The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, and amendment 2 in the name of Julie James. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on poverty, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Motion NDM6874 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the statement by the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his visit to the United Kingdom.

2. Regrets the report’s findings that:

a) changes to social security have disproportionately hit women, children, and disabled people;

b) Wales has the highest relative poverty rate in the United Kingdom;

c) the Welsh Government lacks a strategic focus on tackling poverty, without clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress and impact;

d)  the Welsh Government’s inability to introduce flexibilities in the administration of universal credit, unlike its Scottish counterpart, will exacerbate the structural causes behind the increase in poverty, rough sleeping, and homelessness; and

e) that poverty is a political choice

3.  Calls on the Welsh Government to:

a) seek the powers to introduce such flexibilities in the administration of universal credit; and

b) publish a robust and meaningful plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress and impact.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Although there has been limited media coverage, the recent statement from the UN rapporteur on extreme poverty was very hard-hitting. I'm therefore pleased to open this Plaid Cymru debate on what our response to that statement should be.

It seems to me that there are a variety of options for any Government when faced with a critical report from the United Nations. The list of countries that have faced critical statements from the UN isn't really a list that any Government should aspire to be on. The UK Government, and their colleagues here, it would seem, has adopted the worst kind of response. Their response is one of denial. It says a great deal, in my view, about the decline of modern-day conservatism that is so ready to accept Trump-style theories about the United Nations being a left-wing conspiracy instead of attempting to engage with this report. Is this what the Conservatives really believe the UN to be? So, we will not be supporting the Conservative amendment.

I now turn to the Government amendment. At least this amendment has the merit of accepting the case made in the report, but at the same time, it deflects any responsibility. And so, we will, of course, be voting against that amendment too.

My colleagues will detail why Wales should have control over the administration of welfare, like Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, they'll be looking at the in-built gender bias that universal credit has created, and I'm sure that most Members, if not all Members here, will be aware, for example, of the rape clause, where a woman has to prove that she was raped before she can draw down any support for a third child.

And while Labour will say that all of these matters are for the Tories in Westminster, then how can the SNP and even the DUP bring protections for their populations from the worst of universal credit? Why is Welsh Labour's approach to allow people in Wales to suffer? My colleagues will also be focusing on those aspects of the statement that highlight the inadequacy of this Government's approach to tackling poverty.

The Welsh Government may well point its fingers at London and dish out the blame, but there are clear criticisms in this statement that can't be deflected by blaming austerity. The statement notes the lack of clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress and the impact of the tackling poverty strategy. It notes that, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, Wales's lack of powers to introduce flexibilities in the administration of universal credit will exacerbate the problems that our people face. Yes, of course, it is outrageous that the Government here has to spend money to mitigate the policies of the UK Government, but you've got to do that anyway. Having control over the administration of universal credit would allow you to actually reduce that cost. How can the Government here still fail to understand that public services face an extra cost when homelessness happens? You face an extra cost when people become chronically ill and malnourished and have to use the NHS. You face an extra cost when schools have to deal with children who can't concentrate because their families rely on food banks. How can the party in Government here continue to want full control to remain in London on this issue due to some pathetic allegiance to a principle about the union offering some shared prosperity when all of the evidence shows that Westminster MPs care little for the prosperity of areas of the union outside the south-east and the home counties.

Thank you. You've stated often that, as a party, you have no confidence in any agreements with the UK. Do you have confidence that Wales will get the necessary budget to accompany any devolved welfare?

Well, they did in Scotland, and I don't hear any Members of Labour arguing that the administration of the criminal justice system shouldn't be devolved just in case the Westminster Government doesn't pass on the cash that goes with it. You argue for the devolution of the criminal justice system on the basis that that cash will come, so you should argue for the devolution of welfare and administration of benefits as well.

We have all known for quite some time that people in our communities are suffering, and they are suffering really bad, and this report now provides us with evidence for that. In his report, the UN rapporteur is quite clear that the Welsh Government can do something about that, too. So, before waiting for poverty in Wales to get even worse, which it will if it's left to itself, now is the chance to act, and this report provides us with the tools that we need to do that.

Thank you. I have selected two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar? Mark.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

 1. Notes the actions taken by the UK Government to address concerns over implementation of universal credit.

 2. Notes that, according to findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report 'Is Wales Fairer?', poverty and deprivation are higher in Wales than in other nations in Britain, Wales is the least productive nation in the UK, and median hourly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland.

 3. Calls on the Welsh Government to publish a robust and meaningful plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress and impact.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch. As the UK work and pensions Secretary Amber Rudd stated last week:

'I know there are problems with universal credit, despite its good intentions. I’ve seen them for myself. I will be listening and learning from the expert groups in this area who do such good work. I know it can be better.'

She added that the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, on his visit to the United Kingdom, used language that actually

'discredited a lot of what he was saying.'

The rapporteur's report made no reference to any of the UK Government actions already undertaken or announced, despite my referring specifically to some of these when committee members met him in the Assembly.

I move amendment 1. As this states, we must note the actions taken by the UK Government to address concerns over implementation of universal credit. The system replaces an overcomplicated system—[Interruption.] I'll finish this sentence, Helen. And the evidence shows that people are more likely to get a job as a result. Helen Mary.

