We'll now turn to the party leaders to question the First Minister, and the first this afternoon is the leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch. First Minister, do you believe that the Welsh Government has an obligation to implement universal childcare, which, and I quote,

'helps address the impacts of poverty and narrows the attainment gap when children start school'?

We have a very firm manifesto commitment, which we'll be taking forward.  

First Minister, that quote that I used was from the leadership bid of the Cabinet Secretary for Children, Older People and Social Care. As I highlighted last week, your Government is slashing school meals provision. We have Cabinet Secretaries in your Government who say one thing and then do the exact opposite. Now, the children's commissioner has lamented your childcare legislation as a large subsidy—[Interruption.]—as a large subsidy for some of Wales's highest earning families that is likely to reinforce inequalities.

First Minister, you continue to turn your back on the politics of progress in favour of the politics of poverty. Do you accept that your regressive childcare offer is likely to reinforce inequality, or is it your view that the children's commissioner is wrong?

Well, two things: let's kill this myth first of all that somehow the free-school-meal provision in Wales is worse than in England. It isn't. There are 3,000 more children who will receive free school meals as a result of what we're doing as a Government. An extra £10 million has been put into the budget in order for that to happen. So, this idea that, somehow, school meal provision is being slashed is simply untrue—it's simply untrue. I've already given the figures in terms of the finances and in terms of the children who will be affected.

We put forward a radical and innovative plan to help working parents. That's what the offer is for—for working parents, because we know how difficult it can be for people to go back into work with the costs of childcare. And this is what this is designed to do—to help those people who want to get to work, to remove a barrier to employment and provide the childcare that people need at a time when they need that help in order to move back into the world of employment. That's what the scheme is designed to do.

Just like your school meals policy, with this, children will lose out. Parents will lose out, and in particular those who are struggling the most—[Interruption.]—those who are struggling the most will lose out as a result of your childcare legislation. Now, studies from Ireland to Australia to here in Wales show that one of the biggest barriers to people seeking work is access to high-quality childcare, and it's those very people—the people who are looking for work or those in education or in training—that your policy will exclude from childcare support. So, First Minister, this is a regressive policy. You'll be able to get free childcare if you're a couple earning £200,000, but if you're a struggling parent trying to get back into work or into training you will be denied such support. How is this compatible with your supposedly socialist values, First Minister?

Well, again, I come back to the point I made, which she didn't seem to have picked up on, which is this: when it comes to free school meals, the offer we put on the table means £10 million more a year and 3,000 more children will receive free school meals. I don't see how that's slashing free school meals. Let's make that absolutely clear now. 

Secondly, there is the pay scheme, of course, which helps people get back into work, but she seems to contradict herself. On the one hand she says it should be a universal scheme; then she says it should be a scheme to help people get back into work. This is what it's designed to do—to help people get back into work and to offset the costs of childcare that they'd otherwise have to pay, which makes it less attractive to go into work. Now, if that's what she's saying we should be doing, we are doing it and we will take forward our manifesto offer and deliver the most generous childcare offer anywhere in the UK.

The leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, are you ashamed of the accident and emergency waiting times at Wrexham Maelor and Ysbyty Glan Clwyd hospitals, which were the worst ever on record, published this month?

They must improve, there's no question about that, but, if we see performances elsewhere in the NHS, we see that A&E provision is improving. Clearly, there is a challenge that Betsi Cadwaladr must meet in order to reduce the waiting times at those hospitals.

Well, First Minister, this is a health board that has been under direct Welsh Government control for almost three and a half years. What is there to show for your staged improvement and transformation plans? Well, the record speaks for itself: 1,900 patients waited longer than 12 hours at A&E services in north Wales—this is more than all the other health boards combined; this summer, more than 5,000 hours were lost because ambulances were delayed handing over patients at north Wales hospitals; in the last 12 months, 26,000 patient safety incidents were recorded, 10,000 more than in Cardiff, and 233 of these have been severe incidents, more than double those in Cardiff; in the last three years, the health board has overspent by £88 million and has more than 2,000 patients waiting over a year for treatment. These are shocking statistics, and behind these figures are real people who are suffering as a result of your sheer incompetence to help this health board improve. For three years you have been responsible for these services and have set benchmarks to see this health board improve. You are clearly failing the people of north Wales, so can you now tell us what you and your Government are going to do about this? What specific measures are you now going to take to start addressing this very serious situation?

