National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Julie Morgan.

I have regular discussions with the Prime Minister, but the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport would usually lead any health-related discussions with representatives of the UK Government on health issues.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Two weeks ago, there was cross-party support here in the Assembly for a motion calling on the UK Government to initiate a statutory public inquiry into the scandal of people with haemophilia who were given contaminated blood in the 1970s and the 1980s, which, of course, has resulted in the death of 70 people from Wales, and many more people are still living with HIV, hepatitis C and liver disease. Will the First Minister raise this directly with the Prime Minister, Theresa May, when he meets her next, so that the families of the 70 people who did die in Wales, and all those who were affected, can reach some closure.

Well, I can say that the Cabinet Secretary is leading the discussions on this. He wrote to the Secretary of State for Health on 20 December, supporting the call for a UK-wide public inquiry on behalf of all those who received contaminated blood. He’s also heard at first hand the views of affected individuals and their families, and is now considering the issues and concerns before making a decision on the way forward for those who were affected in Wales.

Good afternoon, First Minister. May I, first of all, reinforce Julie Morgan’s calls for that national public inquiry? I think that’s very important. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently reported on the quality of the UK health services, which recommended the need to establish a set of key health data and quality indicators for all of the UK health systems, so we can benchmark ourselves effectively using agreed common definitions and facilitate quality. I wonder, First Minister, what discussions you or your Cabinet colleagues have had with your counterparts in the other devolved nations, and Westminster, to facilitate this recommendation so that we can really judge ourselves on a peer-to-peer basis.

There are active discussions between officials about this. The indicators for health vary widely, as we know, but, nevertheless, this is something that is in the early stages of exploration.

May I also associate myself with the question and the comments made by the Member for Cardiff North? It might be useful for the First Minister to put health on the agenda in discussions with the UK Government in relation to our exit from the EU. Would the First Minister, in that context, be prepared to raise the issue of the need for Wales to be able to determine the level of visas to be issued to NHS staff from abroad, given our greater dependence currently on NHS staff from other countries? Also, will he seek an assurance that, following the UK leaving the EU, the requirements to get a medicine licensed are not going to be watered down when the lobbyists of the big pharmaceutical companies spot an opportunity?

I think it’s hugely important that safety standards are maintained and that drugs are properly tested before they arrive on the market. There have been several instances over many years of drugs that have not gone through proper appraisal—thalidomide being the one that is most well-known—and it’s hugely important that the current regulations stay in place. I have to say, with regard to the issue of regional work visas, it is an issue that the UK Government has not shut the door on. Therefore, it’s an interesting issue. There are practical issues that would need to be resolved—no question about that—but it is something that we are keen to investigate, certainly, at this stage.

First Minister, one of the biggest challenges facing healthcare in the twenty-first century is the dramatic rise in antimicrobial resistance. There have been a few cases in China where resistance to last-resort antibiotics has been seen. Unless drastic action is taken, we will be living in the world that existed before the discovery of penicillin, where people were dying from the simplest of diseases. The O’Neill review of antimicrobial resistance recommends an overhaul of the antibiotic research and development chain and intervention from the G20. What discussion has your Government had with the Prime Minister about this issue, and will you join me in calling on the UK Government to lead the way in tackling antimicrobial resistance?

Disease control and defence is an international matter that needs the fullest amount of international co-operation. Antimicrobial resistance has been an issue for some years. We’ve seen, for example, the emergence of drug-resistant strains of TB. We also see, for example, some conditions that even so-called last-resort antibiotics, such as vancomycin, haven’t been able to resolve. So, yes, it is a constant battle between humanity and microbes, if I can put it that way, to ensure that we don’t start to move backwards and find that there are no longer effective drugs to treat particular conditions. And, so, international co-operation is hugely important to make sure that we stay ahead of the game.

Yes. The health board has maintained good performance in some key areas, including cancer, ambulance performance, and stroke. And, since being put in special measures, they have virtually eliminated diagnostic waits of over eight weeks. But, performance in some other areas is not what we would expect, and the Cabinet Secretary has made his expectations clear.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary needs to do more than making his expectations clear. This is a health board that is in special measures, and yet, at the Glan Clwyd Hospital, at the moment, the routine waiting time for orthopaedic surgery is 112 weeks. That’s more than four times the Government’s 26-week target. What specific action is your Government taking, given that this health board is in special measures, to address this particular problem with orthopaedic waiting times, across north Wales and, in particular, at Glan Clwyd Hospital?

Well, an additional locum hand surgeon has been appointed in Glan Clwyd, to reduce waits in this area. Some activity will be outsourced to alternative providers. We will continue to enhance the musculoskeletal clinical teams, including the focus on physiotherapy. So, yes, there has been the appointment of an extra surgeon, and we believe—and expect—that the waiting lists will now come down.

There is concern in the Colwyn Bay area that a surgery is closing. Other surgeries are under pressure and three of these surgeries, if truth be told, have only one GP. It is an area where the minor injuries unit in Hesketh Road has been closed for some years. The area’s population is also older than the average, and there are hundreds of homes now being built as a result of the local development plan. Would you agree with me that such a situation is unsustainable and can you tell us what you are doing to assist the local health board to meet the significantly enhanced demand? The demand is up but the provision, of course, is going down.

Well, of course, we have seen examples where the surgeries have said that they no longer wish to remain open. However, the health board then establishes a system in order to ensure that the service is available. Prestatyn is an example of that, where the service is better now than it was previously with the surgeries. So, there’s a responsibility on the health boards to ensure that the service continues and that it is broader and better.

First Minister, I read an article about the state of the north Wales health board, specifically about hip operations, and it claimed that some patients in north Wales are waiting two years for such operations. Compared to what’s going on in England, it’s quite disgraceful. We’re waiting a year and a half longer than is recommended. Now, I myself have been waiting—[Interruption.] Sorry—Llywydd.

Can the Member be heard, please?

I am ever so sorry, but this is a very serious matter. I myself have been waiting 30 weeks to have my own hip looked at. I am on painkillers, which my doctor, when he handed them to me, said that it said on the box, ‘If you take these for more than three days, you will become addicted to them’. I asked my doctor about that, and he said, ‘Your choice is that you suffer the pain or you take them’. Now, people waiting for hip operations can get very depressed from the constant pain—I know this for myself—and they can be taking painkillers that lead to all kinds of side effects. Why is it that, in Wales—and north Wales, specifically—we have to wait up to two years for these operations? This really is not good enough. What are you going to do about that?

Well, I’m surprised that that is the advice that the GP has given to him with regard to a drug; a drug has been prescribed that is said to be addictive after three days. I mean, if that’s correct, then I’m surprised that that is the advice that he’s been given by his own GP.

But, dealing with the issue that he’s raised, it is right to say that waiting times are too long in some parts of the north of Wales—that much is conceded. But, nevertheless, as I’ve outlined already and as the Cabinet Secretary has outlined, there are steps that are being taken in order to address the situation, including, of course, having an extra hand surgeon at Glan Clwyd, and making sure that alternative providers are available to patients as quickly as possible in order for operations to carry on.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, as I’ve said to you many times in this Chamber, you quite rightly identified education as a priority for your stewardship as First Minister here in the National Assembly for Wales. Last week, in the education committee, evidence was given that showed that the number of teachers in our schools has declined by over 1,000 since 2010. If education is a priority for you, why have you allowed the number of teachers teaching in our schools from 2010 to 2015 to decline by over 1,000?

Bear in mind, of course, that teachers’ pay and conditions have not been devolved and won’t be devolved until next year, so his party bears a responsibility for the funding of that particular matter. There will be some schools, of course, where numbers have dropped and, as a result, teaching staff have dropped. But we look forward now, next year, to working with the teaching profession to develop a fully comprehensive terms and conditions package to make sure that teaching remains attractive.

It’s always someone else’s fault, First Minister, with you, isn’t it? In fairness, the pupil numbers in our schools have remained relatively static, yet we’ve seen in excess of 1,000 teachers disappear out of the classrooms, both in primary and secondary schools across Wales on your watch.

What also came to light in the committee last week was that the funding gap between what is funded in England has stretched from £31 per pupil in 2001 to £607 in 2015. So, not only are we getting fewer teachers in the classroom, but your Government is making less money available for those teachers to use to teach the pupils of Wales. What are you going to do about closing that gap when it comes to funding?

He is surely having a laugh. He is the representative of a party that wanted to cut education spending going into the last election. It wanted to cut education spending by 12 per cent and take money out of schools. If he had been in my job now, schools would’ve been starved of funding, we’d have had fewer teachers and fewer achievements in our schools. We have kept our promises on school funding; we’ve made sure that schools have been funded properly; we’ve seen an improvement in GCSE results; we’re seeing and improvement in A-level results; we saw the categorisation results from last week, where schools had improved; we’ve provided money to help those from deprived backgrounds; we’ve helped those schools, financially, that are not performing as they should, to start to improve. We have a good record on education and not the cuts that he would propose.

Well, obviously, you must’ve been living in a different universe, because we had no proposals for cuts in education at the last Assembly elections. Rather bizarrely, you must’ve been living in a different universe. What we’ve had since Christmas are the programme for international student assessment results; we’ve had the Estyn report that has clearly shown that, on your watch, education has either gone backwards or stood still. That’s a fact—that’s Estyn and that is the PISA results, First Minister. That is a fact, and the evidence given to the education committee last week clearly pointed to fewer teachers and less money available in schools here in Wales.

So, the issue you’ve got now, with the news, today, is that the introduction of the new curriculum is also hitting problems when it comes to leadership and strategic direction, as well as the pioneer schools not knowing exactly where they’re going with the introduction of the new curriculum. How can you give any certainty that you’re going to right the wrongs of your first term in office, so that pupils, teachers and parents can see genuine improvement in schools? Or are we actually going to be on the mystery tour that the Scottish education Minister, John Swinney, said that their system is going on at the moment? Are you prepared to allow Welsh schools to go on a mystery tour, First Minister?

I have no idea what he means by that. If anybody would like to explain all that, then there it is. I’m not letting him off the skewer on this one, okay? He has fought elections on the basis of a 12 per cent cut in education funding. That is a fact. That is a fact. He stood as a Conservative candidate in the election in 2011 when his leader went on live tv—live tv—and said that we need to cut education by 20 per cent. It’s there, there’s evidence; not the alternative facts that he wants to present. And what do we see? We see a school buildings programme—new schools opening all across Wales. Members will see where they are. If he had been in charge, nothing would’ve been built, because there wouldn’t be a school buildings programme because his party cut the school buildings programme in England. We wouldn’t have seen the improvement in schools in terms of categorisation; we wouldn’t have seen the pupil deprivation grant; we wouldn’t have seen the money that we have put into Schools Challenge Cymru; we wouldn’t have seen the improvements in GCSEs and we wouldn’t have seen the improvements in A-levels. No. It’s right to say that, under the Welsh Conservatives, Welsh education would be consigned to the dustbin.

Arweinydd grŵp UKIP, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. The First Minister will know that I’m a strong supporter of the Welsh Government’s policy of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050, and I’m a great admirer of the Minister for lifelong learning, who brings his legendary diplomatic and leadership skills to the achievement of that objective. In particular, I approve of the basic principle of tolerance and respect, both for English speakers and Welsh speakers, that he has brought to the development of this policy, which I think has made it marketable beyond areas where it might otherwise have been.

Does the First Minister think that the success of this policy of the Welsh Government is being put at risk by Plaid Cymru-controlled Carmarthenshire County Council, which is forcing a Welsh language school upon people in Llangennech near Llanelli, against the overwhelming wishes of the majority of parents in that village?

Well, these are matters for Carmarthenshire council. They must make an assessment in terms of what they see as the right solution for any particular area within their county boundary.

Well, the Welsh-medium education strategy says that Wales should be a country where people may choose to live their lives through the medium of either, or both, Welsh or English, and I think that’s a very reasonable objective. Here we’ve had a consultation process in Llangennech, 18 months after the decision was actually made, in which five people have opposed the proposal for every one in favour, and there have been 757—which is an enormous number for a small village—responses against this proposal by Carmarthenshire County Council. It’s not a consultation, it’s a ‘nonsultation’.

Does he agree with Michaela Beddows, who’s leading the people who are against this proposal, when she says that ‘Welsh by compulsion breeds resentment’?

As I said, these are matters for Carmarthenshire council. As a Government, we of course are supportive of the Welsh language, we want to see an extension of Welsh-medium education and more children involved in it. But, at the end of the day, it is for Carmarthenshire council to justify the decisions that it takes, in view of the elections coming in May, of course.

I agree that that is the constitutional position, but the Welsh Government—because this is a Welsh Government policy for improving the condition of the Welsh language in Wales, and maximising its appeal and its reach—must have a persuasive influence here. There is a practical solution to this problem, because at the moment there are three Welsh-medium schools in Llanelli with 170 surplus places, 120 out-of-area Welsh-speaking pupils are currently being brought into the school in Llangennech, whilst 81 English-medium pupils are being taken out of the school in Llangennech. What we need to do is have a practical solution on the ground that satisfies both parties. That can be done without putting at risk the acceptability of what otherwise, I think, is an excellent policy that shows the way for the Welsh language.

Well, these are matters that I would have expected Carmarthenshire council to consider in coming to the decision that they did. It’s not a matter for Welsh Government to intervene, but it is important, of course, that any local authority takes into account the views of those who live locally, whilst considering, of course, the encouragement that we give as a Government to supporting the Welsh language. But, ultimately, it is a matter for the council to decide and, of course, to explain.

Arweinydd Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch. I’m sure Carmarthenshire council would have appreciated more support from you, First Minister, when it comes to the Welsh language, but I want to turn to a matter of income differences. [Interruption.] First Minister, when it comes to differences in income between regions—.

Can we hear the leader of Plaid Cymru please?

Diolch, Lywydd. When it comes to differences in income between its regions and nations, the UK is one of the most unequal states in Europe, and Wales suffers from this imbalance as well. To address this imbalance, our market towns and post-industrial towns need good-quality public sector jobs. HMRC, DWP and the jobcentre are moving jobs from towns that suffer from low wages, like Porthmadog, Llanelli, and Porth in the Rhondda, and jobs are being moved to more centralised sites. It’s not just UK Government departments doing this; there’s a consultation on moving ambulance service jobs from Carmarthenshire to Bridgend. Do you recognise this centralisation agenda, and are you concerned about jobs and services being moved out of communities to a smaller number of locations?

Yes, and I deplored the decision taken by HMRC in Porthmadog and other locations, including my own town some years ago. In the same way, certainly, I’m concerned about the withdrawal of commercial banks from many of our communities, and the need to ensure that, for example, the post office is then able to offer up the same kinds of services that the bank does. That depends, of course, on the post offices being there as well, which is why, of course, we had the post office development fund in place that helped so many communities to keep that service.

I share your concern about the post offices and banks, and there’s a real concern about the viability of some of our town centres if this agenda continues. We know what the UK Government agenda is, but, First Minister, you have levers too to counter this through the Welsh Revenue Authority. Plaid Cymru would agree that Treforest industrial estate is a better location than Cardiff, but that decision means that Porthmadog and Wrexham feel very hard done by, and they now need an alternative offer. So, what plans do you have to support a Welsh public sector presence in the north-west of Wales and also in Wrexham? You’ve said that the WRA will have a presence in Aberystwyth and Llandudno; how many jobs does ‘a presence’ represent? And when it comes to the targets that you have for the distribution of Welsh Government jobs across the country, are you on course to reach those targets?

In terms of the number of jobs, the total number of jobs will be 40 in the Welsh Revenue Authority. There will be some people who will be able to be based at home in order to work. I did look very, very carefully at where the WRA could be based, and a report was commissioned to that end, and Members should know that report, I believe, was placed in the Library on Friday. The skills that are required for the Welsh Revenue Authority at the moment are skills that aren’t actually available in Wales to any great extent. They’re not the same skills as the people in Porthmadog have. We have to recruit from outside Wales, in the main, in order for those skills to be available to us when the Welsh Revenue Authority begins in April. It was made very clear to me that bringing people to Cardiff in order to work was the option that was easiest in terms of recruiting people, but, of course, that doesn’t mean in the future that the body can’t reconsider where it might go. But, at the moment, certainly, the body will go to Treforest, and that was the strong advice—that that was by far the location that was favourable in terms of being able to attract the people with the specialist skills, many of whom are actually in London at the moment.

First Minister, if there’s a skills shortage in Wales, that’s your responsibility. You are responsible for the skills of people in this country.

I want to move on to transport now, though. Twelve months ago, you unveiled a plan for the north Wales metro, and that plan failed to include Gwynedd, Conwy or Ynys Môn, although it did include Cheshire, Liverpool and Manchester. The maps indicate that many of the routes are existing rail and bus lines, and your economy Secretary was quoted by the BBC as saying that £50 million would be available for this. Do you really think that £50 million is enough to deliver an actual metro? Will you commit today that both metro systems that are planned in Wales will start with the points furthest away from the densely populated towns and cities, so that those people who feel distant from this institution, from the centres and the arterial roads, are able to see some early benefit from this transport investment?

First of all, the Welsh Revenue Authority will be up and running in April of next year. It needs people quickly; it’s not possible to train people up in the specialist skills in the time allowed, and that was the—

You’ve known this for years.

And that was the judgment that we took. It’s not possible suddenly to train and have a pool of skilled people in a very short space of time. Those people are in London, in the main, at the moment; they are specialists, and we’re looking to recruit them. The skills don’t exist, in the main, in Wales.

In terms of transport, the metro was our idea. Of course we want to promote it. The north-east Wales metro was our idea, the south Wales metro was first mentioned by me in Bedwas rugby club in 2008, of all places, and we are seeing movement on that. The development work on the north-east Wales metro is moving forward and, of course, we will continue to support transport in all parts of Wales. We have called incessantly for the electrification of the north Wales main line as far as Holyhead, and that is something we want to see the UK Government deliver in the future. We want to make sure, as we look at the north-east Wales metro, that, in time, it can look then to expand west. These are not metro systems that are designed to be self-contained; they are systems that are designed to be extended in the future.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitments to deliver resilient communities and prosperity for all. Economic prosperity will underpin four cross-cutting strategies that will be published this spring.

As we’ve heard, there was an announcement that the headquarters of the Welsh Revenue Authority will go to Treforest. Having seen the paper that you mentioned and how the location was selected, the criteria made it entirely impossible for anything to come to north Wales or to anywhere beyond easy reach of Cardiff. The criteria related to skills—or one criterion did—but two related to being close to stakeholders and close to customers. Neither Caernarfon nor Porthmadog were on the list of six possible locations being considered by Government, despite what you told us here on 10 January. Will you give detailed consideration to the need for new criteria when considering the location of posts—criteria that will allow the dispersal of growth across Wales? Otherwise, the recent words by the Labour Party, both here and in Westminster by your shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, are empty words.

We must remember reality here and it’s extremely important to realise that we have to ensure that it’s possible for us to secure the expertise that we need. We know that it’s easier to do that in some parts of Wales than others. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t a role for north Wales or for mid Wales, and that is why we want to ensure that there are offices there in order to give customers a service. But, we’re talking about jobs requiring specialist skills that aren’t available in Wales, in the main. Most of the people will come from London and so we must realise that these are different jobs to the ones that were created in Porthmadog. But, in time, of course, I would want to see opportunities for people in towns such as Porthmadog to become part of the authority as the authority grows.

First Minister, yesterday, the economy Secretary kicked off a week of job announcements with the outstanding news that the BBI Group is consolidating and expanding its UK manufacturing operations onto a single site in Crumlin, in my constituency, at the Border Technology Park. This is, in great part, thanks to a Welsh Government grant of £1.8 million, and this considerable investment will see this BBI employment in Wales increased—almost doubled—by 2020, and it will provide excellent and quality career opportunities in the south Wales Valleys region, fostering closer links to the scientific academic community, and it will provide a significant boost to the local economy. First Minister, isn’t this further evidence that the Welsh Government intends to distribute economic prosperity across Wales? And when can the First Minister next come to Islwyn to celebrate this excellent news?

Well, I’m sure I will be visiting Islwyn soon, but BBI’s announcement is an indication of the hard work done by the Welsh Government to support businesses throughout the nation to help them retain and expand their operations here. I was very pleased that the Welsh Government’s investment and support have allowed the BBI Group’s headcount in Wales to grow, particularly as these will be high-quality management, scientific and technical roles. In addition to that, it was my pleasure the week before last to spend time in the north of Wales to see some of the excellent projects that have been taken forward there as well, in terms of job creation in tourism and education.

First Minister, the UK’s industrial strategy aims to close regional productivity gaps. Here, in Wales, regional productivity varies widely, from Anglesey having 53 per cent of the UK’s gross value added, compared with 90 per cent in Cardiff. Your Government has previously stated that variations in levels of GVA per head are affected by commuting patterns. While the Welsh Government has put £80 million of European funding into the Heads of the Valleys road improvements, mid and north Wales have traditionally suffered from poor transport connectivity. I note the exception, of course, of the Newtown bypass, which is making good progress. Can I ask what your Government is doing to close these regional gaps in economic prosperity caused by inadequate transport infrastructure?

Well, he has slightly argued against himself there by saying that there’s a lack of infrastructure when, indeed, the Newtown bypass is being built. That is something, of course, that is hugely important. We’ve seen improvements on the A470 over the past few years in terms of straightening the road. We’ve seen it recently in Dolgellau, for example; and, over the years, Cross Foxes; Pont-yr-Afanc; further south in Cwmbach Llechryd, with the bypass; and Christmas Pitch, as it’s called, on the road from Erwood. So, there are many, many examples of where the A470 has been strengthened. And, of course, in terms of the rail network, we’ve seen improvements in terms of passenger services through the constituency that he represents, and there are important opportunities in the future, both to improve the service and potentially look at new stations. Bow Street is an example of that. So, we’ve demonstrated our commitment to transport, both public and private.

We plan to continue to support businesses in their growth, to invest in high-quality infrastructure, and improve economic development conditions.

The First Minister will be aware that, last week, I brought a group of individuals together who have a track record of delivery in rural Wales to make the case for developing a specific economic development strategy for rural Wales. While the city-region model is a model that may work for many parts of the country, does the First Minister agree that it’s not necessarily a model that is relevant or appropriate for rural Wales? Do you agree that there’s an urgency to develop such a plan, in particular in the wake of the Brexit vote, as the impact of withdrawal is likely to be greater in rural Wales than elsewhere in the country? Will you make a commitment to take seriously the suggestions that will be submitted by this group and use them as the basis for developing a comprehensive economic strategy for rural Wales?

Yes, I will. Of course, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire are part of the Swansea bay city region, and it is important that this is not seen as an urban and rural divide. I thank the Member for the work that she’s done and the passion that she shows for rural Wales. The city region is not a one size fits all. There will be other footprints that will need to be used in the future to develop the economies of rural Wales, but it’s right to say there are challenges. Beyond 2020, we will see £260 million disappear, at this moment in time, from the Welsh economy as farming subsidies go. There is no certainty in that regard so, yes, now is certainly the time to start planning for a rural economy in Wales that will lose substantial amounts of money unless the UK Government steps up to the mark and makes sure the money is there.

First Minister, one of the key elements of economic development plans of the Welsh Government were the enterprise zones, including the creation of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone in my constituency. Now, given that these enterprise zones are crucial to your plans, can you give us the latest news on the development of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone, including the progress made towards a centre of excellence for the energy, engineering and marine sectors, and also the development opportunities identified specifically by your Government for the enterprise park in concentrating not only on energy, but also on tourism?

Well, 65 businesses have benefited. They’ve received in excess of £2 million of financial support as regards the rate relief scheme. A group has been established in the enterprise zone itself, which has a programme of work to support businesses to secure new contracts. We’ve seen investments in the zone as well, such as Consort Equipment Products, which has invested £1 million in Milford Haven itself, and now Valero has submitted a planning application to create a new energy generation site in Pembrokeshire worth £100 million. So, many things have happened in the enterprise zone.

Welsh income per capita in 2014 was 70.5 per cent of the UK average, the lowest ever recorded since records began in 1954 for Wales—indeed the lowest ever for any UK nation or region. It bounced back to 71 per cent in 2015, but that was one of the lowest figures ever as well. Is the First Minister prepared to commit the Welsh Government that we will not see this income per capita figure fall even further, but, if it does, after eight years as First Minister, would he be prepared to take personal responsibility?

Bear in mind, of course, that it was his party that was in charge of economic development for four years, so it is not as if his party have no role in this. We saw GDP go down then, and it shows—[Interruption.] It shows—[Interruption.] Well, I know; that’s easily forgotten, that, isn’t it, but there we are. It does show the challenges that exist in terms of raising GDP. The key to it all, for me, is skills. The more skills people have, the more they can earn, the higher their GDP actually goes. We have shown that we can deliver. As I say, employment 4.1 per cent—lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland—the best figures for foreign direct investment for 30 years, and GDP is now the challenge. Unemployment is not as much of an issue as GDP. It’s going in the right direction, and we’ll continue to equip our people with the skills that they need in order to increase their productivity, that much is true, but also, of course, to increase GDP per head as well.

Well, the health board is working to improve the provision of dental services and progress has been made. Some 30,000 additional patients are accessing NHS dentistry than a decade ago.

You may be aware, First Minister, that the main reason that children visit emergency units today is because of tooth decay, and it’s crucial that good dental care is provided for them at an early age. But, having said that, schoolchildren from the Bala area to the outskirts of Wrexham have actually lost access to a mobile dentist who visited schools because there was no funding in the budget to buy a new vehicle. Now, there is another vehicle available, but that currently is serving as a permanent dentistry in Pwllheli, because of a shortage of dentists there. This specific service has seen 4,000 children over the past year—500 of those needed further treatment. Do you agree with me that losing that service is quite unacceptable, and what are you doing to ensure that it’s reinstated for the future?

Well, this is a temporary measure. I know that the health board are looking at fresh ways of ensuring that the service survives, and they are looking at mobile units from other areas in order to achieve that, and they are considering opportunities as regards funding a new mobile unit to ensure that this happens. In the interim, there is care available in Corwen and in Dolgellau, but these are temporary measures and the hope is that the service will restart, ultimately.

