The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans.

We move to item 8 on the agenda this afternoon, which is Plaid Cymru's debate on low-income families, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Motion NDM7224 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Calls on the Welsh Government to introduce a £35 a week payment for every child in low income families in Wales.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very grateful to have this opportunity to introduce this motion on child poverty, which dovetails very neatly—completely unplanned, but serendipitously—with some of the theme of the last debate. Child poverty is one of the most persistent problems that we face as a society. In Wales relative child poverty has been in a band, essentially, between 36 per cent of all the children in Wales and 28 per cent, pretty much for 20 years—around about a third of the total. Wales in the latest year for which we have single-year figures, according to the End Child Poverty network, was the only UK nation to see a rise in child poverty of 1 per cent, up to 29.3 per cent, which equals 206,000 children throughout Wales. Of course, the forecast for Wales, and indeed across the UK, is that this trend now of rising child poverty will continue. There are some forecasts predicting it rising to 39 per cent in the early years of this decade coming.

I think at the broadest level you could say the failure over child poverty is probably one of the greatest failures at the heart of our politics. Some of you may remember a young Tony Blair, in March 1999, heading over to Toynbee Hall, which was itself a symbol of regeneration efforts in that part of London over many generations, and announcing that this was to be the first generation ever to completely eradicate child poverty. And, of course, then we had the policy commitment to abolish child poverty within 20 years, and I think it always pays to remind ourselves of some of that gilded prose: 'Being poor should not be a life sentence. We need to break the cycle of disadvantage.' Well, that cycle has not been broken, and I think that is a cause for us to consider.

The idea that's at the heart of this motion, really, is whether we need a radical shift in our thinking and in our practice, because, obviously, I think it's fair to say, the existing policies haven't worked, and that's been true over successive administrations of both political parties at Westminster.

Now, clearly, almost by definition, the cause of child poverty is a lack of income. Income comes from two sources in our society, largely—employment and Government benefits. Now, we are, of course, very familiar with the narrative that points to the importance of worklessness in sustaining intergenerational poverty, but, actually, if you look at the evidence, the reduction that was there between 2000 and 2010, to give—. A small but significant reduction in the levels of child poverty did happen, but it was almost all of it down to the changes in benefits, not any change in the wider economy and the labour market, and, so, principally, the introduction of the working families tax credit and other changes to the benefits system. Conversely, the increase that we are now seeing is almost universally down to austerity, and the reduction in the welfare budget and associated changes since 2010. The key drivers there, of course, have been the benefit freeze, the failure to increase social security for working-age people in line with the cost of living. Child benefit, for example, a lifeline to many families with children, is projected to have lost 23 per cent by this year compared to where it was in 2010. In addition to that, then, you have the benefit cap, limiting total benefits for working-age households, and then, thirdly, the two-child limit, which restricts tax credit, housing benefit, universal credit to two children per family. 

Now, those are obviously all Westminster policies, and, clearly, much of the focus was last year about changes in those Westminster policies from a change of Government. Well, that's not going to happen now, is it, and it's not going to happen at least for five years, and I would hazard a guess that it's probable that we'll have a Conservative Government at Westminster for at least a decade, given the political arithmetic of where we are. So, I don't think that a solution is to come from that direction. I'm happy to give way. 

You may indeed be right, and I welcome the comprehensive way in which you've gone through some of the policies there that lie with Westminster. You may well be right that they will not change, but it is interesting that some of those MPs elected in former Labour areas are now going to have constituents washing up into their surgeries who will confront them with the realities of this. So, I don't think we should give up hope, if this Assembly were to send a concerted message to Westminster in the budget that is due in March, to actually look at those issues over (1) the vulnerable constituents who are on welfare, and what would be needed to redress some of that, but, secondly, the simple old fact of making work pay. 

I certainly agree with the spirit of the point you're making, that we should definitely hold Westminster to account and continue to do that very vociferously. But I suppose the logic of my case is that we have to ask ourselves what we can do here now, because the salvation will not come, I think, likely any time soon from Westminster. Now, in essence, we've had two elements of an anti-poverty approach in Wales. One of them has focused on intervening directly in the economy, so lowering the number of families in workless households, enabling more women to enter the workforce, for example, raising wage levels for those in work that work in the foundational economy. The second type of policy, then, is the provision of services directly targeted at children in poverty, things like the pupil deprivation grant, many of the programmes that, presumably, the Government is referring to in its amendment, referring to the £1 billion spent—I presume annually—mentioned in its child poverty progress report in December. 

