Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Can we call the Senedd to order please?

I have accepted an emergency question under Standing Order 12.67, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to ask the emergency question. Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch. I issued a written statement in response to the announcement on 17 January, and I've since been speaking with Hitachi, with Horizon Nuclear Power, the UK Government, local stakeholders, and I also attended an emergency meeting of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board yesterday, and I can assure the Member that we are doing everything possible as this developing situation unfolds. 

Thank you very much. I think we had expected this announcement for some months. We could ask some questions about what the UK Government did during that time to try and save the agreement, but, from the point of view of the Welsh Government, it is worth asking today, given that we had expected this announcement, what steps the Welsh Government took to draw up an action plan for such an announcement. I wonder whether you could outline those plans.

In terms of the next steps, seeing what can be done in order to keep the current scheme viable is clearly a part of what’s happening at the moment. I have to say that I do fear that the Secretary of State for Wales, within the UK Government, is being irresponsible in talking about the possibility of reviving the project within a year or two, or possibly three. But, if the intention is to try and create a new funding model, can I ask what role the Welsh Government proposes to play in that scenario, along with other partners locally?

But, whatever can be done in terms of restoring this particular scheme, clearly we need investment now—additional investment—to make up for what is being lost, at least in the short term. The politics of nuclear is one thing—I understand the arguments for and against nuclear energy—but as an economic opportunity, of course, this announcement will be a blow to generations of young people in Anglesey, and they now need to see that everything is being done to invest in their futures. So, will the Minister, who has given some signals of this already, make a commitment to invest more in the north Wales growth deal? One hundred and twenty million pounds has been allocated already, as well as £120 million from the UK Government? We will need to increase that significantly now in order to invest in regeneration and economic development plans in Anglesey. particularly in the north of the island, in the Amlwch area. We need to move towards opening the Amlwch line. We need to secure funding to make the electricity link to the Morlais energy project, and we need to support the Minesto investment. So, I would appreciate an assurance in that regard from the Welsh Government.

Further, can we have an assurance that the Welsh Government will urge the UK Government to increase its contribution to the north Wales growth deal? This is another project that has failed to be delivered by them in Wales. They must now show a commitment through further investment, including, perhaps, by directing substantial HE research funds to Bangor University. Wales fails to receive its share of research funding as things currently stand.

And finally, could I have an assurance that the Welsh Government will provide all possible assistance to the staff working with Horizon at Wylfa at the moment, who, of course, have received letters warning of redundancy over the last week? Good people from the local workforce will now need your support.

Can I thank the local Member for the very important points that he made and the questions that he raised? 

In terms of planning for this eventuality, well, of course, I'd already given the go-ahead to the development of a regional plan for north Wales, alongside the development of regional plans for the other two regions. That plan is in development as we meet here today, and will, of course, take account of the situation that we're in and the various scenarios that could be played out in the months and years to come. But, alongside the regional plan, of course, is the north Wales growth deal, with the 16 projects that are contained in it. Some are sensitive to the Wylfa Newydd project, but, of course, others are not. Yesterday, during the meeting of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, we discussed how prioritisation could be given to a number of the projects, and those projects that are potentially the most transformational for the region, and, indeed, how they could potentially be accelerated and scaled up. If I can just identify one as an example, I think the digital project has huge potential and could be scaled up and delivered at great pace.

Rhun also raised the important point about the work that will be undertaken in the coming months, insofar as a potential new funding model is concerned. I think it's fair to say that we must do all we can collectively—here, in north Wales, and the UK Government, working with Horizon, to ensure that the project, if it can go forward, does go forward with the minimum pause. In terms of the new funding model and the work that's under way, we've been assured that the review and the report will be completed by this summer. The regulated asset base model has been utilised in other major infrastructure programmes. One that I would point to as probably the best example of its utilisation recently in this sort of field is the Thames Tideway. We need to be fully involved in any conversations, discussions and deliberations over that potential funding model, and I've asked officials to engage fully with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

In terms of support for the north Wales economy and, more generally, the marine energy sector of Wales, we believe as a Government that the UK Government should look to develop a new tariff regime that assists the development of the sector in the same way that, for example, wind was assisted in its formative years. That would enable Wales to lead the field in the deployment of marine energy technology, and it would ensure that, as we seek energy security, we are able to rely more heavily on renewable forms of energy. And of course, in and around Anglesey there are already existing centres of excellence and research facilities concerning marine energy.

In terms of the quantum that we have allocated to the north Wales growth deal, I was always very clear that, in supporting the growth deal to the tune of £120 million, we were matching the UK Government. But I was also very clear in statements made before Christmas that we believe that the UK Government should increase its contribution, and, if it so does, so will we. And I do await positive news from the UK Government concerning the sum of money that it is willing to contribute to this important deal. And it's also worth bearing in mind that, in addition to our contribution to the north Wales growth deal, we are also planning £600 million of infrastructure programmes across the region in the coming years. And on top of that, a huge amount of money will be invested in our social infrastructure—in new schools, health centres, hospital facilities, again making sure that we contribute to the regional economy and its economic resilience.

What I would say is that, in considering any additional resource for new projects, we should not tolerate an unco-ordinated call for support for programmes in north Wales. It's absolutely essential that the regional plan, and the north Wales growth deal bid, take centre stage in developing the economic footprint and interventions of north Wales. And so, I would call on any interested parties to ensure that their work, their proposals, are aligned with the growth deal bid and our emerging regional plan.

I think the Member is absolutely right as well to call for an increase in research and development spend in the region, and I would widen that to say we should have an increased spend in Wales as a whole. Of course, within the growth deal, there is a £20 million project for access to smart energy, relating to the development of Trawsfynydd as a centre for the deployment of small modular reactors. I'd like the UK Government now to examine the potential to ring-fence sums within the sector deals for nuclear and aerospace for the region and for Wales, to ensure that we are at the forefront of technological development in two areas of expertise that I think we are renowned for around the globe.

And finally, in terms of employees, my heart goes out to those people who have worked so diligently over a significant period of time. We are in talks with Horizon about the numbers that will be retained, but we have a proven track record of being able to assist people who are affected by such decisions, through ReAct and through a co-ordinated response across a number of Government agencies. Of course, we will support anyone affected in the same way. But I can also assure the Member that we are looking to go beyond this, by engaging intensively with businesses across the region who were scaling up and skilling up in order to take advantage of this once-in-a-generation opportunity. We are examining every possible means of providing opportunities for work and for businesses to take advantage of during the period that this project is paused. 

Can I begin by thanking the Member for Ynys Môn for raising this very important emergency question, and also the Minister for his response? May I also add that my thoughts are with everyone who's been affected by this recent announcement? 

I really hope that we can come to a solution on this issue, because the local people and the local communities on the island, but also the communities right across north Wales, have been working extremely hard to support and plan for this project for the best part of 10 years, and that's because it has clear benefits: the thousands of construction jobs, the hundreds of operational and engineering jobs and the opportunities for high-quality, skilled apprenticeships. So, I welcome the Minister's offer of support to those families who have been affected by this announcement. 

Deputy Llywydd, I have three points for the Minister. Firstly, it's clear to me that following this announcement, and the past announcement surrounding the tidal lagoon, we need a better mechanism in place for financing major construction projects. Secondly, would the Minister agree with me that we also need to learn from the lessons and put our full weight behind other projects in north Wales, just like the Heathrow logistics expansion hub, which is an ongoing project? Now, securing these investments would bring jobs and prosperity to my constituents but also those people right across the north Wales coast? And finally, Minister, people in north Wales and across the country are losing faith in major projects not being delivered, and, as it stands, we are being let down by the UK Conservative Government. Would the Minister agree with me that it's time to get projects like these delivered so that the people of Wales can see real change in their communities and clear opportunities for our future generations?

Can I thank the Member for Alyn and Deeside for his important points and the questions that he has raised? Of course, he represents an area of Wales that is integral to the nuclear arc that stretches from the north-west of Wales right through to the north-west of England, and whilst the centre of activity will, of course, be focused on Anglesey, I am conscious that many people who work on the Wylfa Newydd programme are from other parts of north Wales. This really is a project of regional and, indeed, national significance in terms of the employment base. Indeed, within the nuclear sector as a whole, such is the demand for skilled people that employees are willing to travel far and wide for work. One of my best friends, who lives just outside Mold, actually travels on a daily basis to Trawsfynydd for the decommissioning project there. So, nuclear-related activities in the region are of huge benefit to the whole of Wales. 

I think it is essential that work on the alternative funding model is taken forward at speed and, with the collaboration of Welsh Government officials, I've also pledged to provide a briefing note and regular updates for colleagues in local government in north Wales. I think the Member also raises the important point of seeking out other opportunities for employment in the region and across Wales. I think the Heathrow logisitcs hub that the Member points to could be a transformational project at the Tata plant, and I look forward to receiving an update on the work that has taken place in recent times in determining where the hub should be located. 

And, finally, insofar as major infrastructure projects are concerned and major investments are concerned, I won't rehearse the points that Members have already made so far concerning let-downs for Wales and failures for Wales, but I would say that, in contrast, the Welsh Government continues to deliver. It was perhaps a very sad irony that, on the day that we heard about the failure to take forward Wylfa Newydd on the current funding model, I was actually in north Wales launching the start of work on a £135 million Caernarfon-to-Bontnewydd bypass. In addition, we're delivering the £5 billion franchise, and the international convention centre is reaching completion. We have a record spend in terms of infrastructure in the region where Wylfa Newydd was due to be located, and where I hope still will be built. 

Minister, thank you for your comments this afternoon, and also last Wednesday, and in particular last Wednesday where you fully endorsed the Welsh Government's support for nuclear energy, which obviously was a concern for some people given the recent leadership race that was undertaken within the Labour Party. But what is important to understand is, as Horizon and Hitachi have pointed out, this boils down to the funding model that's available to build this project. We are led to believe that the UK Government offered a strike price of £75 per megawatt. That clearly doesn't seem to have been in the ballpark so that Hitachi could press the 'go' button on this particular project. What is your assessment of what strike price is required to let this project go forward? And, ultimately, what's really important for the communities in north Wales, and in particular on Anglesey, is that the negotiations do not continue indefinitely but that a conclusion is brought about to those negotiations.

When do you think that the Governments at both ends of the M4 will be in a position to make a reasonable call on the development of this site so that, if Hitachi are unable to develop this site, other partners can be secured? Because this is the best site to develop a nuclear opportunity in Europe, not just in the UK, and it is vitally important that Hitachi as a company, if they feel they can't continue with this project, are replaced with an alternative vision that can develop the opportunities that very many Members around this Chamber have identified for jobs and prosperity on the Isle of Anglesey. 

Can I thank the Member for his question? And, of course, it's the funding model that is broken. I don't think it would be for me to judge the strike price that would be needed to take this forward, because negotiations have taken place in confidence, although the figures, I understand, are now out there in the open. What is required is an appraisal of an alternative funding model to be carried out as soon as possible, and I think the Member makes a very important point, in that the patience of individuals and the faith that individuals have in the region will be tested if this situation is not resolved either way as soon as possible.

And I think it's also important to say that there can be no more false hopes, false starts, because it takes a huge amount of will and investment by businesses and people to ramp up for activity on the sort of scale that we've seen in recent months and years. If and when—. And I hope that the project will go ahead. When it goes ahead, I would hope that businesses and individuals across the region will take full advantage of it. But, in order to do so, we have to maintain the momentum and the traction that's been developed in recent times, and so it does require further intervention by Government in terms of the Government being able to guarantee that it's doing everything possible to bring this project to Anglesey, that it clarifies very publicly the funding model and how it will work and whether it is feasible as soon as possible. We also would like wider assurances about wider implications for the regional economy of north Wales and how, in light of the decision, support could be turned to other areas of economic activity, for example, as I've already mentioned, the SMRs and digital infrastructure.

I think it's also important that we know what the UK Government will do to support skills development and the supply chain during the pause period. It's not just important for north Wales—it's important for the whole of Wales and, indeed, it spreads further: it's important for the whole of the nuclear arc and for Britain's energy security.

Thank you. I have two more speakers, and if they promise me they will just ask questions I will call them both. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. [Laughter.] Thank you. Question: what will you now say to retract your statement last week that the Prime Minister had been in Japan the previous week and hadn't raised this, when the Prime Minister of Japan was actually in London, and she confirmed in the House of Commons that she had, as did the Secretary of State for Wales, who confirmed that he'd also met her in the House of Commons? She answered a question to Ian Lucas confirming she had. And, given that this increases the need for the growth deal, what dialogue have you had, or will you have, with UK Research and Innovation, the body that has £7 billion funding for a combined budget for purposes such as this, which I understand might be accessible to support the small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors to help fill any gap that's created and drive Trawsfynydd and north-west Wales as a European centre, and potentially as one of the global centres, for SMR and AMR development?

Look, I should just say at the outset that the development of SMRs will not make up for the potential loss of 9,000 jobs across north Wales and the rest of Wales. It simply will not. It will contribute to filling the gap, but one project alone, I'm afraid, is not the silver bullet. Of course, Innovate UK has been heavily involved of late in activities here in Wales. We look for every and all opportunity to draw down competitive funding for research and development and innovation in Wales, and, as the Member, I'm sure, is fully aware, we are now using the Government offices in London as a showcase for Welsh innovation in order to draw attention to what's taking place within our research institutions.

And with regard to the discussions that did or did not happen between the Prime Minister of Japan and the Prime Minister of the UK, it seems that conflicting statements are being made. In order to clarify exactly what was said, it may be useful to know what the response of the Japanese Prime Minister was to the supposed raising of queries by Theresa May.

Can I ask what light this might shed on the opportunities for other energy developments in north Wales, and in particular the north Wales tidal lagoon, a project that, of course, could create up to 20,000 jobs, has the potential to deliver significant contribution to the energy needs of Wales and the wider UK, and which, according to the firm that has put this project forward, has significant interest from investors around the world and can provide this energy at an affordable price? It seems to me that there's an opportunity here that we could potentially pursue as an alternative to Wylfa, given that it's been shelved for the time being, and I was wondering what work the Welsh Government might be able to do with the UK Government in order to make progress on this alternative scheme, which, of course, would also bring added benefits in terms of flood protection for the north Wales coast.

Yes. I recognise the points made by the Member for Clywd West. I think it's just important to restate the importance of finding a favourable funding model for the marine energy sector if we're going to take forward any of the proposals that have been put on the table, whether that's in the Swansea bay area or north Wales. I am aware of a number of proposals for tidal lagoons around Wales. I hope that these will be further explored at the marine energy summit that's taking place in Swansea next week, which, in light of the decision by Hitachi, I think has taken on additional significance.

I think what's also important to state about tidal lagoons is that we must examine not just their potential to create jobs and create economic development and not only consider their role in providing clean, renewable energy but also their role in potentially building places and defining places. I think all of us in this Chamber—well, certainly most of us in this Chamber—would like Wales to be recognised as the renewables nation. In order to reach that point, I don't think we should play off—and there's always a risk of this happening—one region against another region in Wales or one project against another. I think it's fair to say that most people in this Chamber would like to see multiple tidal lagoons around Wales, and most people in this Chamber would like to see a variety of renewable energy sources being deployed as wide and far as possible.

Thank you very much, Minister. Thank you.

We go to item 1 on the agenda, then, and questions to the First Minister. The first question this afternoon is from Michelle Brown.

Assessing the rate of sex attacks is complex, and reporting rates are affected by a wide range of factors. The Welsh Government regularly discusses the contribution that devolved public services can make in this area with police and crime commissioners and others.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. A woman who has conceived via rape faces a set of decisions that most people would find incomprehensibly difficult to make. She ought to be able to be certain that having to see or have her rapist be part of her child's future life is not a factor that needs considering when making any of those decisions. Recently, Sammy Woodhouse, a rape and child grooming ring survivor, who is bringing up the son she conceived through rape, has urged the UK Government to change the law to ensure that rapist fathers do not gain rights over their victims' children. She was 15 when she was raped and got pregnant.

My office has been in contact with Sammy, who is now bravely using her experiences to fight for change for women like her across the UK, including Wales, and she wants me to ask you if your Government would support such a law change. I appreciate that family law is reserved, but I'm sure that Welsh Government's moral support on the issue would mean much to Sammy and the women for whom she speaks. So, First Minister, will you add your voice to mine and Sammy's to make sure that fathers of children born from rape or abuse can never gain access to their children against the consent of the raped mother?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, it is almost impossible to imagine the distress that is caused to any individual in the circumstances that the Member has just outlined. She is right, course, that the change in the law that is being sought is something that only the UK Government has the authority to bring about. If the Member did have information that it was possible to share with my office to provide some further background to the case that she has raised on the floor this afternoon, I'd be very happy to consider that in the context that she's raised.

First Minister, sex attacks and other similar offences against an individual are horrific examples of the darkest and most disturbed corners of our society, be the victim a man, a woman or a child. Such treatment is abhorrent, illegal and most certainly immoral. In addition to sex attacks, though, we have a worryingly high known rate of domestic abuse and sexual violence across England and Wales. Indeed, in the year ending March 2018, an estimated 2 million adults aged 16 to 59 years experienced domestic abuse in the last year. That is 695,000 men and 1.3 million women. Now, with regard to the latter, Baroness Hale, the president of the Supreme Court, recently commented that:

'Domestic violence and abuse is still all too common and, according to a recent study, a frequent reason why women now lose their children into the care system.'

First Minister, will you clarify what further steps can be taken? I do appreciate that a lot of work had gone on by your Welsh Government previously, but there needs to be more. So, what steps will you take to ensure that there is a reduction of sex attacks in Wales and domestic abuse and sexual violence, and that, where there is proven abuse to victims, they don't then see their children being lost to the care system across Wales?

I thank the Member for that important supplementary question. She is quite right that a great deal of work has gone on across this Chamber, including putting on the statute book the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. It has been followed up. We have trained 135,000 professionals to recognise the signs of domestic violence here in Wales so that it doesn't go unreported or unattended, and we are investing £5 million in this financial year in grants under that Act to local authorities and third sector organisations to be able to make sure that we are able to follow through on the issues that the Member has raised.

She will know that I have previously referred to the rates at which children are taken away from families here in Wales, and circumstances in which women lose their children as a result of abuse that they have suffered is clearly unacceptable as a course of action and will be part of a new focus that I want the Government to place on making sure that we do everything we can to help families through difficult periods and to help families to stay together, rather than thinking that removing children from families is always the best way of responding to difficulty and distress.

Thank you. Question 2—I've agreed that question 2 and question 7 will be grouped, so question 2, Leanne Wood.

I thank the Member for that question. Deputy Minister Jane Hutt met with Dr Robert Jones, author of the factfile report to which Leanne Wood refers, on 17 January to discuss its key findings. We will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Justice to explore the report fully and understand what this means for Wales.

The report produced last week by the Wales Governance Centre shows that we have the highest incarceration rate in Europe, and it's, in fact, double that of the north of Ireland. Also contained in the report is the fact that this high incarceration rate is despite the fact that Wales has a lower crime rate than England every year between 2013 and 2017. From my background as a former probation officer, I know first hand the devastation that custodial sentences can bring to people. It can end careers, it can end marriages, it can result in homelessness. The Westminster criminal justice system is clearly not working for Wales. In fact, it seems to be punishing Wales. Will you make a push to devolve the criminal justice system as a key priority for your Government, in order to prevent more lives being ruined in Wales? And will you agree to push for the reunification of the whole of the probation service back within the public sector, as, without safe community sentence options, the incarceration rate is going to keep going up?

I thank the Member for that important supplementary question, and agree with a great deal of what she said in introducing the question. The big picture in criminal justice in England and Wales has been the same for nearly a quarter of a century. Recorded crime rates are falling, fewer people are appearing before the courts, yet more people are being sent to prison and for longer. That is not an acceptable set of circumstances to the Welsh Government, and it's particularly unacceptable in the circumstances that Leanne Wood referred to, where, for example, as the fact file tells us, a quarter of the women who are sent to prison in Wales are sent to prison for less than a month. And yet, in a month, you can lose your home, you can lose your job, you can lose your children—in the way that Janet Finch-Saunders identified—and these are for non-violent offences and, in some cases, for offences that are being committed for the very first time. That serves nobody. It serves neither the individual, the victims, nor society as a whole. 

I want, Dirprwy Lywydd, to take a practical approach to devolution of the criminal justice system. I don't want us to miss out on practical actions that we could achieve by searching for something that is beyond our ability to deliver. So, I believe that there are three areas with which we should begin as a focus. We should seek the devolution of the youth justice system, we should seek the devolution of the probation service to Wales, and we should seek new powers in relation to women offenders. Those are the areas of the criminal justice system that sit closest to the responsibilities that are already devolved and where we could make the most immediate difference. I think, in a practical way, we should focus on those aspects first, and if we can secure their devolution to Wales, then we will be able to move on from there into the other aspects that would follow.

I thank the First Minister for his responses to Leanne Wood. I feel, Deputy Llywydd, I have to convey that we need a bit more ambition. I fully understand what the First Minister is saying, in that if we can get youth justice devolved very quickly, if we can get the probation service devolved very quickly, and if we can get additional powers on women offenders, that would be welcome. But that still leaves—. The majority of people going into the prison system are actually adult men, and we know the devastating effect that that can have on them and on, of course, their families, as he rightly points out. 

With regard to the probation service, I'm sure the First Minister is aware that the rates of sickness for probation officers in the privatised elements of the service are three times higher than those in the National Probation Service. It's clearly not a system that is working, and while we very much welcome the steps that are being taken towards creating a Welsh probation service, it's my understanding that, at the moment, that would only include one-to-one work with offenders. Now, if we are to reduce, as the First Minister has identified he wishes to do, the rate of custodial sentences in Wales, we have to have stronger and more credible rehabilitative community penalties. So, as part of his work to seek the devolution of the probation service, will he seek as a matter of urgency to ensure that responsibilities for group work and for what was called community service for unpaid work—which is, of course, seen as a credible sentence by the community, because they can see the element of punishment there—are included in any developments of a Welsh probation service, because otherwise we'll have a split system and won't be able to be consistent?

I thank Helen Mary Jones for that follow-up question. I should have said in my answer to Leanne Wood that, of course, I do completely support the reunification of the two severed parts of the probation service. While I welcome the steps that are being taken in relation to the probation service in Wales already, there is more that we need to do, and to go beyond that prospectus. And we know, Dirprwy Lywydd—the frustrating thing is that we know what works: we know that a system in which we have maximum diversion away from the system to early intervention and prevention; when it is necessary to intervene, we intervene in the minimum necessary way; and we manage the whole system. Changing the way the system works will always be quicker than trying to change individuals within it. And we know that works, because the figures in the fact file demonstrate that—whereas in other areas, including young men, we are not doing as well as elsewhere—in youth justice, the achievements in Wales outstrip those beyond our border. So, we know that we have a prescription that works; we know that we have a prescription that protects victims and promotes community safety.

I want to be ambitious, Diprwy Lywydd, in this field, too, but I want particularly to be achieving. I want us to do those things that we know will make a difference and make that difference most immediately, and focusing on those aspects of the criminal justice system that are closest to the responsibilities we already hold, I think, is the way that we will see progress in this area.

First Minister, you've already mentioned that one in four women have sentences of less than one month, but the report also highlighted that more than 68 per cent of those sentences were for 12 months or less—very small sentences—and, as such, we need to look at the guidelines for that. Now, yesterday, I was welcoming the decision and the announcement by the business Minister in London to actually say that the superprison in Port Talbot was no longer viable, it was scrap, effectively, but then dismayed to hear that he was still looking at superprisons elsewhere in south Wales.

Superprisons are just warehousing mechanisms. They're not actually helping individuals stop reoffending. So, if we want to take some action in the Welsh Government, there's an easy way: don't work with the UK Government for more superprisons. Will you convey to the Ministry of Justice how the Welsh Government does not agree with superprisons as a solution, has different approaches, and, in fact, that we need to look at reducing these sentencing guidelines so that not so many people have to go there in the first place? 

Well, let me agree with what David Rees has said. We want fewer people to go to prison in the first place. I do not believe that building more prison places is the right way to solve the crisis in our criminal justice system. I do absolutely recognise that people are held in conditions in Wales and in England that are not acceptable in the twenty-first century. Swansea is the tenth most overcrowded prison in England and Wales, and the Victorian conditions in which people are held in parts of the prison estate are not acceptable and there is a need to make sure that those are replaced, but building more prison places is not the answer. I was reminded of what Alexander Paterson—a prison commissioner in the 1920s—said when he said,

'Wherever prisons are built, Courts will make use of them. If no prison is handy, some other way of dealing with the offender will possibly be discovered.'

That was true 100 years ago, and it's true again today. We made clear last year in April and November our view as a Welsh Government about developing superprisons here in south Wales. We've had no further discussion with the Ministry of Justice on this matter since. My colleague Jane Hutt is seeking a meeting with the Minister for justice and Ministers in the Home Office to discuss the fact file report, and it'll be an opportunity to restate our position face to face. 

Of course, we already know that the prison and probation service in Wales will be responsible for probation again from 2020 in Wales, with a focus on communities, community sentencing and rehabilitation. But, given that the Wales Governance Centre analysis that this question originally related to found that under the Westminster criminal justice system, as it was earlier termed, the total number of prison sentences in England between 2010-17 dropped 16 per cent but went up 0.3 per cent, and that custodial sentences imposed by magistrates in Wales went up 12 per cent, what dialogue will you endeavour to have, perhaps, with the judiciary, with the magistracy, to establish their reasons within Wales for this, when I know, many years ago, in taking evidence in Assembly committee, when similar geographical differences were found, they put a case to us that we were able to consider? 

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I had an opportunity to discuss the report briefly with Lord Thomas, who is leading the commission on justice that has been established here in Wales, a former senior judge, and he offers us a direct line of insight into the thinking of sentencers in this area. Why rates have risen in the way they have in Wales is a complex matter. There is an increasingly punitive climate of opinion that some analysts point to. There are certainly changes to legislation. There were over 3,000 new offences put on the statute book in 10 years from 1997 to 2007. We in this Assembly have put fresh offences on the statute book in the work that we do. There are the impacts of sentencing guidelines and guideline judgments that have had the effect of increasing length of sentences, quite certainly, and there is the issue of, as some sentencers put it, a collapse in confidence in the probation service. I said in answer to Leanne Wood that we welcomed strengthening probation, building confidence, in the consultation with the Ministry of Justice last summer. We'll do what we can within that, but want to go further.

I feel I have to rise in defence of the magistrates. Whilst we acknowledge that the Welsh Government has little power to influence such statistics, does the First Minister agree with me that there are strict guidelines laid down for sitting magistrates and judges as to the sentencing options? Incidentally, magistrates deal with 95 per cent of all criminal cases. Magistrates also have to refer to the recommendations outlined by probation reports. My experience as a magistrate for over 13 years was that no-one was sent to prison unless all other options were fully explored or instigated. Only when an individual refused to engage or co-operate in the alternatives to incarceration, or where there were multiple crimes, or the crimes were of such a serious nature was a prison sentence considered. There are, however, many being dealt with in the criminal justice system who would never be there if there were sufficient alternative interventions in place, particularly with regard to mental health issues. Is it not here that the Welsh Government must acknowledge its responsibilities and make sure there are agencies in place to prevent people being involved in the criminal justice system in the first place? 

I certainly echo the final point the Member has made. Of course, our success in the youth justice field has been achieved by making sure that there are strong diversionary services to which magistrates can direct young people, and those services are very, very largely provided through devolved bodies. The Member is right when he points to the impact of sentencing guidelines that magistrates have to work within, but I think he would have to recognise that the phenomenon of justice by geography is a real one. In the opening pages of the fact file, the author points to the fact that there are greater variations in sentencing within England than there are between England and Wales. Those of us who have worked in the field know perfectly well that here in Wales the culture of a particular court will mean that someone is sentenced differently than they would be had they appeared before a different bench of magistrates with a different history and culture behind them. That's what we have to try to address, to make sure that when we are talking with sentencers about the difficult job that they do, we manage to make sure that the best practice, which we know exists, is followed by all. 

Thank you. We now move to leaders' questions. The first party leader this afternoon is the leader of the opposition, Paul Davies. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, do you agree with me that this Assembly works at its best when parties come together to collectively improve the lives of all people in Wales?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm always heartened by those occasions where we are able to work across party lines here. There are very good examples where we have achieved that, but we recognise as well that all parties in this Assembly have strong views on issues and they will not always coincide. 

Well, I'm afraid actions speak louder than words, First Minister, because your leader, Jeremy Corbyn, refuses to sit around the table with the Prime Minister to discuss the implications of Brexit, and, last week, we saw tribalism from your party and your Government for tribalism's sake in this place, when you voted against the autism Bill. Having failed—[Interruption.] Having failed to work with me—having failed to work with me or to—

Can I—?

—your party voted down a vital piece of legislation that would have delivered real improvements to the lives of people with autism. Your Minister for health interpreted the findings of the committee reports, and the views of other stakeholders, in a particular way in order to make a case for voting it down, and we all know that one of the reasons that the Finance Committee could make neither a positive nor negative recommendation on this Bill is because the Welsh Government did not provide the relevant and essential information. [Interruption.] Therefore—

Right. Thank you. [Interruption.] Excuse me. I won't have people pointing across the Chamber at anybody, wherever it comes from, and neither will I have any help from people about what is acceptable or not. I will make a ruling on what's acceptable. I appealed last week for us to do a kinder politics. That applies to everybody. Carry on.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

Can you therefore give a commitment today, First Minister, that if the code of practice that you are bringing forward does not meet the needs of people with autism, then your Government will bring forward the necessary legislation?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I think this Government has a creditable record of working with Members in other parties where there are proposals that we are able to support. Indeed, I was responsible for responding to the safe nurse staffing Bill in the last Assembly, a backbench Bill with widespread support across the Assembly, where a great deal of work went on between the Government and Members in different parties here to get that piece of legislation safely onto the statute book. The position last week was different. The Government's position was clear. There are a series of actions that we are taking that we believe will have a far more significant impact on improving services for people with autism and their families than would have been secured had that Bill moved forward. The Minister outlined those carefully during that debate—the fact that we are to have a statutory code of practice, that the integrated autism service will be available in all parts of Wales, that we have to allow the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 passed by this Assembly to have its impact. The Minister made a series of undertakings to continue to report to committee and on the floor of the Assembly in the progress of that legislation, and he said—I heard him say on this floor during that debate—that, when those aspects have had a chance to be bedded in, to mature, if at the end of that there are things that can be done through legislation, our minds are not closed to that. If we do that in the way that the Member first mentioned in his initial question, I think there is a better chance that families across Wales will get the sort of service they want, and we will be better off if we continue to try to work on that shared agenda, rather than using this forum as a way simply to try to allocate blame.