Some 40 per cent of children still don't visit the dentist regularly. A third of children are starting school each year already showing signs of tooth decay, and it's the most common single reason why children aged five to nine require admissions to hospital. Given that this north Wales mobile dental unit stopped last September, and the health board is only reporting now their bid for funding to purchase a replacement vehicle and looking at redeployment of other mobile dentistry resources to provide support in the area, isn't it a little late, six months later, and should this not have been treated as a priority? And, if you agree with that, will your colleagues get on the phone to the health board and ensure that, with your partnership, this is treated as a priority?

Well, the Cabinet Secretary hears what the Member says. As I said, there are alternative provisions in place, although the intention is to restart the service. I can say, though, that, because of Designed to Smile, the latest dental survey of five-year-olds in 2014-15 shows a 6 per cent reduction in the proportion of children with experience of dental decay in Wales when compared with the previous survey, undertaken in 2011-12. And, over the last eight years, we have seen a 12 per cent reduction in the proportion of children with at least one tooth affected by decay, and that's an example of the success of Designed for Life.

Accessibility for all is a cornerstone of our approach to public transport. We monitor passenger satisfaction with stations using research undertaken by Transport Focus and, of course, following that, we see what kind of barriers should be removed in order to ensure that no barriers exist in train stations for those who wish to use them.

Thank you for that response, First Minister, and further to that, over the past few months I’ve received a number of complaints about the ability of disabled people to use a number of train stations, including Cwmbran, Abergavenny and Pontypool. Now, whilst recognising that train stations are devolved at the moment, what are you as a Government doing to ensure that stations across Wales do reach the appropriate standards?

I agree totally with that. Two hundred and forty-five stations come under the franchise in England and Wales, and only a quarter are staffed at present. We will expect significant improvements to be made as regards access to these stations over the term of the next franchise.

First Minister, Port Talbot had a station that had terrible disabled access and, after many, many years of campaigning, particularly by my predecessor, Brian Gibbons, the station improvement grant was allocated to ensure that Port Talbot became upgraded, and I'm sure you welcome the changes that we now see in Port Talbot for disabled access and disabled facilities on the station. However, it’s slightly been tarnished by perhaps some of the conditions and flooring and dirt we’re now seeing as a consequence of perhaps an indecision between Network Rail and Arriva trains as to who runs the station. Will you learn lessons from this development to ensure that disabled access is there, and it’s going to continue to be a good access, clean access, for everybody? Will you also look at the opportunities gained in transport hubs around railway stations, so that disabled access is not just on the station itself, but is also getting to the station and, from there, into the station?

Well, transport hubs are hugely important in terms of delivering public transport across Wales, and they have to be as accessible as they—well, they have to be accessible, full stop. We are aware of cleanliness issues at the station. Arrangements are currently being finalised for a new cleaning regime and security presence until the end of the franchise in October of next year, and after that date the services will be provided by the rail operator.

First Minister, Dai Lloyd in his opening question mentioned the problems for people with disabilities at Abergavenny station. If I can focus on those, you may be aware of the work of one of my constituents, disabled access rights campaigner Dan Biddle, who’s worked tirelessly both in my area and across Wales over the last few years to try and improve disabled access. Whilst you’re right to say, and Dai Lloyd was right to point out, that a large aspect of this isn’t devolved, of course the management of Abergavenny station is within the remit of Arriva Trains and that franchise. What are you doing to make sure that, as that new franchise date of 2018, I believe it is, fast approaches, disabled issues really are put at the heart of all this so that, even if they can’t be fully solved when the new franchise starts, a new focus can be put on that so that disabled people in my area in Abergavenny and across Wales do have that access to stations that they deserve?

Well now that we will be in full control of the franchise, the opportunity is there to make sure that our stations are then accessible. It is hugely important that those issues are dealt with, certainly as part of the next franchise arrangements, to make sure that all can use trains in the future.

We had a visit to the Assembly last week from Whizz-Kidz, a group of wheelchair users, who had recurring complaints that transport staff hadn’t been trained to deal with disabled people. This was unfortunately the case with rail staff, bus drivers, and taxi drivers. What can your Government do to ensure that transport staff are properly trained in this respect?

Well, it’s a matter for the operators, of course, to ensure they comply with the law. I’ve seen staff, certainly in my own station in Bridgend, very competently assist people who need assistance, and certainly I’ve heard nothing but praise about the staff there. With regard to bus services, it’s patchy. I do remember some years ago the council in Bridgend installing raised kerbs at every bus stop only for the bus company to introduce buses that didn’t lower. They were, effectively, coaches with a seat that could be lowered onto the ground—quite often that seat didn’t work. That’s a fine example of a transport company not thinking about the needs of its customers. But, certainly, it’s hugely important that transport companies comply with the law as it stands in order to make sure that access is there for all.

The Cabinet Secretary for Education will confirm this week that loans are to be made available to students beginning a postgraduate Master’s course in the 2017-18 academic year.

Thank you for that response. Perhaps the First Minister will be aware, following an item on ITV Wales news, about the story of Emma Stenson, from my constituency, who has turned to crowd funding to try and pay her way through a postgraduate course to become a physican associate in Bangor. Now, Emma has a first class degree in medical sciences, but she is having difficulty in affording the course because of her and similar students’ inability to access postgraduate loans in Wales. The health service needs Emma, and therefore students like Emma need that support now. As well as the pledge for students in the next academic year, and we are grateful for that, of course, how can we look at students who are at risk of dropping out of courses now in an area where we truly need their expertise?

Well, of course, if the course is starting in the autumn of this year, by then, the assistance and support will be available for someone like that. They will have had, of course, much less support than students from England in terms of the previous course. But one of the things that we had to resolve was to ensure that more funding is available for postgraduates coming out of universities in order to ensure that financial support is available to them, and that is exactly what will happen in the autumn.

These are, of course, devolved. It’ll be a matter for this Assembly to decide what happens with food standards. I know that the Minister for Social Services and Public Health recently met with the chair of the Food Standards Agency. We, of course, effectively, buy in to the services of the Food Standards Agency. They are committed to ensuring that the exit from the EU will not compromise the UK’s first-class food safety standards, built up after many years of problems in the past, of course.

Unfortunately, there are villains across the world who are keen to penetrate any weaknesses in our defences on this matter. We can remember the horse burger scandal. What I’m concerned about is that Theresa May seems hellbent on a deal of some sort with the United States, which has much lower standards of food provenance than this country or any other part of the European Union. So, what assurances have we had from the UK Government that they will bear in mind the important role that the European food standards agency plays in ensuring that the labelling on food is what is says it is, and that we are absolutely up to the mark in terms of identifying adulterated food that might come onto the market otherwise?

It is the case that, during the second world war, American forces wouldn’t use British abattoirs, as their standards were seen to be too low. In the 1990s, I had a bit of a sideline as a lawyer in prosecuting abattoirs and the standards were beyond description in some of them. What we have now, of course, is practice that is world leading, practice that other countries have certainly been following, and practices that mean that our food is amongst the safest in the world. We should not play around with that hard-earned and hard-won status. We will make sure, in terms of our devolved competence, that food standards are not lowered here in Wales.

Thank you, First Minister.

I have accepted two urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66. I call on Russell George to ask the first urgent question.

The First Minister and I have met senior management from Ford Bridgend and Ford Europe to discuss the issue. We remain in contact with management, the workforce and trade unions.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer? The Cabinet Secretary perhaps may not be aware of breaking news that union leaders are now so concerned for the future that they have given Ford a fortnight to come up with an alternative plan. So, there remains, of course, serious concern amongst the plant’s 1,850 workers over what the future holds. It seems that there’s been little sign of progress. That’s the position as it stands today.

Can I seek perhaps some assurances from the Government that you’ve looked at every opportunity, explored particularly the long-term future of how you can support the factory in Bridgend and also that any developments are properly communicated to the workforce and your involvement in that?

Further to that, I wonder if you could answer what discussions the Government has had about alternative opportunities for the plant, in particular given the fact that the Ford plant in Dagenham is now at full capacity, building diesel engines. What discussions have been initiated with Ford about the prospect of bringing their production of electric engines to Bridgend?

And finally, previous investment by Ford has attracted £15 million of investment by Welsh Government. What intention does the Government have to incentivise future opportunities for production at the Bridgend plant?

I’d like to thank Russell George for his questions and also his breaking news, which I can provide a further update on. [Laughter.] The Senedd would wish to be aware that the general secretary of Unite the Union, Len McCluskey, along with the general secretary of Unite the Union Wales, Andy Richards, have today visited Ford Bridgend. They spoke with senior shop stewards and then went on to discuss issues with senior Ford management. Discussions centred on the competitive nature of the plant and all concerned agreed to continue to strive to make the plant as competitive as possible when compared to its European counterparts. Len McCluskey asked for data from Ford concerning the manufacturing cycle of the plant. He also asked for other competitive sites’ information and reassurances from Ford regarding its long-term future for the Bridgend plant. I’m pleased to say that Ford have agreed to this request and will pass the information on to the general secretary prior to a mass briefing back at the plant on 1 March. I do need to reiterate the point that we will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure the future of the site, including the introduction of the Dragon engine, and I’ll use all assets available to me to assist the company and to identify new business.

I must also pay tribute to the local Assembly Members who have been fully and consistently committed to the site, including the Member for Bridgend, Carwyn Jones, and the Member for Ogmore, Huw Irranca-Davies. We are keen to see the site thrive and prosper. I think there are certainly opportunities insofar as petrol engine development is concerned. We know from the Volkswagen scandal that there has been a significant dip in demand for diesel engines and, therefore, a rise in petrol engines. But we also know that there is an increasing demand for electric engines and we are keen to work with Ford to identify what opportunities in that new and emerging area of technology can be utilised for Ford Bridgend.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for the answers thus far. Obviously, a key issue seems to be uncertainty around the UK’s membership of the single market and it is a clear signal of the pressure that Wales faces and will continue to face if the hard Brexit position being taken by the UK Government continues during the Brexit negotiations. We’re all aware, obviously, that you and officials have been working hard behind the scenes as regards Tata Steel in these difficult times. Can we be assured as well, further to what you’ve already said, that behind the scenes you are also exploring all possible options to secure the long-term future of the Ford plant in Bridgend?

Yes, I can assure the Member of that and I would agree that there are uncertainties across not just the automotive sector but advanced manufacturing as a whole about the impact that a hard Brexit could have on the Welsh economy. For that reason, we have been consistent in our approach in saying that Wales requires full and unfettered access to the single market. It’s interesting and it’s important to bear in mind that 30 per cent of Ford’s European sales are in the UK. The UK is its biggest European market and Ford makes 68 per cent of UK automotive engines, 40 per cent of which are made here in Wales. Wales and our Bridgend site are vital to the company, not just within the UK, but also across Europe.

I suppose the first question I should ask you, Cabinet Secretary, is whether the information that Len McCluskey is asking for is already with you. In September, you answered questions in this Chamber on the situation at the Ford plant based on reassurances that you’d had in June that year. In particular, you said that Ford had told you that there was no surplus of labour in the short term. So, five months on, I’d like to know what you consider to be the definition of ‘short term’. One of the questions you didn’t answer in September was that of my party leader, Andrew R.T. Davies, about key dates for decisions and for investments. I’m wondering: are you any nearer being able to give us those key dates now? As Welsh Government’s conditional investment earmarked for Ford in Bridgend is based on the number of jobs it can secure over five years, how is the delay between, shall we say, September and now, and what looks like being an ongoing delay, affecting your ability to respond to big announcements? I’m thinking particularly with regard to your own budget.

Finally, Ford’s commitment was to 125,000 Dragon petrol engines with potential—that was your word at the time—for twice that number of units. So, did you succeed in your conversations with the head of Ford Europe’s powertrain unit in concluding how the demand for the Dragon engine can be stimulated? At the time, that was accepted to have nothing to do with Brexit. If you haven’t managed to come up with ideas about how demand can be stimulated, which of those alternative production ideas that you put forward to us in September looks like it could be the one that would come to Bridgend in the event of default on Dragon? That was a point that you didn’t answer when Russell George raised it. Thank you.

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her questions, and say that there are key dates, and that the five-year plan is, of course, essential? Len McCluskey has rightly asked for further information concerning the five-year plan to be able to share with the workforce, who are rightly concerned. But, 2020 is also a key date and we’re seeking assurance from Ford and we’re willing to work with them and invest, if necessary, in opportunities to make sure that there is a long-term sustainable future for the plant. We have already worked with Ford Bridgend in investing more than £140 million at the site since 1978, and this has included support for skills. It’s included support for capital investment, improvements to infrastructure and also environmental improvements. We will do what we can in order to make sure that the plant has a strong and viable future and capitalises on the incredible productivity levels that we’ve seen in recent times. But, we’re keen to ensure that the competitiveness of the plant matches that of its European counterparts, as I’ve said. We will be nimble in our approach in terms of what support may be required, were Ford to come to us with a request for support, particularly to take advantage of new and emerging technologies. We offer a range of support mechanisms to assist businesses—large and small—to take advantage of new technology, and I’m sure that this is something that Ford would be very keen to explore with us.

In terms of stimulating demand for petrol engines, as I’ve already outlined, the relative decline in demand for the diesel engine following the Volkswagen scandal has given rise to an increasing demand for petrol engines. Ford have reiterated that the anticipated production volume of engines from Bridgend remains healthy in the upcoming years, and I think we should take confidence from that, with associated labour requirements expected to be similar to today’s levels.

Cabinet Secretary, I’m grateful for the answers you’ve given to date. Obviously, this is a huge concern and many of the employees also live in the Vale of Glamorgan and across the South Wales Central region. The jobs, historically, at the Bridgend engine plant have been very attractive, well paid, and people have stayed within the plant once they’ve found employment there. There is a unique set of circumstances around this plant; obviously it was part of the Jaguar Land Rover family many years ago. Ultimately, a lot of that capacity will now move to Wolverhampton with the new engine plant that Jaguar Land Rover have opened there.

I did ask you back in September about your intentions and engagements with the company to try and secure a medium to long-term future for this plant. As we know, the decision to downscale production at the engine plant was taken in Detroit, at Ford’s world headquarters, not in Europe, and not by the UK management. I note that, to date, you have not undertaken the visit that you said you were going to be undertaking at the time of that urgent question—to go to Detroit and have face-to-face discussions with Ford at their world headquarters. This is part of, obviously, a huge operation in Europe and across the world that Ford periodically look at, and I would ask: when will you be undertaking that visit to Detroit to actually speak to the people who are making these decisions, and can give the assurances that this Government, the employees and the community around the Bridgend engine plant require? Because, as I said, for nigh on 40 years now, that plant has provided quality jobs and has provided security as well. But I don’t think it’s helpful with the rhetoric today that if a plan isn’t forthcoming within two weeks there will be strike action at that plant, as Len McCluskey has indicated in his press statement. I hope that you will agree with me that strike action is the last thing that the Bridgend engine plant requires.

I think it’s worth pointing out—and I’d like to thank the leader of the opposition for his question. It’s worth pointing out that Ford have agreed to provide the information that has been asked for that will calm anxiety within the workforce. Discussions today have been very productive. Indeed, discussions between Welsh Government, the head of Ford Europe, Linda Cash, the workforce, trade unions and senior management have been constructive and productive for many months.

The decision was taken in Cologne; all key decisions by Ford Europe that concern Ford European plants are taken in Cologne. However, as I’ve stated in the past, we’re more than willing to go wherever is necessary in order to secure the future of the Ford Bridgend site. If that means going to Detroit, we will go to Detroit. But, we have been assured that the decisions are taken within Europe. And for that reason, we are engaging with the people who will make decisions on the future of Ford’s European plants.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

I call on Angela Burns to ask the second urgent question. Angela Burns.

Thorough and balanced consideration of the benefits and the risks involved in this project must be given before any decision is made. Ways we might support the project have now been thoroughly investigated, and I intend bringing together the three Ministers with portfolio interests on this matter next week to be able reach a decision this month.

I’m very pleased to hear that, Cabinet Secretary, because what we need, above all else, is clarification over this situation, hopefully followed by a Welsh Government commitment to Yr Egin. This is so important for Carmarthenshire. We have talked about this project now for, it must be well over 18 months, in and out of this Chamber. It’s always enjoyed enormous amounts of support, not just from the politicians sitting around here, but from Carmarthenshire County Council, from S4C themselves and, of course, from a great many businesses. I myself have in my possession a number of letters from major organisations that would like to take part in this project to develop a base for the creative services industry in west Wales.

Over 60 per cent of the projected floor space is already committed, or being earmarked as expressions of interest. We have the possibility of creating 850 full-time jobs throughout this area and an enormous impact on our local economy. Cabinet Secretary, I’m sure you’ll understand the pressures that Carmarthenshire is under. We may well lose a substantial number of jobs in our local call centre. We’ve already lost a substantial number of jobs through the HMRC reconfiguration, and Carmarthenshire is a town that requires these kinds of skilled jobs to go forward.

Whilst I agree that we all want value for money, what I would really like to understand is whether you are still utterly committed to ensuring that there is greater equality throughout Wales for economic growth, because many rural and industrial regions have been left behind, and we don’t want Carmarthenshire to be one of them. I am concerned about the advice note that you’ve received from the creative industries panel, and I wondered if you might be able to expand on that a little, because the chair of that panel is very unambiguous in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. He said, and I do need to quote this:

‘S4C itself should be relocated to North or West Wales. Culturally the organisation would benefit from being closer to its core audience. The area chosen would see a massive economic boost and, as importantly, an economic boost in Welsh.’

I’m not clear, from the understanding I have of the advice that you received, as to whether his opinion appears to have changed. And, if so, Cabinet Secretary, perhaps you could let us know what you think has changed so dramatically.

Finally, I’d like to say that there is, as far as I understand it—and I’ve been in contact with some of the companies based in Swansea—no Welsh-speaking cluster in Swansea, which some of this advice seems to be predicated or based on. I wondered if you might be able to clarify that.

I cannot say it enough: this project would be an absolute lynchpin for Carmarthenshire. And, yes, I’m going to fight for my patch, and I know you would expect me to, but we’ve talked about this. S4C is culturally so important to Carmarthenshire. West Wales is an area that has an enormous creative drive. Some of the greatest painters and greatest poets come from west Wales, and to base a creative service industry, and to drag, to be basic, the jam from Cardiff out along that corridor, so that areas like ours can benefit and can spread out into Ceredigion, into Pembrokeshire, into Carmarthenshire—and we can all benefit from it—would be very important. And I would like to ask you to just give us further elucidation. Thank you.

Can I thank the Member for her question, and applaud the passion with which she brings this matter to our attention? I would entirely agree that Carmarthen and, indeed, the whole of west Wales, has a huge amount to offer, not just to the Welsh economy but people from outside of Wales, as a fantastic tourist destination as well. I know that because I was there in west Wales yesterday, opening new facilities in the visitor economy.

The Member has spoken strongly in the past in support of the proposals, but the Member has also spoken in the past about the need to ensure that, as a Welsh Government, we conduct proper and thorough due diligence for proposals that are brought to us that require the support of the public purse.

Now, I do appreciate the ambition of the university to want to drive social and cultural development in the region, as well as to drive economic development in the region, and I’m keen to support any project that can deliver economic renewal and cultural benefits across communities in Wales, but the project must be deliverable and viable. And so I’ve been keen to explore every means of supporting a satisfactory business case, which could be submitted in a way that demonstrates financial viability, the economic, cultural and linguistic benefits, of the development, but which also explains the need for public sector intervention. I’ve also had to consider, as the Member has highlighted, expert opinion, not just from the creative industries sector panel, but also expert advice from across Wales, and concerns from across Wales, including from north-west Wales. That said, we are now in a position where I am able to bring together Ministers next week to discuss the matter, and to be able to make a decision this month.

Insofar as sharing the wealth is concerned, the Member is aware that I’ve already declared my intention to see the headquarters of the development bank based in north Wales, and there are opportunities with Historic Wales to see further investment provided to the regions, and, potentially, we will see what happens once the proposals have been fully considered. But one of the recommendations is for Cadw to evolve, and it may well be that we can look at investing in one of the regions in terms of a greater Cadw presence is concerned. I’m going to use all of the tools that are available to us, to make sure that all parts of Wales—all regions, all communities—share in wealth creation.

Can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that he has received correspondence from TG4, which is an Irish television channel, arguing that there will be an economic benefit and a cultural and linguistic benefit accruing from this project, on the basis of their experience in Galway, and that he’s also seen evidence from companies outwith Wales—and, in fact, outwith the United Kingdom—that would be interested in relocating to Yr Egin when it is built? And, finally, can he confirm that the University of Wales Trinity Saint David has offered terms and conditions that would mean that there wouldn’t be a continuous grant—that is, they would actually take it as a loan that would be completely repaid, which would then mean that we have a project here that would directly create 200 jobs, and indirectly 650 jobs, without a penny of cost at the end of the day for Welsh Government? If that doesn’t represent value for money, it’s very difficult to think of anything else that would.

I can assure the Member that we have now received that information and all information relating to the proposal that we’re able to now consider. We’ve also received correspondence from TG4, which, of course, we’ve been able to consider, along with correspondence from potential partners in the project. And in terms of—it was remiss of me not to actually touch on the point raised by Angela Burns—growing a Welsh language hub within Swansea, that’s certainly something that I’d wish to discuss with my friend and colleague Alun Davies. And it is something that we can explore next week, I’m sure, when we discuss the Yr Egin project.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his response and to Angela for bringing this case to our attention. It was disappointing to see this week that the creative industries sector panel had said that the development of Yr Egin would undermine a similar media hub in Swansea. But it’s come to my attention that, for example, the director of Telesgop, which is the largest media company operating through the medium of Welsh from Swansea, is not aware of any hub that exists in Swansea. At a time of uncertainty, particularly in our rural areas, following the Brexit vote, and when this project would give some glimmer of hope to these areas, can the Cabinet Secretary tell us whether any assessment has been made of the impact of not developing Yr Egin in Carmarthen?

Can I thank the Member for her question? And I must stress that I do believe that the advice from the creative industries sector panel was provided in good faith and has helped in our determination of the project. I do believe that the decision will be taken with regard to what is best for Carmarthen as a community and the creative industries within the community as well. The project obviously offers huge potential, and we’ve been keen to ensure that that potential can be, and could be, delivered by all partners who are part of the project.

I commend the Cabinet Secretary for the speed with which he’s going to decide this matter. Will you accept from me that there is cross-party support for this venture and that we all, in this Assembly, accept that south-west Wales has lagged way behind most of Wales in recent years in terms of income? Adam Price has done a signal service, I think, to us in bringing this to our attention, not just today at First Minister’s questions but also on previous occasions where he shows that we are one of the poorest regions of western Europe. I don’t regard that as an accolade of which we should be proud. Projects of this kind are vitally important, not just for the immediate jobs that they bring, but also for changing the whole atmosphere of the region or sub-region, which will then make it more attractive to other firms to locate there. It’s the magnet effect that is so important here.

The second point I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to respond to is that, yes, of course he does have responsibilities for ensuring that public money is spent wisely, but cultural and linguistic benefits themselves have a value beyond purely pounds and pence. And we know how important this project will be to the succouring of the Welsh language, and for the impact that it will have more widely than in the region itself. So, whilst I don’t expect him to give a substantive answer today, because he has to discuss with his colleagues and others to consider the matter in the round, but at least he should lean in favour of being sympathetic to this proposal, and not take a flinty, Thatcherite approach to it.

The Member can rest assured that I will not a take a flinty and Thatcherite approach to this project, and against his best efforts, I will not be giving an indication of a decision that may be made within the next 10 days. But the Member is right to say that there are historic structural challenges that need to be overcome, not just in west Wales but in other parts of Wales where we need to see an improvement in gross value added and productivity, and in the levels of skills that are acquired by people. For that reason, I applaud the Minister for Skills and Science today for launching the new apprenticeship programme to create 100,000—as a minimum—all-age quality apprenticeships, which, of course, will come of great benefit to parts of Wales such as Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire, where there are shared apprenticeship programmes being utilised by many people, and where I know there are a number of employers who are currently looking at taking on more apprentices. The key in growing a regional economy is in having agglomeration and proper skills provision, and I’ve been very keen, in scrutinising this particular project, to be sure that the partners that have expressed an interest in going to Yr Egin really will make good on that interest, and that we will see a concentration, within the hub, of creative industries experts who can offer the job opportunities that are promised.

That was exactly the point, Minister. What we want to see in west Wales is investment and a prosperous future for our young people, so that the children currently going to Llangennech school to get a Welsh-medium education will know that there are also good jobs available for them in west Wales. We want to see from Government the same kind of flexibility towards funding this project as you have shown towards funding and dealing with the Circuit of Wales proposal in Blaenau Gwent. There is a fiscal approach that you could take, and you’ve just confirmed that you could review this scheme to reprofile the financial investment so that the risk to the taxpayer is as low as possible, whilst still allowing the project to progress. Will you confirm two things therefore? First of all, will you confirm that the advice that you’ve received from the creative industries sector panel, in your view, is entirely unbiased advice? You said that the advice was given in good faith, and I accept that, but I would like to hear from you on the record that you accept that it is totally unbiased.

The second question, I think it was last week or the week before that you discussed with a number of Assembly Members the city deal for the Swansea bay region. That was during a meeting with a number of us, and I was grateful for that, and the Egin was discussed at that meeting in the context of a wider package. You were eager that we as Assembly Members would argue for the whole package and would not, in your words, ‘cherry-pick’ different elements of it. Likewise, will you accept that the city deal package includes Yr Egin, and therefore I very much hope that, next week, once you have carried out the necessary due diligence of any such scheme, you will support the scheme so that the city deal as a wider package is also supported by the Westminster Government.

Can I thank the Member for his questions and say that I am, again, as I mentioned last week, pleased that SA1 and phase 2 of the Yr Egin project have both secured the support of the city region board for development?

