National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Russell George.

This year we have supported a range of sporting and cultural events in mid Wales, including the Machynlleth Comedy Festival, the Hay Festival, the World Alternative Games, the Tour of Britain, and the Wales Rally GB.

Thank you, First Minister, I appreciate your answer. The Welshpool air show is celebrating its tenth anniversary next June. It’s now called the Bob Jones Memorial Airshow. Over the last nine years, the event has gone from strength to strength and now attracts thousands of visitors to mid Wales each year. It’s previously played host to the Red Arrows, the RAF Falcons parachute display team and the Battle of Britain memorial flight and typhoon. I would like to extend an invitation to you to attend the event next year, but, in the meantime, I would be grateful if you could outline what kind of financial and logistical support the Welsh Government is able to provide for such a major event in mid Wales?

I can say that I am aware that a request for funding has been made to support the event next year and officials will be in touch with the organisers shortly.

May I recommend the Machynlleth Comedy Festival? It’s certainly worth a visit, and it’s used as a practice ground for the Edinburgh festival, so the quality is excellent.However, can I turn to cycling? You’ve just mentioned one of the important tours that takes place in mid Wales, but there are all sorts of opportunities to develop cycling in mid Wales, for holidays and major events, and also for tourism. There are moves in Carmarthen to develop the velodrome there and to improve standards. There are also plans in Aberystwyth to have a cycling resource, along with the university. So, what can the Government do to support more cycling events in mid Wales?

Well, of course, there are a number of organisations, such as Sustrans and the local authorities, working on the creation of cycle tracks. We’ve supported them in the past and we are looking to support other good schemes. Of course, we are also working with the mid Wales tourism forum and the councils of Powys and Ceredigion in order to develop these opportunities.

The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 ensures everyone who is homeless or at risk of becoming homeless gets the help they need. Statistics show homelessness was successfully prevented last year for 65 per cent of all households threatened with homelessness.

Thank you, First Minister. Councils across Wales are targeting the homeless and seeking to ban rough sleeping, yet these same councils are doing very little to secure accommodation for those individuals who find themselves with no choice other than to sleep rough. Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council and South Wales Police have started a clampdown on anti-social behaviour and under this guise are targeting rough sleepers in Neath town centre under Operation Avalanche. However, Neath Port Talbot Council have not opened any additional homeless shelters or increased the availability of social housing. First Minister, what can the Welsh Government do to prevent local authorities from victimising the most vulnerable in our society, and instead concentrate upon eradicating homelessness, looking at the causal factors of each homeless person? Will the Welsh Government ensure there is sufficient social housing stock and encourage local authorities to convert some of the many empty properties they own to provide emergency accommodation for homelessness until an individual—

The statements are tomorrow.

I’m not a clairvoyant. And solutions as the main objective—

Can you come to your question please?

Sorry, yes. Instead of people opposing homelessness and putting people in prison for vagrancy, can we please look at a plan to help the homeless?

Well, I do oppose homelessness. Vagrancy hasn’t been a crime for a while. We’re not branding people anymore, as was the case many years ago. But the point is this: prevention is the key here, and the fact that 65 per cent of all households threatened with homelessness were helped before they became homeless is important. It’s hugely important to have social housing. That’s why, of course, we have a target of 20,000 homes to be built in the course of this Government and, of course, why we are ending the right to buy—there’s no point trying to fill the bath up with the plug out. So, we know that there’ll be much more housing available in the future for people, trying to deal with the damage that was created in the 1980s, as houses were sold and not replaced. And, of course, we want to make sure that local authorities use the Supporting People programme and the homelessness prevention grant in order to make sure that people who become homeless are helped, rather than the homelessness problem that was very much created by the Tories in the 1980s.

First Minister, the Member for South Wales West was quite right to point out the number of empty or unavailable homes at the moment—over 20,000. That’s actually more than your target for affordable housing in the whole of this fifth Assembly term. It does seem to me that there are lots of people there who are not only in danger of homelessness, but have not been able to form their own household and are having to stay in accommodation they’d rather leave. One way of tackling this, in part, would be to look at those homes that are not currently in use.

We have a successful record on that. If memory serves, some 6,000 homes have been brought back into use through the empty homes initiative. And the Member’s quite right to say that, whilst there are houses that are empty and people who need homes, then that situation needs to be rectified. And the fact that so many thousands of homes have been brought back into use is a sign of that.

First Minister, analysis by Shelter Cymru states that there are major differences between local authorities in the context of the targets that they have in terms of avoiding homelessness. For example, the most successful is Gwynedd, where 84.6 per cent of people are assisted before they become homeless, whereas in Merthyr it’s 44.4 per cent, which is the worst in Wales. So, what are you as a Government going to do to ensure that local authorities can collaborate and assist each other in this context so that this isn’t such a problem in Wales?

Well, consistency is important—that much is true. Of course, we want to see local authorities working together so that we can see the best practice possible in this situation. There is no doubt that the legislation has made a great different in ensuring that fewer people are facing homelessness, and in ensuring that they are not in a position where they lose the roof over their heads in the first place.

We now move to questions from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, do you agree that there needs to be specific legislation covering services for those on the autism spectrum?

Well, the question I always ask is what would legislation add—that’s an open question. And, as the Minister has already indicated, the door is still open in terms of consideration whether legislation would improve the situation for people.

I note your answer, First Minister, and the words of your Minister, but your vote on the motion just over two weeks ago flew in the face of what campaigners actually want to see on this. The National Autistic Society back legislation, which has got cross-party support—I suspect there are even Members on your benches who support legislation—and I’m sure that, like me, you’ve received messages from people seeking an explanation as to that vote two weeks ago. Given that people with autism are let down by so many aspects of the system, can you see why campaigners are pushing for this legislation, or do you think they’re wrong?

Well, the Minister has already said that the door is open. What needs to be examined is whether a law would make a difference. If there’s a law on autism, should there be a law on cancer, should there be a law on other services as well? That’s the balance that has to be struck. There’s no doubt we want to see an improvement in services provided to people. I know full well how difficult it is for people who are coping with relatives who have autism, and we want to see those services improve, which is why we’ve taken steps to do that. What we have to examine is whether a law would actually assist in improving those services. And that’s an open question.

Well, given that the campaigners are pushing for a law and that funding follows legislation, and that your Minister has said that the door is open to this, will you now commit to changing your mind and supporting an autism Bill, should a new motion appear before this Assembly?

Well, we need to consider further what a law would add, as I’ve said. I take the point about services improving. Money doesn’t necessarily follow the law; England, I think, offers plenty of examples of where that hasn’t happened. So, what we want to see is an improvement in services—that’s true—but further work needs to be done in order to examine whether a law would make the difference that campaigners would hope and expect.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, there are challenges across the whole of the United Kingdom in recruiting and retaining teachers in any education system. Sadly, the figures here in Wales for new recruits into the profession are pretty damning, to be honest with you. After five years in the profession, there’s been an increase of 50 per cent in teachers giving up the profession and walking away. There’s been a 16 per cent increase in teachers retiring before retirement. What confidence can we have that your new Government will be able to arrest these figures and actually turn those figures around so that teachers, when they’ve trained and when they’re in the profession, stay within the profession to make the improvements we all want to see in education?

The devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions offers us a great opportunity work with the profession in order to provide a comprehensive package of terms and conditions and pay. It’s exactly what the Scots have done and it’s exactly what we need to do in Wales, and get away from the idea that, somehow, Government and the profession have to be in conflict. I don’t see it that way, and I think the opportunity of devolving terms and conditions is one that presents us with a chance to provide the right package for teachers in Wales.

First Minister, obviously, the Westminster Government announced that amendment to the Wales Bill yesterday, and it is for you to map out exactly how you will use those new powers as a Government when they arrive here. The unions have obviously cast their verdict on that already. But if you look at, actually, people looking to go into training to become a teacher, in this year alone there’s been a 9 per cent decline in applications to become teachers. That is a 36 per cent decline over the last 10 years, of people actually putting themselves forward to begin the training to become a teacher. So, you’re going to get the powers in this Assembly on teachers’ terms and conditions. What exactly are you going to do with them to change these figures?

Not follow what the Government in London is doing, because, clearly, it isn’t working in terms of recruiting and pay and conditions. We want to make sure we have a tailor-made package for teachers in Wales, both in terms of training and in terms of the way that they develop in their profession. We’ve noted the approach that was taken in Scotland, and that is an approach that we will examine, along with others, to make sure that the package is one that is ever more attractive to teachers, because it’s quite clear that when it comes to teachers’ pay and conditions, what exists now is not working for them.

I hope that you will, over the weeks and months ahead now, be able to put some real meat on the bone of exactly what your Government will do over teachers’ pay and conditions with the new responsibilities. I don’t hold the Cabinet Secretary for Education to account for the department at the moment, but Dr Philip Dixon, in fairness, passed a view over the weekend on the capacity within the department of education, and it’s a fair observation, coming from someone who has been on both sides of the fence, if you like, as a senior representative for the ATL union and, I believe, having worked in Government as well over time and worked in the field of politics. So, he has cast a doubt over the capacity within the department. As I said, I don’t cast aspersions on the current Cabinet Secretary, because, in fairness, she has only just come into the role and I’m sure she’s making her own assessments. But it’s a fair observation, to understand exactly whether you have the confidence in the department to drive forward the changes that are required in light of observations that are increasingly becoming louder and louder as we get closer to the PISA review that, ultimately, will benchmark your achievements as First Minister and the Labour Party’s achievements in education under devolution on the international scale?

I would be cautious about using the view of somebody who is clearly disgruntled, who has just written a book and wants to sell it, and is, therefore, making statements in order to sell that book. So, I don’t accept what Dr Philip Dixon is saying. I don’t think that the department has any kind of problem. We have seen, over the last few years, a consistent improvement in standards, consistent investment both in schools and the profession, with new schools being built all across Wales, improvements in GCSE results and improvements in A-levels. All these things have been happening over the last few years. What we have seen, under his party in England, is academisation, a step backwards to grammar schools and a failure to invest in schools. That is not a route that we want to take in Wales. One thing I can say, and I say this absolutely clearly, is that, as is the case in other areas where pay and conditions have been devolved, there is no question—no question at all—of teachers in Wales being paid less than teachers in England. That is simply not going to happen. We will ensure that our teachers are well rewarded for the skills that they have and ensure that the profession is able to practise in Wales with the full support of the Government. I have absolutely every confidence in the department in Welsh Government.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Is the First Minister feeling a bit more cheerful after our week in recess, because we’ve had three very good pieces of news for the UK economy, and hence the Welsh economy as well, in the meantime? Nissan has approved a plant for 600,000 cars a year to be made in the north-east of England; the French insurance giant, Axa, has, after having put on ice its building of its tallest tower in the City of London, decided to go ahead with it; and, in the three months to September, the UK growth figures were positive: 0.5 per cent growth compared with the negative forecasts of six months ago by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. So, doesn’t this show, actually, that post-Brexit Wales and the UK have vast opportunities for improving the health and well-being of the whole population of this country?

Well, Brexit hasn’t happened yet, as the leader of UKIP knows. The increase in the economy was driven almost entirely by service industries and not by manufacturing, and driven almost entirely by the slide in the pound, which is not a factor that we can rely on in the long term. As far as Nissan is concerned, anybody would welcome the announcement made by Nissan. What is curious is that we have no idea what exactly was said to Nissan. I suspect that the UK Government revealed part of its negotiating strategy to Nissan, but won’t do that to the UK Parliament. I do not believe for one second that Nissan were persuaded to invest in Sunderland on the vague promise that the UK Government would try not to have tariffs imposed on the automotive sector. Now, I agree; I don’t want to see tariffs imposed on the automotive sector, but what about steel? What about aerospace? What about every other sector in the Welsh economy that’s important? That’s been ignored so far. It shows a troubling, piecemeal approach to this, rather than there being an overarching strategy. And, I’ll tell you, it contradicted directly what the Prime Minister said to me last Monday. I asked her directly to rule out any deal—any trade deal with the EU—that included tariffs. She wouldn’t do it. She wouldn’t do it. A few days later, all of a sudden, tariffs were ruled out for the automotive sector. It’s a complete and utter shambles.

Well, it’s not surprising that the Prime Minister is not going to reveal her negotiating strategy to the First Minister of the Welsh Government, who is a member of another party. [Interruption.] It is not for me to speak for Theresa May—[Interruption.]

Let’s hear the question.

But what this does show, does it not, is that Brexit offers an opportunity, as well as a challenge, and that if we approach the negotiations in the spirit of optimism and positivity, then we are likely to achieve a great deal more? The trouble with the First Minister is that he’s a moaning Minnie. He only sees the problems. He doesn’t see the opportunities. As regards steel and the other industrial sectors, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that our industries can’t be more competitive than those across the channel, particularly because not being part of the eurozone gives us a more competitive currency.

UKIP seem to be arguing that we can be competitive with tariffs; I can tell you that we can’t. We export 30 per cent of the steel that we produce and there’s no way that we can be competitive with tariffs. Automotive cannot be competitive with tariffs. Aerospace, Airbus, cannot be competitive with tariffs. He’s heard me say several times that, to me, if there is a deal on the table that doesn’t include tariffs, that’s immensely helpful. Immensely helpful. But, I have to say to him, I don’t expect the Prime Minister to reveal her negotiating strategy because I don’t believe she has one. I said this to her, and I said, ‘Look, at the very least, give us an idea what your general principles are.’ ‘Don’t know.’ Why? Because they cannot agree with each other. If you speak to David Davis, the answer you get every single time is, ‘It’ll be fine.’ Nothing. Nothing else more than that. Now, some advocate free trade agreements. Free trade agreements might be good with some countries but not with others. A free trade agreement with Mexico is an invitation to destroy manufacturing in the UK, which is exactly what people voted against in the referendum. One of the issues that people were concerned about was free trade and the loss of jobs. Free trade agreements with the wrong countries end up in a situation where you can destroy your manufacturing industry. So, they’re not the panacea that they appear to be.

Well, as it happens, we do have a free trade agreement with Mexico. That’s one of the two agreements they have managed to negotiate in the last 50 years. So, that rather invalidates the First Minister’s point, doesn’t it?

But, there was another interesting event that happened during the course of the last week. I don’t know if the First Minister saw the election result in Lithuania where the Lithuanian Peasants and Green Union party went from having only one seat in the Parliament to having 54 out of 141, having got 40 per cent of the vote. The debate in Lithuania on immigration is the mirror image of what it is in this country. We have been debating the problems of immigration; they have been debating the problems of emigration because they’ve lost 15 per cent of their population in the last 10 years, since the Labour Government opened the floodgates in 2004 and allowed 150,000 Lithuanian citizens, in effect, to emigrate to this country. So, does the First Minister see the opportunity here with a country like Lithuania, which sees free movement of labour as being part of their problem, albeit for the opposite reasons that we see it in this country, and that we may be able to form alliances with countries like Lithuania to achieve a common objective, albeit for different reasons?

So, the answer is to build a wall. I mean, he seems now to be the inheritor of Khrushchev, and worrying that the Berlin wall disappeared so that we could not prevent this flood of people coming from eastern Europe. Well, if that’s the policy he wants to espouse, then, fine. The reality is that there are plenty of people—. There are 1.2 million—1.2 million—UK citizens who live in the rest of the European Union. Are we to say to them, well, actually, they should be thrown out of the countries where they live and they should return back to the UK? He used the word ‘floodgates’. He used the word ‘floodgates’. He knows how inflammatory that word is. He cannot moan—. Talk about moaning; he cannot moan, once he’s used the word ‘floodgates’. The reality is that the farming industry will still need people from eastern Europe to work in the farming industry, whatever happens with Brexit; they will not be able to recruit locally.

I take the point, of course, that people have been unhappy with the current system of freedom of movement. That, to me, is apparent in the vote, but the reality is there will still be a need for people to move across boundaries in order to provide the labour that industry needs. Farming won’t survive without the labour that it can get in from eastern Europe, because they can’t recruit people locally. Every farmer knows that. And so, what we need is a sensible, humane and rational approach to freedom of movement and not talk about floodgates and stopping people from coming in and, effectively, building walls. The last thing humanity needs in the current crisis in the world is to build more walls and barriers.

Well, the standards commissioner is undertaking initial work, discussing with other UK Parliaments their arrangements and how they are working in practice, and we do stand ready to respond positively in the light of the commissioner's recommendations.

Okay. Thank you, First Minister, for that. I was in the short debate we had just before recess where this was discussed, and I was glad to hear that the standards commissioner is indeed looking at this. Could I just have a guarantee from you, First Minister, that if Gerard Elias decides that action is needed, you will take that action and not kick it into the long grass?

Well, the commissioner has previously said, of course, that he doesn't see this as having been a problem in the past. It's the standards committee, of course, that will need to look at this, and what lessons there are for the Assembly, we will take on board as a Government.

How companies and organisations engage with the Welsh Government, of course, and the transparency of those arrangements, is of course very important, but your own website states:

‘We aim to be open and responsive to the needs of citizens and communities’.

With this in mind, what more do you think the Welsh Government can do, particularly with its consultations, to reach a wider and deeper range of people, so that the voices of organisations that can afford communications officers or to use public affairs companies are better balanced by interested voices from the general population?

It's a fair point, and one of the things we look to do is to consult as widely as possible, online, of course, and through paper consultations. Inevitably, there is a need for information to be dissipated in communities by some individuals within communities, but, clearly, we want to make sure that consultations are as wide-ranging as they possibly can be.

First Minister, on 12 July, you said on the record that

‘lobbyists don’t have access to Welsh Ministers.’

Are you aware that on 27 October, your Minister for finance was pictured on Twitter attending an event with a commercial lobbyist? Are you aware that, tomorrow, on 2 October, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children is a keynote speaker at a commercial lobbyist event? So, maybe you can explain to the public and this Chamber the contradiction between what you say here, that they don't have access, and what actually is the reality, because we all know they do? Can you explain the contradiction, please?

Yes, easily. I mean, Ministers do speak at events that are organised by organisations, but Ministers do not have formal meetings with lobbyists. That is it; that is the reality of the situation. If he is saying that no Minister should ever meet, either formally or informally, with anybody who is remotely connected to a lobbying organisation, that's just impractical, given the size of Wales. It’s impractical for members of his own party. The last thing I'd suggest to Members in this Chamber is to say to Members that they should never, under any circumstances, meet anybody connected with a lobbying company. Clearly, that's not practical. But what we do not do is meet formally with lobbying companies if they seek meetings with Ministers. Those meetings never happen on a formal basis.

For 2017-18, the estimated amount of non-domestic rates that will be distributed to local authorities and police and crime commissioners in Wales is £1.059 billion. That is set out in the draft budget.

Thank you, First Minister. I’m sure you’re aware of the massive new level of uncertainty, particularly in rural areas, that’s been heaped on small businesses by the huge cost swings resulting from business rate revaluation. Now, I appreciate that overall it’s cost neutral and there are always going to be winners and losers, but businesses in Monmouthshire are facing an 11 per cent hike in their rates that, if implemented, will threaten to put many of them out of business. Do you agree that we need to fully understand the consequences of this revaluation before the implementation, and at the very least look to provide support for those businesses worst affected?

There will be support because, in response to the revaluation, a new £10 million transitional relief scheme will be introduced to assist small businesses whose entitlement to small business rate relief is adversely affected. That will be fully funded by the Welsh Government.

First Minister, the steel industry is still in crisis. It hasn’t disappeared. We still have many issues and challenges facing us, even though the workforces across Wales have actually shown commitment to improving profitability. What is your Government looking to do on business rates? This was an issue, very much so, early in the year and plant and machinery exemptions were considered. Will you be looking at that again, and will you be looking at business rates for the steel industry?

Well, I can say that the data from the current revaluation do indicate that the rateable value of the steel industry as a whole in Wales will decrease significantly. That will be of help to them. So we do anticipate that that will be part of the package that will assist the steel industry.

We have already put a package on the table. We need to see action now from the UK Government when it comes to pensions and when it comes to energy prices. So far, we have not seen sufficient action from the UK Government. We keep on urging them to show resolve in the future.

A number of businesses, particularly in rural areas, have been in touch with Plaid Cymru Members to discuss the impact of the increase that they’re currently facing—for example, a pub is facing an increase of 200 per cent. We are talking about thousands here. We have an example of the Vale Country Club, which arranges wedding in Ruthin, and their rateable value is going to increase from £9,600 to £23,000. The First Minister will understand, of course, the impact that that kind of change is going to have on that business and similar businesses. Is it perhaps an opportunity to look at the amount that he’s mentioned that’s been set aside for pro tem assistance, to ensure that we don’t see this staggering increase for some marginal businesses, in order to ensure that they don’t close because of these increases in business rates?

I understand the point, of course, but I am confident that the scheme that I’ve already alluded to will assist many of the businesses that have seen an increase in the sum that they need to pay.

We must remember that, with the majority of businesses, the last time they went through this process was back in 2008, when the economy was in a much better state, historically, and the level of rates that they would have been paying would have been much higher. We’ve already seen this in the steel industry. Of course, it doesn’t mean to say that every business is in the same position, but because we’ve identified the fact that some businesses will see an increase, that is why this pro tem scheme has been put in place.

First Minister, just over a third of business premises in England and Northern Ireland, and just under half in Scotland, currently benefit from business rate relief compared to over 70 per cent of Welsh businesses. I look forward to the publication of the Welsh Government’s permanent rate relief scheme for small businesses, but will the Welsh Government make sure that this is still the most generous rate relief package within the UK?

We will look to provide, and on top of that we want to provide certainty for a scheme that’s always been temporary, despite the fact that it’s been renewed for a number of years. But we need to make sure that that certainty is there for businesses so that they can plan going forward.

Fireworks are regulated by a range of legislation, including health and safety, consumer protection, product safety and explosives regulations, which are generally not devolved. It is questionable as to whether we have the ability to change the legislation at this moment in time and, again, the situation is not made clearer with the Wales Bill. For me, firework control is best dealt with on at least a GB basis, given the fact that people can move fireworks around across the island. But I take the point, and I know she’s been raising this point locally about the dangers that fireworks can pose.

Thank you, First Minister. Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen dangerous fireworks incidents across Wales, including in my own constituency of Newport West, where the fire service, the ambulance service and police were attacked by individuals using them as missiles. The fireworks used in these cowardly attacks on people trying to do their jobs serving our communities were large-scale commercial fireworks, which are significantly more powerful and dangerous. Will the First Minister join with me in condemning the attacks on public service workers? Will you also look at what powers the Welsh Government has in relation to safeguarding the public, particularly with regard to regulation, from these large-scale commercial fireworks, which, if used irresponsibly, can cause severe injury?

I see no reason why members of the public should be able to buy commercial fireworks—they’re profoundly dangerous in the wrong hands. People are not used to fireworks of a certain power, in terms of how far back they’ve got to stand. They can’t just light them with a taper—they have to be lit with an electronic charge. So, I think there are still questions as to how well regulated fireworks are. It is an offence to let off fireworks at certain times of day. It is an offence to buy fireworks under the age of 18. But, if anybody is attacked with a firework, that is already an offence and they should be prosecuted for it.

I’m sure our whole Assembly will unite in condemning the mindless stupidity of those involved in attacking the emergency services with fireworks in Newport. The British Fireworks Association has warned that any further restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks would lead to a sharp rise in unregulated and untraceable sales. Fire chiefs have already warned that more restrictions would lead to an increase in illegal imports. Does the First Minister agree that any proposals to restrict the sale of fireworks should only be actioned following the widest consultation with the industry and other stakeholders in Wales?

I do believe that, if you’re under 18, you shouldn’t be able to buy fireworks. I think, if I remember rightly, fireworks are categorised. Category 4 fireworks can only be used by professionals. I think there needs to be an investigation into whether some fireworks sit in the right categories. So, rather than look at implementing a more widespread ban on the use of all fireworks, I think there is a case for looking at the power of some fireworks as to whether they should, in fact, be available to members of the public or are best left in the hands of professionals.

We are currently undertaking a review to ascertain the best method of publishing details of ministerial meetings and diaries.

I was wondering whether the First Minister would accept a tip off me—basically, go into Outlook and press print. Is the First Minister aware of the quite dreadful—dreadful—impression that his Government Ministers are giving the public of Wales, that they feel that they don’t have to declare who they’re meeting with and for what purpose? It’s completely unacceptable that a freedom of information request has been put and has been refused. Will you ensure that the diaries are published?

Well, if he’s talking about his freedom of information request—and he’s nodding at that—he put in a request for every single meeting over the past five years. He should not be surprised, then, that he did not get a response for that. But if he makes a more defined request, of course these meetings can be released—they’re not secret per se. Nevertheless, I can say to him that we are looking at how we can retrospectively release details of meetings—it is happening to an extent in Westminster, it’s happening to an extent in Scotland, and I’m keen that we keep up with best practice. There’s no question of publishing ministerial engagements in the future, but I see no reason why we cannot do this for engagements that have happened in the past, and we will seek to find a way of doing that.

First Minister, can I welcome the review? I think it is important that you look at other jurisdictions, because we should attempt to follow best practice. If that changes current methods, I think that just shows you that the Government is doing the right thing and not acknowledging that past practice was in any way deficient. Standards do change, technology changes, what’s possible changes, and I think we want to be the best and not lagging.

No, I agree with that and, as I say, the review is currently being undertaken to see how best that information can be released so that it’s clear who Ministers are meeting. That’s something I’m keen to progress with as soon as possible.

Well, renewable energy is an important part of the energy mix we need to support a prosperous and secure low-carbon Wales. Our ongoing support has delivered dividends for Wales so far, and my Cabinet colleague Lesley Griffiths will make a statement on our energy priorities next month.

First Minister, in the light of recent financial difficulties encountered by Tidal Energy Ltd in west Wales, a company seemingly leading the way in marine energy extraction, what reassurances can you provide that other marine energy projects backed by public money deliver on their objectives, and what plans have your Government got in place to ensure that the skills and knowledge so far gained by Wales as a whole and the Government in particular on renewable energy are not lost from this area?

It’s unfortunate what happened to Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd. I think it’s fair to say that what they were taking forward was more like a research and development project rather than a business project per se. It does have potential, there’s no question about that, and we’re keen those skills are not lost. I have to say it would be hugely useful, of course, if we were to see progress now on the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon so that the work that’s been carried out in St Justinian, for example—I saw for myself what was happening there—can actually be taken forward as part of the skill set that will be needed for the tidal lagoon.

As well as renewable generation, does the First Minister agree with me that sustainable storage and distribution are vital to our sustainable energy future, and does he welcome the groundbreaking research being undertaken into innovative energy storage and distribution by the universities of Cardiff, Swansea and south Wales, through the FLEXIS project, which is looking to develop a demonstration site in Neath Port Talbot?

I do. It’s an excellent example of our universities working together, as well as an example of collaboration between industry and research organisations across Wales and the rest of Europe. It is an EU-funded project, so what will happen to it beyond 2020, of course, is always difficult to predict. Nevertheless, it has great potential, and the fact that so many of our universities have come together to be part of it shows how important a project this is for them.

May I ask the First Minister what he’s doing to enhance people’s understanding of renewable energy in Wales, particularly in terms of the distribution of renewable energy locally for local people in order to increase support for that method? Now, if Sian Gwenllian could be here today, I’m sure she would want me to mention Ynni Ogwen, which is a co-operative scheme to distribute energy locally. There are energy companies being set up by local authorities in England, such as Robin Hood Energy in Nottinghamshire. Isn’t it time for the Government to consider the creation of a renewable energy company for Wales and to distribute energy locally?

Wel, mae yna wasanaeth ynni lleol ar gael, ac mae hynny’n rhoi cefnogaeth i gymunedau a hefyd i SMEs er mwyn iddynt allu datblygu eu prosiectau eu hunain. Trwy’r ‘portal’ y maen nhw’n ei rhedeg, mae grwpiau sydd â diddordeb yn dod at ei gilydd i weld ym mha ffordd y gallen nhw gydweithio er mwyn symud y prosiectau ymlaen. Mae un enghraifft ym Methesda, wrth gwrs, sef y prosiect Ynni Lleol. Mae hynny’n beilot i weld a yw’n bosib sicrhau bod pobl yn gallu cael cymorth i ddefnyddio llai o’r ynni yna nawr a hefyd, wrth gwrs, sicrhau eu bod nhw’n talu llai o arian hefyd.

Whilst there is a role for renewable energy at the margins, does the First Minister agree that an even greater reliance upon renewable energy than we currently have is likely only to impose prohibitive costs upon people? Between 2014 and 2020 already it’s estimated that the average cost of green subsidies and carbon taxes is £3,500 per household, and whilst hydro schemes and possibly even tidal schemes may have a place in the energy mix, because wind is intermittent, it is very expensive, because you have to have back-up power stations to cope when it doesn’t blow or it blows too strongly, and therefore it would be far more sensible to rely more on conventional resources, like coal, for example, just mentioned by Simon Thomas. We sit on some of the best anthracite areas in the world. Where this can be mined commercially, is it not sensible to put that into the energy mix as well?

