the EU, and we'll have them afterwards, because Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have won an election. They have got a majority of 80. You voted to have that election, the Liberal Democrats voted to have that election, the SNP were arguing to have that election before abstaining, and this is the consequence of that. And you say you don't want to block Brexit, but you've said that before. Why should we believe it now?

And what you do with this tantrum that Welsh Government throws yet again is that you are putting the Sewel convention at risk. You are forcing the UK Government into breaching that convention, notwithstanding that the people of Wales voted for Brexit in a referendum, but you don't like it. We are getting Brexit, it's going to happen, it's going to happen on the terms set by the Conservative Government in Westminster with a majority 80 because of the choices you made. We will leave at the end of this month, and I welcome this morning's letter to my colleague Mandy Jones confirming the flags outside this place will be coming down.

All of them? Every one of them?

Just the EU.

It's a crashing irony, Presiding Officer, to be lectured on democracy by Mark Reckless, but let me say this: the Conservative argument that has been given to them by their bosses in London is that we have no right to oppose this Bill, that we have to accept whatever Bill is written in Downing Street and driven through the House of Commons, that this Parliament has no right to a view, that this Parliament has no right to express its opinion on whatever clauses are drafted by Boris Johnson, that we have no rights—[Interruption.]—that we have no rights. So much for taking back control. We no longer have these rights.

We were told that we had no right, of course, to oppose the previous Bills. This is the third iteration of this particular Bill, and we were told, clearly by the same people, that we had no right to oppose or comment upon either the first or the second iteration of this legislation. We were told the same thing. In this new British democracy, we do not have a right to oppose what the Executive demand of us, we have only the right to agree. That's not much of a democracy, is it?

We were told that this would enhance the role of the British Parliament and of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Irish Assembly. And then we are told that the clauses that submit the Executive to the control of Parliament are to be deleted from this Bill. So, there won't be any examination of a negotiating mandate, there won't be any reporting either to this Parliament or to the UK Parliament, there won't be any democratic scrutiny and there won't be any democratic accountability. And then we're told that we've just got to vote for it—that we've just got to vote for it—that whatever else is taken and removed from this Bill, we've got to sit there and take our medicine. That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

And then we're told that because Bill Cash has had this fantasy of parliamentary sovereignty we have to accept another clause imposing the sovereignty of the British Parliament upon the interests of the people of Wales, the people, Mark, who elected us—elected us. I'll show you a dictionary. The people to whom we will be accountable next year. When I face the electorate in Blaenau Gwent, let me tell you this: I will not be running—[Interruption.] You don't know the people of Blaenau Gwent; they don't know you either. They will not be asking me what didn't I do; they'll be asking me what did I do. What did I do to defend our democracy? The First Minister will remember the rally for the national health service in Tredegar last summer where we spoke up for Welsh democracy, and we will not acquiesce today in the hollowing out of that democracy.

So, this Parliament will stand for scrutiny. We will stand up for accountability and we will stand up for our rights. We will stand up for our democratically given right to disagree, to oppose and to stand up for that which we were elected to do.

Let me say this: I listened to Conservative colleagues telling us that we cannot oppose. They've done nothing but oppose for 20 years, and they'll be opposing later this afternoon, and I support them in their right to oppose the legislation of this Government. It is right and proper that the Conservatives be given the opportunity to oppose, and to articulate and to argue their case. It is also right and proper that this place be given the same opportunity.

Let me close by saying this: this is a very, very serious piece of legislation, not simply because of what it does in terms of Brexit, but what it does in terms of our own constitution. This is the dismantling of the Sewel convention. The points made by the Member for Pontypridd were absolutely clear. The UK Government has got this wrong. This is not an opportunity to legislate without the consent of this place, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Irish Assembly, because it is extraordinary. It is because these are extraordinary times that that consent must be demanded and the not giving of that consent must be recognised. I cannot think of a time when the UK Parliament can have simply been so careless with the powers of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom, and then tell us that we have no choice but to acquiesce. This is a Bill that will not simply deliver Brexit, but could start to deliver the dismantling and the unraveling of the United Kingdom.

Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd.

Who's that?

Who are you, by the way, sir? [Interruption.] Well, yes, professor—

Allow the Member to start his speech, please.

Such a well-earned professorship.

Thank you again, Llywydd. Well, it's been an interesting debate today, but I really do think that the First Minister, in opposing this LCM, must be a sucker for punishment. Since seeing his side lose the Brexit debate in 2016, when they lost the referendum not only in the UK but also here in Wales, he has been at the heart of trying to stop Brexit from happening for the past three and a half years. The result of that was that Labour just got hammered at the general election. Perhaps there is something that the First Minister and his Welsh Labour Party need to realise: the longer and louder they continue to oppose Brexit, the more they will suffer at the polls. Don't think that the 2019 general election is the low point. It may not be. There may yet be worse to come for them. Just a thought—and a good job one of your friends is buggering off to Aberystwyth to miss it.

I see that the First Minister is today following the example of the Scottish Parliament. Alas for the First Minister, at least Miss Sturgeon can claim that her region of the UK voted to remain. The First Minister can't even claim that, because Wales, of course, voted to leave. In any event, the devolved bodies of the UK were not set up for this kind of purpose. They were set up to allow for scrutiny in certain devolved policy areas such as health, housing and education. They were not supposed to interfere with the workings of the UK Government as regards clearly non-devolved areas such as foreign policy and international trade deals. The First Minister and his colleagues, like Mick Antoniw and Alun Davies, keep pushing the envelope on this, but they should be aware that, outside the Cardiff Bay bubble, most ordinary people in Wales will not be impressed by any of their words. Many people may come to the logical conclusion that, if the First Minister and the Assembly wilfully obstruct the wishes of the people of Wales for this long and this loud, then the First Minister must himself be abolished and the Assembly must also be abolished. Those, of course, are conclusions that I myself reached some time ago. Diolch yn fawr. [Interruption.]

What happened there? [Laughter.] Oh, that was the end. Okay, fine. David Melding.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We heard the First Minister graciously concede that Brexit is going to happen, and this at least is an advance, because I'm not quite sure about last year, when you did reject Mrs May's deal despite my passionate appeals that that was as positive a Brexit as we were likely to get. Of course, I was a keen remainer and I'm not happy that we're in this situation, but we are, as the result of a massive democratic vote that I think, by any interpretation, was further strengthened in the general election. I think that's the only reasonable explanation to make of recent political developments.

However, the First Minister then insisted that the only way he would support any future relationship with the EU was that if that met the interests of Wales as he sees them. There then followed in the bulk of his speech—he spent two thirds of his time on this—a long list of reasons why Brexit is bad and ought to make us just implement it in as insipid a way as possible, so in effect you remain in the political and economic orbit of the EU. And that's just not reality. It's something I accepted immediately after the referendum. Of course, I was hoping we would remain fully in the economic and political orbit with all the rights of a member, but there are consequences if we move out, and they are that we will be pursuing in some areas quite distinctively different paths, and to try and defang Brexit of all meaning I think is a highly questionable process on democratic grounds. But at least, in his approach, we know that his real objection is political and not much to do with constitutional propriety. What he is aiming to do this afternoon is not dishonourable at all. He wants to make Brexit a matter that is purely owned by the Conservative Party, and this is part of that great play he's making to the public—'Nothing to do with us. We never supported it or facilitated it in any way.' And, on rational grounds, I do see there's a certain logic if you believe there's a path back for Labour on these sorts of grounds, especially in some of their former heartland areas. I'll leave it to you to determine your tactics on these matters.

But what we've not had is an explanation on the grounds of high constitutional principle why this LCM should be rejected. And let's remember, it's about enacting, taking forward, a referendum decision on a major constitutional matter. These are not trivial—I do agree with some of the Labour Members that have spoken on that score—but they are indeed very, very solemn moments.

The First Minister did spend some time as an afterthought—. I'll give way.

Thank you. I am very grateful to the Member for allowing me to intervene. What advice would he give to those of us who are exceptionally concerned about clause 38(1), and particularly the effect that that will have if that were to become law?

I will give him full and considered advice on that part when I've read it and I will write to him. Now, that's the sort of answer that I used to get from him very frequently, so I hope he will be satisfied. [Laughter.]

The First Minister then went on, as something of an afterthought, in my view, to the constitutional grounds, some of which do require a response—it's not an unreasonable probe on these—that Sewel is not embedded; that UK Ministers under this Bill have a power to align Assembly law to reflect the eventual agreement; matters relating to the Northern Ireland border as it affects Ireland and, in effect, the British border—of course, that implementing the preference the EU had from the very beginning after the Brexit vote—and then parliamentary sovereignty. Now, some people may think it jejune to repeat the fact that Parliament in Westminster is ultimately sovereign, but it is, and I do remind Labour Members that it is embedded in your devolution Acts of 1997 or 1998. So, these things are there. And if these are not abnormal circumstances in which it is permissible, constitutionally, for a UK Government to override decisions here and be accountable for that, then I don't know what are. So, I do not accept, in any way, that we are not respecting rights. We're exercising our rights, and, should we not agree the LCM, we will have had the right to do that. What we don't have the right to do is to—I'm afraid I did see Jenny first—blow up the tracks of Brexit and stop it happening. The UK Parliament has a duty to ensure that does not occur. I will give way, if I have your indulgence.

David Melding, thank you for giving way, and I just wondered if you, like me, like many of us, deplore the removal of the Dubs amendment, giving child refugees the right to be reunited with their families.

There are lots of things that I would have much preferred in Mrs May's approach. Everybody knows in this Chamber how pro-Europe I am, and I am very discomforted. I think the long-term constitutional challenges we face to keep the union together are much tougher than they would have been had we remained in the union, and, having been a former deputy director of the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and the Unicef officer in Wales, these are matters that do disturb me. However, I think it would be much better if the Welsh Government had accepted this LCM and supported it, and then said to the UK Government, as it did last year, when it repealed the continuity Bill or the Act—well, it may have become an Act, but, anyway, it in the end repealed it—and used its leverage to achieve long-term objectives that would strengthen the British union post Brexit. Because you do have leverage compared to the Scottish Government, which obviously is on a very different course, with an ultimate objective to secede from the United Kingdom. And, on that score, you'd get a lot of support, as you have had, from these benches on such matters as stronger inter-governmental relations, much more formalised, on your rights on future trade agreements—it's not in this withdrawal agreement we should be looking for that, but in future it is a really important issue—and over common frameworks and their governance. That's where you should have been going. That's where you should have been using your political leverage. Instead, you are playing to what you see is the remain gallery that still is out there, and I think that that's a misjudgment.

I do thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence. 

There can be no better backdrop to our debate today and the headlong rush to exit the EU at the end of the month than the ludicrous pantomime surrounding the ringing of Big Ben on 31 January. Firstly, it is a complete waste of time and energy, secondly, the Prime Minister, egged on by his Eurosceptic right-wingers, now seems to think it is a good idea, and, thirdly, he wants the public to pay for it. It couldn't symbolise Brexit any more closely than if the whole thing was scripted by Quentin Tarantino. At least, though, Tarantino would give us a decent soundtrack for the carnage that is to follow, rather than the hollow ring of a single bell. 

Now, there is plenty to say about my own party's failure in the remain campaign of 2016 and the subsequent loss of the Brexit general election of 2019. Having a seven out of 10 approach in the former makes it very doubtful I'd give our UK party leader anything approaching 10 out of 10 for the latter. And so those of us in this Chamber who are proudly European need to ask ourselves a number of questions about how we got to this point, but that is not a matter for today. Whilst I accept, with the heaviest of hearts, that the general election result in December means that our exit from the EU is now assured, that is not the same as signing up to this ludicrous idea that we can now just get Brexit done. 

There can be no free pass for the Prime Minister as he rushes the country towards the exit door, and we have an important role in this place to make sure that he does not weaken the fabric of our economy or of our society. And the justification for our renewed vigilance could not be clearer when we look at what we are being asked to agree to today: a rollback of commitments in relation to Wales's voice even from the substandard legislation proposed in October. As the memorandum from the Welsh Government and accompanying committee reports make clear, the Bill as drafted asserts Westminster authority in a way that has never happened before and runs counter to all the dialogue that has taken place between the Governments over the last few years. But then that shouldn't surprise us at all. 

The Conservative Party has clearly decided that what they say in public simply does not matter any more. When they were courting the support of businesses in the referendum and during the Brexit negotiations, they said they would take seriously the calls for regulatory alignment, but years of warm words and assurances were washed away in a single interview by the Chancellor this weekend. The man who, a month before the referendum, described the single market as a great invention now dismissed business concerns saying, 'We're talking about companies that have known since 2016 that we are leaving the EU.' He might as well have said, 'Well, of course we weren't telling the truth. What did they expect?'

Perhaps he was rattled by the new analysis that shows that the cost of Brexit has already been predicted to hit £200 billion this year, totalling more than the UK has paid into the EU over 47 years. Whatever the reason for the Chancellor's alarming u-turn, it is following a familiar party pattern. In Parliament last week, Conservative MPs also voted down amendments that in no way impacted on the decision to leave the EU. Indeed, they would have simply honoured a number of commitments they had previously made to this country—on EU citizens' rights, on workers' rights, child refugees, ministerial powers, Northern Ireland, the single market and a say for Parliament and the devolved administrations on the future relationship with the EU. Even on the Erasmus programme, the Government refused to offer that incredible opportunity to future generations. I know first-hand what that kind of opportunity can mean to young people who can't afford family holidays abroad and expensive school trips. It is beyond any sort of defence to limit the horizons of young people in this country.

This is the Government that wants us in this Assembly to rely on their goodwill and honourable intentions about the devolved institutions' role in future law making. I don't think so. This is the Government that wants us to hand over the responsibility for regional funding policy to the Wales Office and Whitehall. I don't think so. 

They may have won the 2016 referendum, they may have won the 2019 general election, but that doesn't mean that they get to undo decades of convention, law and agreement. It is tantamount to Wales demanding to play all this year's six nations fixtures at home as the reigning champions. That may seem very attractive to the victor, but in reality it is absurd and unfair. The UK Government has won a legitimate right to take Brexit forward, but not in this slapdash way. The country deserves better than an Eton-mess Brexit. So, I will add my voice to that of the Welsh Government and other Members here today by saying 'no'.

The UK Government has not won the right to ride roughshod over our economy, our democracy or our society. To take this country forward together, the UK Government must mend its ways, mend some fences and amend this legislation.

Ten days and seven hours to go until next Friday. Yes.

Right. There's no dressing up the fact that Labour got a drubbing in the general election and Plaid Cymru once again stood still. I did think that some sort of lesson may have been learned from these results, but clearly not. I watched with some surprise when the newly elected Welsh Labour and Plaid MPs started as they totally meant to go on in the new Parliament, flogging the now-dead horse of blocking Brexit, when the reality is they are now irrelevant, due to the thumping majority of a Conservative Government. Thank the Lord for that. 

While they continue to navel gaze, they don't seem to have got the memo that we are leaving. The message from the electorate in December was very clear: it was, 'Get Brexit done.' As usual—. What will Labour and Plaid do here? As usual, they will use their combined numbers to vote down this LCM. You still are not listening to your people in Wales. [Interruption.] I don't have to listen to you lot; you're opposition.

The country voted yet again for Brexit in December, having done so in May 2019, May 2017 and June 2016. Enough now. Admit it: your Government is still peddling project fear and that was roundly rejected again in December just gone. It will be no surprise that it's my view that the Assembly should give its consent today and allow this country to finally move forward into our future. Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru really need to stop holding Wales back, because that is what you are doing and you will no doubt continue to do so.