In terms of providing opportunities, particularly for young people, the creative industries sector has proven to be more successful in Wales in terms of its growth and in terms of expanding opportunities for young people than in any other part of the UK except for London. That’s because we have grown an enviable industry in Wales. We have also grown the skills and the expertise required to attract major television drama productions. But I’m determined to make sure that we don’t rest on our laurels and that we continue to introduce more people to the creative industries in order to meet demand. It’s actually demand that is a problem for us at the moment, given the interest from tv producers in particular, notwithstanding the presence and the interest that film producers are showing in Wales, but particularly with regard to tv drama, and increasingly with regard to animation. There will be more opportunities for people to enter into the industry. There will be more opportunities for people to reskill in order to get into the industry. So, I’m determined to make sure that, as we scrutinise the Yr Egin project, we are confident that it will deliver those opportunities.

In terms of the advice that came from the creative industries panel, as I said to Eluned Morgan, I am confident that it was provided in good faith. That said, I don’t think that speculation regarding any conflicts of interest is helpful whatsoever. What is important is that I, and we as a Welsh Government, consider all evidence, rigorously scrutinise the proposals, and then reach a decision on the basis of what is best for the people of Carmarthen and the industry.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

We move, therefore, to the next item on our agenda, which is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt.

I have two changes to report to this week’s business, Llywydd. Today’s oral statement on the small business research initiative has been postponed and, as no questions have been tabled for answer by the Assembly Commission this week, timings for tomorrow have been adjusted accordingly. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement, found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could we have two statements, please, or maybe even just a letter in the Library, in the first instance from the Minister for finance, explaining the new business rates scheme—the additional money that was put on the table? I appreciate that this was raised some two or three weeks ago, and, in our debate on the Wednesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government did indicate that he was hopeful of bringing forward the proposals by the early part of February. I’m conscious that we are now in the early part of February and, to my knowledge, no new information has come out as to how the additional £10 million that was highlighted before Christmas by the Welsh Government to be made available to local government for businesses caught by the revaluation would be administered and delivered to those businesses. So, in the absence of that information being out there, are you able to request from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government an update as to exactly where the Government is with its information so that local authorities and, indeed, businesses can understand how they will benefit from this additional money?

Secondly, whilst I welcome the move to put jobs around Wales, in particular the development bank that the Government has taken to north-east Wales and, obviously, the revenue authority up to Treforest, I am a little concerned at the disjoint in Government policy, and I’d be grateful if we could have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, because we do have a financial services hub enterprise zone here in Cardiff, and surely the Welsh Government should be promoting that, and yet when it has financial service sector jobs, it is not seeking to locate them within my own region of South Wales Central in the enterprise zone. Likewise, it is a fantastic job creation that Aston Martin has gone to St Athan, and we welcome that opportunity, but, under the Government’s economic strategy, that is supposed to be an aviation hub, and the automotive sector is supposed to be around the enterprise zone in Ebbw Vale. So, I’m conscious we’ve got a new Cabinet Secretary, I’m conscious the enterprise zones were brought forward by the previous Minister, but, in recent announcements that the Government has made, there does seem to be a dislocate between the policy of promoting enterprise zones and the actions of the Government. As I said, I welcome the Welsh Government’s opportunity to spread jobs around Wales; what I’m worried about is the dislocate between the policy initiatives and policy levers about promoting enterprise zones.

Thank you to Andrew R.T. Davies for those questions. On the first point, of course, as the Cabinet Secretary of Finance and Local Government has assured this Assembly and Members over the past few weeks, he and his officials are working hard to ensure that we can get that early notice. We’re just into February, as you say, and I know that they are seeking to announce the ways in which local businesses will be able to access what is going to be a very important additional tranche of money over and above the transitional funding that was announced, of course, last autumn. So, I can assure you that that is progressing.

On your second point, I’m a bit confused about your second point, because there is inevitably a Welsh Government policy to decentralise when and where possible not only jobs that we have any control with, but also to encourage in terms of the sectors. You mentioned the financial services sector, and I think it is very welcome that the development bank is being located in another part of Wales, linking very closely, of course, with all our financial services and businesses. But I would hope that you would appreciate that the huge prize that Wales won of getting Aston Martin to St Athan, to Wales, is what we should be welcoming. I’m very glad that the Member actually did make that point.

Leader of the house, can I thank you for your statement? Further to that, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure issued a written statement last Friday,

‘setting out a roadmap towards success, resilience and sustainability for the heritage of Wales’,

it says here. Obviously, the recommendations of the review group that have been looking into the future of so-called Historic Wales have received a cautious welcome. It goes on about a strategic partnership that seems to justify the independence of places like National Museum Wales and the National Library of Wales. So, all that is to be welcomed in a written statement. At the end of the written statement, there’s mention of a new review into the strategy and operations of National Museum Wales—just an unexpected little tailpiece there. I was wondering, from that point of view, whether I could request an oral statement as regards the details of that review into National Museum Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I very much welcome your recognition that the heritage services review in the written statement, Dai Lloyd, was based on that open review that committee and Members were able to contribute to, and all the partners who are affected by it, of course, have been engaged in developing those options. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will want to clarify in due course this review that he has commissioned in terms of the strategy and operations of the national museum.

Leader of the house, I’d just like to expand a little on the leader of the Conservatives’ point on enterprise zones. Clearly, enterprise zones were introduced in the fourth Assembly, and it is important that we understand the progress that is being made on enterprise zones. So, can you ask the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure and economy to actually produce a progress update on enterprise zones and how effective they are, particularly the enterprise zone in my constituency in relation to Port Talbot? But, in relation to that, can you also ask him to comment upon the preparations being made for investment and inward growth, because I understand there is a shortage of buildings, of square footage, size and capacity to undertake some growth in those areas? So, what actions are the Welsh Government taking to ensure that there are buildings, structures and infrastructure in place to ensure that growth in those zones can take place and that businesses can either grow or come into those areas to ensure that our economies, particularly in Port Talbot, are able to take advantage of them?

I thank David Rees for that very pertinent question. Andrew R.T. Davies has left the Chamber, to hear the important news that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure is going to be making a statement in due course on the enterprise zones programme. Of course, we can feed back to him your important points about the link to the sector and growth opportunities. He is completing a current review of programme governance, and so, as soon as that’s been completed, he will make a statement.

Cabinet Secretary, it is just one of those things that everybody is talking about—the enterprise zones. Just half an hour earlier, it was music to my ears when the Cabinet Secretary for the economy said—his own words—

‘all parts of Wales…share wealth creation.’

Wonderful job. Figures released in November 2015 also revealed the mixed results of enterprise zones in Wales, with over 1,000 jobs being created at Cardiff and Deeside zones between 2014 and March 2015, but just seven—seven—in Ebbw Vale and St Athan. Please could we have a statement updating the Assembly on job creation and existing enterprise zones and on the Welsh Government plans, if any, to expand the number of zones into other areas of Wales to support other sectors of the economy? As we know, Brexit has created a vacuum in different areas for development. Could we go for a fast track in certain areas to make sure that job creation and inward investment are taken care of and go on a fast track to grow our economy as soon as possible? Thank you.

I know the Member will have been very pleased to hear that I responded very positively to David Rees that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will be making a statement on the enterprise zones programme.

Can we have a statement from the Minister for Social Services and Public Health on retrospective claims for NHS continuing healthcare funding? A constituent of mine has been waiting for almost four years for a decision on her application, and I’m led to believe that almost 1,000 retrospective claims are currently being processed. Four years is absolutely unacceptable for a citizen of this country to be waiting on a decision on a retrospective claim, so can we have no more ducking and weaving and passing the buck from Welsh Government on issues in the health service in respect of continuing healthcare funding? Can we have a statement to clarify that position and to hear what action, if any, Welsh Government is taking to rectify this?

This is an important point and question, and it is something that, of course, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health has been working on, to ensure that those people who are affected get that early indication in terms of retrospective claims. I will ensure that there is an update on where the Minister is with the situation.

Yesterday was the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. I was very pleased to host a very well-attended conference here in the Senedd on this appalling subject. It was organised by BAWSO, but there were important delegates from NSPCC, Welsh Women’s Aid and from different parts of Wales as well as England. I think this is not just about the 30 million girls who are at risk worldwide of being mutilated before their fifteenth birthday, but it is about preventing this happening to the girls living in this country as well. According to Dr Chimba, who leads on female genital mutilation for BAWSO, there are some 2,000 women in Wales who are living with either full or partial removal of their genitalia. If it was men having their penises cut off, I’m sure we’d all be giving this a very high priority.

One of the issues that were raised at the conference was the absence of accurate data about Wales, because there was quite a lot of collated data about England and Wales. I understand that, this week, NHS England is going to be releasing the data that it has collated from different parts of the NHS, from nurses, midwives, GPs and anybody else who’s got accurate information on this. I just wondered whether you could give us an update on when this information may be available in Wales, because it’s really important in understanding what specialist service we ought to be commissioning in Wales, as opposed to sending people to other parts of England. Do we have the critical mass to justify such a specialist service?

Well, I think we’d all want to—in this Chamber—thank Jenny Rathbone for organising this very important event yesterday—a well-supported event in the Senedd, which many Assembly Members who were able to supported or came and showed their support. Just to briefly report progress and Welsh Government action, we’ve supported the development of health provision and co-ordinated training, which is critical, and this is where we can learn from our colleagues outside of Wales, but BAWSO is taking the lead in the training on female genital mutilation within all our health boards across the whole of Wales. It was initiated with the identification of FGM leads within each health board. We’ve got an all-Wales FGM health group that’s been established by Public Health Wales. It’s got a work plan and—in answer to your important question—it has commenced data collection on women and children affected by FGM across health boards, and it’s also devised and is implementing an all-Wales clinical identification and referral pathway, as well as the training.

We’ve also got, of course, the Healthy Child Wales programme. That’s got a universal health programme for all families with children up to the age of seven, and that also is identifying information contacts that can be made at health board level. As part of this programme, information will be recorded on children who may be affected by FGM. Welsh health boards began to implement this pathway from last October—on 1 October 2016—and have two years to fully implement the programme.

Leader of the house, it’s now been two weeks since the Welsh Government gave the Circuit of Wales company—. I think it was a two-week deadline, funnily enough, to provide assurances of their financial backers so that the project can move forward. I said in my debate last week on the Cardiff city region that I thought that this was a positive development for all the parties involved—a potentially transformative project for the Cardiff capital city region—but we do now need clarity on whether it can proceed. Can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure at the earliest opportunity, so that we can sort this out once and for all and move forward, or not move forward as the case may be? At least then we’ll all know in the city region area exactly what we’re dealing with with this project.

Well, what is important is that we have reached that deadline. So, of course, the Cabinet Secretary will be informing Members of the outcome of the situation.

Will the Cabinet Secretary for health make a statement on the Government policy towards surrogacy? Because many women in Wales unable to carry children as a result of cancer, for example, are being denied funding for IVF treatment unless a surrogate has already been identified. I think this whole area needs a lot of clarification, and we would be very grateful if the issue of funding for IVF and surrogates can be looked at as a matter of urgency.

I thank the Member for that question. Indeed, this is a question that the Cabinet Secretary will follow up, but it’s also very important that if you have people who are affected in this way that you also make representations on their behalf.

Today is Safer Internet Day. As the chair of the cross-party group on preventing child sexual abuse, I have been encouraged to see the work of the NSPCC, Stop it Now! Cymru and the Survivors Trust. They are doing incredible work to safeguard children and prevent sexual exploitation from taking place. A report commissioned by the UK Safer Internet Centre found that seven in 10 children and young people have seen unsuitable images online. Today, the NSPCC has produced videos for its Share Aware campaign, to highlight to parents and children the dangers of sharing information online. My colleague Lynne Neagle hosted an event today in the Pierhead, where the Cabinet Secretary for Education gave a keynote speech. Will the leader of the house join me in commending initiatives like these, which raise awareness of online abuse and exploitation on Safer Internet Day, and assure me and others in this Chamber that the Welsh Government will continue to do all it can on this?

I thank Jayne Bryant for that question, and I would like to thank her for chairing a cross-party group on preventing child sexual abuse. That provides an opportunity for Members across the Assembly to come together and take action and get the evidence in terms of the situation that you describe, which was very well highlighted today, I know, at the event that Kirsty Williams spoke at. I also draw Members’ attention to the written statement that Kirsty Williams made today on Safer Internet Day. I will also just say that we are the lead organisation for online safety in Wales—the Welsh Government—and we are committed to promoting the safe and positive use of technology to our children, young people, parents and teachers.

May I ask for a Government statement on its policy of devolving jobs to different parts of Wales? We heard, of course, the questions earlier on the decision on the Welsh Revenue Authority. We’ve also heard references this afternoon to the possibility that the Welsh development bank jobs will be located perhaps in north Wales or other parts of Wales. The Secretary for the economy even suggested that there was a possible intention to relocate or create a presence for Cadw in other parts of Wales, too. The impression one gets—or, the question I want to ask is: is there is a pan-governmental strategy? Is there something co-ordinated and deliberate? Because it appears to be quite ad hoc, with departments working in their own silos. I think a statement would be an opportunity for the Government to set out their stall in terms of this agenda and how they intend to achieve it. It would also be an opportunity, of course, to discuss the criteria referred to by the Member for Arfon earlier, because if those are the criteria used on each occasion, then there is a question as to whether we will ever see some of these posts relocated to an area such as north Wales. And most importantly, of course, having such a statement would provide greater clarity for everyone in terms of how all parts of Wales can be confident that this is a Government for the whole of Wales.

This clearly has to have a cross-Government approach. As I said earlier, in response to the question from Andrew R.T. Davies, where we have direct control, in terms of our decision making as to the location of a new body, new functions—. Of course, in terms of the Welsh Revenue Authority, it is not just a new body; there are new functions. There are new skills as well, in terms of the tax powers that we are taking on that have now been devolved to Wales. So, it is a matter of ensuring that we do have the capacity and the skills to develop, and that has a bearing in terms of location. Yes, back in October—. I have already mentioned the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure did set out his wish that the headquarters, for example, for the development bank for Wales could be established in north Wales. So, where there is an opportunity and there aren’t some of those issues that have been mentioned already in terms of our ability to influence location, we would want to ensure that there was a decentralised presence across Wales. In terms of private sector investment and inward investment, that, of course, has another bearing—the points that have been made about the sectors and the enterprise zones in Wales. Their particular sector focus has a bearing on the private sector location of business and new opportunities. Clearly, this is a cross-Government strategy in terms of the location and the relocation of businesses and services throughout Wales.

I thank the Minister.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the ‘Heart Conditions Delivery Plan’, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Llywydd.

On 6 January this year, I published the refreshed ‘Heart Conditions Delivery Plan’. This plan reaffirms our commitment to reduce preventable heart disease and to ensure that people affected by any kind of heart condition have timely access to high-quality care. And that high-quality care should be delivered regardless of where people live. Increasingly, we expect to see that care delivered in the community as well as in a hospital setting, where appropriate. The delivery plan now includes a specific section on children and young people, and we’ve done this to take on board the findings from the independent review of children’s cardiac services in Bristol that was published last year. Children living with a heart condition should receive the best possible support and care in Wales.

There have been considerable developments in cardiac care across Wales since the original delivery plan in 2013. Fewer people now die from cardiovascular disease in Wales: rates fell by almost 1,000 people a year between 2010 and 2015. This is in part thanks to improvements in care, but we know more can be done. Hospital admissions for coronary disease fell by 21 per cent over the last five years, thanks to better management of the condition by both staff and patients. And we know that a range of innovative improvement projects are now in place, and these include: the development of the familial hypercholesterolemia programme; community cardiology; enhanced cardiovascular risk assessment; the adult congenital heart disease service in south Wales; direct access for primary care to diagnostics; nurse-led diagnostics; and e-referral and e-advice systems. All of these innovations have resulted in improved outcomes for patients, and I do want to pay tribute to all those involved in the planning and delivery of these services.

The British Heart Foundation, Members will be aware, recently described Wales as a world leader in cardiac rehabilitation, because of the significant increase in the number of patients receiving the service in Wales. We went from 42 per cent in 2014-15 to 59 per cent in 2015-16. However, we’re not complacent and will look for further improvement again in the future. The vision set out in our plan is for fully integrated primary, community, secondary and specialist pathways of care, and these are designed around the needs of the patient, providing the support they need to enable them to do what they can to manage their own condition. Cardiovascular disease remains a major cause of ill health and death in Wales, and the heart conditions implementation group has invested £1 million provided by the Welsh Government in the development of a cardiovascular risk assessment programme and community cardiology services.

Incidence of heart disease, we know, varies significantly and unacceptably between our most and least deprived communities here in Wales. The death rate for under-75s is 106 per 100,000 in Blaenau Gwent, which is nearly twice the rate in the Vale of Glamorgan, which is only 56 per 100,000. Recently, I was in Tynycoed Surgery in Sarn at the launch of the community cardiovascular risk assessment programme in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board area, and I was genuinely impressed by the enthusiasm of staff who are building on the success of those in the Cwm Taf health board area and the Aneurin Bevan health board area. They in fact spearheaded this project at the outset, and as well as having leadership from GPs at individual practice and cluster level, this programme relies on healthcare support workers for its success, because it’s their ability to engage reluctant but high-risk groups of people who do not make regular contact with GPs that’s essential to the success of the programme. That engagement deliberately takes place away from clinical or medicalised settings. So, equipping people with information to enable and empower them to change their current and future health has already made a real difference, and this programme should continue to make a real impact on health inequalities. The development of community cardiology services, whilst varying across health board areas, all support our priority to improve access to primary and community care, and we’re looking at different ways of treating people, where appropriate as locally as possible, to help reduce waiting lists and to avoid admission or re-admission into hospital. That’s particularly important for the frail, elderly and those with long-term conditions.

The heart conditions implementation group has identified their priorities for 2017-18, and these include developing treatment pathways for common cardiac conditions, piloting component and diagnostic waiting times, developing and implementing an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan, and further improving cardiac rehabilitation and physiology services, implementing the all-Wales accelerated cardiac informatics project, and developing cardiac peer review across Wales.

We’ve already seen improvements in cardiac waiting times through improvements in services such as the £6.6 million redevelopment in the Swansea cardiac centre, which has addressed increased demand for cardiac critical care beds after cardiac surgery. The draft clinical pathways for common cardiac conditions will be discussed at the Wales Cardiovascular Society spring meeting at the end of April to gain an all-Wales clinical consensus. Implementation of those pathways across Wales is key to delivering the aspirations in the plan.

Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust figures show that around 8,000 victims of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests occur annually in Wales. Survival rates are low, but there is potential for many more lives to be saved if cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation were undertaken more often. The availability of 24 hours a day over seven days a week primary percutaneous coronary intervention services in north Wales from 3 April is a significant development. We’ll now have all-Wales coverage.

Last December, I issued a written statement highlighting the progress we have already made in Wales in raising awareness, particularly in schools, of the importance of life-saving skills such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the use of automated external defibrillators. The out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan that we will publish this spring will build on this success. It will cover early recognition of a cardiac arrest, immediate and high-quality CPR, and early defibrillation as well as effective post-resuscitation care.

We know that we must make the most of our resources here in Wales—not least the skill, dedication and hard work of our clinical staff, service managers, and third sector organisations. We want to create a more equal relationship between the patient and healthcare professionals, enabling people to co-produce their treatment based on their values, goals and circumstances. This refreshed plan was developed through effective partnership. That continued co-operation between the Welsh Government, the implementation group, the Wales Cardiac Network, professional bodies, and the third sector is key to delivering the next phase of working together, because our shared task is to deliver improved outcomes at greater pace and with greater impacts.

I am proud to say that NHS Wales is making big strides forward. Cardiac care and survival rates continue to improve. I hope that Members across the Chamber will join me in acknowledging the hard work and dedication of NHS staff and other stakeholders, which have made these improvements possible and are essential to our continued success in improving more lives and saving more lives.

Thank you very much for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Yes, I do join you in thanking our hard-working NHS staff. It is amazing and very satisfying to see the improvements in cardiac care, and I absolutely welcome these improvements and I thank the staff who’ve made all this possible by their very hard work.

I was delighted to read both the statement and the plan. You have laid out in your statement something we all know, which is that cardiovascular disease remains a major cause of ill health and death in Wales. Would you please expand a little bit more on any potential education programmes? The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have suggested a ‘make every contact count’ approach when trying to address the issues of obesity and weight loss. What scope is there to encourage this sort of approach to help address the contributing factors to heart disease? I was very pleased to see that there’s a dedicated children and young people’s section now, but the key actions are about those who already have a chronic disease or condition rather than prevention to stop us from getting into this situation. So, a little bit more detail on that and how the implementation plan might be able to promote that would be more than helpful.

You very rightly point out that the incidence of heart disease, very significantly, is very high in our most deprived communities. When you talk about these huge inequalities, will you further outline what plans you have to educate people outside of these traditional healthcare settings so we can have a clear view of how we might be able to prevent these inequalities, or at least go some way to mitigate them?

The Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust figures and your paragraph, if you like, on defibrillation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation—I’m very glad to hear that there are plans to push life-saving skills, but will you also look at what other groups could be targeted to learn these skills, such as the Women’s Institute, scouts, guides, other community organisations? We’ve put a huge emphasis on donor schemes such as giving blood and donating organs. I wonder if similar resources should now be put into promoting life-saving techniques.

With reference to the heart conditions implementation group’s £1 million investment, could you please give us an indication of how this will be spread out or apportioned across the health boards? Finally, I wonder, Minister, how you are going to measure success. I see, in the heart conditions delivery plan, that you have a very small section on outcome indicators and assurance measures. In some ways, they don’t seem to be particularly tangible. Is there a view that you will be working to actually put some much harder KPIs in place so that we can see how well this is being delivered against the outcomes? Because, for example, just saying:

‘For outcomes relating to children, we will consider information available on smoking in pregnancy, perinatal death, low birth weight’,

et cetera—‘consider’ isn’t actually a hard and fast outcome monitor. So, I’d be very interested to know how you intend to do that. Thank you.

Thank you for that series of questions. I know you like asking lots of questions, and I don’t have any issue with that; I just want to try and get through them in the time allotted.

I do welcome your recognition upfront about the role of staff in delivering very real improvements by NHS Wales. I know, every now and again, the tenor of the debate around health is about the challenges that we have, and I acknowledge we do have them, but this is an area of real and significant improvement, with more lives being saved as a direct result of what the NHS is doing.

I’ll deal first with the point about life-saving skills, because actually I’d indicated that, in the—. We’ll have a plan that’s going to be published in April. That plan is being developed with a range of different people about how we roll out further and build on the success, already, of life-saving skills, as well as understanding where those defibrillators are and people that are trained to use them. So, there is more work that’s ongoing and I’ll be launching that plan. I look forward to delivering it through the rest of this term with partners and to assess its impact again on delivering further improvement.

On your challenge about how the £1 million will be used, it’s not going to be allocated on a formula basis across health boards. The £1 million, as with every delivery plan, is actually allocated by the implementation group against their priorities. You should see those in the plan, but I’ve indicated some of them. So, that’s how the money will be used.

I think that part of what they’re going to do will answer some of your other questions about measures, because they’re looking at piloting component points to try and understand, at various different points, as you’re being treated, how long people are waiting along that whole pathway, to identify where there are potential blockages or inequality. I think that’s really useful. That should provide a very interesting overview for clinicians, as well as the public, and in the way in which we then engineer and deliver our services.

That may make some difficult reading at the outset about where we are waiting and things we aren’t happy with. But we have to be able to understand how we deliver that improvement, and that’s being driven by clinicians to understand where those component waits exist, and what they’re then able to do about them to reduce them, in the way that almost all of the elements we’re talking about have come from the conversation between clinicians, the third sector, and patients.

That’s the same in the community cardiology developments that are being rolled out. And, in particular, I think, your broad point about socio-economic inequalities, and the messages we have there about public health challenges, not just in heart disease, but a whole range of conditions that we’re all familiar with: the ability to do something about smoking rates, to continue to see that driven down, to do something about our alcohol use, but also diet and exercise as well, because we do know that obesity is a huge issue. So, if we can’t do something about diet and exercise then we’ll see a floor beneath which we won’t be able to make any further progress on reducing instances of heart disease within the population.

That’s also why the cardiovascular risk assessment programme started in Aneurin Bevan and Cwm Taf, in our most deprived communities—deliberately targeted in that way because we recognised the socio-economic inequalities that exist. That’s also why the rollout is now taking place in ABM and the more deprived areas first. It is because we’re getting to those people who don’t often attend, are in those high-risk groups, and if they’re not seen and treated and encouraged to actually undertake a different way of making choices about their own health then either their underlying medical conditions that already exist, or the additional risk they’re building up, we’re unlikely to see that challenged.

That’s why it’s deliberately being targeted in a way that tries to take away the medicalisation of that, to try and encourage people in their own communities to undertake different forms of activity, and it underscores the important things like social prescribing and the way we can make activity and healthier choices easier, without being judgmental. It’s about how you actually get into having a conversation within someone’s community that they’re comfortable with and they recognise the real benefit for them of making a change. So, there’s much to do, but lots to be optimistic about as well, I think.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for this statement, which, of course, will be of interest to very many people in Wales because so many people do live with cardiac conditions or suffer from heart disease. Of course, we also welcome those areas where ground has been gained because of the hard work of our staff within the health service, and we must also bear in mind because of things that have emerged from this place, such as the ban on smoking in public places, which is having a very real impact on public health.

I have four questions to ask. The statement mentions cardiac rehabilitation services. The Government congratulates itself that almost 60 per cent of patients do now participate in rehabilitation programmes, but the delivery programme itself says that people in Wales wait too long before starting that treatment. We know of the waiting times for initial treatment, but we know very little about the waiting times for this recovery or rehabilitation treatment, which is so important. So, when will those data be made more public, and will the Government then establish how long patients should wait before they start that treatment, bearing in mind that the plan itself says that the waiting time is currently too long?

Secondly, the statement also recognises that we need to tackle inequalities in terms of outcomes, and that we need to increase the level of engagement between people and primary care teams, something that people in high-risk groups very often don’t do. So, bearing in mind that the Government is going to put additional pressures on the primary care sector, what intention is there to provide additional resources to correspond to that, including additional doctors and so on, in order for the primary care sector to deliver the objectives that the Government is putting in place for them?

