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

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, do you agree with me and the Minister for Environment that the current local government settlement is fundamentally unfair? 

No, I don't at all agree with that. There are complex issues around how the settlement works out, and it's all been absolutely agreed through the funding formula with local authority partners and, as my colleague Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, said, very recently, it was done in consultation with the sector groups and the WLGA. It was an agreed formula and it has been distributed in that regard, as you would expect. 

Leader of the house, the environment Minister is absolutely right: this local government settlement is unfair and imbalanced. The local government finance settlement reveals that all six of the north Wales authorities will receive a year-on-year reduction in their funding, and, in comparison, seven—seven—of the 12 south Wales authorities will receive an increase in, or continuation of, the level of funding from last year. So, firstly, it's apparent that we have a north-south divide, and to add to that—to add to that—yesterday, the First Minister—[Interruption.]

We do need to hear the leader of the opposition. Allow him to ask his question, please. [Interruption.] Allow him to ask his question.  

Diolch, Llywydd.

To add to that, yesterday, the First Minister planned to hold a Labour-only exclusive meeting with council leaders who were also urging the Welsh Government to rethink the budget settlement, despite the fact that these were the very councils that had the better side of the deal because of Welsh Government cronyism. [Interruption.] Six of the seven authorities that maintained or increased their funding in this funding settlement were Labour-run councils. You couldn't make this stuff up, leader of the house. Do you not agree with your Labour colleagues that the settlement is fundamentally flawed and that the funding formula needs to be reviewed because it's north Wales councils and rural authorities that will bear the brunt of these Labour-inflicted cuts?

Well, the leader of the opposition says that you couldn't make this stuff up and then proceeds to do so. I can only reiterate what I said in answer to the first part of his question: the funding formula is agreed every year with local government. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance sat in the finance sub-group, and the local authority leaders agreed on the latest set of changes to the formula. By and large, those changes are ones that favoured more rural parts of Wales because they added an additional increment to the recognition of sparsity in the way that the formula operates. Welsh Government does not set the formula; it is set on expert advice and it is agreed by local government. There are a number of factors that impact on whether local authorities have had a decrease in funding this year—for example, if there are fewer people unemployed in the local authority than this time last year, or fewer secondary school pupils in an authority than this time last year, or fewer children claiming free school meals in its primary schools. There is absolutely nothing tribal or cronyistic about any one of these factors. The Member is extremely mischievous in saying so. They are all empirical measures, they feed their way into the formula and, every year, some local authorities see a benefit and some local authorities find that they see less benefit. But the Member is also disingenuous in being part of the Conservative Party that has just put the longest form of austerity in Britain that any Government has ever done—ever—and he must take some of the blame at least for the lack of funding available to Wales during the settlement period. 

I'm not going to take any lessons in spending from the leader of the house and her party, which nearly bankrupted this country in 2010. Now, leader of the house— [Interruption.] 

I can't hear what the leader of the opposition is now saying. Can you please carry on, and can members of the Cabinet in particular refrain from commenting throughout the discussion?

Leader of the house, the environment Minister is not the only one to contribute to the red-on-red fire. The Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning recently said, and I quote,

'we must put our hands up and admit that one area where we have failed to make the impact that we...should have, is the economy'.

Well, I couldn't have said it better myself, Minister. The Welsh Government has failed our economy, and local government is one of its key pillars. It employs over 10 per cent of the Welsh workforce, spends £3.5 billion on goods and services, and promotes economic growth in all regions of the nation, yet successive Welsh Labour settlements consistently hammer the parts of Wales that are often most reliant on the local authority economy. The Welsh Government's consistent neglect of large swathes of Wales has ultimately resulted in regional inequality and a stagnant Welsh economy. Leader of the house, will you now listen to your own colleagues and call on the First Minister to rethink this local government funding settlement so that we have one that is capable of driving forward the prosperity of our nation instead of one that will only entrench regional inequality and council favouritism here in Wales?