I've seen Stephen Barclay's letter, dated yesterday, and we all know that whatever happens the withdrawal Bill will go through and we will leave the EU next Friday, on the twenty first. So, what this Assembly decides today is purely academic. Finally, I'd remind every single one of you in this Chamber that the withdrawal agreement that is the subject of this LCM today has been agreed also by the EU negotiating team. So, the EU is also on board. So, can we all now please get behind the UK Government in the spirit of forging the new relationship with our European friends? That has to be in everybody's interests. Thank you.

Michelle Brown. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

They're excited to hear you, Michelle.

Oh, I know. It's touching isn't it, Presiding Officer? Yes.

You know, the awkward thing about Labour and Plaid's refusal to support this LCM is that I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. It's as if the recent general election didn't happen. Everyone was aware that the election was primarily about Brexit and the public reasserted its voice. Fed up that their opinions were being ignored, people supported Boris Johnson's position that, even without a deal, the UK should leave the EU at the end of this month.

Such is the desire in Wales to leave the EU that the Tories nearly doubled their number of seats here, even winning Wrexham, which has been Labour since 1930, and Labour now clings on to the Alyn and Deeside Westminster seat by the tip of their fingers. The First Minister was campaigning for a second referendum and, as it turned out, that's exactly how the people treated the general election. So, Labour effectively had their second referendum and lost massively.

And you can't say that parties supporting remain won the day because, although the First Minister was advocating a second referendum and a campaign to stay, the potential Labour Prime Minister had such a confused message no-one knew what Labour stood for. For a second time, the public saw through the scaremongering. Having become angry at the way the Welsh Government has tried to weasel its way out of delivering the referendum result, the public has even more loudly told politicians that we must leave the EU with or without a deal. 

Even Plaid's best friend Nicola Sturgeon has said that she believes that, apart from Scotland, which actually voted to remain in 2016, Boris Johnson has a mandate to leave the EU. Yet, most parties in this place are seeking to remain in the EU or to leave in name only. Let's be accurate about this, Labour and Plaid's joint plan for Brexit amounts, to all intents and purposes, to remaining in the EU. And as well, we have to face another thing, nothing short of proper membership will be good enough for Plaid or Welsh Labour in this place.

So, on the one hand I'm surprised that Labour and Plaid are still trying to disrupt the Brexit process, but on the other I'm not at all—[Interruption.] No. I'm not at all surprised, because they have been ignoring the views—[Interruption.] You've all had your opportunity to give your two penn'orth. You've had plenty of opportunity to say your piece—plenty of opportunity to say your piece. Let me say mine. I'm not at all surprised, because they've all been ignoring the views of the voters for a few years now, even in the face of electoral decline or stagnation. 

Unlike Labour, Boris Johnson made his position crystal clear, and the general election unambiguously showed us that we should leave the EU with or without a deal. At least, that's what it shows those of us who don't think the electorate are stupid. So, why are the Welsh Government and many AMs still trying to thwart Brexit? Protest all you like, people out there know what this Welsh Government's agenda is in opposing this LCM. How many times do the people have to tell you what to do before you'll listen to them? How many seats do you have to lose before you'll listen to the democratic voice of the people? We hear some moaning that the withdrawal agreement Bill is undemocratic because it doesn't allow much input from the Welsh Government, yet this Welsh Government thinks nothing of trying to ignore the democratic will of the Welsh electorate.  

Boris Johnson is right to deny the Welsh Labour Government any substantial involvement in the Brexit process, because they will do everything possible to make it fail. The Welsh electorate knew that Labour should be kept away from the Brexit negotiations, because they would end up ceding too much control to Brussels and keep us heavily aligned to the EU. The Welsh electorate knew that Labour being anywhere near the Brexit process would mean, at most, we would leave in name only, and they clearly don't want that. So, I'm sure that Boris Johnson will be ignoring any rejection of this LCM by this Assembly, and so he should. He doesn't need a mandate from the Welsh Assembly. He has a mandate from the British people. He seems prepared to respect the will of Welsh voters, even if Labour, Plaid and Lib Dems aren't. Thank you.   

I don't intend to spend much time talking about the issues that other Members have talked about; I've waxed lyrical or gratingly on them, according to your point of view, over the past year and a half. But two points I did want to make, and that is that the people of Wales did not vote for the Conservatives and they did not vote for a Conservative Government. Let's be clear about that. I grant the Conservatives the fact that it was a very good result historically from their perspective, but let's not pretend that the Conservatives represent Wales.

Secondly, it's been suggested by my colleague Alun Davies that there are some in this Chamber—[Interruption.] Well, the mathematics are all for there to see. There are some in this Chamber who take the view that we have no right to express a view on this LCM. Indeed, the Member opposite, whose name I forget, said that in fact not only did we not have a right to oppose this LCM but that we should be abolished for opposing this LCM. Well, this is my country, this is my Parliament, I see my Government in front of me, and I want my country to continue to exist, thanks very much. 

I'm going to focus purely on clause 38. I was surprised that David Melding couldn't deal with it and, by his standards, I'm sure he will respond in due course. But it simply says this, clause 38(1): 

'It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.'

Some might say, 'What's the problem with that?' Well, what's the point of it? What's the point of something that—if the Parliament of the UK is already sovereign, why put it in law? Because it's not in law anywhere else. It's just graffiti. Or is it the case that the UK Government have realised that the Parliament of the UK is not in fact sovereign? There is nothing in law that says the Parliament of the UK is sovereign at all. Nothing. It's a convention. And the courts have respected that convention. But the courts have said in opinions that where, in the future, they felt that an Act of Parliament was oppressive, where it was Draconian, where it was clearly ridiculous, then they would reserve the right to themselves to intervene if they saw fit, but they saw that only in extremis. What this clause does is remove the right of the courts to look at any primary legislation drafted by the UK Government. That is a dangerous course of action.

It was Lord Hailsham, a Conservative peer, who said in the late 1970s that the British constitution was effectively an elective dictatorship, and so it is. And by including this clause, it makes it even worse. It says, 'The UK Parliament can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with no interference at all during its time in office.' That cannot be democratic and it cannot be right as far as the constitution is concerned.

And there is nothing in law that says the UK Parliament is sovereign. Nothing. So, this is why I suspect this has appeared, to make up for the fact that a convention, whilst it's been respected over the years, is not actually law. But when you make it law, you make it far more difficult, for example, for the courts to take a view on laws. 

Would you give way?

Of course I will.

I'm grateful to the First Minister emeritus. We're in a common law system. It was in the 1690s that parliamentary sovereignty was first expressed by the courts, and the reason it can't be encoded is Parliament itself is the extreme and ultimate expression of the law. That's the system we have, unless we move to a different system.

What David Melding refers to is correct: in 1689, the Earl of Shaftesbury said that the English Parliament was sovereign; but the English Parliament doesn't exist anymore. The English Parliament disappeared in 1707, as did the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament of the United Kingdom: there is no law at all that says that that is sovereign. The reason why that's important is because in Scotland there's no concept at all of parliamentary sovereignty. The declaration of Arbroath in 1380, which we'll all be familiar with, of course, says that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people. That's still the case today in Scots constitutional law; it's still the case, and the Scottish courts have expressed an opinion in that regard, particularly in cases in the 1950s to the 1970s.

What does that mean in practice? It means that, if this clause becomes law, Scotland will have imposed on it a form of sovereignty that, firstly, doesn't exist in Scotland and, secondly, cuts across the Treaty of Union in 1707. The Scottish courts have said that is something that they're willing to look at in terms of its justiciability.

It doesn't affect us in Wales, I grant you, because our courts system was abolished gradually between 1536 and 1830, but this actually is a fundamental attack on the 1707 Treaty of Union in Scotland. I'll leave it to the Scots to fight their own battle, but it's something that just hasn't been noticed. Parliamentary sovereignty has never been part of the law of the United Kingdom with regard to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, apart from now. And I've already explained the consequences of that.

Finally, the other point I want to make is this: I could not support this LCM—there are many other reasons that other Members have mentioned, and it's nothing to do with Brexit—because I do not support the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. It's an outdated concept and it's about time the UK had a more modern constitution. We can look at shared sovereignty. Why entrench a system that is ragged and is not fit for the purpose? That is a typical Westminster-bubble amendment that's been put into this legislation, ignoring the reality of the existence of other Parliaments within the UK. Sovereignty rests with the people of Wales. They expressed that sovereignty through a referendum in 1997 and in 2011, and they expressed that view in 2016 when they said, 'We want to leave the EU.' I don't dispute that. But that sovereignty rests with the people of Wales as expressed through those referendums.

And what will we have if this clause passes? A system with no checks and balances. Five years where a Government can do absolutely anything it wants without any kind of restriction. This is a fundamental change to the way the UK has been governed. It's undemocratic. It's not in any party's manifesto. It takes us backwards. It entrenches in law something that's never been there before. It is a fundamental misunderstanding and possibly an attack on the nature of devolution within the UK. And for that reason, along with many others, I could not support this LCM.

In her impassioned speech earlier on, Lynne Neagle talked about this Bill riding roughshod over democracy. But of course, it's not riding roughshod over democracy, it's a fulfilment of democracy. In the course of the professorial disquisition to which we've just listened, Carwyn Jones referred to the declaration of Arbroath as saying in Scottish law that sovereignty lies in the hands of the people. Well, the people decided in June 2016—17.4 million, the largest democratic vote in the whole of British history—to leave the EU. For the last three and a half years, the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP have been trying every possible stratagem to avoid the consequences of that vote. I give way.

You can't have popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty. You're now arguing that parliamentary sovereignty doesn't actually exist.

No. I don't think I'm going to spend much time arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. These kinds of academic pursuits lie ahead for the Member for Bridgend; a seat that was lost, of course, in the Westminster election just a few weeks ago. These facts don't seem to have impinged upon the consciousness of Labour Members, and possibly Plaid Cymru Members, at all.

There was, I think, quite a palpable mood in the country to get on with the job of delivering on Brexit. That wasn't the only reason why Labour lost so many seats in that election, but it was undoubtedly a very significant part of it. The problem has been, for this institution, overwhelmingly populated by those who supported the 'remain' cause in the referendum, you have never been reconciled to the result of the referendum itself. And you've done everything you possibly can to throw spanners in the works and to try to delay, and possibly frustrate, and, through a campaign for a so-called people's vote, to reverse the result of the referendum in June 2016. Well, you've lost, and now it's time for you to recognise that you've lost. And if there are any constitutional outrages included in this Bill, the reason that that has come about is because of your intransigent opposition to what the people voted for three and a half years ago.

I don't have those worries that have been expressed by other Members in this debate, but I do think this is a highly exceptional case, as David Melding explained in the course of his speech. We're not going to have referenda of this constitutional import very often, if indeed ever again in this country. And as a result of the delays that have occurred in fulfilling that referendum result, there is now a pressing and overriding desire that we should deliver on what the people voted for.

We've heard speeches going over, once again, all the arguments that we've done to death in the course of the referendum campaign and over the last three and a half years. The argument about whether it's a good thing to leave the EU or not is over. The people have decided. But the policy of the Welsh Government is that we have Brexit in name only; they want to stay in the customs union, they want to stay in the single market. Well, by no stretch of the imagination could that be described as Brexit. The whole point of this, to go back to the former First Minister's point about parliamentary sovereignty, is to restore legislative power to the legislators, not just in Westminster, but, so long as the devolution settlement subsists, to legislators here in this place. I give way again, yes.

I do thank the Member for taking a second intervention. I accept his point about accepting the result of the referendum in 2016. Will he then accept the result of the referendums in 1997 and 2011?

Well, we delivered on the results of the referenda in 1997 and 2011. And I'm perfectly happy to see the Labour Party commit itself to going back into the EU once we've left; what it did not have the moral right to do was to attempt to frustrate the result of the referendum before it had actually been delivered. It's a perfectly honourable role for other parties to say, 'We are better off inside the EU', and to campaign. I think it would be a brave step for them to take, and I hope, indeed, that they take it up, because that will, I think, help to consign them to the irrelevance which they have arrived at for the foreseeable future.

But this debate is not about workers' rights or any of the other ingredients of the referendum campaign. I don't want to see any rolling back on the rights of workers any more than any other Member does in this house. This is all about legislative competence. This is what democracy is all about. Nations, for good or ill, take decisions. Through elections, they elect Governments to introduce laws and to change laws. And if we're not going to have a sovereign Parliament in that respect, then, effectively, we haven't left the EU at all in those particulars.

So this, ultimately, is all about what kind of a country are we and what kind of a nation are we. What kind of electoral system to deliver on the democratic will of the people have we got? It's amazing that we have a nationalist party, so-called, in this place that doesn't actually believe in national independence as expressed through representative institutions; they'd much rather be governed from a technocratic elite that we don't elect and can't even name in most cases, based in Brussels.

This was a vote by the British people and the Welsh people for independence and the supremacy of their parliamentary institutions, including this one here in Cardiff. The fulfilment of what the people voted for three and a half years ago is an historic moment for this country, and I'm afraid the Labour Party, and Plaid Cymru in particular, have failed the people who have elected them.

I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I thank all Members who have participated in this debate? I'd also like to thank the committees chaired by David Rees and Mick Antoniw for their assessments of the Bill.

At the start of this debate, the First Minister said we would undoubtedly hear our opponents claim that the decision to recommend voting down the legislative consent motion was rooted in our objections to the withdrawal deal itself, and I'm glad that Mark Reckless and Neil Hamilton didn't disappoint in that regard in what must be an ongoing and, I think, increasingly desperate search for relevance that Mandy Jones, in giving us a countdown to Brexit, reminded us is thankfully now limited. But let me say quite honestly that these decisions are always important decisions for a Government that wants to see a more effective union.

For 20 years, we and successive UK Governments, actually, have tried hard to avoid a situation where the Sewel convention is breached, because though the Supreme Court has ruled it is not justiciable, it is, as Mick Antoniw in his contribution outlined, of huge significance. Conventions in an unwritten constitution should matter. It is convention that the sovereign does not refuse to sign Acts of Parliament duly passed by both Houses; no statute or court can't force her to do that. It's convention that the House of Lords does not seek to block legislation that has featured in a winning party's election manifesto.

So, we have obviously then thought long and hard before advising the Senedd to deny consent. Contrary to the argument of the leader of the opposition, this is not about blocking Brexit or sulking, because the general election has undoubtedly given the UK Government a mandate to negotiate a relationship with the EU based on the free trade agreement they've outlined. As our document on future negotiations and priorities for Wales sets out, though we don't think that is in the best interests of Wales, we accept that that is the starting point for the discussions, and we set out the direction that we feel they need to take.

Our objections to the Bill are based on what it threatens to do to the devolution settlement, and it is right for us to stand up for that settlement. As Alun Davies said in his contribution, 'The alternative doesn't sound like democracy to me', and I think he's right in that. I refute David Melding's argument that the reasons given are not matters of constitutional principle, and I would attach less weight perhaps than I would normally to his important contributions in this sort of debate, because I think he did fail to grapple with the point that Carwyn Jones made so eloquently about the emblematic impact of clause 38, which asserts a form of parliamentary sovereignty that we in this place should not be quick to support, because it fundamentally misunderstands the changed constitution of Wales and of the United Kingdom in a way that I hope Members in this Chamber would recognise.

At the centre of our argument is the fact that, under the Government of Wales Act, the UK Government can ultimately seek to compel this Senedd to put in place measures to implement international obligations that, effectively, we don't agree with and it can block the Senedd from legislating in a way that it believes right and which is otherwise within—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

On this point that the UK state and the UK Government will take the role to enforce certain legal changes, of course, that replicates exactly the situation at the moment—that the EU has the right to direct our law in certain respects and we do accept that that's part of the constitutional arrangement.