Well, we acknowledge that performance on those two sites is unacceptable. That's the first thing to say. It's a reflection of pressures and demands on hard-working staff. I've said that I expect the board to put into place meaningful actions to deal with this. Now, what have we done? Well, the board, with £1.5 million-worth of support from Welsh Government, has put in place arrangements to target improvements and actions in respect of the unscheduled care system in the north. We also provided £6.8 million earlier this year to strengthen the health board's operational capacity at each of the three main hospitals in the north, and that package of support is intended to enable the health board to increase its understanding of local challenges and make effective decisions to support immediate improvement. The NHS Wales delivery unit is also working at the Wrexham Maelor site to support local performance management.

Now, as I said, whilst the performance generally is unacceptable, the typical wait in BCU for patients to be seen, assessed and treated or discharged was two hours and 48 minutes in August. Now, given the specific concern, which has been raised in fairness, about the August figures, a 90-day improvement cycle has been put in place and will be a point of focus for the board and clinical teams across the north. We will review the board's 90-day plan and decide whether any additional targeted support is required as a matter of urgency.

First Minister, the people of north Wales are in this position as a result of consistent underfunding, downgrading and neglect on behalf of your Welsh Government. Your sheer incompetence to lead this health board to an improved state is having huge consequences for the people of north Wales and the staff who work tirelessly to deliver their care. The people of north Wales deserve a safe and sustainable health service. Clearly, you have failed. So, here's your chance, First Minister: before you leave, will you now take this opportunity to apologise to the people of north Wales whom you have so badly let down?

First of all, these are two issues at two hospitals that have emerged in August that must be dealt with. He cannot surely stand there and say that austerity has nothing to do with this. When Northern Ireland had £1 billion given to it, a substantial amount of which was for health and education, which drove—[Interruption.] I know it's painful—[Interruption.] I know it's painful, but when a substantial amount was given to health and education, which drove a coach and horses through the Barnett formula, where were the Welsh Conservatives? Mute, silent, indifferent. Let me tell him: he tries to paint a picture of the north of Wales as neglected—it was my great pleasure last week to go to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and to open the sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre—[Interruption.] Whose fault is that? Is it my fault that the SuRNICC has been opened, apparently? There we are. A sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre opened, I remind the party opposite, because I commissioned a report to see whether it would be sustainable to place such a unit in the north of Wales—[Interruption.] As a result of—

Can you all calm down, please, and listen to what the First Minister has to say? Your leader asked the question—I'm addressing Members on the benches to my right—your leader asked a question and we need to hear the answer from the First Minister, without any help from anybody else. Thank you.

As a result of that report, as a result of the action taken by a Welsh Labour Government, there will now be many, many mothers in the north of Wales who will be able to have their babies safely and looked after safely in north Wales, rather than having to travel to Liverpool. He may talk, we deliver. 

Thank you. Leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, which of the following decisions do you think that Natural Resources Wales can be proudest of? Is it the dumping of 300,000 tonnes of nuclear mud approximately 1 mile from Cardiff Bay, or is it giving a licence for a biomass incinerator that neighbours residential properties in Barry dock, or, finally, is it refusing to sell timber from public woodland at market value, potentially fleecing the Welsh taxpayer of £1 million?

Well, the first two issues are operational matters, in terms of permitting. The third issue is a matter that has been well explored and is not acceptable. Clearly, a lack of competence was exhibited by NRW—to have oral contracts, whilst they may be technically legally valid, is not wise. It is much better to have things written down. That's been explored, and rightly so, by the Public Accounts Committee.

May I remind him that his party are not exactly the best party to lecture on the environment? This is a party who, as far as I can see, have no interest in the environment at all, and who wanted to take us out of the European Union, which was singularly responsible for raising Britain's standards, which were so appalling, when it came to the environment, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. There was one river—I believe, the River Irwell in Salford—that, at one time, would catch fire if you threw a lit match into it. It was the European Union that dragged Britain out of the gutter when it came to its environmental standards. 