The next one is for the Cabinet Secretary to discuss with the education Secretary, perhaps. I welcome the section in the delivery plan on children with cardiac conditions. In that plan, it notes that the Cabinet Secretary—the Government—wants children who have heart conditions to enjoy full access to education, including school trips. Now, does the Cabinet Secretary believe, therefore, in terms of delivering those strategic objectives, that we need a review of the laws surrounding school trips in order to secure children’s safety? We are aware of a number of cases where children who do have chronic conditions have been at risk, and, at the very least, I think we need to enhance the first-aid provision so that that is a wider part of the curriculum.

And, finally, we also know that in previous years that long waiting times for treatment have been a problem, with patients waiting longer than is clinically acceptable. That’s why certain treatments have been put out to contract to the private sector and have been outsourced. Can the Cabinet Secretary, finally, therefore, give us an assurance that the capacity is now in place within the system to avoid turning to that kind of provision too often?

Thank you for those comments. I think, on your last point, we broadly have the right capacity within our system now. You’ll see that waiting times have improved significantly in our two centres in south Wales and that in itself was a challenge. Members here will be aware that at various points a significant number of people were sent into the English system because we didn’t have the capacity here. So, credit should be given to our centres in Swansea and Cardiff for the significant work that they’ve done, not just in making significant inroads into waiting times for surgery, but also in that their outcomes are very, very good and better than the UK average. So, again, we should not be shy about praising our NHS when it actually does deliver very good outcomes and really high quality care. That does not mean, of course, there is not more that we would wish to do, and there are some people who wait a bit longer than we’d like, but they’re much, much smaller numbers. So, I’m confident about our ability to deal with the capacity there. But it also underscores your points about the progress we will and won’t make on community cardiology, because what was really encouraging—I don’t know if the gentleman behind you has been part of this in his practice before returning to this place—was looking at the way in which in the Swansea area community cardiology has already got rolled out. And it was GPs with specialist interest, or specialist skills, depending on who you talk to as to how they like to be described, who actually took this on. And there was a challenge about the conversation between those primary care clinicians and their colleagues in secondary care about whether they could actually do some of this job. And not every secondary care clinician was enthusiastic about it, but they are now, because they recognise that there are skills in primary care that can be used, and not just people who are GPs, but actually around some of the more preventative work. It’s actually reduced waiting times in that area as well, so people are getting a better, more local service in primary care, and people who need to go into secondary or tertiary care are getting faster access as a result. And it’s actually helping with our rehab programmes too.

My understanding is that we have the capacity to be able to do that within primary care, but as I’ve said previously when people make different bids for additional resource in different parts of the system, overall our budget is finite, and so, if we ask for more money in one part of our healthcare system, we need to take it out of somewhere else, and that’s actually rather difficult to do. But, if we’re going to move services into primary care, then the resource has to be there and available in either financial terms, or in terms of people, to be able to deliver in the way in which we expect the service to be delivered differently.

So, some of this is about making better use of all our healthcare professionals, and it goes back to the conversations we regularly have about making the best use of a GP’s time, because some of what they currently do could be taken away and dealt with by other professionals. So things like this, where GPs with a special interest could do more, and deliver high-quality care more locally, is actually part of what we need to see driven more consistently. And I’m really pleased to see that every health board has taken on board the successful learning from the Swansea area of Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, which has made a really big, important and positive difference for patients.

I recognise the points that you make about how we appropriately manage children with chronic conditions—that aren’t about their ability to learn, necessarily—but the chronic health needs they may have and how they’re managed with an appropriate level of risk management in that. But, what I don’t want to see is that we take a risk-averse approach that means that children are denied opportunities because of their health condition. But it’s about how that level of risk is properly and appropriately managed, and there will need to be an ongoing conversation between local government, as well as Ministers and officials in the Government, about how that’s properly done. I recognise the recent tragic examples that are given about where things appear to go wrong, but I’m keen that we actually take a sensible view that doesn’t reduce the opportunities available to a range of children.

And on your point about cardiac rehab progress, I’m really happy with the more successful engagement that we’ve had with patients. But some of this is still about how many people are prepared to engage in a rehabilitation programme. You may think it odd that after someone’s had surgery or intervention for heart care that they’re not willing at that point to go and engage in improving their care. But not everyone is, and so, some of the challenge is how we persuade those people of the value of it, as well as offering that opportunity earlier. I’m genuinely proud of the significant progress Wales made in the last year of recorded figures, because it shows that we’re ahead of every other nation in the UK in cardiac rehab. And, again, we should all be really proud. It’s not just about the Government congratulating itself; it’s about congratulating our whole service about what it’s doing—the fact that we re-engaging citizens in making different choices for their own care, because they have to engage in the programme for it to be successful.

But I want to be really clear: this doesn’t lessen our ambition for improvement. I think that’s really important as well. We’ll see a new set of figures that will come out and we’ll look again at what we’ve done in terms of the time that people wait to go and have the rehab programme started, as well as the number of people that take part in that rehab programme as well. I’m committed to being open about what we’re able to do and the improvements that we do make, and I’m confident that we’ll make further improvement again—but also the improvement that we still recognise we could and should make with our population as well.

We are what we eat and, sadly, far too many people are only eating food that’s absolutely drenched in fat, sugar and salt. And that, combined with poor exercise, is obviously a recipe for heart disease. You rightly point out in your statement that a lot of the target groups are those who are reluctant to go to the GP. I was pondering on that, and I want to applaud the work of people like Food Cardiff, who are reaching out to people to try and get them to change their diets, particularly through schools. But men, I think, are particularly at risk of heart disease and are less likely to be attending school and to hear what is on offer there. I was a little bit disappointed not to see this reaching out to those who don’t go to the GP very often, or not until it’s absolutely acute, and that that is not in the list of priorities that you outlined at the end of your statement. So, I wonder if you could say a little bit more about how we’re going to reach these people who are being killed early and are being sent to an early grave. They are being sent to an early grave by the food processors, which is, of course, why I want to see a tax on sugar, salt and fat, to enable us to care for these people when they inevitably end up in the acute sector.

Thank you for those comments. I recognise your consistent interest in the area of diet, health, and exercise. It’s not just around diabetes, as many of the risk factors we talk about in diabetes are risk factors in a range of other conditions, including heart disease and heart conditions as well.

We recognise the significant impact that diet and exercise have in a whole range of conditions, and I too recognise the work that Food Cardiff are doing on reaching a number of people. But when I describe the cardiovascular risk assessment programme, that is deliberately reaching into people who don’t engage in normal services. That’s the success that we’ve seen in Cwm Taf and in Aneurin Bevan, and I expect we’ll see more success in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg area as well.

And so we expect the programme to be rolled out successfully, to reach out into those people who don’t engage in their own healthcare choices now, despite all of the evidence that exists. There is a whole range of things, but probably the Caerphilly study is still the thing that tells us about the long-term impact of making different health choices. And so that’s why the programme is being rolled out, because it goes to those people where we recognise there are socioeconomic inequalities and we recognise they are unlikely to engage in those wider public health messages, wherever they are. I think it’s really important we use school as a real lever—particularly primary school, where parents are more likely to be engaged. But I recognise that, even at primary school, it’s still more likely to be women who engage in and around the school.

And with the success that we’ve seen, we’re actually seeing varying rates, between 50 per cent and 70 per cent, of engagement with the cardiovascular risk programmes in Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan. That’s a significant improvement; a significant engagement of people who wouldn’t otherwise be there. That’s why—I’ve emphasised it in the statement—you’ll see more of that taking place right across the country.

And in all of these things, we need to understand why these have been successful. And it’s not just a model of healthcare support workers working in different settings—but it’s whether it’s still going to work as successfully as it’s rolled out. I’m confident it should work in almost all of our settings, actually, but, again, we always need to take a step back and learn: is it still the right approach, is there more that we can do, and how does it tie up with our other interventions, and other work right across the Government? So it’s not just health in all policies, but it’s all policies in health as well, and how we see that delivered right across the span of Government and our partners.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Despite recent advances in coronary care, heart disease remains one of the biggest killers in Wales. This month, around 750 people will lose their lives to cardiovascular disease; 720 will go to hospital with a heart attack; and, sadly, 340 of those will die. Also, this month, around 16 babies will be born with a heart defect. Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, the heart conditions delivery plan is most welcome.

As the plan highlights, we are at a point where we need to deliver not a gradual, sustainable improvement, but an immediate and fundamental change in pace. The delivery plan rightly places a lot of emphasis on prevention. To reduce the number of adults who smoke, the plan states we must ensure that every contact with health and care services is used to prevent smoking uptake and encourage cessation. Despite years of highlighting the dangers of smoking, the numbers of smokers remains stubbornly high. Cabinet Secretary, what consideration have you given to the utilisation of e-cigarettes as a way of reducing the harm of tobacco smoke amongst the 19 per cent of Welsh adults who continue to smoke?

With regard to the other main lifestyle factor in heart disease, the lack of physical activity, and poor diet, over half the adult population in Wales is either overweight or obese. Tackling this problem is much harder than reducing harm from smoking. So, what consideration has your Government given to ensuring that part of the new national curriculum focuses on teaching our young people how to eat healthily, and how to live healthily?

Of course, we will only prevent so much heart disease, and we therefore must ensure that we have timely and effective detection and treatment. The 95 per cent target to treat cardiac patients within 26 weeks of referral was last met in April 2012. We welcome the progress that has been made, and also the staff who work around the clock to ensure that we get the best service possible. Reducing the number of people waiting more than 26 weeks needs to be done and done urgently. Cabinet Secretary, what are the main factors in missing the referral-to-treatment target? Is it down to lack of manpower, or is it impacted by the reduction in the number of available beds?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, the British Heart Foundation has highlighted that a large number of people in the UK are living with a faulty gene that puts them at risk of developing coronary heart disease, or even sudden death. Each week, around 12 apparently healthy people under the age of 35 die from sudden cardiac death. Cabinet Secretary, what is your Government doing to improve research into sudden cardiac death and are you looking to develop appropriate population-level screening for these heart conditions? I thank you, once again, for your statement and I look forward to working with you to improve cardiac care in Wales. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments and questions, and in particular for the welcome for the plan and again, the recognition of progress that we have made and intend to make here in Wales. I’ll deal with the last point first about research and screening. Of course, there’s a range of research that takes place across our university and health board sectors. Whenever people mention screening, I just—. We need to take a step back and actually understand what we mean by that and what the value of all of this is. The easiest thing is to call for a national screening programme to understand and to identify early a range of conditions, but actually, we need to have reliable tests that actually tell us something useful and not undertake harm to people. That is our challenge. Is there a reliable test that we can screen the population with? Do we really see health gain in trying to undertake a national screening programme in this area, or are we going to have a greater return in terms of the value for individuals, as well as the NHS, with other measures? At this point in time, I’m not aware that there is a sensible approach to population screening in this area. We need to undertake procedures where we understand there is risk and to understand the risk that people have in their own family histories.

On the point about waiting times, we’re seeing waiting times reducing. As you’ve seen, in my statement, I indicated that we’ve invested £6.6 million in the Swansea centre, as well, to give us more capacity to allow those waiting times to fall even further, as well as the work I’ve already described in answer to other questions about the work we’re doing in primary care to make sure that we have alternative services to make sure that the people who really do need to be referred to secondary or tertiary care have the opportunity to do so quickly.

On your point about smoking falling, again, it was remiss of me not to recognise what Rhun ap Iorwerth said. Measures taken by this place on avoiding smoking in certain parts of the public estate in particular have had a real impact on changing the nature of the conversation around smoking. It’s part of the armoury that we have in actually reducing rates of smoking. It was a difficult choice to make. People may think now that of course you shouldn’t be allowed to smoke in a variety of public places, but there was very real and significant opposition at the time that this place made a choice to prohibit that. We were the first part of the UK to do so. On your point about e-cigarettes, well, e-cigarettes are not unharmful; it’s not as if there’s no harm at all. The challenge is that we don’t understand the exact nature of the harm in these products. That’s why regulation is being taken forward on what could and should go into an e-cigarette. But I recognise that some people use them in trying to give up, but we’ve continued to say, as a Government, that we’ll be led by the evidence and what exists, both about the harm caused by e-cigarettes, and then as an alternative to tobacco. So, I’m not about to go off on a flyer today and announce an entirely different or new approach. We’ll continue to take a precautionary approach, but we’ll be led by the evidence on the right way forward.

Finally, your point about diet and exercise. Again, it’s come up in other questions, but there is a consistent healthy schools message, and any Member who visits one of their local primary schools in particular will be hard pressed not to see a healthy living and healthy eating messages within their schools. So, actually, I think our schools are delivering their part of the bargain in delivering that healthy eating, healthy living message. The work that we’re doing, for example, in rolling out the daily mile in schools is part of that message. The challenge always is how we engage with the parent and the carer group around that school, because they are bigger influences than our schools are themselves on the health behaviours that people acquire and then take with them into adulthood. So, it’s about the whole picture; not just saying it’s the responsibility of schools, because actually, each of us in our roles—as individuals, parents and carers and in our roles in communities—we have some responsibility too, but the challenge always is how we help people to make choices, rather than be seen to be lecturing people or telling them that they’re doing the wrong thing. Actually, that hasn’t proven to be a very effective way to deliver change. Most people understand healthy living and healthy eating messages; our challenge is how we help them to do that more successfully and more effectively.

And finally, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you very much for your statement today, and for the information that you’ve given us. I certainly appreciate that. One of the things I wanted to ask you about was one of the key actions in the heart conditions delivery plan, namely the plan to have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest plan for Wales—something I’d certainly welcome. Now, that plan would ensure that there are clear pathways for patient management following the return of spontaneous circulation, and I believe you can plan for that. What’s more difficult to plan for is the losing of spontaneous circulation in the first place.

Without pre-empting tomorrow’s debate, I think you could consider more defibrillators, and a whole-population-level training to give the confidence on how to use the equipment, how to practice and update it, because it does need to be updated—wider cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques. All these things could actually be step 1 of your out-of-hospital cardiac action plan. If you agree with that, I’m just wondering whether you think the way of creating that first step would be by adopting a rights and responsibilities approach, rather than relying on the kind of activity that you mentioned in the statement that you put out in December—showing a huge and very, very welcome rise in interest and activity on the issue of emergency lifesaving skills, but which actually seems to bring no certainty of longevity or, indeed, reaching the entire population, which is what would have been needed in order to manage the unmanageable, which is the sporadic and random nature of people having heart attacks outside of the hospital setting. Thank you.

I indicated that it was April, but actually it’s May when I expect to be able to publish the new plan. I don’t want to completely pre-empt tomorrow’s debate either, which you’re going to be leading on a new legislative proposal, but some of this is about how we deliver more lifesaving skills and where and how we’re going to be able to do that. And there is a balance between what we make mandatory, and what we don’t. You’ll see the approach—I’m not going to pre-empt tomorrow’s statement and debate—. But part of this has definitely been about understanding where all the defibrillators are.

So, actually, a couple of years ago we launched what we called an amnesty—which is probably the wrong term, actually—on where defibrillators are and about making them available to the public. A number of businesses had them, but they were available just within that workplace rather than for members of the public. I visited, in fact, a pub in Barry high street, with the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, to look at their defibrillator, which was on the register so the Welsh Ambulance Services Trust knew where it was, community first responders knew where it is and then are able to use it if there is a sudden arrest on the high street in Barry. So, that’s part of what we need to do more of more effectively. We’ve already got 2,000 defibrillators registered across the country, and it’s about understanding more of what we can do more of in that area, as well as equipping people with those lifesaving skills.

I won’t say more at this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, because we do have a debate on this tomorrow, and I don’t want to pre-empt anything you might say there, or anything I might say in response to the debate. But we do take this issue seriously, and we of course want to make further progress.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 on our agenda has been postponed until a later date.

Item 5 is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children: working together for safer communities. I call Carl Sargeant to speak to that statement.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The safety and security of our communities has always been a priority. This Government is committed to making our communities even safer in the future, and ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our priorities for community safety for the next five years. Specifically, we will build on our work to address violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, and we will work with the police and crime commissioners, the UK Government and other partners on issues including cyber crime, security and on tackling extremism. We will continue to encourage closer working between emergency services.

Dirprwy Lywydd, making our communities safer requires action across Government, and tackling substance misuse, for example—this is led by the Minister for Social Services and Public Health. And interventions like these, often with some of the most vulnerable citizens, have wide-ranging implications for the safety of our communities. Indeed, I am clear that safer communities cannot be achieved by a single Government—whether UK or Welsh Government—service or community. This is a shared agenda.

Within my own portfolio, much has already been achieved across Wales by working with our partners. Together with the Youth Justice Board Cymru, we have established a Wales youth justice advisory panel. This brings together senior leaders from local government, health, probation, the third sector and police, and it provides co-ordinated leadership and strategic direction across policy areas, set by both the Welsh and UK Governments in relation to our Children First strategy for Wales. The impact of the collaborative work led by the panel over the past five years has resulted in a significant decline in first-time entrants to the youth justice system, a reduction in the number of young people in the secure estate and an effective, evidence-based approach to early intervention—results that outperform those of England.

And as a result of the close co-operation with the police forces in Wales, we have recruited and deployed 500 additional community support officers across Wales. In addition, together with the National Offender Management Service in Wales, we are developing a national framework that focuses on early intervention and further integration of service delivery. In this way, we aim to the target the finite public service resources more effectively.

And, of course, we’ve introduced groundbreaking legislation to address violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. We’ve appointed a national adviser, published our first national strategy and issued guidance and training resources. We’ve produced several high-profile campaigns, including the award winning Cross the Line campaign, which deals with emotional abuse. I also chair the multi-agency VAWDA advisory group, which brings together representatives from across the statutory and third sectors, along with leading academics. It provides strategic leadership on the implementation of the Act and the national training framework. The group will oversee the delivery of the new national strategy. Crucially, this approach ensures that we listen to the voices of survivors.

With our partners, we are, in many aspects of our work, leading the way to tackle modern slavery, attracting both UK and international attention. Through the work of the Wales partnership, we are raising awareness of slavery to improve reporting and help ensure victims get the support they need and the perpetrators are brought to justice.

But keeping communities safe does not just mean preventing or tackling crime. For example, fire and other hazards present a significant risk. Our fire services have been hugely successful in tackling these risks. Since responsibility was devolved in 2005, fires and fire casualties have almost halved. As a result, our firefighters increasingly have the capacity to deal with other threats, too, and they routinely respond to flooding incidents, a position that I hope to formalise in a new legal duty soon. Many are now supporting our ambulance service in dealing with medical emergencies where they’re better placed to do so also. And their preventative work, which has such a great impact in reducing fires, is being extended to embrace other domestic hazards. We are proud to continue to support our fire services in this crucial work.

In keeping our communities safe, we also need to be conscious of the risks that we face from natural and man-made hazards and from threats of terrorism. That’s why we are supporting our emergency services and other agencies in building and strengthening their capability to protect us from those risks. The Welsh Government exercises a leadership role in maintaining and enhancing a structure to co-ordinate emergency planning, response and recovery across Wales, which, ultimately, provides protection for the public. We will strengthen this role and seek further powers to help us fulfil our responsibilities more effectively.

But, Llywydd, the agenda, by nature, is complex. There is no universally agreed definition of community safety and we are working in constantly changing contexts. Legislation and policies straddle devolved and non-devolved responsibilities. Seventeen years of devolution have necessarily resulted in differences between our policy approach and that of our UK Government. We’ve seen the introduction of police and crime commissioners. The Assembly has had primary law-making powers since 2011 and the benefits have included the establishment of public services boards. So, these changes have brought new opportunities, but have not all simplified the context of the work that we do.

Last year, the Auditor General for Wales published a report on community safety in Wales. The report reflected the complexities of the agenda and highlighted some of the positive work within Wales. The report raised a number of matters, however, and while we will vary on the specific issues on views, I believe the report provides a valuable opportunity for us all to take stock.

With the agreement of, and alongside, those key partners I’ve mentioned earlier who hold the levers for change, I’m establishing an oversight group to review the current arrangements. It will help develop a shared vision for safer communities in Wales that builds on the excellent work already done or under way. This review will also take into account the recommendations of the Auditor General for Wales. I want the review to be ambitious in its thinking and develop a clear vision for community safety that is robust, relevant and responsive—a vision for the long term. I thank the Llywydd.

Thank you very much. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, and thanks for the statement. Of course, we share with you the recognition that safer communities cannot be achieved by a single government, service or community. This is a shared agenda. You referred to the decline in first-time entrants to the youth justice system. As you know, the problem is the persistent recurrence of repeat offenders who then increasingly end up in custody, but what consideration have you given to the independent Taylor review of youth justice, particularly its proposals for work training schemes to help reform and help offenders find work on release.

You referred to close co-operation with police forces in Wales and the recruitment of 500 community support officers across Wales. What engagement or involvement have you had, more broadly, where we learned at the North Wales Police briefing for Assembly Members and Members of Parliament at North Wales Police headquarters last month—which, unfortunately, you were not able to be present at, but some of your colleagues were—that, in north Wales, for example, there had been an increase in special constables to 192, in police special volunteers to 110, and the starting of the volunteer police cadets programme having reached, I think, 60 by that stage.

You referred to the fire and rescue services—timely, given yesterday’s press coverage of a rise in deliberate fires in Wales, with services diverted from other 999 calls and with fire crews called to more than 7,100 deliberate fires in 2015-16—an increase of almost 11 per cent on the previous year. Now, this is something that has come out year after year, with you and other Ministers or Cabinet Secretaries holding the relevant portfolio. I wonder if you could tell us again, or provide an update on what engagement you’re having with the fire services, and other agencies—hopefully, including the third sector—regarding addressing that.

You referred to ambulance services. Again, at the North Wales Police briefing, we heard about police officers being called upon to supplement the ambulance service on calls. They said that they were assisting with managing the impact of hospital pressures to improve decision making around when the ambulance service should call the police in order to reduce unnecessary attendance by police at non-police-related incidents. Again, I don’t know whether it’s yourself or other colleagues in Cabinet, but perhaps you could indicate what role, if any, the Welsh Government might be playing in that.

You referred rightly to the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act. When you made a statement on this last November you referred to statutory guidance requiring local authorities to designate a member of staff to champion violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence in schools and other settings. I indicated that the Minister at the time of the legislation had stated that guidance would drive a whole-school approach by appointing a staff member, pupil and governor in those roles. You responded positively. I wonder if you could indicate what progress might have been achieved thus far.

At the same time, I referred to the call by NSPCC for a comprehensive child sexual abuse prevention strategy for Wales, following the ‘How safe are our children? 2016’ report of a 26 per cent increase in the number of recorded sexual offences against children under 16 in Wales. I also referred to pre-custodial programmes for male perpetrators of domestic violence and a scheme that you acknowledged, Atal y Fro, which is also developing programmes, in addition to those for men, for women and adolescent perpetrators. You might recall that I worked alongside colleagues, hard, to try and get this into the legislation. The Minister at the conclusion, although not accepting that, committed the Welsh Government to take this forward and look at the evidence accordingly. What action have your colleagues taken to look at the only accredited programme in Wales to see how this might be better embraced and fill in the gaps that exist?

As you might know, Erin Pizzey, the campaigner against domestic violence who opened the world’s first refuge in Chiswick in 1971, came to the Assembly recently. She said that domestic violence was about generational family violence, that we need to look at parenting, and that if we don’t intervene, these people will fill our prisons and hospitals. How do you respond to her statement, therefore, that both women and men need to be part of the dialogue to address that? I know that you have certainly associated yourself with that dialogue.

You refer to there being no universally agreed definition of community safety and to public services boards. You don’t refer to community safety partnerships, as I can see, although these are the bodies that target the main crime and disorder problems in our counties. How do you respond to repeated concern that the voice of third sector programmes such as, for example, the Flintshire and Wrexham Watch Association delivering the OWL programme, haven’t got an equal strategic voice at that level and that, perhaps, we could deliver more if they did?

Of course, we have heard reference today to Safer Internet Day, to make the internet a safer and better place for all, especially children and young people. Your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education has issued a statement about keeping children and young people—learners—safe online. But, given that this also reaches into our communities, I’m wondering what engagement she may have had with you over how to deliver this, not just in the education setting but more broadly.

With substance misuse, you refer to the tackling of substance misuse. We know that deaths from all drug poisoning were up 153 per cent in Wales since records began, and that alcohol deaths comprise nearly 5 per cent of all deaths in Wales. How do you respond to the concern that area planning boards are evolving in different ways—but not necessarily in better ways—leading to variations that, in some cases, have seen some all but disappear in favour of statutory agency leads, and the third sector, by omission, often absent from strategic planning? It’s similar to the previous point. In terms of the Welsh Government’s substance misuse delivery scheme, you talk about working with partners to address gaps in tier 4 services—residential detox and rehab. Of course, it is nine years since a Welsh Government-commissioned report identified the gaps, and the Welsh Government committed to a three-centre drug and alcohol detox rehab model, a central referral unit for Wales, and a substantial increase in capacity.

Could you bring your comments to a conclusion, please?

I wonder if you could indicate what progress you have achieved with that. Finally, if I may, a subject you would expect me to highlight, given that, last week, there was a conference on sustainable communities and asset-based community development at the SWALEC stadium in Cardiff: how do you respond to that conference’s call for an approach that promotes citizen-led action in the first instance, and then leverages outside support to match community assets when needed, building on existing community strength to support stronger, more sustainable communities for the future?

I thank the Member for his wide-ranging questions. [Laughter.] I was rapidly running out of space on my page then, but I will try and cover most of the points that the Member raised. Can I start with his first point, and the Charlie Taylor review in terms of youth justice services? I have made the Welsh Government’s view very clear to the UK Government on Charlie Taylor’s report. I don’t think it properly reflects the actual issues in terms of what is happening in Wales. The way that we have been able to deal with youth justice is very different, and the devolved services and functions that follow from the youth justice service are a clear indicator that we are doing something particularly well in Wales in this space. I would ask the Member to look at the pilot schemes where we have introduced the enhanced case management of young offenders. Indeed, there is a pilot in Flintshire, where we’ve had some fantastic outcomes from intervention at the very hard end of repeat offenders, where they are not now reoffending because of the support mechanisms we have in place with the youth justice board. It’s something that I’m hoping we can roll out across the whole of Wales, and in conjunction with the Ministers in Westminster. I have had a long conversation with him. I met Dr Phillip Lee, the MP, just before Christmas and discussed about how we can look at Wales as a very specific case, because of the devolved nature, and he was open to further discussions on that.