I'm not seeking to say it's not part of the constitutional arrangement. The very point I make is that the threat of using those powers has, to date, been theoretical, but the future relationship negotiations and the free trade negotiations with third countries are going to raise a huge number of issues that impact directly and vitally on devolved competences. These are choices that will affect the lives of people in Wales. What qualifications do we recognise or not recognise for our teachers and health workers? What limits are there to the financial support that we can give, including through the Development Bank of Wales? Can we continue to refuse to allow hormone-treated beef onto the market? As Lynne Neagle said in her contribution, can our young people continue to participate in Erasmus, which has played such a huge role in opening up Wales to the world and the world to Wales?

We've been clear with the UK Government that they have a choice. They can try to, wherever possible, agree with ourselves and the other devolved administrations' negotiating positions on these and many other issues that impact on our competences, in which case, we will support the agreed position and implement those agreements. I hope that in calling on Wales to play its full part in the stage ahead, Paul Davies will persuade his colleagues in Parliament to enable that to happen. He has failed to do that so far.

Alternatively, the UK could ignore our views, negotiate alone and then face a constitutional battle to compel us to implement an outcome that we may oppose and will have played no part in reaching. Unfortunately, despite the discussion about leverage in this debate, the Government has thus far given us no such assurance, despite, if I may say—and I echo the First Minister's words here—the admirable work from the House of Lords to encourage them to do that. Moreover, they've refused to rule out acting unilaterally to amend the Government of Wales Act, if that's necessary for them to deliver their assurances to Northern Ireland. Llywydd, if ever there was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul in devolution terms, that is surely it.

So, our advice to the Senedd to vote against the motion is based squarely on defending devolution. Can I acknowledge Delyth Jewell's support for that proposition in her contribution and thank her for her scrutiny and challenge in her role as Brexit spokesman for Plaid? I note that unfortunately she failed to resist the opportunity to have a slightly partisan dig there, but I do thank her for the opportunities to work together on one or two of the issues that have arisen in the context of Brexit.

It's not a coincidence, Llywydd, that the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have come to the same view, and so the UK Government faces an unprecedented situation where it will potentially plough on with the Bill despite having failed to gain legislative consent from all three devolved legislatures. Faced by that situation, I would appeal to the UK Government to do two things: firstly, to make clear that they are not jettisoning the Sewel convention. I take some comfort from the Secretary of State's letter of yesterday that the First Minister quoted, and I hope now that those assurances will be repeated in Parliament. And secondly, to seriously consider its response to our legitimate demands for a role in the future negotiations. They have promised us an answer at the next JMC(EN), due very shortly, in Cardiff—let's see what that answer is.

The vote on this motion will be taken now, in accordance with Standing Order 11.15(i). Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote on this motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The Senedd has agreed not to give its consent to the UK Government's withdrawal agreement Bill. This decision will be communicated urgently to both Houses of Parliament so that they can take it into account as part of their deliberations.

The next item of business this afternoon is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services: update on maternity services and targeted intervention at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board. I call on the Minister to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. Further to my written statement yesterday, I wanted to take the opportunity to update Members on the range of actions underway to secure and sustain improvements both in maternity services and the wider quality and governance arrangements across Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board.

Yesterday, I published a second update from the independent maternity services oversight panel. I'm sure that, across the Chamber, we'll be encouraged by the overall assessment provided by the independent panel that there has been good progress in implementing the recommendations made by the royal colleges following their review of maternity services that I ordered and reported last year.

Importantly, and in the words of the independent panel members, they are now cautiously optimistic that longer term, sustainable improvements will be achieved. The panel has assessed evidence that has provided them with reasonable assurance that a further 25 recommendations have been delivered since they last reported. This includes: improvements in both the quality and uptake of training for both medical and midwifery staff, underpinned by robust plans for continued delivery; having a comprehensive clinical governance framework in place that is resulting in improvements in clinical practice; improvements in the reporting, investigation and learning from serious incidents; and, very importantly, confirmation that the midwifery staffing levels, which the health board has been working to over the past nine months, are now in line with Birthrate Plus recommended levels.

The panel will revisit these and other areas periodically over the next six to 12 months to ensure that they're embedded in practice and improvements are therefore sustained, whilst also assessing progress against the outstanding recommendations.

Whilst I am encouraged to see these improvements in the safety and quality of clinical care, I'm particularly pleased by the positive feedback about the experience of care being reported by women and families who currently use services. In addition to the health boards' processes for capturing real-time experience, this feedback is also corroborated by findings from community health council visits over recent months. Furthermore, the recent inspection report from Healthcare Inspectorate Wales found that care was being provided in a safe and effective manner at the Tirion birth centre, which a midwifery-led unit at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital.

However, as the panel has made clear, there remains much more to do to build on this progress. I confirmed in my written statement yesterday that an important component of the panel's role is to undertake a programme of clinical reviews looking at the quality of care previously provided. This is important to ensure that all possible learning is identified and acted upon, but equally, to try to answer any outstanding questions that women and families may have about their care.

I'm grateful to the panel for the extensive work that has been undertaken to develop a robust and thorough process, supported by a large team of independent, experienced clinical reviewers who have now been recruited. They are and I am determined that women and families will be at the centre of this work and will be supported to be involved if that is their wish. Additional advocacy support is also being provided by the community health council to assist with this.

I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with women and families last week, alongside the panel. Listening first-hand to their experience is always difficult, but it is essential to understand how we ensure sustainable improvements in the provision of high-quality, women-and-family centred services.  

Before Christmas, I also met with staff at both Prince Charles and Royal Glamorgan hospitals. They told me that they now felt that there was more coherence and credibility to the leadership and delivery of their service. I got a real sense of commitment, ownership and pride once more in the improvements that they were seeking to sustain and build upon. This, without doubt, has been a very difficult time for staff, and I want to thank them for what that they have achieved in a short period of time, and that has been clearly recognised by the independent panel.

Much of the learning from maternity services is now helping to shape wider organisational improvements. Since my last statement in October, Members will be aware that Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and the Wales Audit Office have published their joint review of quality governance arrangements. This highlighted a number of fundamental weaknesses in those arrangements, and the report makes wide-ranging recommendations to address them. However, I was also encouraged that they confirmed that the organisation's new leadership had fully recognised the challenges, the need for change and that much of that work is already well under way. This includes making changes to ensure their governance processes are robust, open and transparent, with clear lines of accountability and escalation when concerns arise.

There are a number of work streams under way to engage staff to address the concerns that have been raised around the culture within the organisation, together with those actions needed to rebuild patient, public and stakeholder confidence and trust. I particularly expect rapid and sustainable improvements to be made in how the organisation responds to patient concerns and complaints. This is essential to drive learning and improvement as well as being recognised as an organisation that is open and transparent in all that it does.

The various reviews that have now taken place and have reported over past months have provided a comprehensive picture and diagnostic of changes that are needed. That includes ways of working and the underpinning values and behaviours that are expected to ensure the quality and standards of care that everyone has a right to expect. I'm confident that the board fully recognises the seriousness of the issues and the scale of the challenge that they still face in achieving sustainable change and improvement, and they are considerable.

As I set out in my written statement last week on NHS escalation and intervention, the current levels of escalation remain in place across all NHS organisations. So, in Cwm Taf, maternity services remain in special measures and Cwm Taf Morgannwg remains in targeted intervention.

There are now clear improvement plans developing to respond to the range of changes required. My officials will continue to work closely with the health board to ensure they are both supported and challenged to deliver those improvements. Many can and must be achieved at pace, while others will take longer to achieve and embed to ensure sustainable improvement. I will of course keep Members updated on progress.

I'm very grateful, Minister, for the briefings that have been provided on this report, although I think that we must remember—and, once again, I wish to extend my deepest, deepest sympathies to all of those affected—the distress at the failings the maternity services in Cwm Taf have brought to many, many parents and at a time when it should have been one of the most joyful times of their lives. I must admit, I've also been surprised to read headlines in the media following publication of the update that said it had made significant progress, because my reading of this is that the panel are cautiously optimistic, and that's where I think we really need to set our expectations.

I do want to pay tribute to the work of the independent maternity services oversight panel. They've used their experience to help drive change in this health board. Can I also, Minister, take this opportunity to praise the hardworking front-line staff who must have found the criticism and failings of maternity services at this health board very upsetting and demoralising? I hope that the positives from this report demonstrate that a corner has been turned and that maternity services and, indeed, the whole of the health board are now all pulling in the right direction and that there is a real review going on throughout not just the maternity services but elsewhere in the board.

I was very pleased to hear that staffing levels are now at an appropriate level and that twice-weekly patient advice and liaison service surveys have been consistently positive. It was also very reassuring, Deputy Presiding Officer, to hear of the positive feedback following the CHC's unannounced visits and the positive reports from HIW as to the Tirion Birth Centre at the Royal Glamorgan. I do, however, reserve judgment on how much things have changed until we get to hear of the report that is due at the end of this month on the maternity unit at Prince Charles itself.

There do remain areas of concern, especially relating to that pace of change and the speed of response to requests for information provided to the panel, so I just have a few questions here, Minister. I understand that the panel have only been able to sign off 25 out of the 79 actions they requested that the board should complete. Some of these actions that remain unapproved include improvements in training, clinical governance and clinical audits. Are you satisfied with the pace of progress, and what time frames do you have in mind to get the rest of these actions approved?

I remain concerned to read, Minister, that there is still a need for more pace and better administrative discipline in the way that the change process is being managed by the health board. Specifically that there has not been as much progress on the integrated performance assessment and assurance framework, which enables long-term improvement in outcomes to be monitored and assessed. This has been requested to be achieved by December, but it's been put back to April. I would have thought that this was actually key to driving that change through and I wonder if you can tell us what assurances you can give us that that April deadline will be achieved, having been delayed once already.

The panel also noted that there was still work to be done to develop the maternity improvement plan into a responsible plan with clear milestones, targets and deliverables. Again, Minister, I find it concerning that this is not yet in play and the absence of it, I would suggest to you, gives off some really mixed messages. Because having that maternity improvement plan when this whole issue is about the delivery of maternity services would be key. We need to rebuild trust in the system. We need to ensure that families feel confident going forward. I would like it if you could give us an update on when you would expect that to happen.

The handling of complaints and concerns remains inconsistent. There are still significant challenges in terms of addressing that historical backlog of complaints and it's simply not good enough. This should have been a matter of priority to help grieving parents move forward. Because we all know when we have constituents come to see us about any issue where they think there's been a miscarriage of justice, that it's very hard to move on. And these parents are stuck in a time warp. I understood from a news article yesterday that there was a mother who lost her premature baby in 2015. The health board agreed they'd breached their duty of care, but she is yet to receive an apology from the board. I think we really need to move forward at pace on this.

There have been gaps in capacity and capability within the improvement team. For example, they had to defer the implementation of the clinical review programme by one month because the panel was not confident that the health board had the necessary arrangements in place to support and ensure that the needs of women and families could be met. So, could you please give us an update on whether or not you believe that the improvement team is now fit for purpose and can deliver this?

Finally, Minister, I do accept that welcome changes have been made, but there are still fundamental issues, issues that permeate the whole of the health board. We have seen small cracks and larger cracks, perhaps, even, arise in other areas. Many of the key personnel have changed and I welcome this. I accept that replacements take time to settle in, get their feet under the table and pick up and move forward. But are you confident—really confident—that the new-shape board, with the chair who oversaw some of the stuff that happened previously, are in the right place and that we've got the right personnel at a really senior level to now drive this forward? Because we need to be able to close the chapter on this really sad chapter in NHS delivery of care to mothers and families.

Thank you for the list of questions. I want to start with the point about the impact on families. In terms of meeting families it's hard to understate the impact on those families, not at a single point in time, and different people are on different points in their progress, in either being able to move on or not. Of course, different people with differing responsibilities. It's one of the real and significant difficulties that we face, not just as representatives, but of course in terms of the service and indeed the improvement action that we're taking around it. But that's definitely been added to by the direct engagement with families and that's one of the most encouraging things, I think, about the improvement action taken to date, that it's proactively looking for more feedback from people using the service in the here and now, as well as the engagement of families who have come forward and a number of whom will now go through the clinical review process at various points in time.

It's been useful, I think, with the two events that have taken place, one in Merthyr and one in Llantrisant, to actually ask women to come forward to explain their own views on recent practice too. So, I think those are encouraging. I, too, look forward to seeing the HIW report on their recent visit to Prince Charles, as well, to provide that level of assurance and honesty about the level of progress being made.

On that, your point about the way that this has been reported—well, of course, I'm not in charge of the way that other people report it, but what the panel themselves said was that there has been good progress and that they are now cautiously optimistic about the future, and that's the point. So, there isn't a clean bill of health saying that everything is fine and that no further work is needed, and, equally, part of the optimism is when it comes to progress that has been made, but, equally, some of the caution is about the fact that you need to see some of those points sustained. So, on a number of your questions about both the progress against the royal college review recommendations, on the pace of progress that's commented on in the report on page 35, as well as, then, page 37 and 36, about the maternity improvement plan. And there's something about the honesty of how fast the health board has moved and, equally, where there has been progress, about wanting to see that becoming genuinely sustained and embedded. So, the panel themselves have said that whilst they recognise that a number of recommendations have been delivered, that's why they want to come back themselves to look in the next six to 12 months to make sure they're still there. And on some of them, they recognise they are a work in progress.

So, on one of your questions about the pace of that progress, the honest answer is both 'yes' and 'no'. Yes, I'm satisfied they're making progress and they're doing it at a pace that is as quick as possible. However, I'm not particularly satisfied in that I would always want them to be able to move faster, but I have to balance the sort of demand that I push into the system, as it were, in that the overarching point has to be that they don't do anything to compromise the safety and the quality of the service, and the improvements they're making. And I certainly don't want to do anything that artificially makes people think back to how we got into some of this mess in the first place. People are looking for speed and looking to have a headline message that is convenient, as opposed to doing something that makes the best possible difference for our staff and the people that they are working with and serving.

In terms of your point about supporting needs during clinical reviews and the speed at which that's being put in place, then, yes, I am encouraged, particularly having had conversations over the last week directly with families as well as people from the health board and the improvement panel. And whilst I would have wanted that to have been in place before, the deliberate choice to not start until January was a difficult one because, on the one hand, I was particularly keen for those reviews to start sooner rather than later. There was then an honest challenge about whether you write out to people in the middle of December, just before the festive season, and tell them that their reviews were about to start, and that's not a simple choice to make. I think, on balance, it was the right thing to delay it until January before starting that process, so letters have gone out at the start of January. But also, that then has given more time to put support in place, and that's about doing what is right and what is appropriate, and not doing something that is fast. And equally, it's then important to be honest.

I hope that the second report from the independent panel does provide that assurance—that there is real honesty in the steps that have been taken and how long it will take before we can give the sign-off that the culture and the progress has been embedded, rather than simply looking to do something that is convenient either for myself or members of the health board. And I do have confidence in the members of the board, from the executive members, the interim chief executive and the new medical director and nurse director, and there's commentary in the report about the impact that those two people have had in helping to change positively some of the culture that was difficult for a range of staff, but also when I met staff they were positive about the leadership of the service and the difference in the meetings was palpable from the previous meeting that I'd had with staff. But there was also confidence in the chair and the independent members, and they take very seriously the failure that took place, and they've absolutely taken that to heart. And they've recognised that some of the ways in which the information was presented to them or not presented to them was simply not acceptable, and there is real rigour as well as determination, and I think capacity and capability within the board and its independent members, including the chair, to do the right thing.

May I thank the Minister for the statement? May I first of all say that we have to be very careful in measuring how far we've come? Yes, there has been improvement, but we are talking here about a scandal where babies died, where lives were destroyed. The latest report does show where we've come on the journey in responding to that scandal, and it shows that there's a long distance to travel to answer some of the most fundamental questions.