The air is redolent with irony. When I hear that comment, I have to remind the Member he was part of a party that deliberately closed down coal mines—even those that were profitable. [Interruption.] Even those that were profitable, they closed down. At that time, coal, in his mind, was finished. The reality is that deep mining is not a reality for most of Wales any more—most of the pits that closed down have been built over; their shafts were filled in. He talks about mining economically—he’s talking about opencast. Now, if he wants controversy, I suggest that he talks to people who live next to opencast sites on the way they feel about it. So, what he’s advocating is either more opencast or more imports. We have to remember that there’s no way we can produce the coal that we would need to fuel our power stations. There’s no way we can replace the liquid natural gas—25 per cent of it that comes into the UK comes through Milford Haven. And there are two questions there—firstly, it is more expensive because of the slide of the pound, and, secondly, energy security. We don’t want to be too dependent on importing energy from elsewhere, but the reality is the coal industry was hammered in the 1980s, it was got rid of quite deliberately, and he can’t turn around now and say, ‘Actually, what we want is more coal’, when he did more than anybody else to ensure there was no coal there in the first place.

Yes. We expect the health board to continue to improve access to services, including, of course, reducing waiting times across the full range of services.

Does the First Minister think it’s acceptable for someone experiencing chronic knee pain to have to wait 10 months to see a consultant, and what does the First Minister propose to do about it?

She was obviously referring to a constituent who’s contacted her. It’s difficult to comment on an individual case, but, if the constituent wishes, through her, to refer the constituent’s situation to me, I will of course look at it and write back to her.

Against the Welsh Government’s target of 95 per cent, the figures published last week for September show that just 72 per cent of accident and emergency patients were seen in four hours at Wrexham Maelor and 69.7 per cent at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, with 919 people waiting more than 12 hours in the major A&E departments in north Wales. Having ignored warnings that the closure of minor injury units, the withdrawal of NHS community beds and the shrinking share of the NHS Wales budget going to GP surgeries would lead to this precise outcome, will you now listen—and how—to those concerns in order to address them and reduce this demand for those community-based prevention mechanisms?

This from a representative of the party of Jeremy Hunt. I can say to him that the latest published figures prove that the majority of patients, nearly eight out of 10, are seen, treated, admitted or discharged very quickly and within four hours of their arrival despite, actually, an increase in attendances involving the elderly with complex needs and high-acuity and high-dependent patients. Whilst the achievement of the target has been difficult—that much is true—nevertheless we did see an improvement in the four-hour target in September.

First Minister, would you accept that the reduction in the number of beds in north Wales does contribute to difficulties with waiting times? We’ve seen beds lost in Flint, Llangollen, Blaenau Ffestiniog—there are over 400 fewer beds now in north Wales as compared to 2010. Surely, you would accept that that contributes to the difficulties.

No, I don’t see that because we’re talking about communities where there wasn’t an A&E unit in the first place. So, people travel to the A&Es in an ambulance, and so they will be admitted to that hospital and that’s where the pressure would lie. However, we see that eight out of 10 people who go into the accident and emergency units leave within four hours.

The language impact assessment forms an integral part of the sustainability appraisals that accompany local development plans. They may also be required for planning applications for major windfall sites in areas of particular sensitivity as set out in a development plan.

Thank you for that response, and you’re quite right—they are crucial as part of the process. My concern, however, is about the quality of some of the language impact assessments. They are produced, very often, without being adequately policed, and I can point to some examples where there is some very dubious evidence presented as part of these assessments, and, of course, those are just accepted, very often, by planning authorities and decisions are taken on the basis of what I would argue is incorrect evidence. Now, what’s the Government doing to ensure that these assessments are properly policed and that those are quality assessments that set a fair precedent for decisions?

In the first place, if the assessments are part of the development plan, then the inspectorate can express a view and ensure that they are accurate in terms of the language. Secondly, of course, if any problems arise with an assessment, and if the council were to accept that assessment despite it being erroneous, then there would be an opportunity for Ministers to decide whether the application should be called in to the Government.

In a letter to the consultation into TAN 20 earlier this year, the Welsh Language Commissioner stated that it’s important that local authorities are given clear guidance in order to ensure that there is consistency across Wales when it comes to language impact assessments in planning. Can you therefore confirm today that your Government intends to ensure that there is clear guidance published when you do make a decision in this area?

That is quite right, because it’s all-important to ensure that there is consistency in the planning system. In the past, different systems were used by some local authorities and in considering TAN 20 we want to ensure that it’s as clear as possible.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the First Minister on EU transition. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Following the European referendum, I undertook to keep the Assembly informed of developments and also to provide regular opportunities for the Assembly to comment and to debate within this Chamber.

Mae’r Aelodau yn gwybod i mi fynd i gyfarfod llawn Cydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion yr wythnos diwethaf, a gynhaliwyd gan y Prif Weinidog yn Downing Street. Roedd fy nghymheiriaid yn yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon yn bresennol hefyd, wrth gwrs, ac roedd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid, Mark Drakeford, yno gyda mi hefyd. Lywydd, cyn i mi adrodd ar Gydbwyllgor y Gweinidogion, byddai’n ddefnyddiol rhoi rhywfaint o gyd-destun ar faterion cysylltiedig.

Rydym yn gwybod o ddatganiadau cynharach Prif Weinidog y DU fod Llywodraeth y DU yn bwriadu galw erthygl 50 i rym, gan sbarduno’r trafodaethau ymadael, a hynny heb fod yn hwyrach na diwedd mis Mawrth y flwyddyn nesaf. Cafwyd gwybod hefyd bod yr hyn a elwir y Bil diddymu mawr, a fydd, mewn gwirionedd, yn trosglwyddo cyfraith yr UE yn ddeddfwriaeth ddomestig pan fydd y DU yn ymadael â'r Undeb Ewropeaidd, yn mynd rhagddo, er bod yna gwestiynau ynghylch sut y bydd yn gweithio yn y cyd-destun datganoledig. Yn fy marn i, mae’r dull yn synhwyrol yn fras, ond unwaith eto, ceir materion cymhleth, fel y dywedais, gan gynnwys y berthynas rhwng cyfraith Ewrop â materion datganoledig. Lle bo deddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd yn dod o fewn cymhwysedd datganoledig, ni yng Nghymru, wrth gwrs, fydd yn penderfynu maes o law pa rannau o gyfraith Ewrop y byddwn o bosibl yn dymuno eu cadw neu eu diddymu.

Lywydd, mae ein his-bwyllgor y Cabinet ar bontio Ewropeaidd yn cyfarfod yn rheolaidd a bydd yn adrodd i'r Cabinet llawn cyn y Nadolig. Y tu hwnt i hynny, mae Gweinidogion yn gweithio ar draws portffolios i geisio barn a thrafod materion fel bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn gallu adlewyrchu, yn y pen draw, amrywiaeth eang y safbwyntiau a geir ledled y wlad. Mae cyngor adnewyddu'r economi, tasglu’r Cymoedd, gweithgor Brexit addysg uwch a byrddau crwn ar gyfer rhanddeiliaid ar faterion yn ymwneud â’r amgylchedd ac amaethyddiaeth i gyd yn enghreifftiau o sut y mae'r Llywodraeth yn ysgogi trafodaeth a chyfraniadau ar faterion sy’n ymwneud ag ymadael â’r UE.

Fel y gŵyr yr Aelodau, mae ein grŵp cynghori ar Ewrop hefyd yn cyfrannu at yr ystyriaeth tymor canolig a thymor hwy ynglŷn â pha fath o Gymru yr ydym am fod y tu allan i'r UE, ac i gynllunio ar gyfer gwahanol sefyllfaoedd o ganlyniadau posibl i'r trafodaethau Brexit. Mae’r grŵp hwnnw yn dwyn ynghyd y farn ar draws y sbectrwm ac ystod o arbenigedd ac awdurdod o gymdeithas sifil. Rwy’n arbennig o ddiolchgar i aelodau'r grŵp hwn am roi o'u harbenigedd yn rhydd ac am y modd cydweithredol y maent yn cyfrannu at fudd cenedlaethol Cymru.

Lywydd, rwy’n dychwelyd yn awr at gydbwyllgor y gweinidogion yr wythnos diwethaf. Hwn oedd y cyfarfod cyntaf ers y refferendwm, pan oedd arweinwyr gwleidyddol o bob rhan o'r DU yn yr un ystafell ar yr un pryd. Os yw’n bosibl dod at unrhyw beth sy’n agos at gonsensws o ran safbwynt y DU, yna trwy’r fforwm hwn y bydd yn rhaid cytuno ar hynny. Rwyf wedi nodi’n glir fy marn y dylai Llywodraeth y DU geisio consensws o'r fath a chymeradwyaeth y Cynulliad a'r sefydliadau datganoledig eraill ar gyfer ei fframwaith trafod.

Lywydd, nodais ein blaenoriaethau ar gyfer Cymru, a bydd y rhain yn gyfarwydd i’r Aelodau yma. Roeddwn i’n glir mai mynediad rhydd a diymatal parhaus at y farchnad sengl yw ein blaenoriaeth absoliwt. Ni allwn gytuno â gosod tariffau neu rwystrau di-doll rhwng y DU a’n cymdogion Ewropeaidd. Byddai unrhyw symudiad i'r cyfeiriad hwn yn tanseilio’n aruthrol fuddiannau busnesau allforio Cymru ac ar unwaith yn dirywio'r hyn y mae Cymru yn ei gynnig yn y gystadleuaeth fyd-eang am fuddsoddiad uniongyrchol o dramor. Ni all ac ni allai marchnadoedd y tu hwnt i'r Undeb Ewropeaidd wneud iawn am y cwymp yn ein masnach Ewropeaidd. Mae o leiaf 40 y cant o'n hallforion yn mynd i Ewrop, ac mae'r holl ddata economaidd sydd ar gael yn dangos bod gan ddaearyddiaeth ran bendant i’w chwarae mewn llifoedd masnach ryngwladol. Lywydd, rydym yn uchelgeisiol yn fyd-eang ac rydym yn cefnogi ein busnesau lle bynnag yn y byd y maent yn dymuno masnachu, ond ni allwn gydgynllwynio ag unrhyw setliad sy'n tanseilio eu hallforion Ewropeaidd. Dywedaf eto: pleidleisiodd etholwyr Cymru i adael yr UE; ni wnaethant bleidleisio i ddifetha economi Cymru. Pe gallwn i, ar y pwynt hwn, ddyfynnu'r Aelod Rhun ap Iorwerth, a dywedodd fod pobl Cymru wedi pleidleisio i adael, nid gadael eu synhwyrau, ac roeddwn i’n meddwl bod honno’n llinell dda iawn. Rwy’n credu bod hynny’n crynhoi ein sefyllfa ar hyn o bryd.

Codais y mater hanfodol o ariannu ar gyfer Cymru ar ôl i’r DU ymadael. Fel ag y mae pethau, efallai y bydd y DU yn gadael yr UE yn ystod gwanwyn 2019. Y tu hwnt i’r dyddiad hwn, nid oes unrhyw ddarpariaeth yn y gyllideb ar gyfer ffermwyr neu gymunedau gwledig a dim arian ar gyfer datblygu economaidd rhanbarthol yn lle cronfeydd strwythurol. Bydd adolygiad o'r grant bloc yng ngoleuni gadael yr UE yn dod yn gynyddol bwysig ar gyfer sefydlogrwydd yn y misoedd i ddod.

Lywydd, rwyf wedi cydnabod o'r blaen bod pryder ynghylch ymfudo heb gyfyngiad o fewn yr UE yn rhan o'r hyn a gyfrannodd at y bleidlais i adael. Mae’n rhaid i hawliau dinasyddion yr UE sydd eisoes yn byw yma gael eu diogelu, ac ni fyddwn yn goddef unrhyw senoffobia na hiliaeth yng Nghymru. Mae ymfudwyr o'r UE yn helpu i gynnal economi Cymru, ac rydym yn rhagweld angen parhaus i recriwtio ar draws gwahanol sectorau o economi Cymru yn y blynyddoedd i ddod. Rydym yn aros am gynigion gan Lywodraeth y DU ynghylch sut y mae'n bwriadu ymdrin ag ymfudo a reolir ar ôl i ni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd, a byddwn yn archwilio'r cynigion hynny yn ofalus. Ond rwy’n rhoi rhybudd i Lywodraeth y DU: ni fyddwn yn cytuno i unrhyw beth a fydd yn niweidio neu'n tanseilio economi Cymru.

Lywydd, fy mhwynt olaf o bwys oedd am ein pwerau fel sefydliad datganoledig. Pan fydd y DU yn gadael, bydd rheoliadau’r UE mewn meysydd polisi datganoledig yn cael eu codi a bydd Llywodraeth Cymru a'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn yn arfer rheolaeth lawn dros bolisïau sydd eisoes wedi'u datganoli i ni: amaethyddiaeth, yr amgylchedd a physgodfeydd, er enghraifft. Byddwn yn gwrthwynebu unrhyw ymgais—unrhyw ymgais—gan Lywodraeth y DU i adfachu pwerau i’w hun. Ni wnaeth pobl yng Nghymru bleidleisio am hynny. Rydym yn derbyn mai’r peth gorau fydd ymdrin â rhai materion ar sail y DU gyfan, mae hynny'n wir, ond dim ond trwy gytundeb rhynglywodraethol y gellid gwneud hynny, drwy gyfuno peth sofraniaeth, nid gorfodi. Mae gadael yr UE yn gofyn am ystyriaeth o’r newydd o ran sut y mae'r DU ei hun yn gweithredu ac mae llawer o waith i'w wneud yn y maes hwn.

Mae'n siomedig, ac yn niweidiol i hyder, nad yw Llywodraeth y DU, hyd yn hyn, wedi cynnig amlinelliad cydlynol o'i hymagwedd gyffredinol at ei thrafodaethau am yr UE. Nid oes llawer o esgusodion am beidio â gwneud hynny, ac nid yw’r gohirio, ac mae’n rhaid dweud, y negeseuon dryslyd a chymysg, yn helpu hygrededd y DU. Felly, mae angen i Lywodraeth y DU gael trefn ar bethau.

Lywydd, mae’r Prif Weinidog wedi cytuno y dylai cyfarfod llawn y cydbwyllgor gweinidogion ddigwydd yn amlach yn awr, ac rwy’n croesawu hynny. Rydym hefyd wedi cytuno ar ffurf newydd i’r cydbwyllgor gweinidogion, a elwir yn gydbwyllgor gweinidogion (trafodaethau Ewrop). Hwn fydd y fforwm ar gyfer y drafodaeth fanwl o safbwynt y DU. Byddwn yn bartner dibynadwy yn y broses hon a byddwn yn gweithredu gydag ewyllys da. Rydym eisiau’r hyn sydd orau i Gymru, ac mae gennym ddyletswydd i fynd ar drywydd y buddiant hwnnw gydag egni. Dyna'r union beth y byddwn yn ei wneud.

Lywydd, bydd yr Aelodau hefyd yn dymuno bod yn ymwybodol bod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros yr Economi a Seilwaith wedi ysgrifennu at yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Fusnes, Ynni a Strategaeth Ddiwydiannol i ofyn am fwy o wybodaeth am y penderfyniad Nissan, a'r goblygiadau i fusnesau yng Nghymru.

Rydym erbyn hyn yn sefyll ar groesffordd i Gymru a'r DU, a bydd penderfyniadau a wneir nawr yn pennu ein dyfodol am ddegawdau i ddod. Mae'r Llywodraeth hon yn derbyn ac yn croesawu ein cyfrifoldeb, ond ni allwn weithio ar ein pen ein hun. Rydym yn gwerthfawrogi cyfraniadau gan bawb, a’n nod yw datblygu consensws pan fo hynny’n bosibl. Lywydd, byddaf, wrth gwrs, yn parhau i roi’r newyddion diweddaraf i’r Aelodau wrth i faterion ddatblygu.

I’d like to thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon and, in particular, the updating of Members in relation to the work the Welsh Government has undertaken with its various committees, and the Cabinet sub-committee that is advising the Cabinet. I do find some disappointment, though, in some of the language in this statement today, in particular the downbeat tone. The First Minister of Northern Ireland was also at the very meeting that the First Minister for Wales was at last Monday and these were her words:

‘The UK’s biggest economic opportunity for decades.’

That was what she was referring to when it came to Brexit. That is what we have to face. It is an opportunity. People have spoken, as of 23 June, and it is now for politicians of whatever colour to actually implement the wishes of the British people. It is important that the 48 per cent of people who voted to remain’s views are also taken into consideration, because that is a considerable number of individuals who expressed an opinion to keep our relationship with Europe as well. I’ve been very clear in any comment I have made that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution to this, but the views of both sides need to be taken forward in an act of mutual co-operation, rather than just playing the petty politics that some of the language in this statement alludes to, such as—[Interruption.] Well, I appreciate that, in this Chamber, we’ll continue with the banter like this—but the language of confused and mixed messaging. It was the First Minister himself who came out with his six-point plan for where the Welsh Government stood, and before we knew it, the free movement of people was dropped from that six-point plan. It was the First Minister himself who, in early July, talked of the sooner that article 50 was invoked the better, and then that was changed by August to say that the Prime Minister’s approach was a very sensible approach. The only confusion, and the only mixed messaging, I would suggest, is from the First Minister himself and, indeed, the Welsh Government. And that is to be regretted—that it’s not more of a positive engagement when you look at the way that the Prime Minister has reached out to the devolved administrations, in particular, with reinventing and re-establishing the JMC, to make sure that the devolved voice is clearly heard around that table and, above all, making sure that the JMC meets around the whole of the United Kingdom, not just in London.

I would welcome the First Minister’s view as to how the JMC will progress in the next 12 months, 18 months or two years, because he is quite right to identify that this will be the key platform for taking forward the devolved Governments’ views in the negotiations, because the UK Government is the Government on point and is the Government making the negotiations. He, like I, met David Davis two weeks ago today. I found a Secretary of State who was fully engaged, who had a coherent strategy for the way forward and, above all, the announcements—[Interruption.] Well, again, you know, the First Minister and the Labour Party in particular seem to want to take a different view on every position just because the politics of it plays out for them. We have to enact the wishes of the Welsh people on 23 June, and those were cast very clearly: that the people of Wales wanted to recast their relationship with Europe.

Last week, we had the announcement about the Sunderland Nissan engine factory; we had economic growth figures. All positive news and yet still trying to put a dampener on the outcome of the referendum.

I would also like to ask the First Minister, in particular, on the paragraph where he talks about policies and the control of devolved areas. I too support him in his sentiments. I’m sure that every Member in this institution will support him. But there is an opportunity—as, in fairness, your statement touches on—where it says,

‘We accept that some issues will best be dealt with on a UK-wide basis, but this can only be done through intra-governmental agreement, through some pooling of sovereignty.’

So, I’d be grateful if he could enlarge on that particular reference—how he sees that type of relationship, that type of pooling of sovereignty. Importantly, he refers to the policy areas, and not necessarily the financial areas, because it doesn’t make reference in that particular paragraph or anywhere in the statement—. I read that very carefully because, obviously, the money side of the equation has traditionally been an important consideration in Welsh Government schemes, such as structural funding, higher education, agriculture and rural development. I do note that you’ve specifically referred to policy, not financial areas. So, is it the case that the First Minister is more receptive to more sharing of sovereignty in those particular areas so that the money can be best dovetailed into UK Government schemes and stretched further? I look forward to hearing what the answer is that comes from the First Minister.

He also uses the word ‘collude’, which I think is a very unfortunate turn of phrase when he’s talking about international development. Ninety of the 97 inward investment deals were delivered from UKTI last year. It is important that there is a strong relationship—[Interruption.] Those were UKTI’s own figures, First Minister. As we found in earlier questions in First Minister’s questions, you weren’t particularly good at identifying Mexico when it came to free trade, but I’m sure that UKTI have got their figures correct. So, I’d be grateful again—as to how the First Minister will be taking forward the Government’s position in promoting Wales on the UK platform when it comes to promoting Wales as a good, solid destination for inward investment. Again, another point that Arlene Foster made over the weekend was how she sees this as a unique opportunity to develop the offer—in her case, what Northern Ireland has to offer post Brexit—and it would be good to hear how the First Minister will be taking those issues forward.

I, too, join him in the points that he makes about racism and comments that have been made in Wales and, indeed, around the United Kingdom. There is no room at all in any civilised or developed society for such rhetoric, and we should be working across parties to make sure that that is driven out from every walk of life. But it is a fact that the First Minister has rowed back on the principle of the free movement of people, unless he wants to contradict me on that when he does respond to me. So, when he does talk about the importance of the free movement of goods and services, based on the principle that, under EU legislation, and EU understanding of the single market, it has to relate to people as well, how does he see the Welsh Government’s negotiating position assisting in making sure that there is access to the single market, given that you have given up on that tenet, that basic tenet, of free movement of people, which seems to be such a critical stumbling block? I have yet to hear a comprehensive argument coming from the First Minister as to why, from his original position, he has now moved to dropping that key caveat from the Welsh Government’s position.

I do wish the First Minister well. I wish the Welsh Government well in its deliberations, and in particular in its meetings with other devolved administrations and the UK Government. But we really do need to be working from the same hymn sheet on this. The next two years are going to be of critical importance to many businesses, many communities and many individuals the length and breadth of Wales. Wales voted to realign our relationship with Europe. You can’t get away from that. It is incumbent on politicians in all parties to work together, and I do regret the fact that the First Minister’s chosen not to accept the offer that I put to him on the twenty-fourth to work with him on this. I accept his position—he doesn’t want to take that offer up—but I do think that that is a matter of deep regret, because, together, politicians in this institution could achieve so much more when it comes to enhancing Wales’s position around the Brexit negotiation tables.

Nobody raises the issue of the UK not leaving the EU except those people who are Brexiters. There’s no question of the UK not leaving the EU. It’s going to happen. We know that. That argument has passed. That ship has sailed. It’s a question now of working out how this happens. All we know is that the people of Wales voted to leave the EU. We know no detail beyond that. We don’t really know what their position would be, for example, if there was a deal on the table that included some kind of partial free movement of people, as long as it involved access to the single market. We just don’t know. So, we are in a position of having to craft possibilities that are in the best interests of the people of Wales.

The reality, for me, is that tariff-free access to the single market is the single most important issue. That is the single most important issue. It is also right to say that that involves accepting, at least in part, the free movement of people. Well, if that is the case, then that has to be looked at, I’m afraid, because access to the single market is the most important issue. There are examples in other countries where there is a modification of the system of free movement. What we do know, what we can read into the result, I believe, in June, is that people weren’t happy with the current system of freedom of movement. Beyond that, we don’t know what their acceptance would be of any modification of that system.

I put forward a six-point plan in June. I still don’t have a plan from the UK Government. I still don’t know what their plan is, I still don’t know what their priorities are, and I still don’t know what the negotiating strategy is. Now, he met with David Davis. He may have said something different to him than he said to me, but every single question I put to David Davis was met with the answer, ‘It’ll be fine.’ I said, ‘What about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?’ ‘It’ll be fine.’ Well, it’s not fine, and Arlene Foster has the great problem now of having a situation where she will have a border with a country with a different immigration policy and that potentially is outside of the customs union as well. It is impossible not to have a hard border in those circumstances, and these are issues that, so far, have just been buried in the sand at UK level and will need to be resolved.

I think the Prime Minister wants to have a sensible approach to this. I think she does. I think this is the reason why she took the view she did before the referendum. But there are others around her who don’t. Liam Fox, Peter Lilley—these are people who have said, ‘What we need is a situation where service industries have access to other countries in order to allow their manufactured goods to come into the UK.’ That is a recipe to destroy UK manufacturing, and that is not what people voted for. For me, it’s hugely important that we’re in a position where we can access the European single market—that much is true—but I will not accept anything that would lead to manufacturing being undermined in Wales. He’s talked of free trade agreements—we must tread carefully there. Does he want a free trade agreement with New Zealand? Because what that would mean is the end of the quotas and the tariffs on lamb, with the free flow of lamb into the UK. So, we have to be very, very careful of what a free trade agreement actually means, and examine very carefully what the details are.

That is why it will take many, many years for free trade agreements to be negotiated. There’s no way that free trade agreements will be negotiated within two years—it’s impossible. The deal with Canada took seven years just to negotiate. Then there’s the question of agreement from the UK Parliament, from two regional parliaments in Belgium, member states—one of which has already said it would agree to nothing without co-sovereignty over Gibraltar. All these issues have to be resolved. None of this is easy. They have to be resolved, I know that, but to think that this is an easy option, that is far from the case.

In terms of devolved areas, well, let me give you one example of where it would make sense to have one coherent policy across GB: animal health. There’s no sense in having three different systems of animal health across Great Britain. And the reality is that, to me, it makes sense to have an agreement between the three Governments, with a common system—that clearly makes sense. There may be an argument of having a common framework for agriculture, so that there are no barriers erected within the UK to trade within the UK. That I can see as being something that would have merit.

He talks about money—under no circumstances would it be good for Welsh farming to see the current flow of money from Europe disappear into the Treasury. We get £260 million a year for farmers in Wales. We have a far greater share of the spend than Barnett would give us—a far greater spend. So, actually, we will be much, much worse off if we were to lose that share of the money. The worry I have is that, in 2020, we’ll be told, ‘You can have the money, Barnettised’. If you do that, it’s a massive cut in Welsh farming, and we would not be able to keep the current subsidy system going. For me, what we need is a guarantee that the current share of funding will continue into the future. If that’s done, then that will resolve the situation.

We have to make sure, of course, that we don’t end up in a situation where we have the powers, but not the money. And it’s hugely important, as we were told that there would be a Brexit bonus, that that is distributed fairly to the people of Wales. And in agriculture, that means not a Barnettised share—it actually means the kind of share that we get now.

Talks with UKTI—he is wrong about UKTI. We value the work that we do with UKTI—we have a good relationship with them; there is no conflict between us—but the major investment decisions that have come to Wales over the last few years have come through the sheer hard graft of Ministers and, indeed, of officials—Aston Martin, where I was yesterday, being one example of that. That was done entirely by Welsh Government Ministers. But we do work with UKTI. They have provided us with assistance in the past, and the relationship is good, and that’s going to continue in the future—that needn’t change.

But we have to understand that there are many, many issues that need to be resolved in a very, very short space of time. We’re talking about two and a half years to put in place a deal for the UK that will be of benefit to the UK. That is a hugely difficult task. At the very least, it needs the UK Government to be able to be in a position to understand where it wants to go at this stage. If it’s not at that stage yet, then how on earth will it be in a position to understand what the negotiations should look like over the two-year period of those negotiations? Now, from my perspective, I’m not starting from the perspective of looking to be publicly critical of the UK Government as it continues its negotiations. I would rather be in a position where we had an agreed way forward—I’d rather be in a position where we had an agreed way forward. But in March, I would like to see the UK Government having taken on board the views of the devolved Governments, and come to a position that can be agreed by the devolved Governments. On that basis, it makes perfect sense, then, to go into negotiations in March with a united front. But that is the challenge for the UK Government. It’s no good the UK Government saying, ‘This is what we’re going to do’, and not look for the views of the devolved Governments, or their agreement. If we’re going to get this right for the UK, we need as much agreement as possible, in order to make sure that, over the next two years, we don’t end up in the situation where we take a huge economic hit.

I thank the First Minister for his statement today. He and I, of course, will disagree and will have differing views in terms of the need for a more urgent and more clear position on the part of the Welsh Government in relation to our withdrawal from the European Union. But I’d like to focus my questions to him on what has been secured in the recent Joint Ministerial Committee plenary meeting.

In his statement, he mentioned the need to ensure, as far as possible, a UK-wide consensus. What is crucial in this respect is, of course, the appropriate mechanism for that to be achieved. He’s mentioned that the JMC will have a new body—the JMC (EN). Can he inform us if the UK Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be made accountable and answerable to that new JMC body, or will it be more of an advisory body for the civil service of the United Kingdom Government? Is it that body's role to seek either a shared UK position that he talks about, or will there be an ability through that JMC body to secure bespoke Brexit arrangements for each constituent part of the United Kingdom? I wonder if he can give us a sense of whether that body is going to be the basis for the UK Brexit negotiating position.

In his statement, he refers to the need for Wales's funding arrangements to be adjusted in order to mitigate and accommodate the fact that we will be withdrawing from the European Union. Of course, we on the Plaid Cymru benches agree with that, but can he tell us whether this is already a feature of his Government's negotiations with the British state on a new fiscal framework for Wales? Will that framework, from the outset, factor in the impact of Brexit, or will we need to renegotiate a new fiscal framework almost immediately on adopting the very first one?

He mentions in his statement the issue of migration, and I welcome his comments relating to full condemnation of xenophobia and racism, and his message, as well, of welcome to EU citizens who live here now and who contribute to our country, and Plaid Cymru will join him in condemning any racism and xenophobia that occurs. Has he had any further thoughts on the wider implications of a new UK immigration policy on the Welsh economy and public services specifically? I'm asking in particular relation to the possibility of Wales and the Welsh Government having the ability to issue Welsh work permits, so that, where there are shortages in skills or expertise in either the public or private sectors, his Government will be able to issue permanent and temporary work permits, so that we don't have a one-size-fits-all UK immigration system that might be to the detriment of Wales, but which may be, perhaps—call me a cynic—to the benefit of somewhere such as the City of London?