I think, in terms of the issues around the emergency services that the Member raised around the police and fire service, I pay tribute to both of those organisations, one devolved and one non-devolved, but, actually, they work in a Welsh context, and they do a fantastic job at the front line. I pay tribute to operational staff on the ground and people who work behind the scenes, who are often the unsung heroes, too. The volunteer police cadets and the Phoenix project that the fire service is operating are two very proactive schemes where, again, they are thinking outside the box—they’re doing fire service plus or a police plus agenda, which is really getting to the heart of our communities.

And on the issue raised around the fire service and deliberate fires, this is something that the previous Minister had a joint meeting on with local authorities, the fire authorities and the police, to see how they could clamp down on unlawful grass fires. We have had some success in that, but, at the end of the day, deliberate fires are a crime and they should be reported, and we will tackle those issues. And the issue of deliberate fires in households or industry is often a way of covering up an additional crime as well, and it’s something that the fire service is very keen to make sure that we clamp down on.

I think I'm right in saying, but in terms of the issue of the police and responding to health calls or health concerns, I think I'm right in saying that some of the control rooms now have a health professional based in the control room, where they’re able to advise better. If I'm wrong, please forgive me, but I think I'm right that in some of the forces, if not all, there’s someone in that space, and it's something we wish to continue working on with our health colleagues.

The VAWDA process: our training of ‘ask and act’ is rolling out across many of the public sector organisations, including Welsh Government. We are also including the training programme for organisations that aren't covered by the Act, and there are lots of housing associations that have already started that training as well. And I agree with the Member around that whole-school approach, and it’s something I will update Members on when I've got some more detail, and I have taken that up with my team on that very issue.

Perpetrator programmes: we have to do more work on this. There is another scheme operating in south Wales, actually, on a trial basis. It has come from Essex Police, and it's called the Drive project, which, again, is another perpetrator-led programme. Atal y Fro is another organisation I'm very familiar with. We do have to tackle this at both ends: make sure we can support individuals who are subject to domestic violence, but also tackle the issue around perpetrators in addition, too.

The final point I’ll pick up is a general-principle approach to engagement with the third sector, and whether that'll be through the OWL project, which the Member raised, or otherwise. The oversight group is a reason why I've started a new approach to look at what community safety looks like and how those partners interact. The auditor general's report in some cases was—. There were some critical points in there, but, actually, I think it gives us an opportunity for a wholly refreshed look at the way we deal with community safety with our partner organisations, including the third sector that the Member raised.

Thank you very much for the statement, and it does include a number of matters. You’ll be very pleased to hear that I’m going to talk about four of those. I note that you are working with the police and crime commissioners on tackling extremism. I’d like to know whether this includes extremism by right-wing white groups, one of the main threats facing us in modern Wales, and whether you have a working programme to work with vulnerable young people who are at the margins of the far right and being drawn to them, unfortunately, at present.

Thank you for the update on the work that has been done since passing the violence against women Act, but as far as I can see, there’s nothing in the statement about developing healthy relationships in our schools. As you know, it was a discussion point when the Bill was going through. So, when will see quality healthy relationships education in our schools? This is an important part of this major societal change that is needed, and the respect that we need to engender towards each other, male or female.

I welcome the update about the wider role of the fire and rescue service following the reduction in fires, and I note that you are considering a new legal duty for response to flooding—something that we have been calling for for a long time. The success with the reduction in fires offers an opportunity to look at wider duties for the fire service. I’d like to know whether you are ready to consider that—that is, to expand out the role of the fire service.

The statement talks a great deal about the collaboration between devolved organisations and those that haven’t been devolved. But, clearly, there is an end point to that and I’m sure that there is conflict that will arise at times. Is that a fact that is becoming more and more frustrating to you, and would devolving the police, for example, help you to reach some of your objectives in this area? Would you be able to make more progress if some of these powers lay in Wales in order to move these issues forward?

I thank the Member for her concise questions. Indeed, on the issue around police and crime commissioners, I meet them on a regular basis, and also meet the chief officers. You’re right to raise the issue around the hate that is being perpetrated by many right-wing individuals. It’s something that the police are very keen to clamp down on. In addition to that, we invest around CONTEST and the extremism board in Wales to make sure we’ve got a handle on what’s going on in our communities. But the reporting has increased, and since Brexit there has been a peak in terms of hate crime, and it’s something that the commissioners are concerned about, and I’ve raised that with them in terms of managing that situation.

With regard to healthy relationships and domestic violence, I’m grateful for the Member’s comments on the positive actions that we are continuing to deliver as a Government, but you’re pushing at an open door here with me about healthy relationships and how we develop those. The Diamond review is a critical part of looking at the curriculum for the future, and I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education—we have had conversations about what healthy relationships look like in terms of moving that forward.

The fire service have done a tremendous job in reducing the number of fires. As I said earlier, there’s been around a 50 per cent reduction in the fire activity of the authorities, but it’s something I talk to the chief fire officers and the boards about. I spoke to them this week, actually, around the national issues committee, where we’re looking at collaboration and working together to do new duties or new opportunities. It is an important process that we talk to the trade unions and the management of the teams to ensure that we can move forward together in a positive way, where they can move into a new role that secures the fire stations and fire personnel within our communities, which we all value dearly.

In terms of devolving police, we’re not experiencing too much tension at the moment with regard to activity, but our position on devolving the police was very clear in terms of the Wales Bill. We are at a position in time at the moment, but who knows in the future? Devolution may aid us in terms of managing community safety better for us.

The ‘Community safety in Wales’ report, conducted by the auditor general, underscored the complexities associated with improving community safety in Wales. I therefore thank the Cabinet Secretary for making this statement to the Chamber today, and welcome the establishment of the oversight group to review the recommendations made in the auditor general’s report. Whilst there is no universally agreed definition of community safety, I believe there are clear markers as to how the holistic approach of the Welsh Government continues to improve public safety and people’s well-being.

Significant progress has been made and, in the area of youth justice, the establishment of the Wales youth justice advisory panel is a prime example of the benefits of a collaborative approach between national and local government, health professionals and the police. As has been mentioned, the work and legislation undertaken around violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence has been groundbreaking in Wales. I wish to pay tribute to the Cabinet Secretary, Carl Sargeant, for his determination and drive in this critical regard. As a former member of the national probation board, I welcome a collaborative and integrated approach to dealing with adult offenders—vindicated in the Welsh Government’s work with the National Offender Management Service, NOMS.

Similarly, strengthening partnerships between relevant bodies lies at the centre of our radical approach to tackling modern slavery in Wales, and we are rightly proud of our record on this issue. Next month, I will be attending the Gwent anti-slavery seminar, organised by the Gwent police and crime commissioner, Jeff Cuthbert, a pertinent example of stakeholder events that facilitate productive discussion between those from the legal, political, and third sectors.

I welcome also the comments on fire service collaboration. Indeed, improved co-operation between Welsh Government and emergency authorities has facilitated a welcome increase in the recruitment of community support officers. I know that CSOs, like Susan in my own constituency, have a very positive impact on local community engagement. As such, will the Cabinet Secretary outline how the Welsh Labour manifesto pledge to increase the number of community support officers is benefitting people’s well-being in this important regard? Thank you.

I thank the Member for her comments. Wales is absolutely leading the way in the way we deal with youth justice. As I said to Mark Isherwood earlier on, the Charlie Taylor review is not helpful in terms of positioning a different opportunity for the UK to take forward, and I think, actually—. The Minister said to me in London, ‘Actually, we could learn something from Wales here’, which was very encouraging. I do hope that he’ll be visiting us soon to see the work that goes on about that multi-agency approach for delivery. We’re seeing the real detail of reducing offending in many of the actions that we are able to deliver on.

We are the only part of the UK with an anti-slavery co-ordinator, appointed two Governments back. He’s done an incredible amount of work in terms of tackling this hidden slavery agenda. We have visits from countries all over the world coming to Wales to look at the work that we are undertaking here, so we are an exemplar in the way that we are dealing with this. I would encourage the other parts of the UK to consider bringing a group of people—anti-slavery co-ordinators in their own jurisdiction—together in order to tackle this as an island. We need to manage this much better, but we are absolutely dealing with this here in Wales.

The community support officers are a very popular pledge that we delivered. There are 500 across Wales, including—British Transport Police have some of the CSOs. All of you could tell me a story about how they are very close to the community and deliver so much good work in our communities. I’ve been out with some of the CSOs on the beat, which is always entertaining. They’re very well connected and long may that continue. It is our policy to continue with this longer term and I know that the finance Secretary is keen to make sure we have the finances to support them too.

Thank you. The final speaker in this statement—Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome the additional community support officers that you’ve announced and spoken about in your statement. However, it’s a pity that, certainly in north Wales, too many police stations are now inaccessible and the premises sold off. The security of having a visible and easy to find police station and an accessible one has been taken away from many people. Will the Cabinet Secretary give us details of the representations he’s made to the police commissioners and the police forces of Wales in respect of closure or downsizing of police stations?

I welcome any efforts made to reduce, and eventually eliminate, violence against women, sexual violence and domestic abuse. As I have commented previously, male teachers and men in public life—for example, pop stars and sportsmen---all have an important role to play in ending violence against women. How are you working to encourage men’s organisations and men in the public eye to become involved in your work to eliminate domestic and sexual violence and help them to understand that they can play a crucial part in securing a happier and safer culture for future generations of women and men?

I agree with the Cabinet Secretary that community safety does not end at crime prevention. Domestic and other accidents can forever change the lives of both the victim and those around them, and prevention, as they say, is better than cure. There is often a series of opportunities along the timeline of an accident, all of which offer a chance to prevent the accident, but the starting point is education and awareness. DangerPoint, in my constituency, is an educational facility that is eliminating future accidents and injury in the home and elsewhere as we speak, as well as making children and young people aware of their social and legal responsibilities, thus helping them keep out of trouble with the authorities. DangerPoint is an independent charity and is the only facility of its kind in Wales. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that this facility should be receiving sustainable funding from Welsh Government and that other such facilities should be supported by Welsh Government and made available to children and young people in the rest of Wales? Thank you.

I thank the Member for all her questions. I’m aware of DangerPoint and I visited there a number of years ago with the Deputy Presiding Officer, Ann Jones, in her constituency—a great programme, and, again, funded by many charities and businesses in that area. It works very effectively and I pay tribute to them. The Member raised many issues there around operational issues around the police and stations. These are operational issues and they’re non-devolved to us; they are a matter for the Home Office and I’m sure the Member will have made representation to the relevant body.

Male champions are really an important part in terms of dealing with domestic violence and there are many fellow colleagues in this Chamber who champion this very issue. I, again, would encourage them to make a stand where we should do to support this very important process. The police deal with many issues, from school liaison officers to talking to our young people about well-being opportunities. Indeed, they also operate in the control of illegal substances. I think what’s really important here is that we are able to work collectively to ensure that, together, as Welsh Government, UK Government, third sector organisations, and local authorities, we bring a package of opportunities that will help our communities become more resilient, stronger, and safer as we move forward.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the debate on ‘Securing Wales' Future’, transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe. I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion.

Ar 24 Ionawr, cyflwynais i'r Siambr ein Papur Gwyn, 'Sicrhau Dyfodol Cymru'. Mae'n gosod blaenoriaethau Cymru wrth inni nesáu at drafodaethau’r DU i ymadael â'r UE. Rwyf i wedi bod yn falch â’r gefnogaeth y mae Aelodau o wahanol bleidiau ac eraill yn ehangach wedi ei rhoi i'r papur hwnnw. Mae'n dangos pa mor llawn a chyflym yw’r agenda bod rhai datblygiadau eithaf arwyddocaol wedi digwydd yn y bythefnos ers hynny. Heb fod mewn trefn benodol, rydym ni wedi gweld adroddiad defnyddiol iawn gan y Pwyllgor Materion Allanol a Deddfwriaeth Ychwanegol ar effaith gadael yr UE, dyfarniad gan y Goruchaf Lys na châi Llywodraeth y DU ddefnyddio uchelfraint frenhinol i alw erthygl 50 i rym, rydym ni wedi gweld cyfarfod Cydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion yma yng Nghaerdydd, cyflwyno Bil y DU i ganiatáu i Lywodraeth y DU danio erthygl 50, ymrwymiad annisgwyl gan y Prif Weinidog i Bapur Gwyn gan Lywodraeth y DU, ac, yn fuan wedi’r cyhoeddiad hwnnw, cyhoeddi’r Papur Gwyn hwnnw. Ond, yn anffodus, yr hyn yr ydym yn dal i aros amdano yw esboniad clir a manwl o beth yw safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU mewn gwirionedd. Mae Papur Gwyn Llywodraeth y DU yn gam bach i'r cyfeiriad hwnnw, ond rwy’n dal i ofni nad yw Llywodraeth y DU eto wedi llunio strategaeth gynhwysfawr ar gyfer sut i ymdrin â'r heriau sydd o'u blaenau a pha fath o daith y maen nhw’n dymuno mynd arni. Nid wyf wedi gweld llawer o dystiolaeth o roi sylw i'r materion hyn.

Fel erioed, mae pob datblygiad yn ateb rhai cwestiynau ac yn codi llawer o rai eraill, ond mae un sicrwydd cyson yn hyn: fel yr wyf wedi’i ddweud droeon ers 24 Mehefin, mae'r DU yn gadael yr UE; mae’r ddadl honno drosodd. Ond hoffwn bwysleisio eto mai fy swyddogaeth i yw arwain Llywodraeth Cymru a siarad â Llywodraeth y DU ar ran Cymru i sicrhau'r canlyniad gorau i bobl Cymru. Ar y cyfan, rwy'n hyderus iawn y bydd y safbwyntiau a'r egwyddorion a nodwyd gennym yn y Papur Gwyn bythefnos yn ôl yn parhau i fod yn berthnasol iawn drwy gydol y trafodaethau. Rydym wedi eu cyfleu mewn trafodaethau â Llywodraeth y DU, a byddwn yn parhau i wneud hynny. Heb fradychu cyfrinachedd, mae'n deg dweud bod Llywodraeth y DU, ac yn enwedig yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, wedi dweud yn glir eu bod yn rhannu llawer o'n hamcanion ni. Lywydd, rwy’n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn awr wedi cael cyfle i'w hystyried yn fanwl ac y byddan nhw’n eu gweld fel sail gadarn i gefnogi'r penderfyniad.

Felly, gadewch imi nodi ein blaenoriaethau unwaith eto, a byddaf yn cyfeirio at safbwynt Llywodraeth y DU ble y gallaf.

Yn gyntaf, gadewch imi ailadrodd ein prif flaenoriaeth economaidd. Mae angen inni gadw mynediad llawn a dilyffethair i’r farchnad sengl. Mae’r mynediad hwnnw’n allweddol i ddenu a chadw buddsoddiad, mae'n hanfodol i gynifer o swyddi—ac, yn arbennig, i gynifer o swyddi medrus iawn sy’n talu’n dda yma yng Nghymru —mae'n sylfaenol i'n dyfodol economaidd, felly pam y byddem ni eisiau cerdded i ffwrdd oddi wrthi?

Will you give way?

Yes.

Just on this point, the First Minister knows that the White Paper from Westminster talks about a ‘frictionless’ trade possible in goods and services. Does he have any idea what ‘frictionless’ means in that context?

No. I can guess that it means, I suppose, market access on the same terms as now, but that’s a guess. Nobody really knows what this phrase actually means. Indeed, to give the full phrase to the Chamber, the UK Government has said it

‘will prioritise securing the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services’

within the EU. Well, the key word there is ‘possible’. We’ll have to wait and see what that means. The White Paper fails to make clear how the UK Government will prioritise between its different, sometimes competing, objectives. Neither does the UK Government White Paper recognise that the UK stands to lose much more severely from the erection of any tariff or non-tariff barrier to trade than any one of our European partners. Of course, other EU countries have political imperatives, just as the UK does. As Reuters reported the other day, German car manufacturers are bracing themselves to adapt to the negative consequences for their business model of the introduction of tariffs on the UK.

Similarly, we believe that the UK should remain part of the customs union, at least for the time being. Two thirds of Welsh exports go to the EU, and participation in the customs union also enables free trade with more than 50 other countries beyond the EU. Consider, as well, the situation of the Isle of Man, Jersey, and Guernsey, which, whilst being outside of the EU but in the customs union, do not have control over foreign affairs and trade and so will be taken out of the customs union, potentially, without any say at all on their part, or without ever having been asked.

The UK Government fails to recognise the evidence that the strongest benefits from free trade come when the parties involved are geographically close and at similar levels of development. One study estimates that a series of free trade deals with the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined would increase the UK’s overall trade by 3 per cent, but that’s only a tenth of the fall in our overall trade that would occur if we left the single market on World Trade Organization terms.

The UK Government objective of securing a mutually beneficial customs arrangement with the EU lacks clarity, and definitely smacks of having cake and eating it, nor is it clear what that means for the land border that the UK will have with the EU both in Ireland, and, indeed, with Spain.

What then of the big prize, for which the UK Government thinks we should give up our participation in the customs union: a new era of bilateral trade agreements with new and expanding markets? Now, we shouldn’t fool ourselves that it’ll be easy to reach good trade deals. It’s likely to take years, maybe many years, and new deals, particularly if our backs are against the wall because of mishandling the Brexit negotiations, may well make us easy prey for countries who want us to sign up for neoliberal trade deals that undermine employment and environmental standards.

Secondly, we’ve been clear in recognising that concerns about migration have been part of the reason why some people voted ‘leave’, and our position is clear: the right for EU citizens who are neither students nor economically self-sufficient to come to this country after Brexit must be linked explicitly to work. Alongside this, we need to see a much stronger commitment from the UK Government to implementing existing legislation that should protect workers, whether from Pembroke or Poznań, from being ripped off and exploited. Now, the UK Government White Paper is very sketchy on how it wants to handle this; it provides no clarity as to what controlling our borders actually means, except that the border will be open in terms of the land border with the EU. It doesn’t provide the unambiguous guarantee of the rights of EU citizens already living and working here that we have called for.

Thirdly, we need a proper recognition from the UK Government that Wales should continue to receive the funding it needs to implement regional and rural development policy based on our objective needs, and I expect that Members will be able to give me very firm backing on this point.

Fourthly, we need a thorough examination of the future of devolution in the UK, post Brexit. We expect the UK Government to respect the outcomes of the referenda that delivered devolution within the UK, as well as that on 23 June last year. They cannot pick and choose which referenda they want to respect. It’s quite clear that, in 2011, the people of Wales overwhelmingly decided that they wished to see full powers given to this Assembly in the areas that were devolved, without qualification. I welcome the commitment made to me by the Prime Minister last week that there will be no land grab on devolved competences, but the White Paper portrays a lack of understanding of the way Brexit will impact on devolved competences. So, talk of powers being repatriated from Brussels is highly misleading, as the Supreme Court’s already made clear, since the only impact of leaving the EU on devolved competences will be to remove restrictions that currently prevent the National Assembly legislating in contravention of EU law. So, to quote the court:

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.’

In other words, when powers return from Brussels, they come straight here. They do not rest a while, or indeed stop, in Whitehall.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: I have no intention whatsoever of recommending to this Assembly that we give legislative consent for any new legislative constraints that would effectively be a larcenous removal of powers from Cardiff to Westminster.

Fifthly, there are many benefits that flow from EU membership or are strengthened by them. They cover areas as diverse as employment protections, equalities, the rights of consumers and the enhancement of our environment. We will work to maintain these benefits in the exit negotiations. While I welcome the assurance in the UK Government’s White Paper that they will protect employment rights, it’s again unclear as to how this priority is compatible with other objectives, such as those of concluding new free trade agreements, which could either directly or indirectly lead to their watering down.

Sixthly, we stress the likely need for a period of transition, so that current arrangements can apply for a period after the UK actually leaves the EU. It’s vital that, as a principle, we recognise the need to manage that exit in a way that minimises disruption. I can’t see any good reason why the UK Government objects to that, but at the moment it seems to do so.

So, while in some respects we welcome the UK Government White Paper, in general it’s a bit of a disappointment. It basically says, ‘This is more complicated that we thought and we don’t have any answers yet.’ But those answers need to be found, and soon. This is not a game of poker in which we have a random hand in Texas hold ’em where the other side has no knowledge of the strength of that hand; it’s a grown-up discussion where each side can make a very decent assessment, based on data and evidence, of what is likely to be important to the other. At some point, before too long, the UK Government really will have to set out clearly what it wants, and perhaps, above all, to be clear about what trade-offs it’s willing to accept between its different asks. Whether we like it or not, the UK Government will have to put all its asks in one Brexit. [Laughter.] There has to be a pun in the middle of it.

Now, let me address the question of the amendment proposed by Plaid Cymru. I was, and remain, pleased that the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have jointly developed and endorsed our White Paper, and have jointly tabled the substantive motion before us. It’s essential that the National Assembly speaks up for Wales with a strong and united voice. I make clear: I will not endorse a Brexit that does not secure full and unfettered access to the single market, whether that be through the EFTA route or the EEA route or a bespoke arrangement. The UK Government, albeit in a different language, says that is a priority for them as well. But whether the UK Government can achieve this vital outcome, whilst perusing some of its other 11 objectives, is unclear. Personally, I’m sceptical. We wait to see. But it will only become clear once negotiations are under way. Only then can we be sure if the UK Government is really prepared to sacrifice our economy for ideology and abstract constitutional principles. If that proves to be the case, I and the Welsh Government will do whatever we can to prevent them doing that.

So I’m clear: while, like Plaid Cymru, I strongly endorse attempts in Westminster to amend the draft Bill, we cannot and should not try to block those negotiations beginning. That, after all, is what the referendum was about. The result has to be respected and that’s why the Labour group will be voting against the amendment.

So let me be clear in closing: we believe that our White Paper provides a more realistic and detailed position, based on evidence, than anything produced by the UK Government to date. We’ll continue to press the UK Government to take on board its messages, and to live up to the commitment they’ve made to seek consensus between themselves and the devolved administrations on the UK’s negotiation objectives. We want to work with the UK Government and all interests to find a way forward that’s good for Wales and good for the UK. Llywydd, we will continue to do just that.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Although we agree that any final deal must be developed with the best interests of the Welsh economy and society at heart, this Welsh Government motion has been overtaken by events. I therefore move amendment 1 to replace this with a motion recognising the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the EU; welcoming the UK Government’s 12 negotiating objectives for our withdrawal from the EU and the publication of its White Paper; noting the publication of the Welsh Government’s White Paper; noting the UK Government’s intention to seek to trigger article 50 by the end of March; recognising the Joint Ministerial Committee meeting held in Cardiff and welcoming the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to engage with the devolved administrations and secure the right deal for Wales and the United Kingdom.

The message from the public before and during the referendum campaign was clear: Brexit must mean control of the number of EU citizens who come to the UK. We will continue to attract the brightest and the best, allowing a sovereign UK to determine and meet the workforce needs of our economy and society, be they engineers, scientists, health professionals, carers or farm workers. But the voice of the people was clear; there must be control. [Interruption.] I’ll take one intervention.

Thank you for giving way, Mark. I say this in all reasonableness: if, of those two objectives, the one of trying to impose a cap on migration either from within the EU or externally conflicts with the idea of identifying and recruiting those skilled people who will drive our economy, our universities and our jobs, which one has the priority? Because I would think even the Prime Minister is starting to realise that the two are in conflict.

No, the first is the means to the second.

Although the Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for full and unfettered access to the EU single market, and although EU rules make this impossible after border control is restored to the UK, this is not inconsistent with the UK Government’s desire for a free trade deal without membership. The Prime Minister has been very clear that she wants a bespoke deal that works for the whole of the UK, embracing the most tariff and barrier-free trade possible with our European partners. In apparent recognition of the need for a bespoke deal, the First Minister told the external affairs committee yesterday that he was not suggesting that the Norwegian migration model was 100 per cent fit for the UK, but, rather, that there were other options. And, as the UK Government has said, ‘We have an open mind on how we do it.’

EU nationals can claim the right to permanent residence, without any conditions, if they’ve lived here legally for five years continuously. Whilst the UK remains in the EU, EU nationals here continue to have the same rights as now. The Prime Minister has also been clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals here, as do we, and she says the only circumstances that would not be possible are if UK citizens’ rights in other EU member states are not protected in return.

I haven’t got time.

I welcome the fact that Spain, for example, is saying that this is going to be a priority with negotiations, because they accept this needs to be dealt with also.

As the Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper states, cross-border collaboration in research and development, such as Horizon 2020, and international exchange programmes, such as ERASMUS+, should continue after the UK has left the EU. We therefore welcome reference in the UK Government White Paper to its close engagement with the science and research base, including a high-level stakeholder working group on EU exit, universities, research and innovation, to ensure that the UK builds on its strong global position in research and innovation excellence.

The UK Government White Paper also states that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be taken away from them and, indeed, that more decisions will be devolved. The Labour and Plaid Cymru White Paper calls for a UK framework to provide legal underpinning for effective regulation of issues such as environment, agriculture and fisheries, which are heavily governed by EU law.

The Welsh Conservatives support the exploration and creation of UK-wide frameworks in respect of these issues and others, including structural funds and higher education. These frameworks need to take into account all nations in the UK and safeguard the necessary funding and resources to ensure they can deliver for Wales.

The Welsh Conservatives are clear: as echoed by the Prime Minister, there will be no land grab on competencies that are under the current power of devolved administrations. This must respect the current devolved settlement as funding, schemes and initiatives are returned from the EU. The Welsh Conservatives have written to the Prime Minister, making the case for agriculture to be given priority in the exit negotiations. And speaking in Wales last week, the UK DEFRA Secretary expressed her determination to secure export markets for high-quality Welsh produce after we have left the EU.