Will Mark Isherwood acknowledge that the Government's own assessment in 2011 highlighted that some of these problems that are arising with universal credit, particularly in how they affect women, were known. They were known in that assessment, which is a public document. How can Amber Rudd—how can you believe Amber Rudd now when she says that she's going to mitigate these effects when the Government that you support knew what those effects would be in 2011?

Because she has lived experience and actually because the support mechanism was launched in Wales in 2013, which this lot have tried to sabotage. The Department for Work and Pensions have been working with the devolved administrations since 2012 on plans for its roll-out, and issued the universal credit local support services framework in 2013, developed with partners including the Welsh Local Government Association, to help claimants not yet ready to budget for themselves and those who need alternative payment arrangements. The Chancellor's 2017 autumn statement announced an extra two weeks' housing benefit, a seven-day cut in the time people have to wait for their first payment, and a year rather than six months to repay hardship loans. Last month, the Chancellor confirmed £4.5 billion funding plus £1.7 billion for increased work allowances. Waiting times will be cut from five to three weeks, debt repayments will be cut, the deadline to switch benefits will be extended to three months, and help for the self-employed will be increased.

Only last Friday, Amber Rudd said that she was going to specifically address the impact of universal credit on women and single mothers, ensure women in abusive relationships have access to payments, and review the five-week wait, payments for housing, access to cash and repayment of loans. DWP are working with employers through Disability Confident to ensure that disabled people and those with long-term health conditions have the work opportunities to fulfil their potential and realise their aspirations. Remploy Cymru's work and health programme in Wales is a UK Government programme to support the long-term unemployed, disabled people and those with health conditions to overcome barriers to employment. At the DWP's request, Citizens Advice have launched a new service to help people make a universal credit claim independently—key—independently of Government, and the DWP has recruited community partnership teams of people with lived experience from expert external bodies to support vulnerable people, upskill Jobcentre Plus staff, and build bridges between the public, private and third sectors.

Independent figures confirm that both unemployment levels and the proportion of low-paid jobs are at record lows, average full-time weekly earnings have seen their biggest rise in over a decade, and UK wealth inequality has narrowed in the past decade. However, many of the levers to tackle poverty in Wales lie with Welsh Government. It's therefore deeply worrying that, after 20 years of Labour Welsh Government, the recent Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales annual review found that Wales is the least productive nation in the UK, that poverty and deprivation are higher in Wales than in other nations in Britain, and median hourly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland. 

Office for National Statistics figures on employee earnings in the UK for 2018 show that average earnings in Wales were lower and have grown slower than in other UK nations in the last year, and that Wales has had the lowest long-term pay growth among the nations of the UK. And last month’s Bevan Foundation poverty rates in Wales report found a higher relative income poverty rate in Wales than England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, a higher proportion of working-age adults in poverty in Wales than in any other UK nation, and a pensioner poverty rate in Wales far higher than in the other UK nations.

This dreadful record of failure, this devastating betrayal, is the true measure of two decades of Welsh Labour rhetoric and buck passing. We therefore call on the Welsh Government to publish a robust and meaningful plan to tackle poverty that contains clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress and impact.

Thank you. Can I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to formally move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Julie James?

Amendment 2—Julie James

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Accepts the report’s findings that:

a) the costs of austerity have fallen disproportionally on the poor, women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, single parents and disabled people;

b) Wales has the highest relative poverty rate in the United Kingdom;

c) devolved administrations have tried to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity despite experiencing significant reductions in block grant funding; and

d) it is 'outrageous' that devolved nations have to spend money to shield people from UK Government policies.

Welcomes the Welsh Government’s focus on tackling poverty, and its repeated calls to the UK Government to urgently address the many flaws related to Universal Credit.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you. If our nation was one that was genuinely civilised, then the statement by the UN rapporteur for extreme poverty would be seen as a moment of awakening once and for all, I think. It should be seen as an appalling situation that a state as rich and wealthy as the UK is put on a list of nations that can’t look after its poorest. I'm afraid that the clear suggestion from the response that there has been to this statement is that the political culture of this state isn't quite as civilised as we might like to think it was.

I’ll try to put it in a language that everyone understands—I’ll talk about money. Not for the first time today, I’ll talk about austerity. We’ve heard the Conservatives arguing that austerity and cuts to the welfare state have been inevitable; they've been vital for economic reasons. It wasn't something that they wanted to do, but they had to do so. And what could be wrong, after all, with hitting the poorest 20 per cent because of problems with regulation in the financial services sector?

But even if you do accept that there was no choice but to cut public expenditure over the past decade, well, central UK Government policy has been a failure. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, for example, said that poverty cost £78 billion to the United Kingdom in measures to respond to or mitigate the effects of poverty. And that doesn't include the welfare state payment: £1 in every £5  spent on public services makes up for the way that poverty has impacted people’s lives. Crisis has modelled the costs of homelessness and suggests that if the United Kingdom continues to allow homelessness to happen, as it does at present, rather than trying to eradicate it, then public services will have to spend £35 billion in addition.