Well, I'm pleased that the First Minister has confirmed today that, obviously, if the code of practice does not work and is not effective, then his Government will bring forward legislation. But there is a wider issue at play here, First Minister—a growing culture within your ranks not to engage with proposals that come from opposite benches. Your Government did not provide essential information to the committee, and you have not set out specific details relating to your code of practice. This is despite your Government having a duty to be open and transparent about how decisions are actually made. In my view, considering your failure to provide this information, it is neither clear nor transparent to me as to why you voted down this piece of legislation in the first place.

Now, tomorrow, my colleague Darren Millar is bringing forward proposals to introduce an older people's rights Bill that has overwhelming support from stakeholders and professionals to put older people's rights at the heart of our public services. Will you now learn lessons from your poor handling of the autism Bill and vote in favour of the proposal tomorrow and work constructively with us to scrutinise this legislation in a fair and open manner?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I think that Members of this Assembly have unrivalled access to Ministers who are in the Government. The size of our institution, the number of opportunities that Members have to engage with Ministers both in the formal processes we have and in the many meetings that members of the Government agree to hold with Members right across this Chamber—I absolutely refute the suggestion that the Member makes that we do not respond, and respond positively, to ideas that other Members of this Assembly bring forward for examination. But I will say this, and I'll put it on the record again: when a Member—a backbench Member of this Assembly—succeeds in a ballot and brings forward a Bill, it is for that Member to provide the information necessary for the Assembly to scrutinise those proposals. It is not the job of the Government to provide information that that Member has accepted responsibility for providing by the act of bringing that Bill forward. Just as Members of this Assembly quite rightly expect the Government to provide full information alongside Bills that we provide, and criticise the Government from time to time when you believe that we've not done that satisfactorily, so the rules of engagement here are clear: when a backbench Member brings forward a Bill, it is for that Member to bring forward the supporting information, in a way that allows other Members of the Assembly to scrutinise that Bill in full—[Interruption.]

Can I just once again say—? We've asked for a kinder politics. Can I just ask you to reflect on how we will get that kinder politics? It's not by shouting at each other. This is going to be my new year's resolution, so you'll learn very quickly—that's my new year's resolution—or we will just keep going on and repeating the same thing. But I am getting slightly tired of people shouting across the Chamber.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I ask the First Minister: what is the Welsh Government's strategy for capital investment in our economy, when the three biggest projects set out originally in 'Prosperity for All' are now unlikely to proceed? The tidal lagoon in Swansea has been rejected by the UK Government. Wylfa Newydd, as we heard earlier, in Ynys Môn has been suspended by the Japanese. The third—the M4 relief road—is, according to most seasoned observers, likely to be cancelled by you. It was clear from last night that Mrs May doesn't have a plan B. The question as far as the Welsh economic strategy is concerned is: do you? Is there a pipeline, full to bursting, with alternative economic projects that will have major impact on the Welsh economy, there, ready to go? Or is there a vacuum at the heart, now, of your investment plans, as well as at your thinking?   

Dirprwy Lywydd, we do indeed, of course, have a capital investment strategy. It was refreshed last year, and I came on the floor of the Assembly, as Finance Minister, to set out the additional investments that we were making as part of the Wales infrastructure investment programme. The single biggest investment that we will make as a Government over the course of this Assembly term is the £1.4 billion that we will invest in our housing programme, to deliver 20,000 affordable homes additionally here in Wales. Beyond that, we have the south Wales metro, a major capital investment programme here in south-east Wales; we have the twenty-first century schools programme, putting more money than ever before in schools and colleges, to make sure that they are fit for the twenty-first century; we have the single biggest ever investment in a single health project at the Grange university hospital; and we have a pipeline far beyond that.

I've set out in front of the Finance Committee many times the strategy that I followed in capital investment, always using the cheapest form of capital available to the public purse here in Wales first, but going beyond that in a series of ways, through innovative investments in capital, including the mutual investment model. I wish that there was more capital available to this Welsh Government, because we have ambitions that we would be allowed to bring forward if the UK Government was prepared to invest in Wales, instead of continuously falling back on programmes that it has announced and then letting Wales down.      

I didn't hear any recognition there in the First Minister's response to much of the analysis that we saw from the media in response to the latest announcement, that Wales has a reputation, doesn't it, as the country where major projects go to die? There’s a seeming inability to actually bring forward major transformational projects. We heard the language of transformation again from the economic Minister, but where is the implementation of that? We had the fiasco of the Circuit of Wales, but that’s just one example over many, many years.

Isn’t part of the problem, in relation to the three specific projects that I referred to, in part or in totality, that we are often relying on decisions made by others? If you like, we put our eggs in someone else’s basket. And so, our economic strategy is being constantly driven by forces from outside Wales. Now, I know your own view is that the ultimate answer to Wales’s problems is the election of a different government at Westminster, but that isn’t what devolution was meant to be about. So, when are we going to see, First Minister, an autonomous, ambitious, home-grown economic strategy that isn’t dependent on what others decide for us, but is built instead around what we are determined to do for ourselves?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I always have a much more optimistic view of Wales than the Member ever offers us on the Assembly floor, and I don’t for a minute think that it helps Wales to repeat the sort of canards that the right-wing press in London put about, about Wales being somewhere where projects go to die. It’s nonsensical. It’s nonsensical in every part of Wales, where people will see the investments that we are making in public facilities, in transport infrastructure, in a £5 billion rail franchise, in a new convention centre that will bring activity to Wales from other parts of the United Kingdom.

His position always seems curious to me. In a global world, he wants to argue for an autonomous Wales. Somehow, capital decisions and capital flows ended at our border, and if only we were in charge of these things, we would be able to make different decisions by Japanese governments and others who make these decisions in other parts of the world. I take a different view to him; I think we do far better in Wales than he ever seems willing to recognise, and I don’t believe for a moment that his ambitions to cut Wales off from the rest of the United Kingdom and make us, in his terms, ‘autonomous’ would in any way help us to create the sort of future for our country that we would like to see.

Well, in the spirit of a kinder politics, maybe I can help the First Minister. Later this afternoon, we'll have a whole series of statements on planning to mitigate the impact of a ‘no deal’ Brexit. There’s one area that is curiously absent, which is the economy. Now, the Chancellor in Westminster has confirmed that there would be an emergency fiscal stimulus in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, similar to that used by Gordon Brown at the time of the financial crisis. Now, the Welsh Government surely needs a similar plan, and in the wake of the news over Ford and Wylfa, we need it urgently. So, why not ask the newly constituted National Infrastructure Commission for Wales to identify major projects across Wales as part of a multibillion pound programme of capital investment? You could fund it via your own new Welsh Government bond—in the event of a crash-out ‘no deal’, a Brexit bond that Welsh citizens could purchase to do their bit to help rebuild the Welsh economy. This is exactly the kind of creative and collaborative response that led, during the last economic crisis, to ideas like ProAct and ReAct and a series of emergency economic summits in the spirit of team Wales.

But you know, First Minister, team Wales needs a captain, and it needs a game plan. I’ve heard the economy Minister reel off a long list of possibilities for Wales, and among them was us becoming a home of driverless technology. At the moment, we have a driverless Government, and as a result of that, we have a driverless economy as well.

Well, as soundbites go, it didn’t go very far, Dirprwy Lywydd, did it?

Of course we have a plan, and of course we have a pipeline of projects. We set them out in front of the Assembly last year, we refresh it all the time, and we certainly look at it in the context of decisions made at Wylfa and in the context of Brexit. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, Wales needs a captain, but Wales needs a captain that at least understands the rules, because I’ve heard the Member offer us his bond idea many times on the floor of this Assembly, and as he knows perfectly well, Welsh bonds do not add a single pound to our capacity to invest in capital projects. He knows perfectly well that the rules are that that would count against all our other capital investments and would simply substitute for other and cheaper money than we currently enjoy. It's not an idea that gets off the ground for an instant.

Now, that there are some things that the Member has said this afternoon that I don't disagree with. I think it's very important that we plan ahead. I think it's very important that we have a pipeline, which he refers to, but it doesn't help anybody to pluck out of the air, and parade it as though it were a solution to our problem, an idea that makes no contribution at all.

The leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. First Minister, Adam Price touched briefly on the issue of Brexit in his questions. As we both know, there are 66 days to go before the UK is due to depart the European Union. Theresa May has ruled out delaying the date of departure. She has also ruled out a second referendum, so the default position is that we leave the EU on 29 March. Given that, First Minister, would it be a good idea if the Welsh Government now simply accepted this outcome and focused on preparing for the 'no deal' Brexit instead of trying to stop Brexit from happening?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, the rest of the afternoon will help to provide the answer to the Member's question. Of course, the Welsh Government does not accept, and will not accept, that we are simply on an inevitable path to the disaster that a 'no deal' Brexit would be for Wales. As a responsible Government, we do the things that Members around this Chamber have asked us to do, and that is to prepare against the worst, and you will hear this afternoon the many things that we are doing as a Government. But do we accept that we are all somehow tied to a train that the Prime Minister has set off and that there's no alternative for us but to career off the edge with her? Well, of course we don't.

I know that there are many statements this afternoon, and I'm actually glad that there are statements coming out in a sense, because there is an element in what the Welsh Government is saying, in that you are making preparations for Brexit, which we very much welcome on this side of the Chamber. But, at the same time, you are still clinging to this idea that you've just articulated once again, that you can somehow help to force a second referendum and thwart Brexit from happening. Now, why would you want to do that when you have a clear democratic mandate from the majority of Welsh voters, who voted to leave the EU? In short, why are you so set on going against what the people of Wales voted for? And why have you scrapped a whole day's business here today, largely to indulge in a day of project fear?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think the Member's contribution began by welcoming the statements that are in front of the Assembly this afternoon and the fact that we are preparing against an eventuality that we absolutely do not want to see, and then described the same thing in alarmist terms. Dirprwy Lywydd, let me be clear: from the day of the referendum, the previous First Minister said—and I often had the opportunity to echo him—that the Welsh Government was focused not on the fact of Brexit, but on the form of Brexit. The fact of Brexit had been put to people in a referendum, but the way you leave the European Union has many different possibilities and is on a very wide spectrum. We continue to believe that it is possible that the House of Commons may find a centre of gravity that would support a form of Brexit that will be aligned with the one that we set out together with Plaid Cymru in 'Securing Wales' Future'. We've also said that if the House of Commons is deadlocked and cannot deliver an orderly way of leaving the European Union, then putting that decision back to people for them to have the final word would have to be the way in which that would be resolved. 

Well, I do really question whether the will of the people who are sitting in the House of Commons overrules the people of the United Kingdom, who have already had their say on this matter. And as was made clear by David Cameron when he gave us this referendum in the first place, it was supposed to be a vote that was going to be binding on the House of Commons. Constitutionally perhaps impossible, but you should at least engage with what the majority of the people of the UK, and indeed, the people of Wales, have voted for. So, I would ask you again: I do like an element of these statements—we do have to make contingency plans for leaving, and I'm glad you're doing that—but can I please ask you, going forward, if we're going to have 12 weeks of this, can you focus on the actual contingencies and not on trying to thwart Brexit, and trying to thwart what the people of Wales voted for?

Well, as I've said, Llywydd, I don't believe for a moment that the actions of this Welsh Government have been about thwarting the referendum; it has all been about how we leave the European Union, and the way in which we leave the European Union, the conditions under which we leave the European Union. We may have different views around the Chamber as to the best way in which Brexit can be made to happen, but that's what we've been talking about all the time. Now, there are many people who, as the realities of what that will mean dawn upon them, come to see the sense of what this Government said to people in Wales in the run-up to the referendum—that Wales's future was best secured through continued membership of the European Union. And if it proves impossible for the House of Commons to agree on an orderly way in which Brexit can happen, I do not see how it is in any way not a democratic course of action to go back to the people of the United Kingdom and to get their view on how that might best be resolved.

I thank the Member for the question. In the most recent year for which figures are available, recorded crime rose, but self-reported crime continued to fall. Responsibility for data on offending rates lies with the UK Government, while we continue to work with UK Ministers to ensure that Welsh interests in this area are properly understood.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. As Leanne Wood said earlier, the recent report on custodial numbers in Wales is especially shocking, given that the crime rate here is lower than in England. The National Association of Probation Officers in Wales has highlighted that appropriate sentencing and effective rehabilitation is fundamental to resolving the issue. The UK Government's disastrous transforming rehabilitation reforms, disintegrated probation, failed the public, and deprived offenders of rehabilitation opportunities. Will the First Minister challenge the UK Government on this, call for a fully unified, properly resourced, public sector probation service, and what further discussions has the Welsh Government had with the probation service regarding the reducing reoffending strategy and steps that can be taken to support rehabilitation?

I thank Jayne Bryant for the question. I entirely agree with her that we have to recapture the ground that the probation service traditionally occupied, and occupied with such success. We know that the transforming rehabilitation reforms were brought to us by that well-known emblem of successful administration, Chris Grayling—'failing Grayling' as he's known across the House of Commons—and this is yet another area in which his dead hand hands on difficulties to those who come after him. Now, we have the right prescription, we know what we want to do, and it is the one the Member set out—a reunified, properly resourced, publicly run probation service, in which public service and not private profit is at the heart of what that service does. We continue to have discussions with Welsh interests. The real answer is to put the probation service in Wales under the control of this National Assembly, where we could make sure that it does the job that delivers in the courts and delivers in the community as well.

First Minister, Dr Robert Jones's report for the Wales Governance Centre says that more people are being jailed in Wales even though Wales has a lower crime rate than England. And we all understand that we are the worst country in Europe for putting offenders in jail, here. The Ministry of Justice is considering banning prison sentences of less than six months in England and Wales, unless the sentence is for a violent crime or a sexual offence. Short-term sentences provide little opportunity to rehabilitate offenders and lead to high rates of reoffending. First Minister, what discussion has the Welsh Government had with the Ministry of Justice on the potential alternatives to short-term prison sentences in Wales, please?

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I agree with what Mohammad Asghar has said, that short prison sentences often do a great deal more harm than they do good, that they disrupt the lives of the individuals concerned and make it more likely that their lives will be prone to reoffending on release than if that sentence hadn't happened? And we will definitely have discussions with the Ministry of Justice on the proposal that was floated—I don't think you can go much further than that—a few days ago.

I do just say, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the field of criminal justice is littered with unintended consequences, and it is not beyond the possibility that some sentencers would react to not being able to pass a sentence of six months by imposing a sentence of nine months instead, and that if this isn't done properly you could actually see longer sentences and more people being dragged up the severity of the system than the intention, and I appreciate that it is the intention of the Ministry of Justice suggestion that fewer people would end up in custody. So, it will need to be thought through carefully. There will need to be defences to make sure that unintended consequences, perverse outcomes, don't follow, but the basic proposition is one that we agree with and we look forward to working with the Ministry of Justice on the detail. 

I thank the Member for that question. Variable speed limits, junction improvements and a £14 million investment at the Brynglas tunnels are amongst the steps already taken to help relieve traffic congestion around Newport.

The First Minister didn't mention one major commitment from the Labour manifesto, and I quote:

'We will deliver a relief road for the M4'. 

When I asked the First Minister last week to make a statement on whether Welsh Government policy on the M4 relief road has changed since he took office, he made no mention of the relief road in his response, instead just saying, 

'No change has taken place since the Welsh Government's intention to bring about significant improvements on the M4 around Newport'. 

Your commitment was to deliver a relief road for the M4, not merely some vague improvements around Newport. Why have you changed your mind? 

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, the relief road proposal has been subject to an independent local public inquiry, the most comprehensive of its sort into any Welsh road scheme. Senior legal advice from outside the Welsh Government has been secured to ensure that advice that goes to Ministers has been thoroughly tested and that it deals with all the different dimensions of this complex scheme. Once that advice is available, I will consider it carefully and dispassionately. 

[Inaudible.]—agreed it will take several years for it to be completed. Will the Welsh Government consider solutions, such as directing traffic from the north and midlands travelling west to use the A465 Heads of the Valleys road, making the outside lane of the M4 between junction 24 to junction 28 for through traffic only, or closing motorway junctions around Newport? 

Well, I thank Mike Hedges for those suggestions, and he's absolutely right that the problems that face residents of Newport are problems that are happening in the here and now, and that were there to be a relief road, then it would be a number of years before that solution would be available to them. That does mean that we have to turn our minds actively to those courses of action that are immediately available to us. The improvements to the Heads of the Valleys road—another example of a major capital investment being successfully carried out here in Wales—will allow for traffic that wishes to go to south-west Wales to use that route from the midlands, rather than having to come down to the M4, and there is a series of other ideas, including those that Mike Hedges has identified. I am very clear that, as a Government, we will actively look to implement those things that are immediately available to us in order to address the problems of traffic congestion that are happening in the here and now. 

Amongst the actions we are taking will be those provisions to promote diverse engagement and high standards of conduct in the local government and elections Bill, which the Welsh Government will introduce to the floor of the Assembly this year. 

Many Members will be aware of the Policy Forum for Wales, who hold one-day conferences in Cardiff and around Wales on issues of interest in the public sphere. They charge public sector attendees £230 per person plus VAT to attend one-day events. They are headlined, free of charge, by key stakeholders, who many of us will be familiar with, and also chaired by Members in this Chamber including, in the past, myself. The Policy Forum for Wales is not based in Wales and is part of a company trading as Westminster Forum Projects Ltd, and they're headquartered in Bracknell. I've looked into their published accounts, and their two directors, C.J. Whitehouse and P.S. Van Gelder, received dividends from the company of, respectively, £250,000 in 2017, £550,000 in 2016, £350,000 in 2017 and £642,335 in 2016 respectively.

So, while I understand the draw of these events, having attended them, I would strongly question their value for money. Westminster Forum Projects Ltd make no original contribution, relying entirely on those volunteers, and there are more cost-effective ways of enhancing the public sphere in Wales. Does the First Minister agree with this view, and does he or do any Welsh Government Ministers plan to attend any of the Policy Forum for Wales events held in this Assembly term? 

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I thank the Member for that important question? It's important for me to begin by saying that I welcome all forms of debate and discussion of public policy matters here in Wales, and I've no objection of principle to commercial organisations wanting to be part of that landscape. The question that the Member raises I think, though, is whether participation by Welsh Ministers, or, indeed, other Members of the Assembly, should be part of the business model of a private profit-making venture. Now, there are Members around the Chamber in different parties who are patrons, I believe, of the organisation, and many Members here will have taken part in its events. Personally, from early on in my period as health Minister and ever since, I decided that my default position would be not to accept invitations to speak at such events, preferring to use my time to contribute at events where Welsh citizens did not need to pay to hear what I have to say.

I think the Member recognised in his supplementary questions that there may be some occasions where the importance of a topic, or the opportunity to address a particular audience, may lead others to a different conclusion. In the end, I think that such invitations have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis. My basic position is that I do not accept such invitations unless there is a compelling reason to do so and, so far, no such compelling set of circumstances has arisen.  

I thank the Member for the question. We continue to work with Monmouthshire County Council on an assessment of options to improve the flow of traffic along the A48 and A466 through Chepstow. As this is a key cross-border route, a number of stakeholders are involved in these discussions, including Gloucestershire County Council. 

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I've asked this question a number of times to your predecessor and, indeed, to the Minister for Economy and Transport. The abolition of the Severn tolls was a very welcome decision in south-east Wales and, indeed, the wider south Wales M4 corridor, improving connectivity with the south-west of England, but there's already evidence that it's impacting on traffic levels in and around Chepstow, as was predicted. You'll be aware that Chepstow already exceeds World Health Organization limits for air pollution due to chronic congestion. So, can I ask you—I welcome what you've said so far about ongoing collaboration and discussion with the UK Government—could you ensure that those discussions do continue and that, indeed, we do develop a real plan to make sure that in the not-so-distant future we do see that much-needed bypass built south of Chepstow, so that the people of Chepstow can enjoy the sort of standard of living that they deserve and, indeed, commuters and general travellers in Chepstow do not suffer the sort of delays, congestion and pollution that they have to date?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank the Member for that supplementary question and recognise the assiduous way in which he makes sure that these proposals are kept in front of Ministers and of the Assembly. My colleague Ken Skates met with the leader and the chief executive of Monmouthshire County Council yesterday and this was amongst the issues discussed there. The stage 1 assessment of options will include actions to reduce traffic volumes. It will examine the case for a bypass. It will look at improvements to existing routes and it will look at measures that can improve air quality. We recognise that those solutions can only be successfully delivered in consultation with cross-border organisations, such as Gloucestershire County Council and the Forest of Dean District Council, as well as Welsh interests, and we will continue to make sure that that work is taken forward.

Thank you very much, First Minister. 

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

Members will have seen from the revised agenda published last week that the Government has replaced the majority of its programme of business today with a series of statements outlining the impact of and our planning for a potential 'no deal' Brexit. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Can I ask the Trefnydd for two Government statements today, the first in relation to Transport for Wales plans to improve access to Liverpool from the north Wales line? Arriva Trains Wales were planning to introduce direct services to Liverpool from north Wales in December of last year along the Halton curve, which, of course, has been improved to accommodate these, yet there's no news at all from Transport for Wales as to when those services will be re-established. The last time they ran was back in the 1960s and, of course, these are extremely important for the north Wales economy. So, I would appreciate a statement on that and perhaps also in that statement there could be some reference to any promotions that might be available as well. This time of the year it's usually the Club 55 promotion, which many of my constituents and others in Wales like to take advantage of—cheap return tickets to anywhere in Wales for £27. That is what has traditionally been run at this time of year by Arriva Trains Wales. Is there a similar proposal for a similar promotion from Transport for Wales? It would be good to hear from the Government on that.

And, secondly, can I call for a statement in respect of timber felling licences? It may not have escaped Members' attention that yesterday was Red Squirrel Appreciation Day across the world, and I am the red squirrel species champion here in the National Assembly for Wales. You'll know that the red squirrel is a near-threatened species here in the UK and one of the things that is contributing to their decline is inappropriate timber licence granting. According to the 1967 Forestry Act, timber felling licences cannot currently be refused for, and I quote, 'the purpose of conserving or enhancing' the flora or fauna. Now, that obviously is a concern to many people who appreciate red squirrels and other wildlife in wooded and forestry areas, and I think it's about time that we put that right here in Wales. We have the opportunity, we have the powers, to able to do so. So, I would like a statement to be brought forward. I know that a woodland management statement has been postponed from today, but I do think it's important that we hear about what the Welsh Government is doing to address this concern that wildlife enthusiasts have with timber felling licences in particular. 

Thank you very much for raising both of those issues. With regard to Transport for Wales plans to improve services cross-border to Liverpool, I can confirm that those improvements should be in place by May. I understand that there was a delay as a result of some scheduling changes. On the issue of the discounts, I know that there will be some cross-border services that will offer reduced fares. I will ask the Minister to write to you with greater detail on that.

Regarding timber felling licences and the impact on the red squirrel population, the Minister will be bringing forward a statement on forestry. As you say, it has been deferred from today, but we will bring it forward as soon as possible.

Trefnydd, last month, it was revealed that three areas of London had received more National Lottery funding than any other part of the UK over the past 20 years. The areas of Westminster, Holborn and St Pancras, and Islington South and Finsbury have received more than £1.8 billion over that period, at a rate of £4,640 per capita. This is more than 10 times as much as has been received by Wales in the same period. With a population of 3.1 million, Wales received some £450 per capita. Only recently I've received concerns from groups in South Wales West—the pensioners' association in Craig-cefn-parc, for example—who have seen their relatively small bids for lottery funding being rejected. This inequality in funding between London and Wales is clearly unfair, and I would therefore want to ask the Deputy Minister for culture to bring a statement forward on this issue of lottery funding in Wales. It would be good to hear what steps he is taking and any discussions he's having with the Westminster Government and the National Lottery in order to ensure that funds for lottery projects are distributed more equally across the UK. Thank you.

Thank you very much for bringing this issue to our attention, and I also received those representations from the Craig-cefn-parc pensioners' association, which has benefited over a number of years from funding to enable them to hire transport to take members of the group out on day trips and so forth. And I know through correspondence with the Big Lottery Fund that they are receiving some advice as to how to better tailor their future applications to meet the criteria, which have changed in recent times, to try and create schemes that are more outward looking to other, neighbouring communities. But I will certainly speak to the Deputy Minister to explore what is the best way to update Members on the discussions that Welsh Government is having with the Big Lottery Fund.

The Welsh Government has got a great record in bringing in progressive housing legislation over the last several years. Unfortunately, the law relating to no-fault evictions has not yet been changed. Will the Government make a statement outlining its proposed policy on no-fault evictions?

Thank you, Mike, for raising this particular issue. Welsh Government's been very clear that the way in which some landlords use no-fault evictions is very much of concern to us, because those relatively short periods of notice do make some households more at risk of facing homelessness. We're currently considering how this issue should be taken forward, and I know that there have been some good discussions already with organisations such as Shelter, for example, and the Residential Landlords Association. But, alongside that piece of work, we are also developing some really exciting proposals that seek to remove the barriers that some people face when seeking to enter the private rented sector, with a view to opening up the sector to people but also to allowing them to access longer term tenancies. I know that the Minister with responsibility for homelessness will be bringing forward a statement on homelessness and rough-sleeping in due course, once the rough-sleeping figures for this year have been published.

Minister, may I ask for a question from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, following the publication by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month of an update on its bovine TB eradication strategy? Statistics within the update show that badger culling in the areas of England where the disease is endemic has significantly reduced the level of bovine TB. This is in contrast to the areas of Wales with high TB levels, where incidences in cattle are at best static. Given that nearly 10,000 cattle were slaughtered between January and September last year, does the Minister have any plans to review her TB eradication programme in the light of the evidence coming from England, please?

Thank you very much. You'll remember, of course, that your party leader had the opportunity to raise his particular concerns about this issue with the First Minister during First Minister's questions very recently, but I can confirm that the Minister will be bringing forward a statement on our approach to tackling bovine TB in April.

I was wanting to request a statement on the Government's position with regard to criminal justice. I heard what the First Minister said earlier in relation to the three priority areas, and, while I welcome that, I am concerned that that has somewhat pre-empted the role of the Commission on Justice in Wales, who are currently looking at all options in relation to the devolution of criminal justice, and the comments made by the former Cabinet Secretary Alun Davies, who said that we need to devolve criminal justice so that we can do things differently here in Wales.

I, of course, welcome the decision by the UK Government not to pursue the superprison in Port Talbot, but that does not keep Wales out of the woods entirely in relation to other plans the MoJ may have for Wales. So, we need assurances, I think, in a separate statement from Welsh Government that you are mindful of this and that you can be assured that the justice commission will be looked at seriously and you will consider all options with regard to the potential for the devolution of criminal justice.

My second request would be for an update on the Welsh Government's involvement in the current situation that now arises from the sale of the Banksy art in Port Talbot. I've been contacted by the former security guard of the site, who tells me that the new owner has contacted him, asking for advice as to who can move the current piece of street art because he has told him that he hasn't had support from the Welsh Government in that regard. I'd like to clarify if that is the case or not because my relationship with seeking a meeting with the Deputy Minister hasn't been as fruitful as I would have liked to ensure that we can have a positive dialogue as to understanding what the Welsh Government are doing, because we know that the arts council, the museum, have expertise in this area. And what I don't want to see is us trying to move the Banksy and things falling apart. That wouldn't benefit anybody. So, I would urge you to contact the new owner and for us, somehow, as AMs, to be kept updated, or those of us with an interest, anyway.

Thank you very much for bringing forward both of those issues. On the justice issue, we do understand that the Ministry of Justice might be pursuing, or seeking to pursue, sites for a new male prison in south Wales. However, we have written to the Ministry of Justice to inform them that we will not facilitate any further prison development without meaningful and thorough discussion about the future estate as part of a much more holistic approach to penal policy in Wales. And you will have heard the First Minister say that our colleague Jane Hutt will be meeting with her counterparts, and I will ask her to write to Members following that meeting to provide an update as to where things are after that.

With regard to the Banksy work in Port Talbot, I am aware, as you say, that it's now in the hands of a private buyer, and it's very much hoped, I think, that the work will be displayed in Port Talbot for people to carry on enjoying. As you know, Cadw is currently handling the security arrangements at the site. I will speak to the Deputy Minister to see what further insights he's able to give.

Trefnydd, could I ask for a statement on the Newtown bypass, please? People are understandably eager to know when traffic will get the green light, and I'm also keen to know what the official plans are for the opening ceremony. The £90 million project—and I repeat that, £90 million project—has been a huge success and it represents a massive investment by the Welsh Government, Labour Government, in Mid and West Wales, bigger than any other Government in my time representing this area. And it would be right and fitting to reflect that in the arrangements for the big unveil. And I ask when we have this big unveil whether we could highlight the work that has been done on apprenticeship and training—because that's the legacy that we will leave behind for the young people and the future of that area—and also, how we connect that to the investment that we're going to make and the training that will happen on the Dyfi bridge.