As the Prime Minister said in her Lancaster House speech last month,

‘I want us to be a truly Global Britain—the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too. A country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike. I want Britain to be what we have the potential, talent and ambition to be. A great, global trading nation that is respected around the world and strong, confident and united at home.

‘It’s not simply because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist, important though that is. Many in Britain have always felt that the United Kingdom’s place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world.’

She said:

‘As a priority, we will pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the European Union. This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states. It should give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets—and let European businesses do the same in Britain.

‘But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market. European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the ‘4 freedoms’ of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country. It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. And that is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market.’

She said:

‘So we do not seek membership of the single market. Instead we seek the greatest possible’—[Interruption.] You live in a dreamland. [Interruption]

‘Instead we seek the greatest possible access to it through a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious free trade agreement’—[Interruption.]

Let’s hear the Member.

‘That agreement may take in elements of current single market arrangements in certain areas—on the export of cars and lorries for example, or the freedom to provide financial services across national borders—as it makes no sense to start again from scratch when Britain and the remaining Member States have adhered to the same rules for so many years.’

But she respects, she said, the position taken by European leaders who have been clear about their position, just as she is clear about hers.

‘So an important part of the new strategic partnership we seek with the EU will be the pursuit of the greatest possible access to the single market, on a fully reciprocal basis, through a comprehensive free trade agreement.’

End of quote. After all, the UK is the EU’s biggest customer and a mutually beneficial free trade agreement with the EU—a single market—means, by definition, access to that single market.

Despite Welsh Government representations at the appeal into the High Court decision that Parliament must vote on the process to take the UK out of the EU, the Supreme Court made clear that the consent of the devolved administrations was not necessary before article 50 is triggered. The High Court has also since blocked a legal challenge arguing that Parliament must also approve the UK’s exit from the European Economic Area.

The people’s vote to leave the EU in last June’s referendum—including in Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taf—must be respected. In the months that followed, however, we’ve suffered Labour and Plaid Cymru prophecies of doom and gloom day in, day out, rather than the words of confidence and optimism needed. [Interruption.] You will create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It must be frustrating for a First Minister who has often sounded like the Private Frazer of Welsh politics, and for ‘Plaid Gremlin’ over there, who exist only to weaken and divide our island through the destruction of our UK—[Interruption.]—that the Bank of England has raised its forecast for the UK economy this year, with faster growth, lower unemployment and a more modest rise in inflation. The people of Britain, including Wales, have made the decision to leave the EU, and the UK Government is determined to get on with the job of delivering it. However, as every responsible Government knows, you don’t show your cards before negotiations begin.

I call on Leanne Wood to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. I’m not quite sure how I can follow that. I move amendment 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Since the vote to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, Plaid Cymru has prioritised the Welsh national interest. It will be of no surprise to anyone—[Interruption.] I’m happy to be a Welsh nationalist in comparison to your British nationalism, thank you very much. It will be of no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that my party continues to support participation in the European single market—something that is possible, either from inside or from outside the European Union. Now, we know that large free trade areas and agreements can come with dangers for societies, but the European single market has worked well for Wales. Participation in it has helped to generate highly skilled and highly paid jobs. Around 200,000 Welsh jobs are linked to that market. And crucially, the European single market is based on high standards, and it’s based on excellence, innovation and protection for the environment. On the one hand, it removes barriers to trade. And on the other, it improves and promotes quality. The European single market has some of the best consumer safety standards in the world. Many people will be familiar with the CE mark introduced by the European Commission to apply to goods throughout the European Economic Area, or EEA. From children’s toys through to the highest-quality manufactured goods, the CE mark means that a product has to meet the highest possible safety and environmental standards.

But the single market isn’t just about household goods. It’s also about household names: Airbus; Bridgend Ford; Siemens at Llanberis; Welsh lamb—90 per cent of our lamb exports; Halen Môn. All of these companies or sectors have either supported the single market or depend on it for their international exports. We’ve heard talk of these sectors having to find alternative markets, but why would we walk away from the biggest market in the world when it’s already on our doorsteps? We in Wales should think very carefully about our consumer rights, our exports, our environment, our workers’ rights as we consider what is being offered as an alternative.

Various Conservatives have outlined an alternative to staying in the single market. I’ve heard them say it will be something like Singapore. Well, I’ve got no issue with Singapore, but importing such a model to the UK would be unacceptable to us. We don’t want to see Wales dragged into an Anglo-American world of privatisation, where we would risk facing the end of social security and the end of the NHS. There would be a new, and probably worse, version of TTIP under the free trade agreements, and with it a downgrading of workers’ rights and protections for our environment. Welsh farmers would have to harmonise agricultural standards with the United States or see the opening up of our markets to more New Zealand lamb. These are prospects that Plaid Cymru will resist at every opportunity.

We also heard the Brexiteers offer a different alternative during the referendum campaign.

‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market,’

said Daniel Hannan of Vote Leave.

‘Only a madman would actually leave the market.’

These are not words I would choose, but they are the words of Owen Patterson. And

‘Would it be so bad to be like Norway?’

Have a guess who said that. Nigel Farage. A hard Brexit outside of the single market as well as the EU was not a question that was on the ballot paper. Couple that with the promise to invest hundreds of millions of pounds every week into public services, specifically the NHS, and a real need emerges to hold the ‘leave’ side to account for their promises and for their pledges. I represent a constituency that voted to leave. The Rhondda has lost GP surgeries. Some communities are depopulating and so are suffering from falling rolls, closing schools. Too many are struggling with social problems. Those promises of extra cash really resonated, and there are people who signed up to those pledges present in this Chamber today, and they’re also present in the UK Government.

Plaid Cymru has refused to give the UK Government a blank cheque to trigger article 50, and that's why we tabled our amendment today, as well as our amendment that was tabled last night in the House of Commons. Llywydd, we have a motion before us today that recognises the referendum result and sets out a detailed plan for Wales, and Plaid Cymru will support that motion, even if our amendment falls. The motion is right to point out that the UK Government failed to set out a detailed plan. This is part of our problem.

Will the Member give way?

We've now seen that the UK Government White Paper exists, but it's a document full of contradictions, and we still don't actually know what Brexit means. Yes.

Thank you very much. I think it is important, as you’ve said, that there is as much unity as possible across the Chamber on this motion and that we come together on behalf of the Welsh national interest. Having negotiated a joint motion with the Welsh Government, can you explain why you then tabled a separate motion signalling a different tactic to the old motion that you'd agreed? Is this more about your own internal political divisions, rather than the Welsh national interest?

We have no internal difficulties within Plaid Cymru on this. There's no mention of the triggering of article 50 in the White Paper. We are fully signed up to the White Paper, but we have our distinct position on the question of article 50, and that's why we've tabled this amendment today. But, as I’ve just said, we will be supporting the motion, even if our own amendment falls.

Now, the UK White Paper describes a trade situation that doesn't reflect Welsh circumstances. For example, the UK exports only 11 per cent of its goods to Germany, but for Wales, the figure is 24.8 per cent. Wales exports 13.7 per cent of its goods to France, but for the UK, the figure is only 6.5 per cent. I have no hesitation in endorsing the joint White Paper between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government as an accurate description of the Welsh national interest for the coming negotiations. I endorse both the policy priorities as well as the suggested approach. ‘Securing Wales' Future’ sets out a type of transition that would have the support of three of the main political parties in Wales. It ensures that Wales has a distinct position and a distinct platform for the JMC and other negotiations inside the UK. It sets out the closest and most positive relationship we could have with the European Union from outside, following Brexit. It identifies links with Ireland as being a strategic priority for our nation, and it outlines the critical areas of our society that need to be protected and defended from any disruption, and in particular in agriculture and rural Wales.

I also endorse the clarification and description in the White Paper on single market participation. The options for this are kept open, whether through membership of EFTA and participation in the EEA, or through a negotiated bespoke agreement, provided, of course, that such an agreement rules out tariffs and keeps our regulations compatible with those of the single market. Any deal that doesn't fulfil the conditions endorsed by the Welsh White Paper would be disadvantageous to Wales and would put our economy at risk.

Llywydd, Wales is in uncharted waters. The debate continues to evolve, and Plaid Cymru will contribute our ideas and our energy as the Brexit process unfolds. We'll continue to work with others where the national interest demands and where there’s common ground, just as Wales will work with the other devolved administrations. But Plaid Cymru remains wary of the UK Government. The UK Government is keen to say that it will listen to all of the devolved administrations. What remains to be seen is whether they actually intend to see this through or whether they just want to be seen to be inclusive and fair. Wales voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland the vote was different. Any approach to leaving the EU that rejects the aspirations of those devolved territories could lead to the end of the United Kingdom. Any approach that ignores that voice of Wales could discredit the UK Government and harm the Welsh relationship with the European Union. The joint White Paper sets out a way to avoid that damage and to preserve those important and beneficial European links whilst recognising the referendum result. It is in the Welsh national interest to endorse this White Paper today. Diolch yn fawr.

I appreciated the First Minister’s joke about not putting our eggs in one Brexit, but I fear comedy isn’t his strongest suit because he’s so melodramatic in these debates. The doom and gloom that comes out of his mouth is really quite extraordinary, and he is, I think, modelling himself more on Private Frazer in ‘Dad’s Army’—‘We’re doomed, we’re doomed’. His colleague across the Chamber is, in my view, modelling herself on the comic character from the radio show ‘ITMA’, Mona Lott, who was the lugubrious laundry woman—‘It’s being so cheerful as keeps me going’. Every silver lining has a cloud is the way they look at it, and this is the extraordinary thing: you’ve only got to read this document, the White Paper, to see where it’s coming from. Right at the start, almost:

‘replacing Single Market participation with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules could result in a UK economy up to 8 to 10 per cent smaller than would otherwise’—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

We’re still waiting for your plan. Where is it?

Yes, well, I will come on to this in a moment in this speech. How on earth could moving to WTO rules from single market rules, where there would be an average tariff of less than 3.5 per cent, possibly produce a fall in the size of our national income by 10 per cent, given that our total exports to the EU are only 12 per cent of gross domestic product? This is absolutely economically illiterate, and the vacuity of this document is really beyond description. The idea that this is a plan, as the honourable lady says, is just absurd. Might I remind her that the Government has set out its broad negotiating position, and as the great German military strategist Helmut von Moltke once pointed out,

‘Kein Plan überlebt die erste Feindberührung’.

That shows my European credentials: ‘no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy’. So, there is no point in trying to have a meticulously thought-out plan for these negotiations. The Government’s broad position is the sensible one, which apparently there is agreement throughout this Assembly for—that what we want to achieve, in the words that the First Minister quoted, was frictionless trade between the EU: things much as they are now in terms of trade between us. It’s very much in the EU’s interest for that to happen. We had a £61 billion trade deficit with the EU in 2015. It’s massively more in their interests that in ours to preserve free trade between Britain and the rest of Europe. [Interruption.] I give way.

Thank you very much for giving way. Will you accept, though, that there is a specific Welsh context to our exit from the EU that this White Paper seeks to address, including that small point of Wales being a net exporter to the European Union?

Of course different markets and different products will be affected by exiting the EU unless we continue the trading arrangements that we have at the moment. That’s why it is of course right that the Welsh Government should feed into the negotiating process. But the Welsh Government is not interested, actually, in feeding into this negotiating process, because they start from the opposite end of the negotiation as far as the British Government is concerned. They say in this document that

‘any restrictions to the free movement of workers would severely impact Wales’ ability to access’

all sorts of things. And the bottom line for the First Minister, and I presume for Plaid Cymru as well, is that there must be free movement of workers throughout the European Union. Their ability should be unfettered to come to this country, not just to take up offers of work, but also to look for work. That is what free movement requires under the EEA rules. This is what happens in Norway, and Norway is of course part of the Schengen agreement as well. It would actually make things worse if we adopted the Norway model as recommended by the First Minister the other day.

You have to accept that the referendum result on 23 June was overwhelmingly motivated by fears on the part of the British public and the Welsh public on migration. If you ignore that, you ignore it at your peril. I give you that piece of free advice to take to heart. We don’t know whether the EU is going to do the sensible thing. The ball is in their court, not in ours. We’ve said what we want to do: we want to carry on trading with them in as free a way as we do at the moment.

In almost every single sector of our trade with the EU, Britain is heavily in surplus. Let’s take lamb, which the honourable lady mentioned in the course of her speech. The figures on agricultural products are very illuminating, actually. Our exports of lamb to the EU—I’ve only got the UK figures, I haven’t got Welsh figures. But, the UK figures are £392 million a year of imports of lamb from the EU and £302 million of exports. We have a deficit of £90 million a year in lamb.

We could afford, with the Brexit dividend—the £8 billion that we currently give to Brussels to spend on agriculture and other things in other parts of the EU—we could afford to buy lamb for every single person in this country and give it out for nothing, if we wanted to. That is what—. It’s an option that we, as elected legislators, will have. We will be responsible for our decisions in this place, and those at Westminster, and we will be accountable to the people. That is something that is, of course, lacking as a result of democratic deficit in the EU. I give way.

Thank you for giving way. Can you explain to me how giving lamb away produces a sustainable market for my hill farmers?

Dafydd Elis-Thomas’s hill farmers are the same as my hill farmers. I’m not actually—[Interruption.] Well, Mid and West Wales, if the honourable lady hasn’t discovered it, does include Dwyfor Meirionnydd and therefore—

Can I just say, at this point, that’s the third time you’ve referred to an honourable lady? Nobody is honourable in this Chamber. We are all equal. [Laughter.]

Llywydd, I think that is the quote of the decade, and I’m duly admonished.

Of course, that wasn’t a sensible suggestion, I was merely taking the argument to the absurd extreme. All I’m saying is that we will have the freedom to make rules and regulations to decide our internal policies for ourselves. If we choose to give some form of assistance to one sector rather than another, that is now within our decision-making power, not that of some opaque and unrecognisable collection of international civil servants based in Brussels, whose identities the overwhelming majority of people are unaware of. [Interruption.] I don’t think, Llywydd, I’ve got time to—I’ve given way three times already, which I think is pretty generous.

All I would say to Members in this debate is: of course, all change produces challenges and risks. It’s not as though there were no risks from remaining in the EU on the terms that we had for the last 40 years. During the course of 43 years, we’ve seen massive changes and convulsions occur in the lives of hill farmers, for example, or dairy producers, and so on and so forth. The world is always an unknown quantity, but what this opportunity gives us is the freedom to take decisions for ourselves as a country, by elected politicians accountable to the people on a regular basis, and we will have to answer for our decisions to them, which is something that doesn’t happen at the moment.

Given that we are in such substantial deficit in our trade with the EU, and in surplus with our trade with the rest of the world, being part of the customs union, in fact, would be a huge inhibition upon the freedoms that Brexit gives. Not only do I think that it would be foolish for us to sacrifice free trade in the EU, although that’s not within our power to control—that’s an EU decision, which perhaps the First Minister could assist the British Government in achieving by having contact with his socialist colleagues on the continent—. A united front on the part of all parties in these negotiations will be advantageous to us. But, as regards trade with the rest of the world, being in the customs union would mean it would be impossible for us to complete any form of trade agreement with the United States, which President Trump—whatever you think of him—seems anxious to bring about, and many other countries as well, whether it be Australia or New Zealand. India and China are there also to begin negotiations with. This is a massive opportunity. I don’t think it’s anything to fear. What is a nationalist party for after all, if not for the people who run their own nation to make the key decisions? What is nationalist about wanting to be run by opaque civil servants who live and work in Brussels, unaccountable to the Welsh people? That is the very opposite of a nationalist party in my view. But I think I must now conclude my remarks because although this is a two-hour debate I mustn’t take up more time than I have already. I don’t know whether we’ll have any more of these debates, but I’m sure the points will recur, nevertheless.

So, all I would say is that this is an opportunity for us, not a threat. It’s ours to make the best of or the worst of. If we go into the negotiations and if we go into the future with a spirit of pessimism—‘Oh, no, we can’t do this; the fifth-largest economy in the world is incapable of surviving on its own strengths’—then, of course, we will not get the best out of it. [Inaudible.] Rhun ap Iorwerth, from a sedentary position, ‘What about Wales?’ If he hasn’t noticed, Wales is part of the United Kingdom and is likely to remain so and, therefore, Wales must accept the reality that we are part of a wider negotiation. The idea that Scotland could be independent for these purposes is absurd and the preposterous suggestion of having a visa regime for Wales, as was mentioned earlier on is, of course, completely impractical. If—

You do need to wind up now.

Yes. And that is because as part of a unitary state, albeit with devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, we have to accept that the United Kingdom negotiates on behalf of the entire country. But Wales has everything to hope for, I think, and everything to gain from a positive attitude towards the Brexit negotiations and the opportunities that are available in the wider world.

When I spoke in this Chamber a few days after the referendum vote, I expressed huge disappointment at the result, but added that we had to accept the outcome and that’s still my position. And that is despite the fact that 62 per cent of voters in Merthyr Tydfil either voted to remain or didn’t vote at all. Unfortunately, the trade union ballot threshold didn’t apply in the referendum, so the simple majority voting on that day actually won. But given that clear divide of opinion, I will accept my responsibility to consider what is in the best interests of all my constituents. More than anything, what everyone needs is for the Government to put an end to the uncertainty. But seven months on that uncertainty remains.

Llywydd, I was saddened more than shocked by the result of the referendum, not because of what it meant to me personally, but because of what it would mean for people in one of the most deprived areas of the United Kingdom. For many, voting ‘leave’ was a desperate vote for change, a vote for something better from people who had suffered the decimation of their communities in the 1980s and the 1990s, resulting in decades of households without work, and finally those same communities becoming the victims of Tory-imposed austerity. But my real fear is that post Brexit it won’t bring the change that is craved and the very people that voted to leave are the very people who need the support of the EU provided for the most.

It also became clear that many people voted to leave on a range of things that they believed would result from us leaving the EU, including an end to immigration. But when I had conversations with many of these people, their concerns around immigration were not backed up by any personal experiences nor, indeed, were they able to say with any conviction how immigration had adversely affected them. However, when whipped up by the lies and the Goebbels-like propaganda from the right-wing media, immigrants became demonised as the cause of the day-to-day challenges that they faced. But, of course, the lies around immigration were far from the only ones. The whole ‘leave’ campaign was founded on lies and false promises, be it the promise of £350 million being reinvested in the NHS or the riches that would arise from new trade deals, which Ken Clarke referred to last week as ‘Alice in Wonderland fantasies’.

For me, however, the most distressing manifestation of the ‘leave’ vote has been the widespread increase in incidents of overt and public racism and the normalisation of such behaviour. Unfortunately, this has shown few signs of abating, and when you couple this with what we’ve witnessed from Donald Trump and the rise of the racist right in other parts of Europe, this must give us all cause for concern.

Just for a moment, can I focus on the personal impact on EU nationals caught up in the current uncertainty, both here and in Europe? I learnt recently about an EU national—a German—who came to the UK 40 years ago. He lives in Wales with his partner and he’s set up a small, successful arts-based programme. Despite what we’ve heard from the Conservative benches here, he, his wife and his son now face uncertainty as to whether they will be able to stay together, living in this country, and he believes that his family and others in similar situations are being used as bargaining chips in Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations. And what about UK citizens living in Europe? What happens to them? That still remains unknown.

If anyone still needs convincing about the urgency of this, then look at the figures from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that show that registration of European nursing staff in the UK has fallen by a staggering 90 per cent since the referendum.

So, as we move forward, what do we want from Brexit? Above all else, for the people of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, regardless of how they voted in the referendum, I want to see decent, affordable housing; improved services; business growth; sustainable and well-paid jobs; an end to poverty; and vibrant and thriving communities. EU funds have massively contributed to the transformation of my constituency over the years, and although people may not always have felt the direct benefits due to the impacts of austerity, there must be a replacement for the EU moneys that have been invested in communities like Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, because the environment that people live in is vital to their quality of life and goes hand in hand with other economic investments.

So, the UK Government must now address the uncertainties that remain; recognise the importance of EU funding, historically, to many parts of Wales; take on board the wishes and needs of devolved nations in any negotiations to ensure that our communities here in Wales do not lose out as a consequence of Brexit; and find a way of turning this into a positive way forward for those deprived areas that have been previously left behind. For these reasons, Llywydd, along with many others that I’ve not had time to cover today, I’m supporting both the motion and the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. It’s a little surreal, to be honest with you, because we have a motion before us that has been endorsed by the two parties that authored the agreement and then an amendment tabled that actually opposes the triggering of article 50 unless certain conditions are met. So, I do find that somewhat bizarre that there couldn’t be that agreement just on this simple motion that is before us, leave alone, maybe, some of the wider points in the document that is before us for debate today. I do note that the leader of Plaid Cymru has talked about promoting positive self-determination, which is another word—three words—for independence. If they’re to do that, how then can they sign up to the comments and the aspirations of the document that talks about the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom frameworks that would stem from when we leave the European Union? Because if you’re promoting positive self-determination, then, ultimately, why don’t you just use the word ‘independence’? I have asked the First Minister what exactly is the meaning of the word ‘participation’ when it comes to the single market, because that does seem to have been almost a compromise position that the two parties have arrived at, and doesn’t every—

Will the leader give way?

Go on.

Maybe I can be helpful to him. [Laughter.] My understanding of ‘self-determination’ is exactly that: a group of people recognised as a nation or a community could self-determine to remain in the status quo. On the other hand, self-determination might be something further. So, they’re not synonymous, in my humble opinion.

I’m not quite sure whether that’s what the leader of Plaid Cymru believes it to be, and I do believe that, obviously, the sentiment is about independence. But I did hear the rural affairs Secretary say that I do need some help in understanding these issues. I would ask the rural affairs Secretary, if she wishes to comment from a sedentary position, why doesn’t she now endorse UK agriculture, which, at the Royal Welsh Show, she chose to say that there was no such thing as UK agriculture? Why, if she has such an interest—[Interruption.] If she has such an interest in agriculture and supporting the agricultural industry in the country, why doesn’t she make progress on bovine TB, where Wales is at risk of being designated as ‘endemic’, an endemic country, which will close export markets to Wales? [Interruption.] That is a fact. Now, if you want to comment from a sedentary position, try and say something positive instead of looking for sensational headlines.

I have—[Interruption.] I have, when this document was published, actually looked at it and looked at some of the grounds that we could find common ground over, such as the framework that would support measures when we do leave the European Union on a UK basis; I think we could have reached agreement on that. The Chairman of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in responding to the statement that we had some two weeks ago, recognised that there are areas that, as an Assembly, we can work positively with.

The one area I think that does need a considerable piece of work done by this Assembly is the transition arrangements, because we look at the transition arrangements when it comes from Europe to the United Kingdom, but there is a huge piece of work to determine the transition arrangements within the United Kingdom itself so that we don’t get those disparities. Again, I believe that could have been a really positive bit of work that we could have undertaken and had common agreement over. But I have listened to the comments that have come forward, especially from the principal speaker from the Labour Party group talking about the residents of Merthyr Tydfil, and I do remind Members in this Chamber that it was a 71 per cent turnout at the referendum. Seventy-one per cent of voters—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention in a minute, but—[Interruption.] Well, if I could just finish the point I’m taking forward, then I’ll gladly take the intervention.

Seventy-one per cent of the voters of Wales participated in the referendum. That doesn’t mean that we should discount the 48/49 per cent of voters that voted to remain. That is a significant number in the equation. But there was a key decision made here in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom that needs to be respected, and the United Kingdom Government has taken that forward, and, actually, through the process of bringing forward the triggering of article 50, the debates in the House of Commons, the actual Supreme Court case—and, admittedly, they were taken to the Supreme Court, but that is what we live under; we live under the rule of law, that is people’s right to go there. But we as politicians need to enact what the people send us here to achieve, and Wales voted to come out.

What we need to be doing now is doing the best job possible to make sure that those negotiations benefit not just Wales, but the entire United Kingdom. And those issues are going to be complicated, those negotiations will be long, but, ultimately, there is a time frame: 730 days once article 50 is acted. Instead of some of the narrow views that have wanted to replicate the referendum result that happened on 23 June, let’s move beyond that. Let’s actually work some of these issues through.

I continue to make that offer from the Conservative benches, that we will work with any party and any individual to secure the best deal possible for Wales and the United Kingdom. But there was one issue that was very clear from the referendum that was held on 23 June, and that was the message that the people of the United Kingdom and Wales gave to politicians: to take back control. And that’s the instruction.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is the first European Union debate I have spoken in at this Assembly. I certainly would not describe myself as a Europhile. I speak as someone who voted to stay in the European Union in the 2016 referendum, but, as a teenager in 1975, voted not to stay in. We have to acknowledge that the people of Wales voted to leave. We expected everyone to accept the result of the 1997 referendum on creating the Welsh Assembly, even though that vote was closer. We must accept that the majority of people in both Wales and Britain want us to leave the European Union.

We must remember that, whilst the majority is not always right, it is always the majority. It also seems to me, though, inconceivable that people do not want to continue trading with our largest export market. From the corn laws onwards, it’s only the rich who have benefitted from protectionism. One of the immediate effects of the referendum result has been a sharp drop in the value of the pound. Whilst there has been some fluctuation, the direction has been downwards and downwards. Devaluation, of course, does two things: it gives a short-term boost to the economy. If the response was long term, the series of post-war devaluations against the dollar would mean the British economy would be thriving. We’ve gone down from over $4 to the pound to just over $1.2. It also leads to price rises in imported goods such as oil, leading to increasing petrol prices, as people probably have seen when they put petrol in their cars at the petrol station.

It also leads to the increased cost of imported raw materials for manufacturing, and, thus, some of the benefits of devaluation end up being lost. At what value of the pound to the dollar will the Bank of England intervene to protect the currency? Will it let the pound go below parity with the euro or the American dollar? Both are likely, and probably likely this year, without any intervention. Whilst devaluation means—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Please.

I am grateful for the Member taking the intervention. Given the expansion in the UK economy, as highlighted by the Bank of England, and given the comments by most major economists that, actually, there will be a revaluation of the pound as we go further into the year, given the robustness of the UK economy, I’d like to understand what economic argument he is trying to advance or what economic experience he has to counter the arguments that both the Bank of England and most senior economists put forward on the state of the pound in this year.