And think about the income that is lost in terms of future earnings to the public purse from the children growing up in poverty and failing to achieve their potential, and their parents using foodbanks, and going to schools that aren’t funded adequately and so on. And, of course, what we see that is of particular relevance to us is that Wales is being impacted disproportionately. In Wales, we have the highest levels of relative poverty in the United Kingdom, with almost one in four people living in relative income poverty. Now, in-work poverty has grown over the past decade, despite the fact that wages have increased. What we have are posts that aren’t good enough. A quarter of the posts—I’ve seen figures—are under the minimum wage, and what this tells us is that public services in Wales are more expensive to run than the UK average in terms of getting to grips with the impacts of poverty. And the way that the Welsh Government responds to this clearly isn’t working. I’d encourage you to read the evidence of Victoria Winckler from the Bevan Foundation to the Finance Committee on 25 October, where she was looking at the budget and failed to see where this budget showed signs of a clear strategy to get to grips with poverty.

We in Wales, we on these benches here, we’re asking why would we, why would anyone, want to be part of a union that does this to us and volunteers to leave things such as the administration of the welfare state to remain in Westminster. The people of Islwyn, yes, as in other parts of Wales, they can’t look to a Welsh Government that is trying to draw down those levers that would allow us to mitigate the impact of the policies that are being pursued by a cruel Conservative Government in Westminster. It’s Labour here that’s failing to seek those powers.

We’ve seen in other parts of these islands those steps being taken in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, and it’s time for us in Wales to say that we have to try to seek those levers—all of those levers—that could be within our grasp to get to grips with the poverty that is a source of shame for us as a nation. Plaid Cymru isn’t asking for the powers for the sake of it; we’re asking for the powers because people are dying and being locked into poverty.

I must say, when I speak to those involved in dealing with the consequences of Government policy and poverty in Wales—the third sector, local authorities, agencies directly providing services—they seem to have a clear understanding that it's the UK Government's austerity agenda that is driving these issues for all of us: Welsh Government, local government, and everybody else that is trying to provide a service or deal with those consequences. 

The committee that I chair, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, has been doing a range of work looking at poverty in Wales since the start of this Assembly. Recently, in fact, we met with the UN special rapporteur, Philip Alston, as part of his visit to the United Kingdom. We found him open, politically neutral and willing to listen. It is very disappointing to hear Conservatives in the UK Government, and indeed here in the Assembly, trying to undermine the role of the rapporteur and the United Nations. I think most people find the United Nations a very august body, doing a very good job with real status and credibility, and a tremendous history. To hear that undermining, attempted undermining, of Professor Philip Alston I think is very unfortunate indeed. He has made a very hard-hitting assessment of UK Government policy and made a clear call for urgent action. We support him on this side of the Assembly, the Labour side, Dirprwy Lywydd, very strongly indeed, because we do believe that major change is needed to end that austerity programme of UK Government, because we're all very conscious of the damage that it's doing and the cumulative impact over the last eight years or so. 

But, of course, we don't ignore the fact that Welsh Government also has a responsibility, and of course we want to see as effective a Welsh Government strategy and set of policies to tackle poverty as we can possibly have. The work of my committee has involved recommending that we need a sharper, clearer focus on tackling poverty here in Wales, Dirprwy Lywydd, with clear targets, indicators, evaluation and monitoring, which makes accountability and scrutiny easier than it currently is, and we want to see progress on that front, and we want to see Welsh Government looking at how necessary improvement might be made. [Interruption.] I give way to Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch. Just on that point about the Government not having an anti-poverty strategy, despite calls from the committee twice, three times, how disappointed are you that we are still without that anti-poverty strategy and that, in fact, we don't even know precisely who the Cabinet Minister responsible for anti-poverty across Government is? I thought it was Ken Skates, but now it's all of you. So, who actually carries the can at the end of the day?

Well, as I said, I think there are issues around accountability and scrutiny. I know the sector outside the Assembly feel that as well, and I think our committee's view is quite clear. There have been various approaches from Welsh Government over a period of time in terms of how you tackle poverty most effectively, and currently Welsh Government obviously stress a collaborative, cross-Government approach. The committee doesn't believe that having a more direct ministerial accountability and an overarching anti-poverty strategy would negate that sort of cross-Government approach that is seen as the best way of dealing with these matters by Welsh Government at the moment. So, I think the committee's view is quite clear, and we are looking for progress and change to that effect. And, whatever happens, we need that clearer focus—a laser-like focus—and more and clearer accountability and scrutiny opportunities. 

Also, Dirprwy Lywydd, I think I need to move on to the administration of welfare in Wales and possible devolution. Again, the committee that I chair is going to do a body of work on this and will look at all the issues, including the financial aspects. We believe that the experience is that there are real problems around the roll-out of universal credit. It's had a terrible impact on rough-sleeping, for example, and we see the evidence of that in all our town and city centres all of the time. And, if we are going to deal with the problems of waiting times when claims are first made, the way the sanctioning regime is taken forward and, in fact, how easy it is to have direct payments of housing benefit to the landlord, then it would be very useful if we had more direct control over that. So, the committee will be looking at those issues in the new year, and that will include looking at the experience in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

UKIP will be supporting the Plaid Cymru motion this afternoon, although I think it was a mistake to base it upon this UN report by Philip Alston. He's very far from what John Griffiths has just said, politically neutral, he's in fact an extreme left-wing anti-Trump zealot professor of law at New York University with a political axe to grind. His measure of poverty—[Interruption.] His measure of poverty is anybody earning less than 60 per cent of median household income. That's not a measure of poverty, but a measure of inequality, and the two things are quite distinct. A society without any inequality, no matter how low income levels, if everybody was desperately poor, living in wooden shacks and eating sand, would actually be a place with no poverty, according to his definition.