The problem with the former, the challenge with the former approach of directly intervening in the economy, is that that type of deep structural change takes time to bear fruit. And, then, while you're waiting for that structural change to happen, of course, you have an entire generation of children that then have grown up with the problems of poverty. It's important, it's absolutely imperative, but it's not going to provide that immediate relief. 

The problem with the latter is, by definition almost, it's intended to be ameliorating. So, it's dealing with the effects, the consequences, the symptoms of poverty, not the root causes. And this leads us to the discussion of whether we need a new approach, which, essentially, in the form of the Welsh child payment, would involve a cash transfer directly payable to low-income families themselves. Now, there are, obviously, legitimate questions around the detail, some of which we can get into later—the level of the payment, who would qualify, the powers or the agreements with the UK Government that we would need in order to make this as effective as possible. But these are second order questions, in essence. The key first question is: do we agree in principle that this would be a positive policy and it could have a higher impact than some of the alternative approaches that I referred to earlier? 

Now, it's not an original idea. It's based on the Scottish child payment that will be introduced later this year of £10 to low-income families. That started as an idea actually from the coalition of anti-poverty groups in Scotland, with the Give Me Five campaign to top up child benefit by £5 a week. The modelling around that suggested that that even would lift 30,000 children out of poverty in Scotland. That shows, actually, that relatively small amounts—small amounts to us maybe—but relatively small amounts of money can have huge impacts when we're talking about families that are living on the breadline. From this idea then emerged the idea of a Scottish child payment that is set at a higher rate but is not automatic, so it would have to be applied for. It's also estimated that that will have a similar effect in terms of 30,000 children brought out of poverty. 

The cost of the policy is around £180 million—£180 million out of Scottish Government budget of over £40 billion. Well, you know, if this is a priority, and child poverty clearly is for the Scottish Government, then they'd made the assessment that that is a price worth paying, given the impact that it's going to have in those numbers.

In terms of the evidence, the academic evidence is very, very strong. Money makes a difference to children's long-term outcomes. Poorer children have worse life outcomes in terms of their health, their educational achievement, their future employment and their own income prospects. It becomes that intergenerational cycle of disadvantage, and poverty increases stress and anxiety levels, parents are less able to invest in the goods and services that children need for their own development. And the—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll give way.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I just want to ask you: I agree that we need to alleviate child poverty, of course I do, but I'm looking at The Oxford Review of Economic Policy in 2010 and I have to right a statement that you said, that Labour in power—. Between 1996 when we took power and 2010 when we left power, there was a massive decrease in poverty for pensioners, for families with children, and for the children themselves. The question I want to ask is—. That's attributed—and I can send you a link to the article, since you don't seem to know about it— to being because of the increase that we put purposely into the benefits system as opposed to the decrease that has happened. So, we do need to take account of the levers that we have, but recognise at the same time the levers that we don't have and are visited upon us.

I entirely agree with you. The case that I'm making is, look, we should create our own instrument because, as the biggest systematic review in this area by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said, income support policies like a Welsh child payment are the ultimate multipurpose policy instrument because of their cumulative impact across so many parts of children's and families' lives. 

The Equality, Communities and Local Government Committee have suggested that the Welsh Government asks for the power to create new benefits. That means that we could do what the Scottish Government is doing later this year. I think, you know, the kind of figures that we're talking about, lifting tens of thousands of children out of poverty immediately, that would be one of the biggest impacts that Welsh Government could have on the lives of so many people, and I would urge Members to support the spirit of this motion. Let's get on with actually reaching that target of abolishing child poverty that was set 20 years ago.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to move amendment 1 formally, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Regrets the UK Government’s decade of austerity and programme of welfare reforms, which have led to an increase in child poverty in Wales.

2. Notes the £1bn of measures the Welsh Government has put in place to support low income families and to tackle poverty.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. So, I rise to support amendment 1, tabled by Rebecca Evans AM. I have previously spent much time, as have many others, debating and discussing in this Chamber the many cruel and purposeful policies that have gone into the so-called austerity cuts to the welfare net. But today it would be refreshing, I think, for nationalist speakers on the Plaid Cymru benches to acknowledge the £1 billion of measures that the Welsh Labour Government has put in place to support low-income families and to tackle poverty. And the Plaid Cymru proposal to introduce a £35 a week payment for every child in low-income families in Wales is undoubtedly interesting and headline-grabbing, but the devil is always in the detail.