I know that the transport Minister will know that there have been a few campaigns about naming parts of the scheme, for example, bridges, et cetera, as a way of marketing Newtown more widely. So, it would be really good to hear more about that and maybe to invite cross-party representation so they actually do see that we do have a plan for investing in all parts of Wales, including this massive investment in mid Wales.

Thank you very much to Joyce Watson. I'm pleased to say that we are confident that the Newtown bypass will be open to traffic within the next two months, providing, of course, there is no unforeseen issue that arises between now and then. This £95 million project has made excellent progress, and as Joyce Watson quite rightly points out, it does demonstrate real investment by Welsh Government in mid Wales. The ongoing legacy of that with regard to the importance of apprenticeships and training, I think, is really important, and we need to be considering how we use that investment in people now to take forward other important projects in the area.

We have asked Powys County Council and the town council to consult with local people on the proposals for naming those structures along the route, and once there are some preferred options for that, there will be some further consultation that does take place on that. With regard to the specific details of the opening ceremony, they will be announced nearer to the completion date.

Could I call, please, for a single oral statement—not now, but hopefully within a very short period of time—on the Welsh independent living grant? Eleven days ago, I chaired a meeting of the Cross-Party Group on Disability, the Assembly group, in north Wales. It was packed, and I was asked by attendees to raise this issue again in the Senedd, and, quote:

to try to get some answers, because time is running out.

We know that when the independent living fund was devolved by the UK Government in England to local authorities, and in Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland to the respective Governments, that Scotland launched ILF Scotland to ensure recipients have choice and control. Northern Ireland chose to join the Scottish scheme, and disabled people and disabled groups in Wales said they wanted to join it too, but instead the Welsh Government gave the money to local authorities. In May last year, we were told in a written statement by the Welsh Government that local authorities were reporting that most people were receiving similar support to that they'd had with their ILF payments, with no significant issues being raised, but we know, since, there has been extensive coverage of disabled people suffering because of the decisions made.

A particular point I was asked to raise at the meeting in Wrexham by a packed room of people, most of whom were disabled themselves, was to emphasise this is about the difference between staying in bed or getting out of bed, about having dinner or not having dinner, about having control or being controlled. They said, 'They just don't understand the importance of one word to disabled people, "independence", and the impact on mental health and well-being', and the ability for them to interact with society. That's lived experience, articulated again by Nathan Davies at the meeting in north Wales, who has led the Welsh independent living grant campaign on behalf of recipients of the grant—including himself, but also very many others.

As we approach the final point on this, when nobody will be left in receipt of an independent living grant, will you as a Government, for once, in this case, deliver an oral statement and answer the questions that disabled people across Wales who were in receipt of the ILF are increasingly asking?

Thank you for the question, and, of course, it is paramount that people's ability to live independently isn't compromised by the changes to the way that their care and support is arranged locally, and particularly so for people who were previously in receipt of the Wales independent living grant. I know that the First Minister has asked the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to review the progress that there's been to date in terms of moving across to the new system of receiving care and support, and that's very much to decide what further action might be necessary to ensure that there is a fair outcome for everybody concerned. I know the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services will be meeting the leader of that campaign later this week to discuss his concerns face to face. You'll be aware, of course, of the deep-dive review, which took place to ensure that where there were changes to people's support it was appropriate and not compromising, in any way, that person's ability to live independently. I understand that work has been completed, and the review will be shared with the Petitions Committee, and I know that there'll be opportunities to question the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services on her approach in due course.

The leader of the house will no doubt be aware of the accumulative impact of bank branch closures on our communities. Barclays announced the closure of the Ferndale and Tonypandy branches late last week, and I know that other branches are closing throughout Wales as well. Of course, internet banking and the decline of our traditional town centres are, in part, driving these changes, but there are many people in our communities who are never going to use online banking, people like the elderly woman I spoke to in Ferndale this week who uses her trip to the local bank every week as a way to get out and about to avoid the problems associated with loneliness. Now, most banking can be done through the post office, but that relies on all of our town centres maintaining their post office, and I'm seeking assurances directly from the Post Office about services in the Rhondda, but only yesterday, it came to my attention that the Department for Work and Pensions are discouraging claimants from accessing benefits via the post office, advising them to use a bank instead, and I've got evidence in this letter, which I'm prepared to share with the leader of the house. It says,

'We currently pay your pension into a post office card account. We want to pay your money into a bank, building society or credit union account instead.'

Now, given what I've just said about the banks and the increased importance of the post office in some of our most neglected communities, will you agree to look at this advice being issued by the DWP and tell them to change it so that people are encouraged to use their post office for banking and benefits transactions? Will you also bring a debate about in Government time outlining what support you can provide and what additional support you're able to provide in the future to ensure a sustainable and accessible post office network for everyone and all communities?

I'd also like a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on the future of accident and emergency services at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. Conversations with staff there about a shortage of permanent doctors and nurses and the impact that this is having cause me grave concern. I and my constituents are seeking reassurances about the long-term future of our A&E department at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. There are genuine fears among the staff there that the hospital is being wound down, and I'm told that doctors are leaving because of the loss of consultant services. We have lost so many services from this relatively new hospital in recent years because of the centralisation agenda that has been pushed by this Labour Government. This agenda has led to the decision to remove consultants from three key departments: A&E, maternity and paediatrics. People are concerned about the loss of even more services. So, can the Cabinet Secretary address our concerns on the floor of this Senedd at the earliest opportunity, please?

Thank you very much for raising both of those issues. With regard to bank closures, clearly, Welsh Government very much shares your concern about that. I know that we've written on many occasions to the UK Government asking them to take a much more strategic approach to banking in the round, and community banking particularly. And, also, we provide great support to our credit unions across Wales as well because although they are no substitute for banks, actually, they are a really important part of the jigsaw in terms of ensuring that people do have financial inclusion within communities. And, actually, some of those credit unions are coming forward with some good ideas, which are making them much more like banks in terms of having a card that can be used in order to pay for things and so on. So, I think the credit union movement is very much developing in Wales. But, that said, I would certainly be happy to ensure that the appropriate Minister takes forward that particular concern about the DWP encouraging people to use banks rather than post offices. As you say, for many people, it simply won't be possible, but, also, we need to ensure that we do have a vibrant and sustainable post office network right across Wales, for many reasons.

I will speak to the Minister with regard to your concerns about A&E at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, which you've outlined, and ask him to give you the reassurances that you're looking for.

Trefnydd, I raised earlier with the First Minister the issue about the superprison in Baglan and how the UK Government had confirmed it would not be going ahead and was no longer viable, but also in that evidence, the prisons Minister highlighted that the Welsh Government had sold the land. Now, the strong campaign that was put forward by people in my constituency would need reassurances, because one of the arguments was that the land was for 'industrial purposes'—that was what it was for—and the covenant on the land highlighted that. Can you ask the Minister for the economy to, perhaps, update Members as to what the land was sold for—the purposes? Does it fit in with the ambitions of the enterprise zone in Port Talbot, perhaps—to reassure my constituents who bought that land so that we can be comfortable that we know its purpose?

On a second point that's already been raised by Bethan Sayed about the Banksy, can I add to the point that the new owner highlighted the fact that he wanted to move it to a part of Port Talbot to ensure the people of Port Talbot would still be able to see and benefit from that and bring other items of Banksy artwork down? That clearly indicates a need to have a proper building to secure that type of display and gallery. Perhaps the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, when he responds to the request, might want to highlight the introduction of a national gallery for contemporary art and how Port Talbot would be an ideal place for that, because it seems that we were originally considered and this highlights the benefits Port Talbot brings to that concept. The introduction of a national gallery of contemporary art would fit into this agenda very nicely.

Thank you very much for raising that and your argument was well made. I know that the Deputy Minister, sitting next to you, heard those arguments. As I say, I will have some further discussion with the Deputy Minister on the issues that both Members have raised this afternoon in terms of ensuring that the Banksy artwork is preserved in a way that is sustainable but also in a way that hopefully can be enjoyed by people in Port Talbot for a long time to come. 

On the issue of the Port Talbot site, I know that contracts have been exchanged on a conditional basis for 5 acres of the land for industrial development. We're also in discussions with another company for the remainder of the land for another industrial development. At the moment, these discussions do remain commercial and in confidence. However, as soon as the Minister is able to say more, I know that he will.

Can I welcome you to your post, Trefnydd? Can I first of all ask you to use your influence to obtain an answer to an e-mail I sent to the Minister for Economy and Transport five weeks ago with regard to the Newtown bypass, where I asked all the questions that Joyce Watson raised today? I would be grateful for that answer, because there is huge amount of interest in this project, and certainly my constituents would like to be kept updated on this fantastic project. So, I'd be grateful if you could facilitate that reply. 

Also, can I ask whether or not you will ensure that statements that are made to this Assembly are made here first, before details of any significant contracts are released to the press? I say this with regard to lot 2 of phase 2 of the Superfast Cymru project, which was awarded and announced on 11 January, but the written statement in this regard to Members was released on 18 January. Can I request that you make time available for the new Minister responsible for broadband to provide an oral statement to this Assembly so that we can scrutinise phase 2 of the project further?

No details have been released on what the difficulties that have prevented the Welsh Government from awarding this contract earlier or were included in the written statement. There are no details about why there wasn't a seamless transition between phase 1 and phase 2 of the scheme, which has resulted in standstill for nearly a year, leaving many of my constituents left in the lurch and seeing broadband infrastructure hanging off poles at the end of their drives and being unable to use it.

There is a series of other questions that I won't read out now, but I would like to be able to have the opportunity to ask the Minister those questions at an appropriate time, if time could be permitted for that.

Thank you very much. On the first issue of the Newtown bypass letter, I'll ensure that a response is forthcoming to you as soon as possible.

On the issue of broadband, I know that the Chamber is frequently updated in terms of oral statements on progress with broadband, and it is worth remembering of course that, before the Welsh Government took action on this agenda, just 45 per cent of premises had access to superfast broadband. Coverage now is up to 95 per cent across Wales and we have the highest availability of superfast broadband amongst the devolved nations. This has been a huge undertaking, totalling £200 million of investment, but we do appreciate that there are still some properties that haven't been reached, and I think that we'll all be aware of those properties through our casework. Nonetheless, work does go on through phase 2 and I'm sure that there will be a suitable opportunity very soon to question the Minister. 

I'd like to ask for a statement from Government on the guidance that you expect  health boards to follow in terms of their duty to communicate changes, which can be far-reaching, in terms of services with the public, and, indeed, with all the relevant stakeholders too. The lack of transparency within the Betsi Cadwaladr health board in terms of changes to the vascular services at Ysbyty Gwynedd concern me greatly. My constituents had thought that the emergency vascular services were safe, but it has become apparent recently that that isn’t the case, and, indeed, the emergency services will leave Bangor.

I’ve also been given to understand that there are to be further changes in the pipeline to change urology services and stroke care in north Wales. But, again, there is a shortage of information, which creates concern and anxiety locally. There is talk of change, but there is no mention of which sites could lose services, and therefore people are starting to have all sorts of thoughts, perhaps entirely unnecessarily.

So, I would like a statement from Government or from the Minister as to just how transparent you expect health boards to be when they are making far-reaching changes to core services. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the question. Of course, we would expect health boards to be very open and transparent in terms of the way in which they go about putting in place plans for service change. We would expect consultation to take place and so on. I hear what you say about the experiences that you've had with potential changes within your constituency. I'll certainly ask the health Minister to write to you with some details as to what exactly he would expect from health boards, but it should be, certainly, good communication based on openness and changes in a co-productive way.

Minister, I'd like to ask for two statements. Last year, one of my constituents started a petition calling for women in Wales to have access to an improved service for women going through the menopause. This is in conjunction with the national Make Menopause Matter campaign, which focuses on many of the difficulties women with often severe symptoms face in the workplace and socially, and the impact this has on their quality of life. Aneurin Bevan university health board has one of only two specialist menopause clinics in Wales, and I'd be grateful for a statement on how the Welsh Government is ensuring that women have access to these services, and what is being done to improve the support provided by GPs, pharmacists and other health practitioners.

Secondly, I'd like a statement on bone marrow donation in Wales. A campaign is currently under way to enable my constituent Marley Nicholls, age 6, from Bettws, to have a life-saving bone marrow transplant. Marley suffers from a rare blood condition but a match is yet to be found. Over 10,000 people have so far joined the bone marrow register as a result of the campaign run by Marley's friends and family, and nationally donation rates are very low. I'd like an update on what Welsh Government is doing to encourage more people to sign up to the bone marrow register.

Thank you very much for raising both of those issues. With regard to the first issue that you raised about support for women who are going through the menopause, Welsh Government obviously takes this issue very seriously, and I'm pleased to inform you that officials are already working with Public Health Wales as they develop the sexual health service specification for 2018. That will set out a menopause care pathway for use by all health boards in Wales. And this will be—we hope that the pathway will be signed off at the next meeting of the sexual health programme board, which is due to take place very soon.

Of course, you mentioned the importance of the roles that general practitioners can play, and pharmacists, because the entry point, really, for many women for menopause care is through the GP. So, in accordance with individual clinical needs and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, women might then be referred on from the GP into other services, but it is important that GPs do understand the issue and the importance of the issue, and how the menopause can affect women in all aspects of their life. You mentioned the workplace, and of course it goes on into all other aspects.

On bone marrow donation, if a person in Wales needs a stem cell transplant, then the Welsh Blood Service can interrogate registries right across the world at the moment in order to identify potential donors. I think that's really positive. However, clearly we still need more people to come forward in order to make that offer of a donation, and one of the ways in which we're trying to increase the number is through the work that the Welsh Blood Service do. So, they actively encourage donors to join the panel, and they specifically ask those donors who are between the age of 17 and 30 if they'd like to register, because this group does very much offer transplant patients the best chances of survival. So, we would encourage everybody to consider whether or not they would be able to make what is a life-changing and life-saving gift to another person.

May I ask the organiser for two statements? The first is in respect of the possibly tragic news regarding the 28-year-old Argentine striker, Emiliano Sala, who was in Wales on Saturday to announce his record signing for Cardiff City. After returning to Nantes, where he was previously playing, it has been confirmed that he was on a plane travelling from Nantes to Cardiff yesterday evening, which lost touch with air traffic control. The Channel Islands have had a force of five planes and two boats out searching for him, but so far without any news. Clearly, we would all like to extend our wishes to the family and to everyone concerned. But does the organiser have any news with respect to this, and does the Welsh Government have any facilities that may assist in the search?

Secondly, could I ask for a statement on the Commission on Justice in Wales? Tomorrow, as chair of the law cross-party group, I am welcoming Rick Rawlings, one of the commissioners, and the secretariat to dining room 1 at 12.45 p.m., for any Members who may be interested in hearing the commission's perspective on how its work is going. I do, though, note from the comments earlier—. Can I first clarify that, rather than being an initiative just of the previous First Minister, this commission is fully supported by Welsh Government and by the new First Minister?

Secondly, the First Minister emphasised, I think, that the Welsh Government now supports devolution in three areas: youth justice, probation and, at least in some respects, regarding women offenders. Is this an evolution of the Welsh Government policy position, or was that included in the remit and terms of reference of the commission? The emphasis of devolving areas where we are already doing relatively well within criminal justice: is that the right way to do it, rather than looking at areas where there are particular problems as perhaps having more urgency for devolution?

Finally in this area, is the commission and Welsh Government working sufficiently closely with the justice in Wales working group that the UK Government set up? I see that the Ministry of Justice has shared research data for the excellent report from Dr Robert Jones and the Welsh Governance Centre, including the addresses of every single offender and cross-referencing those. It's a very substantial piece of work, and this commission gives us as real chance to get the research basis to look at this issue properly, and I'd just like to clarify that the Welsh Government and the UK Government are working closely to support that.  

Thank you very much for raising both of those issues. With regard to the first issue that you raised, about the flight that lost contact yesterday evening, clearly, as you say, all of our thoughts are very much with everybody who is concerned with, and affected by, that. I can confirm that Cardiff Airport is in close contact with the air accident investigation branch, and will continue to assist with its inquiries in any way in which it can, although it is very much the French planes that are leading the search in this instance.

On your questions about justice, I can confirm that the interest in, and commitment to, the commission is fully supported by our new First Minister and by Welsh Government. Indeed, the First Minister met the chair just last week to discuss the work programme going forward. I know that there'll be opportunities again to discuss these issues in due course.

Finally, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Trefnydd, I'm sure you'll agree with me that Mike Hedges always has interesting things to say. I listened closely to your question to the First Minister in questions earlier, Mike, where you suggested that congestion on the M4 could be relieved by utilising the A465 and the A40, the Heads of the Valleys link, for traffic entering Wales and heading to south-west Wales from the midlands. That's not a bad idea at all. I wonder if we could have a couple of statements, actually, from the Welsh Government. If that suggestion was to go ahead, it would have implications for two issues close to my heart in my constituency: first of all, pedestrian access to Raglan castle, which I've raised with the Deputy Minister for culture on previous occasions. We desperately need a footbridge there, so I wonder if we could have a statement from the Deputy Minister—an update on access issues to Welsh monuments in general, but particularly in those areas where busy roads affect that access. And, secondly, another issue close to my heart—you'll get used to this, Trefnydd, I often raise these issues; I raised them with your predecessor, and I can see the First Minister is amused I've raised them again—secondly, the worn-out concrete road surface on the A40 between Raglan and Abergavenny. I know that would be costly to renew, but, if we are going to go down the route of increasing traffic on that stretch of road, I think the current road surface does become untenable. So, if the M4 doesn't proceed, as looks like becoming increasingly likely, then perhaps we could have statements from the Welsh Government on where resource could be used to improve aspects of people's lives across my constituency and further afield.

Thank you for those questions. I should be very clear that the First Minister has not seen the inspector's report, so no decision has been made as yet. We expect the Orders to be presented to the First Minister for his consideration shortly. Welsh Government, clearly, as you know, is making a great deal of investment in our road surfaces, and you'll have been aware of the announcements that have been made with regard to investment there. But I'm sure that the Minister will write to you suggesting how, perhaps, best to take forward your particular interest, and I know that the Deputy Minister heard your points about the importance of access to our Welsh monuments. 

I thank the Trefnydd.

Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been postponed, and that brings us therefore to item 9 on our agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister—an update on the UK Government's proposals for EU withdrawal. And I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford. 

Llywydd, diolch yn fawr. The Welsh Government will bring forward a series of statements this afternoon responding to the threat of a 'no deal' Brexit. We do so because events at Westminster last week demonstrate that the UK Government is moving yet further into crisis. We have a Government in London that has suffered the largest defeat of any on record on the single most important responsibility it has to discharge. That defeat had become increasingly inevitable and the scale of that defeat provided the clearest of all messages that the Prime Minister’s deal is over. Mrs May said following the defeat that she will listen to Parliament, but that commitment has come two and a half years too late. From the referendum to the meaningful vote defeat, the Prime Minister has followed a 'winner takes all' strategy, entrenching herself in unworkable red-line positions when she should have been reaching out to secure a broad-based strategy and building support for it. Now, that belated process must begin with a single and immediate action—ruling out 'no deal' and the harm that the UK Government's own analysis shows would follow from leaving the European Union without agreement. Here in this Chamber, Ministers have said time and time again that a crash-out Brexit would be catastrophic to the economy, public services and our citizens in Wales.

Now, of course, Llywydd, we understand, and, unlike the Westminster Government, have always been clear, that we in the United Kingdom do not hold all the cards in the Brexit negotiation. Even with a Government determined not to allow such an outcome, we cannot be absolutely sure that it will not happen, and that's why we bring today's statements before the Assembly. Nevertheless, the UK Government can and must take 'no deal' off the table as an outcome it is prepared to preside over or even tolerate. And when that happens, Llywydd, I believe that a clear parliamentary majority will rule out leaving the EU without a deal. Last week, the National Assembly rejected leaving the European Union without a deal, and now Parliament must find the opportunity to do the same. And it seems very likely that Parliament will indeed have to take back control over these matters in order to be able to do that, because, once again, the Prime Minister is boxed in by the divisions inside her own party and in her Cabinet, where some are actively seeking a 'no deal' outcome.

Yesterday, Llywydd, the Prime Minister said that she would be more flexible, open and inclusive— those were her words—in finding a way forward. The problem is that her actions seem so far adrift from her words. To quote that leading Conservative Party Member of Parliament Sarah Wollaston, the Prime Minister's statement yesterday was

'like last week's vote had never happened'.

Indeed, plan B turns out to be simply plan A with a new helping of pious hopes.

It's clear, Llywydd, that Mrs May continues to focus on trying to do the impossible—deliver a deal that is simultaneously acceptable to the EU-27 and to the DUP and the hard-line Brexiteers—rather than genuinely seeking a new consensus across Parliament. How can the Prime Minister expect that MPs would suddenly support a tweaked version of her deal, when it was so comprehensively rejected? It simply will not happen. So, the second thing that does need to happen is that, once the threat of 'no deal' has been removed, the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the article 50 process. We cannot afford to gamble with the future of our country with self-imposed deadlines and the self-harm of a cliff-edge approach to negotiations. The UK Government must then gather around a proposal that has the support of Parliament, whether that be an alternative deal that reflects 'Securing Wales’ Future', or by moving to a second public vote—the position, in fact, endorsed by this National Assembly on 4 December.

From the start, Llywydd, the Welsh Government was clear that we respected the result of the 2016 referendum, and our focus has always been on the form and not the fact of Brexit. That is why, even at this late hour, Parliament needs to explore every way of delivering an outcome to the Brexit process that simultaneously respects the referendum and protects us from damage to our economy and the fabric of our society. But the debate in Parliament over the next week is the last opportunity to rally around that form of Brexit, one which has at its heart a future relationship based around continued participation in the single market and a customs union. Llywydd, if that cannot be done, the severity of a 'no deal' Brexit is such that, if Parliament cannot agree on a majority position that secures our long-term interests, the only option that then remains is a single public vote to break the deadlock.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, let me say this: in 2016, the advice of the Welsh Government was unambiguous—that our future was best secured through continued membership of the European Union. Nothing in more than two years of detailed work on Brexit has led us to change that view. In the meantime, because a 'no deal' Brexit remains a very high risk, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to set out the consequences of that outcome for Wales and to demonstrate how we are seeking to mitigate those consequences.

In a series of statements, Ministers will outline the risks we face for public services, the economy and across society. The impacts are potentially far ranging and will be felt by everyone. These are not theoretical or hypothetical concerns, but the reality of where we may now find ourselves. Today's series of statements is part of our determination to ensure that Assembly Members are kept updated on all this work. For now, Llywydd, the truth is that nobody really knows what will happen in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. It follows that neither Wales nor the United Kingdom as a whole can be truly prepared for all the possible eventualities. This Welsh Government will do everything we can and use every opportunity to join with others to persuade the Prime Minister to turn away from this disastrous course, to halt the damage it would cause to our country, and to find a better way forward.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? The UK is now weeks away from leaving the European Union, and so I share the First Minister's view that it's crucial that constructive engagement takes place to immediately prepare Wales in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. Therefore, it's vitally important that Wales's leaders set aside their political differences and leave no stone unturned when it comes to preparing Wales for life after 29 March. That's why I accepted his invitation last week to meet with him to discuss the implications of Brexit.

Now the First Minister, in his statement, says that there is now only a week to seek agreement on Brexit. I'm sure he would agree with me that it's crucial that politicians talk and work together, where they can, in the interests of the people they represent. However, does he agree with me that it is extremely disappointing and, indeed, worrying that the leader of the Labour Party is refusing to sit around the table with the Prime Minister to discuss Brexit, given that leaders here in Wales have been mature enough to meet? Will he now, therefore, put pressure on his own leader to do the same at a UK level?

I understand why the Welsh Government is making a series of statements here this afternoon, but we have to accept, whether we like it or not, that people did vote to leave the European Union in 2016. Now that he has confirmed in his statement today that he will now push for a second referendum, could he explain to this Chamber how he will ensure that he and his Government respect the original referendum result, because up until now—up until now—he has made it clear that this is of paramount importance to him? 

The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that it's not the intention of the UK Government to simply run down the clock until 29 March, and so we have a vital opportunity to work together to deliver on behalf of the people of Wales. In that spirit, I want to make it absolutely clear that my colleagues and I are willing to work, where we can, with the Welsh Government to ensure that the priorities of communities across Wales are communicated to the UK Government, and I sincerely hope the First Minister will use this invitation in the coming weeks. 

Now, as the clock ticks, it's crucial that all stakeholders across Wales are preparing for the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit, and I'd be grateful if the First Minister could update us on how the Welsh Government has been working with its stakeholders in general terms to ensure that they are as prepared as possible for that scenario.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, I appreciate that Ministers will be making specific statements later on today, where they will be going into detail in respect of their own portfolios. Members will be very much aware of important Assembly committee reports on preparing for Brexit over the last 18  months. Now, one of those reports was published by the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee almost a year ago. That report recommended that the Welsh Government improved its communication with individual organisations through greater encouragement of representative bodies to cascade information to those organisations. That report also made it absolutely clear that public services in Wales lacked the information they needed to adequately prepare for Brexit. Therefore, I'd be grateful if the First Minister could detail what additional work the Welsh Government has undertaken since that particular report to better support public service operators as they prepare for Britain to leave the European Union.

Now, there are, of course, a number of questions around Wales's constitutional relationship with other parts of the UK going forwards. So, perhaps, in responding to my questions, the First Minister could give us his view on the impact that a 'no deal' Brexit, should it come to that, could have for the future of the United Kingdom as a whole, and Wales's place in that future United Kingdom.

Finally, Llywydd, the legislative workload of this Assembly will significantly increase if Britain leaves the European Union on 29 March without a formal deal and a transition period. Indeed, the lack of a transition period could put huge pressure on this institution and indeed on the Welsh Government. So, perhaps the First Minister could tell us what assessment the Welsh Government has made of the impact of a 'no deal Brexit' on its operations and indeed on the Assembly's operations.

Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, can I thank the First Minister for his statement today? Time, of course, is now of the essence, and so can I reiterate once again that my colleagues and I are committed to working, where we can, with both the UK Government and the Welsh Government on behalf of the people of Wales?

Llywydd, can I thank Paul Davies for the way that he opened his contribution and for returning to that theme at the end? I was grateful to him for accepting the invitation to meet last week, and I note very carefully his offer of continued discussions beyond today. That’s an offer that I will certainly want to take up with him.

Turning to some of the specific questions that he raised, the position set out by the leader of the Labour Party at Westminster is a position that I have set out this afternoon: that the Prime Minister should take ‘no deal’ off the table. That is the way to break the logjam that has developed at Westminster, that is in the Prime Minister’s own gift; she can make it clear that we will leave the European Union, but that we will do so in a way that is planned, that is orderly and that has a deal with the European Union. If she can take ‘no deal’ off the table, it will change the atmosphere, it will allow those discussions to happen, and that is what she should do.

I want to just make clear again the position I set out in relation to a second referendum, because I don’t want that to be misunderstood. What I’ve said is that Parliament should continue to work as hard as possible to find a deal—a deal that respects the referendum and protects our economy. And I think it is still possible that they will find a centre of gravity inside the House of Commons around a particular method in which we both leave the European Union and mitigate the harm that that will cause. What I went on to say is that if that proves impossible, if over the coming days the House of Commons is deadlocked and there is no majority to be found for any form of deal, at that point, the deadlock is best resolved by putting the question back to those people who were asked the question in the first place. And I completely reject the off-microphone accusations that this is somehow an anti-democratic way of doing things. I voted for a Government in 1997. I didn’t expect that the result would last for ever. Indeed, I was asked again in 2001 and gave the same answer. Indeed, I was asked the same again in 2005 and gave the same answer again. So, the idea that it is impossible to return to people who have provided a democratic mandate and a decision, to ask them for a further review, is nonsensical in any democracy. That’s why I have said that if the House of Commons is deadlocked, then returning to the people from which any democratic mandate is derived is the way that that might have to be resolved.

Paul Davies asked me about what we are doing to help stakeholders. He will have seen the Brexit business portal that we have provided. He will have seen the new website Paratoi Cymru, which has had over 2,000 unique visitors since it was launched less than a week ago, and Ministers continue to meet with stakeholders in their portfolio areas on a very regular basis.

He asked about improving communications. He will have seen, I hope, the help that we’ve been able to provide through the £50 million EU transition fund—money to the Welsh Local Government Association, to the health service confederation, to the Association of Directors of Social Services, to the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action. All of those umbrella organisations have received modest—it is modest—help from the fund to enable them to be conduits of improved communication of the things that we are able to tell those organisations direct, but then we rely on them to be able to pass those messages on to their membership, and we’ve done our best to provide some financial assistance to them in doing so.

Paul Davies ended his questions with a very important point about the further strain on the constitutional relationships inside the United Kingdom that a ‘no deal’ Brexit will cause. It’s common currency, isn’t it? It’s the conclusion of committees here, it’s been the conclusion of committees at the House of Commons and the House of Lords, that the current inter-governmental machinery that we have in the United Kingdom cannot bear the weight of Brexit—that we've relied on a common rulebook ever since devolution, a common European Union rulebook, to which we are all bound. When that rulebook disappears, then the machinery that we are left with is not adequate to the task. And we press that point, and, in many ways, Wales has been the leading source of determination to get those issues resolved, and the JMC plenary, while my predecessor, Carwyn Jones, was a member of it, has set work in hand to do just that. But it's urgent, and it is difficult to persuade the UK Government to find the energy, the time and the commitment to make those very important things happen.

That workload that will flow from Brexit will be felt in this institution, Llywydd, and I look forward to further discussions between the parties and with you to make sure that we find the most practical way we can to manage the legislative impact that a 'no deal' Brexit would throw up for the National Assembly itself.   

