Leader of the opposition to begin questions from the party leaders—Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reported that they’d seen nearly a 10 per cent increase in animal cruelty cases that they’d had to investigate. The legislation and the ability to regulate in this area firmly rest with the Welsh Government. Following that 10 per cent increase in complaints, there was a 35 per cent increase in prosecutions here in Wales, where people were taken to the courts and successful prosecutions were achieved. The legislation, though, and the sanctions do not meet—or are not fit for purpose—the crimes that many people are perpetrating when the complaints are investigated. Will your Government commit to revising the sanctions that are available to the courts here in Wales so that they fit the crimes that are being reported to them?

These are issues that we will keep under consideration. It’s not an issue that I’ve had raised with me personally—that the penalties are too low—but clearly we don’t want to see—. The fact that there are more prosecutions is a good thing, because that means that, actually, more people are being caught. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there is more crime, but more people are being caught. Nevertheless, we want to make sure that the penalties are appropriate to the crimes, and we’ll keep under review whether those penalties are appropriate now.

It is a fact that one case that was highlighted by the RSPCA was how a man fed his dog cocaine and then cut the ears off that particular animal, and had a 24-week sentence imposed on him. That cannot be right, First Minister. That’s the most that could have been attributed to that particular individual. There are plans afoot in other parts of the United Kingdom to substantially increase the powers available, and the sanctions available, when animal cruelty cases are brought before the courts—up to five years and unlimited fines. I ask you again: will you please take forward the proposals that are being looked at in other parts of the United Kingdom, so that the sanction, when such horrific crimes are reported, is available to the courts, and, ultimately, the full weight of that sanction can be brought against the perpetrators of such foul actions?

I am willing to look at that, because the case that he mentions is very disturbing and upsetting, of course. I will write to him further on that. It’s not just the penalties; it’s the sentencing guidelines as well, because the maximum penalty is one thing, but the sentencing guidelines that govern what sentences should be imposed in certain circumstances are also important. So, the two things must run together.

I agree with you, but what is firmly in your court is the ability to make progress in this area. So, I welcome that you will be writing to me with more information in this particular area, but what is quite clear from the evidence that’s before us all of the crimes that have been perpetrated against animals that are defenceless—they can’t defend themselves—the number of investigations and complaints that charities are looking at, and the prosecutions, is that it would be good to achieve today a timeline of how your Government will take forward actions to improve the sanctions that are available, and firm up the sanctions that are available, so that we do not see sentences that aren’t fit for purpose. Can you please give me a timeline as to how your Government will take this forward, so we can see positive action in this particular area?

I can provide more information in the letter that I send to him. These are important points that he raises, and what he has asked me there I will ensure is addressed in writing in a letter.

The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, since the passage of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, what has your Government done differently?

‘Prosperity for All’ is an example of how we follow that Act, in terms of how we determine what we do in the future.

That’s not a very convincing answer, First Minister. The strategy that you’ve produced contains four cross-cutting themes, and the Act says that there are seven well-being goals. One of those goals—a globally responsible Wales—is not mentioned in your strategy at all. You imply that, because of the Act, you will use investment decisions, infrastructure decisions and planning decisions in a different way to the way in which you made those decisions in the past. Your Government is one of the public bodies listed under the Act, and you’ve got a commitment to goals such as sustainable development, a low-carbon economy, healthy functioning ecosystems and enhanced biodiversity. Does your support for the M4 black route meet with those goals, or are you shifting the goalposts and carrying on with business as usual?

Well, these are matters that need to be addressed via the public inquiry. We wanted it to be as broad as possible and to look at all the options, and we look forward to seeing the results of that inquiry when the work is completed.

We all know that it is your preferred option, and that sounds very much to us on this side of the Chamber like business as usual and a missed opportunity, First Minister.

Now, in the national strategy, mention is also made of rural communities, the need to sustain the agricultural industry, and the world-class food and drink sector that you aspire to. You say that you’ll do this through post-EU agricultural and fisheries policy. Now, the need for us all to support Welsh farmers is obvious, given the contribution that they make to the Welsh economy, to Welsh culture and the role that farmers have to play in managing our natural resources. Plaid Cymru is calling for the same level of support for agriculture to be sustained until 2022 at the very least. That commitment has been given by the Westminster Government for England; First Minister, will you make that commitment for Welsh farmers now this afternoon?

Well, I have said publicly that we will maintain the same level of support. The money has to be there, of course, and we’d expect it to be there, but what I have said, as she knows, is that I think that the current pot that is available should be maintained by the UK Government and distributed financially in the same way as before, and that money will then be used for agriculture. How it’s then used is a matter for the Government and the Assembly, but in terms of the overall money, of course we want that to stay the same after 2022, and I’ve said that several times in public.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. It’s in the interests of businesses in Wales that export to make progress in the future trading relationships between Britain and the rest of the European Union. Is it not disappointing, therefore, that in a vote on this in the European Parliament last week, Wales’s Labour MEP and Plaid MEP voted for the Commission’s position not to negotiate further because we’ve apparently not made sufficient progress in the talks, which have been blocked, actually, by the European Commission? Aren’t these people no better than fifth columnists fighting for the interests of a foreign power against the interests of Britain?