He has written reports about other countries. He has written a report about Mauritania, for example, and has praised President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz for the significant progress he's made in tackling poverty, and this is a country in which 42 per cent live in absolute poverty, with an average yearly wage of less than £1,000, where the life expectancy of the people is 20 years less than in this country and where the state murders its political opponents and subjects them to torture, none of which excited his animosity. So, let's put this in perspective. [Interruption.] It's not disgraceful; I'm merely reporting the facts. If Members can't cope with them, that must be a matter for them rather than for me. 

The other absurdity about this measure of poverty is that recessions, of course, are great for reducing poverty, because in recessions there tends to be generally a fall in income from capital, dividends and so on, and so if the rich get less rich relative to the poor it doesn't matter that the poor are actually no richer in reality, poverty is reduced. That's an absurdity.

And if we look at the experience in other countries, it puts the British position into perspective as well. I've got the Office for National Statistics report on persistent poverty in the UK and the EU in 2015 here in my hand, and 7.3 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom in 2015 were living in persistent poverty. That compares with 10.9 per cent as the average in the EU. Eleven point three per cent of the population of Germany lives in persistent poverty on the same measure; 8.5 per cent in France; 14.5 per cent in Italy. So, in fact, in many ways, there is less poverty in Britain, defined in relative terms, than there is in other parts of the EU and in other parts of the world.  

The problem in Wales is not so much relative poverty. I want to see the incomes of the people generally in Wales raised relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, of course, because Wales is at the bottom of the heap. That's a great tragedy, and I think an indictment of 20 years of Welsh Labour Government. But what amazes me is that the parties of the left are so enthusiastic normally to soak the poor. The many tax proposals that they have are designed, actually, to make life more difficult for those on the lowest incomes. Green taxes, as I raise frequently in this Chamber—now, 20 per cent of people's electricity bills are accounted for by green taxes, and it's the poor who are most hard hit by these taxes. In the winter, people do have to make a choice, sadly, between heating and eating very often. Sugar taxes, minimum prices for alcohol—these are all taxes that are going to disproportionately hit the poor hardest. 

The parties of the left are also very, very keen, of course, on continuing our membership of the European Union, but the European Union is a protectionist racket, the worst victims of which are those on the lowest incomes. Value added tax, for example—we can't get rid of VAT on domestic heating fuel, for example, we can't get rid of VAT on shoes and clothing, and the tariff regime within the EU subjects all these things as well to crippling tariffs, so that we can't take advantage of the lower prices for all these basic items and necessities that would be brought about as a result of Brexit if we negotiated free trade agreements with the rest of the world. The common agricultural policy makes food in this country massively more expensive than it need be. Look at the tariffs of these, which are often 40 per cent or 50 per cent. I know that we need to keep farmers on the land, and we need to subsidise them in order to do that in certain areas, but that can be done in ways other than hitting the poor through high food prices.

So, what we need to do is to have a proper analysis of poverty and its causes, and how to alleviate it and, indeed, the key role of Government in perpetuating it and making it, in fact, worse. Universal credit was a good idea but has actually been botched in the way in which it's been introduced and implemented. So, we have no problem in supporting the general tenor of the Plaid Cymru motion but, unfortunately, they're not living in the real world if they base it upon a political diatribe from Philip Alston. 

I am going to focus most of my remarks today on universal credit, particularly as it affects women. Now, this was sold to us as a new, more flexible system that would help people move more easily between work and benefits, and would be easier for people needing benefits to understand and navigate. But behind these apparently laudable aims lurked a poisonous, archaic and, I would argue, as the UN rapporteur has said, profoundly misogynistic agenda. And I would say to Mark Isherwood, who is a fellow Member of this Chamber that I respect, the rapporteur used very strong language because he was outraged, and he was right to be, that our fellow citizens are living in these circumstances in the fifth biggest economy in the world. 

The universal benefits system was designed from the start to reinforce 'traditional' family values, paying benefit to one member of the household on behalf of all, and there are Members of this Chamber—Jane Hutt is one of them—who will remember how we campaigned so hard in the 1980s to protect women by giving them their benefits into their own pockets for themselves and their children. This was designed to reinforce, I will use the old-fashioned word, 'patriarchy'. 

Now, in practice, the single receiver of the benefits is almost always a man in a family where there is one, and this reinforces a stereotypical view of a male breadwinner with dependant wife and children. And I would submit that this is not desirable in general, but when that male breadwinner is an abuser and a beast, that puts women at real risk. This system discriminates against the second earner in a dual-earner household, which is mostly a woman, and that is not an accident: it was designed to do so. This has a terrible effect on women suffering domestic abuse and their children. They almost always suffer financial abuse as part of that abuse, and having no access to benefits in their own rights exacerbates this. Without any access to money, it is incredibly difficult to leave. And if a woman does get away, she has to make a fresh claim for herself and her children, waiting at least five weeks—and I'd emphasise at least five weeks—for the process. On what, I would ask the Members opposite, is she supposed to live in those five weeks? And we know what she lives on: she lives on food banks and the charity of the Women's Aid system.