While there is some disagreement, clearly, across this Chamber, substantively in relation to Brexit policy, I'm sure that there's wider agreement about the chaos and confusion that currently characterise Westminster, and the monumental failure of politics in that Chamber that is driving us towards the brink of a catastrophic 'no deal', the reality that has made necessary the contingency planning to which the First Minister has referred. The shutdown in Congress and the impasse in Westminster are two bookends of dysfunction across the Atlantic ocean at the moment; they mirror each other almost exactly. 

I hope that in this Chamber, it might be possible for us to agree on a constructive response to the crisis that we're facing in politics, so that together in this place across the parties we are able to capture the engagement of a public that must be deeply frustrated and bewildered at what they're seeing. And I'm here talking about the establishment of a citizens' assembly across the nations of these islands, but certainly here in Wales, to take the lead in reaching out across the divide that separates those who voted to leave and remain in 2016, to try and arrive at a greater degree of mutual understanding. 

In a recent poll by HOPE not hate, this proposition—the proposition that politicians clearly cannot decide how to resolve the issue of Brexit, and the country's deeply divided and therefore we need a different kind of response—met with strong support from the public. Now, it's not a new proposal, as people will be aware. Indeed, an amendment along these lines will be tabled in the House of Commons this week, but for a citizens' assembly across the whole of the UK. Naturally, we believe that it should be constituted on a four-nation basis. 

In an article in The Guardian a few days ago, the former leader of the Labour Party, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown also suggested a series of citizens' assemblies along similar lines, addressing not just the issue of the relationship between the UK and the EU, but part of those deeper questions that possibly fuelled the 'leave' vote in many areas. So, issues about the state of the economy in many parts of the UK, the condition of left-behind communities, the rise in child poverty that austerity has imposed.  

Probably the UK Government will reject this new idea next week, as it's so far rejected most of the new ideas that have been tabled in order to try and break the impasse. But we here, First Minister, in the National Assembly, if we will it, have the capacity to show leadership to take action now. We could agree to establish, on a legal basis, a Welsh citizens' assembly. I prefer the term 'convention' or, even better in Welsh, 'cymanfa'r bobl', to engage our own people. It could do so on an entirely different basis to the by now tired and largely discredited conventional political way that the Brexit debate has been conducted.  

In putting forward this proposal, we in Plaid are in no way stepping back from our strong support for a people's vote on the final choice between whatever deal the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament arrive at and to remain within the European Union. But a Welsh citizens' convention would be, it seems to us, a beneficial, unifying and constructive precursor to that referendum if it is held. And it could also allow us to address, really, some of the deeper issues, as I said, that Brexit has laid bare, which are not just the relationship between the UK and the EU, but the relationship in these islands, the constitution of these islands and the way in which our politics in general is at the moment broken, and we need to take our own steps here in Wales to remake it. So, could I invite the First Minister to respond positively to that?

On the question of a people's vote, I was glad to see that the First Minister has just reiterated his view that Wales's interest would be best secured through continued membership of the EU. Not only that, he acknowledged that if Parliament cannot agree a deal that is in our economic interest in Wales, one that entails continued participation in the single market and the customs union, the only option remaining will be a people's vote. It seems we are moving closer together on this question of a people's vote.

Can I just ask him to reiterate again, in terms of the timing, because, obviously, we have to have an eye on the clock given the current deadline: does he believe that that decision needs to be made fairly imminently? We're talking about a matter of weeks whereby Parliament needs to vote in favour of a people's vote in order for us to use that last remaining hope to avert what many of us believe would be a disaster?

Can I thank Adam Price for his contribution and for the way that he has set it out? And he's absolutely right to point to the fact that on the big-picture issues in relation to Brexit, there has often been significant and substantive agreement between our two parties. Just dealing very briefly with the points he made towards the end, the position I set out today is the position that both our parties voted for here on the floor of the Assembly on 4 December. Now, further weeks have seeped away since then, so, of course, he is right to point to the fact that time is narrowing down and Parliament is, as I said, I think in the final lap of its ability to craft a deal that respects the referendum and mitigates the damage that leaving the European Union will do to our economy.

I listened carefully to what he said. I agree, there is a degree of public bewilderment at how things have reached this point. And sometimes it's more than bewilderment, isn't it—it's a feeling of anger that we have failed to be able to resolve this major issue, and there will be the need for civic reconstruction after this is over, when we are able to get people who have strongly held and differing views able to re-engage with one another in a way that is respectful of those different positions. And shouting from the sidelines is not a model of respectful debate, however strongly a Member might feel about that position. At the end of all of this, no matter how strongly people feel, there will be a job to do of bringing people back together.

Now, a citizens' assembly, a convention, a cymanfa—all of those are possibilities that I'm very happy to engage with positively. They're not the only ideas, Adam, which is why I don't just completely commit to them today. In an earlier life, I once ran a series of local community select committees, which were designed to resolve locally controversial matters, in which a panel of citizens of the area came together, heard evidence from a series of witnesses, and tried at the end, in that deliberative way, to come to a conclusion about the best way forward. So, there are a variety of ways in which that job of civic reconstruction could be brought about. A citizens' assembly is certainly one of them, and I look forward to a continuing dialogue with the Member and others as to the best model that we could adopt for that purpose here in Wales.

Thanks, First Minister, for the latest in a series of Brexit-related statements, which began last week. Now, we did have a semi-interesting one last week from your Brexit Minister, in which he was talking about things like your Welsh Government Brexit website, offering advice to businesses and organisations about contingency planning for leaving. And this, as I mentioned to you last week, is all potentially useful stuff, and that's stuff that the Welsh Government should be doing: making contingency plans and offering advice. I don't see much of that nature in this statement of yours today.

I was intrigued by part of your response to what Paul Davies raised when he was mentioning—well, I'm not sure who mentioned it, but the subject of the 1997 Welsh Assembly referendum cropped up, and you made the point that you kept answering the question in the same way. You said you answered it in 2001, you answered it again in 2005—[Interruption.] What you—[Interruption.] What may—[Interruption.] Oh, the general election, okay. The point that you may have omitted to mention is that, in the meantime, in 1999, this place was actually set up. So, actually, the result of the referendum was implemented. So, I fail to see how, by that logic, you are going to thwart the result of this referendum that we had in 2016 on Britain's membership of the European Union.

In terms of this statement today, there is nothing in it that is new. You are relating positions from the UK Government that we already know about. We know that Theresa May has said that she won't delay the leaving date. We know that she won't consider a second referendum. We also know your position on all this, which you're making clearer now, but we've known it for some time—that you want a second referendum. My only real question about today's statement is: why are you wasting the time of this Chamber with this essentially empty nonsense?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I don't regard it as a waste of time to debate on the floor of this Assembly matters that will have a direct impact in the lives of people in every part of Wales and where Ministers are available to be questioned by Assembly Members on the detail of the proposals that will be rehearsed here this afternoon. How could that possibly be a waste of time in a democratic forum? This was a genuine attempt by this Government to demonstrate the seriousness of the position we find ourselves in, to be clear with people in Wales about our assessment of what a 'no deal' Brexit would mean for public services, for business and for their lives, and then to make sure that they have the most up-to-date available information about the actions that we are taking, and then to hear from others as, to be fair, we have had contributions from both the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru here this afternoon, making some further and constructive proposals about the way in which we can work together to make sure that, were that to happen, we are able to share information, think ahead together and do our best to mitigate the impact here in Wales. I don't regard that as a waste of time at all.

First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon, and I will be listening very carefully to the remaining statements because, clearly, we raised this spectre of no deal over 12 months ago when we had the first report prepared for us by the Welsh Government.

Paul Davies—I had a couple of points. I just want to keep it simple because I know the time is short for your statement. He highlighted the legislation workload that is coming our way. Has the Welsh Government identified its priorities on legislation? In other words, is it in a position to know what it wants to pass quickly and what it will defer until after 29 March, in case we have a 'no deal' situation and we do leave on 29 March? Have you also assessed yourself on capacity? I know that we were talking about your capacity to be able to undertake this workload, and you have employed more staff, but are you at the position now where you have sufficient capacity to move forward in this sort of arena, because we are seven weeks away from the point where we will be out of the EU and we will have to abide by UK law and the laws passed in Westminster for everything.

The 'no deal' Brexit technical papers that were published last year: what's now your assessment of those? Because when I looked at them, to be honest, most of them were a waste of paper; they just told us what we knew and didn't tell us how to solve the problems. Have you now got some solutions to some of those issues? And on 29 March, if a 'no deal' arises, where are we with the common frameworks and the implementation of those frameworks to see where we progress with that?

I thank the Member for those, and, Dirprwy Lywydd, just to say again, as we've said previously here, that reports from Assembly committees, and particularly the committee that David Rees chairs, have been genuinely influential in our thinking and have allowed this National Assembly to be part of a wider set of relationships with other legislatures, making sure that things that matter here in Wales are shared with our counterparts at Westminster, Scotland and, hopefully in time, with the Northern Ireland Assembly as well.

David Rees asked me whether we have prioritised our legislation. Yes, we have. That has led to some challenging conversations with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, for example, about whether we are bringing sufficient material for scrutiny in front of the Assembly, whether we are over-relying on taking legislation through Westminster. But that is a prioritising exercise; it was trying to make sure that the time of the Assembly, which will be scarce, is devoted to those legislative changes that have a genuine policy impact, and allowing legislation to be taken through at Westminster, where it is simply technical in nature or has no policy change from our current position.

On capacity, we are stretched, Dirprwy Lywydd. That is the truth: we are stretched. We don't have an infinite army of people working for the Welsh Government that we can redeploy to deal with the urgency of Brexit. What we are having to do is to move people from other important work in order to do even more urgent and important work in the Brexit field. And while we do have some welcome funding from the UK Government to allow us to temporarily employ people to deal with the Brexit impact, all that takes time as well. The skills you are looking for are not always skills that are automatically in easy supply.

David Rees is absolutely right, Dirprwy Lywydd, in his last point about the technical notices. They were very short on solutions and very long on telling us that solutions were being looked at, were being worked on, were being explored, were being discussed, but very seldom delivered. Where does this all get us? It gets us to the position that Dr Liam Fox had to admit to only in the last few days—that the 40 trade deals that he said would be the easiest to negotiate in the history of trade deals—. I remember hearing him once say that all it would take would be a bottle of Tipp-Ex, where we would be Tipp-Exing out the initials 'EU' and inking in the initials 'UK', and that's all it would take. Not a single one of those deals will be ready on the day that we leave the European Union.

Thank you very much, First Minister.

Item 10, then, is a statement by the Minister for Health and Social Services on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on our health and care services. And I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. When I first set out the potential impact of a 'no deal' Brexit for NHS and social care services in Wales in June last year, some Members in this Chamber accused me of scaremongering and political mischief making. Yet, two and a half years after the European Union referendum, and less than 70 days before the UK is due to leave the European Union, the prospect of a 'no deal' is now greater than ever. Barely a foundation stone of our future relationship with our closest and most important trading partners has been laid. Instead, just last week, we were hearing reports about increasing numbers of medicines affected by supply issues across the UK in the face of a 'no deal' Brexit.

The UK Government is responsible for maintaining the continuity of the supply of medicines, like so many areas, which will potentially impact upon the people of Wales. Although the number and type of medicines affected is relatively low, it is clear that the UK Government cannot provide full assurance that a 'no deal' Brexit will not affect business as usual. From a health and social care point of view, it matters more than ever that a 'no deal' Brexit should be taken off the table as a minimum.  

I continue to be concerned about the future supply of radioisotopes to Wales in the event of a 'no deal' scenario. Radioisotopes are essential for diagnostic and therapeutic use by our national health service. There are no sources within the UK, and supplies are routinely imported from other EU countries through the main cross-channel ports. Disruption from custom checks at our ports is likely to render radioisotopes useless for healthcare treatment. We are reliant on UK Government assurances that although the UK still plans to withdraw from Euratom, there will be no regulatory barrier to the continued import of radioisotopes post Brexit. However, a 'no deal' Brexit could lead to divergence in regulatory arrangements and standards between nations that could affect the import of radioisotopes. And, of course, it is the express desire of most 'no deal' advocates to have divergence in regulatory arrangements and standards.

Let nobody underestimate the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit—the impact that a 'no deal' Brexit will have on individual citizens and families. That includes, of course, European Union nationals living and working in the UK, or UK nationals, including many Welsh citizens, who have taken advantage of freedom of movement to live and work in the European Union. All will be affected.

Apart from the uncertainty over reciprocal healthcare and settled status arrangements, a 'no deal' Brexit will inevitably lead to a tighter health and social care labour market across the UK. That will make it even harder for us to compete for staff, and of course a likely rise in costs. A 'no deal' Brexit will have a profound impact on all professions and all health and social care staff. The effect of changes to migration policy, particularly a policy that favours high skills and wages, will be most keenly felt in those parts of our health and social care sector that depend on relatively low-paid workers, such as workers providing domiciliary or residential care, who have a central role supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. So, let's be clear: disruption in our social care sector would not just affect vulnerable citizens within social care, it would inevitably lead to delayed discharges from hospitals and increased pressure upon our hospitals. That means pressure on our staff and on citizens themselves who still require health and social care.

The Welsh Government has been clear that a 'no deal' Brexit would cause serious and unavoidable harm to our health and care services, and that harm would extend to all sectors, including, of course, the at least 1,400 European Union nationals who we know work in our national health service. If we are to leave the European Union with minimum harm to our health and social care services, then there must be the certainty of a deal that ensures full and continued and unfettered access to the single market, and the development of a new migration system that links migration more closely to employment, whilst protecting those employees themselves from exploitation.

I'd now like to focus on the work that we have been doing to mitigate some of the substantial and known risks of a 'no deal' Brexit. We've been working closely with the NHS, the local authorities, professional and representative bodies to plan and prepare wherever possible. To support social care providers, we have commissioned Ipsos MORI to assess the composition of the social care and childcare workforce here in Wales. That research will help us to identify how many European Union workers are employed in the sector, so that we can support them and their employers, and it will also facilitate cost-effective planning for areas or roles where vulnerabilities are identified. 

I started my statement this afternoon by referring to reports of medicine shortages. We have been focusing work on ensuring the availability of a supply of medicines, medical devices and clinical consumables in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. In terms of medicines, as I said, we are essentially reliant on the work being undertaken by the UK Government and the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that stocks and dedicated transport routes are available. However, we are being rigorous in our interrogation of the data that is made available from the UK Government about the medicines most likely to be affected or where there is insufficient assurance from manufacturers. In terms of medical devices and clinical consumables—everything from pacemakers to incontinence pads to surgical gloves—we will use UK arrangements where that is the right thing to do, but we will also take additional steps where we have areas of concern, or where we feel we can provide the additional certainty that we need here in Wales. In doing so, we are considering how we look beyond 29 March, and to try to secure some lasting value from the measures that we are having to take to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit.

I was pleased to welcome yesterday the publication of a very thorough and considered analysis by Public Health Wales about how Brexit could impact on all aspects of health and well-being in Wales over the short, medium and long term. The report focuses on the distinct political, social, cultural and economic challenges that Brexit poses to Wales. It will provide an invaluable reference and evidence base for service and community leaders as we move forward into even more uncertain times and the possibility of new international relationships. This is the only health impact assessment of Brexit that's been published anywhere within the UK. It is a further demonstration of how we're taking what we can from UK arrangements but also going further where that is the right thing to do.

Both of these initiatives are vitally important to our overall contingency plans and we will provide the additional assurance that we can, as we are as prepared as we reasonably can be, but, as yet, we still don’t know what form Brexit will take, with only nine weeks to go. 

On 23 June 2016, the people of Wales and, indeed, the UK voted by a majority to leave the European Union—the largest number of people ever voting across the UK since records began. Now, I have always believed, as I do today, that politicians, irrespective of party, have a fundamental duty to ensure that the will of our people is delivered. The legal default position, of course, is a 'no deal'.

Over the past two and a half years, I have been saddened here to see this Welsh Government prevaricate from its own devolved responsibilities, avoiding scrutiny in favour of causing mayhem by scaremongering, and now seeking to derail Brexit through issuing confused calls for both a general election and, indeed, a second referendum or—call it what you like—a people's vote. Instead, you should have been focused on preparing the devolved areas that you have responsibility for here, not least the health sector, from the outset. You are right in your statement: there is a nervousness in the Welsh healthcare sector, but this is not being helped by you yourself. For example, it is an astonishing fact that the Welsh NHS's share of the Welsh Government's £50 million EU transition fund fails to reflect your hyperbolic rhetoric. As you might recall, Minister, in October 2018, you announced that only—yes only—£210,000 of the £50 million fund will be used to prepare the health service in Wales for Brexit. Really? When considering that health and social care spans seven health boards, 22 local authorities, it is actually quite shocking that you have essentially allocated just around £7,200 per public body.

Sadly, lack of preparedness is a common theme when considering the Welsh health and social care sector, as has been picked up and acknowledged by one of your own Labour AMs, David Rees. Whilst you mentioned in your statement that you've commissioned Ipsos MORI to assess the composition of the social care and childcare workforce in Wales, it is a striking fact that this is only being done now. Thankfully, our UK Government is more organised and has acknowledged issues such as medicine and advised manufacturers to stockpile six weeks' worth of stock in the case of a 'no deal' scenario. It is also nice to know from the First Minister that the latest raft of 140 employees—interns—into the Welsh Government department to prepare for Brexit have, in fact, been funded by the UK Government. More so, the UK Government has no wish to prevent people from inside or outside the EU coming to work for our public services. The UK Government has—and don't deny it, they have guaranteed that there will be no change to the status of NHS staff if no deal is agreed. Finally, it seems—

Are we getting a question, please?

Yes, I'm coming to my questions now, Deputy Presiding Officer. You have a greater issue on your plate, as it seems that Wales continues to struggle to retain staff, regardless of their nationality. Indeed, the concerns of Oxford university's Nick Fahy include that there is a danger staff might relocate to England. Personally, I think this is unsurprising, as I already know that it's happening in north Wales, and that is due to your own incompetence of running the health service—a board that has been in special measures for three years.

Therefore, my questions to you are, Minister: will you clarify whether you will be assisting any companies financially with stockpiling costs, and, if so, whether that will be coming from the EU transition fund or that of the health department; (2) what work are you undertaking to allay fears of 'no deal' on healthcare staff, and are you really confident of retaining NHS staff Wales regardless of nationality whilst also resisting the over-reliance on agency staff; and (3), finally, will you explain whether you are considering securing more money to help prepare the health and social services sector? Across the UK, this is the only devolved Government where we've seen massive and savage cuts to our health service. So, I think any—[Interruption.]—any criticism now should be directed at this Welsh Government, and let the UK Government get on with Brexit. 

Minister. [Interruption.] Minister. There were three. 

I'd like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders for her interesting contribution. There were a range of assertions made that were non factual. I won't go through all of them. But let's deal with the three supposed questions.

Money for companies to help them with stockpiling: we expect to have the same financial arrangements in paying for equipment and medicines for use in the health service. There may however be additional costs that would be passed on. For example, if radioisotopes are flown into the United Kingdom because the customs arrangements after a 'no deal' arrangement mean that you can't actually bring radioisotopes in via the usual route of ports, there would be a cost that would almost certainly be passed on to the health service, and that would have an impact on budgets in every single nation of the United Kingdom. 

On settled status, it was a positive step that the Prime Minister finally saw sense and agreed that there would not be an application fee for people to apply for settled status. There is still the challenge about not understanding how the process will work for potentially vulnerable citizens who have lived in this country for a significant period of time and are already accessing health and care. People, understandably, across all parties in Parliament have concerns about a process run by the Home Office, in particular in light of its recent track record over Windrush citizens, some of whom were, of course, deported from the United Kingdom, some of whom were denied essential health and care treatment. There is still much more to do before people have full reassurance about settled status, and, of course, in the event of a 'no deal', that will have to be in place for a process to be run within just a few short weeks.

And there was the non-factual statement about health and social care funding. We regularly go around this in this Chamber. This Government funds health and social care services by a significant amount more—at least 8 per cent—than the United Kingdom Government does for England. The relative cuts in social care are significant. Don't take my word for it: look at the Conservative leadership of the Local Government Association in England and they will tell you how bad a deal social care has had within England. Also look to colleagues in the national health service in England and they will also tell you about the deal that they have had. We do much better by health and social care here in Wales, and there's simply no argument with the facts on the matter.

On your broader assertions about a lack of preparedness and causing mayhem, at some point you might want to turn on the television news. I don't know if you're aware of this particular phenomenon—there's something called Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, where people talk about Brexit on a regular basis. Ministers regularly resign from the Government because they can't agree with Government policy. Government Ministers regularly brief the media about disagreeing with Government policy. The Chancellor last week, actually, in a telephone call to a range of businesses, said that 'no deal' would be taken off the table, and the Prime Minister insists that isn't going to happen. So, Philip Hammond is brilliant for suggesting 'no deal' will not happen, but the pointy bearded Marxist Jeremy Corbyn is evil for suggesting 'no deal' has to come off the table. If you want to see mayhem, look at the United Kingdom Parliament, look at the United Kingdom Government. The shower of Brexit directly runs to the door of the United Kingdom Government. Theresa May is responsible for our position, after, of course, David Cameron, who started this all off in the first place. 

And on your point, your assertion, that the UK Government have guaranteed that—in the event of a 'no deal', that they have guaranteed the status of NHS staff, that is simply not true. At some point, I'd welcome Janet Finch-Saunders joining the rest of us on planet Earth and taking 'no deal' Brexit seriously.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his statement. In the statement, he sets out some of the issues and problems very clearly, and those concerns are concerns with which we in this part of the house would want to associate ourselves. I suppose I must admit to being a little bit disappointed that there's a lack of detail in some of his response, but I would also acknowledge that we have an awful lot of 'no deal' Brexit business to get through this afternoon and it may not have been possible for him to set out in detail everything that he may have wished to cover. So, I will explore, if I may, with your permission, some of the issues that he's raised a little further.

With regard to the issue of radioisotopes, this is actually, as he says, a serious potential risk. Not that anyone is going to voluntarily not wish to sell them to the Welsh NHS anymore, but there are, as he rightly highlights, practical issues—which can be overcome, though with considerable expense—and of course there are the legal issues. Now, Professor Wyn Owen has warned us that there is a danger that, if there is no agreement, suppliers will either take the view that they'll carry on supplying the UK until told not to, which would be fine in the short term, or they won't supply until they receive legal clarification that they are allowed to do so. So, I'm hoping that the Minister will be able to provide us with a little more detail about the discussions that he's had with the relevant persons in the UK Government to ensure that this legal position is clarified in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, and I would encourage him to consider, given the current state of the UK Government, which appears to be unable to organise itself out of a wet paper bag—I'd ask him to consider being prepared to deal directly with Brussels on this particular issue. Obviously, we need a UK-wide solution, but, if that's not forthcoming, I'm sure the Minister would agree with me that we cannot afford to leave the people dependent on these services and the Welsh NHS without the necessary supplies.

The Minister mentions in his statement the work that's ongoing—the research—to look at the composition of the social care and childcare workforce in Wales. This will be very useful, but I'm hoping that the Minister can provide us with some details this afternoon about the timescale for that work, because it, obviously, is a matter of urgency to identify where those gaps may be forthcoming, and, if we end up with problems in the social care workforce, that will inevitably have a knock-on effect, of course, into healthcare, because we won't be able to discharge people from hospitals.

With regard to the points he raises in terms of medicines, and he speaks about being essentially reliant on work being undertaken by the UK Government—and I'm not sanguine, I'm not reassured, by that, though I realise that, at some levels, that is necessary—I wonder if the Minister can share with us this afternoon, or perhaps he would write to Members in due course, any details that he is identifying about medicines that are likely to be affected, and whether or not he is satisfied, as things stand, with the assurances that are being received from manufacturers. Similarly, with regard to the medical devices and consumables, in the Minister's statement he said he will take additional steps in areas where he has concern. I wonder if he's in a position to give us any early indications today about what those areas of concern might be, and what contingency steps are in place.

Now, the Minister refers, rightly, to the very good Public Health Wales report that many of us received today or yesterday. I would commend it as a valuable piece of work, though in one aspect I would beg to disagree. One of the possible positive outcomes of a 'no deal' Brexit that they highlight is a possible reduction in the consumption of alcohol. Well, for myself, I think a 'no deal' Brexit is more likely, frankly, to drive me to drink, if you'll forgive my levity, Deputy Presiding Officer.

But I'd like to call the Minister's attention to a couple of the recommendations. There are nine in the report—further areas for work. Recommendation 7 says that further research is needed on the impact of Brexit on mental health and well-being, community resilience, particularly highlighting children and young adults, and farmers and rural communities, the port areas, and black and ethnic minority groups. Can the Minister say whether he's yet been able to have, or his officials have been able to have, any discussions with Public Health Wales about what that research should look like and who should be carrying that out? And, similarly, with regard to recommendation 9, where Public Health Wales highlight the fact that the public health workforce currently lacks the experience and skills to influence and contribute to trade agreements, they say that the public health system should consider how to build knowledge, skills and capacity to ensure that health and well-being are considered at the forefront of such processes. Again, I'd be grateful if the Minister can inform us either what steps are already in place to start responding to that recommendation, or what further steps he will take, because it does seem that that may be crucial.

Finally, recommendation 3 is about leadership, and the recommendation is that leadership across the totality of Brexit issues needs to continue to provide overall direction to Wales's response. I do hope the Minister will assure us that he will continue to take a very clear personal role in leadership in this regard, with the health and social care sector. His statement indicates that we will be continuing, at present, to place a great deal of reliance on UK arrangements and plans. Given some of the things that the Minister has said in the past, I'm surprised that he's any more sanguine than I am that these UK arrangements and plans will deliver. Can I seek his assurance today that, given the chaos that is Brexit in Westminster at present, he stands ready to make sure that any direct representations that need to be made on Wales's behalf in the field of health and care are made by him? 

Thank you for the comments and the series of questions. I certainly can't provide all the detail that I would be able to. I would take up the time of several other Ministers. We could have the whole afternoon simply talking about all of the various different areas that will affect the health and social care system if there is a 'no deal' Brexit.

On radioisotopes, I've repeatedly made this point about the challenge not just of actually providing radioisotopes into the country physically, but challenges about regulation on whether manufacturers can legally import radioisotopes into the United Kingdom, especially if the United Kingdom does continue with its current proposal to withdraw from Euratom and there is a 'no deal' Brexit. There are ongoing conversations about that. The British Medical Association themselves, for example, have produced a briefing raising some challenges about that. The UK Government currently say that they have in place—or they're confident they will have in place—arrangements to make sure that the supply of radioisotopes can continue. It is in their interests, not just ours, for that to happen.

That brings me on to my point about those matters that are UK responsibilities, and the broader question of leadership. There are some areas—for example, the regulation of staff and medicines—where these are actually UK responsibilities. The challenge is how open the relationship is between the UK Government and the devolved Governments across the United Kingdom, and how information is shared and used. While, of course, we have varying views on what should happen in the coming weeks and after 29 March, it is in all of our interests for the health and social care systems across the UK to share as much information as possible, in whatever form of Brexit may or may not take place. So, I am keen that not just the conversations that take place between officials continue, but that there is direct contact between Ministers.

I have previously written to Matt Hancock. I know that Jeane Freeman, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for health, well-being and sport, has also written requesting a face-to-face meeting. I've written again to do so as well. It stands in contrast to other members of the Government here in Wales. Lesley Griffiths and Kirsty Williams have had direct contact with ministerial counterparts. Not everyone will envy Lesley Griffiths her direct meetings with Michael Gove, but there is direct contact that needs to take place between the national Governments of the United Kingdom. I certainly will continue to pursue that because there is a leadership responsibility for all of us and, of course, for me here in Wales.

On the ongoing conversation with Public Health Wales and taking forward their recommendations, you'll understand that the significant report was published at the start of this week, on Monday. I have read the executive summary. I have considered a range of parts of the report, but I won't try to pretend to you that I have taken forward all of the recommendations. There is, of course, an ongoing conversation taking place about the response of the health and care system here in Wales, bearing in mind that recommendations have been made. But, I am happy to update the Chamber as we formulate a fuller response that will, of course, have to evolve, given that the Brexit question is far from settled as we speak.

On social care and the challenges of the social care workforce, I'm expecting to provide further updates to the taskforce that will meet more regularly now. We met last week. We will certainly need to meet in early February, and we are looking at a date, again not just to share information but to make choices. I will undertake to make sure that we update the Chamber on information, as and when we can share it, to make sure you are aware of the steps and measures that we are taking across the whole system. I'm also doing the same on updating on medicines—medicines management and supply issues, and the assurances we received, and the reality of those, including the conversations that we do have with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry here in Wales as well.

On clinical consumables, there are different products that are regularly used between the health system in Wales, England and Scotland, so a range of those things will be available on a UK basis. We'll need to make sure that all of the various clinical consumables we would want to continue to use in Wales are available. So, I am definitely looking at arrangements to make that available, and for the necessary amounts of stock to be available too. And I’ll have more to say when I'm able to make a definitive decision on that in the coming weeks as well. So, you can expect to hear more updates in writing from me over the coming weeks.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement; it’s very important that we highlight the issues about health and social care and other aspects. One of the things very often forgotten in this Brexit argument, because we talk about goods—but here we have services, and they are very heavily affected, and I appreciate the comments you've made already. If I could just ask a couple of quick points on this, because this is an area that all of us will be affected by—every single one of us benefits from the health service one way or another. You talked about, and you did highlight, the possible increased costs as a consequence of the delays that may arise, and you mentioned an example of the flights of radioisotopes coming in, but we were told by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry that, actually, they are spending a lot of money on stockpiling. They have to invest in new warehouses, stockpiling, information and storage, and cold storage in particular. Have you had discussions with the UK Government as to who is going to help fund that cost? Because, undoubtedly, the organisations will want to pass those costs on, and this is something that, clearly, is a UK Government issue, which you highlighted.