The First Minister has rightly highlighted the constitutional challenges that we have and those that will emerge over the coming period. The European repeal Bill, or, as some refer to it, the great repeal Bill, will be one of those challenges, particularly in relation to matters that are currently devolved. I've asked him previously whether he envisages a need for a Welsh European repeal Bill. I wonder if he can update us on whether or not he believes there will be a need, at one point or another, for a specific Welsh repeal Bill or even, dare I say it, a Welsh continuation Bill, so there is clarity, as far as it goes, in terms of previous European legislation and previous ECJ judgments as they relate to matters that are devolved in Welsh law, as he has referred to in his statement.

I welcome his very clear messages in terms of the constitution that there will be no tolerance on the part of the Welsh Government if it comes to attempted power grabs from the British state on matters that are devolved, and Plaid Cymru, of course, supports the very sensible approach for collaboration between the governments of these islands when it comes to matters where co-operation is essential—on agriculture, farming, and the environment, for example. Can he, therefore, take us a step further and share, perhaps, a vision for how he thinks that can be accommodated once we've left the European Union? Does he, for example, believe that the JMC (EN) should turn, on our withdrawal from the European Union, into a UK council of Ministers that is permanent in standing, that shares civil servants among all the devolved Governments and the central Government, so that there is a continuous, inter-governmental structure that can accommodate the differing needs of the United Kingdom and can facilitate co-operation, rather than the rather ad hoc and, I would argue, unacceptable way that we conduct inter-governmental relations at the moment?

Finally, he mentions the Nissan announcement. Did the Prime Minister have the courtesy to provide the First Minister and the other heads of government with any sort of heads-up in the JMC meeting that the Nissan announcement was imminent? Or does the First Minister have the impression from the nature of that announcement that the UK's approach, if we can call it an approach to Brexit, is sector by sector, rather than nation by nation? And is he able to clarify whether the promises made to Nissan will apply to car manufacturers here in Wales? Of course, as he's mentioned, it’s a vitally important industry here, worth £3 billion and supporting around 18,000 jobs. And finally, Llywydd, did he call the UK Government’s new Brexit hotline, perhaps to ask some of these questions, and, if so, does he feel that his call was important to them? [Laughter.]

I’ve not yet rung the hotline. I’d hope that it would give me more information than if I’d rung the speaking clock, but, so far, the person on the end of that of that hotline has simply said to me, ‘It’ll all be fine’. So, I’m not sure that the information is as detailed as it should be at this stage.

He raises many important points there. If I could deal with Nissan first, on Monday it was made clear that the UK Government was still considering a Brexit strategy that did include tariffs. I asked the Prime Minister to her face to rule out any strategy, any deal, that would involve tariffs, and she would not do so. Then we had the news that Nissan had made this announcement. Then we had the news that the UK Government was looking to use what I can only describe as its best endeavours to secure tariff-free access for the automotive industry.

I couldn’t disagree with that, but what about the other sectors? It seems to be a completely piecemeal approach without any kind of overarching strategy. What does this mean for Airbus? What does this mean for Tata? We don’t know. All we know is that a deal has been negotiated, apparently, for automotive without any money being involved. Now, I don’t believe that. I think it’s hugely important and, indeed, the Cabinet Secretary has already written to the Secretary of State asking him to disclose the full details of the financial settlement. We need to know. This is a UK matter. If the UK Government has made a pledge that it will compensate for tariffs and it does that for every sector, we’ll end up paying more than we did when we were members of the EU, and paying companies rather than paying the EU. So, we don’t know. This smacks of an approach that is piecemeal and not one that is well thought through, and that needs to change. There needs to be a strategy here so that people understand where they’re going.

I welcome, of course, what the Prime Minister said before the Joint Ministerial Committee in terms of frequency of meetings, because that was all agreed in 2014. So, I’m not surprised that she reiterated what we’d all agreed in 2014 anyway. But yes, it is, of course, useful that the JMC plenary meets on a more regular basis and that the Prime Minister is at the JMC plenary.

He makes the point about a putative council of ministers. That is essential in my view, because we will need to have a mechanism where we can get agreement across the nations of the UK when it comes to looking to develop common frameworks. There is a precedent for this, because, when I was agriculture secretary back in 2000, 2001, we used to meet every month and agree the UK line at the Council of Ministers. That was seen as quite normal. So, this has happened in the past, and there is no reason why this shouldn’t happen in the future.

On the JMC European negotiations, it’s not an advisory body. Certainly, it was made very clear that this is not a body that is there for the UK Government to tell us what it is going to do without us having the ability to put our own view forward and to make sure we get an agreed way forward. So, it isn’t a sounding board and it isn’t a notice board of any kind; it is meant to be a proper forum for deciding the way forward.

In terms of the fiscal framework, everything is being looked at at the moment as part of the fiscal framework. But ultimately, of course, we know that there are still issues such as Barnett that don’t favour Wales. We know that there are unanswered questions in terms of what happens after 2020, and we don’t have answers to those questions yet.

He’s raised the interesting point about Welsh work permits. He’s raised it before with me. I think it’s an issue that needs to be looked at carefully, and it’s an issue that I have some interest in, to see how that would work at a UK level. I don’t share the view, if I’m honest, that it’s possible to have different arrangements for different constituent nations of the UK in terms of their relationship with the EU. I don’t see how that would work. If, for example, Scotland had a different form of access to the single market, that would inevitably mean different levels of customs and a border. I think it’s very difficult to have a member state with different arrangements within the member state, especially when that member state has countries that are attached to each other. It’s easy if you’re Greenland. It’s not as easy if you’re England, Scotland and Wales. What I want to see is a good deal for the whole of the UK and particularly, of course, a good deal for Wales.

I share his concern—and I made this point to the Prime Minister—that I don’t want to see the interests of the City of London being seen as paramount and more important than the interests of any other sector. We see on the hard right of the Conservative Party—it came from Peter Lilley, it has come from Liam Fox, it has come from Patrick Minford—that what we need is for service industries to have access to other markets, but manufacturing isn’t important. I don’t agree with that view, sorry, and I don’t think that those people who voted for Brexit thought that they were voting to see the manufacturing industry disappearing from Wales or the rest of the UK.

In terms of the repeal Bill, my understanding is that it will look to deal with the situation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland simply to entrench current EU law in the respective nations. It will be entirely a matter for this Assembly then to decide which of those laws it wishes to keep or not. There would be nothing, to my mind, of course, to stop the Assembly, if it wanted, from actually implementing directives of the Commission, even if we were outside the Commission, if it was felt that that would be helpful for business. These are all issues that will need to be explored, but, again, the alleged great repeal Bill can’t be used as a mechanism for removing the powers of this Assembly and the people of Wales—that is not what the people of Wales voted for in two referendums.

There are many question I can’t answer because I don’t have answers from the UK Government, but it’s absolutely clear to me that the development of those answers has to happen soon. I’ve outlined what our position is as a Government. We need the UK Government to do the same, so that we can see where they are coming from. But this piecemeal approach of approaching first of all a company with a deal, then a sector with a deal, is not going to work. It’s absolutely crucial that we have a coherent approach that benefits all and all those people who live in the constituent nations of the UK.

Why is the First Minister still talking the language of Armageddon? This statement refers to a collapse in European trade being a possibility. Even if we don’t actually tie up any deal with the EU, it’s impossible for there to be a collapse in world trade. Can the First Minister confirm to me that, last year, the UK exported to the EU £135 billion in goods and £89 billion in services? That’s £110 billion less than they exported to us. It is massively in the interests of the EU to enter into a free trade agreement with us, because, if they don’t, they’ll be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. The British Government does not, as I understand it, want to see tariffs imposed on exports between the EU and the UK on either side. It is only the EU Commission and other protectionist forces in the EU that are talking in terms of imposing tariffs, so what is the Welsh Government doing to try to influence the Governments inside the EU, apart from the UK, in favour of the free trade that, otherwise, we all want?

The average tariff that the EU imposes against third countries is only 1.1 per cent, and 75 per cent of all traded goods and services trade freely between the EU and the rest of the world on a zero tariff. So, isn’t it utterly inappropriate to talk in terms of a collapse of European trade between Britain and the EU being a possibility?

As regards the other parts of the statement, on the question of repatriation of powers, will the First Minister accept that UKIP is entirely in favour of a repatriation of powers, not just to Westminster but to Cardiff? This is a massive opportunity for us in this Assembly and, indeed, in the Welsh Government. We will recover control of agricultural policy, we will recover control of environmental policy and we will have, in our own hands, all sorts of levers over powers we don’t currently have to make the Welsh economy more competitive in future. Fundamentally, that is what it’s all about—it’s the opportunity to trade competitively not just with the EU, but the rest of the world, which is, after all, 85 per cent of the global economy.

I’ve read the minutes of the European advisory group meeting on 28 September, and it’s very interesting to look at who’s actually on this committee. There’s one person, as far as I can see, out of about two dozen, who’s got any practical business experience, and that’s Kevin Crofton. The others are all very worthy people, but they’re academics, policy wonks or politicians—superannuated or otherwise. What we should be doing, or what the Welsh Government should be doing, is taking advice from the people who are actually out there making goods and selling goods and services in the world, because that’s where the wealth of the Welsh economy comes from now and will come from in future. So, what he should be doing is asking them, ‘In what way can we use these new freedoms that we’ll be given and the new powers that we will get in the interests of the wealth creators of Wales and the jobs that depend upon them?’

I’m very pleased to see that the First Minister is talking in terms of managed migration, rather than, again, these sorts of Armageddon scenarios of building walls down the English channel to keep beastly foreigners out. Nobody is talking in those terms at all. He knows as well as everybody else in this Chamber that the Brexit debate was overwhelmingly dominated by the fears and resentments that had been created by unmanaged migration in the last 15 years. The biggest pro-Brexit votes were in the areas that Labour had relied upon over the last century for piling up the largest number of votes. Consequently, it would be to ignore the wishes not just of the British people, but the Welsh people if they were to resile from the obligation that is placed upon us all, I think, to ensure managed migration. But, of course, that’s going to involve people moving across borders. Of course, the Welsh economy does rely upon interchange, as every economy does—apart from closed systems like North Korea—for a healthy and growing economy. What matters is: what are the terms of that migration policy? So, what we don’t want is uncontrolled and unskilled immigration going across borders, because that is what has caused the principal problem, and the biggest sufferers of unmanaged immigration of that kind are those who are at the bottom of the income scale, because that tends to depress wages and hence depress living standards.

As regards the obscurities in the current negotiating stance of the UK Government, does the First Minister think it might be helpful if we were to invite David Davis and Liam Fox, perhaps, to come down to Cardiff to a Plenary session of this Assembly, in the same way we have Alun Cairns here from time to time, so that we can hear from the horse’s mouth what is in their minds and, insofar as we are unable to discern it, then expose them to the kind of questions that’s he’s obviously failed to elicit answers to in his own attempts to do so?

This is a great adventure that we’re all now embarked upon, whether we like it or not, whether we were in favour of the referendum result or not, but, as I said in my question earlier on, does the First Minister not accept that this is a great opportunity for us in Wales, which we’ve not had before, to take our destiny in our own hands? Politicians are elected by the people and can be dismissed by them if they don’t like what we do, unlike the Commission in Brussels and those who are currently employed in making policy for us who are not responsible, ultimately, to the people of this country or, indeed, any other country, and who are, as a result of that unaccountability, imposing upon the peoples of Europe a crown of thorns in the form of the eurozone, which is a massive engine of poverty and which is impoverishing an entire continent, and therefore restricting the export opportunities of Britain and Wales in particular. So, I ask the First Minister to embrace the future, embrace the opportunity that we have today. Don’t fear the future; it’s ours for the taking.

Again, we seem to be rearguing the referendum in June. There’s no point rearguing that; that is clear, and the result is clear in terms of what the direction is. But I do think we need a dose of reality here. If we had a free trade agreement with the US, nobody would want to jeopardise it—nobody. Nobody would be here saying, ‘What we want is to be in a situation where there might be barriers in place in trade between us and the US’. The EU is a much, much, much bigger market. It is bigger than America and Russia combined. Of course, the EU exports more in monetary value to the UK than the UK does to the EU, because it’s eight times bigger than the UK. In fact, percentage wise, we export about 40 per cent to the European market, and 8 per cent of European exports come into the UK. So, as a percentage, the UK is not a big market compared to other countries.

Now, the danger we must avoid is the kind of rhetoric we saw at the Conservative Party conference that can only unite countries in Europe together against us. That surely is not what we want to do. There are plenty of countries in Europe who don’t believe in ever-closer integration. They’re there—the Czech Republic is one of them, Denmark is one of them—and it’s right to say there are tensions within the EU, but there would be an irony if the EU became united against the UK because of the UK’s attitude. So, we’ve got to avoid that at all costs. It’s a sign of imperial arrogance to think that everyone’s going to fall at the UK’s feet; they’re not. The UK’s not a big trading block. It isn’t the EU, it isn’t America, it isn’t Russia, it isn’t India. It has to box clever when it comes to being able to sell its goods.

In terms of powers, he was almost making a case for independence for Wales at one point, I thought. I know his party has taken a long journey, but I didn’t think that the journey had been quite that long. We want to make sure that we get the right kind of advice as far as the future is concerned. I can say to him: I speak to companies who have invested in Wales and I speak to potential investors, and they all, without exception—without exception—say to me that they are uncertain about the future, because they don’t know what the UK’s relationship with Europe will be. Now, if you are Airbus, you are a very integrated European operation, you want to know if there will be any barriers between your operations in Broughton and Toulouse. They don’t know the answer to that yet. If you are Ford in Bridgend, you want to know whether a tariff will be imposed on the engines, every single one of which is exported—every single one—to Germany, and then another tariff imposed on the assembled car coming back in again. The answers aren’t there at the moment. Now, if those answers can be provided, I think he’s right, I think we can get to a situation where we can see a restoration of economic stability, but we don’t have those answers yet and these are not easy issues to resolve. We need to have that resolution.

To me, as I’ve said before, we get to a position where there are no tariffs, and that would be helpful. But, let’s not pretend that if we don’t have an agreement after two years things will be fine—WTO rules will be applied. The EU has no reason to be nice to the UK, if for no other reason other than to encourage others who would want to do the same thing. The reality is the EU can look for other markets elsewhere. There are many, many thousands of jobs in Wales that depend on us having unfettered access to the single market. Why would somebody come to the UK, rather than the EU, if they were two entirely separate markets? Why go to a market of 60 million and not a market of 500 million? There’s no way they’d come here. There are all those companies in the UK who are here—Nissan is one of them. Nissan is only in the UK so it can sell in the European market—that’s it. Ford is in the same position, Airbus is in the same position. If they cannot sell without a barrier—of course they can sell—without a barrier being in place, there is no reason for them to stay and there is no reason for them to come in the first place. Yes, there will be trade, but not at the same level as we’re seeing now. If we have a free trade agreement with another large trading block, we would not be arguing for a situation that might involve tariff barriers. It seems quite obvious to me and hopefully to others.

So, there is much work to be done. He talks of opportunities. There are some. State aid rules might not apply, as long as we don’t have rules imposed by Westminster instead. He is right to say that we can shape agriculture and fisheries, but without the money, we can’t have any of this. So, there needs to be a financial settlement at UK level that’s fair to all the countries, that enables us to use our powers effectively. That’s the uncertainty that we face at the moment.

We have to make sure that the current situation, which is uncertain—no question about that—is resolved as quickly as possible. At the heart of that is the need for the UK Government to declare, not its detailed negotiating strategy—I don’t expect them to have it at this stage, potentially, and I don’t expect them to tell us about it—but at least the general principles. What are the red lines? What is acceptable? What is not? We’re not at that stage yet; we need to be soon.

I appreciate the constraints of time so I’ll be quick and brief. First Minister, thank you for your statement. I very much appreciate the update we’ve received and I look forward to scrutinising you next week when you come to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on this particular issue.

I think it’s important today to highlight that manufacturing is not the price we’re going to pay for the financial sector in the south-east of England. It will be devastating for my constituency and my constituents, as you already know, with the issue of steel and other aspects. So, I won’t go any further on that point.

In relation to the great repeal Bill, I agree with Steffan Lewis: the ‘great’ Bill is perhaps the wrong term—it’s propaganda as he highlighted yesterday. The Scottish Parliament external affairs committee actually received a report from Professor Sionaidh Douglas-Scott on the possibility of a continuation Act, which puts into place the possibility—if we didn’t get the transfer of laws to this Assembly—of ensuring that the reaffirmation of European laws comes here and we put them into our laws. Now it’s possible they would be repealed by the UK Government, but it sets a statement if we’re finding that the great repeal Bill actually does try to claw back information. Will you look at this opportunity to see that, if the clawback is there, we have an alternative that places this institution at the heart of EU areas of devolved responsibility? I think it’s important that we do look at that.

Can you also highlight the question as to what discussions you’re having with other devolved administrations in relation to the representations to EU states and other EU partner bodies to ensure that our voice is heard in Europe? It is important that we can influence people in Europe to ensure that they listen to our concerns as well, so when they negotiate on behalf of the EU, they understand the position of the Welsh people, particularly here in Wales. I think that’s an important aspect.

In relation to the repeal Bill, have you had a chance to start looking at the possible implications following the Wales Bill? Because clearly the Wales Bill will have a different perspective now because we’ll have reserved powers in this situation. We’re already concerned about some of those issues and what impact that may have upon that to affect the constitution. And I would also look at whether you’ve had discussions. Because clearly, from your statement, the UK Government is all over the place and they haven’t got any detail at all. Have you had any discussions in relation to issues like procurement and the rules? On state aid, for example, I’m assuming there’ll be World Trade Organization state aid rules if we leave the EU without any consideration. So, we’ll still be applying state aid rules. Have you had discussions with other devolved nations as to how we will use that as a sort of collective to approach the important situations across the UK? Our needs are different to Scotland’s, Scotland’s needs are different to the north of England’s; it’s important that we get a collective view upon that.

I agree with that. The voice that isn’t heard here, of course, is the voice of the English regions. They don’t have a voice. London has a mayor and the reality is if you want to talk to the north-east of England or the south-west of England, there is no-one to talk to in reality. For them, of course, they’re in the position of having no real voice in these discussions, which is a matter that I regret.

At the heart of this, of course, is a fundamental disagreement as to what happens when powers come from Brussels onto these shores. Our argument is—and I think it’s the right argument—that they never go to Westminster; they just bypass Westminster and come straight to us. In Westminster, they seem to take a different approach, that somehow they come to Westminster and they will, in some way, pass those powers on. That is just simply wrong. That’s not what the devolution settlement actually shows, so there is a fundamental disagreement there at the moment.

I think it’s right to say that Scotland is in a different position. Scotland is publicly looking at another independence referendum; that’s a matter for the Scottish Government. Northern Ireland has very, very different views. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have different views on the future of Northern Ireland and its relationship with the EU. So, getting an agreed way forward in Northern Ireland is much trickier than it is elsewhere on these islands.

But the Wales Bill, of course, by creating a reserved-powers model, makes it, to my mind, easier to facilitate that flow of powers from Brussels straight to here, rather than those powers resting in Westminster and Westminster deciding then whether those powers should be passed on. That is one of the major discussions. That’s the great advantage to me of the reserved-powers model, because you’re not in a position where you’re having to argue constantly that a power should be conferred on you; in fact, the power will be transferred unless it’s specifically reserved. Now, at one point, the leader of the Conservatives was saying, he seemed to be suggesting that, somehow, the powers of this place should be curtailed, despite the fact that we’ve had two referendums—one on the establishment of this place and secondly on having primary law-making powers. Those referendums didn’t count in his mind. He’s been quiet since then, but I regret what he said at that point. The reality is that the people of Wales have voted to leave the EU. At no point were they asked the question: did they want to see powers leave Wales and go somewhere else? The UK Government must remember that. This is not to be an exercise in trying to centralise power in London, because that is of no use to anybody, given the fact that they claimed that power was centralised in Brussels. So, these are questions that will need to be resolved over the course of the next few months.

On the great repeal Bill, that has been presented simply as a Bill that would enshrine current EU law in the different nations, which is sensible, because nobody wants to see laws disappear by accident, and then it would be for the different legislatures to decide what approach they will take to each and every regulation and law as a result of that. If that’s all it is, then I can see the sense in it, but we must be careful to make sure that it doesn’t go further than the way it’s been presented.

And finally, Eluned Morgan.

I wonder if the First Minister would agree that, whilst some in this Chamber may be able to interpret the EU negotiations as a great adventure, others, who perhaps don’t live in huge houses in the middle of Wiltshire, may find that the massive increase that we’re already seeing in the cost of petrol, the increase we’re seeing in the cost of food, is already impacting on the poorest members of our society. And, does the First Minister not agree that, in fact, the EU project is not just an economic project, but that actually it’s a political project as well? Therefore, the negotiations won’t just be about whether they want to do a trade deal with us; they’ll be about a political negotiation and a belief in a project. Therefore, they may not actually want to sign deals that may even be in their economic interests, because they may want to preserve a political project, and therefore our power to negotiate is perhaps not as great as some in this Chamber may believe.

It’s a strong point to make, and it is not the case that it’s going to be easy to get agreement from 30 different bodies to a deal. It’s just not going to happen. Spain has got the UK over a barrel when it comes to Gibraltar; it’s seen its opportunity and it will argue for co-sovereignty. That’s one country that has to be persuaded amongst, well, 27 different countries, two regional Parliaments and two institutions. We know that there are other countries that just don’t see the UK as important in terms of their trade. Some countries will—Germany will, that’s probably fair to say. Other countries won’t see the UK as important at all, and persuading them that, somehow, they should sign up to a deal that they will see as favouring the UK unreasonably is going to be a major challenge. As I say, I think we should not kid ourselves that people think the UK is owed a living by other countries. That’s not the way they see it—not the way they see it. This is not the nineteenth century. We have to be realistic and get the best deal that we can for the UK, given the fact that the EU is eight times our size, and we have to make sure we get the best deal when dealing with a much larger organisation.

Another point I think it’s worth making: in terms of the complexity of all this, if you look at it, actually, in some ways, it’s more complex to see the UK leave the EU than it would have been for Scotland to become independent, because, at least in those circumstances, Scotland and the rest of the UK would still have been part of the EU. Actually, there would be no trade negotiations as part of that process, but there will be trade negotiations as part of this process. So, this is how complicated this is—in some ways, it’s more complicated than Scottish independence, and it’s a point that I have to make to Members. We must not think this is easy, we must not think the world owes us a living. We cannot appear arrogant over this, more than anything else, but we have to make it work. We have to make it work, and I think all Members in this Chamber understand that.

If we look at it sensibly, we need to have an idea now of what the general principles are the UK Government will want to follow. It won’t be good enough for the UK Government just to turn up and say, ‘This is what we’re going to do, like it or lump it.’ I will not be silent publicly if that happens, but I don’t want to start from a position of looking to undermine the UK Government’s position. But the UK Government cannot expect to demand the support of the devolved administrations without consulting the devolved administrations properly. The best scenario would be, in March, for all of the Governments of the UK to have reached a common negotiating position, to show that unity and show that strength. I don’t think the UK Government wants to go into a negotiation with the rest of the EU with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland publicly critical of the UK. It’s not where I’m starting from; I don’t want to be in that position. It’s hugely important then that we get to a point where the UK Government produces its hand, as we have done, and Scotland has done and as Northern Ireland has done, so that we can make a success of the next two years.

I thank the First Minister.

I have accepted four urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66 and I call on Angela Burns to ask the first urgent question.

Main Port Engineering was awarded £650,000 from the Welsh economic growth fund in March 2015. The funding was granted to assist with a capital investment of £1.627 million for a new purpose-built facility in the Haven Waterway enterprise zone. The terms and conditions linked to this support were fully met at the time by the company. The company entered administration following a winding-up order by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and were affected, no doubt, by the Murco oil refinery closure in 2014, which was one of their main customers.

Thank you very much for that, Cabinet Secretary, because it is a sad day for a very well-established business with an excellent reputation. Twenty-six years and 165 employees, the loss of the company carries not just financial consequences, but the human cost is tangible. Now, I’ve spoken to the founder and managing director, I’ve spoken to operational staff and to workers in the field, and the sense of shock and disbelief is overwhelming.

I do understand that there is much we cannot discuss, as the administrator is still evaluating the situation, and the questions I raise with you I’ve already raised in part with them. However, I would like your thoughts and commitment to ensuring the following: 77 employees work on a maintenance contract at the local refinery. This contract is going to be taken over by another established maintenance business. Will you ensure that support is given to both Main Port and the new company, so that those 77 employees can be transferred with the full protection of TUPE legislation, quickly and efficiently, because this will secure not just their jobs but also continuity of service for the customer and enable another local company to develop their business? The same goes for an additional five members of Main Port who are transferring to a second company for a second local maintenance contract.

Given the impact of the closure of Murco, and I think it’s very clear that, as one of their major customers, Murco going into liquidation or closing down was a real body blow. Are you able to offer the same level of additional help and support that Murco employees received to the remaining 83 Main Port staff?

I do wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you are able to examine the role that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs played in this. The company are clear that they had no notice as to the winding-up order issued by HMRC. There was an ongoing dispute that appears to have been over a number of years, and, although the bulk of the debt was relatively recent, the company were in the process of putting together an official payment plan. And, to be frank, this action: nobody is a winner. HMRC aren’t going to get their money either. Finally, will you please examine whether the long-term financial viability of the company was properly examined by Welsh Government officials before the £650,000 grant was made available? I do acknowledge that business can be a risky enterprise, but, given the size of the debt and the loss of their major customer prior to that grant being awarded, I would wish the public to be satisfied that due diligence was undertaken rigorously. Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Member for her questions, and share the concern that is being expressed insofar as the future of the employees of the company is concerned. MPE employed 157 people in total, and, unfortunately, 69 of those have been made redundant. The Member is right that a significant number—I believe it to be 84—are to be retained at the Valero refinery to provide continuity of service. That includes, I believe, staff who are being retained at the main office, which could contribute to the 77, bringing the total to the 84 that I’ve been told is the case.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, as the Member is aware, has been appointed to try and seek buyers for the site assets, buildings and, importantly, linked opportunities for the affected workforce. A session with a number of organisations is being arranged for this Friday at 11.00 a.m. I’d urge the Member to advertise that fact to affected workers. That session will be attended by Jobcentre Plus, the careers advisory service, Business Wales and other local support services, but I’ve instructed my officials to do all within our power to assist those workers affected by this very unfortunate occurrence.

In terms of the history of the company, the Member has already highlighted the significant success of the company over many years. However, in recent times—. I am asking the same question of HMRC as the Member is, because, in recent times, it would appear that the company was in healthy order. I understand that in 2015 the company reported a profit, compared to a relatively small loss in 2014. So, I think it’s absolutely essential that we investigate the tax bill and why it was not obviously allowed for within the accounts. We carried out our regular due diligence. It was our understanding, based on the performance of the company, that the company was in good health, and, I think, given what the Member has said about the contact she has made with a number of people, it would appear to her and to others that the company was performing well. So, this came as a shock to many.

In terms of our support for companies such as MPE, in total only 4.9 per cent of the 1,110 companies that we’ve supported in the last four years—five years, rather—have actually gone into recovery. The proportion is far less than the total number of business failures or enterprise deaths, which, in Wales, was 9.2 per cent, which, in turn, compares favourably with the UK rate of 9.6 per cent. That said, I’m keen to make sure that we utilise all of the support that’s available from Welsh Government, and indeed from the local authority, and so I’ve asked for a meeting with the chair of the enterprise zone and the leader of the council to discuss what we can do collectively to ensure that everybody affected by this decision is supported in the right way to get back into work, if they lose their jobs, and to stay in work if they’ve been able to be retained, but, equally, what we can do in the years to come to make sure that that specific area of Wales gets the support that it needs to thrive as a strong economy.

Cabinet Secretary, I thank you for your written statement that you issued yesterday afternoon. And, as everybody here will agree, it is hugely disappointing news for the area in which I represent and live. It is a devastating blow, particularly for those families, and it's those families and those individuals who will be facing a very uncertain future that I really want to focus on here today. So, I was really encouraged when I read earlier today that you have already arranged, and you've just mentioned it, a drop-in session with Jobcentre Plus and other agencies for 11 o'clock on Friday. I think we need to stay focused that this was particularly highly skilled and highly paid work, and so the loss of that income to the local economy will be felt almost immediately, and how we can work with anybody else to ensure the viability of their businesses if they were equally dependent on these workers for their own income.

But I want to move on and think about the future, and I will ask you, First—Cabinet Secretary; nearly did it again—to look at the wider issues about the future of that area and, of course, the Haven enterprise zone and any strategy that we will need to put in place to support the well-established west Wales energy industry, because it is well-established and it is also vital to the region. But, as I say, the immediate thoughts and the immediate action have to go towards those who have now an uncertain future.

