I now call on the party leaders to question the First Minister. Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru. 

First Minister, I've raised the question of homelessness with you several times this year, in the hope that you would take further action. Recent plunging temperatures have given this topic a new level of importance. In October, I asked you to abolish the Pereira test, which would end priority need so that everybody who's found to be homeless is then entitled to accommodation. At that time, you chose to answer a different question. You answered by saying that you didn't believe that welfare should be devolved. Can I therefore have an answer to my actual question today? Will you abolish the Pereira test, which would end priority need and intentional homelessness?

Well, I think we should tread carefully in terms of looking at tests. What I can say is that we as a Government, of course, have delivered legislation to deal with homelessness. We know that many, many thousands of people have avoided homelessness because there is a duty now to be proactive in avoiding homelessness. Nevertheless, it still exists. I was at the purple bus last night with the Salvation Army. I saw and heard stories of people who are homeless and the multiple difficulties that many, many of them face. It was made clear to me that there needs to be an individual, tailored package for individuals in order to address the issue of homelessness for them.

Of course, we saw the sad news about the young woman who died in Cardiff, and that is something that I'm sure all Members would express great regret about. But in terms of looking to deal with homelessness, that is something that we've addressed via legislation.

Well, that's a change in tone to when my colleague, Bethan Jenkins, asked a similar question to the Government, when it was said to her that priority need could be reviewed. Abolishing priority need and intentionality is one of the steps we need to take towards moving towards a housing-first approach. That's the only way that we can tackle homelessness in the long run, and in the meantime we've got a crisis of rough sleeping. People are dying on the streets, First Minister. Still people are falling through the gaps. Street sleepers face great risks, and it's not helped by some of the stories I've heard, for example, where sleeping bags have been confiscated from street sleepers. Now, I can't corroborate that, but, if it is happening, will you join me in condemning those responsible?

Turning to your responsibilities as a Government, do you honestly believe that your Government is doing enough to tackle homelessness this winter?

Well, listening to what people said to me last night, it was clear that there are some people who have lived on the streets for years, and for some people it seems to be a choice that they make. For most it's not, of course; it's something that they find themselves having to deal with. What I did hear last night is that many people find that they are able to get accommodation within weeks, sometimes within one week. Could I pay tribute here to the work of the Salvation Army and the outreach work they do with the people who come to the purple bus?

She asked me particularly: what is humane about taking sleeping bags away from people, especially when the weather is so cold? People need as much insulation, if I can call it that, as they can in order to avoid dying in the cold weather. Nobody, surely, could agree with that course of action.

She asked what we are doing. We are already providing £460,000 to support a range of third sector services helping rough sleepers in Cardiff, including night shelters, outreach services and a day centre. In August, we announced an additional £218,000 for services in Cardiff to support rough sleepers, including improved emergency accommodation and funding for a new housing-first programme in the city. We have announced an additional £20 million to support homelessness services over the next two years in our draft budget, and we will shortly be announcing an action plan to tackle rough sleeping, which has been developed with front-line services.

I'm just staggered to hear you say that some people are on the streets out of choice. If they are there out of choice, we're talking about a tiny, tiny number of people, and that is because there are no other options for them.

Recently, the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, announced that he was strengthening the severe weather emergency protocol. Now, this means that emergency cold weather shelter for homeless people will kick in as soon as the temperature dips below zero for one night instead of the UK Government's three-day minimum period. Now, I've had information that confirms that even that three-day period doesn't apply to Wales, let alone the stronger protocol that's going to be coming in in Manchester, and I've been informed that the Welsh Government has guidance asking local authorities to come up with a written plan but that none of this is binding. Now, that's clearly inadequate. It's not right that homeless people in Wales face a weaker protocol than they do in Manchester under a Labour Government. Will you confirm that that information is correct—that the guidance is non-binding—and if it is, will you now strengthen it to reduce the risks that people face from being forced to live on the streets, especially over Christmas?

