Questions now from party leaders and representatives, and, on behalf of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Trefnydd, many people were shocked last week by some of the language chosen by the UK Prime Minister in the House of Commons. They were shocked that he could be so thoughtless in terms of the fears of Members of Parliament regarding physical violence against them, and that he was so willing to disrespect the memory of an MP who was murdered because of her beliefs. Whatever your stance on Brexit, will you join with me in condemning what we heard from one who is supposed to show leadership?

I absolutely will join you, and I would attach my name and that of the Government, and I'm sure our party as a whole, in terms of just being absolutely shocked by the language that was used by the Prime Minister in terms of an absolutely devastating and awful thing that has happened. And, we understand it as elected representatives, but Jo would have had a family—obviously did have a family—which has been desperately hurt by this. The kind of language that the Prime Minister uses just heaps more hurt on top of that. 

As I said in my first question, all of us, of course, on both sides of the debate have to get our tone right. I read Welsh Government's policy update on Brexit, published last week, 'A brighter future for Wales', and in that document the Government floats proposals, including summary deportation of migrants and tracking of migrants through national insurance. Now, parking for one second the hypocrisy there of saying that at a time when your own party conference voted to maintain and extend freedom of movement, do you understand concerns that this could, in fact, ratchet up a sense of creating a hostile environment towards migrants and could actually encourage the kind of intolerance that has become such a feature of the Brexit debate? 

I'm afraid you're mixing two things that are completely separate here, and you're misrepresenting, I think, to be fair, what we said in 'A brighter future for Wales', and particularly what we said on migration. So, nowhere in that document have we advocated forced deportations, and nowhere have we advocated or talked of a hostile environment for migrants from anywhere in the world or the imposition of identity cards, which I know is something that Plaid Cymru have also said that we would seek to impose. What we do say is that the UK needs to be more effective in ensuring that EU citizens who move here do so on the basis of the EU's freedom of movement legislation. That doesn't give an unrestricted right to reside in another EU or European Economic Area country, because freedom of movement applies to the employed or self-employed and those with independent means, or students. And that is very much what happens in other countries across Europe and across the EEA. So,to  take Ireland, for example, EEA nationals, other than the UK, are only allowed to remain in Ireland as a jobseeker there for three months, and, at that point, you can only remain if you're employed or self-employed or if you're financially sufficient or you are a student. And if we look to Norway, you have to register with the police within three months and you can stay up to six months as a jobseeker, but, if you do not get a job within six months, you must leave Norway, and Norway, of course, is No. 1 on the Economist Intelligence Unit's democracy index. So, what we are suggesting is very much in line with our existing rules and our membership of the European Union, and it is nothing more. 

We’re talking about the importance of the use of language; let me turn to the use of the Welsh language. It did appear that there was quite some consensus achieved in terms of giving the name ‘Senedd’ to this institution. New legislation would reflect the fact that ‘Welsh Parliament’ is the meaning of the term ‘Senedd’, but we would give an inherently Welsh name to the institution from the start of the next chapter of its history.

'Senedd' has increasingly become a norm when people refer to this place. Yes, they call it the Welsh Assembly, they call it the National Assembly, they call it the Assembly, but more and more this building is known as the Senedd in both languages, which belong to all of us in Wales, whichever our language or languages of choice. And now we can take the small but significant step of adopting that name for the institution itself. In November, the First Minister said,

'If I had to choose, I’d have to go with the Senedd'.

Now, your party's proposal is to go with Senedd/Welsh Parliament. How incapable do you think the people of Wales are to deal with and, indeed, to embrace the word 'Senedd', much as 'the Dáil' is the norm in Ireland, for example? And how keen are you to see the First Minister backing his own instincts on this, rather than teaming up with the Tories in throwing out the Welsh-only name?

I have to say, Llywydd, that I think this is a matter for the National Assembly, rather than a matter for Welsh Government, because we will all be casting a free vote on this particular issue, as I'm sure other Members will as well. 

The leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I know the Welsh Government has done some very good work in this area, however what further action can the Welsh Government take to support veterans in Wales?

The Welsh Government is really keen to support veterans, and one of the ways in which we can do that most effectively, I think, is to ensure that the concordat that we do have with local authorities is operated effectively and to ensure that our support for veterans when they seek to access NHS services allows them to do so in a way that does give them that genuine priority when they're seeking to access services as a result of the service that they've given to our nation. 

Minister, as we've seen today in the news, it is fantastic to see Cardiff University and the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board taking part in this international trial to support veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Currently, our Welsh NHS is receiving a substantial grant of £150,000 from Help for Heroes to fund three full-time psychological therapists across Wales, who have been helping to reduce the waiting times for veterans to receive treatment. Sadly, this funding is due to come to an end in October 2020 and there are concerns about what impact this will have, especially as targets for assessment and treatment are currently being missed. Will the Welsh Government therefore commit to increase the funding for veterans in the NHS from October 2020 to ensure that the services for veterans are maintained for future years?

Well, obviously, the health Minister is here to hear the particular concerns that you've raised, and I have no doubt that services for veterans across Government will be a part of the discussions as we continue to explore our budget for the next financial year. 

