Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Steffan Lewis. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Last night, of course, it was revealed that the draft text had been agreed between the UK and the EU on the UK separation from the European Union, and the political fallout is well under way. I suspect that I know the answer to the opening question but, for the record, is the Cabinet Secretary able to tell us whether or not the Welsh Government has had sight of the draft text? And has there been a conversation between the Prime Minister and the First Minister on the contents of that draft text, either overnight or today? 

Llywydd, neither the Welsh nor the Scottish Government have had advanced sight of the text so far. I was in London yesterday for the latest meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations and was able to discuss the content of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, and, indeed, the explainer document that is to be published alongside it, with the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and with Scottish Ministers as well. I understand that the First Minister is speaking with the Prime Minister later this afternoon.  

I thank him for that answer. Of course, yet again, it's disappointing that the so-called respect agenda, one that the Cabinet Secretary himself said that he hoped would begin as a result of the agreement between his Government and the UK Government on the withdrawal Bill, and one that would see a shift in attitudes and patters towards discussions with devolved administrations—. And, again, Wales seems to be treated with the same old contempt. Apparently, there are reports that the Government of Gibraltar have had sight of the text. I wonder if he could confirm whether that is indeed the case, and whether he thinks it's acceptable for one government, that's not even in the United Kingdom, to have sight of the draft text and for governments within the UK not to. 

I appreciate the fact that, without the detail, it's very difficult to be specific, but one of the rumours emanating from the draft text so far is that, under the draft text, Northern Ireland will remain effectively in the EU single market for goods. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that that would give Northern Ireland an unfair competitive advantage, making Wales less attractive for inward investment? And, if so, isn't that basis enough for the Welsh Government to oppose the draft withdrawal agreement? 

Well, Llywydd, as Steffan Lewis said, I'm yet to see either the withdrawal agreement draft or the political declaration. I don't think it is sensible for me to speculate on aspects that may or may not be included in it when we do get to see it, nor, I'm afraid, do I have any knowledge of whether the Government of Gibraltar has had any additional insight into the content of the documents. What I can say is that both I and Mike Russell, on behalf of the Scottish Government, made the first point that he made and made it forcefully with UK Ministers yesterday: other governments of the United Kingdom ought to see these documents before they are concluded and discussed at the UK Cabinet level, not afterwards. 

I appreciate, again, that the lack of detail does make things difficult but we do have a clear indication of many aspects and, of course, we are able to use the Welsh Government's own position in 'Securing Wales' Future' and to contrast it and compare it with what we do know from the draft text as things stand. We know Wales will not have full participation in the single market, we know we will not maintain our membership of the EU customs union, and we know that Northern Ireland apparently will effectively be staying in the single market and that it's likely that a new customs border will therefore appear in the Irish Sea with bad consequences for Wales. And, in addition to all of this—the detail and the actual ground consequences—politically nobody wants this deal. No remainer wants this deal and no leaver wants this deal; nobody wants what is apparently on offer. There is no mandate from anywhere or anyone for this form of Brexit.

The political context here in Wales, of course, is very important. The Cabinet Secretary, in the next few weeks, may well become the most senior elected Labour politician in the United Kingdom. What he thinks and what he says and his clarity on this matter is very, very important indeed and will have lasting consequences. So, can he tell us whether or not his own position is changing on this matter? Will he now finally come out and say that the only way to resolve this mess and avoid a bigger mess and a disaster is through a referendum of the people? No more pointless general elections, no more repeated parliamentary impasses, but a people's vote to resolve this and avoid disaster.

Where I do agree with what Steffan Lewis said is in the initial point that he made—that the tests that we will apply to this agreement are the tests that we set out in the White Paper that we published jointly with Plaid Cymru, 'Securing Wales' Future'. 

Now, he has not seen the agreement and neither have I, but he wants to draw conclusions without seeing it. I'm not in the position to do that, but the tests that he outlined—whether it involves our continued participation in a customs union, whether it gives us full and unfettered access to the single market, whether it includes a sensible resolution on migration—all of the tests that we set out in that document are the tests that I will apply when we have sight of the agreement itself. He has drawn some conclusions as to what the outcome of that would be and I dare say there will be people who say that his conclusions are not unreasonable, but I will wait to see the document and then I will apply the tests that we jointly agreed ought to be applied to any form of leaving the European Union.

Where I don't agree with him is that there is only one way in which all of this could be resolved. The first way it could be resolved is for the Prime Minister to do a deal that does measure up to the tests that we have set out for her—a deal of that sort was there to be done; that's why we set it out in our document. If the agreement, when we see it, does pass the tests that we have set, then we would no doubt wish to support it, so it could be resolved in that way.

If the Prime Minister does not do a deal of that sort, and if she is not able to secure support for her deal on the floor of the House of Commons, then, of course, there should be a general election. The House of Commons will have failed to discharge the most significant responsibility that will lie at its feet during this Assembly term—pardon me, during this parliamentary term. In any previous set of circumstances, a Government that failed to secure support for its most significant course of action would go back to the country and allow the country to decide in a general election. Now, the Member will say, and I've heard other people saying it, that that won't happen. Well, nothing can be written out of the script, given the febrile state of politics around this issue.

