2. How does the Welsh Government monitor the effectiveness of its measures to tackle poverty? OAQ53987

Llywydd, we use child poverty indicators to measure our effectiveness in mitigating the impact of poverty created by the UK Conservative Government. Freezing and reducing benefits, penalising children through the family cap and punishing families through the bedroom tax are amongst the impacts we have to combat through our mitigation measures. 

Thank you very much for that reply, Minister, but I think you're the one who looks after the social services and the NHS in Wales. Research for the End Child Poverty Network shows that the number of children living in poverty in Wales rose by 1 per cent last year. Given that your Government pledged to end child poverty by 2020, can you explain why Wales is the only nation in the United Kingdom to see a rise in child poverty last year? Do you agree that this research calls into question the effectiveness of your strategy to tackle child poverty in Wales?

Llywydd, it's an irony-free zone on the benches to the left of me. Here are some figures from the report to which he referred: they tell us that, as a direct result—a direct result—of the actions that his Government is taking, lone parents in Wales will lose around £3,720 a year, families with three or more children will lose £4,110 a year, there will be 50,000 more children in poverty by 2021-22, and households with one disabled adult and a disabled child will lose £5,270 on average in Wales. Those are the facts of poverty here in Wales, and they are deliberately created by the actions of the Government that he supports. We do things every day to try and mitigate the impact of those benefit cuts, those impacts that there are on families from penalising children, through penalising disabled families through universal credit, and we will continue to do everything in our power. But the root cause of child poverty in this country lies absolutely firmly in the hands of the Government that he supports.

I was half expecting this question to be withdrawn by the Tories after shocking figures emerged showing the potential impact of Wales's exit from the European Union upon our poorest communities. Perhaps they'll just dismiss as scaremongering the analysis that has shown that, based on comparisons between the UK Government spending on economic development and the distribution of EU structural funds, Wales could lose £2.3 billion over six years, if the new shared prosperity fund is distributed in the same way as the Government allocates current spending on economic affairs. This was equating to handing every Londoner a cheque for over £200 and taking away £700 from every single Welsh person. The Rhondda, where I represent, cannot afford to lose any money, let alone this much money. So, how are you going to prevent this nightmare scenario from unfolding?

Well, I thank the Member for drawing attention to that report. Time and time again, on the floor of this National Assembly—and with support of Plaid Cymru Members as well, I know—we have said that we will not sit idly by and allow a shared prosperity fund to become an excuse for sharing resources that come to Wales today with other parts of the United Kingdom who do not qualify for it as we do on the basis of our need. A Barnett approach to sharing out money is completely unacceptable to us, because Barnett does not reflect need, and the money we get through the European Union comes to Wales because it is assessed on the basis of needs that we have here. We will continue to make that case wherever we have the opportunity. We will make it alongside the Federation of Small Businesses, who recently produced a report saying exactly that, alongside the all-party parliamentary group chaired by Stephen Kinnock, who produced a report saying exactly that, and we will need the support of Members across this Chamber who put the needs of Wales first, to help us in that effort to make sure that when there is money that is available for regional economic development the other side of the European Union, that Wales continues, as we were promised, not to lose out by a single penny.

First Minister, would you agree that maintaining universal benefits like free prescriptions, free bus passes, and offering relief to those council tax payers in financial need are a far better way to tackle poverty than Tory tax breaks for the highest paid and scrapping of tv licences for the over-75s?

Well, thank you to Dawn Bowden for pointing to those two developments of this week. The absolutely astonishing suggestions by a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party that, eight years into austerity, those who need the help the most are those who have the most to begin with. It's absolutely disgraceful, when you think of the impacts that there have been on the poorest families here in Wales, that the Secretary of State for Wales should announce that he is prepared to support somebody who not only in relation to his policies on Brexit, which the Secretary of State knows perfectly well, will be devastating here in Wales, but who is also, apparently, there to speak up for Wales at the UK level, with everything that we know in relation to the impact of those cuts here in Wales—that he is prepared to support a candidate who would shovel money out of the pockets of those people who have the least into the pockets of those who have the most. And when it comes to universal benefits, I absolutely want to agree with what the Member said about the television licence. The television licence has been a universal benefit. It goes to every older person aged over 75. Nobody has to apply. Nobody has to be threatened with imprisonment because they don't pay it. Nobody later on in life has to wonder about whether this bill has to be added to everything else they have to pay out of a fixed income. Those families have enjoyed that benefit since the last Labour Government was in charge of these matters at the UK level, and it's a pretty bad day for those families to find themselves in a position where, in future, not only will many of them get no help at all, but even those who are entitled to help will not get that help automatically. They will be forced to deal with a system that is deeply off-putting for many of them. Many of them will lose out. We know that that's what happens with means-tested benefits, and that's why Dawn Bowden is so right to point to the absolute advantages that providing benefits, wherever that's possible, on a universal basis, provide to claimants.