I'd like to thank the Member for her comments and, again, I share her concerns for those families who are facing considerable anxiety at this moment in time. I can say that my officials are in close dialogue with PwC and are aware that there is some developing interest in the Main Port business and, potentially, the remaining employees. So, all is not yet lost, and we will do everything we can to ensure that those people who have been working at the business have employment, either there or within the local area. I think it's essential that the enterprise zone continues to perform successfully. It’s created and secured hundreds of jobs since it was formed, but I recognise that, in the context of a post-Brexit Britain, we do need a new economic strategy for Wales, and I very much hope that, with a focus on place-based economic development, the enterprise zone area of the part of Wales that my friend so proudly represents will have a very, very strong future.

I would like to, obviously, associate myself with the comments regarding the loss of jobs and the effect on families and just ask you, Cabinet Secretary, whether the scale of loss here, though it's, relatively speaking—you know, in a national sense, it's not huge, but, of course, in a very local sense, it's impactful, and it's particularly impactful as regards the relationship with the energy industry, the Haven Waterway enterprise zone, and everyone who's interested in developing around Milford Haven itself. So, can you confirm that this is of a nature that the Government will be doing more than simply, quite rightly, bringing together the day that you've announced, and possibly even triggering a ReAct kind of approach here, because, in my mind, it's of that kind of size?

Could you say just a little more about the due diligence that the Government undertakes when it decides to invest in a company like this, or, rather, give a grant to a company like this? As has already been pointed out, the decision was taken after it lost its main customer with the closure of Murco. What, therefore—? Are you only reliant on the published accounts of a company? Surely, you talk to potential creditors like the local authority, like HMRC, to try and get a sense of what the company's future looks like, and I'd like to understand that a little more, as to why the decision was made.

The final question is the capital investment. This was part of a £1.8 million manufacturing investment, as I understand it. What was the nature of that capital investment, and does the Welsh Government have any clawback if that capital investment is either sold on or now utilised by a new company for economic purposes?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? In terms of the clawback, it will depend on where we stand vis-à-vis other debtors. So, we are trying to assess exactly where we are positioned in that regard.

Or HMRC takes it all.

Or HMRC takes it all.

I think he’s absolutely right in that, relatively speaking, this is significant, the Haven area, and therefore, and especially given what my colleague Joyce Watson said about the value of employment at the site, it’s absolutely essential that we look at a bespoke response to this. For that reason, I am going to be meeting with the chair of the enterprise zone and the leader of the council. It’s essential that we all co-ordinate our response to this and all collectively explore opportunities for employment for those affected.

In terms of the due diligence, well, undertaking due diligence is an important part of our process, and we continue to improve our approach and, indeed, learn lessons from individual cases. The Member is right to state that the decision was taken after 2014. However, the books showed that the company was in good health, and indeed the results were improving. However, I have asked my officials to report on whether a deep dive of the books was conducted. It is apparent and obvious that this has come as a major surprise to many people, and so I want to be reassured that the due diligence that was conducted was as thorough as I would wish it to be.

Finally, Neil Hamilton.

Well, as a fellow regional Member for this area, I’d like to express my personal sympathy with those who are now living with a massive uncertainty about their futures. Simon Thomas has just asked, I think, a very pertinent question, and I’m sure that the Public Accounts Committee will want to look at this grant in due course—not in any spirit of animosity towards the Cabinet Secretary, but just because we do need to ensure that due diligence has properly been undertaken here.

I’m very concerned about the role of the Inland Revenue in this area. Does the Cabinet Secretary know how big the current tax debt is that they’re owed by the company, on the basis of which it has been put into administration? Administration may not, of course, be the end of the road; there may be a viable business, or several viable businesses, that can be created out of the assets. But it’s very disappointing if a public body like HMRC has put this company into administration for a relatively small sum in comparison with what might be realised even from a fire sale of the assets. I don’t know whether the Cabinet Secretary would be able to put it into perspective for us so that we can see whether the Revenue’s decision prima facie is reasonable or not.

The Inland Revenue is no longer—the HMRC is no longer—a preferred creditor, as it used to be, so it may not be that they will scoop the pool in an administration or ultimate liquidation of the company. It would be grossly irresponsible, I think, of HMRC to have destroyed a business if it proves that a very small sum is going to be recovered. After all, if it is the case, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, that it looked as though the company was improving its performance and it was viable but for the debts that were in existence, then it would be a very short-term-ist view that the tax authorities would have, and it would be seen as an act of sabotage as well as betrayal of those who currently either have lost their jobs or have that prospect.

I thank Neil Hamilton for his questions. As I said to the local Member, the questions asked of HMRC are those that I have already raised. I wouldn’t, however, wish to reach a conclusion or to judge whether HMRC have behaved in a responsible way, and whether the action taken by HMRC was proportionate to the level of debt. I would prefer to have all of the evidence and all of the details to hand before I make judgment. However, I would like to say that HMRC needs to be more responsible in terms of the approach it takes to employers within Wales. Many employers are providing essential work in very challenging areas or in very deprived communities, and the decisions reached by HMRC should not just be on the basis of how much debt is outstanding, but equally what the potential of the company is to repay that debt, and the impact that closure would have on the community. Responsible behaviour by HMRC is absolutely essential.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Rydw i’n galw nawr ar Paul Davies i ofyn yr ail gwestiwn brys.

Thank you. The Hywel Dda university health board is committed to maintaining the paediatric ambulatory care unit at Withybush hospital. Services are available from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week, and local families are being assured that they can continue to access services as they do now and do not need to make changes in how they access care.

Cabinet Secretary, of course, these latest developments at Withybush hospital of a consultant paediatrician retiring and a consultant paediatrician going on maternity leave are a huge concern to my constituents, who have already seen paediatric services downgraded from a 24-hour service to a 12-hour service, which, quite frankly, has been a disaster for us in Pembrokeshire. But I am pleased that the local health board has restated its commitment in the press release they’ve issued earlier today to maintain the current opening hours, because if this 12-hour service does not continue then that will be catastrophic. There were Members in this Chamber, including me, who warned the previous Welsh Government, when the original changes were made, that the downgrading of paediatric services at the hospital could have a detrimental effect on the sustainability of remaining services. And it now appears that that is the case. So, in the circumstances, what reassurances can the Cabinet Secretary give my constituents today that the Welsh Government will do everything it can to support the local health board to maintain these vital services? And given that downgrading paediatric services has had an effect on these part-time services, because it’s probably even more challenging to recruit clinicians to a place where services have been reduced, will he now commit to reviewing paediatric services at Withybush hospital, with a view of establishing a 24-hour service? And, in the short term, what specific support is the Welsh Government giving to the Hywel Dda university health board in order to overcome some of the recruitment challenges facing the hospital?

Thank you for the follow-up points. I don’t wish to continue to have a row and a series of angry exchanges about the future of paediatric services in west Wales, but it’s hard not to when the Member refuses to acknowledge the factual evidence available and the very best clinical advice about the service model being provided. We have rehearsed time and time again the review by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which confirms that the new service model has improved outcomes for women and their babies, and simply denying that that is the case is producing a climate of fear and uncertainty, is wholly unnecessary and does a real discredit to people providing that service and families who need that service.

There is an issue with regard to the recruitment of paediatric consultants right across the UK, and it’s no surprise that we see that here in Wales as well. I’m pleased that there has been some acknowledgement about the press release that the health board have issued, which confirms that they are committed to recruiting to the model that they have. I can confirm that I expect interviews will take place in December and January for new consultant posts, and the challenge here is how you build upon a service model that does make sense as part of a wider whole. And that’s what we’re committed to doing. We’ll support the health board in doing what it needs to, to try and recruit not just consultants, but other grades of staff there as well, to make sure that the whole service model actually delivers on what people need. That’s why I’m delighted to see, for example, that there are more nurses within the service now than before the changes were made as well. In fact, far from saying that the service changes have made things more difficult, I think this particular issue reinforces the need for service change that is designed to deliver a better service—the best evidence, the best available clinical advice and the best outcome and the best service for people that we should be in business to serve and honestly represent.

I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for what you’ve already said. You did join with me, through the summer recess, to view for yourself, alongside me, and speak to, all those involved in delivering this care in paediatric services, both in Glangwili and also in Withybush. And what we’ve seen, and what we’ve heard, really supports what you’ve just said—that we have a very, very good workforce there, who are delivering a really good service. Nonetheless, you are right to say, and it is the case, that there are challenges recruiting consultants and other staff within Wales and beyond Wales. And what we heard, and the plans that are afoot, seemed to be helping them to rise to that challenge and to meet the needs of the patients—and particularly, here, the paediatric patients—in the very best way. I was also pleased to see that the ambulatory service has been extended now until March 2017, and that was key to that provision in the very first place, when we moved that down to the existing 12-hour service.

But my question, I suppose, to you today is: we do know that there’s going to be turnover of staff—we were informed that then, it’s not new news, and it’s not particularly urgent news. But what I want to know, Cabinet Secretary, is what support you would give to the health board, in helping them, in any way that they might request, to recruit the staff that they need, in west Wales, so that the service that they intend to keep doesn’t have to rely continually on a temporary locum.

Thank you, Joyce Watson. You make an important point about a service that isn’t entirely reliant on temporary or locum-based staff, and, indeed, going back to the conversations that we’ve had on several occasions within this Chamber, about the broader picture on recruitment in areas of challenge specialities, but also about maximising the opportunities to work in Wales. So, when we talk about a recruitment campaign for doctors that recently had a very successful launch at the BMJ careers fair, that’s a part of what we need to do, to make sure that people understand the opportunities that exist in working in west Wales, what it is to live there with your whole family, and what it means to actually join part of the healthcare picture here in Wales.

We want to be positive about the opportunities that do exist, and actually, for doctors who want to move to somewhere, understanding there is a real evidence base to the system we have in Wales, and understanding how clinical best practice will guide the models of care we need to deliver—including what we deliver within the community as well, as well as in a hospital-based setting. So, we will continue to work in a supportive way with the health board to meet the recruitment challenges they have.

But there are real grounds for optimism here, not just because of the recent careers fair. When you look at the nursing end of this, as I said, we’ve recruited, so we’re actually ahead of the British Association of Perinatal Medicine recommendations about nursing numbers, with the new model now. So, we’re in a good position to sell a service that people want to work in. And there’s a recognition that, at the time of initial change, there was real uncertainty and concern from some members of staff about what would happen. But we have more nurses and midwives working in these centres now, better standards of care, and better outcomes—a really good experience. And it does show that people should have confidence about the future, and the commitment that the health board has expressed for the future of the service.

In asking the Cabinet Secretary for further information today, I can say to him that the paediatric service in Withybush, which is valued enormously by the local people, goes beyond maternity and is, in fact, part of the accident and emergency service that is provided there. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine say that you need a 24-hour paediatric service in order to maintain an A&E service. And, in the past, his predecessor has told me that the long-term aim is to restore paediatrics to a 24-hour service in Withybush. Now, he seems content with a 10 in the morning until 10 at night service, which, in fact, is an office-hours service, with a 30-minute on-call for consultants up to 10 o’clock at night. And the statement from Hywel Dda today, which confirms that that will continue, also says that further merging of on-call rotas will take place between Withybush and Glangwili.

What, therefore, can the Cabinet Secretary say to local residents who actually want to see paediatrics return to 24 hours? Can they give up on that previous commitment by Hywel Dda itself, and a previous Government? And, if he thinks that it’s delivering so well at present—and, of course, the staff and those who are working there are doing the very best they can—but is he really content to see a service delivered on this basis, in perpetuity, on the basis of locum recruitment?

Well, you make a fair point about the paediatric service being about more than very young children, and not just about the maternity end—the newborn end. And, in fact, when I visited with Joyce Watson recently, I saw a number of families and younger children who were there. In fact, the ambulatory care service makes sure that the overwhelming majority of people are turned around and don’t need to stay in the hospital—they’re turned around at the time, being provided with the support and treatment that they need.

The future, though, is one that has to be based on the reality of the staff mix that we have, and what we can achieve. It’s important that the health board continues to have a conversation with its local population about the services they can provide, the evidence base for providing them, and what it is actually able to do, as well. It’s really important that we don’t try to oversell the ability to say, ‘We want something, therefore we’ll have it’, regardless of the evidence about the quality of care that can be provided and regardless of the ability to recruit into that model of providing care. So, it is for the health board to set that out in conversation with its local population and in conversation with its local group of clinicians, in all those different grades and professions, who understand what is possible where there is a real commitment to be able to make that happen in reality. The easiest thing to do is to demand a level of service agreement that is simply not achievable, and I don’t want to see that happen. It’s an important step to stabilise what exists there. The health board then need to set up, with their local population, what will happen in the future.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

I call on Simon Thomas to ask the third urgent question.

We welcome the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, which will benefit Welsh passengers, bring tourists to Wales, help our exporters reach new markets and create jobs.

Thank you for that statement. It would have been good to have a statement rather than hearing through the press about something that is so important, both economically and environmentally. But I’ll put the environmental questions to one side in terms of climate change and a third runway at Heathrow, and the placing of that at Heathrow rather than somewhere else, and turn to what exactly this Welsh Government has negotiated with Heathrow and the Westminster Government that will benefit Wales.

I will turn to the memorandum that’s been discussed between Heathrow and the Scottish Government, which talks, among other things, about up to 16,000 new jobs in Scotland because of Heathrow, £200 million of capital expenditure in Scotland in terms of planning and construction, £10 million for the development of new air routes internally within the UK and a reduction of £10 per capita for the landing fees between Scottish airports and Heathrow. These all look like a valuable package for the Scottish Government, which, I’m sure, justifies the Scottish Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow.

So, what exactly has the Welsh Government got for their support? Given that the Government’s failed even to ensure the devolution of APD to us here in Wales, how will this development benefit passengers from Wales?

In terms of the expansion of Heathrow Airport, it could bring more than £6 billion to the Welsh economy and help create more than 8,000 jobs, so it’s a major piece of infrastructure that will benefit our country. I do recognise that Scotland have an MOU in place with Heathrow Airport. My officials are discussing a memorandum of understanding with Heathrow, but it will be different to that which Scotland has been able to agree. Many of the points within the MOU that Scotland has are actually within the gift of the Scottish Government and can be delivered regardless of whether a memorandum of understanding exists at all. For example, on the marketing strategy that is talked about in the memorandum of understanding, we’ve already done that as a Welsh Government.

As a consequence of us doing that—. I’m sure that the Member, representing an area of Wales that is very rural and that relies on the visitor economy, would welcome the fact that we’ve got more tourists coming to Wales than ever before, and that north Wales was, last week, declared the fourth best place on the planet to visit. [Interruption.] Absolutely. That is because we have been investing for many, many years in the right areas and in the right products to drive up tourism. We didn’t need an MOU to designate north Wales as the fourth greatest place on the planet.

In terms of the agreements that we are looking for, we wish to ensure that there is a proportionate memorandum of understanding for Wales. But, we are also negotiating very much with the UK Government, because many of the benefits that will stem from Heathrow Airport expanding to three runways actually stem from Westminster. So, we’re looking for assurance that the western rail link to Heathrow will be delivered; we’re looking for assurance that the north Wales main line will be upgraded appropriately, and that there will be proper connectivity into HS2; we are looking for the abolition of the Severn tolls; and, of course, we are also looking for air passenger duty to be devolved. All of these essential issues are within the gift not of Heathrow Airport, but the UK Government.

So, just having a memorandum of understanding with the airport, in my view, is insufficient. We also need agreement from the UK Government. Insofar as work is concerned with the UK Government, of course, we’ve heard from the Secretary of State for Wales, and I very much welcome his words, that Heathrow’s third runway will bring many great benefits to Wales. I also hope that the Secretary of State will continue working with me to deliver some of the infrastructure improvements that we need to see brought to Wales as a result of the need to make Wales a more connected and united country. So, I’m confident that, in terms of the benefits that Heathrow can bring, we will have an understanding, the memorandum of understanding, with Heathrow that is at least proportionate to that which Scotland has, but in addition to agreements that we are seeking through UK Government.

I, too, warmly welcome the announcement on the Heathrow expansion. I had the good fortune to be up at Heathrow Airport and was shown the potential for Wales, and have liaised very closely with them over the last two years to offer any assistance that I’ve been able to to make sure that this project does happen. What I’m bitterly, bitterly disappointed to hear today is the inability of the Welsh Government to secure anything for their support for the Heathrow expansion. There’s not much point trying to catch the horse after it has bolted out of the stable, Minister, and frankly there’s the Heathrow spur, and a contribution to that from Heathrow Airport would have been very, very welcome indeed, such as with the contributions that they’ve listed already to transport arrangements in the south-east and also slots and the availability of slots on Heathrow’s valuable tarmac for planes coming down from Scotland, as was highlighted in the earlier question that was put to you.

Can you not point to a single commitment that you have secured from Heathrow, or the owners of Heathrow, in relation to your support or your Government’s support for this project? I listened very carefully, and we’d all support the projects that you talked about, but actually what we want to see are a lot of those projects coming to reality. So, can you not point to a single piece of paper, a single memorandum of understanding in any shape or form, of some agreement, either financially or in goods and services, that has been offered to you by Heathrow for the Welsh Government’s support for the expansion of runway capacity in the south-east of England?

Well, I’m pretty surprised by the Member’s attitude on this issue, given that he could surely have been saying more regarding the big infrastructure projects that I outlined in my answer to Simon Thomas, especially concerning the western rail link to Heathrow, which should be delivered, which I would hope he would call on the UK Government to deliver, including the electrification of the north Wales main line, which I would hope he would call on the UK Government to deliver, including abolition of the Severn tolls over the River Severn. Again, all of these important points are within the control of the UK Government, so I would hope that he would actually criticise those who are responsible for failing to deliver the goods for Wales.

In terms of Heathrow Airport, as I said to Simon Thomas, we’ve already been conducting a major marketing exercise, which the Scottish now seem to be wishing to embark on. We’ve already been conducting that and, as a result of that, we’ve got record numbers of tourists coming to Wales; we’ve got a record number of people now using Cardiff Airport; we’ve got a new air link between Cardiff and the City of London as well. And in terms of the other areas of the memorandum of understanding, we’ll be having supplier events as well in Wales, not just in Cardiff, but it’s my aim to make sure that we have supplier events elsewhere in Wales. So, in terms of the memorandum of understanding, as I said, I aim to ensure that it is proportionate to that which Scotland has, and, on 22 November, my officials will be meeting again with Heathrow to discuss the basis of that memorandum.

Yet again, I have to, Cabinet Secretary, express my surprise that this Government and many of those in this Chamber are supporting a south-east-England-centric project that has no real identified benefits for the Welsh economy. Indeed, I would paraphrase the old holiday adage: what happens in the south-east stays in the south-east. Would it not have been better to have promoted the potential of regional airports? You talk about passengers and the ease of access for Welsh passengers now to fly from Heathrow, surely Cardiff Airport has the ability to take the largest of jets, and it would be much better promoting Cardiff Airport to be the place for people not only to fly from Wales but also to come into Wales. This seems to be very strange thinking, as far as I can see, and especially, as has been pointed out, as we have no direct benefits from construction that have been agreed with the Westminster Parliament.

The Member would be right if it wasn’t for the fact that so many people from Wales actually use Heathrow Airport, and regardless of the success of Cardiff Airport, Cardiff Airport will never compete as an international hub with Heathrow. Cardiff can, however, act as a complementary airport for Heathrow, and that’s what the chair of the airport, Roger Lewis, has spoken about on a number of occasions. That’s why we’ve been investing so heavily in that airport. Let’s not forget, in this Chamber, that it was the Conservatives, and Andrew R. T. Davies, who was so critical moments ago, who wanted to close the airport. It was this Labour Government that saved the airport. It’s this Labour Government that’s made the airport an incredible success story. Let’s face facts here—[Interruption.] Let’s face facts here: if you want to look at who saved the airport, look to this front bench. It’s this Government that’s achieved the success of Cardiff Airport.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. And I now call on Lee Waters to ask the fourth urgent question.

I thank the Member for his question. Yesterday’s decision by the Home Secretary is deeply disappointing. The First Minister made Welsh Government support for an inquiry clear in July. Especially in the light of the Hillsborough inquiry findings, the case for an inquiry is overwhelming. We are in the process of reiterating our views to the UK Government.

Diolch. Minister, the battle for Orgreave witnessed one of the worst days of violence in the 1984 miners’ strike, and yet yesterday the Home Secretary turned down a public inquiry on the grounds that it wasn’t serious enough. She said that there were no wrongful convictions, but as Tyrone O’Sullivan, who was at Orgreave, made clear this morning, there were wrongful arrests, there was mass violence instigated by the South Yorkshire Police, and there were careers ended—the men who were arrested never worked for the National Coal Board again. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has unearthed evidence of perjury and of perverting the course of justice. Papers revealed under the 30-year rule and, indeed, memoirs of Ministers have shown that the police were deliberately used for political ends and that the instruments of the state were used to crush a lawful strike. Indeed, William Waldegrave in his memoir referred to the police being sent in to crack heads. Minister, does not the evidence of the Hillsborough inquiry show that when things go badly wrong, the best thing to do is to be open and transparent and admit and learn from those mistakes? It’s deeply disappointing to people from the mining communities that many of us represent that this opportunity wasn’t taken and it will make it even more difficult to rebuild trust in authorities.

I thank the Member for his comments. Of course, like many people in Wales, I am disappointed by the decision but, ultimately, policing is a UK Government responsibility. However, the Home Secretary did say in her response that this was not in the wider public interest. The Welsh Government, we do not agree with that position. We are not convinced yet that the alleged issue that the police were operating on instruction of political interference on an operational policy—that it has not been demonstrated that was not the case. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we believe, still, after those many years, the rule of law to remedy an injustice is to restore the confidence of people in policing and we believe a public inquiry is the right thing to do.

My father was there in Orgreave on the morning of 18 June 1984 and like many others he looked on in incredulity as a sea of 8,000 police officers opened up—many of them, of course, in full riot gear with long shields suddenly opening up to allow a cavalry charge through to chase down miners, like my father, just dressed in T-shirt and jeans. It was only luck, actually, that he was not arrested by some of the snatch squads with their short shields and batons—the first time that that tactic had ever been used in mainland Britain. We now know, as Lee Waters said, that, actually, the battle of Orgreave—and it was a battle—the first pitched battle, actually, on the island of Britain since the battle of Culloden. It was a deliberate act of entrapment and framing—you know, an act of collective punishment against the miners, deliberately designed for that purpose.

What I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary is whether, in the light of the refusal by the Westminster Government to conduct a public inquiry and the fact that the south Yorkshire police and crime commissioner has asked the 20 police forces across the UK that have relevant information in their archives, he would convene a meeting of the four Welsh police and crime commissioners to see if we can co-operate, at least to create maybe a people’s inquiry and possibly put some resource behind that, so we can put pressure on the Westminster Government to get the inquiry that we really need.

Finally, in the light of the fact that, of course, there was a civil case brought in 1991, which was settled out of court, for wrongful arrest, for malicious prosecution and for assault, and in the light of the information that has now come out, isn’t there a case, actually, to look at, if necessary, a private prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and for incitement? Because that’s what actually corralling the miners into that field and opening up the full force of the state actually represented—an incitement of violence against people doing nothing other than following their lawful right to strike and fight for their communities.

I thank the Member for his comments. I watched earlier in the questions in Westminster the right honourable Member Chris Bryant raising the issue of miners from the Rhondda in plimsolls and T-shirts confronting riot squads on horses chasing them down the streets. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. The fact of the matter is that the reasons given by the Home Secretary, I believe, were invalid. There was the excuse that there was no evidence, when there are many videos, there are many photographs, and there are many trial transcripts of this event. The fact of the matter is: how do we know, how do the public know that there was no political interference in the way that was dealt with? I cannot stand here and defend that policy; the UK Government should do that.

The police and crime commissioners and, indeed, the south Yorkshire police commissioner who has also agreed and said there should be a public inquiry—it’s something I will review in terms of our relationship, but, as I said, it is a non-devolved issue, but we do hold a very strong view in this Welsh Government.

I was at a commemoration event on the weekend with miners of St John’s, Coegnant and Garth in my community and other mines that came together over 100 years ago to put their wages together to build a community hospital. They took the opportunity to speak with me and they were hopeful that the outcome that we’ve heard this week would not be the one that we have heard. They were hoping at least for some sort of inquiry. The fear was that it would be a half-soaked inquiry; we now have no inquiry whatsoever. They reminded me that we cannot forget that the backdrop to these calls for an inquiry was the shameful episode in the history of the UK, where a Government decided to take on and destroy a union, and in so doing, regarded as collateral damage the people and the families and the communities that were caught up in that political struggle.

We know now that it was a political struggle. The papers have come out and shown it very clearly that there was, indeed, collusion between the state and police in order to trample on these miners and on their communities, and that’s what the backdrop to Orgreave is all about. They said to me, ‘We need to know, on the day in question, under whose orders or instructions? Under whose order? Who gave those orders to allow the police to carry out these atrocities against decent working people who were there on that day trying to defend their industry, their jobs, their families, their communities? Who was actually responsible for those decisions that left many miners and other innocent people present being badly injured and scarred for life, both mentally and physically? Why have they not been brought to account some 32 years later?’ And we still will not know, because the decision this week has meant that, under this Conservative Government, there will be no inquiry. It will have to wait, I suspect, for a future Government to inquire into this. But that is needed to deliver truth and justice for those people who were at Orgreave and who recognise that it will never be finished until we know the truth behind who made those decisions, and that’s for the police as well. It will never be cleared up until we have the answers to this, and it’s a disgrace, the decision that we’ve heard this week.

Llywydd, we all saw what happened with the Hillsborough disaster and the length of time it took for the truth to come out. Continued delays on Orgreave are unacceptable. It is very odd that 30 years is too long to conduct an inquiry into what happened here, and yet 30 years isn’t long enough to release the Cabinet papers with the instructions to operational policing at that event. I would suggest that the Home Secretary reconsiders her view in terms of the options that she has to consider in the best interests of bringing communities together right across the UK and, in particular, Yorkshire, because this will not go away. If it was wrong then, it is still wrong today.

I note that Labour is still trying to flog this dead horse, and Plaid Cymru are now abetting them. The Bloody Sunday inquiry cost nearly £200 million of public money—most of it handed over to lawyers. Orgreave was 32 years ago; nobody died. Why are Labour and Plaid Cymru so intent on handing over more taxpayers’ money to lawyers?

I hear the comments made by the Member. I fail to agree with any of the comments he made. Many communities suffered, people were jailed, and people were criminalised. What we should remember is that all the police and all of the miners weren’t bad people. What we really need to understand was what happened on that day. What was the instruction? What was behind that battle that happened on that day? Unfortunately, the comments made by Gareth are disappointing, to say the least. The fact is that there are families in Wales, there are families across the UK, who have suffered since the day of that battle to the current day, and we need some answers to that.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the business statement and announcement. I have a number of Members who wish to ask questions to the business Minister, so keep your questions brief and to the point. I ask the business Minister to make her statement.

I’ve several changes to make to today’s agenda. In addition to the First Minister’s statement on EU transition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport will make a statement on the specialist critical care centre at Llanfrechfa, and the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language will make a statement updating the Assembly on the ministerial taskforce for the Valleys. As a result, I’ve postponed the statement on winter preparedness until 15 November and the statement on focus on exports until 22 November. Tomorrow, I’ve reduced the time allocated to Counsel General questions. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers and available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could I ask for three statements, if possible, please? The first is: you and I were on Cowbridge High Street on Saturday, where many businesses highlighted the revaluation exercise that has been undertaken and the huge increases that many of those businesses will be facing in the coming financial year that, basically, put a real question mark over their viability. I heard the comments from the First Minister in FMQs today, where he alluded to the £10 million transition fund that has been established. It was my understanding that this transition money was already available there and will offer little recompense for the mighty uplift that many of the businesses will be facing in the next financial year. So, I’d be grateful, from the Welsh Government, for a statement to actually point out what assistance is there, but, secondly, what other measures might be forthcoming from the Welsh Government in light of the increasing evidence that is coming forward from businesses, not just in the Vale of Glamorgan, but the length and breadth of Wales, that does pose a huge, huge question mark over the future of many small and medium-sized businesses on high streets and in communities the length and breadth of Wales.

The second statement I’d like to seek, if possible, please, is from the Minister for transport in relation to transport arrangements on the international weekend that’s coming up in Cardiff, when football and rugby are going to be played on the same weekend, with the potential of 100,000 fans of one sort or other coming to our great capital city. That, in one respect, is to be celebrated. It’s a huge commercial opportunity and, indeed, it’s a great cultural event to celebrate both the rugby and the football teams playing in the same city. Regrettably, past experiences have shown that the transport opportunities, especially when the final whistle has gone on events held in Cardiff, have proven to be—shall we say—problematic on certain occasions. It would be good to hear from the Minister what action the Welsh Government has taken with the various authorities to make sure that any potential problems and lessons learned exercises from previous events held in the capital city have been put in place, so that we are not here on the Tuesday after the weekend reflecting on traffic chaos, and we are hopefully celebrating two very strong Welsh wins instead, with complimentary comments coming from the many fans that have come into our capital city.