We know—let’s be frank—that the nationalists like to ape the Scottish nationalists, and so Plaid Cymru are either blissfully unaware or are just happy to gloss over that the Scottish Government are utilising—it's not been mentioned—new powers that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament in relation to the administration of welfare. The powers that Scotland used to introduce the Scottish child payment have not, as has been stated, been devolved to Wales. So, if the Welsh Government were to look at introducing something similar in Wales, it would obviously need the UK Government to agree to the transfer of these powers, and, sadly, they seem much more intent on grabbing back Welsh powers. The devolution of the administrative control of the welfare benefits to the Assembly is indeed something that, as Plaid has again articulated today, want, but I think we do need to look at the evidence, and we do need to smell the coffee, given what happened when the Tory UK Government devolved council tax benefit, when they transferred those powers but cut the funding. Any move in this direction would need to be very carefully considered.

It’s not right, I think, that we fall into a trap of thinking that having administrative or executive control of social security would equally give us the opportunity to improve social and economic outcomes for the people in Wales. It is this learned experience that tells us that the Welsh Government would not receive adequate levels—

Will you take an intervention?

—of funding from the UK Government to support those who would need the welfare system.

I really want to make my points, but briefly, yes.

I'm just not clear from your argument whether you're in favour of the devolution of administration of benefits or you're against it.

I'll come to that point, if I may.

It's a fairly simple question.

In fact, it could leave less support for impacted citizens. I'll continue to the point that you make.

Welsh Labour cannot be agents for the Tory UK Government in Wales. To have administrative control in certain areas would mean implementing policies that we fundamentally disagree with, knowing the damage that they would cause to the most vulnerable in society on their behalf.

Once again, Plaid Cymru are willing to let the Tory UK Government off the hook by calling on the Welsh Government to make up the funding shortfall caused directly by Tory austerity and welfare reforms. If Plaid Cymru practically want to help children in Wales—and that’s the point, practically—on low incomes, then they know how they can do this: you can support, and welcome, and elucidate, and broadcast to the public the measures, our anti-poverty measures, in the Welsh Labour Government's draft budget. [Interruption.] This would be—[Interruption.] This would be mature politics. [Interruption.] You know that the Welsh Labour Government's budget includes—and I’m not going to read out the draft proposals; I won't go there. You know that Welsh Labour will continue to fight this, both in sickness and in health, because we believe in supporting and not harming our citizens.

So, deputy chair, it is Tory policies that have cemented and created the deepest poverty in a century, and it is Welsh Labour that will continue to fight it practically on the ground.

Thank you. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Wales has one in three children living in poverty, and this figure is rising, and this is a damning indictment of the impact of the Conservatives’ cruel austerity agenda and consequent cuts to welfare, and 20 years of inefficient governing by Welsh Labour. The Institute of Fiscal Studies have indicated that, if nothing changes, the child poverty figure is likely to increase to 40 per cent of all Welsh children living in poverty by 2020—that's this year—with welfare reform a significant factor.

Whenever radical proposals to tackle this are put forward, the reaction of conservatives, in both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, has been the rhetorical demand of, 'How much does this cost?' A question with the subtext of, 'How much are you going to tax my large income to pay for the scheme for poor people?' So, it's worth laying some context for this first. Poverty costs Wales £3.6 billion of public spending on its consequences every year. For example, spending on health and social services deals with the illnesses that are caused by poverty. And, of course, the cost of paying £35 per week to every child in a low-income household will vary depending on how we define low income and how focused and targeted we need to be. With an estimated 200,000 children living in poverty, giving the payment to all children in poverty would be around £364 million a year, although other options to define eligibility could see that bill drastically increase or reduce.

At the present moment, we want to be keeping all of the options on the table, because we want to reduce child poverty, and as long as we lack powers over the administration of welfare, we would, of course, need to negotiate with the Department for Work and Pensions so that the cash payment wasn't simply removed from other benefits—and I wouldn't be surprised if that particular department was vindictive enough to do just that. But, the principle of topping up the incomes of the lowest earning households is one that should have a political consensus, based on the evidence of its effectiveness.

Some sections of the UK media have been running a relentless propaganda war to convince people that the economic problems that they face are either the fault of immigrants or the undeserving, feckless poor, as opposed to Wall Street creating credit default swaps. Topping up the incomes of low-income families works. Even the right-wing American magazine The Atlantic supports this principle, and it argues: 

'In many cases, cash programs are simply much more effective than in-kind transfers at turning dollars spent into positive...outcomes.'