I was very surprised last night to be told that, for some people, that's what they were choosing to do. I think it's more to do with the fact that they find it difficult to cope with any other circumstance they find themselves in. They are a minority, that's right, and I was quite surprised to be told that last night. The vast majority of people—no, of course they don't choose to be living on the streets. For them, the impression I got last night is that it's easier to help them, because for them—. Well, that's what I was told. We can speculate as to why that is, but that's what I was told. Nevertheless, we know that there are people sleeping rough on the streets, and dealing with them is hugely important in order to be able to help them for the future.

With regard to the guidance, that is something I can write to her on. What I can say is that if guidance is not observed then of course we will look to take steps to strengthen the support that's in place for homeless people. That, of course, will form part of the action plan that we're developing in the future.

Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As this is the last Plenary before the Xmas recess, may I wish the First Minister and other Members the compliments of the season? And in particular, hopefully, a happy and peaceful new year as well, First Minister.

First Minister, over the last couple of weeks, I've asked several questions in this Chamber and I've been reviewing those questions over the last couple of days. As we are now going into recess, I'd be grateful if you could provide some clarity to some of the answers that you have given over the last couple of weeks, namely: did you meet a former Member of your Cabinet in October 2014 to discuss their concerns about the behaviour of one of your special advisers?

I think the time has come to leave this now for the independent adviser to look at, and the other inquiries. To have individual questions about individual dates three years ago—I mean, clearly, that's a piecemeal approach. I think the reasonable approach to this now is to let the independent adviser get on with his work, to let the investigation get on with its work, and of course, ultimately, the inquest.

I am grateful that those inquiries are under way, but I do think it is appropriate in this Chamber where we are elected to ask these questions, because if we don't ask those questions then what is our role? That's what First Minister's questions is about. I have to say, as I have spoken to people who don't normally show much of an interest in Welsh democracy, this is an issue that they have taken great interest in, like myself, and some of the answers do require some clarity over. That was a really straightforward question, asked succinctly, and I just wanted a simple answer for that. So, maybe if I try you on another question: were you, at any time in October 2014, made aware either by Ministers or special advisers of concerns about the behaviour of one of your special advisers, and did you ask another special adviser to make inquiries on these assertions?

Again, oral statements three years ago are things that I—. It wouldn't be right to comment on this without looking at the whole picture. As I say, I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the fact that we have now a number of inquiries running, that it's for those inquiries—and they are independent inquiries—to look at these issues now in the round. I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach.

I do regret again that you haven't been able to give me an answer to the second question. [Interruption.] With the greatest of respect, that is an elected Member's ability, to come to this Chamber—that's the privilege that we have as elected Members—to ask those questions. That's what First Minister's questions and ministerial questions and statements are about. We choose the questions, we try and elicit the answers. I do regret, on two rather straightforward questions, which are topical, that you have not been able to give me a more concise answer, in particular to clear up some of the answers that you've given over the last five weeks.

On two other occasions, I have asked you, and you haven't provided me with an answer: would you lift collective responsibility to Cabinet Ministers when they give evidence to the independent person you've appointed to make inquiries? On both occasions, and on a third occasion when Darren Millar has asked you the question, you still have not given a 'yes' or 'no' to that answer. Will you confirm that you will lift collective responsibility for Ministers to make those representations to the independent person if they so wish?

Collective responsibility applies to policy, it has never applied to anything else, and I made that particularly clear. But I think it is important that, with all these issues—and serious questions have been asked, I understand that, and they need answers, and they will get answers. But I do think it's important that those answers are provided as part of a whole picture. It's not right that people should pick out little bits, mention them, and then not give the full context in terms of which answers are given, for example, or the context of what happened some years ago. Now, he's asked questions, and I understand he wants answers. All these matters will be dealt with as part of the independent inquiry. I can't see that anybody reasonable out there would see that there's anything wrong with that. It's hugely important that those inquiries now are able to get on with their work. If people are serious about engaging with those inquiries then, of course, they should make their representations to the people running them.  

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. There's clearly no point in pursuing the line of questioning that the leader of the Conservatives has embarked upon, as you're determined to kick this issue as far into the long grass as possible, so I'd like to turn to something else.