The final statement, if possible, please, is from the Minister for the economy in relation to expansion at Cardiff Airport. I’d be most grateful to find out exactly what plans and what money has been made available to Cardiff Airport for expansion plans. It’s my understanding that, within the gift of the airport, there are some 400-odd acres of land already in its ownership, and one would assume that that would be a sizeable block of development land available to it. It has been brought to my attention by constituents in the area that agents acting on behalf of the Welsh Government have been in discussions about acquiring additional land from people who own land in the immediate area of the airport, and I’d be grateful to understand why this expansion, considering the 400 acres that the airport already owns in the area, is being considered, and what type of expansion and development is being considered for this new land if it were to be purchased by the Welsh Government on behalf of Cardiff Airport.

Thank you, Andrew R.T. Davies, for your questions. I was also pleased to meet with businesses and traders in Cowbridge on Saturday. Indeed, it was an opportunity to talk to them about their very different needs. Some of them also talked to me about some of the other sources of help, for example, such as ReAct, that are supporting businesses. So, I think it’s important, as you say, that we look at all means to support businesses in the high street. But in terms of your particular question, of course, in terms of revaluation, it’s not under our control itself. It will affect many businesses’ eligibility. Our £10 million transitional relief scheme, which you do refer to—available from next April, on 1 April, when that revaluation comes into effect—will be fully funded by the Welsh Government. In fact, that’s different from the scheme in England, which simply takes money from one business to give to another. Many of those small businesses, such as the ones we met in Cowbridge, will directly benefit from this support, but also Business Wales and the Cabinet Secretary’s officials are very willing to help, support and discuss these issues further. I think it’s also important to put on the record that these draft valuations are published six months in advance. That does allow ratepayers to check their property and valuation details, and if ratepayers think that their valuations are incorrect, then, of course, they must notify the Valuation Office Agency as soon as possible.

On your second point, of course we will be anticipating, I’m sure, next Tuesday, celebrating Welsh wins in our great capital city. In terms of the visitors who have been drawn into the city, of course these events have been managed very well in the past. It is a matter of everyone working together. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary will be aware of the arrangements for the local authority, for the police and for all those agencies that work together to ensure that this can be a great weekend for Wales.

I’m not aware of the issues you raised in terms of the expansion possibilities at Cardiff Airport, but I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary will want to clarify those points.

The leader of the house will be aware perhaps of a petition calling for justice in relation to the surplus in the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The petition has over 7,000 signatures and the surplus in the pension scheme has contributed billions to the Treasury. Can we have a statement from the Government urgently in order to secure a review of the miners’ pension surplus so that it is no longer an endless cash cow for the British state? I think that, in light of yesterday’s disgraceful decision on the battle of Orgreave, former miners in this country need the Welsh Government firmly on their side.

Well, I hope, and from the responses by the Cabinet Secretary and the Welsh Government, that the miners and their families will see the Welsh Government—indeed, with your support as well—very firmly on the side of our miners. And, of course, in terms of pensions, as Carl Sargeant said, in terms of our competencies and powers, we are limited in what we can do, but it is very important that we make clear our support and certainly look at ways in which we could influence that outcome.

On the weekend, I attended the launch of the latest food bank in my constituency, in Pencoed, and my thanks go to the volunteers of Bridgend food bank who provide food distribution now on every day to every single part of my constituency. They will understand and agree with me that, in an ideal world, we would not need food banks at all. Could I call for a debate on the impact of changes, therefore, to the universal benefits system on families and communities in Wales and the principle of making work pay following the damning report from the Iain Duncan Smith-linked Centre of Social Justice, showing that those in work could be up to £1,000 worse off in work? Would she agree that when someone like the former Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, whose reputation goes before him, says that it’s going to punish poor, working households, we should be very worried?

We should indeed be very worried, and it's very unfortunate that Iain Duncan Smith brought into implementation—some of which, of course, we're talking about today—many changes and cuts in terms of welfare reform that are having a directly adverse impact on families. On the point of universal credit and how it's being rolled out in Wales, it’s only been rolled out to new single jobseeker claimants in Wales so far—I mean, that's with the exception of new claims from couples and families in Shotton. But, let's just look at what has been anticipated, not just by the Centre of Social Justice: cuts to work allowances in universal credit are estimated by the Institute for Fiscal Studies to affect around 3 million families in Great Britain who will lose just over £1,000 a year on average. And, of course, those families are the ones—many of whom we represent—who are turning to those food banks that are in every community in Wales.

Could I call for two statements, please? The first is on support for credit unions in Wales. This is, in fact, the first Plenary we've had since International Credit Union Day on 20 October, reflecting on the movement's history, promoting its achievements and raising awareness about the great work that credit unions are doing around the world, and giving members the opportunity to get involved. The reason particularly I ask for a statement is, in March, I asked the then-Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty in this Chamber about Welsh Government funding, which was due to end then in 2017. In two thirds of loan transactions, people would save by using a credit union, but only 2.5 per cent of people in Wales currently do so. I asked the Minister then,

‘how do you respond to the call by credit unions in Wales for the next Welsh Government to provide capacity-building support for the transition beyond 2017?’

She replied:

‘that would be a matter for the next Government. I think we’ve supported credit unions very well over the past few years.’

Well, I call for statement in the context of the next few years, given the Minister's response on that occasion and, of course, the importance of International Credit Union Day.

Secondly, and finally, I call for a statement on the implications for devolved services and devolved matters of the conviction of a retired North Wales Police superintendent at Mold Crown Court, related to historic child abuse charges—again, since the Assembly last met in this Chamber. We know that Lady Justice Macur, the deputy presiding judge of the Court of Appeal, recently re-examined that particular case as part of her work on the north Wales child abuse tribunal of 1997-98, and she stated that that officer had lied when first questioned under caution about the offence, and she said that the tribunal knew about the case in 1997, but did not obtain the file because North Wales Police considered it not relevant. We know that the solicitor who represented one of the victims when evidence was given against him by Flintshire's then senior legal officer in court, successfully defending that young man against false allegations brought in the way that I described, said he'd been threatened personally because of his inquiries defending that victim. We know that when Flintshire’s internal audit manager—

You do need to come to your question.

[Continues.]—blew the whistle regarding Flintshire—

You do need to come to your question now, please, Mark Isherwood.

[Continues.]—including matters relating to Waterhouse, and I raised that here, your colleagues and the Government you then represented accused me of bringing the Assembly into disrepute. Well, matters have been raised regarding the conduct of council officers and council members at the time in public, in evidence to tribunal, in evidence in courts, and statements in newspapers, which are now brought open to question by this conviction. I hope the Welsh Government now will be somewhat more transparent and accountable, as it’s called on the UK Government to be in the context of Yorkshire, given the findings of this court case.

Well, I certainly will want to ensure that we put the record straight, because I know this has been raised over the years, Mark Isherwood, and I will want to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary can put the record straight. I suggest he does that in a letter to the Member.

I wondered if we could have some explanation from you as to how the Welsh Government issue statements, because you may have noticed—obviously you will have noticed—that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy announced that junction 41 in Port Talbot would remain open, which of course I welcome, but we only received a written statement after people like myself took to social media to complain about the fact that only Labour politicians were informed of this particular development. I would appreciate it, if the Welsh Government has something that is within the interests of all Assembly Members and all communities, that we are well informed so that, when people come to us, we are aware of those particular developments.

My second request is for a debate in Government time on the importance of industrial and former mining communities. I think we need to have such a debate because there are some Assembly Members within this Chamber who do not appreciate how important they are, and they might do well to have an element of that education before they make inappropriate comments about situations such as Orgreave, where people did not die, but they do warrant having an investigation. Many people did not die in the child abuse saga in Wales and across the UK, but that does not mean that it does not warrant an investigation, and one that will hold people to account. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Bethan Jenkins. I’m glad that you agree with the decision that was made and I do understand that Assembly Members were invited to participate in discussions about that with the Cabinet Secretary. It’s very important, of course, that we do get the information out in a timely way so that you, as an Assembly Member, are aware of the decision as and when it’s made. So, obviously, you’ve made that point, Bethan Jenkins, today.

I thank you for making your second, very powerful point, and I think you have done that in order to hold people to account for what they say here in this Chamber.

I was pleased to see that, last week, the independent inquiry into child sex abuse opened an office in Cardiff, and Professor Alexis Jay, who is the UK lead for this inquiry, said the aim was to generate knowledge, interest and awareness amongst victims and survivors of the truth project, and to encourage them to come forward. Bearing in mind the fact that this inquiry is actually on its fourth chairperson, and has got off to a slow start, what could the Welsh Government do, either by statements in this place or by any other means, to encourage victims and survivors of historical abuse in Wales to come forward and to share their experiences?

Thank you, Julie Morgan, for raising that very important question, because I am sure we all welcome the fact that the inquiry has launched an office in Wales, as you say. I think when you just look at the way that the UK commissioned the inquiry—it covers England and Wales, and we must ensure that people in Wales, living in Wales, have the opportunity to come forward, tell their stories and feel confident in this inquiry. Indeed, when that announcement was made, there was some publicity and people did come forward, and I think that was a powerful and very, very brave way in which some victims and survivors came forward. What we have to ensure now is that those people in Wales are supported.

Now, we have got Welsh Government officials and members of the inquiry team who are now working to support the needs of the inquiry in Wales. We have to have an inquiry and relationships that are transparent. Obviously, it’s an independent inquiry, and I think the fact that Welsh Government, and what part can we play—. As you say, as the Member says, it is about how we can then work together, through the Welsh Government supporting, not just attending the launch, meeting with the inquiry that is taking place—I think they’re meeting in the next couple of days—and also making clear, publicly, how people can come forward and what kind of support they can have and expect to receive and be empowered about how they present their evidence and subsequently feel strengthened by the opportunity that this inquiry will provide.

May I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on the Welsh Government policy towards setting up fix rooms for drug addicts in Wales? Concerns have been expressed to me, and I have personally witnessed discarded needles in school playing areas, parks and other places where people walk around a lot. Only last week, I went to a house that was burgled, and the burglar very conveniently used that building for the use of drugs. Last year, pre-elections, when we were just cleaning, some of us, in Newport’s Pill area, there were some needles behind the primary school, in a park. Minister, that is not acceptable in this modern Wales.

A plan to set up the UK’s first fix room to allow drug addicts to inject safely under supervision is likely to get the go-ahead in Glasgow, Scotland. This move is designed to address the problems caused by the estimated 500 addicts injecting on Glasgow’s streets. Could we have a statement, please, on whether the Welsh Government intends to introduce a similar project in Wales? Secondly, can we have, as soon as possible, a debate in this Chamber on an illegal drugs-free Wales? Thank you very much.

The Member does raise a very important issue. Clearly, we have to learn lessons from other parts of the UK. I think we will have read about that development in Glasgow. Clearly, this is something that officials and the Cabinet Secretaries—because it’s not just one Cabinet Secretary, it’s very much a cross-Government responsibility—. I’m sure that this will lead to a statement coming forth to clarify where we are in terms of the situation.

In accordance with your request that we should be brief and to the point, can I ask for two debates in Government time? The first relates to a statement made by the Cabinet Secretary for health the week before last, following the last Plenary session, on new funding to attract young doctors to become GPs in those areas where it’s difficult to attract GPs. Now, whilst I clearly welcome that part of the statement, there is nothing in that statement that provides anything for GPs working in practices now, where these GPs are under huge pressures and are being overworked. The challenge now is to retain the current GPs in post. The previous week’s announcement does nothing to resolve that problem, so I would like a debate on that, and I’d hope you’d agree with the idea of having a debate on that point.

The second debate that I’d like to see in Government time is on Historic Wales. I have asked in the past, and I won’t rehearse the arguments again because time is against us, but I would welcome an affirmative response to that request to have a debate in Government time on Historic Wales. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr, Dai Lloyd. Your first point: of course, we have launched—the First Minister has launched—a major new campaign to promote Wales as an excellent place for doctors, including general practitioners and their families, to train, work and live. That clear commitment’s in our programme for government. Your point is well made in terms of those who are already practising as well as the new opportunities to attract young doctors into general practice.

Your second point: of course, we do have a statement on Historic Wales next week being made by the Cabinet Secretary.

I’m concerned about the impact of the re-writing of the immigration rules by the UK Government and the impact it’s having on the well-being of my constituents. In particular Bashir Naderi, a 19-year-old Afghani who’s lived in this country since he was 10 years old is being threatened with deportation back to Afghanistan, even though he speaks with a Welsh accent and he is, to all intents and purposes, Welsh and is hugely at risk if he is deported. Fortunately, the outpouring of support for him has led to a stay of execution for a further two weeks to review his case, but, just when he was about to be able to make a positive contribution to our society, as he was doing a construction course at Cardiff and Vale College, it seems totally inappropriate that, having received this individual as a refugee, we then send him back to the country from whence he fled, following the murder of his father, some nine years ago.

In addition to that, I’m particularly concerned about the impact of the UK Government’s threatened clamping down on the number of foreign students who are able to come to study here in the UK, because that will have a major impact on the successful businesses of Cardiff University and other universities that find being able to offer excellent education to people from abroad is something that enables us to improve our balance of payments situation. In both cases, although immigration is not devolved, I feel that there needs to be much further discussion on what the UK Government is currently doing and the impact it’s having on people in Wales, and I wondered if we can have a sensible and considered debate on this matter.

I’m grateful to Jenny Rathbone for bringing those points to our attention in the business statement today. Thank you for drawing our attention to the case, which I’m sure many of us have read about, of Bashir Naderi, and it’s heartening to see the support in the community and that’s expressed in the local media for Bashir Naderi and the support he’s had from his foster mother and partner and the community in which he’s lived for the last 10 years. So, obviously, although we have no influence in terms of our powers on immigration policy, it is important that we hear the points that you make today, Jenny Rathbone, and hope that his review will be successful in terms of his position.

Your second point, of course, is a point that’s been well aired across the UK, not just in Cardiff and here in Wales, in terms of the important role that foreign students play, not just in terms of our universities, but our research base and, indeed, many of the contributions they make in terms of cutting-edge research and then leading to jobs and prospects in this country.

I just wanted to ask the leader of the house why we get embargoed statements, as are a matter of routine, which are not delivered until just before the start of Plenary sessions. I wondered what the reason was behind that. Thanks.

We do have a practice, which has worked for many years, where we supply the oral statements ahead of them being made. I think that’s a courtesy that our business managers welcome. And if there is a delay, then obviously that’s regrettable, and I would obviously want to hear of any such delay. But all oral statements are made available through the business managers, and I hope that this will continue in the way that it’s been adopted.

Thank you, leader of the house, and can I first of all welcome the tabling of today’s statement on the specialist and critical care centre in Cwmbran? I was pleased to receive the embargoed statement earlier today in pretty good time for that. We’ve been calling for a long time now—AMs—in this Chamber for an update on the critical care centre, so I’m looking forward to questioning the Cabinet Secretary on that later, and it is an issue of vital importance for the people of south-east Wales and, indeed, south Wales in general.

Secondly, can I reiterate my earlier calls on the First Minister for action to support businesses in advance and in the wake of next year’s revaluation of business rates across Wales? I do appreciate that this is not a direct cause of the Welsh Government. However, it is going to have an impact. I don’t think that there’s yet a full appreciation of the impact that this could potentially have on businesses across Wales, particularly in rural Wales. I think we need to look at providing far greater support for those businesses, because they are calling out for help, both to me and to other Assembly Member colleagues as well.

Finally, leader of the house, last week saw the reopening of the Severn tunnel. I suppose you could now say that the first new piece of electrified infrastructure, albeit without electricity running though it yet, has now reached Wales. This is a fantastic development. This is going to be massively beneficial to the Welsh economy in years to come. However, we do need to see the UK investment complemented by the Welsh Government, and a number of AMs have been calling for complementary investment for some time. So, could we have an update from the Minister—the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure—on how the Welsh Government is planning to support this electrification and specifically with regard to the metro scheme? I know towns such as Monmouth have, over the last several months, fallen off the metro map. What are you doing to make sure that all parts of Wales are well connected to the new infrastructure that is being funded by the UK Government?

On your first point, Nick Ramsay, thank you for welcoming the embargoed statement on the specialist critical care centre and I’m sure you’ll be asking a question of the Cabinet Secretary in only a few minutes. Your second point—just a bit more about our small business rates relief. It will save small businesses in Wales from having to pay £100 million in tax, it will benefit a greater proportion of smaller businesses than England’s equivalent scheme, and, in Wales, more than half of all eligible businesses will pay no rates compared to just a third in England—and that’s because there is a higher proportion of small businesses in Wales. Of course, your third point is important, but only two weeks ago the Cabinet Secretary for finance announced our draft budget, which of course is now being scrutinised through committee, and there’s a considerable allocation of capital for next year towards the metro in south Wales, which, of course will all contribute to the transport opportunities and connectivity linked to electrification. I’m sure that Monmouthshire is included in that.

And finally, Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Lywydd. I’d like to echo the sentiments made earlier about Bashir Naderi. I realise that the Assembly doesn’t have responsibility for immigration, but we do have responsibility for communities. So, I’m therefore asking that the Government make a statement of support for Bashir, his family, his friends. Bashir came to Wales and lived in Ely very happily for years, integrated very well, went to Mary Immaculate Roman Catholic high school, and I really would like the Welsh Government to stand up for this person who is a Welshman. That should be recognised and we should make the Home Office listen and, I’d say, keep their hands off Bashir and let him stay. Diolch. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Neil McEvoy. I think my response to Jenny Rathbone very clearly showed our support as a Welsh Government, but again, it’s very heartening to see that we have Members in our Assembly who can make these points. Although, of course, we haven’t got that responsibility for immigration, we have our responsibility to say what we think about the impact of immigration policy and how we can support people in the community who are affected by it.

Thank you to the Minister. Now we move on to the next item on the agenda, the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for health on the parliamentary review into health and care services. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We believe, as other parties do, that the time is now right for a rounded and mature conversation about how we shape the future of health and social care services here in Wales.

The parliamentary review of health and social care in Wales was agreed as part of our compact, ‘Moving Wales Forward’, with Plaid Cymru. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank not just Plaid Cymru but all parties here for their contribution and co-operation in agreeing the terms of reference and the panel membership, enabling all of us to move this forward.

The panel will review the best available evidence to identify key issues facing our health and social care services and draw out the challenges that these will present over coming years. For example, there are challenges with NHS finances within a reducing Welsh Government budget, workforce planning, recruitment and retention, and meeting the rising demands of healthcare and rising public expectations. The review will examine options for the way forward and will then make recommendations about what the health and care service of the future could look like.

The review team will of course draw on the work that has already been done and carried out in Wales by the Health Foundation, the OECD, the Nuffield Trust, the Bevan Commission and, indeed, the King’s Fund. It will draw their findings together and identify gaps in the evidence and knowledge that the review will seek to fill. The terms of reference have been discussed and agreed with other parties and will be published later today. The panel will also meet to discuss them later this month.

We have all agreed that the review panel should be independent, comprising prominent leaders, stakeholders and academics with a wide range of backgrounds. So, today, I am pleased to announce that Dr Ruth Hussey has agreed to chair the review. Ruth was born in north Wales, is an ex-chief medical officer of Wales, has been regional director of public health at NHS North West and has worked with the Public Health England transition team at the Department of Health. She has also been the director of public health for Liverpool and senior lecturer in public health at Liverpool university.

Ruth brings with her a wealth of experience, a depth of knowledge of the system here in Wales, as well as beyond our border and within the wider view of health and social care. She will be joined on the review panel by: Professor Anne Marie Rafferty, who is the professor of nursing and dean of the Florence Nightingale school of nursing and midwifery at King's College London, and she is also a fellow of the Royal College of Nursing; Professor Keith Moultrie, who is the head of the Institute of Public Care at Oxford Brookes University, has worked directly with the Department of Health and the Department for Education, the Care Quality Commission and the Scottish Joint Improvement Team, and he also has experience of working within Wales; Professor Nigel Edwards, who is the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust, has been an expert adviser to KPMG’s global centre of excellence for health and life Sciences, a senior fellow at the King’s Fund, and has also been the policy director of the NHS Confederation for 11 years; and Dr Jennifer Dixon, the chief executive of the Health Foundation. She was previously the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust from 2008 to 2013 and she has previously been the policy adviser to the chief executive of the national health service.

In order to further widen the perspective, there will also be a business representative on the panel and I will, of course, discuss that position with spokespeople from other parties. There will be three further ex officio members of the panel: Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, chair of the Bevan Commission, professor of public health education at Cardiff University and former chief medical adviser at the Veterans Agency in the Ministry of Defence; Professor Don Berwick, who is a president emeritus and senior fellow at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. He’s a former professor of paediatrics and healthcare policy and currently lecturer in the department of healthcare policy at Harvard Medical School, and a leading international authority on healthcare quality and improvement. The final ex officio member is Dame Carol Black, principal of Newnham College Cambridge, a former president of the Royal College of Physicians and of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. This will allow the panel to benefit from their extensive international expertise and experience.

Between them, this panel, therefore, should have the expertise and capability to deliver a comprehensive and independent assessment of how best to tackle the big issues facing us around health and social care. The review team will be supported by a wider stakeholder reference group made up of representatives of professional bodies and social service organisations. I expect the review to take around a year to prepare its report, but I also expect that interim findings could be available before then. This will allow time for recommendations to be discussed, debated and implemented within this Assembly term. And I will, of course, update the Assembly as the work progresses.

May I welcome the statement by the Cabinet Secretary? I’m also grateful for the collaboration that has been going on since the agreement after the election, as we’ve put meat on the bones with regards to what Plaid Cymru had offered to have a parliamentary review as part of that agreement. May I note here that I wish this new team well under the leadership of Dr Ruth Hussey? I look forward to the completion of that team with the appointment of a business representative.

I have a number of questions—three questions. The first: will there be a short initial period of consultation on the remit before the team goes ahead with the full review, in case there is some work to tailor the remit as it is given to the team? Secondly, can I ask how the experience of the patient is going to be heard in this review, and that includes how we as Assembly Members can feed the experience of patients who come to us in our constituencies?

Thirdly, I see that the Cabinet Secretary says that the team will look at the findings of a series of reviews that have happened in recent years, including the OECD, the Nuffield Trust and the Bevan Foundation. Can I ask how confident the Cabinet Secretary is that we will have a really fresh look at how to answer the challenges of health services and social care in the future? We don’t want to just clarify the problems and look at recommendations that have been made in the past. Also, how confident is the Cabinet Secretary that we will see a real effort here to learn from innovation on an international level?

I thank the Member for the questions and comments. Again, this is an item that comes from agreement between the two parties—that another party in this Chamber has joined constructively with us to have what I hope is a unified position to start from. Then we’ll all have challenges to face when the review delivers its recommendations. There is no avoiding the fact there are very real challenges for politicians in every party about how we’re not just going to have a mature conversation now, but maturity in our conversations in the future, when we’ll all have difficult choices to make about what we wish to see and how we’ll actually make those choices a reality.

Now, turning to your, I think, three broad points, obviously, in terms of the terms that we’ve agreed between parties, we have an agreed starting point, but I agree it will be sensible to get a view from the panel themselves about the breadth of the terms that we’ve provided to them and to make sure that the terms are tight enough, because I’m really keen, as you’ll know from our previous discussions, to make sure we don’t have a long, freewheeling inquiry that takes years and years and years. I want something that is going to be useful and workable for us to give us some answers about the future within this term and the next one.

That’s also why we haven’t introduced a new NHS strategy. ‘Together for Health’ hasn’t been succeeded by a successor strategy now, because we’re going to have this review, and it would not make sense, as I said, I think, here in this Chamber and at our meetings, to simply say that I will introduce a new NHS strategy and then have the review as well. The review has to have meaning, and that does also mean that the remit has to be tight enough to be able to be delivered within that calendar year period. If there’s a small bit of slippage, that’s one thing, but I really, really don’t think it’s in anyone’s interests for this review to run over several years.

On the patient view and the patient perspective, again, these are things we’ve had some discussions about previously. So, just as with the IPFR review, we’ve managed to find a way to make sure that the patient perspective is real and directly taken account of in the review. I would expect that we would have to agree and find a similar mechanism as well. I would expect that not just for the call for evidence, because just in that broad call for evidence, we can expect people who are advantaged and part of organisations to take part, but to make sure that we have a facilitated patient perspective of people’s experience—not just a patient perspective, but a citizen perspective, across health and care. So, that is definitely something in our minds that we want to make sure that the review panel themselves can directly consider.

That then goes into your final point, both about innovation and also a fresh view of the future. We expect the panel to give us an idea of some of those challenges for the future. We have a number of well-rehearsed challenges that we face already. This is about looking at where we are now and where we could be in the future, and options to get there, about how we confront and deal with those challenges already. So, that is health and care together—the integration within healthcare between primary and secondary care, the integration between different groups of professionals, the integration between health and social care and other parts of public and private sectors, as well. So, this is about seeing the citizen within the service and what we need to do to have real choices to make about the future of our services. Because we can’t get away from the reality: there is a reducing financial sum available to us to run public services here in Wales. There are difficult choices available to us, but we still have choices to make, and this review should help us to make those choices and provide real challenge, I think, for politicians, whether in the governing party, or in opposition parties, about what those choices could be and what we’re then prepared to do.

I hope that helpfully deals with the points you made. We’ll carry on talking, of course, throughout the period of the review’s work and then final report and recommendations.

Minister, I’d like to welcome your statement today, and I do appreciate the consultation exercise that you have run with all the parties here. I do agree that it is time for a mature debate on the national health service and the social care model that we currently have in Wales. However, I think that, as a matter of record, I need to put on the record that I have expressed concerns about the size of the remit. I thought it was interesting that Rhun ap Iorwerth, who I know has constructed much of this with you, has brought that up as one of his concerns. I would have thought you’d have discussed that previously, but I would also like to see a very clear and tight set of remits going forward from the new chair of this panel, because it is such a big brief to look at the entire health and social care model that we have here in Wales. You’ve given this inquiry, you were talking in your statement, about a year. I’m concerned that if the remit is too large we will see too much drift. You said a little bit earlier, in response to Rhun ap Iorwerth, that you could see that it might drift a bit but you wouldn’t like to see it going on for several or more years. To be frank, I think that even two years might be too long. So, will you be able to give us an indication of how much time and effort the members of the panel are able to dedicate to this inquiry, and how much work you will expect to be undertaken in terms of investigative and analysis work by their respective support staff?

I would also like, Cabinet Secretary, if you could give us a clear and unequivocal direction, which can be listened to today by health boards, that this inquiry is not a stopping point to other tactical measures that we need to get on with, whether it is the workforce sustainability, whether it is winter pressures, new hospital builds, which I know you’re going to discuss later, because I know, from my experience in education, that when the Government announced various large scoping inquiries, it was used by some, in some quarters, to stop all other work and I would not like to see that happening in the NHS because we have tactical issues that we need to address on a constant basis.

You will know that I was very keen for the panel not to be the usual suspects, and I have discussed with you personally in great detail my view on those who are not on the panel. I don’t think it would be entirely appropriate to air those concerns and observations in public, but I do want to say that I’m extremely pleased to see the sector representatives from organisations such as the Nuffield Trust, the King’s Fund and the Health Foundation, who I believe will bring impartiality, hopefully best practice, and evidence of benchmarking experience to you. As you know, I’ve raised with you my concerns that the panel was being too health-focused and the whole review would become through the prism of the health service, so I was very, very keen to welcome Keith Moultrie—and I thank you for that appointment; I think that he will add to us—and to hear the voice of a practitioner such as Professor Rafferty. And, of course, you are very aware of my very strong desire to see somebody on that panel from a business experience who’s got large corporate understanding of enormous personnel challenges and issues and logistics and management of logistics. I, too, welcome Dr Ruth Hussey to the chair. And I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, will the chair, Dr Hussey, be the person who will put into place the structure that will enable this panel to interface with Assembly Members, particularly members of the health and social care committee, or do you see yourself putting in place that kind of structure? Because I believe that when we’ve discussed this, we’ve talked about how we can get a measure of cross-party political engagement feeding into the panel on a day-to-day, or week-to-week or month-to-month basis as the panel develops its thoughts.

My final point: I would just want to raise again, and I know that Rhun ap Iorwerth has also raised this, was his comment that slid into the statement about the review team drawing on the work that’s already been carried out in Wales by various large research organisations. This is fresh thinking. One of the big guarantees was that the review panel would look from scratch, not to reinvent the wheel, but that they would reference—and I use that word very clearly—the work already done by organisations such as the Nuffield Trust, the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation et cetera. I would just like your absolute reassurance that they are going to look at this with clear sight, because, as you and I both know, there’s already much research in the public domain that one can argue has come from a particular point of view that might already predicate outcomes that none of us are wildly comfortable with. To just recycle those and put them forward as a set of recommendations would put this and me in a deeply uncomfortable position, because I would like to think that this august panel of highly intelligent individuals with a vast amount of experience will look with real clarity and focus to come up with a picture that would really suit a canvas that would really suit Wales going forward, so that we can put up on that canvas the structure for our health and our social care in the years to come.