We have to be careful in suggesting that significant progress has been made, because reading the latest update shows that there are still significant concerns, and, in many ways, at a pretty fundamental level. I'll refer to several elements of the report:

'More than two-thirds...of the actions in the Maternity Improvement Plan are still work in progress';

'still significant work to do in order to meet the performance standards achieved in other Health Boards';

a lack of

'clear milestones, targets and deliverables';

'still a long way to go to improve critical business systems and process like those for handling complaints and concerns'—

it's a pretty long list—

'gaps in capability in critical areas like performance analysis, quality improvement and patient engagement'.

I'll sum up some of my key questions, maybe three or four questions. Why are we yet to see the development of the key metrics and milestones that will allow the oversight panel to measure exactly where we are to provide a more evidence-based assessment of progress

'using a richer blend of qualitative and quantitative measures',

to quote from the report? I think we need to see ways being developed of measuring much more clearly how far we have come in responding to the scandal.

On staffing levels, a particular question: you state in your statement, very importantly, confirmation that the midwifery staffing levels, you said, which had been given, which the health board had been working to over the past nine months are now in line with Birthrate Plus recommended levels. As I see it from the report, the panel is not able to sign off yet on that, because they still haven't seen the action plan. At the time of writing, not all vacancies had been filled. So, perhaps you could tell us if something has happened over the past three weeks that means that now this threshold has been met, which, actually, it hadn't by the time the report was written.

Could you explain—third question—why you think the panel says it has become increasingly concerned about lack of capacity to deliver improvements? It strikes me that, at this stage, if there are elements that are becoming increasingly concerning, that is something that should be ringing some very, very loud alarm bells indeed, and perhaps should lead to additional intervention to make sure that that issue of capacity in this stage is being addressed.

Finally, why, in relation to complaints, is the culture still apparently so defensive when that has been highlighted as a significant issue? I think we're still hearing of clinical staff saying that they find it difficult to raise complaints. And it's on that whole issue of a culture change needed, I think, that we need to keep a sharp focus still, and that culture change has to be assisted by and taken forward by a framework, I think, for holding NHS managers to account in the way that clinical staff are held to account. We have excellent NHS managers in all parts of the NHS—I met some excellent, innovative managers at Ysbyty Gwynedd last week—but, clearly, you will have poor managers and we need a framework in place to make sure that they are held to account exactly as we would doctors or nurses, who can be struck off if they underperform.

We are talking here as if we need a reminder about something that is as serious an issue as we could ever deal with in our Parliament, the kind of matter, as has been raised here before, that in other countries would have led to the resignation of Ministers, would have led to the disciplining or removal of senior managers. I think we need to remind ourselves that the fact those things have not happened here suggests that some of the most fundamental lessons that should be at the heart of all this have still not been learnt.

I'll deal with some of the more substantive points, and, again, point out that I certainly haven't gone out to try to overplay the level of progress or the level of challenge that still exists, and, in the words of the panel, the health board has made good progress and the panel are cautiously optimistic about future improvement prospects. There is no suggestion at all that all is resolved, and you wouldn't expect there to be at this point, partly because some of the challenges are longer term, in changing, improving and embedding culture and that cultural change. And if I stood up today and tried to claim that all of that cultural change had taken place and was embedded, then no-one in this room would take me seriously, and nor should you, and, equally, the families and the staff themselves wouldn't. So, there's an honesty about this—that you can't simply demand change and make it so. Some of this will necessarily take time, and whether it's a public service or, indeed, within the private sector, changing a culture and remaking it does not happen quickly or necessarily easily.

The other reason why you wouldn't expect to see everything resolved now is, of course, that we're about to start the clinical review process, and there's a lot of learning that we expect to come from that. And, at the end of the clinical review process, we'll be able to gather together the different learning that's taken place and understand how we expect that to be applied and how we expect people to see evidence of that progress. And I think that leads into your point about how will we know and what are the metrics. And that's the point about what's being developed now between the health board and the oversight of the independent panel and the maturity matrix that the panel have set out, and to talk about the levels and the stages of progress, and I think that's important. So, there is, then, an objective measure on how much progress has been made and how embedded it is, all the way through to providing a good service and then, potentially, an exemplar service as well. And that maturity matrix that the panel referred to, I think will be an important measure for all of us here, but also externally for the public and for staff as well, and, again, the honesty in the panel's assessment on how far progress has been made.

On your point that the panel are increasingly concerned about some areas of progress, it's difficult, without the proper context of the phrases that you've picked out, but I do think that, when you look at what the panel themselves say, they're recognising that, with the challenges that they are revealing, the health board are responding appropriately to them and making sure that resources are there to make sure that progress is made. And, obviously, as a Government, we've put some more resource around this improvement programme as well. That includes the extra funding we've made available to the community health council as well. But the panel themselves recognise that, in view of the progress and the ongoing commitment of the health board's improvement process, they don't feel it necessary to make any specific recommendations at this stage. That should give all of us, wherever we sit in the Chamber, some confidence about the progress, how seriously it's been made, because I absolutely expect that this panel, if they do feel the need to make recommendations, then they will do so without fear or favour, and they will publish those recommendations as well as making them to me. So, I do believe there are appropriate resources in place.

And, on midwifery Birthrate Plus, in fact yesterday, in direct questioning with interviews, the panel chair was able to confirm that the health board is now Birthrate Plus compliant. And that's both about the staff who are in place, as well as funding properly, to the appropriate establishment level, the recruitment of more staff. Now, it's never the case you can draw a single line and you're either one above or one below and Birthrate Plus compliant or not. It is actually, then, about how successful you are at maintaining a level of staffing, and genuinely being committed to actually having a properly funded establishment and the ability to recruit to that. And, again, all of us should take comfort in the fact that the health board have been successful at recruiting people to come and work in the organisation. At one point, there was concern they would not be able to do so because of the action that had been taken and the labelling of the organisation.

Finally, your point about managers in the health service—I just don't think it's at all helpful to suggest that I am siding with managers and not people directly affected. That certainly isn't the very direct conversation that I've had with families or, indeed, the staff. I am siding with the improvement that is required to provide the quality, the safety and the compassion in the service, and for staff to have the working conditions and leadership to be able to do their job and to do it well. We'll run around the issue about an independent regulator for managers many more times, I think, but I don't think that actually helps us in terms of moving forward with the improvement that is required. It would require a significant legislative change, and, if Plaid Cymru have more worked-up proposals that they wish to bring forward at this point, or in a future Welsh Parliament, then I'll be happy to engage with them. But I'm focused on delivering the improvement that those families plainly require and deserve.

Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank you, Minister, for your statement? Like others, I'd want to place again on record my sincere sympathy for those families affected by the failings of Cwm Taf maternity unit. Some of those families I continue to have contact with, and I see, from that contact and that continuing dialogue with them, first-hand the impact that that's had on their lives, and that's something that we should never ever lose sight of. But can I also thank the oversight panel for their briefings and the improved communication that I think we're getting now with the health board, which I think is to be welcomed?

Now, I'm not going to go through all the issues raised in the report—I know the Deputy Presiding Officer wouldn't let me anyway—so, three brief points from me. Firstly, I think it's important to put on record that I'm still reflecting on the fact that, at so many levels, the situation at Cwm Taf maternity unit came as a shock to me, and I'll say again that my trust in the health board was badly damaged, and it's going to take some time and some tangible evidence of long-term improvement for that trust to be restored.

Secondly, I think it's fair to acknowledge some relief that the independent and expert oversight panel has identified progress in the period under review. Like Angela Burns, I was pleased to note that the panel seemed to be reassured that the reporting of serious incidents is becoming compliant, because this is important to have a clear understanding of patient experiences. We've seen real signs of improvement from the two-weekly feedback from women and the families themselves on the unit, which is much different to what had been reported previously, and that, as you've just alluded to in response to Rhun ap Iorwerth, staffing levels do now comply with Birthrate Plus amongst midwives, so there is more confidence now around safety. So, all of that progress is clearly to be welcomed.

But, finally, I note that there remains much to be done. This is still a work in progress, and I don't think for one minute that we can take our foot off the pedal, as has happened in the past. You'll know, Minister, that we have had reports in the past when actions have been implemented, the foot has been taken off the pedal and we've seen things slip, and that's potentially how we've arrived at the situation that we found ourselves in 18 months ago. So, it's clearly going to take whatever time it takes in order to review past cases and for families to receive answers, because families need those answers in order to get closure and to assure themselves that such failures are not going to be repeated in the future. As that review process involves extremely sensitive work, I was very pleased to hear you say that families will very much be at the centre of that work.

So, at this point, I'm again seeking your reassurance that the independent panel are receiving all the support that they require in order to complete their work in a timely, but not rushed, manner, and that families affected will also continue to receive whatever support they need while this is ongoing, because, despite the fact that this is going to take some time to address and turn all these issues around, I think an opportunity is presented, with all the support in place, and given the huge capital infrastructure investment, particularly at Prince Charles Hospital, that this could and should be an exemplar unit. I don't think that that is anything less than the women and families of the Cwm Taf health board area deserve. 

Thank you for the comments and the questions, and, in fact, obviously, I've met a number of Dawn Bowden's constituents at the family meetings, and a number of Dawn Bowden's constituents who work in the health service while meeting staff.

The point about rebuilding trust that Dawn Bowden makes is one that I recognise. Among the constituency Members who regularly engage with the board and regional Members, I think that's a common feeling, and, equally, from the Government's point of view, there's been an issue, and that's part of the reason why the service is in special measures and the organisation is in targeted intervention. They need to rebuild that trust in the way that they behave, and that's why the panel report on progress is important, but it's setting out what the health board are actually doing to respond to the challenges they face, both reactively and proactively, on this improvement journey.

The reporting of serious incidents is one marker of that. The fact they're now properly at Birthrate Plus levels is another marker of that, because, actually, concerns around Birthrate Plus were part of the markers of concern, when, having been assured through the chief nurse's office that they were Birthrate Plus compliant, it was plain that they weren't. That was one of the issues that staff complained about themselves, about persistent understaffing and not attempting to properly recruit to those vacancies. So, those are really important, because they need to be sustained to rebuild the trust that Dawn Bowden refers to. 

And on your points around the panel and whether they're properly resourced, 'Yes', I think is the straight answer to that. And if there's a requirement for more resource for them to do their job, then of course I'll want to make sure that they continue to have the resource to do what they require. A good example of what we've already done, though, is the fact that we've got this much bigger team of clinical reviewers. With the expansion in the scale of the reviews that need to take place, we've obviously had to make sure we have more reviewers; otherwise, we'd have had an unacceptably long period of time for all of those reviews to be carried out. It will take as long as it takes, but we have many more people engaging in the role now than we thought we might have had at the outset, when there were only 40-odd cases, apparently, to look at. There are now, as we know, around about 140. But that will be a matter for the panel to look at, as well as people who can self-refer into the process as well.

On your point about families being at the heart of the clinical reviews and the support for them, one thing that's been helpful is the way that the panel has produced a chart to help people to go through the process, with the 12 steps in it. It's not written as a document for healthcare professionals; it's written for the wider public. And I think it's been very helpful for me to look at that and understand how it's going to work. Right at the outset, I talked about the opportunity for families to tell their story, and to be able to do that and then to be supported to do that as well.

Because, as I said earlier, what has happened within each of those family groups doesn't just get switched off after a certain point in time. So, there's the ongoing support that people will need after the potential loss or harm caused to someone. And even if there's no physical harm that's been caused, then the way in which people are treated will be a cause when there's a need for support. And at the family events, we've had both the Teardrop group and the Sands group there to provide support as well, to make sure people are supported through the whole of this process, and for the health board to understand the ongoing care needs that exist.

Again, that is all part of rebuilding trust and confidence. We've been helped in that, though, by the fact that a number of families who we know have suffered harm and loss have been prepared to give their time to help the health board to improve, and it's a really altruistic motive that we recognise in many people, that they don't want other people to go through what they've gone through, and they've given up lots themselves to try to make sure that doesn't happen. It's incumbent on all of us to make sure that time, energy and effort aren't wasted.

My condolences also—I'd like to place on record—to all families who have been affected.

Thank you for your statement, Minister, and for facilitating the briefing with the independent panel and your officials. I welcome the progress being made to make maternity services in Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board safe for my constituents.

As the panel highlights, there is a long way to go. The panel are cautiously optimistic. So, I ask you, Minister, how optimistic are you? One of the main takeaways from this quarterly update is that the local health board are not doing enough. In the words of the independent panel, they need to pick up the pace. Minister, what pressure can you bring to bear to ensure swifter progress is being made by the LHB?

As the panel highlights, the handling of complaints remains a matter of concern. The LHB is struggling with the process. Minister, given that the Andrews report made recommendations regarding complaints processes five years ago, it is concerning that the health boards are still struggling to deal with complaints and concerns. Do you have any confidence that local health boards can learn lessons from incidents at other health boards? How can we be assured that the failings at Cwm Taf are not being repeated at other health boards? After all, the maternity failings at Cwm Taf were happening under people's noses for years. Minister, do you have confidence that the local health board model is working for patients in Wales? How can you assure us of this?

Finally, Minister, the community health council has played a vital role during this process and has continued to provide advocacy for the women and families impacted by this situation. It is reassuring that there has been positive feedback from recent unannounced visits. Minister, do you agree that these unannounced visits are a vital part in reassuring the general public that NHS services are safe? And if so, will you amend your Health and Social Care (Quality and Engagement) (Wales) Bill to ensure unannounced visits can continue under the new body destined to replace the CHCs?

I welcome the progress that has been made at Cwm Taf and hope that you will do all you can to ensure that the independent panel's next report shows swifter progress toward implementing all 79 actions in the maternity improvement plan. Diolch yn fawr.

Well, as you'd expect, when I meet the chair and the chief executive of the health board respectively, this is one of the subjects we discuss: how effectively and how rapidly the health board is responding to the improvements that are required, and indeed the level of quality and safety that is being provided in maternity services today and in the future.

And as I said in my statement, and in the HIW review that was published in December on the Tirion birth centre, there's good feedback currently being provided by women, and there's a much more proactive effort to go out and secure that feedback from women to understand what is happening in the service today.

There is learning across health boards to be provided, both in terms of complaint handling, where we've seen real progress, and in fact complaint handling now in Cwm Taf is in a better place, but there's still a challenge about changing a very defensive culture and approach. So, the independent panel themselves make commentary on it, and there's definitely still more learning and improvement to come, not just in this health board, but across others.

In terms of your point about community health councils and advocacy, well, of course, we've provided extra resource for the extra advocacy needs we expect the community health councils will have. And on your point about visits, we have Stage 2 of the Bill coming up on Thursday, and I don't want today's statement—which is about maternity services in Cwm Taf—to get lost in that. There will be an opportunity to go through the commitments that I've previously given about wanting to have statutory guidance and a presumption in favour of visits. But this is not a point to confuse the function of the community health councils and unannounced visits of the inspectorate, which have taken place, and of course the larger piece of thematic work they're doing on maternity services across the country—I look forward to the publication of that later in the year.

But, what happened didn't so much happen under people's noses where people where aware of it, the challenge was what was happening was out of sight and hidden from decision makers and the board, and that's certainly one of the learning points we've had about that control within a limited number of people within the organisation.

Thank you. We've had speakers from all of the main parties. Can I just ask the next couple of speakers to just curtail their contributions, and can the Minister also curtail his answers, slightly, and then we won't run over too far? Mick Antoniw.

Minister, most of the points I wanted to make have already been made, and you've answered most of them. There is just one point that, obviously, is of concern, and that is the references to the punitive culture within the maternity services. Of course, it is something that has been rumoured of and of concern for quite some time. And you indicate in your statement, of course, that you've met with staff. Changing that culture is absolutely fundamental to the success of the whole reversal of the operation of maternity services and the delivery of it. I'm wondering what discussions you may have had, for example, with the trade unions that represent those staff and what the feedback has been from the staff, and how you evaluate the progress. Because, within the report, it does say that the culture within the service is still perceived as punitive. It does talk about work being under way, and of course it recognises culture change takes time, but this is very much work in progress. But it seems to me this is really one of the core points about change, and I'm wondering how you're evaluating and monitoring that specific aspect.