As I'm sure the Minister is aware, the UK Government has recently created an office for veterans affairs inside the UK Cabinet Office, bringing in experts from the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that there is a holistic approach to veterans affairs. Now, this new office will work to co-ordinate and drive UK Government policy on veterans' welfare, mental and physical health, education and employment. For many years, the Welsh Conservatives have been calling for the introduction of an armed forces and veterans commissioner, who would be accountable to this Assembly and who would champion the needs of the armed forces community and ensure devolved powers are fully used to offer the necessary support. Minister, given the work that is being undertaken at a UK level, would the Welsh Government now reconsider the introduction of an armed forces and veterans commissioner so that support for our dedicated personnel in the armed forces is put on a proper footing to ensure they actually get the services that they deserve?

Well, I know that the UK Government has established, as you say, the new office for veterans affairs, and as Welsh Government we're really keen to engage with them. I think that there's already been some engagement at official level to see how we can best work together to support veterans, because, obviously, some aspects will be devolved and non-devolved. Where we can work closely together with the Ministry of Defence and other partners to deliver for the armed forces community here in Wales, we will certainly seek to do that. 

Leader of the Brexit Party, Mark Reckless. 

I welcome the Finance Minister to her covering First Minister's questions this week, and trust that the First Minister has been as successful promoting Wales off the pitch as the team so far has been on the pitch in Japan. The Government has set aside today's agenda to update us on its preparations should we leave the European Union without an overarching agreement, and it's right that a responsible Government should make those preparations, and it should put them out there for scrutiny. So, we hope that will be a good-faith effort this afternoon. I would also like to just pass on apologies from Caroline Jones from our group that she's not able to take the sessions on health and local government because she's accompanying a family member to hospital. 

With the need for that responsible scrutiny, can the Minister just confirm to me that, when Jeremy Miles said on 17 September that the Government would be releasing an update on the economic impact of Brexit shortly, does that constitute this document, 'A brighter future for Wales: Why we should remain in the EU'? Isn't the focus of this document rather that of a campaigning document? And given its title, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the Government to have published it to try and influence the referendum before it took place, rather than now, three and a half years after it lost?

The Welsh Government has been clear all along that remaining in the European Union is in the best interests of Wales. We made that argument ahead of the referendum in 2016 and nothing that we've seen since that date has been able to convince us that we've been wrong in that. In terms of the document, yes, that includes the economic analysis, and it's not just our analysis, of course; we've been supported by the chief economist in developing that. But we're not the only people looking at this, of course. If you don't like what you read from the Welsh Government, you can always look at the Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, which has produced forecasts for its spring statement that showed growth would likely continue to disappoint for the next five years, and GDP per head is expected to increase at an average annual rate of just 1 per cent, compared with what has been a long-term average of 2.4 per cent. That, of course, assumes that we leave the EU with a negotiated deal. So, I think the picture looks even more bleak should we end up in a situation where we have a 'no deal' Brexit.  

The Minister promised us an update on that economic assessment, but what we've seen is the republication of reports that the Government has previously referred to. We have here the Government's own estimates—this is in the executive summary—that suggest that with a 'no deal' Brexit, the economy will be around 9 per cent smaller in 15 years' time than it otherwise would have been. That comes from, I think, 26 February under Philip Hammond's Treasury report released then. It actually says the UK economy would be 6.3 per cent to 9 per cent smaller, and then it adds on to the section that your Government quotes 'assuming no action is taken'. Isn't that a hugely implausible assumption? Aren't Governments, just like the private sector, going to make changes, take action in response to what happens? You refer back to that forecast, but you don't refer in the same way to the Bank of England forecast, which has been revised twice downwards since that forecast came out. And is it not also the case that the Bank of England—? You say in your report on the strategic risk of 'economic turmoil' that

'Sterling has fallen markedly in value since the referendum and as the prospect of a no deal Brexit has intensified. This could, over time, translate into rising inflation on some products'.

But it hasn't done so; inflation post the referendum peaked at 3.1 per cent, it's now at 1.7 per cent. When the Bank of England has halved its estimate and forecast there might be a 5 per cent hit if we leave with no overarching agreement, will the Minister confirm that is on the assumption that the Bank of England itself responds to those circumstances by raising interest rates from 0.75 per cent to 4.5 per cent? Isn't that wholly implausible and not a sensible basis on which Welsh Government should be planning?  

Perhaps if we look back at what's already happened, it might give us an idea of what more is to come. The UK economy has underperformed relative to other major economies since the decision to call the EU referendum was announced in 2015. Since the referendum itself, GDP is estimated to be between one and two percentage points lower than would have been otherwise the case, and for illustrative purposes, that's between £300 and £600 per person per year in Wales. The Member refers to the Bank of England, and they have provided an updated forecast for the economy in August, which focuses more on the nearer-term outlook. Over the next 12 months, the bank expects only modest growth in GDP, so just 1.5 per cent, and businesses—the Bank of England argues it, not me—will prove reluctant to invest against a background of Brexit-related concerns, and, of course, alongside that, net exports are not expected by the bank to contribute materially to growth. So, we're always keen to hear what the Bank of England has to say, but unfortunately for Mark Reckless, none of it will be good news to him.