I thank the Member for her comments and questions. Perhaps I can try and deal with the size and the membership of the panel first. I think we're fortunate to have already secured a panel of genuinely independent-minded expertise and experience that covers a range of fields across social care, across the health service, people who have direct experience within Wales and outside Wales, too—that’s important, to see different perspectives—people who have international learning and international experience, too. So, I hope that gives that reassurance that we’ve discussed previously about this being a genuinely wide range of expertise that we've managed to secure, which I think we should all be very pleased with, actually, and to give people that assurance that this group of people will do that job with an independent mind, and that means that they'll have information drawn to their attention on work that's already been done, but that won’t determine what they then conclude. Because if they disagree with anything, if they want more evidence to be found, as I said in my statement, it’s for them to do it, because, ultimately, whilst I take on board your point, and I agree with you, that this is not about reinventing the wheel on work that's already been done, but this review has to be independent, it has to be challenging and has to be evidence-based, and it's a review that, ultimately, the panel will have to put their names and their reputations to—and these are significant figures within the field of health and social care.

And that's why, going back to the point about the terms of the review and timescale, it's sensible to make sure that the terms and the timescale make sense with each other, and to have a discussion between spokespeople if there’s a need to consider whether we've got those two things aligned. I think we have, but let's take a review of it when the panel are in place; after all, we're looking for them and their expertise. But I certainly don't want something that goes on for two years. When I talk about the possibility of extending time a small bit, I do mean a small bit. I'm talking about period of weeks or months; I'm not talking about it going on to two years. I think two years is too long. If the review takes two years, then I don't think there's going to be a real opportunity to allow that review to then be considered and to have a real impact in this term and the next one. Now, we all know the political cycle, and in two years’ time, people will be gearing up and looking for other things, and it will stop us having the sort of maturity and objectivity that I think we need in this debate. So, I hope that's helpful about the review and the timescale being real and honest.

Again, I take on board your points that were made in our previous discussions as well about the balance between those issues that the Government shouldn't make decisions on, because they’re part of the review’s consideration, but, equally, not avoiding our responsibility to deal with challenges now, whether that's in the Government or within the service as well. I don't want to see things somehow stop and be put on pause, because that is not the right thing to do. We're talking about the future. We're not talking about issues that we need to decide upon now, and I don't seek to avoid my responsibility or the health service's responsibility or social care's responsibility to continue making movements forward. That means there will be difficult choices that have to be made in advance of the panel's reporting, but that's what we have to do. That goes with the responsibility of being in Government, and I certainly won't be looking to avoid that.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and for the honest, open and transparent way you have approached this review with the opposition Members. The health and social care sectors will face immense challenges in future as our population grows and ages, and it is right that we review how we can best deliver those services in the coming decades. I welcome the opportunity you gave to us to help influence the terms of reference and the make-up of the panel, and I look forward to reviewing the panel’s terms when they are published later. One of our biggest concerns for this review was ensuring that the panel was truly independent and expert-led. I’m pleased to see the panel will include individuals from the Nuffield Trust and the Health Foundation and a Fellow of the Royal College of Nursing.

I am also grateful that the panel will include a business representative. It is important that we get input from the private sector, and I look forward to learning who will fill this position. I’m also pleased that we are to receive the benefit of having an international perspective from Professor Don Berwick. I would also like to welcome the appointment of Dr Hussey as chair of the review. Dr Hussey has experience of the NHS in both Wales and England, and her insight on this panel will be invaluable.

I have one question, Cabinet Secretary, and that is: when will you be in a position to share with us the make-up of the wider stakeholder reference group?

Thank you once again for your statement. I look forward to working with you and the review panel so that we can deliver a health and social care system that is responsive to the needs of Wales’s population and resilient to future health challenges. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for those comments and questions, and, again, I should have noted both from Rhun and Angela, and now Caroline, the recognition about the role of a businessperson to add an additional perspective and international experience. And, of course, I’m very pleased to hear the welcome that Members have given to Dr Hussey agreeing to chair this review panel.

On the stakeholder reference group, that’s something I would wish to discuss again with party spokespeople to make sure that it is something that makes sense, and making sure that we have enough views to come in, about how we take advantage of that expertise within Wales’s experience, and how different people see different demands being made upon the service. The Welsh NHS Confederation will have a particular view on a range of these challenges, and we’ll find lots of people in the third sector having a range of views as well. We’ve also heard already from Rhun the importance of having a patient perspective, too. So, those are things that I think are eminently manageable and achievable, and I hope that we can come, as we have done previously, to a sensible agreement on how to make sure that they are a real part of the review and its work. We’ll then see that influence in the recommendations that are provided at the end of the review panel’s work.

And finally, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you, too, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. I, too, am pleased to see the reference to existing research, although obviously work needs to be done on the back of that rather than just accepting it as it is.

I was at a recent King’s Fund conference in London and I had the opportunity to engage with local authorities from different parts of England—there was nobody from Wales there apart from one person from north Wales—and they’re developing very different models, depending on which part of England they represent. One of them had actually gone so far as to transfer its entire cohort of social workers across to the NHS so that they became NHS employees. Now, it may well be that the demands of social care are going to prove too much for local authorities on their own, but I think there is a real risk, isn’t there, that we’re going to end up with an enormous, centralised service if we’re not too careful?

So, can you just advise me whether the panel will have enough time to consider a range of models for providing integrated services, especially those that are perhaps from different parts of the world, which help face the inevitable problem–both a practical one and a cultural one—that the NHS could end up swallowing responsibility for social care? I only raise this because the NHS, of course, already has some difficultly meeting its needs from the existing resources, and I wouldn’t like to think that social care just becomes one of those areas competing for attention from within a larger NHS. Thank you.

Thank you for the point—I note the picture you paint about English local authorities having widely varying responses, given the population they have, the financial resources they have. And, actually, I think that’s part of the challenge that we want to try and avoid: having a multifaceted system where, actually, you can’t understand the logic of that, and how that meets the needs of the citizen. That’s part of the reason to have this review, of course—to try and understand how health and social care in Wales can work in a more integrated way together, and understand that we should see them as a whole system. That’s part of the approach we are trying to take in Wales, not just in policy terms and leadership, but then in delivery as well. That’s why we place such store on integration between health and social care in the delivery of those services.

That will definitely be part of the review. It’s within the terms. I think your fear about the NHS centralising and taking over and swallowing up social care and then forgetting about it—I appreciate that the concern is being expressed in a certain way to make the point, but we’re looking to see how we can actually have a genuinely integrated system in the future to recognise the importance of that social care.

In fact, much of what we’re already doing with the legislative architecture, with the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, is about promoting and, at times, enforcing collaboration. So, the joint commissioning that will be taking place between health and social care on a range of areas of residential care, the joint understanding of needs within a particular population, the regional footprint boards—there’s something about how we take that forward and make that work. This review will bring with it experience on a national and international level about what has already taken place, it will look at where we are now, and will give us recommendations about the future. As I said earlier, I expect those recommendations to be realistic, implementable and, at the same time, really challenging. That, after all, is the point and purpose of having what I hope will be a genuine, independent and mature conversation about the future.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for health on the specialist and critical care centre, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, I announced the full business case for the specialist and critical care centre, otherwise known as the SCCC, at Llanfrechfa Grange and the release of capital funding of approximately £350 million. The hospital is expected to open in 2022. This is good news for over 600,000 people served by Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board and, indeed, other populations in the surrounding area who will have services from this new hospital. It marks the next stage in the implementation of the Clinical Futures strategy. Members will recall, of course, the substantial investment made at Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr and Ysbyty Aneurin Bevan, which opened in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

The health board is continuing to develop primary care services, and works closely with its local authority partners on integrated approaches to public services. Innovative examples include working with local authorities and the third sector to identify older people at risk and developing a Stay Well plan with the person; the introduction of specialist diabetic nurses in primary care; and the treatment of wet age-related macular degeneration in the community.

The SCCC will create a highly specialised environment to support the treatment of patients who need complex and acute emergency care in the region. It will play a key role as part of the healthcare system for south Wales as a whole and it will be the focus for one of the three acute care alliances established following the south Wales programme. I expect the NHS to continually improve outcomes for patients, and we know that consolidating the more specialised services will help to achieve that aim. The SCCC will provide a modern purpose-designed environment that will allow highly specialised multidisciplinary teams to provide the best possible treatment and outcomes for patients.

The evolving model in Aneurin Bevan university health board is of a service based on prudent principles that ensures local access to most services whilst bringing together expertise in more specialised areas to secure sustainable and high-quality services. The health board is preparing plans for the Royal Gwent and Nevill Hall hospitals, and for St Woolos Hospital. I expect those plans to be radical in scope and to ensure that these hospitals play their role in supporting primary care and the local general hospitals whilst being supported in turn by the SCCC. My decision to approve the SCCC brings with it an expectation that the health board will ensure that its healthcare provision works together as an integrated, effective and efficient system.

Support for the SCCC is strategically significant not only for Aneurin Bevan university health board, but for south Wales as a whole, as I mentioned earlier. The SCCC was supported by the south Wales programme—a major planning process involving a number of health boards. I have been very clear since becoming Cabinet Secretary that planning and service development at a regional level are essential as we work to deliver our ambitions for the health service. Organisational boundaries can too easily get in the way of effective planning with a focus on delivering benefits to citizens.

I made clear my ambition to be the last health Minister to have to make a decision on the SCCC proposal and to provide real certainty as soon as I was able. I also made a commitment to reach that decision by the end of October, and I’ve delivered against that commitment. I do understand the frustration that has been felt by some around the time it’s taken to reach this point. However, my priority has been to make the right decision following a robust examination of the SCCC business case. I had to be sure that the SCCC was the right fit not only for Gwent, but for the configuration of health services across south Wales. That is why I instructed officials to carry out more work over the summer after an independent review.

My decision to approve the SCCC is a practical demonstration by this Government that we will support changes that bring benefits not only at a local level, but across the wider health and care system. I now expect the NHS to build on this decision and accelerate the pace of development to ensure that the Welsh NHS remains focused on quality, innovation, integration and ambition on behalf of the people that it serves.

I welcome the announcement, but I should add that to say it’s been a long time coming would be something of an understatement. I’ll get straight into a number of questions. A £350 million centre is worthless without the skilled staff necessary to work in it. I should ask: is the Cabinet Secretary sure that recruitment won’t be a problem? I guess what answer I will be given, but a state-of-the-art facility such as this should be a real attraction for people to work in the NHS. How does the Cabinet Secretary plan to use the SCCC facility as a recruitment tool in itself?

Secondly, how flexible is it intended for this building to be? I’m thinking here of future adaptations and what future adaptations the Government might have in mind. Thirdly, what intentions are there to use this project as a procurement boost for Welsh companies, including the use of Welsh steel in its construction?

And finally, in transport terms, I’m concerned that here we have a major development built with the car in mind, rather than public transport and rather than, certainly, rail, as it is not on the rail network. What commitment can the Cabinet Secretary give on ensuring that sustainable transport is genuinely taken into consideration in planning future NHS infrastructure developments considering that, perhaps, the synchronisation between transport and health needs hasn’t been achieved as well as perhaps it could in this particular case?

Thank you for the points and the questions. I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that the current two sites in Nevill Hall and at the Gwent are not exactly immediately close to rail network links. In designing and delivering the future healthcare system, of course, public transport access is important, so I would expect there to be public transport access to this site as it’s being developed. However, it’s also important to recognise, for lots of people who attend, particularly for emergency care, that lots of people out there do drive themselves, they tend not to get on a bus if they’ve got an emergency, but also access for other emergency services. But, the transport plan will obviously be part of what the health board and their partners need to consider in delivering the hospital successfully.

It’s also worth taking up your point about procurement, because obviously in a capital project of this size, we expect there to be real benefits coming from that spend in the construction phase. If you’ve seen, for example, the twenty-first century schools programme, you’ll have seen significant gain from the procurement of each of those sites. I’ve seen for myself the numbers of local apprentices who have taken advantage of that construction as well, and I expect that to be the case again. With an investment of £350 million, I absolutely expect there to be very real gain from the procurement and the building of the site, and not just the operation of it.

That brings me to your point about the workforce, and you should not be surprised to hear me say that, actually, delivering this new site should aid workforce recruitment and retention. It’s been a very consistent theme from the staff within the staff within Aneurin Bevan university health board, but also surrounding health boards, too, that if we can’t reconfigure parts of the way in which the capital estate works and the way we deliver those services, we’re unlikely to be able to successfully recruit now and in the future. So, this is a really important remodelling on a whole range of fronts. Recruitment should be positively benefited by having this decision made about what the future will look like. And when it is up and running and people can see a purpose-built facility with models of care that are appropriate for now and the future, that should mean that people of all grades and all professions are more likely to want to work within this sector. It isn’t just about the hospital, of course. As I said in my statement, this is part of the whole healthcare system: how primary care works more effectively together, how care goes out into the community, away from hospitals, as well as what really needs to take place in a specialist centre being delivered in a genuinely specialist centre that is fit for purpose.

Cabinet Secretary, thanks for your statement today. Some good news, at last; it has been a long time coming. When you mentioned the frustration of certain Members, I think a large chunk of that frustration has come from the Member for Torfaen and me over the last few weeks and months. We have called for this statement, and you did say you would deliver it at the end of October, and you have, so thank you for that.

You told us what we’ve wanted to hear and what clinicians have been calling for for a very long time in south-east Wales. I think I attended my first Gwent Clinical Futures meeting on the development of the specialist critical care centre back in 2004—the work, in those days, of the Gwent NHS trust. So, we really have waited a long time to get to this decision. Indeed, we’ll have waited even longer by the time it does finally open in 2022. So, first of all, can I ask why has it taken so long to get to this point, given the level of support from clinicians and the public? I do appreciate that a number of ducks have had to be got into a certain row for us to get to this point, but it has been an inordinate length of time. Currently, services at the Royal Gwent and Nevill Hall are creaking under the strain of the demands being placed upon them. We’re all having complaints from constituents about this state of affairs, but reform of these hospital services—and I’ve had to tell my constituents this—has been dependent on waiting for the critical care centre to be developed so that pressure can be relieved. So, it’s been a question of getting the horse before the cart in that sense.

Back in those meetings 10 years ago, I remember being told that the redevelopment of Nevill Hall was 10 years down the line, behind the development of the critical care centre. Well, we’re actually beyond the point now at which Nevill Hall was supposed to be redeveloped, so can you update us on the timescale for the redevelopment of Nevill Hall and the Royal Gwent? I don’t mean a firm timescale, but can you at least give us an indication of when you think that those hospitals, or general hospital replacement, will be coming online? Will this not happen fully until the transfer of services in 2022 or do you anticipate a phased transition to the new site and a phased decommissioning of services at other hospitals, with capacity being released as we go along the way, or do you see that everything will simply happen after 2022?

Although there’s been overwhelming backing for the scheme, it is, true to say, a fair distance from south Powys to Abergavenny and it’s clearly considerably further to the Llanfrechfa Grange site in Cwmbran. So, what reassurances can you give the people of north Monmouthshire and south Powys that these increased journey times will not cause too many problems, and what modelling has been done for ambulance journey times? It’s less of an issue for me in my constituency, but I know in Kirsty Williams’s constituency in Brecon and Radnor that there has been a concern about the extension of journey times to the new centre. So, what work has been done in this area?

We are now faced with another five or six years before the new centre opens. What certainty is there for recruitment during that time? This has been raised already by Rhun ap Iorwerth. Are those being recruited into the NHS being made aware of these changes? We need to allay any uncertainties during the transition phase.

I do agree with your comment, Cabinet Secretary, that this is about creating an integrated, efficient NHS, with one hub dealing with the most complex emergency treatments, freeing up capacity across the rest of the health board area for better primary care. In reference to the concerns about public transport, Cwmbran is not so way off the public transport network that I think that that will cause massive problems—there are many good bus services and train services to that area. Of course, the whole point of the critical care centre is it’s not going to be a general hospital where people are generally dropping in by car; it is going to be something that is visited by people in ambulances after their involvement in serious accidents—people with serious conditions. So, I don’t think that that is such an issue as it would be for a general hospital, but nonetheless I’m pleased that you did address that earlier.

Gwent Clinical Futures was dependent not just on this new centre, but also high-quality community services. I remember looking at a diagram with a pyramid. You had the triple care centre at the top and you had primary care in the middle and you had community services at the bottom. Back then, clinicians were very clear that this new system would only work if those community services at the bottom of the pyramid were brought online at the same time. You seem to indicate in your statement that you’re confident with the level of progress, the rate of progress, you made in developing those community services. Can you give us an assurance that when we get to 2021, 2022—whenever that final opening date is—that all of this will work together as an integrated, cohesive NHS in south-east Wales, and there won’t be any surprise at that point with a lack of capacity that hasn’t been anticipated at this point in time? Thank you.

Thank you for the series of questions. I recognise your point about the length of time and the fact there has been lobbying, and, again, recognise that the Member for Torfaen has brought a delegation of Members to see me in the short time I’ve been the Cabinet Secretary on more than one occasion, and I’ve always found her assertive and charming, you’ll be delighted to know. This has been an issue over time, but we’ve made a choice and I’ve done what I said I would do. I’m not going to rehearse about what’s happened in the past, the length of time it’s taken to get here; it’s important to look at where we are now and what we will now do with the significant investment and the challenges that brings, both about delivering this project but the challenge it brings in other parts of the estate, not just in Gwent but beyond as well. The services at Nevill Hall and Royal Gwent that you refer to as ‘creaking’, well, part of the challenge is that if we hadn’t made a decision and given some permanency about what was going to happen here and a real definitive statement, actually those services would have been in an even more challenged position. So, the decision is really important for those services as they exist now, and having a proper input so that when some of those services are then challenged into a more appropriate setting that actually will be better for staff and the patient.

It goes to your point about access, because, indeed, you made this point as well about who would be going to the SCCC—what sort of patients will be going there? Actually, for those people, you want access to the best quality care, that’s what you want. You don’t want access to local care if it isn’t the best and if it isn’t appropriate care as well. This is about delivering on appropriate care in the appropriate place: specialist centres delivering specialist care, other hospitals delivering other forms of care, and then primary and community care as well. In fact, Aneurin Bevan have a good record of the change they are delivering within primary and community care services. I made the announcement in Cwmbran, deliberately visiting a service in Cwmbran that recognises a link between the local authority, the national health service, therapists and scientists, but, in particular, seeing two consultants who come out of their hospital base on a regular basis to attend those clinics and be part of the team. That multidisciplinary team working is already part of the reality. The challenge will be, in the future, making sure that the model that Clinical Futures sets out and more broadly, right across NHS and social care, is delivered on a more consistent basis, so we really do have the right care at the right time and in the right place.

On your point about 2022, one big bang, well, we’ll have to operate a system in parallel to make sure services don’t just suddenly disappear, but, actually, the practical decanting and moving of services isn’t something that has been part of my decision now. It’s really a practical operational matter for the health board to get right with those commissions that are delivering the services and with the citizens who are taking part in those services as well. So, I think you will see some gradual movement, and, as in every new building, the building is open before the official opening to understand what is and isn’t working there. So, I think you’ll see, over a period of time, a transition that we can have some confidence in from previous projects as well. It will have to be delivered on time, it will have to be delivered within budget—that’s part of the procurement challenge as well, but the challenge also is to make sure that there is a proper seamless transition into those services for staff and the citizens they serve.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement and also thank him for coming to Cwmbran, to the falls clinic, yesterday to make the announcement? As you rightly highlight, it was an excellent opportunity to see the kinds of services that are being delivered at a community level by health and social services working together. But I was absolutely delighted that you were able to make that announcement yesterday. It is tremendously good news, not just for Torfaen, but for the whole of Gwent and for south Wales. I think it will provide first-class healthcare provision for all the communities it serves, but it also provides the foundations for ensuring that we continue to recruit the highest quality staff to work in the hospital. So, the very warmest possible welcome from me for your statement and the announcement yesterday.

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. I endorse what Rhun ap Iorwerth has said about the importance of procurement and I would be grateful for your assurances that you will keep a close eye on the procurement issues, so that we can ensure that, where possible, local businesses actually benefit from what is a huge capital investment in the local area. We know that the project has slipped from its original timescale and you’re well aware of the frustrations that have existed around that. Can I just ask for your assurances that you will keep a very close eye on any further potential slippage, particularly in relation to the fact that it may cause difficulties now with contractors that had been agreed, et cetera? So, will you keep a very close eye on this to ensure that this is now driven forward with urgency and that we do not see any further slippages in this?

In terms of transport, those issues have been raised today, but, of course, there was a very extensive study of the access to the site and this site was found to be the best possible one for the whole of Gwent and south Powys. But I do think that we also do need to keep an eye on the issues around public transport, not just, of course, for people visiting the hospital as patients, but for visitors. I know that the health board has a very good track record of facilitating access issues, so can I just ask for your assurances on that as well? But, the warmest possible welcome from me and, of course, a recognition that this Welsh Government is continuing to make massive investment in public services at a time of huge austerity and massive pressures. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. As I said, assertive and charming—probably more assertive than charming, sometimes. But, no, seriously, it’s been important to see local Members standing up for their communities over a long and a difficult period and I do recognise that. So, the decision has real impact, you’re absolutely right, and, as I tried to make clear yesterday and today, across the whole of south Wales—it’s not just a Gwent decision. You’re right to remind Members that the transport study that was done sees this as the most appropriate site. We’re not going to go back and re-look at that again. This is the decision. It’s about how we make that access real now as well, and you are right, of course, to point out that it’s for patients and visitors to have access there that is convenient and allows them to see loved ones and friends.

On your point about work starting, it’s very much in my mind that I want this project to be visible and happening, and to achieve the timescale provided now for it being up and running. In fact, the chief exec of the health board indicated yesterday that she thought that work may be able to start again on that site in about spring next year. So, it’s not a long pause, even with some re-tendering that needs to be done. But I really do want to re-emphasise a point that you make as well about procurement. It’s a huge capital investment that we’re making, and there has got to be a return—and a proper return—during the construction phase that people can understand and that people can see. People should know that local labour is being used on the site, and local apprentices. There’s a challenge there about making sure that there’s enough labour locally to be able to deliver that, actually. So, it is about maximising the opportunity.

Finally, I want to again reinforce the point about recruitment. This is a real opportunity to recruit people to a model of care that people have called for, that clinicians fully support, and it’s about making those opportunities real and how that affects the whole healthcare system—something that is really joined up and is being built for the future, with a design and a plan that clinicians support, and the public overwhelmingly support too. I’m very grateful for your continued challenge. It’s part of the deal to be in Government to have to deal with local representatives, and I’m sure that people in Torfaen know what an assertive champion they have.

Cabinet Secretary, I don’t know whether it’s your birthday today but you’ve certainly had a great deal of praise, both in the last debate and in this one. I am unashamedly—[Interruption.] I am unashamedly going to carry on in the same vein. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement on the long-awaited construction of the SCCC at Llanfrechfa, and I’m sure that the news will be well-received by the peoples of south-east Wales and the regions thereabouts. I also congratulate him on such prompt action, at least on his part, particularly as this is so early in his tenure as Cabinet Secretary for health. I would also like to make note of the considerable input over some number of years by the AM for Torfaen, Lynne Neagle, which has helped secure this project. I know that it has been a project very close to her heart. Obviously, I’d like to mention Nick Ramsay’s input into this project as well.

As indicated in his statement, the Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board are now free to implement this project and proceed with the construction at the earliest possible convenience. It, of course, also frees up the board to produce a complete strategy for services across the whole of the board’s region. I look forward to it transforming the entire healthcare experience throughout south-east Wales, but I would ask the Cabinet Secretary, as has been mentioned by Lynne Neagle earlier on, that you keep an eye on what’s going on and make sure that the board does deliver on these promises. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments. I can confirm that it isn’t my birthday—not yet, and I do have to wait some significant period of time for that to happen again. In terms of where we are, Members make a series of points about the time and where we are now, but, on the opportunity that this decision represents, the health board has always said that they want a decision made that would unlock their ability to go on to do the next stage of developing the whole healthcare plan: health and care systems working together. Actually, as I said earlier, I think Aneurin Bevan have a good story to tell on their development of primary and community care. They make more moves of services out of hospital and into communities than other parts of Wales have achieved in some parts, in particular in eye care, and this should actually help to see that transfer moved on at that pace. So, I’m still optimistic about the future for all the challenges that we have, but there has got to be, as I said in my statement, a real commitment to delivering at pace the service reform and transformation that is necessary to accompany this decision.

I wish to, firstly, again, congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on this important and historic news that the Welsh Government will invest £350 million in the building of Gwent specialist critical care centre. This announcement will be greatly welcomed by my constituents in Islwyn and it’s wonderful news for the people of Gwent and beyond.

The 460-bed project, which will serve a 600,000 population, reinforces what everybody knows: that, when it comes to the national health service, the party that created it—the Labour Party—are the party whose hands it is safest in.

Thirteen years in the making—an unlucky number—makes this decision very, very important for us, under that rigorous spotlight of scrutiny, but it is a lucky number for the people of Gwent and south-east Wales.

Just reading out the facilities that the specialist and critical care centre will provide demonstrates why the Minister was right and courageous to green-light this expensive project at a time when Wales is facing severe cuts. It will incorporate major emergency treatment and assessment with critical care beds and acute cardiac care beds. The in-patient service will handle major cases, with specialities such as general surgery, medicine, orthopaedics, haematology and vascular care. Also included will be in-patient obstetrics, midwifery and consultant-led services, gynaecology, emergency endoscopy, in-patient paediatrics and neo-natal intensive care, and I can go on.

Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary how he will enable effective transport links to be carried out? But, before all that, I also wish to underscore the sentiments that have already been presented. Thank you for this decision; thank you to this Welsh Labour Government, putting the people’s priorities first and ensuring that we have an NHS fit for our times, fit for the people of Gwent and beyond and fit for Wales.

Thank you for the comments. Going back to the point about transport again, it’s a significant issue to get right for both private hire and private transport, as well as public service transport, to the site, thinking about the needs of patients and their abilities and also access for emergency services. I expect that local Members who were engaged directly in their conversations with the health board—I know they briefed local Members; they’re quite proactive, actually, in making sure that local Members are on board and understanding what is actually taking place.

I also think as well that it was helpful to hear the wide-range of services that the Members actually reminded others will now take place on this new site when it is delivered. But it’s important also to recognise that this is a project that’s maintained support, not just within the clinical community, but other public services in Gwent too. So, it does enjoy the support, and continues to enjoy the support, of all the local authorities in the Gwent area. Regardless of where it is physically situated, there’s been a recognition from those local authority partners that actually having a model that is a specialist care centre to deliver a proper model of care at this end is a good thing for all of the services around it. I’ll look forward to seeing that delivered on by local authority partners, by the health service and other wider stakeholders as well.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children—20,000 affordable homes target—and I call on Carl Sargeant to move the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I’m delighted to provide Members with an overview of the approach the Government will be taking to deliver our ambitious target of an additional 20,000 affordable homes.

This is a key commitment within the programme for government and it lies at the heart of our comprehensive housing agenda. Delivering on this will also support other key themes across my portfolio: improving well-being in our communities and promoting economic regeneration.

I want to begin by recognising the achievement of the sector during the last term of Government. Statistics released last month confirmed that we exceeded our target of 10,000 additional affordable homes in the last Assembly. This demonstrates what effective partnership working can achieve. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this.

However, as a Government we want to achieve even more, which is why we’ve a target of 20,000 affordable homes for this term. Building homes delivers important benefits beyond simply putting a roof over people’s heads. Alongside the well-documented health and education benefits that good quality housing provides for children and families, building homes of all tenures has a significant positive impact on the Welsh economy and on our communities. House building creates thousands of apprenticeships each year, providing wider regeneration in deprived areas, and can transform communities.

We have a strong record of support for social housing and this will continue to be crucial. The target is ambitious and ‘business as usual’ is not an option, but tried and tested schemes including the social housing grant programme and the housing finance grant will play a key role in delivering affordable homes and supporting the most vulnerable.

Alongside the need to build new homes, it is important that we retain our existing social housing stock. We propose to abolish the right to buy and the right to acquire and work is already under way to prepare the necessary legislation. This will enable us to retain safe, secure and affordable social housing all over Wales. The legislation will also enable housing associations and councils to invest with confidence in building new homes. Our plans for improving the supply of affordable homes will include measures designed to provide additional support for those aspiring to home ownership. This will become a more realistic prospect for greater numbers if we can provide the right sort of incentive or assistance.