If there is no general election, then I agree with him: then there must be a people's vote. If the House of Commons cannot resolve it and there is no general election, then a third way must be found. And, in those circumstances, I agree with him: the decision must go back to the people and the people must be allowed to decide.

Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to ask you about funding available to the local government portfolio and vis-à-vis to our local authorities. As you're well aware, Welsh local authorities have been less than satisfied with the local government settlement this year, citing £262 million of budget pressures. Meanwhile, the First Minister has claimed that local government will be front of the queue should there be extra money from the UK Government's budget and the Welsh Government has also said that local government will be a key priority should there be that additional funding. As the UK Government is providing additional funding to the tune of £550 million over the next three years, how much of this will be allocated to Welsh local authorities? 

Well, Llywydd, the Member knows perfectly well that when he quotes that figure of £550 million, that is not free money, that is not money just available to be allocated—£365 million of that was pre-announced back in July of this year, and it now turns out that, of that £365 million, UK Ministers have spent over half of it before a penny of it crosses the border to be allocated in the National Assembly for Wales. I am giving very careful consideration to what remains of the consequentials from the budget—consequentials that have to last for over three years, consequentials that include capital, financial capital and revenue components. So, not all of this money is money that will help local authorities meet the pressures that they, quite rightly, report to us.

The First Minister has said, as Nick Ramsay said, that local government is at the front of the queue. There's a clue in that formula: they are at the front of the queue, but there is a queue. There are many other things that we know we would like to do in Welsh public services as we enter the ninth year of austerity. Many of those things will no doubt be advocated by members of his party on the floor of the Assembly this afternoon, asking for more money for this, and more money for that, and more money for something else again. What I have to do is to use the very limited amount of money that came to us in the Chancellor's budget to balance those competing priorities, but I repeat what I have said and what the First Minister has said: the needs of Welsh local government are first in our thoughts as we go about that difficult business.

So, I think we can read from that that 'front of the queue' doesn't necessarily mean first in the queue. Cabinet Secretary, whether we're talking about £550 million—you think it's a lower figure—I think the point is that there is additional funding. I think we can be agreed on that. There is additional funding through consequentials as a result of that UK budget. I'll give you this: you are consistent, to say the least, about your arguments on austerity. Yet, today, the Cabinet Secretary for public services has released a statement outlining that councils are sitting on around £1.4 billion of usable reserves. Furthermore, in spite of the Welsh Government's claims about austerity, he notes that the evidence shows that, in recent years, the levels of reserves held by some local authorities have continued to increase. For example, Rhondda Cynon Taf is holding onto £152 million of usable reserves—nearly one and a half times the size of the reserves held by Cardiff, and eight times the size of the reserves held by Monmouthshire. RCT, of course, has the third highest settlement in the draft budget. Cardiff council, which had the best local government settlement under the draft budget, has increased its usable reserves by 17 per cent since 2016. Meanwhile, Anglesey, Conwy and Monmouthshire, which had among the worst settlements under the draft budget, have the lowest amount in usable reserves. Do you think this is indicative of a fair or unfair local government settlement, and what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services to do something to address this issue?

Well, I thank the Member, Llywydd, for that. First of all, let me correct what he said. When I say that local government is at the front of the queue, I do mean they are first in the queue. I'm simply pointing out to you that there is a queue—a queue behind them. Now, I anticipated that the Member for Monmouth might have wanted to ask me this afternoon about support for small businesses through small business rate relief. It's a subject on which he corresponds with me with assiduity. But apparently he's not worried about them this afternoon, because the largest sum of money that we get in the—[Interruption.] The largest sum of money we get as a consequential is for small business rate relief. If his advice to me this afternoon is that I should give all that money to local government and do nothing for small businesses in Wales, I'd be grateful to know that that is his advice to me.