It's not just a fair point, but an important one, and part of our challenge about wanting to move away from a punitive culture to a learning one is counter-balancing that with people's demands for accountability, whether at the top, or in the middle, or at the bottom of an organisation as well. So, there's a fear that people will be punished if they stick their head above the parapet—that's part of what led to this being hidden—and it's then about our ability to break through that.

There's also, though—. When you look at the reports from women and families and the way that some had complained about how they were treated, there was a need to actually get into the middle of that prevailing culture amongst some parts of the staff team and to break some of it up. That was difficult because those staff, when they were moved, felt that action was being taken against them and that they were being punished. So, it's not straightforward, but I think that the nurse director in particular has stepped in to do the right thing, in terms of changing some of the rota patterns and in the leadership on values and behaviour as well.

It definitely involves trade unions, in particular the Royal College of Midwives and Unison as the two largest trade unions, and they're directly engaged with the health board in looking to change and improve some of this. That certainly came through in the staff meetings that I had. It was a significant change, from anger and disappointment and some people not feeling pride in the uniform, to a much, much better outlook from staff themselves. So, some progress made, but more to go. 

Thank you, Minister, for your statement today. It certainly suggests that there have been some green shoots of progress in terms of putting things right at Cwm Taf Morgannwg maternity services. I'm also really grateful that you've engaged with women and families and with staff, including families from my own constituency, who have engaged with such dignity in the process to try to ensure that no other families experience the kind of loss that they have endured. They'll know who they are, as I mention them here today, and my thoughts remain very firmly with them and with all other families affected.

You mentioned the clinical review process, and I agree it's really important that the family voice is heard within this. I know there have been some concerns around records being re-examined so we can get to the core of what went wrong. What assurances can you give around that specifically? I note also your comments around expecting rapid and sustainable improvements in the response to patient concerns and complaints, and I'd like to strongly add my support to that. When I raise casework issues with the health board on a variety of things, not just maternity issues, I am often surprised at how long it can take for complaints to be responded to, let alone resolved. What do you think improvements in this process would look like? Are there any examples of best practice of health boards dealing with complaints? And how will this be monitored so that any trends or patterns can be identified?

On the point about complaints, you're absolutely right, and I mentioned earlier about moving away from a defensive approach. I know, as a constituency Member, when I first arrived in this place, the response from the complaints function in Cardiff and Vale health board was very different, both in terms of the timeliness of it but also the quality of it. I absolutely think that, as a constituency Member now, I get a much better response from the health board than I did at the start—and that's not about the change in my position in the Government, I think it's actually about the way the health board now deals with those complaints.

The improvement in the complaints function that is taking place at Cwm Taf is certainly not completed, but there is practice within the NHS to look at and to learn from already. But in particular, there's something about, even as we are now, for those families who have gone through the process already and had an outcome, making sure that doesn't get in the way of a health board apologising. Far from it being an invitation to legal action, often it is what families are looking for. It doesn't affect the test on a breach of legal duty or not, but it makes a real difference to the families when they receive correspondence that appears to be more open and interested in them and their experience, rather than something that seems harsh and too driven by lawyers—and I say that as a former practitioner. 

On your point about the family story, this is really important to reiterate. The family story will be near the front of the clinical review process. So, people will be given a proper opportunity to tell their story and will be supported in doing so. That's part of the reason we've put extra resource into community health councils. And it won't just consider the notes, because some of the complaints families have are that they don't believe that what's in the notes is accurate and that's part of what's being challenged in some of the legal process that's ongoing. But also, the correspondence around that care will also be part of what the clinical review process considers. So, it won't simply be a matter of reading clinical notes and taking what's in there as entirely gospel; there will be an opportunity for patients to tell their story. Because some of this is about how people have felt during the process, and you can't always get that just from the notes.

I think it's also important to set out that, in the clinical review process, after the first tranche of reviews that are taking place there is still an opportunity to self-refer in. They've now agreed the way in which people who are concerned about their care can refer themselves in and then have a choice made, involving the independent panel, about whether they'll receive reviews for longer-standing concerns as well. 

But I want to end, Presiding Officer, by agreeing with the point that Vikki Howells made about the dignity of families—I'm incredibly impressed by the dignity people have shown—but also the ongoing hurt and the impact that it's having today.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is the Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased today to be able to bring forward a motion to approve the Representation of the People (Annual Canvass) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020. The current annual canvass for electors is outdated and cumbersome, is expensive and complex for electoral registration officers to administer and can lead to confusion for our citizens. In light of this, we have worked with the Scottish and UK Governments to modernise and streamline the annual canvass to ensure that it's fit for purpose across nations for all of our elections. This work is part of a range of electoral reforms, including an extension of the franchise for devolved elections achieved in part by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, and to be completed by the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill.

The Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill will also include some other important provisions aimed at improving voter registration in the long term, such as registration for applications, sometimes referred to as automatic registration, and the option to create an all-Wales database of electoral registration information. Taken together with the changes in the annual canvass introduced by these regulations, our electoral reforms will work together to modernise the registration processes as well as improving efficiency and voter experience. Collectively, they represent a significant change in our electoral system and a wide-ranging programme of work.

The objectives of canvass reform are to make the process simpler and clearer for citizens, give more local discretion to electoral registration officers and to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the electoral register. These canvass reforms will also address the additional cost generated by individual electoral registration and improve the accuracy of our electoral register. With the expansion of the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds and qualifying foreign citizens, maximising the accuracy and continued integrity of the electoral register is essential.

The electoral community in Wales has consistently delivered on their registration and election responsibilities to very high standards. In recent years, it's been under very difficult circumstances. The continued robustness of our elections is thanks in no small measure to this great community of professionals and I would like to take this opportunity to place on the record our thanks for their continuing hard work and commitment.

So, I encourage Members here to approve this motion so that we continue to bring electoral processes into the twenty-first century and help our democracy to thrive.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We considered these regulations at our meeting on 13 January and we laid our report before the Assembly on 14 January. Our report raised one merits point under Standing Order 21.3. We noted and welcomed the thorough information provided in the explanatory memorandum to the regulations. In addition, we noted how the regulations, which were laid on 10 December 2019, rely on the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) (Order) 2019. This Order did not come into force until 18 December 2019. We agreed that it was appropriate to lay these regulations before the section 109 Order was made in order to give the Assembly sufficient time for scrutiny. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Thank you. The Deputy Minister to reply to the debate, or are you happy?

Happy to move forward.

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

We have no items to be voted on under voting time.

Before we move to the Stage 3 debate on the Children (Abolition of the Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill, I will suspend proceedings until 17:40. So, that's six minutes. And we are not ringing the bell so it's up to business managers to make sure that their Members are all in. So, at 17:40, we will reconvene with Stage 3 of the Children (Abolition of the Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill.

I will recommence the session, and this brings us to the Stage 3 debate on the Children (Abolition of the Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill.

We will first discuss group 1. The first group of amendments relates to the duty to promote public awareness. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1 and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Llywydd. I speak to amendments 1 to 5, which relate to the duty to promote public awareness. Of course, we tabled these amendments at Stage 2 with the view that, because this is such a controversial piece of legislation with far-reaching effects on ordinary, otherwise law-abiding parents, the Welsh Government must continue its public awareness campaigns beyond the Bill's Royal Assent. Again, I would argue that, despite the Bill's aims to deter a certain type of behaviour, the potential consequences of removing the defence of reasonable punishment could not be more significant. This exposes parents to criminal penalties, rather than lesser civil offences, such as with the smoking ban, meaning that, for parents and families, permanent criminal records, harm to employment chances and potential separation could be the end result. Therefore, public awareness must be a central plank of the Bill's application. 

So, amendments 1 and 5: turning to amendment 1, at Stage 2, the Deputy Minister assured the committee that there would be public awareness campaigns beyond the Bill's Royal Assent, therefore she believed that this amendment was not necessary. Now, if future Welsh Governments are to report on the effectiveness and the consequences of the Bill to the Assembly, then surely public awareness is central to the Bill's success on changing behaviour and should also be considered in tandem by the Government. It's true that this amendment does not have a time limit, but we don't expect this to be continually applied ad infinitum. Amendment 1 is intended to ensure that the Assembly, when assessing and having an input to the Bill's application, is able to conclude how aware the public is of the Bill's consequences and whether future Welsh Governments do need to go further in their own campaigns. 

During the passage of the Scottish Bill, stakeholders giving evidence before the Equalities and Human Rights Committee noted that, aside from the public awareness campaigns at the time of legislation, there must also be a recognition that, because people are becoming parents all the time, there must be an ongoing commitment to campaigning around awareness. This is actually an excellent point that clearly shows the necessity for an ongoing awareness campaign. Parenting does not stop at a Bill's Royal Assent, nor does it stop six years later. Deputy Minister, I believe that it's your duty to take the Welsh public along with you, rather than to create an atmosphere of hostility and resistance, and continuous public awareness is vital for you to achieve that goal. 

Despite this Bill being laid before us for nearly a year, the feedback that we have received has been overwhelmingly negative. The committee's consultation showed that nearly two thirds of the respondents did not support this Bill. The Welsh Conservatives' own survey showed that 79 per cent of respondents were against the ban, with comments including the following: 'The state should not be telling people how to parent. There are already laws in place', and 'It is not necessary to seek to criminalise parents. The impact on a child of a parent taken away by police is greater than the impact of a slight smack.'

Such strength of opinion suggests that much more work needs to be done by the Welsh Government to gain acceptance for this idea outside, of course, of the usual professional circles. 

Amendment 5 extends the awareness-raising campaign to visitors to Wales. At Stage 2, I did outline that while the chief Crown prosecutor stated,

'ignorance of the law is no defence',

more cases in Wales would pass the evidential stage than in England, raising issues of awareness of criminal offending for people from England who travel to Wales. Furthermore, while I really welcome the Deputy Minister's correspondence with the strategic implementation group and her commitment to consider awareness raising for visitors to Wales, I would be grateful if she could answer a concern I raised at Stage 2. In my speech to the committee, I asked the Deputy Minister about the options she will be considering with the strategic implementation group specifically about visitors to Wales. So, I therefore do urge Members to consider this amendment carefully and to support the meaning behind it, so that future parents are not disadvantaged by this Bill. 

Amendment 2. Speaking to amendment 2, this relates to information that is available to parents on alternatives to physical punishment. The Deputy Minister promised that she would ensure that harder-to-reach groups receive this information, but we believe that a duty to provide information on alternatives to physical punishment would guarantee the maintenance of a successful awareness-raising campaign.

So, I was dismayed that the Deputy Minister rejected my arguments at Stage 2. I disagree with her own arguments put forward that the parenting expert group's thinking about future campaigns would be constrained by this amendment. How? This is intended to be constructive and it is very unlikely that any expert group or future Welsh Government would disagree with the need to show parents the support available to them, so that they don't use corporal punishment.

During evidence, stakeholders raised deep concerns about groups of parents who could be much harder to reach. We also heard that the Welsh Government's current support package, 'Parenting. Give it Time' was woefully inadequate, missing a crucial cross-section of Welsh society because it is only available online. With this amendment, we're not placing too much emphasis on certain groups of parents, Deputy Minister; we're wanting to include everyone. The updated regulatory impact assessment has said that the age range of 'Parenting. Give it Time' would be expanded and in the last fiscal year, around £30,000 was actually identified to develop new resources. So, will the Deputy Minister provide an update on how this is progressing and whether tools are now available to those without access to the internet?

Finally, I must emphasise to Members here today that this amendment is not seeking to achieve a more complex constrained Bill, but we want to have some input as a Parliament to how the awareness of a smacking ban will be achieved. This will be an Act of the Assembly, not the Welsh Government, if it is passed at Stage 4. So, I therefore urge the Deputy Minister and Members to consider how we explain to our constituents across Wales about their involvement in making parents aware of the Bill's consequences.

Moving to amendment 3, on amendment 3, this ensures that the public are provided with information about what they can do if they see something. I think that the Deputy Minister's repetition at Stage 2 that safeguarding is everybody's business doesn't cut through to the concerns that we have. We want to make sure that members of the public are confident enough to feel that they have correctly judged a particular situation. And to judge is the key point here. The Welsh Government is asking everyone to be well equipped enough to see that an incident would definitely merit police or social service involvement. It would only be after a visit from the police or social services that context could be determined. By then, of course, the damage could already be done.

In evidence, the Welsh NHS Confederation and Swansea Bay UHB were concerned that the Bill's explanatory memorandum does not provide sufficient clarity on the definition of acceptable behaviour once the defence is removed, which could lead to more referrals. So, I therefore think that the Deputy Minister needs to re-evaluate her previous comments that it's up to the individual to do what they think is right in that circumstance, because, frankly, it's a bit of a cop-out. The answers we received at Stage 2 did not reassure me that individuals would be confident enough to know what to do in the event of seeing or learning of a child being physically punished. If the Deputy Minister's view is that it is up to the individual, then the Welsh Government has a duty to ensure that those who are reporting incidents are fully informed as to whether they should be or not and whether they are making things better or worse for the child. Alternatively, if this is not the case, then the Welsh Government should be clear that if the defence of reasonable punishment is removed, physical punishment is indefensible in criminal law. So, the public would have to report it regardless of the circumstances. So, I therefore, once again, ask Members to consider this very carefully and to support our amendment.

Amendment 4: I have re-tabled amendment 4 because I feel that we didn't receive a full or satisfactory response from the Deputy Minister about promoting awareness of the smacking ban amongst children themselves and young people. While I do respect the Deputy Minister's promises at Stage 2, I go back to the point that this amendment was based on a committee recommendation. What is the point of having committees if we ignore their recommendations? This was because we weren't satisfied with the Deputy Minister's replies on how the smacking ban would be taught in the new curriculum. I simply cannot accept that the Bill's objectives would be merely considered as part of developing the new curriculum. We need a clear response from both the Deputy Minister and the Minister for Education on how this is going to work. This legislation will precede the curriculum legislation, so we cannot be assured that it will be included in every school. The Deputy Minister also admitted that the new curriculum would not be designed to specify detailed lists of topics for teachers, so this could mean that awareness lessons differ from school to school, potentially leading to patchy knowledge of a law and its implications.

I welcome the updated explanatory memorandum that explains that work is being carried out to consider the legislation's objectives within the development of the new curriculum, but it does state that practitioners who develop the areas of learning and experience are still going through feedback and are considering how the guidance can be refined. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Deputy Minister would provide us with an update on their ongoing work, as well as a time frame for the Assembly to have sight of this guidance.

During Stage 2 discussions, the Deputy Minister did not quite respond to my specific questions, so I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Minister would answer the following today: Deputy Minister, will you update us on the discussions you are having with the education Minister to embed uniform teaching of the smacking ban in the new curriculum? Also, will you advise how teaching of the smacking ban will inform children in a balanced way? And, also, how is the Deputy Minister addressing risks encountered by younger children who are unable to articulate their concerns? And of course, these weren't included within the Bill's equality impact assessment. Given that the Deputy Minister is seeking to protect the rights of the child through this Bill, it is only right for Assembly Members to be able to know how children themselves will be taught in the future. So, I therefore call on all Members to support this amendment.

Rounding off this set of amendments on awareness raising, I'd like to end with this point, which was so ably raised by my colleague Suzy Davies AM at Stage 2. She said, unless some of these amendments are accepted by Members of this Welsh Parliament, the position with this Bill is that our influence will be precisely zero over the content of an awareness-raising campaign. So, I therefore urge Members to consider these amendments carefully before casting their votes. Thank you.