Also, we haven’t talked about clinical trials. One of the things that we may lose out on is clinical trials. Steffan Lewis raised this very much in his arguments about Brexit. Have you had discussions about the implications for clinical trials in Wales? We have benefited hugely from those, and we are likely to lose out very quickly, particularly in a 'no deal' scenario. And what will implications be for existing clinical trials and future ones planned?

You talked about your social care workforce. When the committee looked at this very carefully, we were concerned about the lack of Welsh data on the social care workforce. Have you undertaken more work in collecting the data on the social care workforce so that we are clearly aware of where they are and where the gaps will be if there’s a problem with the workforce in that situation, and particularly in relation to qualifications, and matching qualifications? I know that there’s been a statutory instrument on that. I have tried to look at it on the UK Government’s webpage, and I had trouble getting at it, and I’m not clear exactly where we are with that.

And on the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, that is something that should be in place by March 29, if we are going to leave without a deal. Where are we on that, and where are we with reciprocal arrangements if that isn’t in place?

Thank you for those questions. I’ll deal with your last point first, on reciprocal healthcare arrangements. Between the different Governments in the United Kingdom, I think there’s an agreement that we want reciprocal healthcare arrangements to continue. The challenge still is having a piece of legislation that we all can support. At present—you’ll have seen the report on this, it's a draft report or a final report from the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, where I’m not currently in a position to recommend to the Assembly that we give legislative consent. So, that’s about the drafting of the current piece of legislation and the powers the UK Government seem to take, which I think are well beyond what is necessary to make sure that those arrangements remain in place. If there is no deal and there is no alternative legislation in place, then potentially those arrangements fall away, and that obviously affects European Union nationals in the UK, as well as UK nationals within the European Union and the wider European economic area. I will, of course, update Members when there is any further progress on the Bill, and when, I hope, amendments are laid within Parliament that we can support to resolve the issue.

On your point about data and the social care workforce, that’s what we’re looking to have covered by the Ipsos MORI research, so that we understand the range of risks that we are potentially carrying, but also, of course, there is the broader point about wanting to make sure that European Union citizens feel generally welcomed here in Wales and have a Government that is on their side. A number of workers across health and care have already voted with their feet and left, with the changing environment that exists. It is part of our job to make sure those people understand that there is a Government here in Wales that wants them to continue, not just to work and provide services, but actually to live as part of the communities of Wales.

On your broader point about clinical trials, this is something that goes across a range of areas, including higher education. It goes across some of the challenges on attracting and keeping staff within our higher education and our healthcare systems, but also on data sharing as well across different borders. And the challenge here is that much of the data sharing that we have is overseen by a range of data protection Orders, and there is a role for the European Court of Justice in overseeing a range of that information, including, of course, on the broader point about public health data sharing as well, so that we actually have proper disease resilience and intelligence across the European Union. Now, that's part of the challenge of red lines, because if there is absolutely no role for the European Court of Justice, it has a much wider impact than simply keeping some people happy on a limited range of areas; it has a significant impact across health, social care and many wider areas as well. 

On your point about additional funding for medicine supplies, that is a UK Government responsibility. We expect them to be good for the pledges they have already made about funding additional costs for medicines supply if that is necessary. Matt Hancock, the UK Government health Secretary, has said he is now the largest purchaser of fridges in the United Kingdom, so they are already purchasing and acquiring a range of stock. Because the 'no deal' Brexit has moved closer, every Government within the United Kingdom is not just spending time and the resource that we can't use in other areas, we're actually spending money, real cash on preparing for a 'no deal' Brexit that may not happen. That is part of our difficulty. We are spending money that we may not always be able to recover or make use of in a different way. So, I hope people do understand the seriousness of this issue for the country, but also for every Government within the United Kingdom and our use of public money on behalf of the people that we serve.

Thank you for your statement, Minister. 

If this Government is so concerned about the impact of Brexit on the Welsh NHS, is the Minister comfortable with the admission that the First Minister made to me in committee recently that the Welsh Government hasn't spoken to a single pharmaceutical company about the implications for supply of Brexit but, instead, has left it up to the UK Government? Is he comfortable with the situation, because, like me, he knows there's no real reason to be concerned about the supply of prescription drugs as a result of a 'no deal' departure?

There have been some supply problems in recent years, but they're attributed to increased demands from developing countries, an increase in the cost of raw materials and, even possibly, some deliberate market manipulation, and nothing to do with our impending Brexit. One politician recently confirmed that shortages are nothing to do with Brexit when she said, 

'Shortages have been a problem for some years. It's a fluctuating problem.' 

Now, that wasn't a Tory Brexiteer saying it—it was Sandra Gidley, a former MP for the remain-supporting Lib Dems, who is also a pharmacist. Of course, Welsh Government would have known this had they spoken to pharmaceutical companies, rather than just left it up to London. So, when are you going to have these conversations, Minister? Are you ever going to have them, and are you actually going to take control of the matter? 

Some people argue that patients are being tempted to stockpile ahead of Brexit and, if that's the case, then scaremongering remainers have no-one to blame but themselves for causing the ill to feel paranoid about their future supply, and Welsh Government should hang their heads in shame. Exploiting the vulnerable to further the remainer Welsh Government's devotion to the EU, and to thwarting the will of the Welsh people is nothing short of abuse.

And any argument that suggests that delays in importation due to no longer being in a customs union is utter twaddle. The World Trade Organization's pharmaceutical tariff elimination agreement guarantees that medical products will continue to be imported tariff-free, and that same agreement forbids the raising of non-tariff barriers. Not only would the EU be prevented from raising barriers to the import or export of medical products, so would the UK.

Furthermore, as a sovereign nation setting its own rules and practices at the border, in theory, we could decide to wave through every single incoming lorry if we felt so inclined, particularly shipments that are evidently pharmaceutical. Even in the customs union, some lorries are stopped and searched for illegal imports and illegal immigrants, but most are waved through regardless of their starting points.

Moving on to recruitment and staffing, this Government can't really tell us what effect leaving the EU will have on our staff because they haven't done anything to find out the international make-up of the staff of the NHS. They don't know how many of the staff that are of EU origin working in the NHS are clinically trained. That they don't know this is evident from the fact that they're only now starting to count them. They're now starting to count the number of EU people in social care, only weeks before we're due to leave. Why haven't you done this before? The referendum was over two years ago. 

How can the Government say that they're worried about the impact of patient care in the event of Brexit, when they don't know how many staff are clinicians from the EU? And if the Minister knew this figure, he'd have said it today. On the day that respected political scientist Sir John Curtice says that remain voters don't have a better understanding of the EU than leavers, I would suggest that, for the sake of the public's respect for politicians, you stop the scaremongering. The public can see through it, just like they did on referendum day in 2016. Out of all the nations in the union, Wales spends the least on its health service and has the worst outcomes for patients. What are you going to do about that, Minister, or are you going to continue blaming it on Brexit? Welsh Government continues to bleat that Brexit in any form will be horrendously expensive and holds out its begging bowl to Westminster, asking for unspecified funds for unspecified costs.

It was illuminating that last week the First Minister had to admit that Welsh Government has not undertaken a reliable assessment of the actual cost of preparing for Brexit in any form. So, any assertions by that same Government as to the cost and implications of Brexit have no credibility in the context of Welsh Government's utter failure to do its homework and its decision instead to rely on guesstimates. When will you finally do a proper analysis, Minister?

And although the Welsh Government want us to sing, 'Don't blame it on the Minister, don't blame it on the First Minister, don't blame it on the Government. Blame it on Brexit', that doesn't wash—[Interruption.] That doesn't wash, since it's Labour who have ruined the Welsh NHS, all by themselves, and were doing so years before the referendum.

So, before you produce any more scaremongering tactics, just because you want an excuse to ignore the majority decision of Welsh voters to leave the EU, I suggest you actually do some research, talk to the people who are actually going to be doing the work of maintaining supplies, and stop trying to scare the sick and vulnerable. The people of Wales voted to leave the EU, the single market, and the customs union. You've had your instructions, when are you going to do as you're told?

Minister, I think I heard a question there, so—[Interruption.]

Are you a UKIP sympathiser now, Janet?

Very clearly.

It's a very interesting but utterly predictable contribution from Michelle Brown. To claim that the measures that we are taking to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit and the information we're providing to the country is nothing short of abuse is extraordinary even for her. The challenges are real and serious and I'm setting out the measures that we're taking with partners in health and social care. This isn't just my view, it's not just the view of the NHS Confederation or the Welsh Local Government Association. You should talk to representative staff groups within the health service, talk to the Royal College of Midwives, talk to the Royal College of Nursing, talk to the British Medical Association about their view on Brexit. They're not scaremongering, they are genuinely concerned about the future of health and care services where their members work, but also where they and their families receive care as well. And I just think that, at some point, even members of UKIP have to accept that there are very real concerns about the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit.

Now, of course we discuss matters of medicine supply with industry representatives here in Wales. A member from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is a member of our taskforce group here in Wales, but it is a UK Government responsibility to safeguard medicine supply and regulation. That is why we have conversations with them about the measures that they are taking and the assurance they provide and the information that we think they should share with other national Governments within the United Kingdom.

I said in my statement that there are at least 1,400 European Union staff within the health service. It's not a condition of employment within the health service that you tell the employer which European Union country or other part of the world you come from, so it's optional for people to opt in. But there are at least 1,400 European Union nationals, and I for one am very grateful they have chosen to make their life here with us. 

On your final point—well, one of the points you made—about there being no real reason to be concerned about prescription medicine supply in the event of 'no deal' Brexit, well that is a staggering denial of reality. It is an unavoidable truth. I think 39 million items come into the United Kingdom on a regular basis from the European Union. That is not trivial matter. The customs challenge, of course, you've talked about, and said there would be no reason not to wave through—that simply isn't true. It's a basic point of World Trade Organization rules—you have to have customs checks. If you are going to operate on World Trade Organization terms, that is what you have to do. It is not optional. So, actually, you have to build in time to have checks to take place. And that interruption in the supply doesn't just affect the health service, it affects every other part of the economy and economic activity where supply takes place and has to cross borders. At some point, project reality has to bite. This Government is doing the right thing by our citizens and being responsible in preparing for all eventualities, including, of course, the catastrophic potential of a 'no deal' Brexit.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 11 is a statement by the Minister for Economy and Transport: the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on transportation. I call on the Minister for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for this opportunity to speak about the impact of a 'no deal Brexit' on the transportation of goods and people and the substantial work the Welsh Government has been undertaking and co-ordinating to understand and mitigate the risk of disruption.

As we've heard a number of times this afternoon—and I make no apology for repeating it—we have long opposed the prospect of a 'no deal', and we call on the Prime Minister to take this off the table. A 'no deal' Brexit could cause severe disruption to the transport network and connected services within Wales. I've outlined our ambitious plans for the transport network many times in this Chamber, and I do not want to see them derailed by in-fighting within the Conservative Party and a 'no deal' by default. We want to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit and the negative effects that it will have on Welsh and international businesses, which contribute so much to our economy and the quality of life for everyone living in our country.

Deputy Presiding Officer, there has been substantial interest and concern expressed in this Chamber, in committee sessions and more widely in the media about the implications of a 'no deal' Brexit for our ports, and rightly so. Ports in Wales make a critical contribution to our economy, not least by providing jobs and added value to local communities. Any risk to their efficient operation poses a substantial risk for Wales as a whole. Container ports, such as Cardiff, Port Talbot and Newport, are already engaged with international goods movement and are less likely to experience significant disruption. Our ferry ports, however, are a very different story and are particularly vulnerable to the shocks that could arise following a 'no deal' Brexit.

Most of the risks relate to border arrangements, to customs and safety checks. These risks are of course for the UK Government to resolve. The UK Government has decided to make no additional checks on goods from EU countries in a 'no deal' scenario, albeit on a temporary basis. This might ease some of the short-term pressure, but we need a more robust, long-term solution. The requirement by the EU for Ireland to treat goods from the UK as a third country, including all the required checks, could cause knock-on delays at ferry ports. For Pembroke Dock and Fishguard, our analysis suggests delayed vehicles could be managed within the port. We are keeping, of course, this under constant review, in case extra contingency measures are needed. Holyhead would find it more difficult to absorb the effects of delays. We're working on solutions to manage traffic disruption from delays at the port, and I can today update Members about these plans. 

An assessment of the reasonable worst-case scenario for heavy goods vehicle delays has been prepared by the UK Government, and this applies to all ferry ports across the UK. This assessment is underpinned by a number of cross-Government and cross-departmental assumptions, such as the checks that might be imposed and what infrastructure could be put in place. The modelling indicates that it is likely that delayed traffic at Holyhead could be held within the confines of the port and any overflow on the A55 would be unlikely. However, the modelling is based on a range of common assumptions about which there remain a significant number of uncertainties and which are being constantly reviewed. We have therefore been developing contingency plans as part of the Holyhead port strategic consultation group, which was set up last year.

Potential sites on Anglesey have been identified and assessed, including the existing Roadking truck stop facility. My officials have met Roadking to discuss the use of this particular site. It is geographically well placed, there are no developmental issues and suitable infrastructure is already in place. We will now discuss terms with Roadking, but this is not the only option available to us. Parc Cybi is another option. This is a Welsh Government development site and has sufficient capacity for 40 HGVs. And there's a further fall-back option: the A55 could be used. Across Anglesey, roadworks are carried out with daytime lane closures and minimal disruption. Similar measures could be used, in the unlikely event that they were necessary, in order to manage freight delays at the port. A 'no deal' Brexit also poses more general risks to freight haulage, as falling back on the international permitting system could place severe restrictions on operators moving goods across the UK-EU border.

The EU Commission has proposed a temporary solution in the event of no deal, which allows UK and EU HGVs to continue moving goods across the border on the basis of mutual recognition until the end of this calendar year. So, this is, of course, only a stay of execution. More clarity is needed about the future arrangements and the implications of permit restrictions, including what they could mean for Welsh hauliers and the ports and the businesses and individual consumers that rely on them. It’s important to emphasise here the likely large impact on food and other goods destined for Wales if there were significant disruption at Dover, which the UK Government expects in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. Whilst the French Government has announced it will be adopting legislation to put emergency infrastructure at its ports and lighten certain customs arrangements, the details of this remain unclear. There has been no similar indication from Ireland of an intention to lighten arrangements.We continue to work with key stakeholders in the freight haulage industry to ensure we can respond to the industry’s needs in a swift and responsible manner.

Deputy Presiding Officer, turning to a matter that affects every one of us who holds a driving licence: the UK will continue to be a member of the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic after exit day, along with most member states. UK driving licences will continue to be recognised, but parties to this agreement may require holders to have an international driving permit if they are driving on the continent in future. In respect of motor insurance, EU law allows any vehicles insured in one member state to be driven in any other. However, vehicles normally based in a third country, which the UK will be after a 'no deal' Brexit, are required to obtain a valid green card. While the UK participates in this system, it will mean additional bureaucracy for drivers wanting to drive in and to the EU, who will have to carry motor insurance green cards to prove they have valid insurance. There is also a very real risk of insurance price rises. We all heard news reports from the AA that car insurance premiums have risen by an average of 2.7 per cent over the last three months as a result of Brexit uncertainty.

Finally, I want to turn to air services. The Commission has proposed regulations to continue existing direct flights between the EU and the UK for 12 months after exit day. However, this is a stop-gap measure and a bare-bones agreement. UK operators could lose the ability to operate flights to the EU on to other destinations, whether within Europe or otherwise, and will not be able to commence new routes or increase services on existing routes. This could have important and negative implications for business and leisure travellers from Wales and the UK regardless of where they travel from. It could also have profound implications for Cardiff Airport, which has seen significant growth from its connections to EU destinations. Restrictions placed on these markets at this stage could reverse recent growth, reducing financial sustainability of Wales's only international airport and removing an important gateway for Welsh passengers to international destinations.

We are, of course, pressing the UK Government to avoid this scenario. Furthermore, after the UK leaves the EU, the devolution of air passenger duty to Wales continues to be one of the most effective methods to promote the economic prospects of Cardiff Airport. So, we will continue to urge the UK Government to level the APD playing field and treat Wales in the same way as it's treated Northern Ireland and Scotland.

We'll also continue to press the UK Government to progress our current application for public service obligation approval of nine routes in and out of Cardiff, because the delay is unacceptable.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are therefore taking all proportionate steps to preserve the integrity of our transport system in the face of a 'no deal' Brexit and to ensure the continued viability and success of our transportation system. However, we should be under no illusion that, with a 'no deal' Brexit, there would be disruption nevertheless.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his statement, which was largely helpful, containing useful information and updates to Members, and, no doubt, preparing work for a 'no deal' Brexit is putting that extra level of burden, I think, on Welsh Government civil servants, which I think should also be recognised as well.

Your statement improved as you delivered it, but you did start poorly. You mentioned a difference of view within the Conservative Party, but of course you failed to mention the infighting within the Labour Party. But I'm going to move on to the important and reasonable areas of your statement.

Now, I understand that there was a broad agreement on the approach that the UK Government have advocated regarding transport, so I would—Minister, if you could confirm whether this is the case and provide an update on what arrangements you have had with the UK Government since the joint ministerial forum on EU negotiations that was held on 3 December. Under the deal with the Prime Minister that has been negotiated, the UK Government and the EU had agreed a comprehensive air transport agreement, commitments that can allow comparable access for road hauliers and operation of buses and coaches, as well as a bilateral agreement on cross-border rail services. Now, if the Prime Minister's deal is now in jeopardy, as it is, can I ask what discussions you've had with the EU exit business advisory group and other transport industry groups in Wales on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the sector?

Upon Brexit, UK-licensed airlines will cease to be community air carriers for the operation of air services and will no longer be part of the multilateral agreement on the establishment of a European common aviation area, so what discussions have you had with Cardiff Airport, and airline operators who operate from the airport, in preparation for Brexit? The Welsh aerospace sector is, as I'm sure you will fully agree with me, a high-growth, high-value sector, driven by innovation, and I certainly want to see Wales securing that place as a world leader in the future global market. I understand there has been cross-Government engagement with key stakeholders across the aerospace sector since the Brexit referendum, and I met with Airbus myself, just a few weeks before Christmas, along with the leader of the opposition, Paul Davies, to provide a commitment to do what we can to ensure that Wales is the most competitive location in the world for aerospace and other advanced manufacturing. It is clearly not in the interests of the UK, Wales or the EU to disrupt the just-in-time supply chain of our integrated aerospace sector, and products should only need to undergo one series of approvals in one country. I wonder if I could have your comments in that regard.

The time sensitivity inherent to modern UK logistics and supply chains means that retaining a seamless supply chain process is of significant economic importance, and I wonder what assessment has been made of the effect on our maritime industry, given the importance of our ports to freight. You have mentioned in your statement at some length about the contribution to our economy in regard to our ports and the risk that a 'no deal' poses to our fishing operations. I agree with you on that. I heard what you said in regard to our ports, and I wonder if you've had any discussion on the likely changes in trading patterns that would affect such ports as Holyhead and Fishguard, because, clearly, there'll be knock-on consequences to third party suppliers.

In your statement, you talked about trade with Ireland, and I wonder what discussions you've had, Minister, with your counterparts in the Irish Government to discuss the implications of Brexit for Welsh ports and Ireland-Wales transport links in general, and I wonder what advice you've published as well—if you could let us know what advice you've published to ports and traders and other firms and other organisations that use the border about potential disruptions, so they can get their supply chains ready.

I wonder what consideration has been given to the removal of EU rail legislation on the industry structure here in Wales. Is there any scope at all for any capital transport investment schemes to be brought forward to support the Welsh economy? And, finally, you talked about the potential of the waiting sites for delayed vehicles on Anglesey and in Pembrokeshire, and I wonder if you've had any discussions in regard to security matters with the police in those areas, or your officials have, indeed, had discussions with police forces in those particular areas in regard to security. 

Can I thank the Member for his contribution and for his questions? I think he makes a number of important points. Perhaps if I can begin with the latter points and latter questions that he raised first, North Wales Police are part of the group that we've established in the north west of Wales to look at the future operations of the port, and, along with North Wales Police, there are other agencies that are involved in the work, including, for example, the NHS, to make sure that any impact on the port can be managed across the public sector.

I would urge all businesses, because the Member did raise a question about advice to firms concerning disruption at ports—. Well, advice on this matter and many other matters relating to Brexit is already captured in the EU Brexit portal that has been established on the Business Wales website, and I would urge all businesses to visit the site—17,000 have already done so—and to take advantage of the diagnostic tool that is available on that particular website to assess the possible impact on individual businesses of various scenarios that could come after 29 March.

Russell George is right to say that the challenge of Brexit has placed a significant additional burden on civil servants in the Welsh Government. As the First Minister has already said, officials are stretched—incredibly stretched—by the work that is required in order for us to minimise the impact, particularly to minimise the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit. I should say that we are united within the party on Brexit, and that explains why we have been able to put together such a comprehensive preparedness plan and why, even in spite of Brexit, we're able to carry on with the day job, and, in my department, that includes attracting major investments such as Monzo Bank Ltd, making sure that we're able to support the development of businesses that are small and micro-sized, and the Member will be aware of the employment statistics, which showed today employment at a record high in Wales, and that is because of the hard work of the Welsh Government, working in social partnership with businesses, trade unions, with education providers and the third sector, making sure that, in spite of Brexit, we drive economic growth the length and breadth of Wales. And it has to be said that our efforts and our success come in spite of the looming threat of a 'no deal' Brexit.

We know that uncertainty over Brexit is suppressing the economy by more than 1.5 per cent. So, it's quite clear that, if we were not to leave the EU or if we were to resolve the impasse with a deal that meets our criteria, then there would be something of a mini boom in the economy, and that is something that, I'm sure, all Members would welcome.

There are arrangements already in place through joint committees with UK Government concerning transport. I met with my counterparts in the UK Government just before Christmas to discuss a range of matters particularly relating to ports and the road haulage industry. If the Prime Minister fails to secure a deal, then the matter will be further examined by the EU exit group, which is a sub-group of the council for economic development. We've been meeting very regularly to assess, in partnership with Cardiff Business School, who've been carrying out comprehensive assessments, the impact of scenarios on the Welsh economy, but particularly with a focus on a 'no deal' Brexit. 

With regard to the EU aviation area, Cardiff Airport is operating as an arm's-length body and is liaising very closely with aircraft carriers. In terms of the aerospace sector, I was with Airbus just last Thursday in north Wales, and again the message was relayed to me very loud and clear that a 'no deal' scenario would be a disaster for the aerospace sector. Clearly, movement of people is essential to Airbus. It's absolutely vital that, if a problem emerges in Tolouse, Broughton are able to deploy skilled professionals and experts in their given field at the drop of a hat. Any inhibition in the ability to be able to deploy professionals in that way will impact on just-in-time services, as well as the delivery of goods and a just-in-time ethos.

Now, numerous suggestions and numerous assessments of the impact of delays at ports have been made and have informed our preparedness plan. There is particular concern about perishable goods, for obvious reasons. Discussions have taken place with counterparts. I've had a discussion with the Irish Government Minister, and what's essential is that, moving forward, we find every way possible to avoid stacking of HGVs for a considerable length of time at Holyhead port, and that we're also able to avoid any stacking of HGVs at Dover as well. It's absolutely vital for the provision of food to our country and the businesses that operate in the food and drink sector that they are also able to export with as frictionless rules as possible.

Thank you. Can I just make a gentle suggestion? We are halfway through the allotted time for your statement and we've had one question. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Of course, this is another area where there is a great deal of uncertainty as we get closer to the time when it appears that we are still going to be exiting the European Union. Can I ask one question? How many resources within your department, in terms of people and funding, are having to be focused on Brexit and nothing else? And how many additional staff members have you had to recruit to be involved in this particular issue? Because, of course, we need innovation in terms of transport in all sorts of ways in Wales, and so the resources that are being sucked into this are resources that could, indeed, be used in far more creative ways to improve the state of infrastructure in Wales.

In terms of specific questions, I share a great many of the concerns that you’ve raised already. Certainly, the fact that Holyhead is in my constituency makes those challenges more real for me, perhaps, than for the majority, because I'm talking about people who are constituents of mine who are working in the port, and hopes for growth in the port are part of the economic future of Anglesey. You're talking about temporary schemes to use Roadking or Parc Cybi. What kind of plans are being put in place for the slightly longer term? It’s important that we consider that time frame as well. Our experience of what’s happening on other borders suggests that there will be delays. Even between Norway and Sweden, where Norway is in the single market but isn’t in the customs union,  there is a delay, on average, of around 20 minutes. Between Bulgaria and Turkey, where Turkey is in the customs union, but isn’t in the single market, there’s a delay of up to 24 hours. And between France and Switzerland, which is the border that has been noted as the one most similar to what we’ll have after Brexit, well, there’s delay of up to two hours, where there have to be full inspections of lorries, so we shouldn’t think that there won’t be challenges for our ports. So, a little bit more of clarity for the medium term for Holyhead would be appreciated.

In terms of flights, could we have a little more information about what the Government is trying to do to push for devolution of air passenger duty? We will need that to give a boost to Cardiff Airport. And, because of the restrictions on any new routes that can be developed for 12 months after exit, does that mean that there’s no way of looking at further flights from Anglesey to Dublin, for example? I take it that that wouldn’t be possible.

I don’t know whether there is more that you can tell us about what’s being done in terms of research into the likely impact of trade flowing directly from the Republic of Ireland to France or Spain as a result of a less easy flow through Holyhead.

Finally, there are options for co-investment, as members of the European Union, in Holyhead, and other ports in Wales, as part of a joint project with the Republic of Ireland—INTERREG or the trans-European transport network, for example. Those opportunities are going to be lost to us, so what consideration has been given to the kind of joint investment that would be possible after a hard Brexit, because, as I see it, it’ll only get harder and those investments would be beneficial to us and our European partners?

Diolch. I think there are a number of really important points that Rhun ap Iorwerth has raised this afternoon. First of all, on the potential of co-investment, the Member is absolutely right that the potential 'no deal' scenario would lead to questions about investment in TEN-T routes. However, I've asked my officials to meet with potential investors next week who are looking at Holyhead port, who are showing very great interest in improving the infrastructure at the port and its attractiveness to not just tourism visitors, but to businesses as well. I think our efforts are going to have to be redoubled in the years to come if we are to maintain Holyhead's position as a premier roll-on, roll-off ferry port. The Member is absolutely right as well that we will be inhibited in terms of how we develop routes from all of the Welsh airports to outside of the UK, and so there would be questions about whether we could develop the airport in Anglesey further. This would be most disappointing given the increase in passenger numbers that we've seen on the intra-air service in recent times and what I think is a growing recognition that that the airport in the north-west of Wales, which is now very well used, is something that has a bright future if we get a decent deal on Brexit.

There is of course a select committee inquiry taking place at the moment at San Steffan concerning air passenger duty. We look forward to the outcome of that inquiry. We've given evidence; so too Cardiff Airport. We will continue to lobby the UK Government to create a level playing field. Of course, our campaign so far has not been successful, but we would urge UK Government, in order to assist with the competitiveness of the Welsh economy, to revisit this important issue. Some of what I've outlined today in terms of solutions for Holyhead port could be developed as longer term solutions. The development of policy and interventions by UK Government has focused largely on day one preparedness, but of course it's essential that we look to the medium and longer term. So, the assessment of the various options that we've undertaken in and around Holyhead has included medium and longer term solutions.

In terms of the resources that we have within my department, all officials are sharing the burden of this challenge. We have officials that are specifically allocated to developing policy in regard to our exit from the EU. However, largely, all officials are turning their heads towards dealing with Brexit. Additional recruitment is taking place at the moment for Welsh Government and, of course, in terms of financial resources, there is the £50 million EU transition fund and, within that, a £7.5 million business resilience fund. Of course, the business resilience fund is very much tied to the diagnostic toolkit hosted by Business Wales, which can signpost businesses to the relevant support and the relevant funds that we are able to offer them at this difficult time.

I thank the Minister for his statement today. I'm really concerned, and I'm sure that many people are here, that the option and the reality of a 'no deal' Brexit is still there and very much at the forefront. I can't rule that out, but I can't see any foolproof plan for making sure that it doesn't happen. I feel very strongly that the efforts of Yvette Cooper and other clear-headed MPs in Westminster are critically important here, and I also think it's why the people should have the final word on Brexit.

I want to focus my concerns around the areas that are in my region, and those are, quite clearly, the ports of Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock and Fishguard, but also the transport links that could be threatened under either the exit or a 'no deal' Brexit—the rail transport that runs right down to Fishguard. The Fishguard line, in all the inquiries that I've ever been in—a passenger line—clearly states that it's not the passenger numbers that keep it running, but the freight going down to Fishguard or to Pembroke Dock. So, if it is the case that those transport links from freight to rail are somewhat diminished or even lost, do we have any contingency plans to keep that rail open and accessible to the people who currently use it?

In terms of Milford Haven, when there was evidence to external affairs, the port of Milford Haven said that, with two thirds of Irish exports going through English and Welsh ports to the Channel ports and onwards to the continent, any establishment of an island of Ireland regulatory system that diverges from the rest of the UK—a hard border in the Irish Sea—would be deeply unhelpful to those operations. It could simply and quite clearly just cut out any of the Welsh ports whatsoever and sail happily on into Europe without landing anything.

I am particularly concerned also that, if we do continue to have freight transport going through Fishguard or any of those other ports, we are able, should there be delays, to cope with the number of lorries in those areas. There isn't exactly large-scale parking in any of these ports to cope with any delays in any way at all. Neither do we have the infrastructure that you just highlighted in the Holyhead area to deal with that. So, those are the key questions from me.   