This supports abusers and makes it harder for survivors to leave, and it is not accidental and it was not unforeseen. Impact assessments in 2011 showed that this would happen, and the Tory Government, supported then by the Liberal Democrats, chose to proceed anyway. Put this together—

Will you give way?

I will happily give way to Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Helen Mary. And this, of course, is the week where we are focusing on eliminating violence against women, and we've had a statement from Julie James this afternoon. Wouldn't you say that this should be a test of Amber Rudd, the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to see if she will halt and dump this iniquitous attack on women and change it so that it isn't a single household payment and that she does recognise the impact this will have on women, and particularly recognise Philip Alston's report?

I'll come to my comments about Ms Rudd in a moment, but I would agree with what you've said.

Now, if we put the way that universal credit works together with, for example, housing benefit rules, which will only pay young people the cost of a room in a shared house, which leads to vulnerable young women often being forced to share with entirely unsuitable fellow tenants, and the vile rape clause to which Leanne Wood has already referred, along with many other examples I could cite, it leaves us with a benefits system that is predicated on a myth of the man as the breadwinner and the myth of the lazy, undeserving poor, and it is a misogynistic system and it was always meant to be.

And the politicians who introduced that system should be profoundly ashamed of themselves, but they are not, because the system is achieving what they wanted it to do. And with regard to Jane Hutt's comments and Mark Isherwood's comments about Amber Rudd, I don't think she will be allowed to mitigate in the way that she says she would like to do, because these effects are not accidental. And I have to say to my friends on the other side of that Chamber—and some of them are my friends—that they need to take a long, hard look at themselves if they think that they can support this. I really think: are they really proud of this? I thought better of them.

But the Government has no justification for complacency here, and the rather self-congratulatory tone of their amendment is a bit disappointing. I do not believe that any party or combination of parties that might get elected to govern in this Parliament would treat our poorest citizens in the way that the Tory UK Government is. As we've already heard, Scotland and Northern Ireland have taken administrative control of universal credit, but our Government does not seem to wish to do so. And I found a quote from one of the candidates for the Labour leadership. He says:

'I’m not an enthusiast for the devolution of tax and benefits systems. They seem to me what binds the UK together...If you are redistributionist, the tax and benefits systems are the way to do it. On the key question of poverty I believe that Wales benefits'— benefits—'from a UK redistributive model.'

Well, I have to say to this Chamber that that redistributive mechanism is not serving our poorest citizens very well at present, is it? And I'm not sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, who I was quoting, can really stand here—or sit here—and defend that position.

No-one claims that taking control of the administration of universal credit would solve all the problems that we have in this pernicious system. But what we seek, of course, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has said, is full control of the benefits system. But it could, as the Bevan Foundation has said, make a real difference, particularly in terms of how benefits are paid, and I welcome what John Griffiths said earlier in this debate in this regard.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in supporting the original motion and urging this Chamber to reject the amendment, I urge this Government, our Government, the Welsh Government to show some courage and at least ask for administrative control of universal credit so you can do some of what Northern Ireland and Scotland are doing for their poorest citizens. Our poorest citizens need action now and not unionist dogma.

It's not green taxes that are making people poor. It's the deliberate policies of the UK Government in terms of how they choose to tax and distribute benefits. I have to agree with him on one thing—that the VAT on essential goods is not a progressive tax, but we therefore have to find another tax to replace it. Were we to leave the European Union, that is something we could do, but we have to focus on the here and now, on what the UK Government is doing to people with the choices that they are making in their budgets.

The people who are faring worst out of the Chancellor's budget are women in low-paid, part-time work because they are going to miss out on any tax cuts because they earn too little to profit from the rise in personal allowances, and they're suffering reductions in real income as a result of the benefits freeze. So, they are actually going to be worse off, regardless of all the hype about how austerity is now over. It's completely not over for part-time workers, most of whom are women. Over three and a half million women earn less than £15,000 a year. They are one third of the workforce. At the same time, the top 10 per cent of households are going to increase their income by £1 billion more than for the bottom 10 per cent. This is absolutely shocking: this is how we are absolutely widening the overall earnings gap between the richest and the poorest, and as Helen Mary said, this is in the fifth largest economy in the world.

We have to understand that raising the tax-free threshold always disproportionately benefits people on middle and higher incomes. It does not benefit the low-paid. There have to be other mechanisms provided to ensure that work does pay, because everybody who goes to work, does a hard day's graft, is entitled to get enough to pay for the essentials of life and provide for their families. That is clearly not happening at the moment. Instead, the nearly £17 billion in forgone tax revenue from this deliberate policy could and should have been ploughed into the benefits system and public services, which poor people disproportionately rely on. So, they could reverse the benefits freeze, and even some Tory MPs—even senior former Ministers—are arguing that we should be ending the benefits freeze.