Neither do any of the programmes evaluated from around the world find that cash payments result in increased tobacco or alcohol use, as the prejudiced propaganda would always have people believe. The evidence shows that these programmes are cheaper than the alternatives. So, it turns out that the cheapest and most effective ways of tackling the problems caused by low incomes is to make those incomes higher. Who would have thought that? So, with Wales experiencing the highest rates of child poverty in the UK, and 20 years of failed initiatives and limitations in what Wales should have been doing, isn't now the time for a radical change in our approach? Plaid Cymru thinks it is.

I would like to thank Plaid Cymru for proposing this debate, which, once again, reiterates the issues facing families that were raised in the Welsh Conservative debate on local communities earlier. Speaking to the Welsh Government's amendment, it is, unfortunately, predictable that, once again, it has tried to shift the blame for its own failure to reduce inequality in Wales, instead rehearsing its own tired argument of austerity, rather than taking responsibility for its own actions.

Will you take an intervention?

No. Sorry, I've got a lot to get through.

The fact is, Wales has had a Labour Government in power since 1999, arguably propped up in the past also by Plaid Cymru. But, what progress has been made? A recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that, of the four countries of the UK, Wales has consistently had the highest poverty rate for the past 20 years. Even before the financial crash, figures show that Wales had the highest child-poverty levels in the UK: 29 per cent in 2007 and 32 per cent in 2008. Meanwhile, End Child Poverty show that Wales was the only nation in the UK to see a rise in the level of child poverty, with 29.3 per cent of children living in poverty in 2017-18.

Almost £500 million was spent on Communities First, yet the Bevan Foundation found that it did not reduce the headline rates of poverty in the vast majority of communities, still less in Wales as a whole. The October 2018 Bevan Foundation briefing on poverty in Wales reported that Wales had the highest population of individuals in poverty before housing costs in the UK. Between 2014 and 2017, the proportion of working-age adults in poverty in Wales was higher than in any other UK nation, and the pensioner-poverty rate in Wales was far higher than in the other UK nations. This, of course, has been compounded by Wales having the lowest wages and highest level of non-permanent employment contracts across Great Britain.

Will you taken an intervention, Janet? 

Go on, yes. 

I'm very grateful. Thank you. I don't disagree with what you said, but would you also acknowledge the impact of the benefit changes, as Adam Price outlined in his speech? And can I ask you, as a person who I know is a principled Conservative, to go back to your fellow Conservative Members in London and ask them to get rid of the two-child rule, what we call the 'rape clause'? It's appallingly cruel. Whatever we think about the parents' behaviour, that third child is not responsible for the fact that it was born into a poor family. Can I please ask you to do that? Because I actually believe you do care about this, but I think many of your colleagues in London do not understand the impact of that terrible rule. For a woman to have to claim that she was raped by her husband to be able to get money for her third child is surely something with which you, personally, cannot agree? 

Thank you, Helen Mary Jones.

Whilst Plaid Cymru's motion adds a more constructive tone to this debate, it is difficult to scrutinise the proposals, its costings and the evidence base used. However, simply providing more money does not always provide actual long-term benefits to people's lives. Whilst income plays an important role in preventing poverty, the Policy Exchange think tank suggests that, by focusing on welfare and income transfers, we are treating the symptoms of the issue rather than addressing the deeper causes of low income and poverty, including: unemployment, poor standards of education, a lack of skills and social issues such as substance misuse. Tackling these issues requires a more community-focused response from Government. 

The Welsh Conservatives have consistently called for the co-production of local services to empower local communities and to create an enabling state. This was argued passionately by Mark Isherwood in the previous debate and there are some positive examples of this in Wales. Oxfam's sustainable livelihoods approach aims to improve the lives of those experiencing poverty and disadvantage, focusing on a participatory approach based on the recognition that all people have assets that can be developed to help them improve their lives. Oxfam have worked in partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions to embed the SLA within the DWP in Wales by providing training for staff, with 50 per cent of trained staff sampled having increased levels of user satisfaction or reporting better service user outcomes.

The Welsh Conservatives recognise the importance of investing in the people of Wales to help tackle the injustices facing communities. We would establish a seaside town fund and market town fund to tackle deprivation within our towns, enabling communities to better fund the services local people need. We would focus on investing in people's skills to enable them to access more skilled, well-paid jobs—putting an extra £20 million into further education—and we would also fund more high-quality childcare to enable parents to take up employment opportunities to support their family.