I rise to speak in this debate on behalf of my colleague Siân Gwenllian, who is unfortunately unwell and unable to be with us today. But I also rise as a person who has campaigned for over 25 years to bring about this change. And this, of course, has been a matter that has been discussed on many occasions in this Assembly, long before we had the power, and the will was there. Well, now we have the will and the power.

I will speak to this group of amendments and then briefly mention our group's position on the others, but I'll make some brief general remarks to begin with. This is not about making a dramatic change in the way that the law currently works. It is currently impossible for a family to use the defence of reasonable chastisement if a child has been struck and a mark has been left. This is a very, very difficult law to enforce, because people are differently sensitive. I happen to be somebody who bruises very easily, so if my parents had smacked me, they would have got into a lot more trouble than if they'd smacked my big brother who never takes a mark and never seems to bruise at all. So, it's actually very difficult for parents to know what is and isn't permissible under the current law.

We're also not in this debate suggesting a revolution in parenting practices, because the truth is that all opinion surveys and all research now suggests that only a minority of parents continue to use physical punishment, and that most of those who do, when they're asked about it, will say that they did it in a moment of temper, that they regret it, and they don't actually think that it's taught the children very much.

So, while I do accept that the Members opposite have some really genuine concerns, and I think it's right that we exercise them and we discuss them, I really think we need to understand that while the change that the Government is proposing through this legislation is important, it really isn't as big as perhaps some of us feel that it is.

I understand, in turning to this group of amendments, the need to make the public aware of a change in the law. I have to say, I think the Government's commitment on this is substantial. We don't usually have massive public information campaigns when we change the law. We expect people to know that the law has changed. But when sometimes we are proposing a change that has a big influence on people's behaviour, potentially, then it is right to make them aware of the change. But I really don't think that the face of the Bill is the right place for this. We don't normally put these kinds of things on the face of a Bill. [Interruption.] I will, by all means.

Just on that particular point, of course we did take a decision to put this sort of item on the face of the Bill when it came to organ donation law, which again was a significant piece of legislation that was going to affect a lot of people's lives. I think it's absolutely right that we take a similar approach here, given that that's the Government's policy position, and, of course, they've been arguing earlier on today that policy positions should be put on the face of a Bill.

You could follow that through. I would argue that the change in the law on organ donation was actually much bigger in terms of its influence on people's practice than this is. But that said, the Government—if we just look at the evidence, and the most concrete piece of evidence is in the budget. We have a saying in Welsh, 'Diwedd y gân yw'r geiniog'—at the end of the song comes the penny. And the Government is committing, in this year's draft budget, to a £600,000 campaign to raise awareness. I'm aware, and I'm grateful to the Deputy Minister for her information in this regard, that they are consulting with focus groups, with people from minority communities, people from faith groups, to ensure that the messages get out in the most appropriate way to all parents who might need them. I don't see the necessity, therefore, to have it on the face of the Act. I would, in my contribution here, ask the Minister to assure us that, of course, this information will be made available bilingually, but I would make a plea for the design to be bilingual from the beginning, and for the Welsh information not just to be a translation of the information in English, just because that's usually pretty clumsy.

I have to say, Llywydd, when comparable legislation was introduced in the Republic of Ireland, the Government there didn't feel the need to do any kind of public awareness raising, because the debate had been extensively exercised in the press, and everybody was aware of the change in the law. From my own personal perspective, I can think of other things that the Government might usefully do with their £600,000, but I think that the benches opposite should acknowledge the commitment that the Minister is showing in this regard.

I'll turn briefly to the other groups of amendments, though I will return to them at the appropriate time. Group 2, about reporting requirements, again, I think the Government is generous in agreeing to accept this; it isn't necessarily usual to set down on the face of legislation two different time frames for reporting back, but I think, in doing so, the Deputy Minister is acknowledging that there are real concerns, and we do need to make sure that this legislation is working effectively and that there aren't any unintended consequences.

Again, group 3, with regard to sufficient funding, well, I would submit, and I think this is the Government's position, that there's unlikely to be much increased cost, because we are not going to see masses and masses of parents going through systems that they would not otherwise go through, but if there are additional costs, the Government has committed to the appropriate public bodies to meet those, and, again, we don't see the need to put this on the face of the Bill.

The amendment in group 4 is unnecessary, because, of course, this Assembly can always amend or repeal legislation if the majority of us decide that it is inappropriate.

And when it comes to the fifth group of amendments, amendment 10, the effect of this amendment, were we to pass it, would be to place in the hands of non-devolved bodies—much as we might wish these criminal justice bodies were devolved, it would place into the hands of non-devolved bodies the power to decide when or whether this piece of legislation is to be enacted.

Now, it is a matter, Llywydd, for this Chamber, not perhaps for me to say, whether this is deliberate on the part of the Conservatives—we've seen examples of them seeming to want to roll back devolution. These matters, Llywydd, are clearly devolved, and that is how they should stay. Of course it is right for the Welsh Government to be negotiating with the appropriate non-devolved criminal justice bodies and with the police to ensure that this legislation is appropriately implemented; it is not right to allow the Home Office to decide whether it gets implemented at all.

Llywydd, I look forward to the rest of this debate.

I call on the Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan.

Thank you—diolch. Can I start by thanking the members of the Children, Young People and Education Committee for the scrutiny of this Bill, and Members for their consideration of this very important legislation? 

This Bill is a simple one, with a very clear purpose: it aims to remove the defence of reasonable punishment. It removes the defence to an existing criminal offence, it doesn't create a new offence, and it seeks to provide children with the same level of protection from physical punishment as adults.

I've carefully considered amendments 1 to 5, relating to the duty to raise awareness. As you will be aware, the Bill already places a duty on Welsh Ministers to raise awareness, which I am fully committed to doing. Amendment 1 introduces a reference to public understanding, which I believe—in my view— adds nothing to the Bill.

Awareness raising will form one aspect of our efforts to inform the public, including parents, about the change in the law. We already provide a broad package of support for parents, which includes the 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign as well as Flying Start, Families First and our universal health visiting service. We are engaging with a wide range of professionals who provide these face-to-face services for parents, including through our parenting expert action group, which has been set up as part of our implementation group. They obviously have a key role in ensuring parents are aware of the change in the law and how they can use positive approaches to behaviour management. 

Our communications strategy includes a comprehensive stakeholder engagement exercise, which will take place before commencement. This will include a wide range of organisations and individuals who work with children, young people and their families in Wales. Janet Finch-Saunders raised this proposal for an open-ended awareness-raising duty, and it was discussed and rejected at Stage 2, and my views on that have not changed.

But let me assure you that, by commencement, if this law is passed, this messaging about the change in the law will be absolutely integrated into the communications parents receive from health and other professionals and in a wide range of parenting resources, including the new parent information resources replacing 'Bump Baby and Beyond', given to all pregnant women and new parents.

I am fully committed to raising awareness, and I thank Helen Mary Jones for her comments. The Government is fully committed to raising awareness and have agreed to a focused and high-profile awareness-raising campaign. If this Bill is passed, the campaign will run for at least six years and will be refined based on regular research, including levels of awareness and changes in attitude. Therefore, in my view, an ongoing duty referring specifically to the law change is not required.

The updated explanatory memorandum sets out our plans to awareness raising with children, including our intention to consult with representatives of young people. Similarly, setting out specifically the topics that need to be covered in the awareness-raising campaign, which is suggested in amendments 2 and 3, I do not believe is for the face of the Bill. However, let me assure you, there is a clear plan that will ensure the campaign is effective and properly evaluated.

Also, don't let us forget the family information service within each local authority, our 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign, and professionals working with parents, and they already signpost parents to available support.

All these issues are being considered by the parenting expert action group and their thinking should not be constrained in any way by specifications on the face of the Bill. We have a duty to have an awareness campaign, but I do not think we need all these details on the face of the Bill.

This Bill does not create a new offence. In this context, it doesn't make sense to include a provision requiring the provision of information about how a person may raise concerns if it appears to them that a child has been physically punished. And I repeat: safeguarding is everyone's business. As now, the public have a role in highlighting to relevant services if they are concerned about a child. This Bill does not change that.

In my view, I think it is unhelpful to highlight particular aspects of awareness raising over others. I believe there should be a flexibility to adapt and adjust the awareness-raising campaign, including taking into account ongoing research, and evaluation will be an integral feature of this campaign. This will ensure we find the best way to communicate with individuals, families, groups and communities as they will all need to be aware of this change in the law. Information, raising awareness: the information will be built into resources provided to parents as part of ongoing professional development. So, we will make sure that all this information is absolutely endemic. I don't think it's necessary to highlight particular groups, such as visitors to Wales. This will be built into all our communications. Indeed, I know Members of the Senedd have been putting their views into articles in different parts of the press, and I think that's very good, because it's also highlighting this.

I've already said that we are reaching out to hard-to-reach groups, and Janet Finch-Saunders mentioned those who don't use the internet. We already provide information in face-to-face discussions, support and in printed material. I do think we need to trust the public, as we do now. And people make decisions now about whether to raise concerns with social services and the police. I think it's important that we ensure parents are signposted to where they can receive help, support and advice on positive parenting, and this is what we are taking forward with the implementation group.

We have got fantastic commitment and enthusiasm on the implementation groups. I can't really think of a greater effort of work that is being made by our officials, by the—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

I'm listening to you there talking about protecting children, and I've been saying—hundreds of times on social media, in this Chamber—that children are alleging serious abuse in private care homes in Wales and nobody is listening to them. So, we're debating this now—whether that's criminal or not. I'm being told by children themselves, actually, some of them who've left care, that they have been assaulted in care and nothing is being done. There's silence from almost everybody in this Chamber, and we're debating that.

We're debating removing the defence of reasonable punishment here today, and if I can go on just to comment on the new curriculum, the curriculum guidance is clear: learners should develop an understanding of the range of legal rights and protections that they have. We will ensure that that happens as the curriculum is developed.

Therefore, I urge Members to reject the amendments proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders, as I don't think they are helpful in terms of what the awareness-raising duty, which already exists, needs to achieve.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. If I can just say at the onset, before I start my next part, I am trying to be helpful. This is going to pass; we know already where the votes are today with Labour and Plaid Cymru. However, part of my role as an Assembly Member in scrutiny is to challenge as well, and I am, in my own way, trying to be helpful.

Now, what I'm asking isn't untoward. Examples of an open-ended duty of awareness can be found within the Health and Social Care (Quality and Engagement) (Wales) Bill, with the duties placed upon the health bodies and local authorities to promote awareness of the proposed citizen voice body. There is nothing to suggest that this is time-limited. So, there is no reason why this Bill could not have actually had that approach.

I still believe a public awareness campaign is vital. In New Zealand, a nationwide poll found that half of New Zealanders believe that the 2007 anti-smacking law has caused a decline in discipline. Almost 40 per cent of mothers of young children say they have smacked despite the law change, and the Curia Market Research poll of 1,000 respondents surveyed at the beginning of December also found low-income families—63 per cent—were far more likely to flout the law. Seventy per cent said they would not report a parent who they saw smacking their child on the backside or hand, while 20 per cent would. Twenty-two per cent of parents with young children said their child had threatened to report them to the authorities if they were smacked. Fifteen per cent of parents with young children had said they were aware of a family that had been negatively affected by the law, and 17 per cent of parents with young children said the law had made them less confident as a parent; 21 per cent of fathers.

So, those are my views, I would ask Members to support—. I cannot see, in my own mind—and members of the public have asked me, why there would be any reticence, and if this law is going to come forward, why you would not actually want to make the awareness campaign as strong as it could be, and, by that, I mean placing it on the face of the Bill.

The question is that amendment 1 should be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will move to the vote and open the vote on amendment 1. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. And, therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 2.

Are you moving?

I move.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 2. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 3.

Move.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 3. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. And, therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 4.

Move.

Amendment 4 is moved. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 4. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 5—Janet Finch-Saunders.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Is there any objection? [Objection.] Therefore, I open the vote on amendment 5. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed. 

That brings us to the second group of amendments, and this group of amendments relates to reporting requirements. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the lead amendments and to speak to the other amendment in the group. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. I now want to turn to amendments 6 and 11 on the post-implementation review, but first I would like to thank the Deputy Minister and her team for assisting us with those amendments, as outlined in her letter of 11 December to the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Both my colleague Suzy Davies and I welcome the constructive tone of our discussion with the Deputy Minister.

Second, I very much welcome the Deputy Minister's letter of 11 December to the strategic implementation group, which requested the views of the group on the amendments I tabled at Stage 2 about the contents of the post-implementation review, including: the number of people prosecuted for corporal punishment in Wales; the number of reports made to police of corporal punishment of a child taking place in Wales; the number of reports made to social services departments of corporal punishment; costs incurred by devolved Welsh authorities; and the number of staff employed by any devolved Welsh authority who have attended training as a consequence of this Bill.

So, briefly, amendment 6 enables Welsh Ministers to prepare two reports on the effect of the changes this Bill brings and lay them before the National Assembly for Wales. The first report will be three years from the commencement of year 1, and the second after five years.

Amendment 11 is consequential and technical in nature, providing for changes due to the removal and replacement of section 3 of the Bill. At Stage 1, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recommended that the reporting period be brought in line with the ordinary timetable for post-legislative scrutiny, but three years after the commencement of the legislation. So, as it currently stands, the Bill's post-legislative scrutiny timetable would mean its effect would not be formally assessed until seven years after it has passed. So, I am thankful that the Deputy Minister has, quite rightfully, recognised our concerns and those of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee through our discussions at Stage 3. Therefore, I commend Members to support this amendment.

The Plaid Cymru group will be supporting these amendments. I personally feel that the Government's been very generous in accepting them. I don't anticipate that there will be negative consequences for the Government to report upon. Certainly, the experience in the Republic of Ireland does not suggest this.

Janet Finch-Saunders, in responding to the previous debate, referenced the poll in New Zealand. Of course, the poll in New Zealand was just that—it was an opinion poll commissioned by the campaign group that had campaigned against the repeal of the defence of reasonable chastisement, and there is a great historical trend here, is there not, Llywydd? There is always a tendency, from the time of Aristotle and Pliny, to reflect back on the generation below us and see them as worse behaved than we were. This, of course, is very rarely borne out by the facts. I would refer Members to the Irish experience, where none of the anticipated difficulties have occurred, but since the Government is prepared to accept this amendment, and since it's creating work for them and not for us, Plaid Cymru will happily support the amendments as they stand, though of course we would hope to be the responsible Government in some of the reporting period.

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan. 

Diolch. I welcome this amendment, and the willingness of Janet Finch-Saunders and Suzy Davies to work with me to find a middle way, really, regarding the post-implementation review. I'm grateful to Janet for working with me and my officials to draft this amendment, and I thank Helen Mary Jones again for her support and her group's support.

Following Stage 2 and a productive meeting with my Conservative colleagues, I can confirm that I've written to the strategic implementation group to ask them to consider the feasibility of including issues raised during Stage 2 as part of the post-implementation review. They will need time to thoroughly consider these issues, so I would anticipate receiving an initial response over the summer. I will keep the committee updated with their response.

It was clear from the recommendations made by the committees at Stage 1 that they shared my view of the importance of a post-implementation review of the effect of the abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment. For this reason, I brought forward a Stage 2 amendment to include a duty to undertake such a review on the face of the Bill, which was agreed. 

The post-implementation review of this Bill will not be a single piece of work, but a continuous programme of work during the years following the commencement of section 1. Firstly, we will continue to conduct attitudinal surveys, which will be used to track changes in attitudes towards the physical punishment of children and the prevalence of parents reporting that they use physical punishment. The surveys will also be used to monitor the effectiveness of our awareness-raising campaign. And then secondly, through a dedicated task and finish group, we're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to establish robust methods for capturing meaningful data relating to the Bill and to consider the possible impact on services. The group includes representatives from the following organisations: the police, Crown Prosecution Service Cymru, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service Cymru, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service, directors of education, directors of social and children's services and NHS safeguarding. This is a very enthusiastic group, who are working very hard on this issue. 