But I just want to talk about the way in which, since 2010, we have really disregarded all our obligations towards children, because the attack on children has been relentless since the new Government took over. First of all, in the way that it's undermined child benefit, which is the most essential part of, on behalf of society, helping those who have children to ensure that they have enough money to raise them. By using the consumer price index rather than the retail price index, they guaranteed that benefits would not keep up with prices, and then there was a freeze in child benefit for the first three years of the Tory Government, and then this shift has had a massive impact upon the amount of money made available for children.

In 2010, child benefit was £20.30 for a family's first child and £13.40 for subsequent children. If the policies of the previous Government had been kept in place, child benefit today would now be at least £24.30 for the first child and £16.05 for other children. That is a massive reduction in children's money, and it's really quite devastating, the impact that it's had. And what it's meant is that over 100,000 children are going to be destitute this Christmas as a result of delay just in one thing: delay in universal credit payment. So, people, for example, on Anglesey, who are going to be started on universal credit, they're not going to get anything until the new year. So, they will be having a Scrooge-like Christmas with no presents, and goodness knows how they are going to survive. Meanwhile, we have the chief executive of Bet365 earning £265,000 a day. I mean, we clearly have a society that has completely lost touch with the values that it's supposed to have. I've run out of time to say what we should be doing about this, but we have to ensure that all our children are fed, at the most basic level.

It's time to get real here: the UN report does squarely, unequivocally put the blame at the door of the UK Government. For nearly a decade, the Tory Governments have 'inflicted great misery' on the British people, with 'punitive', 'mean-spirited' and 'callous' austerity policies. Those are the words of Philip Alston, not mine. Levels of child poverty are,

'not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster'.

Again, his words, not mine. A key finding is this huge rise of in-work poverty. And we heard stats again—loads of them, again—from Mark Isherwood, talking about the reduction of in-work poverty. And yet, this report finds quite clearly that it is in-work poverty that is at the root of child poverty, and it is those people who are in work who are being affected by the universal credit roll-out.

So, let's be clear. This isn't about getting people into work. This isn't about, as the Tories used to say, 'Get on your bike.' Well, you try and tell that to the courier who can't pay this month's rent, despite getting on his bike or her bike, and despite working all the hours that god sends their way. You tell it also to the one in four people in this country who work for below minimum wage pay. You tell it also to the individuals and families in Ammanford, in Carmarthen, in Llanelli, in Aberystwyth, in Cardigan, in Dolgellau, in Porthmadog and in Pwllheli who will have a miserable Christmas this year, because they are subjected to the universal credit roll-out, right across Christmas. And we all know, don't we, that one in four claimants doesn't get their money on time. So, I don't see what Christmas cheer they're going to have in their households. And it is a deliberate policy. Can you imagine rolling out a policy that puts people and families with no money, no prospect of having any money, right across Christmas? I don't think Scrooge could have done a better job had he tried.

So, we go back to the former work and pensions Secretary, Esther McVey. She admitted that some of the poorest families will be £200 a week worse off—the poorest people £200 a week worse off. I don't know if you're going to go and argue with those families and say that this is a good idea. I read today that a group of women have launched a high court legal challenge arguing that the universal credit payment system is irrational and discriminatory. I absolutely agree with them. I wish them good luck, but they shouldn't have to fight that battle.

It's the same with food banks. It's wonderful that people support them—I'm sure that we all do, and I'm sure that some of us will go and join them over Christmas. What I don't want to see is another smiley picture of a Tory politician proudly supporting the biggest growth industry that's been created by their policies, in the local paper. What I would like to see is a photo of any Tory politician hanging their head in shame at the fact that it is the biggest growth industry.

I think, as the UN report says, that the cost of austerity has fallen disproportionately upon the poor, upon women, racial and ethnic minorities, children, single parents and people with disabilities. And we've heard today that the Welsh Government has defended, where they can, the most vulnerable in society. That hasn't happened in England. Where we've continued to provide access to welfare funds for emergency hardships, they've been removed in England. We've got a comprehensive childcare offer and school holiday lunch clubs; they're a great example of a Government intervention. And it's progressive and it's socialist, and we are at least proud of trying to do what we can.

The UN report does go on to say that we don't have the devolved power over social security benefits. I wish I had the confidence of Plaid Cymru that if we took it over, we'd have the money. But, it's cost £266 million for the Scottish Government to do something with those powers to very little effect. I'm sure that £266 million, had it been spent in targeted approaches, might have had a much bigger effect.

I know that all of us understand quite clearly in this Chamber that the biggest danger to people on this new system of universal credit is homelessness. When rents aren't being paid on time, people become very vulnerable to finding themselves on the street. What I will ask the Cabinet Secretary is whether she will be able to do something to protect those people who find themselves in private tenancies, so that they don't actually end up on the street for Christmas or any other time in the future. 

The UN special rapporteur's report on the extreme poverty in the United Kingdom is a wake-up call. The true impact of this Tory Government's austerity agenda is clear for all of us to see. It is a political choice that is placing the greatest burden on those least able to bear it, forcing people into poverty. I urge Members from across this Chamber to read carefully the report from the UN. The lived experiences of those in our communities suffering because of so-called welfare reform or unfair working practices need to be listened to.