Meanwhile, the UK Conservative Government is protecting the incomes of hard-working families and will raise the national insurance threshold to £9,500 and increase the living wage by 6.2 per cent from April 2020. It is a Conservative Government that is putting more money into people's pockets. This debate has provided a welcome opportunity to discuss some of the issues facing families across Wales, such as low incomes and poverty. 

Are you winding up, please?  

Yes. However, if we are to tackle these issues then we must focus on long-term outcomes, rather than short-term inputs, and empowering individuals and communities to co-design local services that meet their needs. Thanks to Plaid Cymru for your debate today. 

Obviously, poverty and child poverty in Wales are very significant issues for us and for those concerned with social justice at the very heart of the progress that we need to make in Wales. So, I welcome this debate today and the focus that it allows here in the Chamber. We should be discussing these matters and we should be looking at the most effective ways forward and possible new ways of addressing these matters. It is difficult, which I think we've recognised all along, given that many of the levers that would enable poverty to be more effectively tackled in Wales are in the hands of the UK Government. And when that UK Government is a Tory Government, then we see the results. We've seen the results through all the years of austerity, and I fear that we will see the results over the years to come of Boris Johnson's UK Government.

So, I do think that we need to look at what we can do here in Wales with the powers that we currently have, but also what further devolution could take place to add tools to those that are currently available to us, to Welsh Government and to the Assembly. That's why the committee that I chair, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, has done work on the benefits system. Because, as we've heard already, the benefits system is a very important part of the overall picture; because, yes, we do need to increase the income of families in poverty and we also need to reduce their outgoings. Organisations like the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Bevan Foundation have made those points quite clearly. So, one way of improving the income of poor families in Wales would be improvements to the welfare benefits system.

You know, some things are in our control at the moment, and we could introduce new requirements—for example, benefits take-up. I think there's still quite a lot of work to be done there. In our report, we look at perhaps introducing a duty on local authorities with necessary funding, so that they could play a greater role. We also look at how we could generally improve benefit take-up in Wales.

We look at universal credit. I think we do know that the shortcomings in universal credit are widely recognised by agencies and charities in Wales that are trying to address these issues and introduce improvements. You know, that wait for an initial payment, monthly payments rather than fortnightly, the lack of choice for benefit claimants in terms of flexibilities—for example, to get the housing benefit element paid direct to the landlord where they believe that would be advantageous to them—and, indeed, split payments between couples where there are problems in relationships and perhaps coercive behaviour. There are lots of flexibilities that could be introduced if Welsh Government had the power to do that rather than trying to negotiate something with the Department of Work and Pensions. 

Yes, there are possibilities around new benefits, around devolution of existing benefits. We know that the rules and regulations around sanctioning are problematic, and I believe we could have a much better approach if we had the power to change that here in Wales. The assessment process for sickness and disability benefits leaves a lot to be desired, and the percentage of successful appeals shows quite clearly the shortcomings to the initial process.

You know, there is very much that could be done. We explore all of that and much more in our report. Welsh Government is interested, we know that, because Welsh Government is taking forward its own work on some of these aspects, and I know Welsh Government is very interested in the report of the committee. In due course, we will of course have the Welsh Government's response when the further work—[Interruption.] Sorry? 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, indeed.

Just briefly. I wonder if he's had time to reflect on one of the more radical proposals or discussions that came up, which was: if the union continues as the union is, then it seems that this swimming upstream against what the UK Government does is just not a parity of esteem, a respect of what's going on, isn't a fit with our policies. So, it would be interesting to see if, on the joint ministerial mechanisms and so on, there is a way of incorporating welfare and the benefits and social security system within that. So, if Ministers at the UK end were to put forward some radical proposals, we could say to them, 'Well, I'll tell you what it'll do in Wales, so we want some compensatory mechanism to actually deal with that'. Now, I'm not saying this would happen, but what does he think of it? 