So, I support this amendment and the consequential amendment. 

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply. 

Just to move to the vote. 

Okay. Response, therefore. If amendment 6 is not agreed, amendment 11 will fall. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore amendment 6 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Group 3 is our next group of amendments. The group relates to a duty to ensure sufficient funding. Amendment 7 is the lead amendment, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Turning to amendments 7 and 8 on a duty to ensure sufficient funding for devolved authorities, these have been brought forward from Stage 2, where I outlined that we have ongoing concerns about the potential costs for Welsh devolved authorities as well as the lack of quantifiable costs within the Bill's regulatory impact assessment. 

Whilst amendment 7 makes reference to costs borne by local authorities and health boards, I note that amendment 8 takes this further by including other devolved authorities that are not funded by the Welsh Government. Anticipating the Deputy Minister's response that few under this category, if any at all, would be affected by the Bill, we're pursuing a principle here, and it is agreement to the principle of providing sufficient funding that we are seeking from the Deputy Minister and Members present today. 

I do accept the Deputy Minister's argument at Stage 2 that some of the witnesses didn't believe there would be much of a cost element, although I previously produced conflicting evidence on that score. We are still not at the point where we can confidently say that this won't impact our public services. I also thank the Deputy Minister for providing an updated regulatory impact assessment ahead of Stage 3 proceedings today, yet the Deputy Minister admitted to the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee in a letter of 7 January that she is still unable to produce a complete estimate for referrals for physical punishment at an all-Wales level. Now, this is crucial to determine the cost to our public services.

I note specifically that the Deputy Minister's team was only able to produce estimates for three—yes, three—out of 22 local authorities, and even those figures were extremely caveated. I am therefore still cautious about the potential effects the Bill could have on already limited budgets for public bodies, which is why I tabled both amendments again. The Deputy Minister has previously said that the National Assembly for Wales can always make an argument for additional funding through the budget-setting process, and that future Welsh Government spending priorities will change. This response worries me deeply. Essentially, if either a budget suggestion on extra funding is voted down by Welsh Government or their spending priorities change, public bodies themselves will be left to pick up the pieces and the costs borne out of a Welsh Government pledge. [Interruption.] Yes. 

You've talked about the additional costs. What about the savings that may occur because of a lack of psychological damage to children from being hit, and what about the savings that can be made in that parents not starting off with hitting a child lightly don't move on to hitting them more violently?  

Well, in respect of that, I think, if you'd been involved in the debates all through the Stages, one of the conflicting arguments is that children can be very badly psychologically damaged by coercive control and other forms of punishment that affect their mental health and well-being. So, I don't really want to agree about the psychological impact of a child having what is considered by many parents reasonable chastisement.

Finally, I draw Members' attention to evidence from the Welsh Local Government Association, who said at Stage 1 that there must be

'a commitment that, whatever the costs are, those costs are met because it is legislation that is being led by the National Assembly for Wales.'

We are in doubt that this should be the case. Therefore, I commend this amendment to be supported. 

While we would accept that the concerns the Member is raising are genuine, we are at a loss to see where the evidence is that public bodies are likely to face really substantial extra financial pressures as a result of this legislation. I would again refer Members opposite to the example of the Republic of Ireland, where there was no additional pressure on public services. 

Now, of course, we have just agreed to amendments that, if the legislation is eventually passed, will ensure that there is a reporting process on the impact of the legislation. I am absolutely sure that, should that reporting process bring forward evidence that shows that there is a substantial pressure on our public services, our public services will not be backward in coming forward in putting pressure on whoever is the Welsh Government then to make the necessary extra resources available. We know that the Welsh Local Government Association, do we not, are very, very effective in ensuring that they raise concerns if there are additional pressures.

So, we're not prepared to support these amendments, both because we believe that the predicted additional pressures are very unlikely to come forward, and because we don't believe in any case that these kinds of budgetary decisions are best made on the face of a piece of legislation. If a Welsh Government has got its priorities wrong, it is the responsibility of this Chamber to hold them to account for that and to try to convince them to change their minds. If we place specific budgetary requirements into specific bits of legislation, then there will be other budgetary requirements that future Welsh Governments may not be able to meet.

So, while I accept that Janet Finch-Saunders' concerns may be genuine, I don't think that those concerns are well evidenced and, on that basis, we will not be supporting these amendments.  

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan. 

Diolch. I can understand that the Member is concerned about the impacts of this Bill on public services, and absolutely accept that that is a genuine concern. However, you will see from the updated explanatory memorandum, and from the raft of impact statements published with the Bill, that we have done a thorough and extremely diligent job of considering the potential impacts of this Bill, both before introduction and during the scrutiny process. 

And, as Helen Mary Jones has said, Ireland didn't do any of the work that we're actually doing, and, as far as I'm aware, no other country has done more than us to consider the impacts of similar legislation or to so comprehensively prepare for implementation. We have worked flat out to do all that we possibly can do to prepare for this legislation. The published data available from other countries on the impact of measures they've taken to prohibit the physical punishment of children have been explored and we've had discussions with a wide range of people in Ireland, New Zealand and Malta, who have similar legal systems to our own. And, in these countries, there is no evidence that public services have been overwhelmed following law reform. And stakeholders here in this country have been clear when giving evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee—I'm sure Janet Finch-Saunders will have heard this—that they do not consider that there will be runaway costs, and I think we should trust their judgment on this. 

As the Children, Young People and Education Committee noted in its Stage 1 report, those delivering services on the front line have said, without exception, that the Bill

'will improve their ability to protect children living in Wales because it will make the law clear.'

And that is why we are doing this. Sally Jenkins of the Association of Directors of Social Services said to the committee:

'In terms of thresholds for children's services, we would not be anticipating a huge number of referrals to us. There may be a small number of referrals that come through. What we know from other nations is that it will peak and then settle. We recognise that's likely to happen.'

Jane Randall, chair of the National Independent Safeguarding Board, said

'there's no expectation that there's going to be a huge increase in the number of referrals coming through to local authority social services, I think it would be dealt with within their existing resources.'

And Dr Rowena Christmas, Royal College of General Practitioners, has said:

'I can't see it's going to lengthen consultations. I can't see that it's going to increase the number of consultations, and I don't think it's going to increase the number of referrals I make to the health visitor or to social services, because if I was worried, I'd make those referrals now regardless of the Bill.'

And unanimously, from all the experts working in the childcare field, they all came forward with this: that they don't expect that this will result in a huge increase in referrals. And the Irish Senator Jillian Van Turnhout told a number of us last week, when she visited here:

'Professionals in Ireland feel the change in the law has brought clarity. It has changed the relationship between professionals and parents enabling them to talk about what they can do rather than what they can't. There is a sense that this has been preventative because advice and information can be provided earlier.'

Now, this Bill is removing a defence to an offence of common assault, which has formed part of the common law of England and Wales for a very long time. Social services already receive and investigate reports of children being assaulted, including from health and education, so this is not a whole new area of costly activity for any of them. We're working with organisations to put in place arrangements to collect data about the possible impact on their services. And this will be analysed as part of the post-implementation review. We can consider with relevant organisations how best to manage any impact on workloads or resources, and any cost implications.

So, what is being proposed is outside the normal funding arrangements that operate within Government and it's not clear why, in the context of the evidence heard at Stage 1, such provisions are necessary. I'm sure Members will agree that future Governments need to be able to consider, within the context of the budget-setting process, what their priorities are. And these considerations would need to be made within the context at the time, for example, taking into account what happens in relation to Brexit or any other unforeseen impact on the economy or fabric of Welsh society. Future Governments need to be able to make those decisions.

Furthermore, as is the case now, the Senedd scrutinises the Welsh Government budget annually, so it would be able to make an argument for additional funding for public bodies should it consider this is required. But I think we should listen to all those people who work in the services and the public services that we are talking about, and so I therefore urge Members to reject these amendments, which I consider unnecessary.

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would just like to put on record that, as the elected Member for Aberconwy, my own social services department, especially when it comes to work with families, is very overstretched, and that is plainly as a result of a lack of fair settlement to it. I can tell you, it does not really echo well for this Chamber that we are going to be passing legislation without amendments on cost, when one considers that, of 22 local authorities that have been approached for estimates, only three have been able to respond. I find that a very weak position for this Welsh Labour Government. But I will move to the amendments now, please.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 7. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

Amendment 8, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Move?

Move.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will therefore open the vote on amendment 8. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 8 is not agreed.

The next group of amendments is group 4, and the amendments relate to regulation-making powers in the Bill. Amendment 9 is the lead amendment and only amendment in this group. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendment 9—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. I speak to amendment 9, which my colleague Suzy Davies AM also tabled at Stage 2. This amends section 4 on regulation-making powers for Welsh Ministers. As Suzy noted in Stage 2, what is now section 4 is not a separate commencement power to section 1, and it is likely you will need regulatory powers to introduce the reports into the Bill's effectiveness as well as the awareness campaign. As it is drafted, section 4 may not give enough powers to the Deputy Minister during the course of the Bill to achieve her aims. As such, this amendment ensures the ability for the Assembly to bring anything the Deputy Minister wishes to introduce under section 1 of the Bill onto the floor of this Parliament.

In her responses at Stage 2, the Deputy Minister noted that CLAC concluded there should be no Assembly procedure, and that wider powers were not necessary in her view. While I accept these points, we still aren't clear as to whether the provision she intends to introduce would be better suited to affirmative or negative procedures.

Finally, the Deputy Minister confirmed that she would be keeping the powers under review coming up to Stage 3. Therefore, I would be grateful if she would update Members today on her thoughts about the implications of limited powers, especially if there are links between this Bill and other legislation that may require a wider power.

It is of course the default position of these benches that we always want to be keeping an eye on whatever the Government is doing. From that point of view, I have some sympathy with what Janet Finch-Saunders is attempting to achieve with this amendment, but in this case it seems unnecessary. This is a simple repeal, this is not a complex piece of legislation, and if the Deputy Minister is content that this is unnecessary, then we are content to support her and not to support the amendment.

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan.

Thank you. The amendment is technical in nature and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee were content that, in this case, no procedure was the appropriate procedure. The absence of an Assembly procedure does not mean that Ministers' decisions in relation to transitional powers cannot be scrutinised by Members. Any concerns about the Welsh Ministers' proposals could be put to me in the Senedd. This was a point made to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and, as I say, their final conclusion was: no procedure is the appropriate procedure for such a power.

Introducing the possibility of annulment sends mixed messages to our key stakeholders when certainty has been given on the face of the Bill as to when the change in the law will commence. For this reason, I encourage Members to reject amendment 9 from Janet Finch Saunders, which goes against the Stage 1 report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Move to the vote.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Open the vote therefore on amendment 9. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed. 

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 11.

Do you move amendment 11?

I move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 11 is therefore agreed. 

Group 5 is our final group of amendments, and the amendments relate to commencement. Amendment 10 is the lead amendment, and the only amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to amendment 10. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Turning to amendment 10, this is split into three parts: to delay the commencement of section 1, including the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance; an alternative pathway away from the criminal justice system to be established; and the establishment of parenting support.

The Deputy Minister will no doubt be familiar with the arguments that Welsh Conservatives placed when we tabled these as separate amendments at Stage 2, but I think that the National Assembly for Wales should be aware of our reasoning behind the delays. I must repeat that this Bill will have far-reaching impacts, not only on the rights of the child, but also the lives of their parents. The Deputy Minister has consistently said throughout the Bill's legislative progress that she wants this to engender a behavioural change. However, she could have done this through awareness raising or civil enforcement, rather than to expose parents to criminal liability. 

The potential effects of this exposure are so utterly serious and could have severely negative impacts on parents, children and families, which I have outlined previously in my amendments in group 1. We are not satisfied that parenting support will be properly established by the time the Bill fully comes into force. We are well aware in this Chamber of the patchy application of Flying Start, and the Deputy Minister really needs to keep us updated on the progress of Healthy Child Wales's capacity and reach, given that we were told just over half of children had been contacted under the scheme. That is why establishing an alternative way and parenting support before the smacking ban is introduced is essential.

Additionally, including the CPS and police, through the revised charging guidance, makes us stray slightly into reserved matters. Suzy picked this up and noted it at Stage 2. The duties of both bodies sit outside of our competence. Therefore, by passing this Bill without prior sight of this guidance, we as a devolved legislature would be placing serious considerations, such as family relationships, in the hands of two non-devolved bodies. Putting it quite simply, we wouldn't have control over the guidance, which could end up being completely disproportionate to what the Deputy Minister intends.

And, ultimately, it will be the parents and families who will suffer for a policy that has not been thought through. The Deputy Minister admitted to the committee that the strategic implementation group was only in the early stages of discussing what these guidelines may look like, meaning that it's us who are left passing a piece of legislation that gives us no control or input on how parents may be punished for smacking their children. That is actually truly shocking. 

I disagree entirely with the Deputy Minister's claims that we would give a non-devolved body power on the way we legislate in Wales. These are very carefully worded amendments that don't seek to confer that power. On the flip side, I remind Members that Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 places restrictions on our ability to impose, modify or remove the functions of reserved authorities without the consent of the UK Government. So, we have to be careful about Crown consent. Instead, we are seeking reassurance that the Assembly will have some sight of the charging guidelines before the Bill comes into force. 

Now, of course, the potential consequences of these actions could be avoided had you decided to protect the rights of the child through civil enforcement. None of us want to criminalise parents unnecessarily, and so it is very important that we must get the alternatives in place before the Bill's provisions commence. It is our duty as an Assembly to ensure that we get it right before the Bill begins, and so I really do urge Members to support this particular amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

I read the amendment and was somewhat confused by its intent. I'd rather hoped that Janet Finch-Saunders's contribution to the debate might enlighten me. In fact, it has confused me further, because there were some points in her contribution when it sounded as if she was calling for the devolution of the criminal justice system to enable this place to have control over the Crown Prosecution Service and the police—and I would welcome that, of course, with open arms. And if Janet has reached that position, I am absolutely delighted.

The amendment itself is muddled, and in Janet's contribution she shows remarkably little faith in the police service in Wales and in the Crown Prosecution Service here to work in a co-operative manner with the Welsh Government, with the devolved administration. The experience of this in other fields is quite the reverse; both the Crown Prosecution Service and the police are very open to being co-operative and supportive.

I will happily give way.

Thank you for giving way. As you noted, in the work that's been done on ACEs and prevention, but also on domestic abuse, the police indeed do work very much within policy frameworks set by Welsh Government. I've got no reason to anticipate they'd work in any different way with this.

I would absolutely agree with Huw Irranca-Davies on this.

Let me just briefly take the three sections one by one. The Crown Prosecution Service must have revised its guidance: well, I am prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that she's given me today on behalf of my party that she fully anticipates that, by the time this legislation is implemented, that guidance will have been revised, and that she's had assurances from the Crown Prosecution Service to that effect, and I for one am prepared to believe the Crown Prosecution Service.

Section (b) calls for the UK Government, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to establish an alternative-to-prosecution pathway. Well, it's never been the UK Government's job to directly establish that, even in pre-devolution days. The police will take a lead, with others, in providing alternatives to prosecution. But I really don't believe that we are likely to see dozens and dozens of families facing prosecution who would not otherwise have done so. The Irish experience has showed that their legislation has only led to one family, across the whole nation, in the whole period of its implementation, going into the process who would not otherwise have done so. And that was because a member of the public spotted some behaviour that she was concerned about in a public place, reported that to the police, and when they investigated they discovered that, beneath that public smack, was a really serious pattern of abuse, which of course would not normally be the case. So, section (b) doesn't make sense as it stands.