Are these the same economists who were called experts we shouldn’t listen to? All I will say, if you look at the history of the pound, it was worth over $4 at the end of the second world war, it’s worth about $1.20 now, it’s moved downwards continually, and what I’m saying is that the likelihood is it’ll continue in that direction. Whilst the economy’s had that short-term bounce that devaluation gives us, the movement out of our main export market, if that happens, will have a severe effect on the British and Welsh economies.

Whilst devaluation means that small tariffs will not be insurmountable—though, if I listen to Andrew R.T. Davies, small tariffs will be insurmountable, but assuming that they’re not insurmountable—it is the non-tariff barriers, meeting European standards, and being checked that you do, which could involve partial dismantling so that items have to be rebuilt on arrival—. Why did I say that? Ask the Japanese, when they were exporting to France and the French did exactly that. They dismantled their goods and then they had to be reassembled again.

Many colleagues will have spoken, and I’m sure that more will, regarding the environmental benefits and employment benefits of the European Union, and the importance of keeping those benefits. I concur entirely with that. We should not be losing the benefits we’ve got.

I’ve got another concern about people who want free trade deals with us. It’s almost like picking off the weakest. New Zealand want to undercut Welsh lamb, the USA and others want to undercut Welsh beef, China wants to undercut Welsh manufacturing, including steel—do you think the Welsh manufacturing industry would survive a free trade deal with China and China’s capacity to dump goods on any country in the world? The Chinese have used their economy in such a way, and we’ve seen what’s happened with steel already with Chinese dumping. We need to ensure that we look after our own industries.

I could go on about the problems, but I’ll end on a positive note. We can deal with the internal company transfer pricing within the European Union that avoids British corporation tax, the old double Irish or the movement of money around Europe through the free transfer of capital. Will those people who are in favour of us coming out of Europe want to deal with that?

Contracts specifying local applicants only can be made and the need to advertise across Europe will disappear. Will people be supporting that? We can use tariffs to protect key industries, because, if we trade with Europe on world trade conditions, they will have to do the same with us. We can also ensure that the free movement of labour ends and we stop unscrupulous employers bringing in cheap labour—some being paid, effectively, under the minimum wage—to undercut wages, terms and conditions. My argument is not with eastern European workers who are being exploited; it’s with the employers exploiting them and using them to attack wages, terms and conditions of Welsh workers.

In conclusion, we are leaving the European Union. We need to protect our environment and workers’ rights. We voted to come out of the European Union, not to be poorer either as individuals or as a country.

Before turning to the detail of the White Paper, I’d like to say a few words about the general political context and how we treat each other as citizens, having gone through a binary campaign such as last year’s referendum. At times, the tone of the general debate has been appalling, and even violent at times. It’s right in a democratic society that we have proper debate, but we should never stop respecting differences of opinion and treating each other kindly, even, and with respect, and politicians should perhaps show an example in this regard.

But, turning to the White Paper, for Plaid Cymru, our response to the result of the referendum is based on consistent principles, and I’m pleased that these are reflected in the Welsh national White Paper. First of all, whilst there is a mandate to leave the European Union, there is no mandate to leave the single market, and the economic interests of Wales, including agriculture and industry, should be safeguarded as well as funding for our poorest communities. Secondly, there is certainly no mandate to step back from devolution. Thirdly, Wales should have a clear role in negotiations with the European Union. Fourthly, Wales should regenerate its international profile in order to ensure that we as a nation are not seen as being isolationist. Fifthly, young people in Wales shouldn’t lose the opportunities that they currently have in terms of having an experience of life abroad or studying abroad. And, finally, there should be no human cost to leaving the European Union, either through losing workers’ rights in Wales or losing environmental standards or rights for citizens from other European nations who currently live here to remain here.

I am pleased that these principles have all been interwoven into the national Welsh White Paper and are clearly set out. It’s a pity that the Westminster White Paper is little more than a series of descriptions of the problems, rather than offering solutions to those problems. But, in terms of the next steps, what is crucially important now is that the Welsh Government doesn’t decide to sit back and watch developments happening around them. They must take a decision to shape the future, rather than waiting for the future to shape them.

The White Paper includes goals that the Welsh Government can take action on immediately without having to wait for any other Government. For example, the Welsh Government could announce a new international policy to promote Wales on the global level, and they can do that now. The Welsh Government can start a process to seek membership of international organisations dealing with issues that are expected to be transferred from the European Union to Wales. The Welsh Government can state its intention to seek a new official partnership with the Republic of Ireland in order to ensure collaboration for the future. The Welsh Government can propose a constitutional convention and invite the Governments of these isles to participate, particularly on the issue of the British single market and its future outside the European Union. The Welsh Government could start a consultation on a new regional policy for Wales, and the Government can do this now. The Welsh Government can reveal a new framework for the future of our agricultural communities.

My appeal is that we should do everything we can to make Wales resilient by taking the reins ourselves. Such an approach would not only benefit our economy and our nation, but it would also be a valuable approach in bringing our nation back together following a period of very damaging splits.

Leaving the EU has been a hugely divisive issue here in Wales and throughout the UK. I do believe that it is our job here to do our best, working together, between as many parties as we can get together, to try to unite the people of Wales with a plan of action to take us forward in these very difficult circumstances. I do feel that that is our duty here in the Assembly to do that.

I’m acutely aware that my constituency in Cardiff North voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU on 23 June. Cardiff itself voted 60 per cent to remain, just a bit ahead of how London voted, and I know that, in Cardiff, the vote was not confined to the more affluent areas. In Cardiff North, there was barely an area that didn’t actually get a large vote to remain. I therefore feel that I have a mandate from my constituency to do all I can, as far as it is possible, to keep the key elements of what membership of the EU meant to my constituents. I believe that the Welsh White Paper does move in that direction. I think it is a good position for negotiations. However, although Cardiff North voted overwhelmingly to remain, I’m aware that you’ve just got Caerphilly mountain and, go past the Traveller’s Rest and go down the other side—[Interruption.] Yes. It’s a completely different picture, and the Valleys constituencies voted ‘no’, just a very few miles away. I respect their vote, and I respect the fact that that was the majority vote that won throughout Wales. But, I do wonder why this happened. I mean, Cardiff North is made up of people who moved down from the Valleys, as my own family did. Indeed, Cardiff’s wealth was built on the transporting of coal down from the Valleys, taking it out to places like Aden and Singapore, as well as northern France, Bordeaux and Nantes. It has always been an international city, Cardiff, and people in Cardiff come from all over the world, as well as from the Valleys, west Wales, north Wales and Ireland. I think the First Minister said in a previous speech that he made that each and every one of us is the descendant of immigrants. So, I wonder if Cardiff did vote ‘yes’ because of its international links and the cosmopolitan culture that has come here because of so many people being here from so many different parts.

But we do know that migration was a big issue in the referendum. So, how do we reconcile the huge benefits of migration to Wales, which I think we must all acknowledge, with the differing views of it in different parts of Wales? The statistics show that the areas with the fewest migrants had the largest vote to leave. So, how can we pay attention to the 52 per cent who voted to leave and the 48 per cent who voted to stay? I do think that the White Paper does make a good stab at that. It recognises the importance of migrants to the Welsh economy. I don’t think anybody could deny their input to the universities, to the health service or to the social care service. They have a huge input here. It calls for the immediate guarantee of EU migrants living in Wales to be able to remain and have their rights respected. I think this is absolutely crucial—that we must treat all our citizens who live in Wales with respect. The uncertainty that those families are experiencing is inexcusable, and I think we must call here from this Assembly to the Prime Minister to immediately give them the security that they need and they deserve. I hope that that is something that will be taken on board.

I support the fact that the White Paper proposes free mobility for students and for researchers. We know how absolutely crucial it is that research is based on an international basis and how anxious the universities are about leaving the EU. We need the European students. We need the international students. We already know that there has been a drop in applications from EU students—I believe it is about 7 per cent. That has already happened. I visited Cardiff University very soon after the referendum vote, and the staff were utterly dismayed at the result. They were particularly dismayed because a researcher from Italy who had been offered a key post as the best applicant for the job had just withdrawn because he wanted to live in the EU. I know that there are numerous examples like that about Wales. The White Paper proposes that migration could be linked to employment—either movement to a job already obtained, or perhaps a limited period of time to look for a job. My own view is that I support free movement as we have it now, but I think that this is a way of making a practical proposition about a way that we could move forward, and would be very important to discuss in the negotiations.

Finally, I just wanted to make two quick points. We talked a lot about full and unfettered access to the single market. I think that that is absolutely vital, and I also believe that we cannot support Brexit if that is not achieved during the negotiations. Finally, the importance of European structural and investment funds, which are hugely important to us here in Wales.

Perhaps the first question with regard to this document is why the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, chose to launch it in London, given their oft-stated desire to demonstrate the Assembly’s independence from the London establishment. We may also note at this point that the two other parties in the Assembly were not even given a sight of this massively important document for Wales, let alone be allowed to contribute to its content, effectively disenfranchising the many thousands of voters who voted for those parties and Brexit.

We then scrutinise the comments of the second signatory to this document, who states in her introduction that it upholds the freedom of movement and is consistent with full free-market participation—in other words, full and uncontrolled immigration. But of course, this is understandable when she goes on to say:

‘Regardless as to how people voted in the referendum.’

It is a clear sign that Plaid is hellbent on ignoring the will of the Welsh people.

As to the document itself, far from being a blueprint for the economic development of Wales, it has, in fact, a tone of doom, gloom and unrelenting despair. It is littered with such phrases as

‘to avoid the chaos and uncertainty’,

‘“cliff edge” departure’,

‘the overall economic impact is expected to be negative’

and many other such comments, many of which have been reiterated by the First Minister in his introduction today, and all of which are based on the false premise that we shall not be allowed unrestricted access to the economic markets of Europe. Or, put another way, we shall, unless we are very careful not to accept the politicians of Europe, be locked out from the single market. Well, when will the remoaners realise that it will be the great industrialists of Europe who will decide our terms of trade with the European Union and not politicians? This, if one cares to take note, is witnessed by the many utterances of the industrial giants of Europe since Brexit. All industry in Europe will be desperate to continue with the unfettered trade, both for themselves to the UK markets and, pragmatically, for UK business to the EU.

The First Minister's visit to Norway to explore its relationship to the EU was—and shall I put it as delicately as I can—misplaced. It may have escaped his and his advisers’ notice that there is a huge chasm of difference between Norway's trade with Europe and ours. Norway trades at a large surplus with Europe, so it is in its interest to pay to be able to trade freely with the EU and, indeed, agree to certain other regulations imposed by Brussels. This is in complete contrast to the UK, which trades at a huge deficit with the EU to the tune of some £61 billion per year. Any pragmatist can see this as a huge bargaining tool in ensuring that we reach an agreement with the EU that will be very much to our advantage. Not to recognise this—

Will you give way?

I will; just one sec. Not to recognise this is, quite frankly, a folly of the first magnitude. The stark fact is Europe needs us far more than we need them. Yes, I'll take an intervention now.

I appreciate you very much for taking my intervention. Now, semantics and words matter. Today I have listened and I have heard the words ‘us’, ‘this country’ and ‘our’. I think what we're hearing today is the difference between the UK nationalism of people in this Chamber and the Welsh nationalism that you find on this side, because when we talk about our country, we mean Wales. The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland. That's the important thing to remember—and I think that's my intervention finished. Thank you.

A pleasure. Wales voted to leave the EU. Accept it, embrace it and move forward positively, and trust the Welsh people to deliver. Thank you.

Can I congratulate the First Minister on the White Paper and add that I will be supporting the motion today, although I lament the fact that there is no specific reference in it to maintaining EU social and environmental standards when we leave the EU? The Welsh public deserves assurances on matters that relate to workers’ rights and environmental protection, and it's a shame that that wasn't in the motion. But I'm glad that there is a mention of this in the White Paper, which I think gives a comprehensive analysis of the challenges facing Wales in the face of that Brexit vote. And I think the most interesting parts of the White Paper are the annexes, because they give an evidence base for supporting the claim that the Welsh economy would be massively damaged if we were to leave the single market under any of the alternative models of EU membership. I would suggest to the leader of UKIP that he should read the annexes and take note, because they are based on evidence, not on some hopeful plan that people are going to sign up to trade deals in the future.

I think it’s correct for the First Minister to emphasise the fact that the Brexit vote does need to be respected, however difficult that is for Euro-enthusiasts like me. But that doesn’t mean that we should slit the wrists of the Welsh economy and watch our country follow an inexorable path to poverty. What the people of Wales need to understand is that it’s not just about the job prospects and opportunities for our children that are under threat from Brexit, it’s also about our ability to deliver quality services for the people of Wales. We’ve heard today talk about this £8 billion Brexit dividend. Let me tell you the costs of leaving the EU.

First of all, last year the Government collected £90 billion—forget the EU, this is before we started—they collected £90 billion less in income tax than they had the previous year. Already, we’ve got City banks looking to relocate parts of their activity to the continent as a result of Brexit. That won’t just hit the City of London. That reduced tax take will mean that we will have less to spend on our schools and hospitals here in Wales. We know that the Government will need to borrow £58 billion to cover the Brexit black hole, and there will be a deterioration of £220 billion in terms of the national debt as a result of Brexit over the course of this Parliament.

We know that there’s going to be a divorce bill somewhere between £35 billion and £60 billion, and we know that they’re threatening now to make up and to make a bargain with the EU—‘give us what we want or we will cut corporation tax’. If we want to seriously compete in that way, we’d have to come in under the corporation tax level of Ireland—12 per cent. That means another £100 billion stuffed into the pockets of the rich, and less money for our public services. That is not the kind of country that I want to live in.

Now, promises were made during the referendum—promises that the Brexiteers started to wriggle out of the moment the referendum polls closed. One of the people who made those promises was the leader of the Tory party in the Assembly. Now, many farmers followed him like lambs to the slaughter with his promise of continued subsidies. Well, they’re now waking up to the reality: that for the first time they will have to compete with health for their funding. When farmers realise that they have been duped by his false promises—the leader of the Tories—they will turn on him. [Interruption.] Let me finish. They will turn on him and he will go from Brexit to ‘bricks it’. Now you can intervene.

I really do regret the language that the Member has used, from slitting wrists to lambs to the slaughter, in a debate that she most probably is finding it difficult to come to terms with. As I said, the referendum has happened. We need to move on.

You are right: farmers voted in the majority to come out of Europe because we have an average age of 62 in the agricultural industry, with no opportunity for succession and little or no opportunity for new innovation. We will have an agricultural industry and we’ll succeed, but it’s your Government that is failing to tackle the bread-and-butter issues of bovine TB and rural development.

Let me tell you about bovine TB. Do you know where the compensation comes from to pay farmers on bovine TB? It comes from Europe. Are you promising to compensate for that as well? Come on. You’ve got to get real and understand that you made promises to those farmers that cannot be kept.

Neithiwr yn San Steffan, gwrthododd y Llywodraeth hyd yn oed i gytuno i gynhyrchu adroddiad fyddai’n amlinellu effaith Brexit ar arian cyhoeddus Cymru. Ni fyddwn ni ddim yn derbyn yng Nghymru sefyllfa lle’r rheini sydd â’r lleiaf sy’n talu’r pris uchaf am Brexit. Nid oes un arbenigwr ym maes masnach yn credu ei fod yn bosibl i Brydain derfynu cytundeb mewn dwy flynedd, a bydd yr ansicrwydd yma yn golygu llai o fuddsoddiad, ac yn cael effaith ar swyddi.

Mae’r tablau yn y Papur Gwyn yn dangos yn glir ddibyniaeth diwydiannau yng Nghymru ar bobl o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae’n glir y byddai twristiaeth, sy’n cyfrannu tua £3 biliwn i’r economi Cymreig, yn un o’r meysydd a fyddai’n dioddef yn enbyd pe byddai yna gyfyngder gormodol ar nifer y bobl o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd sy’n cael gweithio yma.

Rhaid cofio hefyd bod 6 y cant o’n meddygon ni yn cael eu hyfforddi yn yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen mwy o’r rheini arnom ni, nid llai.

Draw your comments to a close now. You have to finish. Thank you.

Thank you. I will conclude there.

Thank you. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. This is not a debate about whether we should stay in the EU. We’ve all moved on from that. I bitterly regret the result, but the result is the result. Now, we have a common objective, and that is achieving a successful Brexit. There are challenges that face the UK and Wales in that context. I think some of the mechanisms of Government and inter-governmental work in particular within the UK will need to be reformed. I want to say a few words about that, I want to say a few words about our relations with the EU, and then there are some specific Welsh interests.

Can I start, then, with the UK’s structure of Government? I think for a long time we’ve realised that better inter-governmental working would strengthen the British constitution, and now the actual Brexit process itself, and then dealing with politics when we’ve left the European Union—these things require much more effective inter-governmental working. We can look at the joint ministerial council, particularly JMC Europe, for the way that’s worked in the past, as something of a best model, but we need to go even further than that. But JMC Europe did work quite effectively because they produced—I’m sorry to be technical—a speaking note for the Council of Ministers in Europe and that required a lot of co-operation between the Governments, and particularly the officials. That’s the sort of thing we’re going to need to replicate.

The First Minister, in the White Paper, makes some, I think, very bold suggestions that we should go from JMCs to a Council of Ministers. I think he’s right to push for that. I hope he has allies in Scotland and Northern Ireland because they’re going to be key. And he’s called for independent arbitration—now, as a great federalist, I wish him well and I particularly wish him more influence that I’ve ever had on the Conservative Governments that determine these matters. Arbitration, I think, would be possible on the Treasury grant system. That is definitely seen in other federal states, but I think arbitration across the policy framework where we have joint UK policies may be a difficult one to achieve. But if he achieves it, it would certainly be in our interest here in Wales.

I do think that what we see in the White Paper about the need for some UK-wide policies—probably agriculture, environment, and there may be social matters and regional policy as well. None of us should forget that, and I appreciate all the parties that have acknowledged that.

Can I now turn to relations with the EU? Here, I do think the Brexiteers need to get their argument sorted out pretty quickly, because some of them speak with glee about the prospect of the EU collapsing with the single market and the euro. They have hitched themselves to the tiger of Trump, who has said some very loose things in this direction, and where that tiger is going to take us, well, no-one yet knows, but I think it will be a rather uncomfortable ride. I think we need to say we want the EU to prosper. That’s why we need a good and effective Brexit. They need the opportunity now to get on with their own goals and their own need for reform, which is there—in any organisation, any state, there needs to be constant work of reform. We need to get the rhetoric right in this. Going into a deal when we’re bad-mouthing them, or seeming to be, anyway, is no way to proceed. [Interruption.] I give way.

I don’t think anybody on the Brexit side is foolish enough to think that Britain’s advantage and Wales’s advantage could be obtained by causing the collapse of the EU. But the big problem with the EU is that it’s fundamentally a political project not an economic project, and the politicians who are determined to try and make it succeed fear that, if we make an economic success of Brexit, that that undermines their own political project, and that is the real conundrum of this, which is why we need unity between parties to try to get over that hurdle.

Well, I think you've rather amplified my anxiety, rather than done anything to calm it. [Laughter.]

Can I just say this? I think some form of mechanism, perhaps a bit like the British-Irish Council, needs to occur between the UK Government, with the devolved Governments involved, and the EU institutions. I think that type of process would send a very positive signal that we do want to be effective partners in areas of common interest.

Can I conclude just on a few Welsh interests? We are vulnerable. There's absolutely no doubt about that, just because of the amount of resources we've had from the EU and the reliance of our own industry on European markets. We need to acknowledge that and do as much as possible to protect the envelopes of resources that we currently get from EU sources, and many Brexiteers have said quite expansive things there, and, you know, I can assure colleagues here that I will remember that and be arguing with them on their moral responsibility. We need maximum access to the single market, the lowest possible tariffs, and I hope the flexibility will be there to achieve that.

And finally, we need to have this awareness that there are opportunities there as well that could play to our advantage, too, but we have to face the realities of our challenging situation as well.

Thank you, David, for your very thoughtful contribution.

There's nothing more enticing, but misleading, than this slogan of taking back control, and one of the things that the Brexiteers have to do now is, as David says, define what we actually mean by that. And far from taking back control, I feel that we may lose completely control of something that is fantastically important to all of us, which is the quality and safety of food. For decades, the food on our plate has been protected by our membership of the EU. What now is going to happen to food standards, and who will regulate them in Brexit Britain? How are we going to avoid another horse meat scandal?

We in Wales are very proud of the Welsh food that we produce and that which we export, along with live animals, to the EU, and we hope that we’re going to be able to continue doing that. But, in gross terms, the amount involved is tiny compared with the manufactured industrial goods or services that contribute to our balance of trade. I looked in vain for the list of foods in the table of goods exported in the Welsh White Paper, and of course it's not there, because the amounts involved are below the top 25. So, it's a real danger that food safety will be traded by other much more powerful forces that will influence the way in which Theresa May will approach these negotiations.

Now, Theresa May has stated really clearly that she doesn't want the UK to stay in the single market, and it looks increasingly likely that tariffs will be imposed on UK goods, as we fall off the end of the two-year process. That means the UK will impose tariffs on EU goods in retaliation. However, I don't think tariffs are the main risk to Welsh agriculture. The fall in the pound has already produced a post-Brexit boost to Welsh exports, which is to be welcomed, but there’s a much greater danger to agriculture in Wales, and that is a flood of cheap imports from other parts of the world, with none of the safeguards on food quality that we rely on within the EU.

Theresa May seems extremely keen to strike a deal across the pond with Donald Trump, and in an interview on BBC radio a couple of weeks ago, the chief economist of the American Farm Bureau Federation made it crystal clear that any US trade deals struck by Theresa May would be contingent on the UK public stomaching imports of US foods that we have previously rejected. We are talking about beef from cattle implanted with growth hormones, chlorine-washed chicken, and unlabelled genetically modified foods. We would have to swallow the 82 pesticides used in the US that are banned in the EU on health and environmental grounds. Amongst these is atrazine, a herbicide thought to affect the immune system and linked to birth defects. Talking about GM foods, in the EU we are protected by the fact that anybody making food using GM ingredients must clearly label that. The only GM foods currently on British shelves are sweet American junk foods like popcorn and cheap cooking oils aimed at the catering trade. In the US, GM is everywhere and doesn’t have to be labelled. The only way you can avoid eating GM ingredients is to buy organic food, cook at home and never eat out.

So, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have all effectively banned GM cultivation; that is our political decision. And what relevance will the Sewel convention have if Theresa May strikes a deal with the United States, which means a flood of GM foods into the UK market? It’ll be impossible to hold that policy. So, we have to appreciate the possibility of all these adulterated foods flooding our market and certainly potentially putting out of business our agriculture, and that is completely scary to me.

In terms of our negotiations on Brexit, it means that we could be expelled from the network of agencies that regulate and provide intelligence in relation to food adulteration activities. We already face major challenges on our food and we need to be really mindful of how we can protect our consumers by remaining part of the European Food Safety Authority, which I understand we can do even if we are chucked out of the single market. We have to bear in mind that, at the moment, we could be shouldering greater responsibility for enforcement of proper food when local authority resourcing of food safety controls are already under strain, and the Food Standards Agency has been narrowed at the moment, and no longer has the sort of expertise that would be required on what is already a global industry.

So, these are major concerns that I hope will be taken into account by the Welsh Government and by the UK Parliament.

I think the reason for Plaid Cymru’s amendment to the debate today, though we agree with the White Paper, is quite clear, and it’s best given by Gerry Holtham to the Lords this morning, actually, in examining this when he said,

‘Without a constitutional protection the Welsh interest is going to be overridden.’

And he went on to say also:

‘The brute political reality is with few marginal seats we just don’t matter’.

Well, this amendment, and what Plaid Cymru is speaking for, makes sure that we do matter, and though we can’t make the guarantees in the Assembly of safeguards around avoiding a mess being made of Brexit by Theresa May and the Conservatives, we can set down a warning—a warning that we won’t let those who negotiate on our behalf get away with a poor deal for Wales.

We can also send a very strong signal with this amendment and debate today. For 20 years, the Eurosceptics have blamed the EU and migrants for every wrong, for every perceived slight, and whilst most of the decisions that have left many of our communities ragged and hollowed out were taken by Westminster Governments, it’s also been a great political convenience for even those in favour of the EU to deflect political fire onto EU institutions rather than themselves. And in June we paid the price for that folly and irresponsibility.

Well, Brexit doesn’t end that. We are now the ones who will harry and press and hold to account those who brought us to this position, and those who made the promises that brought us to this position: £350 million each week for the NHS; no rollback of Assembly powers; every penny kept for farmers; regional aid money made up from central Government. I won’t forget those promises. I don’t hold much hope that they will be kept, but I won’t forget them. And only last night, the Plaid Cymru amendment to secure that ‘leave’ campaigners such as Boris Johnson and Michael Gove kept their promises was voted down in the House of Commons by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove et al. To be fair—[Interruption.] In a second; I was making some progress. To be fair, the majority of Welsh MPs voted for that amendment, but once again, the needs of Wales were swept aside by a domineering Westminster elite. I’ll give way to the Member.

I’m fortunate enough to be old enough to have heard the promises that took us into the European Union, and I can assure you that the lies that took us into the European Union are greater lies than these lies that have taken us out. [Interruption.] Those lies, like you say they’re lies, that took us out of the European Union pale into insignificance with the lies that took us into the European Union, such as no loss of sovereignty, no loss of our fishing grounds and, no, we’ll never be asked to go into a single currency. All those lies took us into Europe.

[Inaudible.]—dig your own hole, Presiding Officer. [Laughter.] It reminds me of what a Eurosceptic told my colleague Jonathan Edwards today in the House of Commons, that they will tell anything to win the argument, and we just heard it from the mouth of the campaign itself.