Well, I thank my colleague Huw for that intervention. We do look at that in the report, as you know, Huw, and I know you were very keen on exploring that approach during the work of the committee. So, we do recognise the need to look at a stronger Welsh voice. I'm sure, when we come to debate the report, that you will take part and we'll hear perhaps various views on that. But, you know, along with a stronger Welsh voice in the system as it currently exists, we do need to look at devolution, as I've described—and, indeed, beyond. And as I say, all of that is set out in the report. We'll have the Welsh Government response and a debate in due course, but I do believe that these are matters that need to be very carefully considered and explored, given the importance of welfare benefit payments to some of the very poorest people and poorest families in our communities. If we didn't take a serious look at these matters, I don't believe we would be best serving those communities.

Reducing the rise of child poverty in Wales, and, indeed, aiming for the complete eradication of child poverty, deserves the full attention of our country's Government—its full attention, its highest priority and urgent action. Unfortunately, that is not the situation.

It was very disappointing to hear the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services say at the Children, Young People and Education Committee this morning that she was not at all confident that it would be possible to improve a critical situation in which 29 per cent of children in Wales live in poverty. It's almost as though she has completely given up, and is putting the blame all on the Government's welfare changes in London. It's not the job of Government to give up. It is the Government's job to leave no stone unturned, to work tirelessly to find solutions and to provide clear leadership to drive change. I am therefore not convinced at all that the Government is really trying to get to the root of the problem. There is not even a cross-Government strategy on tackling poverty. To me, that says it all.

An opportunity was lost, in my opinion, to make a difference with the 30-hour childcare scheme. This is a very flawed scheme, which excludes children from some of the poorest families in Wales and, indeed, puts those children at a disadvantage compared with their peers. Because children from families where the parents are not working are not eligible for it. Why in the world would a Government seeking to eradicate child poverty prioritise children from families where parents are in work above children whose parents are not working? Why would a Government that wants to eradicate child poverty discriminate against student parents and parents on zero-hours contracts?

The childcare offer has faced significant turmoil already. It was criticised by the Children, Young People and Education Committee and the children's commissioner for not being available to everyone. A further twist came when the plan to administer it through Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs had to be abandoned, and £1 million was wasted in the process. And by now, local authorities are taking over the scheme's administration, although that arrangement is temporary and there are no assurances over the long term.

Then, an evaluation of the scheme showed that further confusion had arisen because parents had to pay for care during the holidays, when they were under the impression that it was available for free. One parent was hugely shocked to receive a bill for over £800 for childcare in one month during the summer, having not realised that her entitlement had expired. There is also confusion about how the proposal affects tax credits and issues relating to self-employed parents proving their eligibility for the scheme.

This is what I call a proper dog's dinner. A Plaid Cymru Government would ensure that childcare was available to every child. Access to early-years care and education of high quality is key to the task of eradicating child poverty. It's also key to closing the attainment gap.

So, as well as introducing the weekly child payment, a Plaid Cymru Government would have other appropriate policies, including a childcare and early years policy, which would be ambitious and far-reaching. And we would demand the devolution of the welfare system to Wales, and Plaid Cymru would have the will, the energy and the fire in our bellies to tackle child poverty, giving it the highest possible priority. We will not just accept—we cannot just accept a situation where it's foreseen that 39 per cent of children in Wales will be living in poverty by 2022. We will be tackling this issue and giving it the priority it deserves.

It's been an interesting debate, but we are 20 years into this century and, since the turn of the millennium, 2020 has been on the horizon, and it's been in most people's minds a beacon and a destination for all sorts of policies and aspirations. And we're here, so it's worth reflecting on what has been achieved, and, perhaps, what is yet to be done.

So, 20 years ago, there were 223,000 workless households in Wales; today, it's 182,000—a decline of nearly 20 per cent. That doesn't make it a good figure; it makes it a better figure. But the big trend in that time has been the rise in in-work poverty, so much so that there are now more children in poverty in working households than in workless ones. And what's the reason for that? The reason is, in the past decade, the Tory UK Government have imposed punitive welfare and tax changes that mean not only does not working not pay, but, often, working isn't paying either. Single working parent households are particularly susceptible to poverty, and now we have a Prime Minister who once argued, and I quote,

'surefire destitution on a Victorian scale' should be imposed on 'young girls' to make them

'think twice about having a baby.'

That from the mouth of a man who can't even say, or refuses to say, how many children he has. But he's got what he wanted, because single parents now do account for nearly a quarter of food bank users, nearly all of whom are considered destitute. Until 2012, the word 'destitution' previously had only appeared in Victorian times. [Interruption.] You can look up the quote; I'll send you the link.