Section (c) asks the Welsh Ministers to establish parenting support services. Well, the Welsh Government has been working on establishing parenting support services in many ways for many years. Are we on these benches entirely sanguine that they're doing everything they can do, should do, and will do? Well, of course not; it's our job to scrutinise and it's our job to raise concerns. But it seems, to us, foolish to put on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Welsh Government to do something that they've been doing for about 18 years anyway.

Happy always to take an intervention from Darren Millar.

I'm very grateful. I'm just a little bit confused by what appears to be a very different approach on the Plaid Cymru benches—and indeed on the Labour backbenches—towards this piece of legislation versus the EU withdrawal Bill that we were discussing earlier on this afternoon, where there have been some very clear statements about policy intention of the UK Government, and yet you all want amendments on the Bill in order to demonstrate that there's a clear commitment to those things, because you're afraid that people will roll back. And yet, on this particular Bill, there are some clear indications of policy intent from the Government, and it's quite clear that the Government has made its position—

Sorry, Darren, I need to continue my remarks. I take your point.

I appreciate that, but I'm just not sure why there is such a different approach.

Well, allow me to explain.

Please do.

There is a difference—and it depends entirely upon who one believes, of course. But what these two things do—[Interruption.]

Allow Helen Mary to respond.

I have allowed Darren Millar to make an intervention; I would like him, if he will, to listen to my reply. And my reply is this: the things that the Bill we debated earlier—the Westminster Bill—and this have in common is that, read the wrong way, they both amount to a Westminster power grab. If we pass this amendment, non-devolved bodies, which Janet Finch-Saunders has rightly highlighted, would be able, if they refused to co-operate, to prevent the commencement of a piece of legislation here. I have no reason—no reason at all—to think that either the police or the Crown Prosecution Service in Wales would want to do such a thing, but this amendment makes specific reference to the UK Government needing to do something before legislation that we've passed in this place can be put into place. That's not acceptable. The thing that the two things have in common is an attempt to reduce the power and authority of this place and I for one am not prepared to tolerate either of them.

Whilst my group would rather this Bill was rejected in its entirety, we will be supporting this amendment by Janet Finch-Saunders. The fact of the matter is: this is a bad piece of legislation. It removes the defence of reasonable punishment. Reasonable. What any of us in this Chamber would have thought was reasonable punishment is now not a defence. So, what it does is take it down to the minutiae of smacking a child, tapping a child on the hand. This is where this is a bad piece of legislation by any standards whatsoever.

We have the protection of the law and I am absolutely certain that everybody in this Chamber does care about the protection of children, but there is huge verbal abuse of our children. This doesn't in any way affect the verbal abuse of children, which is far more psychologically damaging than a small tap on the hand.

David, would you give way?

Yes, I will, of course.

Would you agree also that parental alienation is a massive form of child abuse, which is completely ignored by many Assembly Members here? Many Members ignore it. It's the only kind of child abuse that is accepted. We should have a Bill on that.

Let me just explore a scenario where a couple are in a restaurant or a cafe with a young child. They have hot cups of coffee or a container of hot coffee on the table and the child goes to grab the coffee, and the mother instinctively taps the child's hand to warn it against that. [Interruption.] And then, you have zealots in that cafe, which could be Plaid Cymru AMs or Labour AMs, who choose to inform the police of what's happened. You could have the scenario where a parent is dragged out of the cafe—

Can we allow the Member to carry on in a degree of silence, please?

—by the police. That's the sort of law you're seeking to bring in to this Chamber. I support Janet's amendment, which has overwhelming support from all those who've contacted me about this Bill. I've had probably more contact over this particular Bill than on anything else that's been brought through this Chamber. And from academics, and from people who actually work in this area. And all of them condemning this Bill. It's a bad piece of legislation. 

David, will you take an intervention?

I will. Yes, of course, I will.

You said that you had had lots of communication from professionals working in this field. Are you aware that every single professional who gave evidence to the Children, Young People and Education Committee from health, education, across the board, were in support of this legislation?

All I can say is what's coming through my e-mails and through my letterbox, which is absolutely contrary to what you've just said.

Of course I will.

A point has been made about the support or otherwise for this particular piece of legislation. Do you accept that there's very little parental support because poll after poll has demonstrated that parents do not want this legislation passed, and indeed members of the public, when polled, have consistently polled at least two thirds to three quarters in favour of maintaining the current arrangements?

Absolutely. We've heard in this Chamber the transposition of what's happened in Ireland. One prosecution. That's all it's resulted in. And how many investigations? How much time and effort by the social services have been involved in the many cases that must have been coming forward to them—the cost of all that when they should be investigating much more serious areas of abuse of children?

We know that in this country, whether we like it or not, there is a risk-averse culture within our social services. That's why we see children taken into care where they should never have been taken into care, because of the over zealousness, often, of social services, and that's exactly what we will get with this Bill at a huge cost to this country.

Well, as I said when we debated this Bill in September, I'm the parent of six, all now responsible and caring adults, a godparent, grandparent, uncle and great-uncle. Three of my daughters are also currently pregnant. Two of these now live a few miles away in England. They told me they're grateful that this Bill will not apply to them. However, our other pregnant daughter, who still lives in Wales, is worried about the snoopers' charter this Bill threatens to introduce, so are her friends, colleagues and peer groups.

An independently conducted nationwide poll in New Zealand—independently conducted—where smacking is already criminalised found that 70 per cent said they would not report a parent they saw smacking their child, but 20 per cent would become snoopers.

The people behind this Bill appear to live in an unrepresentative Cardiff bay bubble where sitting in judgment on others and deciding what is good for them takes priority over listening to the people they're supposed to represent. They claim to be protecting children and state that those who disagree with them need positive parenting courses. However, the overwhelming majority of parents already know and apply the positive parenting interventions they advocate, whilst also retaining the option of light smacking in their positive parenting toolkit for rare use in times of danger or as a last resort.

As the crown prosecution states, the defence of reasonable chastisement cannot be used 

'for minor assaults committed by an adult upon a child that result in injuries such as grazes, scratches, abrasions, minor bruising, swelling, superficial cuts or a black eye, the appropriate charge will normally be ABH'.

The reasonable chastisement defence only remains available, they state, in cases where 

'the injury is transient and trifling'.

A recent survey of Welsh local councillors found that seven in 10 are opposed to a smacking ban, including a majority from each of the main parties, and that nine in 10 say that councils do not have the resources to cope with one, and concern has been raised that the Welsh Government has not given—

Will the Member take an intervention?

One minute, Helen Mary.

—an assessment of the cost to social services of this Bill in terms of an uplift in referrals and an increased burden on social workers.

I'm not sure if the Member is aware that, in terms of response rates to that survey, it was fewer than 13 per cent of local authority members who were surveyed who responded at all. One would expect, under those circumstances, that they would be members who were opposed. I think we just have to be a bit careful about how we use those figures, and I've already made the point about the New Zealand survey, which was just that—it was an opinion poll commissioned by the organisation that had opposed the ban in the first place.

Thirteen per cent would normally be considered a high response for most Welsh Government consultations and many of the other polls and surveys that we as Members frequently quote from.

Speaking here on this Bill in September, I quoted an experienced senior officer with a Welsh police force, who stated

'I'm constrained from speaking out publicly'—

like many other professionals in Wales on the Welsh Government's payroll—

'but I have to do something'—

although I clearly appreciate that a police officer is not on the Welsh Government payroll—

'but I have to do something to try to discourage the Assembly from backing plans to outlaw smacking.'

They said, 'The reasonable chastisement defence only covers the lightest sort of smacking. It stops parents being treated like criminals for no good reason. Removing the defence'—this police officer said—'will remove any discretion we have. It will lead to decent families being traumatised.'

I stated here in September that I had received extensive correspondence from constituents regarding this Bill, which I had, all of which had asked me to oppose it. Not one asked me to support it. Four months later, I've still not received a single request from any constituent to support this Bill—not one—but I've received numerous e-mails from constituents asking me to support amendment 10, moved today by Janet Finch-Saunders, which would delay the smacking ban coming into force until the UK Government, police and Crown Prosecution Service have established a pathway as an alternative to prosecution for those affected by the changes to the law. This follows a recommendation to this effect in the Children, Young People and Education Committee's Stage 1 report on the Bill, which recognises that policing and justice in Wales is a non-devolved responsibility, hence the wording.

In order to represent my constituents, I will share some of their recent comments, as follows: 'We were both among the 76 per cent of adults living in Wales who voted in the 2017 ComRes poll to oppose the criminalising of smacking. The law already protects children from violence, and this Bill will overwhelm the police and social workers with a plethora of records whilst real cases of serious child abuse will be overlooked.'

Another: 'We trust that you will support Janet Finch-Saunders's amendment, which calls for an alternative to prosecution. Whilst we do not approve of thrashing a child when it misbehaves, a light smack is not harmful and should not be criminalised. We understand that children need to be protected from abuse, but smacking is not abusive.' 

Another: 'No-one supports abuse of children, but this law will be counterproductive. It is completely undemocratic as every opinion poll I've seen shows parents have rejected it. I urge you to consider what effect this will have on police, social services and court services. It could also lead to the unnecessary break-up of loving families.'

Another: 'If passed in its current form, the proposed Bill would have the effect of leaving loving parents open to being criminalised for a mild smack of their child, introducing unnecessary police investigations and child protection investigations by overstretched services for very trivial cases and leave real cases of child abuse unaddressed.'

Another: 'Please, Mr Isherwood, would you support amendment 10, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, to ensure that the smacking ban does not come into force, as this ban would turn good parents into criminals. Please protect family freedoms.'

Another: 'This Bill constitutes an affront to every normal parent, as well as being an unwarranted intrusion into family life.'

Two more: 'We, as recently retired GPs, are aware of the heavy workload that professionals in both the social care and healthcare sectors carry with regard to detecting risk and protecting children from real and significant abuse. We fear that the Bill in its current form might result in the overwhelming of child protection services as resources are diverted away from the protection of children at real risk to the investigation and persecution of responsible loving parents.'

And a final quote: 'I beg you to please support amendment 10. I'm deeply concerned that this could lead to the criminalising of loving parents and cause the breakdown of families.'

That's just a small sample of those received in recent days.

It is not having boundaries that contributes to damaged and disordered lives, disturbance and delinquency, but a lack of boundaries. Instead of criminalising normal, decent, loving parents who use a smack from time to time, we must recognise the clear difference between smacking and child abuse, which the vast majority of parents are well able to recognise. This debate is a distraction, when our full focus should instead be on the growing reports of the sexual abuse, exploitation and forced labour of children. Let's show the people of Wales that we're listening, let's show the parents of Wales that this is not the virtual reality establishment that too often this Parliament is presenting it as, and let's support amendment 10 and give this piece of legislation a chance to do some good. 

Neil McEvoy.

[Inaudible.]

I call on the Deputy Minister to reply. 

Diolch. 

I listened carefully to what stakeholders and the three committees said during Stage 1 about the importance of ensuring sufficient time is available prior to the change in the law to abolish the defence of reasonable punishment. As a result, I brought forth amendments at Stage 2 to provide certainty around the date for the change in the law and for a period of two years between Royal Assent and commencement. I believe that this remains the most appropriate way to bring in this change. 

This certainty, in terms of the timeline, will allow all our key partners, including the police, social services and the Crown Prosecution Service to plan for changes to guidance, training and data collection and to be able to do it more effectively because they know the exact period of time that they've got. It will also provide a focus for our awareness-raising campaign.

I've listened to the arguments put forward by Janet Finch-Saunders and other Members, and I think it is very important to acknowledge, as has already been said—and Helen Mary Jones has made this point very strongly—if this amendment is accepted, it will make commencement of the Bill conditional on something else happening first, whether that's waiting for the revision of Crown Prosecution Service guidance, or establishment of a pathway for diversion from the criminal justice system, or the provision of parenting support services. By making commencement of this legislation contingent on the revision of guidance by the CPS we would allow non-devolved bodies to be the final arbiters of our legislation, and I do think that that is a very important point.

In addition, you suggest we allow the UK Government to have a say in when Welsh legislation is commenced in an area that was specifically devolved to the Senedd under the Wales Act 2017, and why on earth would we want to do that? The CPS is entirely independent of Government and will make its own decisions about how and when it will revise its guidance. Let's not forget that, during Stage 1, the CPS assured the Children, Young People and Education Committee that revisions will be made to their guidance.

The test applied by the proposed amendment as to when commencement could lawfully occur is uncertain. If this amendment is passed, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to judge when section 1 could be commenced. This contravenes what stakeholders and committees have asked for, and raises huge uncertainty which potentially jeopardises the Bill. We have been asked to give certainty, and that's what we have given.

I want to assure you we have really good working relationships with the CPS and the police. Huw Irranca-Davies referred to how they've worked closely with us in other areas, and we've certainly got that good working relationship now. We have worked with them in providing the estimates of costs in the regulatory impact assessment, and they are active members of the strategic implementation group and its task and finish groups. They are fully participating in all our preparations.

The work we do in these groups should not affect the timing of the Bill’s commencement. In fact, it's the other way round: a two-year period between Royal Assent and commencement means these groups can plan their work to a known timescale and deliver in good time before the law comes into force.

When it comes to parenting support, parents and carers across Wales already have access to a wide range of services to support positive parenting, including face-to-face advice through health visiting, the universal health visiting service, and through our family support programmes, Flying Start and Families First. In addition, our 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign provides parents with positive parenting tips through a website, Facebook and a range of other resources, and is very well used.

I have allocated £325,000 to the 'Parenting. Give it Time' campaign this year, and intend to provide a similar level of investment next year. But I'm certainly not complacent. Members know that I made a commitment to review the existing provision of parenting support, and work is already under way through the parenting expert action group on this very issue. This group of parenting experts and professionals will consider what, if any, additional parenting support, advice and information is required to support behavioural change alongside this legislation, as well as identifying any gaps in current provision. Early indications from the exercise we carried out to map parenting support are that there is generally a good range of support provided by local authorities across different age ranges, but, as I stated earlier, the group will consider how this could be enhanced to best effect.

Just to comment on some of the contributions that have been made here this evening, I want to re-emphasise that all the professionals want clarity of the law. They're asking for the law to be clear. Health visitors, people at the front line, want that clarity. But I also want to make it quite clear that there is nothing in this legislation that stops the parent protecting a child that is in danger. If a child is running towards a road, of course a parent can grab the child. If a child is likely to be scalded by hot coffee, of course the parent can pull the child away. This is absolutely acceptable. [Interruption.] If a child is in danger, the parent must act in order to stop the child. In the example that the Member used, you would pull the child away and that would be perfectly acceptable.

And the other point I want to make is that whole—. [Interruption.] 

Allow the Deputy Minister to carry on, please, and be heard. 

If I can continue, Members have referred to public opinion, and I think it's very important to say that 58 per cent already think it's not lawful to hit a child. So, a majority actually think that this law is in place already and, on the whole, public opinion is changing. More and more people in Wales are thinking that physical punishment is not acceptable and we are tracking that, and we will continue to track it after this legislation is passed. And what is particularly significant, I think, is that it is the parents who are actually bringing up children—parents with young children—who are more and more in a majority believing that it's not physically acceptable to harm their child. 

And so, I really feel that this legislation is in the mood of the times. It is going with public opinion. And I know that in the past there were different standards and people operated in a different way, but now we've moved on and we have much more information; we've got much more research that shows us the potential harm. And so, I feel that we are doing exactly the right thing in bringing forward this legislation today, and I therefore urge you not to support amendment 10, which would cause great difficulties for bringing this legislation into force. 

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate. 

Let's move to the vote. 

Okay. Thank you, Janet. 

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore move to the vote, and open the vote on amendment 10. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed. 

We have therefore reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Children (Abolition of the Defence of Reasonable Punishment) (Wales) Bill. I declare that all sections and Schedules of the Bill are deemed agreed, and that brings our proceedings of this Stage 3 to an end.