At the very heart of this chaotic roll-out and impact is universal credit. This callous policy has in-built levers, as has been referenced cross party, to swipe people out of welfare, and it causes much suffering to people across the UK, including many of my constituents in Islwyn. It must be stopped immediately. Even the former work and pensions Secretary, Esther McVey, has admitted that some of the poorest families, as has been said, will be £200 a week worse off. Families already living in abject poverty from the failed PIP assessments, the roll-back of tax credits, the bedroom tax, and single payments to lone parents, as Helen Mary has stated, exacerbating domestic abuse and family violence—a misogynistic policy that I also believe was created with that in mind. Though the Welsh Government will continue to do everything within its power to mitigate these policies, this UN report highlights and states:

'It is outrageous that devolved administrations need to spend resources to shield people from Government policies.'

Faced with these challenges, the special rapporteur says that 

'the Welsh Government has determinedly shifted its focus to increasing economic prosperity and employment as the gateway to poverty reduction.'

He acknowledges that the Welsh Government has adopted a whole-Government approach to poverty reduction. The only way to end this misery, inflicted by the Tories' cruel universal credit, is to elect a Labour Government in Westminster.

There are some in this Chamber who will campaign for the devolution of welfare, as we have heard. But I would warn them that this is a hostage to fortune, given previous instances in which the Welsh Government has been asked to take administrative control of welfare schemes without the accompanying budget. Scotland is £266 million worse off on front-line services as a result of this. Ministers and the people do not have the confidence that the Tory UK Government would transfer a fair budget alongside a transfer of responsibility for administrative control of welfare benefits, and neither do I. Scotland, as I have said, has had to take back that money from front-line services—from those who need it most.

To conclude, Deputy Llywydd, it is not right that in one of the wealthiest economies of the world, children are going hungry. Austerity is indeed a political choice and one that, as this report demonstrates, disproportionately hurts those with protected characteristics—women, children, racial and ethnic minorities, single parents and those with disabilities—and impacts disproportionately on those with vulnerabilities. Though this Welsh Labour Government has done much to lift people out of poverty, this report is a reminder to all of us of the unforgivable effects of the UK Government's cruel policies, with no end in sight. It is time for a general election. It is time for an end to universal credit, and an end also to the appalling behaviour of the Atoses and the Capitas and other conglomerates that have propped it up. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to be clear that we agree with Plaid Cymru, with their motion, insofar as it relates to the devastating impact of the UK Government's austerity measures on the people of Wales. We do disagree with the practicality and desirability of taking over administrative responsibility for social security, and I will come to this in more depth shortly.

As Members would expect, we reject the complacent amendment from the Conservatives, which glosses over the real suffering being caused by their party's botched and heartless efforts at welfare reform. I have to say it's been an afternoon of quite astonishing contributions from the Conservative benches, and from the single Conservative contribution that we've had in this debate, you would really be forgiven for thinking that welfare reform is a roaring success.

We know only too well that levels of poverty across Wales and the rest of the UK are too high. I met with Professor Alston during his visit to Wales and agree with him that the responsibility for this rests squarely with the UK Government and its austerity and welfare reform policies. The effects are falling disproportionately on already vulnerable groups and those least able to bear it. Professor Alston summed up the situation that we currently find ourselves in like this:

'The experience of the United Kingdom, especially since 2010, underscores the conclusion that poverty is a political choice. Austerity could easily have spared the poor, if the political will had existed to do so.'

He continues:

'Resources were available to the Treasury at the last budget that could have transformed the situation of millions of people living in poverty, but the political choice was made to fund tax cuts for the wealthy instead.'

Damning stuff. The special rapporteur expressed his outrage that the devolved administrations need to spend their diminishing resources to shield people from these harmful UK Government policies. Austerity has meant that our overall budget for 2019-2020 is down £850 million in real terms compared to 2010-2011. Nevertheless, in the absence of a change of direction by the UK Government on key policies, we must continue to do all we can to mitigate the worst impacts of these destructive policies.

Welsh Government doesn't support the devolution of welfare benefits for a number of reasons. As a matter of principle, of social solidarity, we should all be entitled to an equal claim to our welfare state. The needs of citizens, wherever they are within the UK, should be equally met, and we do not believe that equality and solidarity and redistribution of wealth are, as the Plaid Cymru benches have suggested, a 'pathetic allegiance' or 'unionist dogma'. We'd also be extremely cautious of agreeing to any changes to the social security system, including the devolution of benefits, before assessing the ramifications of how those changes would be funded. And, of course, we're particularly mindful of what happened when the UK Government devolved council tax benefit to Wales when they top-sliced the budget.

The approach to the devolution of welfare benefits to the Scottish Government has transferred the financial risk associated, with the demand for benefits growing faster per head in Scotland than in England from the point of devolution. And for Wales, that would prove to be a significant financial risk. As we've heard, the costs associated with administering the welfare system would take resources away from the delivery of front-line services. In Scotland, it is £266 million away from front-line services in order to implement the newly devolved welfare powers. Others may not like these arguments, but I think they are reasonable and legitimate concerns to have when it is suggested that we should be taking over responsibility for these items.

So, flexibility in the administration of universal credit should and can be made available to everyone in receipt of that benefit through alternative payment arrangements. If the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were to agree to our request for this, it would ease many of the difficulties that people are experiencing with the payment of universal credit. This does not require the devolution of administration, which would cost money, as we’ve heard, and divert funding away from delivering on our responsibilities.