Now, let's see what UKIP propose in order to preserve and enhance our environment for the future, in the absence of that European framework.

Yes, you're talking about the European Union. I was asking you about your oversight of Natural Resources Wales, but thanks for leading us down a blind alley, First Minister. You mentioned—[Interruption.] You mentioned the oversight of NRW by the Public Accounts Committee, and I'm glad you see a valuable role for the Public Accounts Committee in doing that. Now, your own backbenchers, of course, have an important role to play, a crucial role to play, in scrutinising organisations like Natural Resources Wales. However, we have one backbench Member who has played an exceedingly valuable role on the Public Accounts Committee in giving oversight to Natural Resources Wales. I note that that Member is being rewarded for his sterling work by being removed from the Public Accounts Committee. Doesn't this just prove, First Minister, that you do not want proper scrutiny of organisations run by your Government?

I find it difficult to accept what the leader of UKIP says when he says—. He talks of the importance of the work of the public affairs committee, which I think is correct, and he talks of the need for scrutiny, yet at the same time wants to abolish the Assembly, thereby providing us with no scrutiny at all—over NRW or over anything else. He calls for a second referendum on devolution, and opposes one when it comes to Brexit. So, when it comes to scrutiny, his answer to greater scrutiny is to remove the very scrutineers themselves, making it far more difficult for proper scrutiny to occur. And it's because of that scrutiny that the problems in NRW have helped to be identified. In years gone by, that level of scrutiny would never have been there, in the days before devolution. That scrutiny, rightly so, has been exercised by the Public Accounts Committee, and it is a matter now for NRW, working with ourselves as a Government, to rectify the situation.

Now, to go back to what your Member said, your Member of the Public Accounts Committee, at the height of the timber fiasco, I quote:

'What is going on in NRW? To have their accounts qualified for the third year running is unprecedented and frankly outrageous. I'm struggling to think of an explanation for why this might be. Might it be corruption or incompetence? But it does appear that the forestry section of NRW is out of control... I think there should be accountability from the senior leadership...of this organisation, which does seem to be out of control.'

End quote. Now, you're talking about me wanting to remove scrutiny. I'm talking about wanting to remove this entire useless institution, the Welsh Assembly, which you've been at the heart of for 18 years. The problem is not the scrutiny by backbenchers, because when they do scrutinise, you rubbish it anyway and you remove them from the committees. The point is that the Government—[Interruption.] The Government—[Interruption.] The Government you've been part of for 18 years isn't fit to run these institutions, and that's why the Welsh public gets an awful deal from the Welsh Assembly. Is that not the case, First Minister?

Let me see now. Let me see—there have been two referendums: one in 1997 and one in 2011. He doesn't accept the result, yet he demands—demands—that there should be no referendum at all on the deal with Brexit. His hypocrisy is almost breathtaking. On the one hand, he says we need more scrutiny, and then he says we need to remove all scrutiny, without realising the contradiction in what he is saying. The Member for Llanelli, I'm sure, is delighted by the support that's been given to him by the leader of UKIP. [Laughter.] He is somebody who holds Government to account from the Government backbenches, exactly—[Inaudible.]—as should be done. Lee is somebody—the Member for Llanelli is somebody—who expresses his view, and he is right to do so. That’s what the Government backbenchers are there to do, to make sure that, as a Welsh Labour Government, we get things right.

Now, I'm not sure what he's saying: get rid of the Assembly or get rid of NRW. I don't know. What I do know is that if ever UKIP got to power—and there were seven of them to begin with, and there are four of them now; who knows, there may be far fewer of them in the future, and part of the reason for this is, because UKIP can't win anything, 'Let's try and attack the body that we can't actually win an election to.' But, if ever UKIP ever got to power, we know there'd be no environmental regulatory body; it would be a free-for-all when it came to the environment. Our environment would be destroyed, our beaches would be ruined, all in the name of the mad, free market philosophy that his party wants to expound. And that is the reality of UKIP. We will fight to make sure that the people of Wales, yes, have the Government they deserve, the scrutiny they deserve, and keep the body that they voted for, not just once, but voted for twice, in terms of extra powers.

We return to questions on the order paper. Question 3—Suzy Davies.