I wonder if the First Minister saw in The Times last Thursday a news story under the headline 'End of wind turbine "blight" after Lake District campaign', which refers to the demolition of a major windfarm development. This is the first time this has ever happened after 25 years, because planning permission for extension was refused on grounds that the windfarm desecrated an area of outstanding natural beauty. This follows numerous examples in England and, indeed, in Northern Ireland where the protection of majestic landscapes has been given higher priority than reducing carbon dioxide emissions. I wonder if the First Minister, therefore, will follow this lead for Wales and give greater protection to our own majestic landscapes, rather than reducing carbon dioxide emissions.  

Technical advice note 8 does that, of course, because when TAN 8 was first developed it recognised, for example, that there were special conditions in national parks and there were particular areas where wind applications were due to come. He mentions wind turbines but nothing else. Is he saying, for example, that opencast is fine? Is he saying that other forms of energy like nuclear energy—? We support nuclear energy; we want to see a new nuclear power plant on Anglesey. But I don't think it's right to pick out windfarms and say they are particularly more of a blight on the landscape than anything else. Some people love them, some people hate them. That's what I've discovered over the years. What we do know is that we do need more sources of energy. We need our nuclear plants, that's true, but we also need to make sure that we have renewable sources of energy that create energy security—or are we saying that we need to import energy from other countries, which is something I'd be surprised if he was advocating? One way of doing that is to harness a renewable natural resource like wind, and also the tidal lagoon. We're still none the wiser as to whether the UK Government will back the tidal lagoon. We have out here in the Bristol channel one of the highest tidal reaches in the world. It is energy that will always be there as long as the moon is above us, and yet no decision yet from the UK Government. We need to make sure that we harness the renewable resources that we have, and it's about time the UK Government took a decision, supporting the tidal lagoon.   

I rise to the challenge that the First Minister gave to me. No, I would take exactly the same view of proposed opencast developments that intrude upon areas of outstanding natural beauty, and similarly with nuclear power stations. Indeed, there would be no Hinkley Point power station in prospect if it weren't for the UK Government's decision to pay ridiculous amounts of money for energy to be produced in many years' time, more than twice the going rate that we have at the moment. So, I agree with the First Minister in that respect. 

He'll know that there have been many controversial projects involving windfarms in mid Wales. There is one currently, in respect of which there's an appeal, at Hendy windfarm near Llandegley Rocks in Radnorshire. The chairman of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales in Brecon and Radnor says that

'The Hendy wind farm will have serious impacts, particularly on local landscape, historic culture, ecology and tourism. Let’s not forget one in six Welsh jobs depends on tourism.'

So, there is always a balance to be drawn in these cases, but I think the question of proportionality comes into play here. Wales is irrelevant, actually, in the context of reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the entire planet. We produce maybe 0.1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. The whole UK produces only 1 per cent, so it makes no difference in terms of carbon dioxide emissions globally if Wales participates in this grand green project or not, but it does make a vast difference to the people of mid Wales if their landscapes are desecrated by having forests of windmills all over the place, and that impacts also on the tourism economy. So, what I'm asking, First Minister, is for more proportionality in the Welsh Government's policy on green energy.   

The proportionality is already there. It's not all focused on one form of energy. I can't comment, obviously, on any appeal that is ongoing. What I can say to him is this: Wales is never irrelevant. Wales is never irrelevant, and we have a role to play in terms of reducing greenhouse gases for the good of all humanity. 

The impact upon the planet from carbon dioxide emissions in Wales is, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant—that's the point I was making—given that our output is so small, whereas the effect on landscapes is immediate and apparent.

But on that note, I would like to wish the First Minister a happy Christmas and a successful new year, to congratulate him on the dexterity with which he's dodged or deflected most of the questions that I've asked him over the course of the year, and to look forward to many repetitions of today in the course of the next 12 months. 

Well, 'damned by faint praise' I'd call that. I return the compliment to him. I look forward to more relevant questions from him in the future. Nevertheless, he and I will not agree when it comes to climate change. In terms of carbon emissions, I take the view that the vast bulk of science shows us that climate change is happening and that human beings have an effect on climate change, and we in Wales must play our part, just like any other country.