We will support a variety of housing tenures in order to respond to a wide range of housing needs. Our programme for government makes it clear that our target of an additional 20,000 homes includes 6,000 that will be delivered through the Help to Buy—Wales scheme. This reflects the success of the scheme in providing a route into more affordable home ownership, especially for first-time buyers. It has played a huge role in generating confidence within the housing sector and supporting private housing development. We have recently signed off contracts for phase 2 of the scheme, which will see £290 million invested until 2021. While taking a broad view of the need for Welsh Government action to promote the wider affordability of housing, it is important to emphasise that the TAN 2 definition of affordable housing for planning purposes remains unchanged by these proposals.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ also includes a commitment to develop a rent-to-own scheme. This is designed to support those who aspire to buy their own home, but struggle to save a sizeable deposit. We are currently examining a variety of options for this scheme and details will follow in the new year. Our broader aim will be to promote a range of routes into home ownership at an affordable cost, especially for first-time buyers in areas where they are often unable to purchase a home due to high local property values. If we are to build successful and sustainable communities, we need a house-building programme that is ambitious in terms of the design, quality, location and energy efficiency of the homes that we deliver. We will be challenging the sector to step up and provide a significant number of new-design homes. We will also promote joint working aimed at delivering housing schemes that can provide long-term benefits to the health and social care sectors.

Altogether, we’ve allocated £1.3 billion for this Assembly term in supporting affordable housing. This includes supporting the delivery of 20,000 affordable homes and completing the task of meeting the Welsh housing quality standards. The scale of this budget is a clear indication of our level of ambition in this area. This financial commitment is only one of the ingredients, however, necessary for success. The Welsh Government does not itself build houses; we rely on the strong relationships that we have with housing associations, local authorities and private house builders. We will maintain and strengthen those relationships.

In the last Assembly, the pact with Community Housing Cymru played a crucial role in achieving the target to build over 10,000 affordable homes. We are now negotiating a tripartite pact with Community Housing Cymru and the Welsh Local Government Association to support the achievement of the new target. I am very pleased with the progress we have made to date and welcome the WLGA’s involvement. This is particularly welcome because local authorities are now starting to consider their own building programmes once again. I will be providing additional support to support these development activities. We will be working with these authorities to identify how best we might support their efforts. Taken together, we expect them to deliver over 500 homes in this term of Government.

Private builders make a significant contribution to the delivery of affordable homes. We will continue to work closely with developers through our house builder engagement programme to ensure Wales remains an attractive place for both large developers and, of course, SMEs to build homes. This Government recognises the importance of building more homes for sale across the whole price range. It is important not to confuse our affordable housing target with the wider efforts necessary to meet the country’s overall housing need.

We will continue to act to support house building. The planning system will remain an essential enabler to ensure the right homes are built in the right places to meet housing need. We will continue to work to ensure that our housing and planning policies are aligned to encourage new house building. Making more land available for development is also important. We have already brought forward a number of significant Welsh Government-owned sites for housing delivery. We are continuing to explore what more we might do to identify more public sector land suitable for housing.

Llywydd, our ambitious housing programme is about providing people with affordable, safe, warm and secure homes in sustainable communities. Delivering new homes for Wales is a key commitment for this Assembly term. I do not underestimate the challenges in achieving this target. However, we are building on our already strong relationships, making significant resources available and seeking to facilitate housing development across all of Wales. Together, I’m confident that with these steps to help, we will succeed.

I must say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that that was rather thin gruel after I was expecting a much richer banquet. We now have clarification about what an additional 20,000 means. Your target in the fourth Assembly was 10,000 social homes; you actually did a bit better than that. Your target for the fifth Assembly is 20,000 social homes. Now, according to your maths, that’s an additional 20,000 which, I have to say, I think is vamping up the stats a little too much.

However, that’s not the most important point, and the real reason why I’m so disappointed. The Minister has just confirmed that the Welsh Government rejects the new estimates of housing need presented in Professor Holmans’ report, ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’. This is your Government-sponsored report to check your former estimates. The estimates that Professor Holmans was asked to review were made in 2010, and were based on 2006 data. Those estimates delivered a projection for housing need that was below the long-term trend. Professor Holmans said that this abrupt change in policy should be questioned as a basis for future housing need, and that’s the question I again put to you.

The Welsh Government’s policy in the fourth Assembly, as I said, was to provide 10,000 social homes. To be fair, 11,500 were actually delivered, so the target was exceeded. However, that achievement was below the Welsh Government’s projection of need, which was 3,500 social homes a year or 17,500 over the five-year term. So, even the 11,500 was well short of your projections, which themselves have now been fundamentally challenged, or were fundamentally challenged, by Professor Holmans.

Today’s statement means that the Welsh Government now wants to deliver on those old estimates of about 3,500 social units a year—actually, a little bit more, I think, when you do the maths. However, I have to tell the Assembly that the latest statistics are not very encouraging. We expect this year to have an extra 2,792 social homes and next year 3,351—still below the sort of target that would be over 3,500 a year to achieve the 20,000 that are now committed to.

Of course, the most significant fact in the projection that was delivered by Professor Holmans was that we needed to provide something like 5,000 affordable homes a year to try to meet the sort of need that we can now anticipate. And I’m afraid it’s not ambitious when you reject your own review and then come up with a target that is well below what we can assume is needed in the housing sector. And I’m afraid that this failure is also mirrored in the number of private homes that are envisaged to be built in the next five years and beyond. Quite simply, Minister, this means that tens of thousands of Welsh citizens—over 60,000—by my calculations, the difference between the old projection and the new projection you’ve just rejected over the period to 2030 is 66,000. That’s the number of people that will potentially be without a home they may have had provided by a more ambitious housing target. And it’s for those potential homeowners and occupiers that I ask: why aren’t you really being ambitious and, simply, why have you rejected this excellent report?

I’m grateful for the contribution from the Member and as always he’s eloquent in his projection of the figures that he uses. May I suggest that he takes another look at the document that he has? Indeed, we haven’t dismissed the document in any shape or form. Let us put some facts to the Member who has just made a contribution.

The Public Policy Institute for Wales report, ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’, recently provided estimates on current and projected housing needs and demands for Wales between 2011 and 2031. Based on the Welsh Government’s official projections for the growth in the number of households—the principal projection—the report estimated around 174,000 additional properties are required in Wales between 2011 and 2031, of which 100,000 would be in the market sector and around 70,000 in the social sector. I’m sure the Member will also be able to do the maths in that respect, but this equates to an average of around 8,700 dwellings a year in the period, of which 3,500 would be social sector housing. Our commitment to 20,000 new affordable homes is absolutely accurate and it isn’t the only figure—this is not the only figure we will be using. The figure of 20,000 is our commitment and it is ambitious. I’m grateful to the Member for recognising that, whilst we thought 10,000 was ambitious in the last period of Government, actually delivering 11,500 was very positive and it was only because of the work we did with our partners. I take some credit, but only part, because actually people like CHC and local authorities who are already starting to develop properties are the people on the ground that deliver us home solutions in our communities across Wales.

I’m sure the Member, deep down, does welcome the fact that we are doubling the target in terms of our affordable housing projections. I’m sure this debate of the confusion of figures he projects will continue over many months, I expect—I wouldn’t expect anything less from the Member—but I won’t take any lectures about building houses or protecting social houses anywhere in the UK from the Conservative Party, with the greatest of respect. The fact that we are about to legislate for ending the right to buy is the fact that we value our stock in Wales. We value protecting housing in Wales, which is something that I would ask the Member to reflect on with his own party position. The fact is, where we build homes, we will be protecting them—and not building one, as in England, and selling seven off to the private sector. It isn’t sustainable, and what we’re doing in Wales is something very different. We should be very proud of our actions in house building here.

Thank you very much and thank you for the statement here today. We wouldn’t, obviously, dispute the fact that a target of the nature you’ve arrived at is to be welcomed, but I would echo some of the comments that have been made in relation to whether there is an issue with regard to the figure that stands. I say this not because I am saying it only—I’m saying it because I’ve had that reflected to me by the sector. Of course, 6,000 of those homes will be Help to Buy homes and obviously, that is to help those buy a house up to £300,000. While that may be of significance in the south-east of England, affordability in that relation is not comparable in Wales, and I would want to find out—being new into this brief—whether any of your civil servants did some research into whether there would be ways of adapting that Help to Buy situation here in Wales. Of course, I don’t know about your area, but in the area where I live, a £300,000 house is quite substantial as compared to others that are available in Wales. So, I think that’s quite fundamental for the debate that we have in relation to affordability.

I’d also like some clarity to that definition, again having spoken to people in the sector. Your definition of affordability is:

‘Those whose needs are not met by the open market.’

I wonder whether you’ve had any thoughts as a Minister—as Cabinet Secretary—about variation of this definition in different parts of Wales. For example, in Neath, the affordability of a house would be very different to what the affordability is in Penarth. And so, having that quite broad definition sometimes confuses residents when they are attending consultation processes, because they know that their families will not be able to afford the definition of a house as defined by, say, Barratt Homes or another company in their area.

I would be intrigued to find out more about the fact that you said that you would be releasing more public sector land and Government land for housing. I think it would be interesting to find out more details on that, because, of course, sometimes there is controversy about where that land is, and how then that housing is distributed locally. So, I think that’s something that I would be interested to find out more about, and also to do with the tripartite pact that you now have with Community Housing Cymru and the Welsh Local Government Association to support your delivery. Obviously, you had this pact with the CHC before, but could you tell me how they still retain their ‘critical friend of Government’ when they’re working with you on this particular matter, because, of course, we need to have that scrutiny element from CHC also?

You also mention in your statement that having good-quality housing has benefits for children in terms of health and education, and I wouldn’t want to dispute that, but so, too, does stability and not being evicted and moved. So, what measures will you be taking to ensure that the social housing section of these 20,000 homes are being run by organisations that are not using evictions as the first resort, as Shelter Cymru exemplified in recent research.

And my other question would be that housing may be affordable when built, but if it merely ends up in the hands of buy-to-let landlords, it won’t be affordable for very long. So, how do you ensure longevity of affordable homes that are built, not by your Government, as you don’t build houses, as you said, but by partners in the sector?

And forgive me if I haven’t read your statement correctly, but can you tell us, by seeking to abolish the right to buy, which, of course, we support, what element—? How does that play into the figures, because, of course, the Conservatives will say, ‘Well, you’re not building enough’? But, surely, by abolishing the right to buy, that would feed into the social housing statistic. Can we understand how that would play a part in that?

My final question is something, again, we had at a fringe meeting at the Plaid Cymru conference arranged by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. They were curious to find out, with the new infrastructure commission, whether housing would be a key part in that, because, of course, we have skills here in Wales, we have people wanting to build more houses. How will they play a role in the infrastructure commission, because I think they were seeing it more as a sort of transport infrastructure project, as opposed to a housing one? And they wanted to be part of the conversation, really. So, if you could answer those questions, I’d be very grateful.

I’m very grateful for the Member’s questions. There were an awful lot of them, so I’ve tried to scribble them down as you were raising them. The definition of affordable housing: of course, I recognise the issue that wherever you are in Wales, there are different elements that will have an effect there—the cost of housing solutions and markets drives different pricings and need, but there is an affordable definition that we use. I did mention during my statement that, in planning terms, there is a very specific definition that we would consider using in terms of developments. I’m sure the Member will be aware of that, but I’m more than happy to write to the Member in terms of definition, which would be helpful in her appointment as shadow housing Minister.

The CHC—she raises a very valid point about the critical friend situation of the CHC and the WLGA. I think what’s really useful, and what we’ve learnt from our growing up of the experience of the pact, and also the way my team work with the organisation, is that they have a lot of the solutions to this as well. So, it’s almost about recognising that Governments have many skills but not all of them. Where you have experts in the sector, we should use their thought processes. And that’s why CHC and the WLGA, who are developing these properties, are able to give us further advice, and, yes, they are very critical where they need to be, but, actually, we’ve got a very good relationship and we are investing £1.3 billion of public money into housing solutions. And I think it’s very useful that we have a third party looking at how we are able to do that in a more practical way.

I agree with the Member wholeheartedly about the issue of protecting properties when we have them in stock and not moving into the buy-to-let market. And that’s why we’ll be bringing forward legislation with regard to ending the right to buy.

In terms of detail for the 20,000 homes, it doesn’t actually add value in terms of additionality within that number, but what it does do is protect the stock that we already have, and future stock that will be investment. So, it’s a protection tool in terms of our long-term investment.

Help to Buy is an important point the Member raised. I need to check the figures, but I’m pretty sure, when we introduced the scheme, that the scheme, in relation to England and Wales—that the thresholds are very different. I think our upper limit is around £300,000, and I think the UK threshold is £0.5 million. But I will check—and if I’m wrong, I apologise to colleagues, but I will check and I will write to the Member on that process. We also recognise that there is a difference in terms of the markets, and the availability of properties here.

What we’re trying to do here is give a mix of tenure. Many people are seeking to enter the housing market, at very different levels, whether that be social housing or the private sector market. And there are barriers in all of those fields, and we’re trying to create a space where we can help people move into home ownership—physically or in a rental market, through social housing—what is right for those.

In regard to the Housing Act the Member raised in regards to Shelter Cymru’s views—I will give that some further consideration. I would hate to think that any of our organisations that we fund directly are in the market to evict people, as their first point of call. I don’t think it’s right, morally, and therefore I will give that some further consideration as we move forward.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. There are estimated to be approximately 20,000 homes standing empty in Wales. If you bring those back into use, you will have hit your target for the term. I acknowledge the spending pledge, but how much of this £1.3 billion will actually be spent on homes, and how much will go on admin and into the pockets of developers as profit?

Regeneration and refurbishment schemes are better value for money, and create many more homes per pound. What is the Welsh Government going to do to regenerate and refurbish empty homes, and how is the Welsh Government proposing to help owners bring those properties back into use?

I thank the Member for her question. Empty homes scheme—we have a very positive empty homes scheme, with over 6,000 units already having been brought back into use. There is a difficulty—and I agree with many Members in here—that sometimes empty homes can be a blight on the community and they’re very, very valuable assets if we can bring them back up to standard. Often it’s a cheaper way of providing a housing solution. So, we are very aware. We are committed to continuing a support scheme for local authorities to build and to renovate empty homes, but there are often many legal barriers that are attributed to moving into empty homes properties. But we are committed to doing that and they do provide a great solution in many areas, not just in regeneration, but in providing housing. So, it is something that we are very aware of and continue to provide support for.

I welcome the statement by the Cabinet Secretary and the proposal for 20,000 affordable homes for people to live in. The ending of the right to buy and the right to acquire will put an end to the loss of public housing for rent. Building homes is not only good for the people who will live in these homes, but is good for the Welsh economy and getting people into work.

I have three questions for the Minister. As well as private development and developments by registered social landlords, there is also the building of council houses and co-operative housing. What role does the Cabinet Secretary see for co-operative housing? I see that the Cabinet Secretary expects to build 500 councils houses in the period. That is less than Swansea council used to build every year between 1945 and 1979. So, I think we need to be more ambitious in building council houses. Swansea council has started building council houses again, with those at Milford Way already in construction and planning permission for Rhyd-yr-Helyg being applied for. Will the Cabinet Secretary join me in congratulating Swansea council on this development? Let’s hope that many more new council houses can be built. Also in Swansea, Hygrove Homes are developing a 200-plus affordable home and housing association development on a brownfield site. Does the Cabinet Secretary support the use of brownfield sites for this type of housing development? Does the Cabinet Secretary also think that it’s a good idea to have a mix of housing association and low-cost housing rather than just having it set up in certain areas?

I thank the Member for his comments and his questions. I don’t disagree with anything he said. The issue around council housing and co-operative housing is something that we will be pursuing as part of our 20,000 target. Indeed, I was in the constituency of Mick Antoniw only a few weeks ago launching a co-operative housing scheme that is very successful, where the community are embracing the opportunity to own their properties and develop the schemes around that. Of course, I pay tribute to Swansea and other councils such as my own in Flintshire, where they are already starting to build council properties again. I have made no secret of saying that, where we have good-quality RSLs, we should continue to invest in those schemes, but there’s no reason why, I don’t see, we shouldn’t be investing in council schemes either, and I’ve asked my team to look at that proposal.

The brownfield site issue the Member raised with me is an important one—about mixed tenure on these. Of course, I agree with that. But I should also—it was remiss of me not answering a question from an earlier contribution around the public sector land issues. We are bringing forward—I’m working with the Minister for infrastructure on Government-owned land and public sector land to see how we can bring a stake to the table in terms of not always being a fiscal opportunity, but a land-based opportunity. It gives us an opportunity to offset some of the costs as well. But, as always, with all of these schemes, they would have to go through the proper planning process, to give comfort to the Members who asked questions earlier on.

Thank you very much. Suzy Davies, if you can be brief.

Diolch, Lywydd. Two questions, one of which is not unfamiliar to you. I mentioned in the last Assembly the possibility of you speaking to landlords in areas of oversupply of HMOs in order that they might be considering converting them into more permanent homes for one and two-bedroomed families, if I can call them that. I wonder if you could update me on progress on that. Secondly, Help to Buy: have you considered extending this to properties being brought back into use, rather than new build? Because, obviously, we have a large number of small builders within Wales, and some of those might be encouraged to take on apprentices if they had the kind of regular work that Help to Buy, in terms of restoring buildings rather than building new ones, might provide. Thank you.

Thank you for those very brief questions. HMOs: I have not ruled out anything in terms of the opportunity to bring more stock back to the market. The opportunity is to ensure that we get best value for money and best value for our clients. So, the deal with HMOs, or the transferral from HMOs into housing associations, is something we could indeed talk about, but it has to be of value to us—to Government and to the public purse. In terms of Help to Buy, the issue with Help to Buy is not a problem with demand. The problem with Help to Buy is managing the fiscal responsibility around that, because, actually, we could open that pot. I think a previous Member who sat on your benches used to ask me on a regular basis if we could use Help to Buy on not new homes. It was a fiscal issue about managing the budgets that we have available for this scheme, and at the moment they are well subscribed—the Help to Buy situation—in terms of what we’re delivering already. So, we don’t think we need any more schemes to add to that to be able to spend the money on Help to Buy as it stands.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the statement by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language on an update on the ministerial taskforce for the Valleys. I call on Alun Davies to move the statement. Alun.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

When I launched the ministerial taskforce for the south Wales Valleys in a statement to the National Assembly in July, I committed to updating Members about its progress. The taskforce has held its first meeting, meeting local stakeholders and receiving presentations on a range of issues. The second meeting later this month will have a specific focus on jobs and prosperity. I will repeat today what I said in July: I am determined this taskforce will have a positive and lasting impact on people’s lives and on our Valleys communities. We know that achieving change will not be easy. Many of the issues facing our Valleys communities are deep-seated and long-standing. They are the result of generational changes and will take time to reverse.

I intend to draw upon the strengths of our Valleys communities. We must be mindful that the Valleys are not a single homogenous area, but are areas that are achieving economic renewal, encouraging employment figures and improvements in skills, educational attainment, health and well-being. I want to build on these foundations. I have been struck by the energy, commitment and passion of the taskforce members. Members have been drawn together from a range of different sectors. This is helping to provide a real balance of views and to provide challenge where appropriate. The taskforce members are also providing us with a wealth of experience in areas that are crucial to our ambitions. We have already begun to harness that expertise to kick-start our thinking. I am also looking to continue to strengthen the taskforce and will make a further statement on the membership of the taskforce when appropriate.

The taskforce has a clear remit to drive change, and this includes challenging and shaping future delivery. In particular, there is a strong recognition that community-led engagement is fundamental. If the taskforce is to have a real impact on jobs, improving skills, educational attainment and health outcomes, then its work and priorities need to be driven and developed in collaboration with local people and local communities.

Following the first meeting, which was held in September in Trehafod in the Rhondda, four key challenges have been identified, which will underpin our work. Firstly, positive communication and community involvement; secondly, increased access to good-quality jobs and increasing employability skills; thirdly, better integration and co-ordination across public services; and finally, maximising benefits from structures and organisations already working with and in the Valleys. These priorities will act as an initial platform to drive real change.

Engagement and empowering communities to identify local priorities is a fundamental principle at the heart of our approach. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge this represents. The Valleys are a complex patchwork of communities, and they will all have a view—and sometimes differing views—and competing priorities, but that only emphasises the importance of doing everything we can to give people an opportunity to express those views. We should be prepared to use innovative techniques where they can offer new insights. We are, for example, exploring the option of working with researchers to collect real-time information about people’s attitudes, aspirations and priorities. We will consider a targeted campaign to raise the profile of the Valleys.

We need to both safeguard and create jobs to drive a more vibrant Valleys economy. The next meeting of the taskforce, on 28 November, will be a jobs summit, allowing us to focus on employment. We will be involving private and public sector employers, and we will look at all of our policy levers that are available to ensure that they are aligned to deliver economic growth. Jobs are key to our ambitions, but we will also need to make sure that the people living in Valleys communities have the skills they need to compete for those jobs, and they need to be able to access those jobs.

The Cardiff capital city deal, city regions and the Swansea Bay city region provide real opportunities for Valleys communities. Capitalising on the city deal will include harnessing the full possibilities offered by the south Wales metro. Flexible, affordable and integrated transport throughout and across the Valleys will be vital for our future. Our commitment to the metro is clear, but I do not believe that we should be satisfied with simply delivering the metro. We will need to work with our local partners to identify the other investment opportunities that the metro will make possible. This is a once-in-a-lifetime development for the Valleys, and we must make the most of it whilst at the same time ensuring that those communities not directly served by the metro are not left behind.

I also feel that we should not feel constrained to limit our interventions to those initiatives that we’ve used in the past. We need to be innovative in our thinking, and we should be prepared to use the Valleys to test new approaches. Why not use the Valleys to develop new ways of linking the people who need jobs with the employers trying to fill vacancies? We are already exploring whether there may be more flexible ways to respond to those needs. The taskforce provides us with a new way of looking at these issues, and it provides new ways to identify the key partners who will support our delivery.

There are examples of excellent practice all over the Valleys that we can build upon. We have already heard from projects making a real difference for their communities, but we’ve also heard some very clear messages that those projects are all too often having to overcome some bureaucratic barriers. We need to be prepared to challenge those barriers and to remove those barriers, but I don’t want the taskforce to simply offer commentary from the sidelines. Our early discussions suggest that there is scope for us to pilot new forms of project delivery. I want us to examine how we might join up existing programmes to even greater effect. I would welcome any comments that Members may care to make on this and other matters. I am intending to make a further announcement on this aspect of our plans in the near future.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I am also concerned to ensure that wider Government initiatives will help deliver on our ambitions. The recent statement on community resilience made by my colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, provides a useful reminder for the taskforce about the importance of public services working together but also involving the third sector. This includes putting people at the centre of local delivery. The board we have established at official level to support the work of the taskforce provides us with a mechanism for making sure that we identify and capture other areas of policy development that may cut across our work.

I will emphasise again that my approach to the work of the taskforce is as much about bringing together work already under way as it is promoting new work. I have no desire to develop parallel or competing delivery structures for the Valleys. I want us to identify those policy initiatives that can make a real difference, and then I want us to develop the most effective delivery structures to implement those policies. I will continue to work closely with all of my ministerial colleagues on this work, and the taskforce will continue to provide a mechanism for helping us to ensure that our response is as coherent as possible.

Deputy Presiding Officer, it is still early days but I am pleased to reiterate that the taskforce’s forward work programme will build in outcomes and evidence to measure change. This will include a focus on well-being to reflect what people and communities are feeling and telling us. Our work will be led and influenced by what those communities tell us. I will continue to update Members as the taskforce’s work progresses and evolves in the coming months.

I thank the Minister for his statement this afternoon. The Welsh Conservatives welcome the setting up of this taskforce for the Valleys. The Minister said that the taskforce members have been drawn from a range of different sectors. However, I’m concerned that the membership of the taskforce is heavily weighted in favour of the public sector rather than the private sector. Given the importance of inward investment, entrepreneurship and skills to delivering economic benefits to the Valleys, why does the taskforce contain so few members with business experience?

The Minister referred to the first meeting in September. I have read the minutes of this meeting and was surprised that no mention was made of the importance of digital infrastructure to growing the economy of the Valleys. Research into the extent of digital exclusion in Wales shows that disparities in access to minimal speeds of broadband, 4G connectivity, internet skills and internet users determine how likely a community is to be digitally excluded. Merthyr Tydfil, Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen all have a high risk of digital exclusion at present. How will the taskforce, across Government, in this and other areas, ensure it delivers positive results?

The Valleys benefited from millions of pounds in structural funding from the European Union and yet these communities had the highest percentage of votes to leave the European Union. People simply did not feel the benefits of EU funding. How will the Minister engage with these communities to ensure this taskforce meets the needs and aspirations of the people to deliver tangible benefits rather than just throwing money at the problems?

The statement set out four key challenges that the taskforce has to achieve. When will the Minister be in a position to provide targets by which we can measure the success of his progress in the fields of education, health, poverty, housing and economic development? Deputy Presiding Officer, finally, I welcome his commitment to develop clear and accountable outcomes for each of these priorities and look forward to receiving regular progress reports from him in future on what he just promised. Thank you.

I think Members across the Chamber enjoy the regular lectures we have from the Conservative Party on the difficulties facing Valleys communities, much of which, of course, are the direct consequence of the policies of a Conservative Government. If you take, for example, the welfare reform programme that is currently going through the United Kingdom Parliament, you will see that the communities of the south Wales Valleys will be losing £350 million. That’s not £350 million being taken from various institutions and different bodies; that’s being taken out of the pockets of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities, and money that would overwhelmingly be spent in those communities as well.

So, I understand the point that the Conservative Member has made, but I’ll say this to him: the membership of the taskforce has been drawn to provide us with knowledge, expertise and also experience of the Valleys. Those of us who are from the Valleys understand the communities and understand what drives some of the issues that the Member has referred to. Let me say this: I will be looking towards strengthening the membership of the taskforce. I’ve given that commitment to a number of different Members and I will make a written statement on that when it is appropriate. But, we will continue to draw from the Valleys of south Wales and we will continue to ensure that we will engage and involve the communities of the Valleys of south Wales, and we’ll be led by the ambitions and the visions of people who live in the Valleys of south Wales. When I listen to the issues raised by the Conservatives about digital access and exclusion, of course the issues in the Valleys—and my constituency is a good example of this—aren’t the technical issues that he’s described, but more fundamental social issues about digital exclusion, which are far more difficult to address and which have been addressed by this Government in different guises and different projects over the last few years. What those projects, of course, have in common is that they’ve all been completely opposed by the Conservative Party.

I always start from the point of trying to—. Especially as somebody, if we want to out ourselves as being someone from the Valleys, I want to start from the point of where we can make improvements, but I do fear—and I want to be constructive—I do fear, having read this, that it is a commentary from the sidelines. I see quite a lot of pretty words, I see a lot of talk of collaboration and communication, but I don’t see where we can deliver outcomes.

I want to know, from the £50,000 that you have devoted to this particular taskforce, how you will turn around those communities for the future. Have you, for example, looked at other European countries and whether they have similar set-ups, and how they then lead to transformational change? Because we have recently heard from the communities Minister—as you didn’t directly talk about in your statement, but indirectly talked about—with regard to Communities First that we are having a consultation potentially to end that particular programme. So, I need to understand from you, as Minister, how that fits into the wider debate about what you say about how we can talk about what’s already there and how the schemes that are already working—projects that are in our communities currently—how they will then be able to take some of these ideas from the taskforce forward if Communities First no longer exists in the way that it once did and that it’s going to change for the future.

I, personally, do still have concerns about the make-up of the taskforce. Many of them are associated with the Labour Party and I would have liked to have seen a wider approach to the membership. So, I look forward to your written statement on that. I would have liked to have seen, from the first meeting happening in the Rhondda, some new ideas around how you would have engaged people in the Rhondda by the fact that the taskforce was actually happening there. There are new ideas from the Electoral Reform Society, from others working in the sector, in terms of engagement as to how then they could have actually participated in that first taskforce meeting, which I personally didn’t see. If there was something, then I apologise to you for that.

I do see that there are mixed messages also in this statement. You say on the one hand that we need innovative thinking, but then you say at the end of the statement that it is as much about bringing together work that is already under way. What is it and what is your vision for this? I think Steffan Lewis, my colleague, previously mentioned the metro and how we can help people in the Valleys to not only get to Cardiff, but to actually bring jobs to the Valleys. I want to understand from you what mechanism you have to influence the metro scheme so that it can be not only taking people out of their communities to work, but putting jobs back in there for them.

We’re not opposing what you’re doing outright, but I think what we need to see are tangible outcomes and measurable outcomes from you for this. You will have had two meetings by the end of the year, so I predict you may have about 10 meetings a year. What are those 10 meetings going to be able to deliver for the long-term future for our Valleys communities? Because nobody—well, I speak for myself, but there are people in this room who want to see the areas that we’ve mentioned prosper, but we do not want another talking shop to be created, which some people have come to me to say—not my words; they’ve come to me to say that—and so I would urge you to hear that from them and to make sure that it does not end up being what they predicted.

I agree very much with many of the points made by Bethan Jenkins, and I understand the sincerity of the way that she’s expressed those points. Let me say this: it is my absolute determination that this taskforce will not be simply a talking shop, and will not provide the commentary from the sidelines that she’s described. Clearly, in establishing a body there are a number of conversations that you need to have about how that body will operate and the structures within which it will operate.

