The First Minister started his statement by saying:

'This legislative statement sets out the Government’s plans for the Bills we will introduce over the remainder of this Assembly term.' 

I think it was about halfway through the statement before we got on to that. We heard before about what had happened or what others were doing or why you wouldn't be doing various things, and on those, you said, we've

'been able to assess whether we are now in a position to bring forward a Welsh agriculture Bill and an environmental principles and governance Bill in this term'.

I'm clear from your statement and, indeed, the pre-briefing of it—I'm not making a complaint about that—but just it is clear that the Welsh agriculture Bill is not going forward. You say, though, on environmental principles and governance:

'this remains a complex matter and we are in ongoing dialogue with the UK Government and the other administrations about the best way to achieve this.'

Does that mean 'no'? Is that Bill definitely not happening?

On the agricultural Bill, you talk about looking at

'issues such as the rights of tenant farmers.'

But this Bill is not going to come in until the next Assembly, and I thought, from your exchanges with Neil McEvoy previously, that you were already taking action in this area. Could you clarify?

On the climate change issues, we had Paul Davies making, I thought, very fair complaints about the way they'd been handled in Wales—an item of any other business after a press statement that had already been issued. But he didn't say anything about the way it had been handled at Westminster, where the UK Conservative Government gave 90 minutes of parliamentary time to a statutory instrument that wasn't even voted on, and on that basis, changing a target of 80 per cent reduction by 2050, which was coming some way to getting public buy-in and a degree of consensus, at least, relative to where we were, to something that I fear will not have that. And the Treasury and others in the UK Government have estimated costs of between £50 billion and £70 billion a year. They weren't even debated in Westminster, let alone voted on, and when we mention here that, for Welsh Government, they calculate that the cost will be £1 billion or thereabouts to the Welsh Government budget, you all just throw up your hands and say, 'You can't possibly do that,' while claiming it's such a priority. I mean, which is it?

I just wonder whether, with this statement, we have some movement. You talk about

'paying farmers for the actions they can take to respond to the climate emergency, reducing emissions and capturing carbon.'

So, the Welsh Government likes to say that it gets Wales £680 million a year—I think it's the figure you used—from the European Union. A lot of that goes to agriculture. Are you saying that a portion, and if so, how large a portion of that money is going to be changed from giving it to farmers on the basis of their land ownership, as long as they're actively farming to a degree, to saying they're only going to get it to compensate them for things that will cost them, such as climate storage or other actions on that? Is there a change of policy there and how much further how we got to go to find this £1 billion that we need to tackle the climate emergency that's been declared? Where is that money going to be found from?

You mentioned on childcare:

'we have continued to legislate for important domestic matters, securing the administrative framework for our childcare offer to provide much-needed support to working families'.

You don't go beyond the legislation. You've actually achieved this early. You had it in the Labour manifesto, and in this area, you've been as good as your word. You said there was going to be a focused rather than a universal childcare offer to working parents, and you've gone on and delivered it, and you've done it early. Before, the childcare system in Wales was relatively skewed towards the public sector, at least compared to England. Yet this scheme, I mean, it's not allowed top-ups, but it is in essence a voucher scheme, where the money goes to the parent to choose what childcare provider to use, and there's equality between the public and the private sectors. That's something you've actually delivered on, and I, at least, would like to commend you on that.

The GP indemnity Bill, again, I know GPs have been pushing very hard for this and were concerned that there hadn't been movement on it. There now is, and I think the Government's right to move in this area.

On the public transport Bill, we on these benches are open-minded about what's the best model for bus transport provision. We're not convinced that the deregulation we've seen outside London since the 1980s has been a great success, and we think it's right that we give local authorities the option to try franchising, to try direct provision. Would the First Minister agree with me that it would be advantageous if—? I think there's a trade-off to be had in terms of encouraging regional working where it's needed, but also, would it be advantageous if we saw some local authorities or some regions, at least, taking a different approach, so we got some further evidence of what works, and seeing what approaches are more successful in dealing with what customers want in this area?

It doesn't mention the joint transport authorities, and one area where there was a lot of criticism of the White Paper was around the joint transport authorities, and particularly having regional ones, and then having a national one. And while I think Members were keen to give a following wind to Transport for Wales and understood it being a private company in its operation, what is the point of these regional and national JTAs, and isn't there a danger of duplication? What decision has been made in terms of how we'll legislate in this area?

And then we have the curriculum and assessment Bill, and the social partnership. I think a week or two ago we heard from the First Minister his enthusiasm for socialism in one clause through commencing this part of the Equality Act. My concern there is around the assessment element in particular of the education Bill. It talks about freedoms, but will that be schools marking their own homework? What is being removed in terms of assessment and accountability for schools? And is the First Minister saying that, as well as socialism in one clause, if you want to push ahead with trying to implement socialism, perhaps the first thing socialists do is stop measuring things so they can't be seen to fail?