They’re Spanish fascists now, are they? Well, I will allow his greater experience of that to inform us. But I have to say to him: they have voted according to the way they see the facts. The UK Government’s position has been a shambles from the start. Fifteen months in, we’re none the wiser as to what the UK Government’s position is. They have spent more time fighting with each other. We’ve no idea of—. The only thing we know is that they’re doing their level best to deprive this institution and the people of Wales of the powers they rightfully should have. Beyond that, we have no idea. They’re now planning for a no-deal Brexit—I can say that no planning at all has been done for a no-deal Brexit. They have absolutely no idea what they want to do, and it’s important that the UK Government decides what sort of Brexit it wants. The people of Britain rejected the kind of Brexit that he wants, so it’s up to the UK Government now to decide what kind of Brexit is best for Britain. We’ve outlined our position as the Welsh Government, and that is something that we think represents a sensible Brexit that represents the views that people expressed last year.

Well, it’s not for me, of course, and UKIP to defend the way the UK Conservative Government has embarked on this negotiation, but if he has read Mr Yanis Varoufakis’s account of his negotiations with the EU, he will see there what is playing out. The EU has no serious intention of entering into negotiations with Britain for the future, because their interests are to keep the remaining members of the EU together, and they want, therefore, to ensure that Brexit—so far as they can—is not a success. So, we can’t expect to get anything sensible out of the EU. In these circumstances, is it not incumbent upon all political parties in this country to support the broad aims of the British Government, which are to have the freest possible trade with the European Union and to protect the interests of citizens—both EU citizens in this country and also British citizens in the EU? This is plainly what the Government, in its shambolic way, is trying to do, but, nevertheless, the aims are ones that we should all support.

Well, I support those principles, but let me take him back to the referendum last year. We were told by his party and his party leader that the EU would strike a deal quickly because the EU were afraid of the UK; it was untrue. We were told that German car manufacturers would put pressure on the EU to strike a deal; that was untrue. We were told by his own party leader that the UK could look more like Norway, but now we’re told it shouldn’t look like Norway at all. The fantasies that were peddled last year are now coming home to roost. The reality is that the EU is not afraid of the UK—why on earth should it be? He is right—the EU wants to keep the EU 27 together. Of course it does; that would have been blindingly obvious to most people last year, but not to his own party. Now, the principles he has expounded I agree with—who would not want to see the freest possible trading agreement? Who would not want to see the rights of citizens protected? The problem is that while we know what the EU’s position is, we have still no idea of what the UK’s position is and what kind of deal it wants. That’s the problem.

We indeed know what the EU’s position is—they don’t want to do a deal, therefore the whole process is a waste of time. Of course, he’s quite wrong—we didn’t say in UKIP last year that the Germans would do a deal; we said it was in their economic interest to do so. And indeed, given that they have this year a €42 billion trade surplus with Britain, if they don’t support a free trade deal they will be cutting off their nose to spite their face, which they may well want to do in order to keep the fourth reich together. Nor, of course, could we in UKIP determine what anybody else in any other party would be doing in any country in the EU. All that we said last year was that it is in everybody’s rational self-interest that we do a deal to make trade as free as it possibly can be. But if they don’t want to do a deal, 85 per cent of the global economy is outside of the EU—that’s growing, and we should be concentrating on other parts of the world. Therefore, what we should be doing now is scaling down the Department for Exiting the European Union and transferring those officials to the Department for International Trade, and concentrating on getting on with the real business of making Brexit a success in the rest of the world.

Well let me tell you what Liam Fox said to me when we had a meeting of all the Ministers in the Joint Ministerial Council. He said that all 53 free trade agreements that the EU had with other countries would automatically apply to the UK. Rubbish—it was rubbish. So, that gives an indication of my faith in the Department for International Trade. He cannot get away from the reality that his party, his leader, went on and on and on saying the EU will do a deal with us quickly. The German—[Interruption.] We heard it—the German car manufacturers will force the EU to do a deal. The German car manufacturers are more interested in the EU-27 than they are in the UK.

He talks about preparing for the no-deal Brexit. What does that mean? It means border posts. Well, customs officers are not being recruited. Apparently, we’re told there will be some kind of a strange pre-notification procedure on the UK side of any border that wouldn’t apply in the channel ports, and apparently it would apply magically on the open border that would exist with the EU in the Republic of Ireland. It’s cloud-cuckoo-land—the whole thing is cloud-cuckoo-land. The most sensible way of dealing with Brexit is to make sure we have the best relationship we can with our biggest market. If he thinks there’s going to be a free trade deal with the United States, he can go and speak to be the Bombardier workers. The US will look after itself. It has a Government that was elected on the basis of America first. It’s not going to do the UK any favours, and it’s quite clear that that is not what it’s going to do. Free trade agreements with countries that have considerably lower standards of living than we do end up with jobs being exported. Ask the Americans and the North American free trade agreement—it is what happened. Jobs were exported to Mexico and many of the midwest towns lost their jobs as a result of it, and that’s what he’s advocating—that kind of free trade agreement. The reality is we need to have the closest possible trading relationship with one of the world’s biggest markets—bigger than America—that’s on our doorstep, which we have a land border with. If we can’t do a deal with them, we have no chance of doing a deal with anybody else.