May I thank Joyce Watson for her contribution? I agree entirely with everything that she said. If I could just add to some of the points that she raised. In terms of rail transport, of course, there will be timetabling challenges if there are significant delays at ports and disruption to the movement of goods. We saw only last year what happens when timetabling changes go horribly wrong. So, this is a key consideration as well that needs to be taken forward by DfT. We are liaising very closely with the Department for Transport and, of course, with Transport for Wales. 

I think it’s also important to recognise that, whilst the ports of Fishguard and Pembroke are not considered at this point high risk, due to their relatively low level of throughput compared to Holyhead, we have to liaise very closely with Pembrokeshire local authority and other partners to constantly review the need for precautionary measures, because if there are very significant delays at a later date, then, of course, we will have to initiate mitigating solutions.

Now, Pembroke Dock has spare holding space at the moment within its existing footprint to cater for waiting outbound vehicles, but, of course, that spare capacity may well be swallowed up if the wrong deal is negotiated or if we fail to get a deal at all and crash out of Europe. So, again, I’d like to assure the Member that I’ll be liaising very closely with the ports and with the local authority to ensure that disruption is minimised.

But I think there’s also an important point to be made about haulage firms themselves. We know that permits will be limited in number, and we fear that it will be the larger haulage firms that will most likely benefit from the permitting regime. Unfortunately, that means that many smaller haulage firms in Wales may well find themselves unable to get the permits that are required to operate in the EU. This is not a concern that is isolated to Wales, either. I was reading recently that the Northern Ireland freight transport association has raised very similar concerns and has pointed out that only 1,200 annual permits were offered across the UK last year but that 40,000 are needed. And, in the event of a ‘no deal’ Brexit, of course, haulage firms have already seen the deadline pass for lorry drivers to apply for licences to drive in Europe. This is a major consideration for haulage firms across the length and breadth of the UK, but particularly important for small operators in Wales, who could be disadvantaged under the permitting regime and who may not, I’m afraid, have been so alert to the consequences of a ‘no deal’ Brexit as some of the larger firms across the UK.

First, can I start by saying that it is encouraging to see the contingency plans outlined by the Cabinet Secretary—sorry, the Cabinet Minister—in response to a ‘no deal’ Brexit? Because what has come out of the referendum issue is that politicians have spent an enormous amount of time arguing against the decision of the British people and very little time in preparing for our future outside the EU. But does the Cabinet Secretary not accept that what has not been considered is the ability of our business community to work out solutions to problems? And, indeed, through all the consideration and debates by politicians, it seems to have been a very neglected factor. So, let me quote Mr Duncan Buchanan of the Road Haulage Association:

‘Whatever deal you come up with, we are not going to support one type of deal, whether it is a free trade agreement, or Chequers, or staying in the single market, or the customs union. This is not for us as a trade body to recommend, it is purely a political thing. Whatever landscape you give us to work with, we will find ways of working with it. That is what supply chains do. That is what the whole logistics industry does. Whether we are in Europe, or we are trading with Turkey or China, or wherever, there are systems that can be put in place. Where we are now is the worst of all worlds, because there is no preparation at all.’

Now, does the Cabinet Secretary not agree that by far the greatest tonnage of goods entering Europe for the UK is containerised and that individual containers are not inspected, but travel through customs on declared manifests? As the Port of Rotterdam boasts in its port brochure, almost all freight travels through the port by an automated process. This includes freight from all parts of the globe. There is nothing to prevent all British and European ports adopting the same automated process. Almost all freight transferred between Canada and the USA is done by early manifest declarations, allowing for selected cargo checks only—no hold-ups, no huge lorry queues. Scare stories of rotting goods and huge queues at British and Irish ports are just that—scare stories—and it is disingenuous of Members of this Chamber to engage in such tactics. 

Again, Minister, will you not accept that all of us in this Chamber have to acknowledge one important factor: that it is as much in the interests of the people of Europe that they have ease of access to our markets as it is for us to theirs? But that does not have to include open borders for everybody who chooses to come here. Other than in Europe, no other country in the world allows such access, yet all trade successfully across the globe.

Lastly, Minister, on the matters of driving licences and car insurance, I have the advantage over the Minister in that I travelled extensively in Europe before we were members of the European Union, and I can assure him that green cards were absolutely no obstacle to travel and there were no insurance issues. So, I urge you, Minister: please don't cancel any arrangements you may have to drive on the continent over the coming years, no Brexit deal or not.   

Can I thank the Member for his contribution and his questions? First of all, I don't think anybody voted for additional bureaucracy or higher insurance premiums. I don't think anybody voted to have their holidays disrupted because of arrangements concerning driver licences and the demand for proof that they have certain permits. And in terms of this simply being a matter of progressing project fear, as many Members have said today—. Look, I'll quote another organisation; I'll quote the manufacturers organisation EEF. Let's quote them. Because they spoke to their members, and their members employ a huge number of people in our economy. They reported that one in six decision makers say that business would become untenable for them—untenable for them—in the UK if we reverted to WTO tariffs and if there were increased border checks on people and increased checks on goods at the border—one sixth. That would clearly impact on the Welsh economy in a devastating way.

The Confederation of British Industry reports that the changes that businesses would have to make in a 'no deal' scenario are the most drastic and expensive ones that are imaginable, and would include relocating operations, increasing prices and moving jobs from the UK. I like to listen to the likes of Airbus, of course, who I mentioned I visited just last Thursday, and Jaguar Land Rover. What would happen to Jaguar Land Rover if it faced 40 per cent tariffs on its vehicles leaving the UK for Europe?

The Member mentioned the use of declared manifests. Well, I think, as the Brexit Minister identified, free trade agreements are part and parcel of this arrangement, and thus far, in spite of what the Secretary of State for International Trade had promised, no trade agreements have yet been reached by the UK Government. And I think it's absolutely clear, based on all of the available evidence, that if there is a 'no deal' Brexit on 29 March, it will have a huge and negative impact on the Welsh economy.  

Thank you very much, Minister. 

The next item is a statement by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the environment, agriculture and fisheries. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.  

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Environment, agriculture and fisheries are the areas most closely tied to the EU through the large body of legislation, most of which is devolved, and the huge volume of trade. EU legislation provides our current operating framework in these areas and the EU dominates trade in some of our key sectors, with 96 per cent of our meat exports going to the EU and 97 per cent of Welsh shellfish being exported, either to the EU or to South Korea, through an EU free trade agreement.

We rely on the EU for imports too. Chemicals, including some of those that help us provide clean water, veterinary medicines, and more than four fifths of our food imports, accounting for half of the food we eat in the UK, come from the EU. All are tariff free and produced to standards we understand and expect. If we leave the EU without a deal, there will be no orderly or phased transition, and 40 years of integrated EU legislation, systems, funding and free trade will come to an end overnight. Our exporters and importers will face significant increases in prices, administration and delivery time. Tariffs are likely to be applied to imports and exports. A drop in sterling caused by a 'no deal' Brexit could mitigate some tariff costs for importers but contribute to higher food prices for consumers as import costs increase.

There is no good news for exports either in a 'no deal' scenario under WTO rules, which hard Brexiteers celebrate. Processed foods could attract tariffs of around 15 per cent and other products could exceed 50 per cent, with red meat attracting particularly high tariffs. Our businesses will have to develop their capacity to handle previously unnecessary red tape, including customs declarations, export health certificates or fisheries catch certificates. Document, identity and physical checks will be carried out at the border with the EU for products of animal origin and live animals arriving from the UK. This will inevitably cause delays, potentially ruining fresh food and live shellfish. Even the wooden pallets on which goods are transported will require certification and checks.

Our EU labour force is important to Wales. Almost all Government vets working in our abattoirs are European citizens from other EU countries, as are many workers in food processing more generally. We cannot afford for these essential workers to leave the UK at a time of exponential growth in demand for export health certificates post Brexit. The impacts of a 'no deal' Brexit will be felt differently across Wales. Our rural communities will clearly bear the brunt of any loss of markets, especially in the red meat sector. Our coastal communities will suffer if seafood businesses are unable to viably export shellfish. Although diversifying into different types of farming or fishing could lessen the impact, it will not make up for the loss of, or impeded access to, the EU market. All of this combines to create a perfect storm, which will begin on 30 March and last for an unknown length of time. The severity of that storm will depend on the type of deal we leave with. A 'no deal' storm will be the most damaging for Wales.

As a Government we've been working since the EU referendum to prepare for Brexit in whatever form. Across my portfolio, we've reviewed 1,200 pieces of legislation. With the UK Government we are in the process of amending 900 pieces of legislation in an unprecedented exercise to ensure we have a working statue book by exit day. This will make sure the framework of EU environmental legislation, within which we have developed our own ambitious plans for the environment, climate and future generations, continue to be available to us. The National Assembly has played, and will continue to play, an important part in developing and passing this legislation, and Wales will gain more powers in environment, agriculture and fisheries after Brexit.

We have been working to ensure the necessary systems are in place to meet newly applied EU requirements on third countries, as we will be after Brexit, or to replace soon-to-be-inaccessible EU-run systems. This includes systems for chemical approvals, for export health certificates, for catch certifications and training for additional vets. My officials are running more than 50 projects to put in place the necessary arrangements. To meet the shortened timescales and ensure this is in place by exit day, much of this has been delivered in conjunction with the other UK administrations, especially the UK Government departments DEFRA, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Health and Safety Executive. However, future decision making in many of these areas will fall to Welsh Ministers and ultimately to this Assembly.

We continue to provide advice and information to businesses, and last week the Welsh Government launched the Preparing Wales/Paratoi Cymru website. I am committed to working with key sectors to design support mechanisms around these serious challenges, and we've already provided £6 million from our transition fund to this end. My officials are working closely with the UK Government on emergency planning to safeguard our food supply, ensure an uninterrupted energy supply and, with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water and Hafren Dyfrdwy, secure our water supply.

Whilst there are some opportunities from Brexit in the future, I am deeply concerned at the immediate turmoil that will ensue, and I want to ensure the survival of our sectors. I'm concerned by the evidence from the CBI, FSB and others suggesting that many businesses are not yet actively preparing for Brexit and for a 'no deal' Brexit. Some will think they are immune from Brexit as they do not export or import, but because our economy is so integrated with the EU, the economic impacts will affect their suppliers and customers alike. There is a great deal of change to come, and in the event of a no deal, this will likely hit hard on multiple fronts at the same time. Some of this is for Government to manage. However, faced with a threat of this scale, we can only do so much. Businesses must also act, and quickly, because the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated.

Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I am someone who does believe that there should be a deal when we leave the European Union. I think that is a sensible course of action. Whenever you split from any organisation or any individual, or in a company disagreement, you're better doing it on an amicable basis, on agreed terms, than a violent shutdown. And I do hope that, in the time remaining, a deal does mature out of the Westminster political bubble, where many people seem to be in a real dogfight at the moment.

But, let's not forget that there is a deal on the table, and there are discussions around creating the atmosphere for a deal to come forward. The Labour Party, regrettably, have chosen not to enter into those discussions and, in particular, not to support the Prime Minister in her ability to secure a deal. So, I'd be grateful to understand: does the Cabinet Secretary support the principle of what the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve by creating the right conditions for a deal to emerge? Because that is vitally important, and the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales and other farming organisations do support the Prime Minister's deal that was on the table, which I accept was rejected by all parties last week in the House of Commons. But it is a fact that, obviously, the farming unions in particular have given their support to that particular deal.

In your statement this afternoon, First Minister, you do touch on the fact that the Government here, the Welsh Government, have been working on EU preparedness since the referendum, but I find that a contradictory statement, given that the First Minister himself has indicated—or the previous First Minister, I should say—at several junctures when he was questioned on this in this Chamber that there had been no preparations put in place by the Welsh Government for a 'no deal' scenario. So, I would be interested to know what preparations the Government have been doing, as your statement indicates, over the last two years for the scenario that appears on our horizon at the moment.

I'd also like to understand how much of the £30 million that has come into the Welsh Government from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for 'no deal' preparations her department in particular has been able to secure from the finance Minister, because that's not an insignificant sum of money, and hopefully that has allowed her to obviously make certain provisions within the planning capacity of her department. DEFRA itself has had £410 million, and, in the statement, the Cabinet Minister does highlight the close working relationship with DEFRA on many issues. So, again, I'd be pleased to understand how, with that £410 million that has been made available to DEFRA for 'no deal' planning—what aspects of work are work that has been undertaken by Welsh Government and the UK Government to mitigate some of the circumstances.

It is vitally important that the work of the department is allowed to go on, and at the FUW farmhouse breakfast this morning and at the NFU council yesterday, at last night's dinner, the Cabinet Minister did indicate that 'Brexit and our land'—the response to that consultation—has now slipped back to the summer. Again, I would be grateful to understand what impact, obviously, various planning initiatives within the department are having on the day-to-day work of the department, because, obviously, many farmers, whilst knowing that the money is secure until 2022, because that's the commitment the UK Government have given, want to be able to engage in a process of formulating the next series of schemes and initiatives that will be used to obviously support the rural economy. But, as I said, from your statement last night and this morning, you clearly indicated that the 'Brexit and our land' consultation response has slipped now to the summer. Also something that has been highlighted by stakeholders is the engagement by the Welsh Government around 'no deal' planning. I'd be grateful to understand how you are communicating with all sectors in your portfolio—the environmental sector, the energy sector and the agricultural  sector—so that they understand fully what is being done by the department and the wider role that Welsh Government is playing in these preparations.

Also, if we do end up with a 'no deal' scenario, there will be opportunities, obviously, for the UK livestock sector to make up some of the shortfalls from imports into the country. If we look at beef, for example, a huge amount of Irish beef comes into the market. What preparations are you making to make sure that Welsh livestock producers are in a good place to work with processors to make up that shortfall? I draw your attention to the fact that £460 million-worth of beef is imported into the United Kingdom, predominantly Irish beef; we only export £140 million out of the UK. So, there is a huge opportunity there to bridge that shortfall if it was to come about.

I reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks—that I believe it is vitally important that we do have a deal, and it makes sense for us to progress to a situation where we have a transition period so that we do move to an area where we can make sensible provision for the changes that we are going to unlock by our leaving of the European Union. I very much hope that over the next 60-odd days that are available to us, we do secure those conditions for a deal to come forward. But I would be grateful for answers to the questions that I've put to the Minister, and in particular, the way the Minister will be communicating with stakeholders over the weeks and months ahead so that people can fully understand the department's actions in 'no deal' preparations.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that series of questions. I'm very intrigued by your optimism in the Prime Minister's deal. It doesn't really matter what I think because that deal was rejected by a very large majority of 230. But the deal that she placed on the table certainly doesn't protect our jobs and our economy in the way that we would want to.

You mentioned Jeremy Corbyn not engaging, well, frankly, I think it was a cynical ploy. She didn't want cross-party discussions at all. They lasted for a couple of days, and I think he absolutely saw through that. It's the inflexibility of the Prime Minister and the complete rigidity not to be able to move away from the deal. It's been wholly rejected, as I say, by one of the largest majorities I think we've ever seen in Parliament, and now is the time for her to be far more flexible and look to coming forward with a better deal.

I accept what you were saying about the NFU and the FUW saying that they would rather the Prime Minister's deal than a 'no deal'. It was really interesting last night at the NFU dinner, at which you and others were present, when it came through that the Prime Minister said she had spoken to Welsh farmers who were enthusiastic about a 'no deal'. And you heard the president of the NFU say he would die in the ditch rather than accept a 'no deal'. He was absolutely horrified that the Prime Minister could possibly say that.

You ask about preparedness, well, you will know, and many other Members here will know, that I think it was two weeks after the EU referendum vote I set up the Brexit ministerial stakeholder group, which I chair. We have met very frequently and we are now meeting monthly. The last meeting was last Thursday here in Cardiff, and, round that table, I have everyone right across my portfolio. Nobody works in silos, we all work together. So, everybody has been included in that, and I will continue to include members of that round-table. There's been a variety of sub-groups, and one of the areas that one of the sub-groups looked at was scenario planning. So, we looked at no deal. I have actually been preparing for a 'no deal', but even I—. Last summer, I remember being asked at the Royal Welsh Show did I think a 'no deal' would come forward. Even though it's obviously the default position, if there is no deal by the end of March, I could not believe that the UK Government and the Prime Minister would allow that to happen. So, of course we've had to start now to move towards a 'no deal' much more seriously. But you have to remember, we only have one set of officials; they are doing their day job as well, but there is obviously more of a focus now on no deal. And some things will—you can't have business as usual and prepare for no deal and do everything else.

I know you were there this morning as well as last night, and I said that I had hoped to bring forward the next stage of the consultation around 'Brexit and our land' by late spring, certainly, but I have now committed to early summer. It will be well ahead of the Royal Welsh Show and the summer shows, because I think that's really important, because that's certainly my chance to engage with so many people on a large scale. I have assured farmers that I will do basic payment schemes for 2020 as well. Obviously, we went for that further year, and I hope that's provided some reassurance to them.

In relation to funding, last week I attended a quadrilateral meeting in London, and it was made very clear to Michael Gove by myself and by my Scottish counterpart that we expected a 'no deal' to be taken off the table completely, and if that was the ultimate outcome, we would expect the UK Government to pay for a 'no deal', and, certainly, businesses are now telling me that already the prospect of a 'no deal' is costing a great deal of money. So, that message was given wholly to Michael Gove, and I know the Minister for Finance has now received a letter from HM Treasury around that.

I hear the concerns about 'Brexit and our land'. Of course, the best way to mitigate those concerns is to not have Brexit in the first place, but there we are; that's for another statement, I suppose.

I don't need anybody to tell me how bad a 'no deal' Brexit would be for Wales. I'm in the same camp as the Minister; I've been pretty clear about that from day one, and I have to say, in thanking you for the statement today, it's quite thorough in outlining some of the key concerns and issues and impacts, but I—. And whilst you're saying that you're on it, that you're on the case in terms of trying to mitigate some of those, I'm not seeing, actually, many concrete outcomes in terms of what is happening, other than, 'Trust me, we're on it.'

So, my first question to you, given that the EU, of course, regulates the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink—you know, it is quite important—how confident are you that what needs to be done will have been done in time, in relation to mitigating all of the risks that come from a 'no deal' scenario? I think that was a key message I was hoping to see in your statement. I don't, so maybe you could maybe give us your assurances that you will get there in time, as difficult as it might be.

But of course, achieving that, as you say in your statement, does mean working closely with other devolved administrations and the UK Government. I'm just wondering how, in this current climate, you're ensuring that the Welsh voice is heard in those discussions, because, you know, I'm not full of confidence that, even if it is being heard, it's being listened to. If there are disagreements about some proposals, how do you resolve those? My fear is that, too often, the UK Government might be pulling rank in a way that works against Welsh interests. The Prime Minister did say yesterday that the devolved administrations would have a more prominent role to play. I'm just wondering how you envisage that happening in reality.

Two years ago, you said that UK Government Ministers felt they had, and I quote, 'magic powers', over Welsh agriculture, despite it being a devolved matter. You said you made it clear that there can be no imposition. Well, I'm just wondering what part are you playing, then, in the discussions on the new trading agreement between the UK and New Zealand, because by your own admission, an influx of New Zealand lamb would—in your own words

'absolutely destroy the Welsh lamb industry.'

Now, particularly within the context of a 'no deal' Brexit, I think the impact doesn't bear thinking about. So, when you come to these arrangements with the UK Government, of course, timing and time pressures mean that you, very often, have to subvert the normal scrutiny procedures that we have here in the Assembly. So, what assurances can you give ourselves as opposition Assembly Members, and your own backbench Members as well, that we will be able to properly scrutinise your decisions and hold you accountable in a way that allows us to fulfil our duties and obligations as Assembly Members?

And two very short points to close—although they're very, very important points. In any post-Brexit scenario, but particularly within a 'no deal' context, what plans does the Government have to maximise the domestic market for Welsh produce? And I'm thinking particularly of public procurement, because we've been talking about this for many, many years. We still haven't got to a point where we feel that the Welsh pound is working as hard as it can in the interests of Wales, and, of course, it'll need to work harder than ever in this kind of scenario. Finally, on environmental governance, last year you told the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee that you would—and I quote

'take the first proper legislative opportunity to enshrine the environmental principles into law and close the governance gap.'

Well, clearly, the clock is now ticking louder than ever, and I'm just wondering if you could give us an update on how you intend to plug that gap in the short space of time that we now have left, potentially.

I thank Llyr for that series of questions. I thought I'd pick up on two examples of where, I think, we are making real progress because, as you say, time is running out. So, one area—. And it's about a balance. It's about—. You know, when do you divulge information? Because we're accused of scaremongering, but, equally, I think, the people of Wales deserve to be made aware of where there are concerns. So, an area that I had real concerns about was water supplies. So, we've been working very closely with DEFRA—and I have to say, my engagement with DEFRA has been very good, not so good in other departments, but I have to say DEFRA has been good, and I think it's because there's been a framework between DEFRA and the Welsh Government, perhaps, for longer than other departments. So, we've been working, as I say, very hard with DEFRA because my concern was a 'no deal' risk to water treatment chemicals, if we weren't able to store them, for instance, if there was a short supply. But that has now reduced in recent months. We've got a much better understanding of the risks, the sector is taking the risks very seriously, they're taking action to avoid any problems occurring; and we're working with, as I say, the UK Government, but also with Welsh suppliers on managing the risks. So, we've had a desktop exercise, for instance, earlier this month. That tested, again, various scenarios in the contingency plan. We've got a practical exercise coming up, and now I am much happier with that contingency plan.

There's also, obviously, concerns about food supplies, and, again, it's about managing—. You know, I had somebody coming to my surgery who'd read something in the press—they were very concerned about food supplies, and we've got the DEFRA food chain emergency liaison group. That includes DAs and, obviously, industry trade bodies, and, again, they're gauging preparedness. So, manufacturers tell us that they're very confident of the supply to the public. So, I think that's a very positive message to give. Choice might be affected, of course. If you're used to getting food from Spain, that might not be on the shelves as quickly as you can, and it might be much more limited than usual. So, I think that's two areas where we ensure—working with other UK Government departments—that that Welsh voice is heard. How we continue to do that is to make sure that we're round the table. So, the First Minister's made it very clear, as did the previous First Minister, if we're invited to meetings, we turn up and we are there. And, I have to say, we're expected to go to London far more than anybody's expected to go anywhere else, but we are always there, and I know that that's right across with all my Cabinet colleagues.

It's really important that we are round the table about trade. It's absolutely correct when you say that, and I absolutely was adamant about New Zealand, and nothing's reassured me about that. It was interesting to see that the UK Prime Minister met the New Zealand Minister yesterday. You know that I visited New Zealand in April last year and met with their chief negotiator who made it very clear to me a UK free trade agreement was absolutely top of his priorities. So, that concern is really there. So, my colleague Ken Skates—his officials are, obviously, leading on this. I just got a paper in my box today that I need to read about trade, but, again, it's just about making sure that we're round that table having those discussions, and I can assure you we are.

It's also about having red lines, and you ask about scrutiny. I had a debate in the Chamber—Suzy Davies brought forward the motion on SIs last week, and I explained that if the Assembly was going to scrutinise every SI that I am clearing at the moment, it would probably take about six months of Tuesdays and Wednesdays with very little other business. I'm doing the work, my officials are doing the work, I'm trying to help save you the work because it is really important that we have a fully functioning statute book when we leave the EU. However, it's also important that when we're taking transitionary powers, for instance, from the UK Agriculture Bill and the UK Fisheries Bill—and I know we're in front of committee on Thursday—that the red lines are met, and I have red lines on the Agriculture Bill, and by working with DEFRA, we've overcome those. I've got red lines on the Fisheries Bill, and that work is still ongoing.

I think you raise a really important point about public procurement, and I do think that is one of the opportunities. When we talk about opportunities post Brexit, I think public procurement is one. When I was health Minister—and I've had conversations with the First Minister about when he was health Minister—it was very frustrating that we weren't able to procure Welsh produce in a way we can. So, I absolutely think that is an opportunity. When it's really hard sometimes to see any opportunities, it's good to find them now and again. In relation to governance, I'm currently looking at that and looking to address that, identifying the gap, and I will be going out to consultation. 

There can be no excuse or justification for the UK Government's failure to prepare for the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit. I'm sure I shall carry the Minister with me in starting in that way. We've had two and a half years to prepare for leaving the EU and it's shocking that no real preparation has been done by the UK Government, because this was always a possibility. Monsieur Barnier was reported in French magazine Le Point saying in 2016 that: I shall have succeeded in my task if the final deal is so hard on the British that they'll end up preferring to stay. And that's what this has all been about, of course, because unelected technocrats like him pursue their own agenda, which is very different from pursuing the well-being of the people. There are massive opportunities in Brexit. There are challenges—nobody's ever denied that. The challenges are much bigger now than they needed to have been, because Theresa May's intransigence and deafness to reality has made this an unexpected end to the two-year process, where we've actually done virtually nothing to prepare for the outcome that looks as though is going to take place. That, I think, is a gross act of negligence on her part and the part of her entire Government. 

A moment ago, the Minister did speak of opportunities in public procurement. I wonder why these statements that we're hearing this afternoon seem to offer no hope or optimism whatsoever in this process. Of course these things are all a balance at the end of the day and I've always accepted that leaving the EU, in a transitional period at any rate, is going to impose certain costs, but the advantages in the medium to long term far outweigh those costs.

One of the opportunities, for agriculture in particular, that's opened up by Brexit was referred to by Andrew R.T. Davies. He mentioned only beef, but we have a massive deficit in our trade with the EU in most areas of produce, particularly livestock. For example, in poultry, we import four times as much as we export; beef, three times as much as we export; pork, three times as much as we export; and even things like eggs—24 times as much as we export is imported. So, there are huge opportunities here for import substitution. And if the EU is so stupid as not to agree some kind of interim free trade arrangement that preserves the status quo in the short term, without keeping us within the governmental institutions like the single market and the customs union, then EU countries are going to face massive losses, not least the Irish Republic, as Andrew R.T. Davies referred to—82 per cent of their milk exports go to the UK and 49 per cent of their beef. If there are taxes of 25 to 35 per cent on the export of beef, or in the case of milk even more, I believe, then they're going to be in serious trouble in Ireland. So, the same kind of conundrum that we're trying to solve here is going to have to be solved elsewhere, because we're in a huge deficit with almost every member of the EU: a £4 billion trade deficit with Holland, £2 billion with France, £3 billion with Germany, and £0.5 billion a year with Ireland, which is a small figure for the UK but a very large figure for Ireland. I could go through the whole litany of countries and produce similar figures. So, their problems are our opportunities.

I wonder what work the Welsh Government has done, or proposes to do, with Welsh farmers to plug the gaps that will open up if, after 29 March, we do have tariffs on food imports and exports, which nobody wants to see, least of all me—I believe in free trade. I always thought that a free trade agreement should be in place with the EU by the end of the two-year period, but the Government unfortunately didn't embark upon that course of action. Theresa May embarked upon a course of action that was bound to fail right from the start, because nobody wanted a halfway house solution such as the one she seems to think is the best. 

Last night, at the same dinner that the Minister attended, I had many discussions with farmers as well about the uncertainties of Brexit, and one of the uncertainties that they were complaining about was the uncertainty that the Welsh Government had introduced through its proposal to end basic payments for farmers. One of the ways in which the Welsh Government could reduce uncertainty is actually—although I approve of the general direction of policy of the Welsh Government—not to telescope it, as I believe is proposed, but to phase in the movement away from basic payments over a period of years, to give farmers the time to adjust—although I do think that certain types of farm unit will always need to have some kind of basic payment scheme method of support, particularly on marginal land, in upland areas and so on and so forth. It seems to me that to go over the cliff edge, to use a very familiar analogy, as the Minister proposes in her consultation, is quite the wrong way to deal with whatever uncertainties are going to take place as a result of the failure of Theresa May's negotiating strategy.

The third and last point I'd like to ask about is: one of the opportunities that we will have as a result of repatriating agricultural policy here to Cardiff is in regulatory reform. There are lots of areas of regulations that farmers complain about that could be simplified, where costs could be reduced, without any violence being done to the overarching public policy issues that most people would agree on in terms of environmental protections. The EU wants to ban glyphosate, for example, as a weed killer, and there is no more efficient form of weed killing that farmers could have. Glyphosate would be a big problem for many types of farmers, if that's not available. Nitrates regulations, habitats regulations—there are nuts-and-bolts kinds of alterations that can be made to these forms of regulation that will make farmers' lives easier and less costly. That also helps to open up new opportunities, because, yes, if there are costs that will be imposed as a result of Brexit, there are also countervailing savings that could be made by having an agricultural policy that is tailor made for the different topographical, climatic and cultural traditions of Wales. So, what work is being done to look at the EU statute book, as it were, with a view to scaling down regulatory costs without actually prejudicing the overarching policy objectives, which we would all share?

Thank you for those observations and questions. I don't know why you're so surprised that Michel Barnier said that about a hard deal. There are 27 of them. There's one of us. If you ever thought that we would get a better deal leaving the EU—well, you clearly did think we would get a better deal leaving the EU, because that's what you wanted—. I just don't understand why people think that would happen. I've been to agricultural council and environment council and fisheries council, where I feel so isolated, because I watch the EU-27 going about their business and we are completely on our own. Why you would think that they would not get a better deal than us is beyond me.

You say there are massive opportunities. I don't see those massive opportunities. I see massive challenges, and that's what I've spoken about in my statement. I was just trying to say to Llyr that I did think that public procurement was one opportunity, but I am struggling beyond that. I see challenges in my own advice surgery when I have a constituent who comes to me who, if he wants to take his pet on holiday on Friday, so long as he's got a pet passport, he can take his pet on holiday on Friday. That will not happen after 29 March. It will probably take about four months. You will have to take your pet to the vet probably three or four times to have blood tests. It's all going to be so much more difficult than people are used to, and it's about making sure that people are aware of what those challenges are going to be.