This is the kind of double-dealing that has got politics into the dreadful post-truth, alternative facts world we live in. There, I had it written down, ready for the Member to come in with that intervention. Now, Theresa May’s own White Paper on Brexit is the flimsiest and most vapid of things. Surely, any of us who really care for our nation will be looking for three key commitments in any such White Paper. The first is that Welsh farmers, manufactures and traders could continue to access the single market without barriers or tariffs. We’ve already, as an Assembly, voted in favour of membership of EFTA or EEA as the best way of achieving this, but other options may be available—let’s see them. The White Paper, however, offers nothing but meaningless garbage:

‘will prioritise securing the freest and most frictionless trade possible in goods and services between the UK and the EU.’

There’s a blithe assumption here, which we’ve heard throughout this debate, that a UK trade deficit in goods—thought Wales does not have a trade deficit but has a trade surplus—meant that a good trade deal is inevitable. Well, trade has always been a tool of political warfare. It’s destroyed political parties in the past and impoverished nations. We’re told we can’t expect the Westminster Government to reveal its hand in advance, but the EU has revealed its hand in advance. They’re clear: no deal to leave the EU can be better than remaining in the EU. The inference by implication is that the deal must be worse. We’ve seen their hand, and they hold all the aces. All we have are three Brexiteer jokers.

Secondly, as I’ve already touched upon, we must get security that funding will continue for Wales. Now, here the White Paper is very illuminating. It says that, after the autumn statement of 2016, projects will be honoured if they are in line with domestic strategic priorities. Whose domestic strategic priorities? Theresa May and the Conservative Government’s domestic strategic priorities—that’s whose. So, we are outsourcing our regional development policy from Wales into the hands of the Conservatives.

Thirdly, and finally, EU citizens in Wales should have their rights protected. They vote for us as Assembly Members, so we cannot permit them to be used as cannon fodder in a Tory war against the EU. The White Paper offers no assurances on their behalf whatsoever. The Bill to trigger article 50 is a shorn-off shotgun of a Bill—no direction, a scattergun firing pellets in all directions with no aim and no clear target in sight. It’s as likely to injure those pulling the trigger as to hit any target. If we simply accede to these guarantees, and we are not taking back control, we are ceding it to a right-wing cabal who have no interest in Wales, pay lip service to our needs, but vote time and time again to deny Wales resources, control and fairness.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate today, and I’ll try to maintain my brevity on Brexit, mindful that it is right to allow as many of us as possible to have a chance to contribute to this debate on a matter that, without question, is going to be one of the most defining issues of our times. ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ White Paper sets out a degree of clarity and provides a purpose that has all too often been, sadly, absent in the debate on what happens next, post the outcome of the European Union referendum. Indeed, it has, in many quarters, been a debate marred by the muddy waters of uncertainty and a rhetoric that has relayed not just alternative facts, but rallied an alternative reality. Wales was told that we wouldn’t lose a penny if the UK voted to leave the EU. If this is a promise broken, it could have long-reaching consequences for our country. It is right, then, that we as a nation, Assembly and Government call this out and press for the best for our future.

The principal argument for single market participation is to prevent the haemorrhaging of jobs and investment. This is crucial to our foundation industry of steel and to the advanced manufacturing sector that is a pivotal part in providing skilled employment and economic prosperity in north-east Wales. We need the mechanisms in place to ensure that we build on these economic foundations, not take a wrecking ball to them: Tata Steel at Shotton, Airbus, Toyota, Kingspan, Kimberly-Clark—the list goes on—and not forgetting the many small to medium-sized business for whom being able to import and export tariff free is key. Of course, the Welsh agricultural sector, and our rural communities as a consequence, are facing huge uncertainty following the referendum result and are in the firing line should Wales not secure participation in the single market.

Exit from the EU must not lead to a race to the bottom when it comes to workers’ protection and rights. It’s absolutely right that we must have legislation to stop workers being exploited. It’s all the more prescient when we consider that many of the concerns voiced by a number of my constituents on immigration can be linked to exploitation and undercutting by unscrupulous employers. A suite of rights that protects everyday workers has emanated from EU legislation, and we must not fall for the fallacy of the regular right-wing rhetoric that says that deregulation of these rights will lead to greater productivity. Rolling back these rights will be at the expense of workers in Wales and is a one-way route to low wages, job insecurity and discrimination.

I campaigned and voted to remain in the European Union. The majority of my constituents in Delyn voted to leave, and the referendum result in Flintshire broadly reflected the overall UK result. I now have constituents who get in touch, frustrated that we are not already further out of the exit door, but I’m equally e-mailed by constituents who are fearful for our future, and that of Wales in particular, and would rather that we would go into reverse gear on the referendum. Whilst many of us in this Chamber and in this country were saddened—that’s an understatement—by the result of the EU referendum, we cannot let how we proceed post referendum further fuel distrust, disinterest and disengagement in politics. But neither, though, should we compromise on the values of decency, diversity and equality that many of us have fought for and championed over a number of years.

I believe we can tackle the tensions that led people to lash out at a system that they felt did, and delivered, nothing for them—job insecurity, undercutting, exploitation, the perceived lack of opportunity to get on in life and to prosper—without bearing down on the lowest common denominator of debate. As I said during last week’s equality debate, the tone of political debate sadly seems to have shifted. To call this out as unacceptable is not about stifling free speech or political correctness; it is about Wales being an inclusive, warm and welcoming place, where we behave with dignity and respect towards one another as fellow human beings.

Let’s be clear: it’s not progress on equal rights for women, LGBT people, the BME community and people with disabilities that saw the skilled jobs and opportunities of industry decimated and the rise of low-paid, insecure, underemployment. We must have the political will and motivation to address and progress the latter without rewinding the rights and creating fear of the former, to secure a future for Wales that is one of economic fairness and prosperity, but also that defends and extends social justice.

We are asked to say that the UK Government hasn’t set a detailed plan. I’m not sure that is entirely fair. I felt that the Prime Minister’s speech was pretty substantive in her 12 points and what she put behind those, and we then did get a White Paper, putting some more detail around that. We are then asked to recognise the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the European Union. I am very happy indeed to do that.

We’re then asked to recognise the result of the referendum about the UK’s membership of the European Union. I’m very happy indeed to do that. Usually when I hear that phrase emanating from a Labour source, it is followed by the word ‘but’. In this case, instead of the word ‘but’, we have points 3 and 4: to welcome the publication of the White Paper ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ and to endorse its priorities. I’ve previously spoken about some of the discrepancies between ‘full and unfettered access’ to the single market and ‘full participation’ in the single market. I was assured by Lesley Griffiths, I think, on Thursday that those two phrases are equivalent. So, I will accept the tone of what the First Minister said, both in that White Paper and earlier. He said he wants to stay in the single market, I believe, and in the customs union. He wants to see an open labour market where anyone from the EU can still come to this country with a job offer, or indeed just to come and look for a job albeit within a period of time. He says he wants to carry on paying into the budget, and he wants a long transitional period before anything much changes.

I think Julie Morgan was perhaps rather franker about what that position implies. It implies, in her words, keeping all the key elements of the EU. Now, she may want to do that representing her Cardiff North constituents, but the First Minister is meant to represent the people of Wales, who voted by over 52 per cent to leave the European Union. I fear that he hasn’t grasped why many people voted ‘no’. I think there are many good reasons about trade—many good reasons about opening our economy and trading freely with the whole world, rather than just one declining part of it according to a single set of regulation that everyone must obey in order to trade at all. But I think the idea that simply by having some restrictions around benefits, or clamping down a bit more on the exploitation of workers, and undercutting of the minimum wage, while important, and something we would support, is not sufficient. I think, for many people, the issue is unlimited numbers of people from much lower wage economies being able to come into our country and compete away their opportunity to work for what might be a higher amount than the minimum wage. The minimum wage fast becomes a maximum wage.

And it seems he has finally decided, after a period of indecision, and some waxing and waning, to say that he wants to be in the single market even if the implication of that is we are unable to move away from free movement of labour. That is his decision. But I think it makes it very difficult for the First Minister and this Assembly, or certainly his Government, to engage constructively with the UK Government if the bottom line of the Welsh Government is, essentially, single market membership and all the factors that I have listed. That is very clearly at odds with where the UK Government is. Full and unfettered access—we could look at that, along with the free and frictionless trade; membership of EFTA as a way forward.

Perhaps he could have found common ground with other parties in this Assembly. However, he has chosen instead to try and reach a deal with Plaid Cymru, which it appears, in their amendment, they go back on. There’s some great negotiation, and, in point 6, we’re asked to note the UK Government’s intention to seek to trigger article 50. Even Jeremy Corbyn, in Westminster, is whipping his MPs to support triggering article 50. Yet the First Minister and his troops are unable to do that. Instead, they seek some sort of compromise to paper over the cracks with Plaid Cymru, and merely note it, yet then have Plaid coming and putting this amendment against the spirit of what they thought they had agreed.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Would the Member agree that it would be easier to perhaps come to a certain agreement if we understood what the UK Government’s intention was around the single market and continued access to that? For example, he knows—as he’s just written to members of the committee on which we both serve—that George Eustice has pulled out today from coming to be examined in committee on Thursday, about what the single market means.

I thank the Member very much for bringing me on to what was going to be my next point. I have a particular concern about what David Davis said, that, in the context of devolution, there’ll be powers coming from the EU, and we will have to decide where they most properly land—whether that is Westminster, Holyrood, or whatever. That is not the case. There will be a restriction on our right to legislate in a devolved context lifted when we leave the EU, as the First Minister very clearly and properly said.

And we would have liked to examine that UK Minister about what that meant, particularly in the area of the committee I chair, where many of those areas are extraordinarily important to Wales. That opportunity has now been denied us. I have copied you, Llywydd, into that note. And I think it does betoken at least the appearance of a lack of respect for the Assembly and for our devolved powers. I hope that will not continue to be the position; I hope the leader of the opposition will use his good offices to help ensure that. But, certainly, when the First Minister speaks clearly on that, he will have the support of our party in doing that.

Now, if I may conclude, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has, I think, set out a pretty clear approach. She has said, if it is necessary, she will prioritise restricting freedom of movement above the single market. We believe she is right in that approach, we believe she speaks for the people of Wales as well as for the people of the UK as a whole, and I believe she has earned the right to be given freedom and flexibility to negotiate that once article 50 is triggered, which we support.

I will confine my contribution to what we recognise as equalities. And my first observation is that, unlike the Welsh White Paper and the Scottish Government’s Paper, the UK White Paper doesn’t directly discuss the implications for equalities of Brexit. And, to me, that is a conspicuous but concerning omission. Perhaps the First Minister could have pointed it out had the UK Government provided a draft in advance of this publication. Nevertheless, would you raise it at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee, if not before, First Minister?

The Welsh Government says it will develop dialogue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, to consider the detail and the implications for equality of exit from the EU. And I welcome that commitment again. But I do appeal to you to urge the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary to follow Wales’s lead and to have those same discussions with the EHRC because the implications for equality of Brexit are important. There are direct consequences and considerations, as well as wider cultural thoughts surrounding that. There is direct funding, for example, for the 2014-20 period through the European Commission’s strategic engagement for gender equality programmes. The EU has allocated more than €6 billion to achieve gender equality targets and objectives. What we need to know is whether those funding streams will dry up, and if they do, what are the consequences of that?

This morning, I met with Chwarae Teg and one of the issues that we discussed was the future of their Agile Nation 2 project that helps improve the position of women in the workforce across nine priority sectors in Wales. That scheme is funded, in part, by the Welsh Government and also by the European social fund, and that is just one example. As the Welsh Government’s White Paper notes, consideration has to be given to the potential impact of the loss of EU funding for equalities and the well-being of people with protected characteristics. At Westminster, Harriet Harman, with the support of a cross-party coalition of MPs, has tabled an amendment calling for the Government to protect women’s rights during and after Brexit. The UK White Paper states that the great repeal Bill will maintain the protections and standards that benefit workers and that, moreover, the UK Government has committed to not only safeguarding the rights of workers set out in European legislation, but enhancing them. I’m really pleased to hear it, but I’m not absolutely convinced by it. We heard an awful lot of promises along the way and this seems just to be another one of those.

One of the issues that I really am concerned about, as chair of the all-party group on the trafficking of human beings, is what precisely Brexit means for the UK’s co-operation with EU bodies like Eurojust and Europol. The White Paper says,

‘We will continue to work with the EU to preserve European security, to fight terrorism, and to uphold justice across Europe.’

But it doesn’t even mention Eurojust and the EU’s judicial co-operation unit. I’m aware of time and I did promise that I would be brief, so therefore, I will finish on this: it is the sad case that some of the debate that we’ve had—not here today, but that which has led us to where we are—did breathe new life into old prejudice and fears and ugliness. It is, I feel, more important than ever that we are unambiguous in the message that we send to minorities and other vulnerable groups, that the UK Government should, first, act now in that regard, and must guarantee the status of EU citizens already living here in the EU and not use them—and it has happened today—as bargaining chips for the future.

I’m very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this very important debate and to congratulate those who have brought this White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future: Transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe’, into existence, on both sides: in Labour and Plaid Cymru. Also, I’d like to congratulate several contributors this afternoon on the maturity of the debate that we have had here: Steffan Lewis particularly, but also Eluned Morgan, Hannah Blythyn, Julie Morgan—I could continue; and even David Melding. I congratulate you all—and also Leanne Wood and Simon Thomas. But, I only have five minutes, so I’ll stop there naturally.

Rydym wedi clywed llawer am barchu canlyniad y refferendwm ar 23 Mehefin, ac rydym yn gwneud hynny. Nid yw’r ddadl ynghylch sbarduno erthygl 50 yn ymwneud ag ailgynnal yr ymgyrch refferendwm honno—mae honno wedi hen fynd heibio; mae'n ymwneud â chael cynllun manwl i adael Ewrop. Dyna beth mae'r ddadl hon yn ymwneud ag ef.

Mae llawer wedi cael ei ddweud am yr angen i iachau cymdeithas ranedig. Dylai iachau—ac rwy’n gwybod ychydig am iachau—ond dylai iachau ar ran Llywodraeth y DU, awgrymaf, fod ar ffurf parchu barn y 52 y cant yn naturiol ac, ar yr un pryd, gwneud eich gorau i ddarparu ar gyfer y 48 y cant, gan nad yw ymorchestu cyfresol yn arbennig o annwyl nac yn iachaol. Rhwbio trwynau’r 48 y cant a bleidleisiodd ‘aros’ yn barhaus ynddo oherwydd eu bod wedi colli, drwy wthio yn awr ar gyfer y Brexit caletaf posib: sut mae hynny yn iachau cymdeithas ranedig? Siawns y byddai Brexit meddal, yn nes at farn y 48 y cant, gan barchu barn y 52 y cant, yn ateb y diben. Gwneud y gorau o'r gwaethaf. Huw.

Diolch. Thank you for giving way. He seems to have read this morning the original Hippocratic oath clearly, which says, first of all, ‘Do no harm’. [Laughter.]

I’m glad of your reminder of one of my old oaths there, Huw. Making the best of a bad job in this current situation, while exiting the EU, means actually trying to stay in the single European market, like prosperous Norway— outside the EU but in the single market. Because the single market, as we’ve heard, is vital to Wales. Sixty-eight per cent of Welsh exports are to the EU; 200,000 jobs in Wales are tied to that single market. All that European regional aid funding: what’s going to happen to it? Don’t hold your breath; it’s not going to come from the UK Parliament. All this stands to be thrown away if we just roll over and vote to trigger article 50 without so much as a whimper, giving Theresa May a blank canvas to cosy up to Donald Trump in a desperate bid to strike a trade deal with somebody.

Now, just a thought: under the current Government of Wales Act 2006, relations with the EU are not listed as a subject of competence or an exception. Stay with me now, team, right; it’s a silent subject. The Assembly does have competence now to legislate for silent subjects, provided that the legislation in question also relates to a devolved subject, like agriculture, that the leader of the Conservatives is so keen to lead our farmers down whatever blind-ending country lane. So, UK withdrawal from the EU will mean the end of the common agricultural policy and a have a huge impact on our agriculture, which is a conferred subject now, devolved to Wales. It could be argued that this Assembly has the competence now to legislate on the issue of whether notification under article 50 should be given now. Like I said, just a thought.

Will the Member give way?

Rhun.

As well as supporting this White Paper today, does the Member agree that Members here in this Chamber should also support Plaid Cymru’s amendment in order to show that we are determined enough here about the importance of making sure that Wales’s voice is heard and respected that we say that we cannot support article 50 now until we have the security and even the framework that we need, and that’s a duty on us to people, whichever way they voted in the referendum?

Exactly, and well said. Wales needs a detailed plan—[Interruption.] I haven’t got time, team, especially for Andrew R.T. Davies. Wales needs a plan—a detailed plan—to leave the European Union. Labour and Plaid here have produced one. Worth a read, including the annexes—‘Securing Wales’ Future’. Because—and just ending now—talking to many people, especially our young people, they feel betrayed. Their futures as Europeans, gone, unless we can guarantee European free travel, education and study for our young people. All because of austerity, anger and alternative facts, and no plan. That £350 million on the side of a bus is the same as the weapons of mass destruction. Now, we’re desperate—we’re going to be desperate—for trade deals. Theresa May cosying up to Donald Trump. No. Like Rhun, like the Plaid group, I shall vote against triggering article 50. We could do it and we need to do it because Wales’s voice needs to be heard. Diolch yn fawr.

I now call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. I know that time is short, but can I begin by saying that there are some myths that need to be dispelled here? First of all, this is not a debate about whether the referendum result should be respected. It’s going to happen. That’s it. The question is settled. But let’s not pretend that there was an overwhelming vote to leave the EU. It was 52 per cent. Let’s not pretend that the only reason why people voted to leave was immigration. As many people talked to me about immigration as talked to me about wanting to give David Cameron a kicking. That was one of the reasons that I heard on the doorstep.

I remember, in 1997, this place was established on a similar percentage of the vote. There were those in the Conservative Party who wanted to ignore the referendum at the time. John Redwood, when he was asked about the Scottish referendum result, which was 3:1 in favour, argued that devolution should not happen in Scotland because the majority of the electorate had not voted in favour. We see now, of course, the double standards that he has. Because I fought tooth and nail against any idea that the referendum result then, no matter how narrow it was, should be ignored, I cannot advocate ignoring the result of last year’s referendum, close though it was.

So, that issue is resolved. But, to suggest that somehow it was a vote for a hard Brexit in the absence of any specific question is the same as suggesting that the vote in 1997 was a vote for independence. Clearly, it was for a limited form, then, of self-government. The lesson to remember is this, and Dai Lloyd made reference to this: those of us who were on the winning side in 1997 worked to win people over after that, which is why more than 80 per cent of the people of Wales support devolution now. We did not abuse them. We did not suggest they were traitors. We did not say they were stupid. We worked with them. And that is a lesson for the hard Brexiters, not those in this Chamber, but those outside who think that the best way to get their way is through abuse.

In terms of some of the other points that were made, it’s perfectly right that there should be work towards a UK framework for some areas, such as agriculture. It may well make sense. Animal health—it makes sense to have a common policy across GB. But the point is this: those frameworks should be agreed not imposed by one Government over the other three. Agriculture is devolved. Full stop. End of story. People voted in 2011 that that should be the case by 2:1 in a referendum. The UK Government has no right to change that. When those powers come back from Brussels, they come here. They do not stop in London. It’s hugely important that those discussions about frameworks do continue and that is something that we, of course, would want to see happen.

Can I remind those who claim that the Norwegian model was not on the table in the referendum that Arron Banks supported it, Daniel Hannan supported it and the ‘Daily Express’ supported it? So, the Norwegian model was very much on the table at that time, which is why I went there. It is a model that we can look at. It is not perfect. Norway is a prosperous country—half of the UK’s oil comes from Norway—and it is happy to be part of the single market even though it’s not part of the EU.

I heard what Neil Hamilton had to say. He puts much faith in a trade deal with the US President, who was elected on a protectionist mandate, who has said that every country in the world has taken advantage of the US. I don’t share his optimism that we will have a free trade deal with America that is anything other than good for America. That is what he was elected to do. We can’t complain about that. He is a protectionist President. So, I don’t share his optimism in that regard. I listened carefully to his plan. He spoke for exactly 11 minutes and 30 seconds and I heard nothing. Those days must go. We must start hearing more from those who are on the harder side of Brexit.

I listened carefully to Andrew R.T. Davies. I have to say to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, after the referendum, he was in the media suggesting that some areas should be given back to Westminster. If he was misquoted, he should have dealt with that in the media. He was saying that agriculture and regional economic development should be run from Westminster. That is not what the people of Wales voted for. [Interruption.] Of course.

I have continued the argument that I made after the referendum that there need to be UK frameworks on agriculture, structural funds and university funding because that is the best way to secure specific budget lines out of the UK Treasury—to make sure that the money flows to Wales that we need. I ask you to support that position because when I’ve put that position forward, you’ve tried to rubbish it. I detect that you are moving to that ground now, First Minister.

No. I agree. The question is this: does he believe that the UK Government should impose these frameworks or does he believe that they should be agreed by the four Governments?

They should be agreed.

I’m grateful for the clarification in that, because that’s not where he was at the referendum last year. He has said, in fairness to him, that he believes that those frameworks should now be agreed, not imposed by the UK Government. I welcome that. I welcome that. He also said that there are 730 days to deal with the impact of—

Will you take an intervention?

No. He’s had one intervention already. He’s on the record. I welcome what he has said.

No, no. You can’t make that accusation.

He has said that there are 730 days to deal with Brexit—it’s rather less than that, because actually, nothing will happen before September, once the French and German elections are out of the way, so, actually, the timeframe is rather more squeezed.

I listened to what David Rowlands had to say. Can I say to him that shouting at foreigners is not the best way forward? If you say to the EU, ‘You need us more than we need you’, they will tell you where to stick that view, in the same way as if the EU said that to the UK—he’d say exactly the same thing, if it was said about the UK. He has to remember that the UK joined the EU, or the common market at the time, because it was desperate to join, because the UK economy was a mess. And, as he put it, the lies that took us in were bigger than the lies that took us out. [Laughter.] That’s for him to explain.

The other point I have to tell him about is, yes, of course, in monetary terms, the EU exports more to the UK than the other way around; it would be odd if it didn’t, because it’s nearly 10 times the size of the UK. But, as a percentage, 67 per cent of Welsh exports go to the EU, 7 per cent of the EU’s exports go to the UK. Actually, percentage wise, we are far more reliant on the European market than the European market is on us. I beg of him to just think carefully about this being a sensible agreement between equals and not trying to say that they need us more than we need them. That simply isn’t correct. We all need each other in Europe to make sure that we all prosper.

I agree with what the First Minister has said, but surely the point here is that trade enriches both parties and, at the moment, the balance of trade with the EU and with individual members of the EU is very much in their favour. So, all that that does is show that it’s in their interests to enter into a free trade agreement with us to carry on the arrangements that we’ve already got. It’s not a question of us ordering them to do something, or demanding something; it’s in their interests as much as ours.

Well, I have to say that that’s not the impression that is given by some in UKIP. It was just said that the EU needs us more than we need them. We need each other; that’s the reality of the situation. And, as David Rowlands said, we don’t want to be locked out of the single market. We don’t want to be locked out of the single market—we’ve got to be in the single market. It shows some of the confused thinking that is taking place here.

I know time is short, Llywydd, but I have taken interventions, with your indulgence. David Melding, as ever, always worth listening to—briefly, we need a council of Ministers that is similar to the one that exists in the EU; it needs to be a council of Ministers that agrees common policies and frameworks. If there are going to be state aids in the UK, they will have to be agreed. There are some who’ll argue that there shouldn’t be any state-aid rules at all. In that case, it’s a free-for-all within the UK and you start a trade war within the UK. That, surely, is in no-one’s interest. There needs to be an independent arbitration mechanism—probably a court—to arbitrate disputes when it comes to the interpretation of those state-aid rules. The UK Government can’t do it; it’s got a clear conflict of interest.

I have spoken to other Governments. I’ll turn to what Steffan Lewis has said very quickly.

Wel, nid yw’n wir i ddweud nad ydym ni’n gwneud dim byd. Rydym ni wedi gofyn am gonfensiwn cyfansoddiadol ers amser hir. Nid oes diddordeb gyda’r Alban; maen nhw’n moyn annibyniaeth. Nad oes modd cael unrhyw fath o gytundeb gan Ogledd Iwerddon o achos y sefyllfa fanna. Rŷm ni’n rhyngwladol—byddaf yn America ar ddiwedd y mis hwn er mwyn sicrhau ein bod ni’n dal i gryfhau’r cysylltiadau busnes rhyngom ni ac America. Rwyf i wedi siarad â Phrif Weinidog Gibraltar, yr Ynys Manaw, Jersey, Guernsey, y Taoiseach yng Ngweriniaeth yr Iwerddon, a hefyd, wrth gwrs, yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon. Nid yw’n iawn i ddweud, felly, nad oes dim byd wedi digwydd yn y cyfamser.

Finally, dealing with the point that Mark Reckless made, one of the things that I was interested in is what he said about EFTA being a possible way forward. I don’t want to misquote him; that’s what he said. I welcome that. EFTA, of course, has a court that governs trade relations between EFTA members and so the UK would be subject to that court. He’s nodding, so I’m glad for that clarification.

The other issue that, really, has never been addressed—and it is relevant to Wales—is the issue of the border. The reality is that the UK will have an open land border with another EU country. There is no way that the EU is going to say that, if you have a red passport with a harp on it, you’ve got freedom of movement into the UK, whereas, if you’ve got a red passport with any other emblem, you don’t. Nobody’s going to agree to that. So, the issue of Ireland is still very much unresolved. It affects us in Wales, because of the trade links that we have through the three ports into the Irish ports. We still have no answer as to whether there’ll be customs posts, as there were, border posts—there never have been in the past—there at those ports, with the affect that there will be on trade.

Finally, Llywydd, just to say this: we are away from the referendum debate now. The referendum has happened. There needs to be realism on both sides; we now need to work towards a sensible solution. So, for me, the message today has to be that we need to stop talking about a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit, but let’s have, as far as Wales is concerned, a sensible Brexit.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and. unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to the vote. Therefore, the vote on ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, and I now call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 16, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 46 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 38, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore the motion is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.