So, unfortunately, the reality is that Welsh Government will need to continue to mitigate the impact of Tory-fuelled poverty in the coming years. That means carrying on the good work on the things like the social wage, the free childcare—whatever its problems, we won't abandon it—as well as structural policies on skills, education and economic development. And keeping more money in people's pockets will be an essential part of that. We should look to expand on the many policies that support people, and we've heard colleagues here talk today about ideas and policies that do support people; that do help them keep the money in their pockets.

What I particularly wanted to pick up today is the importance of strong communities as a buffer against society. Before Christmas, the Trussell Trust charity published its 'State of Hunger' report. Unsurprisingly, it found clear evidence, and I quote, that 

'the extent and timing of five key benefit changes'— and here they are—

'(sanctions, Universal Credit, "bedroom tax", benefit levels, Personal Independent Payment assessments) had sizeable and significant effects' on food bank use. So, what did the Tories do about that? They gave the architect of that, Iain Duncan Smith, a knighthood in the new year's honours. So, they clearly have changed, haven't they? 

Challenging life experiences and ill health were the other reasons for those changes, but so too was lack of informal support, and this is where we can make some changes. As the report explains, the vast majority of people referred to food banks had either exhausted the support from family or friends, had a resource-poor social network, or could not access support due to social isolation. We can certainly step into that gap. So, in terms of giving that support, it will be down to us, because there's one thing for certain in my mind: it is very unlikely that the UK Government—and they're in denial over there—is going to help to change anything. They're not suddenly going to have a change of hearts and minds by a man who I have just quoted. Those words are his words not mine. So, frankly, we would be rather foolish if we thought, in Wales, that the Tories in Westminster, led by a man who thinks that we ought to punish women to deter them from having a baby, are going to be somehow compassionate—I'm going to send you the link—about the future of those same people.

Thank you. Can I now call the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government, Hannah Blythyn?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate today in place of the Minister for Housing and Local Government. 

We know that analysis undertaken for the Equality and Human Rights Commission estimates that relative child poverty in Wales will increase substantially over the coming years, potentially pushing an extra 50,000 children into poverty by 2021-22. As we heard today, it is only right that this should concern each and every one of us regardless of party or position. One child in poverty should always be one too many.

And whilst the Welsh Conservatives don't want to hear it, as we've heard time and time again, the devastating impact of austerity and welfare reform is not fake news; it's an unfortunate and stark and horrific reality for far too many people. The catalogue of cruel welfare cuts have drastically changed what should be a safety net into a system that penalises people who need it and rely on it at their greatest time of need. And as we've heard today, during today's debate, these welfare reforms have seen the withdrawal of child support for the third child, cuts to disability benefits and the creation of a pernicious sanctions regime. 

The motion put forward by Plaid Cymru calls on the Welsh Government to introduce a £35-a-week payment for every child in a low-income family in Wales. It's an interesting policy, but it's somewhat presented as a panacea that would wholly mitigate fundamental and systemic inequality. As Adam Price points out, clearly it needs to have more detail around it and there are legitimate questions to be asked around the detail.

We've heard that it's modelled on the scheme the Scottish Government is planning to implement, where £10 per week will be paid for each child in a low-income family, due to be rolled out to eligible families by the end 2022. The Scottish Government is able to implement their policy as they have the necessary legislative competence to amend benefits that are not national-insurance dependent. The Welsh Government does not have this competence, so should we do this, we would need an alternative approach.

That approach could potentially have ramifications for benefit entitlements in Wales, as it would be treated as extra income by the DWP, and we wouldn't want a situation that would actually take money away from low-income families. Of course, we could seek the competence to amend benefits, but this needs to be done with our eyes wide open to any unintended and unwanted consequences. As we've heard Members say today, if funding did not follow the responsibility, the resources would need to come from elsewhere and doing so, we would not want to place that burden on those least able to bear it the hardest.

We've heard today about the estimate of the cost of the policy. Initial estimates have been given that such a policy would reach around 240,000 to 300,000 children, looking at initial approximate calculations of £525 million—up to £25.25 million a year. That's money that would have to be found from elsewhere.

I think John Griffiths made some very important points in terms of the work that's been done by the committee and also the work that Welsh Government has done on actually how we look at the potential devolution of the administration of welfare, and also at the same time how we make the best possible use of the powers and the resources currently available to us too.