Well, I think that the leader of the opposition is entirely wrong in both his premise and his argument. He fails to take any responsibility for having voted a Conservative Government with austerity policies onto the nation. I presume he voted Conservative in the last election and therefore contributed to that. Even if he is now— [Interruption.] I don't know what you're saying from a seated position. If you want to intervene, do say so. But I would say this: you have delivered by far the worst on the Conservative benches for Wales than other colleague Conservatives have done for their regions. So, to talk about regional disparity funding from that vantage point is not a good look. 

I can also say that I am very pleased to see that he is following the hustings and arguments inside the Labour Party so closely; perhaps he can learn a lot from them. 

The leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Lywydd. Leader of the house, I wanted to ask you some questions today related to— [Interruption.] I wanted to ask some questions today relating to the HS2 project. Of course, it isn't a devolved scheme, as we know, but it does have profound consequences for Wales in terms of spending and budgets. We know that the Barnett consequential is supposed to apply where we have major capital projects undertaken by the Westminster Government that do not directly benefit the taxpayer in Wales. What discussions has your Government had with the UK Government over the issue of an HS2 Barnett consequential for Wales?

We've had a lot of conversations about the parlous situation with the Barnettisation of the HS2 spending; there's extensive correspondence to that effect. There clearly ought to be such a consequential, and, Llywydd, I put it on record that the Welsh Government thinks that there should be such a consequential as a result of that spending. We would like our trains to be built here in Wales, we would like the money to facilitate that, and the money to facilitate the services that might link to HS2 across north Wales, for example. But he's absolutely right: we think a consequential should flow from it.

Yes. Thank you for that answer, and I'm glad you appreciate the point. Now, flowing from that—. [Interruption.] It wasn't condescending in any way, leader of the house.

You don't need to respond to comments made from sedentary positions, especially Joyce Watson.

OK. Thank you, Llywydd. Diolch, Llywydd. Sorry, leader of the house, I'll continue with the question. I hope you appreciate that there was no condescension implied.

Now, I'm glad you agreed with me on that point. My researchers have done the calculations to get the Barnett consequential based on the Treasury rules, and we've come up with a figure of around £4.6 billion, which was what Wales should have got. Clearly, there doesn't seem to be any sign of anything like that coming to Wales, so could I just ask for a little bit more clarity, given your first answer? Are you now going back to the UK Government to get a more realistic deal from the UK Treasury regarding this matter?

Yes. We are in constant dialogue with the UK Treasury about this matter, and about the franchise in general, and about our ability to build the new kit in Wales, and to stimulate the economy in so doing.

I suppose, leader of the house, there is an alternative rather than—I mean, this is an alternative way of looking at this—in that your economy Minister, Ken Skates, although he has cited possible benefits of HS2 to north and mid Wales, although fairly small in financial terms, he has also made the point that the HS2 project could have an adverse impact on the economy of south Wales. Because by making journeys quicker from London to the English midlands and the north, you are, relatively speaking, making south Wales further from London. So, that could impact adversely on the economy of south Wales. It's not therefore clear whether there are any net benefits from the HS2 project for Wales. I would point out that UKIP's policy is that the HS2 project is spiralling out of control in terms of costs and should be scrapped. Is there now a case that the Welsh Government could think about lobbying Westminster to try and achieve that end? 

Yes. The rail strategy of the current UK Government is not one with which we are at one, I think it's fair to say. And since he has taken the opportunity to mention the economy of south Wales in relation to trains, the best thing that the UK Government could do is both give us the consequential for HS2 and electrify the train line all the way to Swansea.

Leader of the Plaid Cymru group, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. As leader of the house on 16 October, you told us there would be a debate on the decision on the M4 relief road during the week beginning 4 December. Does the Government plan to announce its decision before that date while the Assembly is in session and not during the recess next week, for example? And will that be through the means of an oral statement to the Assembly? Will that be the First Minister's decision alone, or will there be discussion in Cabinet, and will it therefore be subject to Cabinet collective responsibility?