Turning to the question that he raised about reserves, when he says 'usable reserves', what he is confusing is the fact that the largest component of those reserves is money held for things that are already committed: in other words, important schemes in housing, in education, in transport, where local authorities are planning ahead; they've got a scheme they know they have to fund—absolutely properly, they hold money in their reserves in order to be able to fund those important priorities into the future. Nevertheless, the point made by the Cabinet Secretary for local government, and echoed in Nick Ramsay's question, is that some local authorities do have a rising amount of unallocated funds in their reserves. And in very tough times—and I absolutely recognise the challenges faced by local government—just as I have to manage the reserves of the Welsh Government and to release money from my reserves to make sure that we can do the things that we need to do, it's incumbent on local authorities to make equally sensible use of reserves that they are holding that could be deployed to support public services in their area.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I could, of course, have asked you about support for small businesses, and we know that there was around £25 million as a result of the UK budget—that, across the border in England, money is being used to reduce business rates for businesses with a rateable value of up to £50,000 by a third. And I'll keep that one for another day. [Interruption.] But you may well—[Interruption.] I'm trying to establish whether or not you agree with the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, because he certainly has changed his tune somewhat on the issue of reserves. Last year he said that he would always hesitate before he would seek to impose upon local government. Now he's stated, in his written statement, that local authorities with high levels of reserves to their spending should review the purposes for which these are held, and that the purposes for holding the reserves, particularly where they are increasing, should be communicated clearly. So, that's not just me saying that, or this side of the Chamber; that's your colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for public services. So, isn't it fair to say, Cabinet Secretary, that, in light of potentially large council tax increases in some local authorities, council tax payers will be wondering why there is so much held in reserve, and, if this issue was sorted out, then—yes, it is a small cake at the moment, and you're right, there have been difficult challenges for local government, but perhaps if some of this money was used then there wouldn't be such a burden on other areas.

Well, I don't disagree with the point that the Member is making. These are very difficult times for local authorities. I will do whatever I can with the money we received in the budget to mitigate some of the challenges that they face. Where they have other sources of funding available to them, it is right that they should think very carefully about how they can put that money to work to support local services, and I've no doubt, in the way that my colleague Alun Davies said, their local populations will look carefully to see that they are making good use of all the funds that are available to them. I think that's something that our local authority colleagues do all the time, but, in a moment when pressures are particularly acute, it's right to point to the fact that, as well as money that they get from Welsh Government, there are other sources of funds available to them, and that they have to think of planning their expenditure in the round.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, if I could take you back to the Brexit issues that you were talking about a few minutes ago, in September of this year you said, speaking about workers' rights, that, and I quote:

'In Wales we have always said, since the referendum, that all the rights we've won through our membership of the European Union must be protected. If the Tories cannot deliver a Brexit that guarantees that will happen, then the people must decide.'

End quote. Now, you clarified a few minutes ago, responding to Steffan Lewis's questions, that, under certain circumstances you would support another referendum, but, if there is another referendum, then that raises the prospect of full membership of the single market and in turn puts free movement of labour back on the table. But free movement of labour is something that doesn't seem to have been supported by Jeremy Corbyn, according to statements that he's made within the last two years, when he's said that there should be no more 'wholesale importation' of low-skilled workers from central Europe, because this would help to destroy working conditions in the UK. Therefore, thinking about those comments, would the Cabinet Secretary accept that, if the Welsh Government is to support another referendum on EU membership for the supposed reason of protecting workers' rights, then it would in fact be threatening workers' rights and, moreover, undermining one of the main reasons why working-class people in Wales voted to leave?

Well, the approach to migration that is advocated by the Welsh Government was set out in detail in our document, 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People'. It's an elaboration of the section in the joint paper that we published with Plaid Cymru on that matter. Welsh businesses, Welsh public services and Welsh universities depend upon their ability to go on recruiting people from other parts of the world who we are lucky enough to have attracted to come and make their future part of our future here in Wales. When I discuss this matter with the Confederation of British Industry and other business organisations, the point that they make to me all the time is that it is the jobs of people who are already here and living in Wales that depend upon their ability to attract people from elsewhere to come to be part of that workforce. If you are running a hotel in sparsely populated mid Wales, and you are employing 80 people who live locally already, but your hotel needs 20 other people in order to be able to run successfully, if you can't attract the 20 people from elsewhere, it's the jobs of the 80 people that are put at risk, not the jobs of the 20 people, and that's why fair movement of people is not simply good for the people who might come from elsewhere to make their futures here, but it's good for us all. That's the sensible approach to migration, and that's the approach that is advocated in our document on fair movement.

Which was always covered by visas.

Labour seems to have moved into a position whereby it's coming up with the philosophical justification for cheap labour. Now, if there is a shortage of workers, workers can be attracted by increasing wages. This is a simple relationship. As you know, it's an economic relationship. You seem to be saying that you prefer the interests of big business—you cited the CBI—over the interests of working people in Wales. Would you not agree that that's the position you've just elucidated?

It's completely nonsensical, Llywydd—what the Member says. Consultants working in our national health service from elsewhere—they're not low-paid workers in the way that the Member suggested. Researchers working in our universities on projects that put Wales in a world-leading position as far as research is concerned—those are not low-paid workers. Nor is the small firm in Cardiff that spoke to me recently about its inability to recruit IT workers that are essential to that small business, and where they rely on people coming from elsewhere in the world to assist the other people who work here already. Those are not low-paid jobs either. It's a parody of the real position that the Member offers us, and no wonder that he has so little traction here in this Chamber or beyond.

The example you just raised yourself two minutes ago was of hotel workers. It wasn't of high-paid consultants and high-skilled consultants, it was hotel workers. Would you consider, if you do become the next leader in this place, renaming your party 'Cheap Labour'? 

It's not worth a serious answer, Llywydd.