We had—well, we have, at the moment, for another two months at least, frictionless trade with our closest neighbours: 0.5 billion people. Why would you not want that to continue? You talk about regulations and environmental standards. I made it very clear that environmental standards will not fall, but I want to remove as much bureaucracy as I can, because, certainly, when I first came into post, and there was the referendum result, and I spoke to farmers, a lot of them had voted 'leave', and when I asked them why, bureaucracy was one of the things they told me they wanted to get rid of. Yet we know that the impact on our agricultural sector is: if we have a 'no deal', we'll have high tariffs, we'll have increased bureaucracy, we'll have delays at the border, and that will all add to the cost of exporting. So, whilst I too want to reduce bureaucracy, that is really not going to happen if we have a 'no deal' scenario. I hear what you say about you don't think there should be a 'no deal' scenario. This was the default position, and, frankly, it was always there, wasn't it—the danger of that.

In relation to 'Brexit and our land', I've made it very clear that there will be no cliff edge. One of the reasons for going out to New Zealand was to see what happened there, and I have said all along that there will be a multi-year transitional period. There will be no cliff edge. New schemes won't be brought in until they are absolutely ready, and the old schemes will not be removed until those new schemes are in place. 

Two quick points. The first one is: if people had told me that, when we put article 50 in and we triggered it, almost two years later, we wouldn't have got anywhere near a deal, I wouldn't have believed them. We also talk about public procurement a lot. If we want to get more public procurement in Wales, it's not about rules, it's about the size of the contracts. The larger the contracts you put out, the more likely they are to be won by large companies. You make the contracts smaller and local firms win them. That works in highways and agriculture, or almost anything else.

In 2017, 50 per cent of the food consumed in the UK came from the UK, 30 per cent from Europe and 20 per cent from the rest of the world—to put the rest of the world and Europe into some form of context regarding Britain. This morning, Mr Roberts of the FUW said:

'We do not know what tariff rates will be charged on imports from other countries after March, as the draft tariffs will not be published until the end of February and need to be approved by parliament—so deals with importers must be reached with no knowledge of the additional costs likely to be incurred at ports.'

That's not really a good way of running anything, is it?

Of course, as well as tariffs, there are also environmental checks on any agricultural or fisheries product being exported. With a number of our exports, such as shellfish, being time-sensitive, any slowing down of exports—instead of taking them to market, we'll be taking them to the tip.

I've got two questions for the Minister. Can the Minister explain how we can gain beneficial agricultural trade deals now that we could not do before 1973? The second thing is: can the Minister see how a free trade deal covering lamb with New Zealand could not be disastrous? I'm not forgetting, of course, the west Wales farmer who was looking forward to exporting his lamb to New Zealand.

I thank Mike Hedges for those questions and, again, observations. Sadly, as time has gone on, I could see this 'no deal'. As I say, last summer, at the agricultural shows, I had several conversations because I could just see what was looming, unfortunately. As I say, why would the EU-27 give us a good deal? It's no good blaming the EU. People seem to blame the EU. This is our mess. This is our self-made mess.

I think you're right about public procurement. You heard me say to the previous two speakers that I do feel that that's a big opportunity, and we need to look at how we procure. Tariffs are also incredibly important, and the UK Government has indicated that it's considering trade liberalisation—eliminating tariffs on goods from the EU and the rest of the world as a contingency measure in a 'no deal' scenario. So, you can see why our farmers are so very concerned about that.

In relation to shellfish, you're absolutely right. The majority of shellfish leaves the vessel or the company and within 24 hours, it's delivered, live, somewhere else. So, if it ends up sitting on a port for any time later than that, we're going to have fish mortality. We're going to have ruined fish, and I really am very concerned. I said this morning at the lobby briefing that I am very concerned for the industry if it is a 'no deal'.

A free trade deal with New Zealand is of great concern. As I said, when I met with Vangelis Vitalis, the chief negotiator in New Zealand, he made it very clear to me that it was absolutely the top priority. All our farmers that I speak to are very concerned because, obviously, the Welsh lamb market has been shrinking here in Wales, and they are very concerned about being flooded with cheap lamb.

I think that whilst there may be some opportunities for import substitution in the medium term, the most immediate concern that any Government should have is to secure food security. So, with over three quarters of the food that we eat being imported from the EU, including half our vegetables and 95 per cent of our fruit being imported, this is all very significant. So, I'd be keen to know, if it's possible, what tariff there will be on fresh fruit and vegetables coming from Europe in the future. You mentioned 15 per cent on processed food, so I'm hoping you may be able to enlighten us there. 

Just going to the threats that are also potential opportunities, if we have these WTO-imposed tariffs, it does change the business case for growing more of our own vegetables and fruit, and I just wondered, as the growing season starts next month, whether this is an active conversation that you’re having with our farmers. Is this something that’s going to be raised at the Farming Connect conference on 7 February?

And, I suppose, the final question I have is that you talk about Wales gaining more powers over the environment, agriculture and fisheries after Brexit. Unlike Neil Hamilton, who seems to want a free-for-all for nitrate spreading, I’m rather keen to understand, if we don’t any longer have the protections of EU food regulations, how we are going to prevent a flood of chlorinated chicken and other adulterated foods just simply flooding our markets and literally putting our much higher standards of welfare and quality farmers out of business.

Thank you. In relation to your question around whether the discussion around Welsh fruit and vegetables will be discussed at the Farming Connect conference, I’m not too sure about the agenda, but I can certainly find out and let you know.

In relation to tariffs, I can’t give you any figures, because, as you will have heard previously, they're not going to be published—and they’ve got to go through Parliament—until the end of February. But, certainly, a 'no deal' scenario could mean that some of our food could be subject to 50 per cent tariffs. That’s the highest figure I’ve heard, and, certainly last week, in the discussion I had in the quadrilateral with Michael Gove and my counterparts, those figures were used. And, as you say, it’s very dangerous that if it is a 'no deal', and the worst-case scenario for Welsh agriculture is that we allow cheap food imports at a time when our exports could then be subject to a tariff as high as 50 per cent.

Agricultural pollution is something that, obviously, concerns me greatly, and I’ve just taken some measures to look at baseline regulations, and you’ll be aware of the written statement that I’ve had. We’ve made it very clear. Fortunately, I think that Welsh Government was, looking back, pretty prescient to have brought forward the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 that we did, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and, certainly, when I talk to my Scottish counterparts, they can see that that was very forward looking. However, you’ll be aware that I’m taking transitionary powers from the Agriculture Bill, mainly so we can continue to pay our farmers. It’s really important that we do the same with the Fisheries Bill, because, whilst we don’t pay our fishers in the way we pay our farmers, we still have the EMFF money that we need to obviously use in a way that we have been doing. So, those powers will only be temporary, though, until we bring forward our own agricultural Bill and our own fisheries Bill.

Addressing the environment gaps is very important, and you will have heard me say in my answer to Llyr that we will be going out to consultation around how we address that gap, because the gap is very different in Wales, because of our environment Act, than what it is in the UK.

I thank the Minister.

The next statement is from the Minister for Housing and Local Government on preparing our public services for a 'no deal' Brexit with regard to potential civil contingencies. So, I call on the Minister to make her statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd.

With less than 70 days until the UK is due to leave the EU, and with the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit still firmly on the table, we have a responsibility to take precautionary measures as part our Brexit preparations, and this includes our planning for civil contingencies. A civil contingencies response will normally deal with an event that threatens to damage human welfare, the environment or security. In essence, civil contingencies plans and mitigations are engaged as a last resort when wider business-as-usual preparedness and contingency planning has failed or is unable to deal with the scale or seriousness of an event.

During the course of this afternoon, my Cabinet colleagues have outlined many aspects of our Brexit preparedness work and the escalation of 'no deal' planning. Our intention is to ensure that business continues as usual on 30 March and beyond, whether the UK leaves the EU with a deal or without. Good civil contingency planning will help us to prepare for the reasonable worst-case scenarios, and will help to ensure that our public and emergency services are best placed to continue providing the services that we and the most vulnerable in our communities rely on every day.

The work to assess impacts and put mitigation in place is critical in minimising the need for a civil contingency response. For Brexit and for a 'no deal' Brexit, we are working through a range of partnerships, including the Wales resilience forum, the joint emergency services group and directly with the four local resilience forums across Wales. Specifically, we are building on our established structures to deal with multiple Brexit-related civil contingency issues at any one time, all without compromising our ability to also respond to any non-Brexit-related issues, such as severe adverse weather events. I am grateful to the multi-agency Wales risk group for developing a regional and Wales assessment of the potential Brexit impacts on their areas and on Wales as a whole, and then considering the necessary mitigations and how the risk can be managed.  

This is a fast-moving subject, as the events in the House of Commons over the last week have shown. The assumptions on which the plans have been produced will change as new information emerges or as mitigations are put in place, and all these assumptions underpinning our planning will be fully tested. My Cabinet colleagues have already highlighted work to mitigate some of these working assumptions. For example, the contingency planning has considered how to address potential disruption at ports, how to help ensure food security, and also how to maintain the availability of medicines and supplies.  

We are putting in place our command, control and co-ordination arrangements, and we are currently consulting the local resilience forums about our proposals. The proposed arrangements have been designed to make sure that we create a common understanding of local and regional issues, and also the impacts in key sectors across Wales so we can adjust our planning accordingly. The arrangements will provide a strong support infrastructure to help quickly identify the emerging issues to support quick and effective decision making by all those involved. Importantly, the arrangements will also enable co-ordinated public and media communications about civil contingency matters that will be shared across the public sector.

We will manage our response at a national level through our Emergency Co-ordination Centre (Wales). Plans are in place to mobilise the centre if and when necessary, and Government staff will be called on to assist our core resilience team. The working assumption is that we will operate the centre in a limited capacity during February. This will enable monitoring and reporting arrangements at a regional and Wales level, and ensure engagement with any UK civil contingency arrangements. Senior civil contingencies advisers are being recruited from within the Welsh Government, but their immediate priority will be to support the work of the local resilience forums within their own command, control and co-ordination planning for a possible 'no deal' Brexit.

Our public services are engaged in planning for Brexit as individual services, and many are members of the local resilience forums. Our three fire and rescue authorities are working together with the National Fire Chiefs Council to plan for the consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit, for example. This includes active engagement at the most senior levels of management and with the local resilience forums. The Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust has nominated a senior responsible officer at director level to oversee the organisation’s preparations, and its board is monitoring the position. The trust is also fully engaged with the planning currently being led by the resilience forums across Wales and with the Welsh Government.

Leaving the European Union has created social and political division, and has added to tensions around closely linked issues including migration, race and faith relations, and human rights. The Welsh Government’s vision for Wales is as an inclusive country in which people from all backgrounds are welcomed and where there is no room for xenophobia, racism or bigotry. The Welsh Government is working with a number of partners, including local authorities, police forces and equality and inclusion organisations in the third sector, to ensure that cohesion takes root in all our communities.

Through its EU transition fund, the Welsh Government is expanding its regional community cohesion programme. The additional funding will be used to build on the existing network of regional community cohesion co-ordinators to undertake specific work to mitigate potential community tensions relating to Brexit. Our hate crime criminal justice board Cymru has also considered the possible impacts of Brexit and of hate crime targeting ethnic and religious minorities. The £1.3 million EU citizens' rights project funded from the EU transition fund will ensure EU citizens have access to appropriate advice services, are protected from exploitation and exclusion, and are encouraged to continue living in Wales and fulfil their potential.

We are continuing to work with local authorities to identify and plan for impacts across all services, and the Welsh Government is funding the Welsh Local Government Association to support councils to prepare for Brexit. This includes funding the Grant Thornton toolkit, as well as further support. The toolkit provides a straightforward guide to the questions local authorities need to consider in order to be able to plan effectively across the range of their services and responsibilities. These include workforce issues, financial impacts, regulation, local economic impacts and support for vulnerable people and community cohesion.

I have set out some of the current work towards minimising the risk of the need for a civil contingency response. We are under no illusions about the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit, and while civil contingencies planning cannot address every issue related to a 'no deal' Brexit, we are fortunate that we do have a well-established structure and partnership in Wales on which to build so as to mitigate that impact.

It is important to emphasise that civil contingencies planning is a normal feature of our business and we are used to planning for adverse weather and for major events like the UEFA Champions League final in Cardiff in 2017, for example. It is inconceivable that we would not plan for the potential impacts of a 'no deal' Brexit. Our civil contingency planning is no way signalling that we expect an emergency, but rather that we want to work effectively with our public services and other partners to ensure they are prepared for a 'no deal' Brexit and that measures and mitigations are in place, as far as possible, to minimise the impacts of that 'no deal'.

In doing so, our aim is to minimise the likely need for a civil contingencies response. In these uncertain times, Members can take assurance from the fact that, as a responsible Government, we are taking the need to plan seriously and that, as a precautionary measure, we are putting plans in place to monitor any potential civil contingency issues and to respond quickly if necessary. Diolch.

I welcome particularly your comments at the end that this is a precautionary measure and that your civil contingency planning,

'is no way signalling that we expect an emergency, but rather that we want to work effectively with our public services...to ensure they are prepared',

and that your aim is to minimise the likely need for a civil contingency response. I'm sure that that is an approach that we would all wish to very much share with you.

We've heard today and many times previously—admittedly, you didn't include this in your statement personally—that the Welsh Government respected the result of the 2016 referendum. But, of course, the subsequent White Paper with Plaid Cymru then proposed measures that would've ensured that it was Brexit in name only, with no control over borders, money, laws, trade, or what have you. So, be honest, tell people that's the case and then let them decide, but let's not pretend that it's a Brexit alternative.

In that context, what consideration have you given to the potential impact on civil order were there to be a second referendum, or, for example, were your White Paper commitment to remain in the customs union to bare fruit and result in us not being able to make independent—by 'us' I mean the UK and Wales, hopefully, within the team—trade deals with other states or economic regions across the world, because, of course, many other parts of the world have their own regional economic arrangements?

On the day when we heard that the UK unemployment total has reached a record high, we should remember that the Prime Minister has consistently stated that she wants a customs arrangement; she does not want a 'no deal'. In fact, the deal she's negotiated includes a 21-month implementation period, giving time for businesses to prepare for the future UK-EU arrangements and to ensure a smooth and orderly Brexit process, and the transition period is part of the UK Government withdrawal agreement but will only exist if a deal is agreed. So, those who seem to think, in Westminster, that voting down any deal will then enable them to use a transition period to negotiate, perhaps need reminding that that's not the case.

The UK Government's draft deal also secured good access to the single market but not staying in the single market, because that would have meant large amounts of money continuing to go to the EU in perpetuity, with no control over borders, and regulations in which we would have no hand in creating. Now, whatever people's individual views are about that, that's not respecting the referendum.

The Welsh Local Government Association website enables you to download a Brexit 'no deal' briefing for councils, produced by the UK, or England, Local Government Association. This refers to the Cabinet Office's civil contingency secretariat and the communities and local government's resilience and emergencies division having had discussions with local resilience forums to ensure preparedness for key issues, with councils, local authorities contributing and doing their own scenario planning at an organisational level to ensure preparedness. What, if any, role have you or the Welsh Government had in that process, given that, as we've heard this afternoon, many of these services that could be impacted are devolved but many are not, and there would need to be mutual support and co-ordinated delivery were the worst-case scenario to arise?

You do refer to a response at a national level and Wales through your emergency co-ordination centre in Wales, involving fire and rescue authorities and the fire chiefs, but how would you go beyond that to involve, potentially, police or even soldiers? Because we know that the UK Government has drawn up contingency plans with the National Police Coordination Centre, with the Home Secretary saying that the public shouldn't worry—the departments, like you say, just have to prepare for all possible outcomes.

The National Police Coordination Centre is saying,

'The police are planning for all scenarios that may require a police response...we have no intelligence to suggest there will be an increase in crime or disorder.'

Nonetheless, aspects of policing, particularly community safety, are devolved and we also know in terms of emergency planning that the Welsh Government routinely engages in such matters. Similarly, we know that the Ministry of Defence has announced, I think, 3,500 soldiers, with 10 per cent of those being reservists, to ensure that welfare, health and the security of UK citizens and the economic stability of the UK are not damaged in a worst-case scenario. We know that there are many reservists in Wales, and no doubt, were there to be a problem, we would also be reliant on planning joined up on that basis. So, I would be grateful if you could address that.

From a civil contingencies viewpoint, we know that the Secretary of State for Wales wrote to the First Minister a couple of weeks ago, inviting him to attend the new EU Exit and Trade (Preparedness) Committee, a Cabinet sub-committee in Westminster that's brought together all their 'no deal' Brexit planning committees when shared issues are on the agenda. They're also asking whether the UK Government could sit on the committee, or the regular planning meetings, that they know the Welsh Government are also taking forward. Are you able to tell us whether there's been a positive response to that so that both sides are seen to be working together on preparedness to help ensure a co-ordinated approach on any challenges that might be shared in future?

Again, we heard references earlier in the day to ports. I know that ports are not in your brief, but, potentially, civil contingency issues could arise, so the same letter asked the Welsh Government to share with the UK Government conclusions around work on Holyhead and Pembrokeshire ports, replicating their trials around Kent and whether, again, that has been shared with the UK Government to ensure a joined-up approach, because we know that north Wales is used as a land bridge by Ireland and is a well-used route, but again the wider points were addressed earlier.

What plans does the Welsh Government have to put in place to enable local authorities to hit the ground running in relation to the procurement of essential goods and services in the immediate aftermath of a 'no deal' scenario, God forbid there were one?

And, actually, I think I'll stop there, because I've gone on long enough, and give you time to answer. [Laughter.]

Thank you for that series of comments. The Member will not be at all surprised to discover that I disagreed with almost all of the first third of his remarks. I'm always very astonished by how sure people are what people voted for exactly. So, I don't know how you're so sure that people didn't vote to stay in the customs union and the single market. I, personally, am not sure of that. I have met a very large number of people who voted 'leave', who voted 'leave' for a variety of different reasons, some very trivial, some very serious and the whole range in between, so I don't share the Member's certainty that I am aware of all of the nuances of that. Nor do I share his certainty that people want what he suggests they want. So, I admire his certainty, but I certainly don't share it. I personally think that the United Kingdom would be far better off inside the European Union and, if we are to leave the European Union, then clearly we should leave it as set out in our White Paper that we produced alongside Plaid Cymru. That remains the best deal for Wales, and I have heard nothing during the whole of the last two years that has made me change my mind on that point.

In terms of the specific things that he asked, we have a completely tried-and-tested set of local resilience fora and a hierarchy. Those fora are already engaged in civil contingencies planning. All we've done is made sure that they include some of the additional preparedness for 'no deal' Brexit planning. They include the liaison—as Mark Isherwood rightly points out, they ought. We are fully engaged with that. My ministerial colleagues—in particular the Counsel General and the First Minister, but other ministerial colleagues as and when—engage fully in the JMC process. My colleague Kirsty Williams met with a range of other ministerial colleagues across the piece very recently. We have a whole range of those. That's the point at which we share the various contingency arrangements, and the discussions are structured in such a way as to deal with particular areas at particular times. We fully engage in that.

I'm told that we have not yet any details of the overarching co-ordinating committee that he referred to in terms of the letter that we've had. We await the details of that. We have a full set of preparedness sharing, including the kind of supply chain planning that he suggested we ought to do, and clearly we ought to do that. And I would emphasise: this is not in any way to suggest that there's any need to panic or anything else, but clearly, as a responsible Government, we need to be prepared for any eventuality that arises, and this preparedness is very much part of that, and it includes all of the escalations you would expect if there's civil unrest in any circumstance. I'm not anticipating we will need that, but clearly we'd be irresponsible not to have planned for it.
 
 

I thank the Minister for her statement. The fact of the matter is that we are facing the greatest threat to our society since the second world war, and while I welcome the preparations laid out by the Minister, specifically the £1.3 million EU citizens' rights project fund, encouraging EU citizens to remain in the UK through offering various packages of support, there is one thing that I think has been largely overlooked, and that being the rise of far-right activity in recent months. Now, the yellow jackets are a prime example, harassing pro-remain MPs and supporters outside the Houses of Parliament, going largely unchallenged, and this, of course, comes after a spike in hate crime following the referendum. We know that in times of crisis far-right groups become bolder, and history shows that they will take advantage of Governments who are spread thin or who are in a state of chaos themselves. So, my question to the Minister on this point is: what will the Government do to stem any violent actions from far-right groups against any peaceful protest or any actions that they might take against any EU citizens or the wider multicultural communities that we have based here in this country?

Further, I think that it's clear that austerity has been overlooked in this debate. For 10 years, public services have suffered from cutbacks, and for 10 years, people have seen their quality of life deteriorate. These cuts, of course, are set to deepen even further with a 'no deal' Brexit, and these are serious issues to be considering now. How will the Welsh Government look to mitigate the effects of austerity in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit and beyond? Austerity has damaged the very fabric of our society, and a 'no deal' Brexit looks to do irreversible damage. 

Finally, people are stockpiling food in preparation for a 'no deal', but in the Minister's statement, I see very little mention of safeguarding supply lines with regard to food. At the very least, prices are likely to increase, putting people in a seriously precarious situation. So, what preparations have been made by the Welsh Government to safeguard food supplies and prices? And that's a question that's pertinent to whether we leave with a 'no deal' Brexit or not.

Well, I very much agree with the tenor and the content of the Member's remarks. In terms of far-right activity, I did say briefly in my statement that we are reinforcing the community cohesion arrangements that we have in place. We already fund the regional community cohesion co-ordinators. They're very much part of the resilience fora and the preparedness, for exactly the reason that she sets out. We very much want to be sure that our local authorities and our local resilience fora—and that includes all of the blue-light responders—are aware of any increased tension. We have no intelligence, other than the general increased tension she mentions, that we have any specific issue in Wales, but the fora are very much preparing for that and we have reinforced the funding for those regional community cohesion posts, in order to emphasise that.

In terms of the austerity issues, we are doing some regional planning across Wales, across all of the statements that colleague Ministers have mentioned today, to see whether there are hotspots where particular impacts of a 'no deal' Brexit impact in layers on a particular community or in a particular region of Wales so that we can put preparedness in place to mitigate as much of that impact as is possible to do. But, as repeated Ministers have said, we make no pretence that it's possible to mitigate the impacts of a 'no deal' Brexit. We are simply trying to do as much as anyone could do. We don't want to feel that we have left any stone unturned, but the idea that we can mitigate it—it's not possible to mitigate it. I agree with her; it's the biggest issue that we will ever face other than war. So, all we're doing is making sure that all of the processes we have in place are as resilient as it's possible to be, given where we might be.

That includes the supply chain issues. I would just like to reassure people that there's no need to stockpile food, but we are looking to make sure that supply chains for things like school meals or elderly persons facilities or whatever are still able to get all of the ingredients they would normally have, or they're able to do menu planning to ensure that, where the supply chain looks as if it might be impacted, they can put something else in its place. So, it's that level of planning. It's not anticipating widespread shortages, but there may be ingredient shortages and we need to be able to plan for that.

So, it's very important to get the balance of this right. It's important to be prepared, it's important not to set a hare running about shortages where we are not expecting any to exist. So, it's that supply chain planning that we're looking to mitigate. So, just to repeat, we're not expecting any widespread food shortages of any description. People should not stockpile food. We do expect public authorities that have vulnerable people that they prepare food for to ensure that their supply chains are uninterrupted in those circumstances.

Thank you very much for your statement. We've heard earlier that DEFRA has a food chain emergency team that Lesley Griffiths is liaising with. I just wondered what consideration is being given to how we ensure local authorities have the raw materials for making school meals, as well as hospitals and nursing homes and residential homes, to ensure that vulnerable people are being properly fed. My concern is that London is the centre of distribution of food and, were there to be hiccups, the further down the line you are from there, the more likely you are to be affected. I just wondered what the Grant Thornton toolkit advises local authorities should be doing to mitigate this possible risk.

The Member makes an important point. At the partnership council that I chaired very recently to discuss the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit, this issue was very much a topic on the agenda, to ensure that, as I said in response to Leanne Wood, the supply chain is looked at in detail for the preparation of things like school meals or meals on wheels and those kinds of provisions—care homes, residential homes and so on—that they have their supply chain sorted out and look at their menus, frankly, to just make sure that we have got a range of options in place.

I would like to just reiterate that we are not anticipating widespread food shortages and people should not stockpile food, because obviously that can cause the shortage in and of itself, so it's a very important line. But the partnership council were fully on board with that. That is what the resilience forums are looking at. Each local authority is asked to look at that and colleagues across the Government have mentioned it in their contributions this afternoon in terms of their particular sectors. I'm looking at the whole piece, if you like, just to make sure that we have the co-ordination in place. But I cannot emphasise enough that we need to get the planning right without setting any hares running about food shortages. 

Minister, thank you for your statement today on how the Welsh Government is working closely with local government and partners in public agencies to maximise the preparations for civil security contingencies planning in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. A 'no deal' Brexit should just be called a hard Brexit, because that's what it is; it is the worst possible economic slap in the face for the Welsh people and it will impact on the most vulnerable users of our public services disproportionately, as they use our public sector most. I do believe that you as the Minister, along with the Counsel General, have been meeting local government leaders to discuss the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit.

So, a hard Brexit or cliff-edge exit means a lot for our public agencies, as they are already, as has been said, under huge stress from austerity and cuts to Wales. So, every lever possible must be utilised to counter any 'no deal' potential impacts—on jobs, whether it's food price rises, homelessness, medicine availability, overseas travel insurance, our citizens living abroad and their health reciprocality, and also national security data sharing. Like Mark Isherwood, I could go on, but I won't.

The extraordinary meeting of the local government partnership council saw representatives of local government, community and town councils, the Welsh Local Government Association, police and fire authorities and national park authorities get around the table, so it's right that this intensive collaboration and face-to-face partnership working across Wales can attempt in part to prepare for the impacts of a 'no deal' hard Brexit, which seems increasingly, now, ever more likely. Here in Wales we know that the First Minister has consistently outlined how leaving the EU with a 'no deal' Brexit would be catastrophic. The First Minister stated:

'It could cause significant disruption and damage to our economy, jobs, trade and public services.... All public sectors in Wales should now be well involved in contingency planning for a no deal scenario.'

Minister, what further plans, then, are there for the local government partnership council to meet, and how can Welsh Government support and aid its work in this environment of a fast-moving political maelstrom, and what reassurances are there that you can possibly give to the people of Islwyn that Wales and her public services are in a state of readiness and preparedness for the damaging and harmful consequences of any 'no deal' hard Brexit?

Yes, the Member's absolutely right. We have put in place a range of engagement exercises with local authorities. It's a standing item on the partnership council, but in addition to that we've put in place a new engagement structure, the local government EU preparedness advisory panel, and we've also got an internal Welsh Government-local government EU co-ordination group. We agreed in December new governance arrangements to support local government to prepare fully for the exit from the European Union—any exit from the European Union—but obviously a 'no deal' exit is the hardest, as she's rightly said, so requires additional planning to be put in place. 

We've provided funding—£150,000-worth of funding—for the establishment of the Brexit transition support programme for Welsh local authorities through the Welsh Government's EU transition fund, and the aims of that programme are to ensure Welsh local authorities are not duplicating work in preparing for Brexit, that we ensure all local authorities in Wales are equally prepared for Brexit in key sectors, and we establish a more formalised, two-way programme of communication between local authorities and those planning for Brexit in the Welsh and UK Governments in order to co-ordinate activity.

We funded, as I said, the Grant Thornton toolkit. We know that, as of mid January, the WLGA have given specific briefings to 14 of the 22 local authorities and very shortly we'll have covered the whole pizza. We are, as I said, putting as much contingency planning in place as we can, but it's important to emphasise that there's no way to mitigate the whole of the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit.

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Counsel General and Brexit Minister on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on Wales, and I call upon the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m conscious perhaps that 'no deal' Brexit fatigue may now be setting in. But, in concluding this series of statements this afternoon, I want to focus on the overall impact on our economy and the well-being of the people of Wales.

A 'no deal' Brexit will bring profoundly negative consequences for workers, businesses, higher and further education and the Welsh economy. Indeed, we're already seeing the impact of two years of uncertainty feeding through, with Wales experiencing a decline in the number of companies making the final decision to invest here. Many cite Brexit uncertainty as a key reason for this.

The consensus among mainstream, independent researchers and academics is that replacing single market participation with World Trade Organization rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 per cent to 10 per cent smaller than would otherwise have been the case. This doesn’t just mean damage to businesses but also real damage to jobs and pay packets. A 'no deal' Brexit would have a direct impact on living standards, with incomes on average up to £1,500 to £2,000 per person lower than they would otherwise have been. This would be on top of the lower growth since the referendum result, which the Bank of England believes has already reduced household incomes by £800. So, a 'no deal' Brexit means fewer jobs, lower incomes and a greater risk of poverty for people in communities across Wales. 

I know some Members will dismiss this as scaremongering, but for those who believe good times are just around the corner if we move to WTO terms, let me quote the President of the Confederation of British Industry, John Allan, who said last week:

'The notion that we're the only major nation on earth operating just on WTO terms seems to me to be saying we're confident we have a mile race but we'll give everyone else a lap start—and don't worry, we're so good we're going to make it up. Frankly,'

he said,

'I think that's cloud cuckoo land.'