That's why our amended motion notes that this Government is investing nearly £1 billion in a wide range of measures that contribute to tackling poverty. This includes £244 million each year in the council tax reduction scheme, with one in five households benefiting from a reduction in council tax; more than £125 million in the housing support grant; and ongoing early years support for children and families through the children and communities grant, which includes funding for Families First and Flying Start. In addition, we've allocated more than £19 million in 2020-21 for a package of measures specifically targeted to help some of the most vulnerable in our communities, which includes people living in poverty. The evidence does show us that where Government has taken direct action to influence the lives of families and children throughout Wales, the policies are having a positive impact on the root causes of poverty and inequality. There are now 300,000 more people in work in Wales since 1999 and the proportion of working-age people without any qualifications has more than halved. 

Since devolution, the number of workless households in Wales has fallen, as we've heard, from 223,000 to 173,000, and our economic action plan has been designed specifically to support the delivery of a strong, resilient and dynamic economy. Alongside these policies and plans, we've developed cross-Government support for individuals and families for the delivery of a more generous social wage. This is made up of a cash equivalent that results in leaving more money in the pockets of Welsh citizens; support that leaves some Welsh families more than £2,000 a year better off than would otherwise be the case.

We're also carrying out a review of all Welsh Government-funded programmes and services to ensure that they have maximum impact on the lives of children living in poverty. This will help inform how we prioritise our funding to support programmes going forward, and we will make a further announcement once the review is complete in the spring. But let's be clear, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are by no means complacent and we will continue to use all the levers and options available to enable and empower individuals, households and communities the length and breadth of the country. I urge Members to support our amended motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate?

The debate started with Rhianon Passmore focusing on the question of whether we have the power. I mean, when Rhodri Morgan decided that the Welsh Government was going to top up the child trust fund, I didn't see much discussion or soul searching then; it was the right thing to do and if you didn't have the power, you went and asked for it. And that's the Calman attitude now. And I think that you're behind the curve here a little bit, Rhianon, even within your own party, because I think John Griffiths reflected the evolution of thinking on the Labour Party side of this question. The fact that the Government has decided to hold back its response to the recommendations of the committee reports that relate to the devolution of welfare, because they want to actually get the response of the Wales Centre for Public Policy, I think reflects the fact that there is a change of thinking.

Rhianon Passmore rose—

My time is very, very limited, I'm afraid. 

Leanne, I think, pointed to the wealth of evidence that there is internationally on the value of cash transfer versus in-kind payments. There's a debate going on, of course, between the benefit of universal basic services versus universal basic income, the social wage that Joyce Watson referred to, but the evidence is pretty overwhelming that, actually, transfer payments from the state to low-income families are at the core of the creation of a welfare state. It actually makes a huge material difference to people's lives in all kinds of ways: it reduces post-natal depression; it reduces smoking during pregnancy; it actually keeps children alive because poverty is one of the key factors in the early deaths of children under one as well. So, it has huge positive consequences right across the piece.

I think that Siân Gwenllian reminded us that the failure that I referred to—the UK Government's failure to reach that 20-year target—is also a failure here in Wales, because, of course, that target was adopted in around 2003, it was dropped in 2016. I understand the context for that, but we have the opportunity now to grasp the nettle and accept that solutions are not going to come from Westminster, and we can actually, yes, take lessons from the model that the Scottish Government are developing, look at the lessons there and go even further than them in terms of the level of the benefit that we're talking about.

Of course it's right, as the Minister said, that the Welsh child payment cannot be a panacea. Yes, of course you have to take a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction, but all the evidence increasingly says that transfer payments have to be a central approach from any Government. And when we have a Government at Westminster that is not living up to its responsibilities, then we have to fill that vacuum, don't we? I mean, that's why we were created: for this very circumstance.

It was interesting, in the report, the arguments against devolution of welfare, some of them focused on the so-called 'social union'. Well, this is no longer a social union, increasingly; it's an anti-social union—yes? I mean, the kind of changes in terms of the benefit policies, et cetera, are taking us to the position, as we've heard, where we could see up to 40 per cent of our children living in poverty. So, this idea is actually part of the toolbox that is necessary for us now to defend our children. Because these children can't afford to wait five years for the election of a Labour Government in Westminster, or 10 years, in the worst case scenario that some in the Labour Party are pointing to, depending on the outcome of the leadership election, presumably. Look, those children can't afford to wait, they will have to live with the consequences of that for generations. We can make a difference. Let's look at the powers over welfare, but particularly this idea of creating a Welsh child payment, which will prove the value of creating this institution in the first place.

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

Voting deferred until voting time.