Since we've been waiting for a decision for at least two decades, would a delay of a few weeks matter a great deal? Would you agree that, since it's a twentieth-century answer to a twenty-first-century problem, it would be wise and proper to leave it to the incoming First Minister who will take over just a week after the proposed date for the debate on the decision?

We're in the process that results from the public inquiry, so, for the benefit of the Assembly, officials have now received the copy of the public inquiry inspector's report, which they are preparing advice on. Once the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport has received that advice and considered the report, he will issue a written statement on the next steps. We've committed to the debate, as the Member rightly says, and a vote in Government time on this project, once all Members have had the opportunity to consider the inspector's report and the decision on the statutory Orders. This debate and vote will be taken into account in final investment decisions on whether to award the construction contracts, and following the inquiry, should the decision be made to proceed to construction, works might commence next year. The Member is right, we have to go through the budget process for that to happen as well. We've already published the environmental information, draft Orders and the associated reporting for the proposed M4 project.

I appreciate, for reasons of accuracy, possibly, that the leader of the house was drawing on her notes there, but could I just press her, because I'm not clear that in her response she covered, for example, whether this will ultimately be a decision for the First Minister alone, or will there be a Cabinet discussion and, therefore, will the Cabinet be bound by collective responsibility in relation to that?

Also, in terms of the vote, can you reassure us, to use Brexit terminology, that it will be a meaningful vote? I mean, will the motion that is tabled be amendable to allow the consideration of other options, whether it's the blue route, for example, or, indeed, actually, an entirely different approach involving investment in public transport? Will the Government—? The language used was typically ministerial—and I mean no disrespect there—in terms of Yes Minister. I wasn't quite clear. Taking cognisance of a vote is one thing, but will this be a binding vote on the Government? Similarly, in relation to the second vote, the budgetary vote as well, if that vote is lost, presumably the Government then will have to listen to the voice of the Assembly expressed in relation to this project.

Yes. To be as clear as it's humanly possible to be, I've said that the debate and vote will be taken into account in final investment decisions, but that it will be in Government time. So, it's a binding vote in Government time on the Government. So, we've structured it in that way. My own backbenchers have been very clear that they want a vote of that sort. And we promised that vote—I promised that vote, as the Member rightly says, in the Assembly. And so, we will do that, but we are in a statutory process and the vote must come at the right point in that statutory process, which is currently timetabled for the week commencing 4 December.

Finally, can you explain why—? Reading the runes of where the Government is in all this—and I accept that, in terms of the statutory process, the due diligence is being gone through—you seem poised to ignore the judgment of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales who says that the Government has vastly exaggerated the economic benefits of the relief road, and that's been echoed most recently by your own backbenchers. She agrees with us about investing the £1.4 billion that is there currently for the black route in other options. I mean, it would be vastly more beneficial. You could double the amount of investment in the south Wales metro and have money left over to invest in reinstating the railway line between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen, based on your own recently published feasibility study. What's the point of being the first legislature in the world to create a future generations commissioner if we ignore her advice on the largest capital decision that the Government's ever made? Doesn't that actually then leave the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as a fairly empty exercise?

No, it doesn't. I disagree with him there. The commissioner provided evidence to the public inquiry, we have the report, it's with officials to prepare advice, and once the relevant Ministers and the Cabinet have the report, I'll be able to answer some of his questions, but I have not yet seen the report. I do not know what it says, and we're in a process in which that report, which was done at some length and took extensive evidence, will provide us with its outcome, and I do not know what that outcome is. I'm not in a position to answer those questions and as soon as we are in that position, as I said, the Cabinet Secretary will issue a written statement on the next steps in the light of that advice, but I don't have that advice yet, so I'm not in a position to say anything more about it. Adam Price makes a very good, valid point about the role of the commissioner, but she provided evidence to that public inquiry, which has, no doubt, taken it into account in providing its inquiry report outcome.