Those who argue 'no deal' would be preferable because it would allow the UK to negotiate new free trade agreements are in denial. Even on the UK Government's very optimistic set of assumptions, new free trade agreements would add 0.2 per cent to our GDP, compared to the 8 per cent to 10 per cent loss caused by the reduction in access to European markets. The reasons for these macroeconomic effects are not difficult to explain. The Welsh economy is intimately linked to the EU single market, with some 60 per cent of identifiable Welsh exports going to EU countries. If we leave with no deal, the UK Government will have hard choices to make. WTO rules mean that, without a free trade agreement, we cannot continue to trade tariff free with the EU-27 while we charge tariffs on similar products from other countries. We will have separate choices to make on each and every type of good. Either we impose tariffs on EU products, fuelling inflation, eroding living standards, and, at the least, making life more expensive and difficult for those who use European-made components in their production, or we unilaterally cut tariffs, undermine our bargaining position, and risk UK producers being undercut by countries with lower cost bases and far lower environmental and labour market standards.

In any circumstances, under a 'no deal', we would see new EU tariffs affecting many sectors and the goods they produce for export, undermining competitiveness. And it's misleading to suggest the impact of tariffs will be offset by a further fall in the value of sterling. According to surveys by the Engineering Employers' Federation, only 6 per cent of manufacturers believe weaker sterling would help them, quite apart from the fact that a fall in sterling stokes inflation and further erodes living standards. Those already struggling will be the ones who bear the brunt if their wage packet can't keep up with the cost of living. 

The technical notices issued by the UK Government lay bare the realities of increased bureaucracy and complexity in terms of non-tariff barriers, which economists believe have an even bigger negative effect on businesses—new demands for technical accreditation, customs declarations, export controls, new VAT processes and liabilities. And those who provide services in the EU-27 will also find their market access drastically curtailed. Moreover, they will be faced with different sets of rules and regulations in each of the member states. For many small businesses, this would quite literally make it impossible to export. 

And, for our education sector, loss of access to research funding, collaborations, exchange programmes and international talent will not just damage our universities and colleges, but stifle innovation and narrow our horizons. So, let's be in no doubt that, in terms of our economy, a 'no deal' Brexit would be a disaster, and, as I've already stressed, a smaller economy means fewer, less well-paid jobs, less money coming in to hard-pressed households. It also means a fall in income to the Exchequer. Less profitable and fewer businesses and lower incomes means a smaller tax base. That means hard choices being made: choices to cut public expenditure still further, to increase the tax burden or to increase public borrowing. None are attractive options over the long term. And the risk is that a right-wing Government will respond by trying to reduce costs and boost competitiveness not by investment, but by cutting back on labour market rights and environmental standards, following the Singapore model praised so lavishly by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Singapore—to where I read today the great champion of Brexit, James Dyson, has moved his headquarters, from Wiltshire. For many other proponents of Brexit, it’s perfectly clear that leaving the European Union is the first step, and not the final word, on a path to a Britain of increased job insecurity and fewer protections.

In the course of this afternoon, my colleagues have made it clear that, even faced with the prospect of a catastrophic 'no deal' Brexit, we are doing what we can, limited though it inevitably is, to help mitigate the impact, including by putting in place our new Preparing Wales website as an important information resource for citizens. This is true also in terms of the broader economy, though I'm mindful of what I have been told over recent days by leading Welsh businesspeople— that we should not pretend that anything we can do will compensate for a situation where exporting for small businesses becomes unviable.

We'll continue to take pride in our achievements as a nation and promote Wales as a place to live, work, to invest and do business, stepping up our international profile and underlining that, in Wales at least, we continue to welcome those who have chosen to come from abroad to study, work and make their lives here. We will continue to be guided by the core principles set out in the economic action plan, above all, the commitment to develop a new and dynamic relationship between Government and business that is based on the principle of public investment with a social purpose.

We are using our new business resilience fund—as the economy Minister said earlier—to provide financial help to businesses as they seek to get ready for Brexit, and our business portal to identify what they need to do. We're discussing with the Development Bank of Wales how they might respond quickly and flexibly to the cash-flow problems that might affect businesses in a 'no deal' scenario, including making use of £130 million flexible investment fund, created in response to Brexit in 2017. Should 'no deal' occur, we will also seek to balance calls for immediate and direct support to struggling businesses against investments, such as in our physical and digital infrastructure and skills base, which will bring benefit to businesses across whole regions and the wider economy in Wales.

I want to conclude by re-emphasising the clear message given by this National Assembly last week, and given again by the First Minister, that the UK Government must take 'no deal' Brexit off the table. If 'no deal' becomes a reality, there will be a clear responsibility on the UK Government to release funding to the Welsh Government to enable us to work with and support business and other partners as they seek to respond to the negative impacts that will flow from such a disastrous outcome. And the disproportionate impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on Wales means that a basic Barnett consequential will in no way be adequate for this. We will do everything within our power to hold the UK Government to its responsibility and to prioritise jobs and growth here at home.

I'm grateful for the statement being provided before it was made this afternoon, and can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for extending that courtesy?

I have to say, we've learned nothing new whatsoever today, in spite of all of the additional statements that have been made. The reality is that Wales is part of the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom—including Wales as a constituent part—voted to leave the European Union. And I would remind the Counsel General and Brexit Minister that, in his own area, there was a margin of over 13 per cent in favour of leaving the European Union.

Now, you've made many references to what has essentially been said in the many statements that have already been made this afternoon, but I will pick on some particular parts of it, because I think it's quite right for me to be able to do so. You made reference to the predictions of many who you called 'mainstream, independent researchers and academics'. No doubt that these are the same mainstream, independent researchers and academics who said that, immediately after the EU referendum back in June 2016, if there was a vote to leave, we would immediately go into a recession. We were told that there would be a rise in unemployment; we were told that there would be a stock market crash—all in the immediate aftermath of that vote. We were told that foreign investment would be down as well. But the reality is that we've got record employment, the economy has still been growing, we've added value on the stock market and, of course, we’ve got record net foreign direct investment—it’s gone up since that Brexit vote. So, I have to say that what we've had all afternoon is nothing more than project fear on steroids from the Welsh Government, without any temperance whatsoever to their position, which is quite astonishing, given the fact that they were wrong in their predictions before on this particular issue.

You’ve made reference to people living in cloud-cuckoo-land, who were referring to free trade agreements, but, of course, we know that under your proposals, which seek to keep us in a customs union, the reality is that we wouldn’t be able to do any trade deals elsewhere around the world. That is the reality, and I wonder whether you could confirm that you accept that that is the reality under the proposals that you have developed and set before this National Assembly in your document. That’s the reality; nobody is—. The EU has made it quite clear that if we are in a customs union, there cannot be any free trade agreements. And yet, this is one of the things that the public were wanting and which many of them voted for when they voted for Brexit.

You’ve made reference to many of the companies, quite rightly, that export and are concerned about the future of export markets in the EU. I understand and appreciate those concerns, and it’s quite right that we should discuss them openly. But, do you accept that the overwhelming majority of Welsh businesses do not export to the EU and will not be affected in the way that you have suggested?

You made reference also to some of the challenges that may arise as a result of a ‘no deal’ Brexit in terms of increased bureaucracy and complexity in terms of non-tariff barriers. I accept that things would have to change, but do you accept that those challenges are not insurmountable? We have those sorts of checks already in respect of goods from other places outside of the European Union, and they don’t seem to cause any of the problems that you have suggested might arise in your statement.

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to when you said it would be impossible for many businesses to export simply because they would have different rules for each of the EU-27 states. I don’t understand that. If there’s a single market, surely there are single rules to that market, and I can’t understand why you are suggesting there would be 27 different sets of rules. So, I’m not sure whether that's a cock-up in the statement that you’ve just read, or the one that was distributed, but I'd be interested to know precisely what you mean by that particular statement.

I noted that you made reference to the education sector, and, understandably, they are concerned about access to research funding and some of the collaborations that they're currently engaged in. Of course, I would like very much to see those collaborations continue, because I’m a person who believes that we should seek to strike a deal. But, do you agree with me that it’s very welcome, therefore, that the UK Government announced just yesterday an additional £0.25 billion—in fact, £279 million of Government investment—in order to develop research capability across the UK, collaborating with international partners to tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges? What are you doing as a Government to engage with the UK Government in order to try and attract some of that research investment here into Wales?

You’ve suggested that the risk to the future of our country is a right-wing Government that will respond by trying to reduce costs and boost competitiveness, yet the reality is that we have a Government, a UK Government, that has given absolutely clear commitments not to erode any of the environmental standards that we currently have, or the employment standards that we have either. So, would you agree with me that the biggest risk is not a ‘no-deal’ Brexit, but it’s actually a hard-left Government led by Jeremy Corbyn, who would once again ruin our public finances and cause many of our allies around the world to recoil at the sort of Government that we might have?

You made reference also to the need for us to ensure that we are welcoming to people from other nations, and that we have a workforce here in Wales that is capable of delivering the services and the needs of businesses across the country. Do you accept then that it's much better to have equal opportunity for people, whether they're from Berlin or Bangalore if they've got the right skills, to be able to come into this country to be able to serve in our public services and that, actually, the potential outcome here is a fairer system of immigration, which the Prime Minister has tried to negotiate through her deal? 

And do you also accept that in setting out the six tests, the Labour Party is actually setting out a number of red lines of its own in relation to a potential future relationship with the EU, whilst at the same time criticising the red lines that the UK Government has set out? 

And finally, can I ask you: what person in their right mind would ever agree to strike a deal with somebody under any circumstances, no matter how bad that deal might be, because that is what you are asking the UK Government to do by saying, 'Take no deal off the table'? That is the reality. Who when they go to buy a house guarantees—[Interruption.] Who when they go to buy a house guarantees that they will buy that house and that they will come to an arrangement in purchasing that house without the ability to be able to walk away if the cost of that house is too high? Nobody does. That's the reality, and that's why the Prime Minister is quite right not to take the threat of no deal off the table. 

Well, I regret the tone of complacency and Pollyanna-ish optimism that the Member brought to his questions. If he thinks that an economy that is 2 per cent smaller than it would have been otherwise is anything other than bad news for the people of Wales, then he's going to find not many people in Wales are going to agree with that perspective, because whilst we talk about things in this Chamber as percentages and statistics, outside this Chamber those are jobs and livelihoods and welfare, and the complacency that he brought to his remarks I found shocking.

He rests—[Interruption.] He rests his entire argument on the view that exports will continue and they'll flourish as they are. We know that Welsh exporters are working very hard. We know that export levels are up. We know, in fact, that export levels to the EU are up faster and from a higher base, which is the tragedy of the model that he's describing here for us today. No-one in this Chamber has any experience of living in a UK that has run an effective independent trade policy, because we haven't for decades.

And Liam Fox, who I know he's a great fan of, not least in his prognosis about the opportunities that we all have to enter into a nirvana of free trade outside the European Union, has already said that he thought we would be able to replicate 40 or so of the EU free trade agreements before we leave the European Union, so there would be no disruption to trade. Well, we know that by the end of last week, since 2016, only one mutual recognition agreement with Australia had been signed. So, on that run rate, he needs to sign four a week for the next period before we leave the European Union. He has said, 'We are ready', he says of the UK Government

'but that a number of countries...are unwilling to put the preparations in'.

If that doesn't sound like a completely impotent international trade Secretary, it is not the model of self-confident, global—. And I don't think he's even claiming they'll all sign—[Interruption.] He's not—

Darren Millar, you've already asked all your questions. I would have thought you'd have wanted to hear the answers. No, that wasn't an invitation to carry on speaking. Counsel General. 

Thank you, Llywydd.

The kind of support for education is the kind of support for the education sector that the Welsh Government has been outlining in its evidenced policy documents over the last two years. It bears no relationship to the kind of support that the UK Government are envisaging in the political declaration or anything else that they have done, and I know that the education Minister is participating fully in those discussions with the UK Government, and pressing them at every opportunity to show the support and clarity required by the sector here in Wales, which he will know is itself feeling the trauma of this in the period ahead.

He talks about taking 'no deal' off the table. I don't know how much commercial negotiation experience the Member has—I'm sure he has a great a deal of it. I probably spent the last 20 years of my time before coming here negotiating agreements day in, day out, and the one thing that I have learned is that an opponent in a negotiation will give zero credibility to somebody claiming to have leverage that it is perfectly apparent that they don't have. And what Theresa May has demonstrated here is her lack of understanding of how to undertake proper negotiations, which has got us into the parlous state that the UK Government has got us in today.

Can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for his very comprehensive statement, obviously, basically around the Welsh economy and the well-being of Wales? Just a couple of questions come from that. Can I reassure him about his voice, to start off with? Unless he starts singing loudly, he's okay, so I wouldn't suggest singing loudly in response to any of these questions.

But anyway, an awful lot of people are telling me European funding is obviously now up in the air. We have a shared prosperity fund and, obviously, the leave side guaranteed all European funding would still come to Wales, despite leaving Europe. Can we be updated on any discussions you've had as regards what's happening with the shared prosperity fund and European funding for Wales?

Obviously, on these benches or in these chairs, in Plaid, we worry about losing powers. The Counsel General might have heard me before about any proposed power grab. But I'm also worried about the complexity and the lack of time now with the 'no deal' Brexit scenario with 29 March looming, that the complexity and the need to do things with Brexit legislation are possibly being used to potentially roll back our devolution powers. It's timely to salute the work of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's clerks, legislative advisers and researchers highlighting these issues, and as the watchdog of constitutional matters here. I heard what Lesley Griffiths said earlier about how hard-working the legal advice is on the Government's side, but it is also on the Assembly's side here as a legislature, because there is that tension between powers, not just powers potentially being lost between Welsh Government and Westminster, but, obviously, from this legislature to the Welsh Government as well.

And, obviously, despite winning a referendum in 2011 to get more powers for this Senedd, we have seen here the Wales Act 2017 seeing us losing powers, again, as outlined by CLAC and others, and with EU withdrawal, we have seen subsequently the loss of the continuity Bill, we have a non-statutory inter-governmental agreement, we have common frameworks and shared governance, yes, but how shared is that governance at the end of the day is the moot point. I know the First Minister implied earlier that he has similar concerns about the operation of common frameworks, especially now in the short term.

Now, the Counsel General, with his knowledge and expertise, will know about discussions in CLAC about the reciprocal healthcare arrangements Bill, the UK Agriculture Bill, the UK Fisheries Bill, in the event of a 'no deal'. Certainly, in the short term, all of us just expected simply a transfer of powers—what happens now as regards healthcare arrangements should keep on happening. But what we get when you see something like the reciprocal healthcare arrangements Bill is that broader powers have been slipped in under clause 2. We still have Henry VIII powers, meaning the ability of UK Ministers to legislate in matters already devolved to Wales.

Now, also, I heard what the First Minister said earlier—that we shouldn't worry about this, but, obviously, there's a very real concern that the complexity of Brexit legislation now and the time pressures on it, we're all being exhorted to, 'Now, come on, Westminster, we've got the capability, we're under pressure down here, we haven't got the time. Surely we just follow Westminster's lead.' But would the Counsel General share my concern that Brexit, therefore, should not be used to potentially remove powers from this Senedd?

My last point, because I realise the Llywydd is looking at me: does the Counsel General agree that, actually, we are in a mess? Politics and politicians in Westminster have failed. What's on the table now with Theresa May is a bad deal or no deal—those options. What is available now—bad deal or no deal—is worse than remaining in the European Union in the first place. There are no sunlit Brexit uplands. We need another referendum. Does he agree?

I thank the Member for those questions. In relation to the shared prosperity fund, as he will know, the Welsh Government has been clear that Wales should not receive a penny less as a consequence of Brexit and that all decisions currently taken by the Welsh Government in relation to regional funding, as it is, should remain with the Welsh Government.

I most recently made those points to the Secretary of State at the beginning of last week. I did not get a commitment in relation to either of those, and I sought a meaningful involvement in the consultation in relation to that in order for us to be able to make those points again, as he will know. There is a clear consensus in Wales that those principles are fundamental and that they are the best way for ensuring post-Brexit regional investment policy here in Wales.

He makes a series of points in relation to the process of correcting the statute book in order to ensure an orderly Brexit insofar as statute and our law books are concerned. He makes the legitimate point that the risk and the complexity in the process of doing that requires a high degree of vigilance to ensure that powers are not lost. I will say to him: he mentioned the continuity Bill—he will know very well that the continuity Bill was not an example of us giving up powers. The continuity Bill was a means by which we achieved an inter-governmental agreement, which indeed protected the powers that we have here in Wales and, indeed, gave us extra powers as a consequence of the amendment to the EU withdrawal Act, which would not otherwise have been possible. That gives him an example of the ways in which the Welsh Government has stood up for the devolution settlement in the context of Brexit.

On the point of legislation more broadly, he will know that what we have adopted as a position as a Government is that, because of resource issues generally—and I think we should not make light of those—the volume of legislation and secondary legislation that would be required to go through this Chamber would be about the equivalent of 12 months' worth, which would have to come through in about a six-month period, which would be unprecedented in terms of the scale of legislative activity. But we have said that where there are no policy differences and where there are no political sensitivities, we have asked for those corrections to be done at a UK level with our consent. He does identify correctly a number of examples where there have been issues—the reciprocal health arrangement is one of those—and that brings to bear a number of complex issues about the boundary between reserved matters and devolved matters and how, as he mentions the Wales Act 2017, that boundary, sometimes, whilst clear, often intermingles, so issues that are reserved and devolved are mixed in together. Those are difficult judgments for us to reach. And that, then, is an example, in fact, of where we have been pushing back in order to ensure that those powers remain with us here in Wales.

May I close by thanking him for his diagnosis of my hoarseness? [Laughter.]

Can I commend the Government for coming forward with a series of statements today on preparation for a 'no deal' Brexit? Can I commend the Brexit Minister and Counsel General for, to use a cricketing analogy, staying at the crease, showing stoicism, as his powers of voice fade? [Laughter.] He's doing exceptionally well. 

There's an old Malay proverb, which is: prepare the umbrella, before it rains. And this is what we hoped that the UK Government was doing over the last two years, but here we are now looking at preparation for a deluge. So, I do welcome these statements. Of course, Malay is an area of the world in which one of the prominent Brexiteers has made his decision to invest his headquarters—in Singapore—having already decided that his electric car manufacturers would be in Singapore. When some of the Brexiteers who described the potential for Brexit and a 'hard deal' Brexit as, 'We would be the Singapore', whilst sitting just off western Europe, I don't think they meant that all the Brexiteers would flee the other direction to Singapore, but there we go.

I wonder if he would give some reassurance to a group that I've just met along with David Rees and others, which was the steel group—the steel group in Tata, close to my constituency, with thousands of workers, but also their families as well, dependent on investment. Credit to Tata, which is investing—and the transition to the new ownership is progressing along—we have to see the outcome, but they're investing significant money in that plant. But they made the point to me before I left the meeting that 30 per cent of their manufacture of steel goes to the automobile industry; 80 per cent of it goes to the automobile industry in this country. Their exposure to Brexit, even though they're investing, is significant, and they're seeking assurance that, in the nirvana that the Counsel General has referred to, which some have described as, 'It'll be easy; we just step off the cliff and, hey, it's just business as usual'—they don't quite see it the same way, and they're seeking reassurance that, actually, their exposure to quotas and tariffs will be protected if we exit. It's not just on WTO rules, they're actually asking, 'Well, what does Government put up as the new barriers, because we could be flooded with cheap imports? We've been here before with steel in this country.' So, here's the hard reality. So, what reassurance, I would ask the Minister, can we have for them, and that we're looking at it?

And could I ask him whether or not he agrees with me as well that this is not a question, as has been put today, about scare stories and so on, and rerunning project fear, because this is not simply the Labour Party. In fact, today we are having the headlines that we could have one, two or three dozen Conservative Ministers actually resigning in post unless they can vote in Parliament to stop a 'no deal' in its tracks. They get it, deeply. The business Secretary, Greg Clark, is on record as saying that it will cause incalculable damage to the UK. The defence Minister, Tobias Ellwood, is another, looking at the impact on defence. The chief executive of the civil service has said that the UK will never be fully prepared for Brexit, as he plans to move 5,000 staff into an emergency command and control centre. And the business Minister—I mean, these are people who are right at the coalface of engaging with people who'll be affected—Richard Harrington, declared today that a 'no deal' is an absolute disaster for the country and predicts that it could force Jaguar and Mini plants to shut down. I could go on and on. Would he agree with me that, actually, far from project fear and scare stories, what we are trying to do here is actually construct a genuine narrative about the risks and then what we can do, as has been done this afternoon, in actually preparing for them?

I agree with the analysis he's made that it isn't a question of whether we'll be hit by a 'no deal' Brexit; it's a question of how hard. But could I put a couple of final questions? I've looked in detail at the Paratoi Cymru/Preparing Wales website and I'd recommend to all Members that they look at it. I would ask him, as Brexit Minister and Counsel General: what more can we do to disseminate that? Because it is lucid, it's very understandable, it's in the sort of language that businesses in my constituency and constituents themselves can look at. It's signposting to help, assistance and advice. What more can we do, as Assembly Members, and what more can the Government do, to actually disseminate that information?

Finally, thanking both him and the First Minister for appearing in front of the European advisory group and also the programme monitoring committee last week and I look forward to welcoming them back again, would he liaise with other Ministers within the Government who are also involved in Brexit contingency planning and planning for no deal, just to alert them to the fact that some of these committees—the PMC and the EAG—might well also request their availability at some time to see preparedness in different parts of Government for the 'no deal' scenario?

I thank the Member for those questions. He mentioned the steel sector and the automotive sector, but there's also the aerospace industry, advanced engineering—all of these sectors are the sectors that will be hit by tariff and non-tariff barriers. So, the short answer to the Member's question is that, in the context of no deal and in the context of the Prime Minister's deal, there is no reassurance that can be given. That is exactly why we, as a Welsh Government, together with Plaid Cymru, in 'Securing Wales' Future', describe the sort of post-Brexit relationship with the European Union that could best protect outside the European Union the industries that he talks about, where we have a customs union, full participation in the single market and a progressive set of rights for people in Wales in their workplace and environmental and other standards—not just frozen in time as of today but progressively matching those of our other European neighbours. That is the fundamental reason why we have advocated for that sort of relationship over the last two years, and it is surprising to me, I must say, that the UK Government was not able to achieve a similar level of clarity much, much sooner than it has been able to do. And even today, we don't have that clarity.

He talks about Paratoi Cymru and what more we could do. Well, I think we must make every effort to ensure that people know where to find Paratoi Cymru. What we are saying, as he will have seen on that website, is that, in terms of the daily lives of people in Wales, we are not asking them to make different decisions today than they would have been making yesterday. We are working with public services across a range of sectors to ensure their resilience as best we can and, as you heard the economy Minister say earlier, to ensure that businesses engage with the assets that the Welsh Government have made available to ensure that they understand the impact of Brexit in different scenarios on their businesses, so that they can be as ready as is possible in very difficult, uncertain circumstances in order to face the prospect of Brexit.

And the final point he raised was in relation to the European advisory group and the PMC. I very much enjoyed both of those meetings and I thank him for the invitation to attend. It struck me how important it is that we take this opportunity to engage consistently and continuously with our stakeholders and partners throughout Wales. This is a difficult challenge for any part of Government. It's a difficult challenge for any sector and for anybody operating an organisation or a business in Wales, and the best way of seeking to be as prepared as we can be and to do what we can to help mitigate the worst risks of Brexit is exactly the kind of partnership working that he mentioned in his question.

And finally, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Without wishing to test the Counsel General's voice at great length this afternoon—. I was reflecting, listening to the Member for Clwyd West, doing his best impression of the representative here of Westminster, speaking up in what I felt was a wholly irresponsible way about the way in which our communities, communities we all represent on all sides of the Chamber, could be affected by a 'no deal'. I think we've heard, both from the Minister on his feet at the moment but from other Ministers as well through the day, the utter disaster that a 'no deal', crashing-out exit from the European Union would be—a disaster for our communities and our economy but also a disaster for our politics. Counsel General, I'm sure you agree with me that what we've seen over the last few weeks and months has been a disaster for our politics, where we've failed—and I mean collectively as the United Kingdom—to actually demonstrate the leadership that the people of this country, I believe, require at the moment. Listening to the Member for Clwyd West, I was reflecting on a speech I was reading this morning—Nye Bevan's last speech to the House of Commons in November 1959—where he chided the then Conservative Government, saying they were facing failure because they hadn't learnt the lessons of the twentieth century. And listening to the member for Clwyd West this afternoon, I was thinking that there are too many people in the Conservative Party, both here and in Westminster, who haven't learnt the lessons of the twenty-first century. An utterly uncaring attitude for the people who we're here to represent, I think, is a disastrous place for us to be.

Do you agree with me, Counsel General, that we need time and space to have this debate, and we need the knowledge with which we can base and root our debate? I heard the words of the First Minister earlier and yours on other occasions, and I very much commend the work that's been done by the Government here and by individual Ministers. It is my view that we should be looking towards the UK Government now not suspending article 50 but revoking article 50 to allow this country to have the mature debate and the informed debate that we require in order to come to a decision whether we leave the European Union on the terms that we know and understand today—not what we were told three years ago, but the terms that we understand today—or whether we do not wish to do that in the way that we move forward. But I hope that, whatever we do over the coming weeks and months, we will be able to recover a tone in our politics that moves beyond the rancour that's become all too often the political currency over this period, and have a debate that is a much richer debate, a better informed debate, and a debate that is rooted in what we want to see in the future for our communities and our country. And when I listen to people talking about a 'no deal' Brexit and the opportunities that provides, I think about all the billionaires who have moved their assets, their resources, their funds, out of the administration of the United Kingdom just in case, and I reflect, Darren, that there are not many people in Blaenau Gwent with the ability to do that. And as we've seen with austerity, it isn't those people in the restaurants of SW1 who will pay the price for their failed policies; it is the people that we represent in our communities who will pay the price. [Interruption.]

So, Counsel General, is it possible for us to take the next period of time to revoke article 50, for Welsh Government to argue the case to do that, to enable us to have that richer, informed debate about what the options are facing us, and to then take a decision in an informed way? [Interruption.] You can shout as much as you like and I will hear you, but I'm telling you now that shouting will not win the case here. You've shouted enough and you've said enough. What we need now is to have an informed and richer debate that is based upon intelligent argument and analysis and not simply shouting across the Chamber.

May I thank the Member for those observations? He hits the nail on the head, doesn't he, when he says that, too often, the proponents of Brexit are people for whom there is no jeopardy in either outcome, where their resources and their affluence and their self-protection put them in a position where, whatever outcome, is a question of financial modelling and a question of moving your assets from one place to another? And we cannot have the future of the United Kingdom dictated by people with so little at stake in the outcome that they advocate.

I think what he said is very interesting, in the sense that it occurs to me that the debate around Brexit, for two years and more, has often been the high politics on the one hand or the operational, day-to-day impact on the other. The place where we should be focusing, as well as on the discussions that we've had today about the practical impact, is that idea of a vision of what we want Wales to be like if we respect the result of the 2016 referendum—how we go about creating a Wales that continues to be at the heart of Europe while respecting that referendum, and having a form of Brexit that does not do the kind of damage that we've heard, frankly, advocated for in this Chamber today. I think that vision for a post-Brexit relationship is the sort of thing that is set out in 'Securing Wales' Future', and you will know the First Minister's call for the extension of article 50 is in order for that sort of deal to have the best chance of emerging from the discussions in Parliament, and, in the absence of that, for the people to have a final say.

Diolch i'r Gweinidog.

The final item this afternoon is the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments and Savings Provisions) Regulations 2019. I call on the Minister to move the motion—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. Following the consideration and passing of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018 by the Assembly last year, and subsequently its commencement Order, we will see full abolition of the right to buy in Wales on 26 January 2019. The consequential amendments and savings provisions regulations before you today will ensure that existing primary legislation accurately reflects the legislative changes made by the 2018 Act. They also ensure that clarity and consistency of the law is preserved, both in the Housing Act 1985 and the Land Transaction and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017.

The regulations also make saving provisions to ensure that relevant provisions within the 1985 Act and the 2017 Act continue to apply in relation to outstanding applications to purchase made prior to the abolition of the right to buy or right to acquire. They also ensure that safeguards will continue to apply, for example where properties bought under the right to buy and right to acquire are subsequently sold on within a specified time period.

These regulations, then, support the goal of preserving our existing stock of social housing and to encourage the building of new social housing. They will provide clarity of the law and ensure relevant safeguards remain in place. 

We deeply regret the abolition of the right to buy. That debate has been had, and we move on. We certainly need to concentrate and forge a new consensus around rapid increase in house building, which will now be our main focus, but we do regret this legislation deeply, and, on this side of the Assembly, we would seek to reintroduce the right to buy on a reformed basis at our earliest opportunity.

However, I do welcome these regulations insofar as they preserve the right of people who, during the grace period, have notified their intention to exercise the right to buy or acquire but have not yet been able to complete on it. It was one of the few parts of the legislation that I think did soften the blow—that you allowed this grace period. We thought it should be longer, but we just had a year in the end, but at least it does go beyond a year if you have expressed the intention to buy. So, in that respect, we support these regulations. 

The Minister to respond.

Thank you for that contribution. I often have much to agree on with David Melding, and I appreciate the sentiments he expressed there. I, for one, am absolutely delighted that we've stopped the right to buy, and it's a matter of some discourse between us, but I understand his sentiments on it.

From our point of view, the Act was necessary to ensure the protection of our vital social housing stock for those in greatest housing need. As he said, the Act allows for a one-year period for eligible tenants to exercise their rights. We feel that's a fair and reasonable amount of time for tenants to decide whether they wish to exercise their rights, and to take appropriate financial and legal advice.

The amendments and saving provisions the regulations will bring about are necessary in order to ensure clarity of the law, as David Melding has acknowledged, and therefore, Llywydd, I urge everyone to support the regulations. 

The question is the motion be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings us to the end of our meeting.