I’ve written to Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has acknowledged that there are problems with universal credit, urging her to consider how universal credit can better support people and recognise that many claimants want and need to choose the frequency of their payments. I also stressed the need to ensure that all legacy claimants receive the maximum transitional protection top-up payments as and when they are moved over to universal credit to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged and worse off on universal credit.

Our approach to tackling poverty is that it should be inherent in the way that government and its partners work and deliver for the people of Wales. That's why we've made tackling poverty fundamental to 'Taking Wales Forward' and 'Prosperity for All'. 'Prosperity for All' recognises that reducing levels of poverty and growing our economy are interdependent. It sets out those actions we'll take as a Government to create the conditions and opportunities for people and for communities to succeed, flourish and thrive.

Our fundamental commitment is prevention of poverty. We're doing this through investment and giving children the best possible start in life, helping people to improve their skills, supporting people into fair employment and taking action to mitigate the impact of poverty in the here and now. These are all embodied in our national strategy.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you for taking an intervention. One of the main findings of this report, of course, is that disabled people are falling further behind and being denied the right to independent living. Now, you listed some of the things that you've done. Another thing that you have done as a Government, contrary to your own party policy, of course, is to do away with the Welsh independent living grant. Now, there have been many accounts of disabled people falling behind, so can you give this Assembly a cast-iron guarantee that those who have been in receipt of the Welsh independent living fund will not be a single penny worse off following your decision?

Thank you very much for that intervention. Of course, it was the UK Government that abolished the independent living fund, and Welsh Government then sought to support people who were already on that fund. But this is an example of where, if you have this pot of money and you actually only allow those people who are on that benefit, or in receipt of that benefit, to continue on it, then you have a two-tier system for disabled people in Wales, which is something that we wouldn't want to support. People should be able to have their needs met, and met well, through the social services and well-being Act and the provisions that they would receive underneath that.

So, both the motion and the Conservatives' amendments call for clear performance targets and indicators to measure progress in tackling poverty. The national indicators, which underpin the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, will help measure our progress as a country towards achieving the seven well-being goals. Many of these indicators will help us assess progress in tackling poverty. These will measure, for example, relative poverty, material deprivation, levels of employment and healthy lifestyles, amongst other things. In addition, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 places a duty on Welsh Ministers to set national milestones that will indicate the scale and pace of change needed if we are to deliver the seven goals by 2050.

So, Presiding Officer, as we have set out in our own amendment, we are working hard to mitigate the worst impact of the UK Government's continuing austerity measures, whilst the UK Government needs to urgently address the fundamental flaws we have identified in universal credit.

Thank you very much. Can I now call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate?

Diolch. This report should have been a wake-up call for the Tories, but it's not, so I'm not even going to address the Conservatives' denial. As for the points made by the far right, you are a complete joke. You have no idea about poverty or how the world's poorest will suffer as a result of your climate change denial, or how poor people with protected characteristics will be harmed by your hateful rhetoric. Your contribution and the recent new, even further right adviser to your party shows that you are unfit to represent people. You have no place in the kind of Wales that I want to see. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

As for the Tories, you are so out of touch you have no idea of the pain that people are being put through with universal credit. Despite the evidence—and the DWP's own impact assessment in 2011 showed that universal credit does not make work pay—more people face higher disincentives to work than under the old system. Despite the evidence, you still claim that this system is great. Anyone watching this will form their own view, I'm sure.

I want to say 'thank you' to the Members who contributed to this debate in a positive way, in particular to those who highlighted the impact on other devolved services from the fallout of universal credit and those who spoke about specific groups being discriminated against. And a special thanks goes to Helen Mary Jones for putting the gendered nature of this debate so forcefully. I also support Jane Hutt's call to put further pressure on Amber Rudd on this. 

I have to address the point made by Joyce Watson and the Minister about what Scotland has done in terms of mitigating these problems. In Scotland, they now have powers to deliver 11 benefits. They are going to introduce an increased carers allowance, followed by the Best Start grant and the funeral assistance grant from September 2019. They've had the money and they are spending more. Why? Because they are prioritising poverty. Now, Scottish Labour want the SNP to go even further, to be even more generous, to mitigate even further the effects of these benefits. So, why are you opposed? This is yet another example of Labour facing in a number of different directions. The changes that we want to see in terms of the devolution of the administration of benefits would save this Government money. Get this right and you could save the NHS, you could save money in housing, you could save money in education and much, much more. Given where we are with all of this poverty, and it's likely to be made much, much worse post Brexit, the fact that the Government has no strategy and no dedicated Minister to tackle either poverty or child poverty is an absolute disgrace.

I want to finish with a quote from the report, from Professor Philip Alston himself, who says,

'In the absence of devolved power over social security benefits, the Welsh Government’s capacity to directly mitigate the reduction in benefits is limited, thereby shifting the burden to low-income households. There is a wide consensus among stakeholders that the benefit changes are one of the structural causes behind the increase in poverty, rough sleeping, and homelessness in Wales. Parliamentarians and civil society voiced serious concerns that Universal Credit may exacerbate the problem, particularly in light of the Welsh Government’s inability to introduce flexibilities in its administration, unlike its Scottish counterpart.'

That says that you have the power to do something about this. Just do it.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.