I would say to the Member for South Wales West, as well as to other Members in the Chamber today, that it would be useful to look at the minutes of the meeting that we held last month and to keep an eye on the website, because we will be operating in an entirely transparent way where the papers, agendas and minutes of each meeting will be made public and you’ll be able to understand exactly the sorts of conversations that are taking place.

In terms of the budget that is currently allocated to the taskforce, I expect that to be spent largely on engagement activities, in some ways using some of the mechanisms that the Member has described, but also to look at some of the innovative ways in which we are able to conduct engagement and involving people in decision taking and decision making, which currently isn’t done. The Member will see from the Valleys taskforce website that we have already started doing that, and given that some considerable thought. But I do recognise that we do need outcomes and outputs from that as well, and certainly I hope to be able to further update Members on what those outcomes will be.

In terms of the potential conflict, if you like, between innovative thinking and work under way, I was very clear—and I want to repeat this, because this is absolutely essential—that, in creating a Valleys taskforce, what we are not doing is creating a parallel delivery mechanism for either present policies or, potentially, future policies for the Valleys of south Wales. Any taskforce of that nature doesn’t and cannot have the capacity of Government departments and Government delivery mechanisms to do that, and we would fail. So, I do not want to do that, and that is not what I intend the taskforce to be. What I hope we’ll be able to do is to work alongside existing structures, existing programmes, existing mechanisms of delivery in order to ensure that they do deliver for the Valleys of south Wales.

I met earlier today with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government in order to discuss how we will ensure that these delivery mechanisms are streamlined and do not duplicate work that is already under way, and how the taskforce will add value to the ambitions that are already being described by people such as those working with the city region and the city deal. At the same time, I’ve met with and discussed with the Cabinet Secretary for the economy and transport in order to have exactly the discussions that the Member’s outlined in terms of the metro. Now, I and the Member sitting next to her from South Wales East both come from Tredegar, a community that will not be served by the metro in terms of the rail services, but does need to be connected to the metro in terms of bus services and other forms of public transport. We recognise that we need to have a very significant investment in public transport to enable people both to access jobs, but also to remove, if you like, the perception of distance that currently exists, particularly here in Cardiff, that the Valleys are a long way away and that it takes a lot of time and is very difficult to reach those communities, whereas in fact a fast-access transport system will start to change those perceptions and will have, I believe, a very positive impact both on jobs and also on life within the Valleys.

But I do undertake that we will publish clear targets and we will continue to update the Chamber on the initiatives that we’re taking.

I will make one comment: we received this statement just 10 minutes before Plenary. It’s hardly a basis for good scrutiny and to make comments on this statement, but using a little bit of crystal ball gazing and some historical evidence, I would like to say, as a constituent of the Valleys, it saddens me that, yet again, we have to embrace a new ‘Valleys’ strategy. I put the word ‘Valleys’ in inverted commas as if the Valleys are, in some way, different from other—and again it pains me to say it—deprived areas of Wales. Peter Walker’s Valleys initiative way back in 1988 began a saga of such targeted plans, followed by David Hunt’s Valleys programme and several other such projects by the Labour Government itself, culminating of course in Labour’s Heads of the Valleys programme, which seems now to have faded away. I therefore hope that this latest strategic initiative will not prove to be as bereft of real economic improvements as its predecessors. What is so different about this project that makes the Cabinet Secretary so convinced it will succeed where others have so patently failed, or will this prove, yet again, to be another costly publicity stunt?

I’m not sure whether I should be grateful for those comments or not. Let me say this: UKIP has a rather curious track record in these things, where the voting record of its elected Members doesn’t always match the rhetoric employed at different occasions. The leader of UKIP in this place never stops reminding us that he was proud to vote for the 1981 budget that led to extraordinary levels of poverty and to de-industrialisation in the Valleys of south Wales. The UKIP Member sitting adjacent to you on these benches was very happy as a Conservative to vote for austerity, which has led directly to the loss of the £350 million from some of the most vulnerable people in the Valleys of south Wales, which I referred to earlier. I listen to what UKIP has to say and then I look at their voting record, and I have to say that there are few organisations that have a record of being so destructive for the communities of the south Wales Valleys as UKIP.

You ask what is different about what we’re embarking upon today and those initiatives of the past. Let me say this: this is an initiative that is led by people in the Valleys, from the Valleys; that is led by the visions and the ambitions for people in the Valleys, from the Valleys; it encompasses the whole of Government and not simply a department of Government; it brings together all the different ambitions and visions of this Government for the communities that we seek to represent and the communities from which we were born. And let me say this: we are absolutely committed to ensuring that we will deliver for those communities and that we will invest in those communities in the same way as you have sown the seeds of economic de-industrialisation in those communities.

I thank the Minister for his statement, which I welcome, and I thank him also for advance notice of the statement, which, speaking personally, gave me plenty of time to read it in advance. He’s mentioned in his answers so far—and he’s reiterated it in the statement, which I welcome—the commitment to engaging with the communities to shape the work of the taskforce. Can I press him a little on that? In his mind, what does that look like? What would a constituent of mine in the Neath valley, for example, feel was their relationship to the taskforce? What will they be asked about, and in what will they participate in shaping? So, if he can elaborate on that I’d be grateful. The second point is in relation to the question of public transport. He’s indicated the approach to connecting communities that aren’t on the metro. There are parts of the western Valleys who feel very far from the metro. So, can he comment on public investment in public transport in that part of the Valleys as well, please?

I think it’s very important that we ensure that people across the whole of the Valleys feel that this is a structure that speaks for them and on behalf of them. I think sometimes there is a danger that we will focus in on the central Valleys of Glamorganshire and the eastern Valleys of Gwent. I think it is important that the western Valleys of Carmarthenshire and of Glamorgan that you represent also feel that they’re a part of that. I certainly will be making a great effort, personally, to ensure that that happens. Certainly, as somebody who has already sat in this place to represent the Gwendraeth valleys and the Swansea valley, I will ensure that that happens and that no part of these communities is forgotten or left behind.

But, in order to answer the questions directly, let me say this: I believe that we need to be engaging at a number of different levels. We need to have a very deep and broad understanding of communities. We all come from different parts of the Valleys and have our own perspectives. Certainly, I will be investing in research that provides us with, I hope, a very rich view of what people are thinking and saying within the Valleys communities. We will certainly invest in that sort of research. Also, I will be investing time in speaking to people, speaking with people and organisations across and throughout the Valleys, listening to what people have to say, listening to what concerns people and what their ambitions are, whether it’s in the Dulais valley, or the Neath valley, or the Gwendraeth valley, or even the Sirhowy valley. And we will continue to do that.

In terms of public transport, clearly transport will be, and continues to be, an absolutely fundamental issue. We have transport links in the Valleys that are overwhelmingly north-south, and we do need to ensure that the cross-valley transport systems that we have at the moment continue to see investment and are able to provide connectivity for people wherever they happen to live, in order to deliver connectivity to skills, to training, to education, to jobs and to work, but also connectivity to ensure that people are able to access services as well, and we will be doing that.

I’ve considered carefully some of the comments that have been made today, and, listening to Jeremy Miles, it’s not just the western Valleys, but the northern Valleys that are important too. Communities like Deri, Brithdir, Tir-phil, Pontlottyn and Rhymney actually exist in my friend’s Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney constituency—Dawn Bowden’s constituency—but people in Bargoed will be far more familiar with those communities than they would be with those in the south of my constituency in Caerphilly, such as Llanbradach or Ystrad Mynach; they would connect closely with those. The other thing, of course, is that people in Bargoed, Tir-phil and so on would feel less affinity with the Rhondda and Blaenau Gwent. It reflects the linear nature of the communities. One of the success of the Manchester city region is that it was a concentric area. What specific things are you going to do to connect this linear set of communities? It’s a real challenge, and I think it’s one of the things that the city deal will find most difficult. Perhaps you could provide some specifics on that.

My second question: I notice you’ve got academics on the ministerial task group, which is really important, but just because academics are on there doesn’t necessarily mean that the universities themselves are fully engaged. So, how are you going to tie in the universities to make commitments to this programme?

Finally, I’ve set up a cross-party group on small and medium-sized enterprises, where we’re specifically thinking about how we can generate business in the northern Valleys. So, the Conservative Member for South Wales East, Oscar Asghar, is very welcome to join that cross-party group if he’d like to focus on the private sector in the northern Valleys.

I’m sure that kind invitation has been heard by the Member.

Can I say that the Member for Caerphilly makes some very, very important points about the nature of the Valleys as well? One thing that unites all of us, in our different ways, from the Valleys of south Wales is that we have an acute sense of place, and the place is important to us. How we look out on the world is determined by the point at which we were born, where we live. My view, looking across to the Rhymney valley or elsewhere from Tredegar, will be a very, very different view from the point of view of people in Williamstown looking over the hill back at us. And I accept that. I accept the challenge that that gives us, but I would also argue that that gives us a very real strength as well. One of the great cultural triumphs, if you like, of the Valleys is our ability to recognise the importance of place and how place can drive quality of life and what we want to achieve. So, I certainly will be aware of that.

But, the challenges facing the northern Valleys of south Wales are particular. If we look at the numbers and the statistical analysis that we’ve received on economic activities, we will see that, in the southern parts of the Valleys, we’ve seen some real growth, we’ve seen an increase in jobs and we’ve seen an increase in prosperity. And there is a point at which those increases in prosperity stop, where we see some really very difficult and deep-seated issues. They tend to be in the communities of the northern Valleys and I think we do need to take a very clear-sighted look at that. The conversation I had earlier today with the Cabinet Secretary for the economy was very much focused on how we reorder our economic priorities to ensure that we use all the different policy levers available to us as a Government to ensure that we do and are able to prioritise economic development in the areas that need it most. And the communities of the northern Valleys are communities that certainly need that focus.

In terms of the wider issues on the city deal, I think it’s important that the conversation I had with the Cabinet Secretary responsible very much emphasised the importance of the city deal, as in what Cardiff can do to support the Valleys and how we can bridge the gap between Cardiff and the Valleys to ensure that we do create a more cohesive economic region and at the same time recognise that universities can and should be a key part of an industrial policy that helps to sustain and invest in sustainable growth. I hope that all the institutions of further and higher education will be focused on that, and the role of Government is to sustain that, to bring that together to enable us to have the sort of economic impact that we want to see.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 8 and item 9 have been postponed.

Therefore, we move to item 10 on our agenda, which is a debate on the Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales’s annual review 2015-16. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity today to discuss the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s annual review for 2015-16, which is entitled ‘Towards a Fairer Wales’.

The review captures the wide range of the work the commission has undertaken in the past year to promote equality in Wales and presents a forward look of its priorities. The EHRC has a unique role as a regulator of the public sector equality duty and the specific duties for Wales. The annual review provides many examples of good practice that have resulted from those duties and demonstrates the positive impact they are having in Wales.

It’s been another significant year for the commission. The publication of ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ in particular has had an important impact on the way inequality is addressed here in Wales. The report highlights the progress made in Wales to advance equality since the commission published its review ‘How Fair is Wales?’ five years ago. It outlines where improvements are needed and identifies seven key equality and human rights challenges that need to be addressed in Wales over the next five years.

The commission has also issued these challenges to all public, private and third sector organisations in Wales and we all have a role in tackling inequality and we should continue to work together where we can address these issues.

The commission wanted ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ to be a catalyst for change, and we have the same aspiration for our refreshed equality objectives, which we published in March 2016. Our objectives were developed following extensive engagement with people across Wales, and they’re strongly linked with the challenges identified in ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ Public authorities are setting equality objectives based on these key challenges, and the report is therefore inspiring a joint approach to address the major equality-related issues impacting on the lives of many people here in Wales.

I know the EHRC strongly favours collaborative working, and this is reflected in their eagerness to work with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales to shape the equality and human rights agenda. The EHRC has welcomed the appointment of the commissioner and I look forward to working together to help make Wales a more equal and cohesive nation.

We recognise the commission’s commitment to encourage, inform and monitor the public sector, examples of which can be seen throughout their annual review, and the commission has recently produced a report that encourages employers in Wales to increase employment opportunities for Muslims and people of all religions by developing faith-friendly places in work. It is important that we in Wales lead the way to put in place practical measures in the workplace to attract, support and retain talented people of all faiths.

In September, I attended the launch event of the ‘Creating a faith-friendly workplace for Muslims’ publication and the accompanying short film, ‘Fairness Not Favours’. This was an excellent example of the information and well-attended events organised by the commission during the year 2015-16.

The commission’s equality and human rights exchange has continued to go from strength to strength. The exchange brings together employers and public service providers to share knowledge, good practice and new ideas. The regional events have provided a valuable forum for members to discuss a range of subjects.

The EHRC’s highly regarded annual human rights lecture is another fixture in the calendar for equality and human rights practitioners here in Wales, and the Reverend Aled Edwards delivered this year’s lecture, which focuses on the experiences of asylum seekers, migrants and refugees in Wales. This, of course, continues to be a timely and challenging topic, and I’m looking forward to contributing to the upcoming Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee’s inquiry into refugees and asylum seekers here in Wales.

We will work closely with the EHRC and we remain grateful for the advice and evidence it provides to the Welsh Government. This relationship assists us in the development of policy, and, as we have seen very clearly with our new equality objectives, the 2014 concordat between EHRC and Welsh Government provided a foundation for the relationship, and we have continued to build on this. It is important that EHRC remains a strong and distinct presence here in Wales, and particularly as we’re entering an uncertain time for equality and human rights here in the UK. We’re keeping a very close eye on the UK Government’s plans to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with a Bill of rights, and the human rights Act protects us all regardless of our economic, social or cultural background. The Welsh Government greatly values an inclusive piece of legislation, one which allows the people of Wales to challenge inequality and injustice.

We strongly oppose any potential regression of our human rights, and we will do all we can to ensure the rights presently enjoyed by all people living in Wales are not weakened by the proposals by the UK Government. We expect the UK Government to fulfil its commitment and fully consult on any proposals affecting any human rights.

In summary, the EHRC’s annual review provides a valuable overview of the wide and varied work of the commission over the last year, for which I’m very grateful. I am sure this will be reflected in the diverse range of subjects discussed during this debate, and this demonstrates that equality and human rights are relevant to all aspects of our daily lives, and, as a consequence, an essential component in developing a united, connected and sustainable Wales.

Thank you very much. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I apologise that it’s me that’s actually contributing on behalf of Plaid Cymru throughout this afternoon; I’m sure people have had enough of hearing my voice. But I’m happy to welcome the contribution of the Equality and Human Rights Commission here in Wales by highlighting the work that they have done in maintaining momentum towards a fairer, more inclusive Wales, and also in highlighting what still needs to be done in order to secure the rights of all Welsh citizens.

Plaid Cymru has tabled two amendments to today’s debate, one which notes that there will be a gender identity clinic for Wales established as a result of negotiations between Plaid Cymru and the Government for the current budget. It’ll be the first clinic of its kind here in Wales, and I very much hope that everyone in this Assembly will appreciate the significance and the positive impact that that could have on the Trans community here in Wales. I have met with a number of people in that community who have had to travel to England for treatment, and they see real value in what’s being achieved as a result of this agreement.

Our second amendment asks for an assurance from Government that they will take on a specific issue raised within the report, which is to improve and promote the rights of young expectant mothers and new mothers in order to ensure that they are aware of their rights in the workplace, and that they are confident in standing up for those rights. It’s a disgrace that more than three quarters of pregnant women and new mothers in Wales experience negative treatment and discrimination, possibly, in the workplace. It’s a requirement, therefore, for the Government to co-operate with trade unions and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to promote the rights of young expectant and new mothers at work and to take specific steps to ensure that those rights are highlighted, not only to the mothers themselves, but also to employers, who, perhaps, ignore these issues on occasion.

We will also be supporting the amendments in the name of Paul Davies on the specific issue of cross-sectoral collaboration and the private and public sectors, because this is also important to us. But, as with all annual reports by the commission, some of the figures contained within it are frightening. Twenty-three per cent of people in Wales are still living in poverty, and this increases to 42 per cent of all children between 0 and 4 years old, and 27 per cent of disabled people and 38 per cent of people in ethnic minorities live in poverty still.

It’s a cause of concern to me that this happens year on year and the figures hardly change. And so it’s less of a question for the Minister but a question for the commission itself—I was looking at the website earlier and the commission does have some enforcement powers. They can challenge a number of policies that emerge from various Governments, and I would want to see, for example, as the older people’s commissioner has done, them using those powers more often and more prominently in order to take action in this area, because I am not content to be here year on year discussing the fact that people continue to live in poverty. What is the commission doing in terms of the skills and powers that it has to change this?

I also think it’s important that we look at the economy, because, of course, there is so much we can do in Wales, but we do need meaningful economic powers to be transferred from Westminster to Wales in order for us to transform what is happening within our economy, particularly in light of the fact that people have voted to leave the European Union. If now isn’t the time to have more powers for our own economy, then when will that time come?

I would like to hear more from the Minister on that issue, particularly in terms of the human rights Act and the Westminster Government’s intention to undermine that and scrap some of it. It is rooted in much of international law, therefore how does the Minister intent to challenge the UK Government and to tell them that Wales is not content to see that happening and how will he communicate that clearly to them? Thank you.

I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendments 3 and 4 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

In noting the Equality and Human Rights Commission Wales’s annual review 2015-16, ‘Towards a Fairer Wales’, our amendment 3 notes that the commission’s analysis has identified seven key challenges that need to be addressed in Wales over the next five years, and that it will require a substantial effort of public, private and third sector organisations, and of individuals, to reduce these challenges. In other words, solutions to what the commission describes as major entrenched inequalities and human right abuses must be co-produced in equal partnership, acknowledging that everyone is an expert in their own lives. As the commission report states, these seven key challenges apply to: education; employment; living conditions in cohesive communities; access to justice and democratic participation; mental health services and support; abuse, neglect and ill-treatment in care and detention; and eliminating violence, abuse and harassment in the community.

As the all-Wales hate crime project states,

‘Welsh Government should take the lead on ensuring that accessible third-party…reporting mechanisms are in place for victims who don’t want to report directly to the police’,

and

‘More should be done to ensure that hate crime perpetrators are dealt with effectively and restorative approaches should be made more widely available in Wales’.

We will support Plaid Cymru’s amendments, although we would also call on the Welsh Government to work with voluntary sector and employer bodies. The establishment of a gender identity clinic was in the 2016 Welsh Conservative manifesto.

Our amendment 4 welcomes recognition by the commission of the need to empower and engage with the voluntary and community sector. The commission’s Wales work plan 2016-17 includes promoting

‘evidence to empower the voluntary and community sector and the public to hold the Welsh Government to account, and influence decisions and policy making across the public sector’

and

‘Engage with public bodies and the voluntary and community sector in Wales to ensure the Public Sector Equality Duty drives improvements in public sector employment and service delivery’.

As the Williams commission stated:

‘Leaders at all levels will need to be open to different ways of working, including through collaboration or coproduction’.

As the Auditor General for Wales states:

‘there is now a much clearer recognition that previous approaches have not worked as intended and that radical change is required.’

We must therefore move away from a system in which people have their needs assessed and addressed to a system that protects an individual’s ability to make choices.

After Conwy council cut vital services for the deaf community provided through the voluntary sector, I wrote to them stating that the principle of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 was that individuals and their families must be able to participate fully in the process of determining and meeting their identified care and support needs through a process that is accessible for them. Their reply? Well, they replied that their response to the Act had instead led to their establishment of an internal integrated disability service. The deaf community told me that their independence, human rights and rights to equality were being taken from them.

In support of an autism (Wales) Bill, the parent of an autistic teenager wrote last weekend: ‘I do not think that the social services and well-being Act is far-reaching enough to support these very gifted and special people.’

After I wrote to Wrexham Council, in support of a parent of a son with Down’s syndrome, who highlighted focus in the Act on involving people in how their care and support is decided and provided, the council replied that the Act is not the legislation under which the tender process must be carried out.

The Act’s Part 2 code of practice recognises that the removal of the barriers facing people should be in line with the social model of disability—consistent, it said, with the Welsh Government’s framework for action on independent living, which emphasises the crucial role of employment in promoting people’s independence, confidence, health and well-being, providing a route out of poverty and enabling participation in society. However, when I recently wrote to Flintshire County Council, after a conditional employment offer to a haemophiliac who was withdrawn following his medical, they replied that they could find no evidence that the actions taken by them breached any element of the legislation.

Noting these and other realities, such as the Welsh Government being the only Government in the United Kingdom not to maintain funding levels for the Family Fund, supporting low-income families with disabled children, it is clear that we need a new way of doing things in Wales.

I welcome taking part in this important debate today. The commission in Wales has worked extremely closely with Welsh Government in taking the equality and human rights agenda forward and I think that that’s invaluable. It’s important that the commission is able to hold the Government, public authorities and employers to account for their actions in Wales and I’m sure that nobody here will disagree with that.

As the report clearly shows, there has been progress on the gender agenda, but there is much more to do. In particular, gender is not a protected characteristic and this, in my opinion, is a serious omission. Only today, I received an e-mail that used gender-specific abuse terminology about another constituent. In any other sphere in public life, I would be able to do something about that. In this case, all I can actually do is tell the abusive person that, to me, it’s completely unacceptable.

We do now have a landmark violence against women, sexual violence and domestic abuse Act and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s workplace policies to support staff experiencing domestic abuse cover over 400,000 employees in Wales. But it’s still the case that one in four women experience domestic abuse and, on average, two women, every single week in the UK, are murdered as a result of domestic abuse.

White Ribbon Day, which is on 25 November, is an important opportunity to raise awareness and there will be events here in the Senedd on 22 November. I hope that everybody will play their part in that.

There is also the profile of statutory homeless households in Wales, which changed markedly between 2010 and 2015, with an increase in the number of people fleeing domestic abuse up by 19 per cent. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 should help prevent current homelessness situations where a joint tenant leaves the tenancy, thereby ending the tenancy for everyone else. That new approach of joint contracts will, I hope, help victims of domestic abuse as it means that the perpetrator can be targeted for eviction rather than the victim, as long as it is safe to do so, which will provide some continuity in the lives of those affected.

We’ve seen that the gender pay gap has narrowed very slightly from 9.6 per cent to 9.4 per cent. At this rate, I will not be alive by the time that that gap is closed, by the current projections. That, in my opinion, is certainly not acceptable. The ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ report does identify key challenges for us all, and I’m not going to go through them, but what I do hope is that they will have the resource and the capacity to drive those forward.

But what I am going to finish with is the human rights Act that this current Westminster Government is trying to undermine and replace with a bill of rights. In my view, there is an over-focus on what human rights are for the other—that you will deny the other in the current climate their human rights. I think it’s worth remembering that when you deny the other their human rights, you also deny yourself your human rights, and that is not a place or a space that we want to go.

I’m grateful to the commission—in particular the Welsh commissioner, June Milligan, having taken over from Ann Beynon, who I’d like to thank for her work in that role—for this report, ‘Towards a Fairer Wales’. I think it’s important to understand that this report is from the Wales committee that is chaired by the Welsh commissioner as the lead officer of the EHRC, who supports it, and there’s a number of part-time people on that committee. But the vast bulk of the EHRC work happens on a Great Britain-wide basis across strands focused on—really, stemming from the previous commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission, which previously was focused on gender equality. The Commission for Racial Equality and Disability Rights Commission were rolled into this new EHRC. There is a disabled committee as there is a Wales and Scotland committee, but the idea of the EHRC was to focus on equality as a principle, rather than having competing commissions and bodies pushing different groups.

I think it would be wise for the Assembly to assess how that commission is working in terms of devolution. We have that particular Wales committee. There’s also a duty on the commission to report on what it’s doing in Wales in its own annual report; I can only find a very small paragraph on that, which then just links through to who’s on the Wales committee on their main website.

When we look at the seven key challenges that are identified for Wales, what I think would be valuable is if we were able to compare how we were doing on equality on these various perspectives in Wales compared to Scotland and compared to English regions, and whether the seven areas that have been identified are identified because they’re particularly important equality issues, or whether it’s because we have particular issues and challenges in Wales that aren’t shared elsewhere in the UK.

On its website, the commission says that it’s Great Britain’s national equality body, but I don’t think many people would argue that Great Britain is a nation; I can see why Wales or the UK would have a national equality body. But I think it’s important to understand how the Wales committee is working. It is advising the Welsh Government and also public bodies across Wales, and certainly some useful activity is identified in this report. But it’s also there to ensure that the EHRC on a Great Britain basis is taking into account the Welsh context and particular needs in Wales. I think it would be useful to explore the extent to which it’s doing that, and comparative data I think would be very useful to report back to the Assembly for future years.

For instance, when we look at its particular objectives for Wales, it wants to close the attainment gaps by raising standards for children receiving free school meals, children with special educational needs, looked-after children and Gypsy and Traveller children. When it speaks about free school meals, is that a particular problem in Wales—is the attainment gap greater in a Welsh context? Because I know in a UK-wide context, I think there’s been some narrowing in the free school meals gap, but that’s particularly been driven by very sharp improvements within London. Are there lessons we can learn there?

In encouraging fair recruitment, development and reward in employment, the Wales committee says it wants to increase the employment rates of young people, disabled people, ethnic minority people and Muslim people. It then goes on to say it wants to close pay gaps, focusing on young people, ethnic minority people and women. So, we see that young people and ethnic minority people are identified as areas of particular concern in both those areas, but its focus on closing pay gaps is for women; it doesn’t share that focus for employment rates, and, on employment rates, its particular concerns are disabled people and Muslim people. Are we not also concerned about the extent to which disabled people may be getting lower pay in the workforce, and the extent to which that may be a particular problem in Wales?

Similarly, when it refers to Muslim people, we see identification of particular groups who have a protected characteristic under the equality Act, but not necessarily a recognition of the wider context. For instance, the employment rate amongst Muslim men is a modest amount lower than it is amongst other men, but there’s a very, very large gap amongst Muslim women. Is that a particular concern of the commission and an area where it wants action by Government and public sector bodies? I just feel perhaps that we can look at this in a broader context, and also understand that we’re concerned about promoting equality and equality of opportunity more generally, rather than only about specific groups who happen to be identified in the equality Act. For example, in Wales, we’ve a number of communities where we have lower achievement or there are particular difficulties with employment or wages, often in white working-class areas, and I think we need to make it clear that we are as concerned about improving opportunities and outcomes there as we are with other areas that may perhaps have been identified in this report. But, overall, I welcome the report and thank those involved for their work.

I’m very pleased to speak in this debate, which I think takes place annually, on the report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Towards a Fairer Wales’. I’d like to start by paying tribute to Ann Beynon, who’s been the chair during a very important time, and I’d like to acknowledge her commitment to equality and to human rights, and to welcome June Milligan as the new commissioner. But I’d also like to use the opportunity to pay tribute in this debate to Kate Bennett, who is shortly to retire as the director at the end of this month. Kate is a constituent of mine in Cardiff North, and has been in the post since 2007, and I think has helped hugely in forging a close relationship with the Welsh Government and with all of us as Assembly Members, and has been very approachable and very proactive. So, I’d like to pay tribute to Kate as well.

I think the work of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has had considerable impact in Wales and on the work of the Welsh Government, and, as I say, a very good close working relationship has been built up. I think the publication of reports like ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ provides a snapshot of how far we’ve come in Wales during the last five years in terms of equality, which is very good for the Government to use as a measure for its activities. And, I just want to say, I think never have we needed the voices of the Equality and Human Rights Commission as much as we need them at the moment. With the advent of Brexit, when we know the feelings that have been stirred up amongst many people in local communities, we need people to speak up for their human rights, and, of course, as previous speakers have already said very strongly, the threats to the human rights Act. So, this is a time when we need the need the Equality and Human Rights Commission as never before.

In their report, they do highlight some areas of improvement and some areas where we’ve still got quite a way to go, and I welcome the fact that they report reduced hostility towards lesbian, gay and bisexual people, but I’m concerned that they say that, generally, young people are faring less well in terms of employment, pay and housing than five years ago. So, I hope that the Welsh Government will take note of that—and other public authorities—and that we use that to inform policy making. One of the challenges that the Equality and Human Rights Commission highlight is to improve democratic representation, and I think this is absolutely crucial, because I think, as policy makers, if we don’t reflect the communities that are out there, the laws that we make are going to be diminished. I’m pleased to say that in the local government elections that are coming up in Cardiff North, in my constituency, we have two 18-year-olds standing for election, so I’m very pleased about that. Also, the candidates who were chosen were half men and half women, which, again, I think is a great step forward, as, of course, in this Chamber, on the Government side, we have half men and half women as representatives, basically, which I think is a great achievement. I think it does actually depend on the initiative of the local political parties to ensure that you do get good representation and you do need, sometimes, in difficult circumstances, to make sure that we speak up for equality and for trying to get representative bodies. So, I think that there is progress going on in terms of democratic representation.

I also wanted to highlight issues particularly relevant for young women and girls, and I was very pleased to sponsor the United Nations International Day of the Girl Child event, which was championing girls’ rights, in the Senedd in October. What this event did highlight is that there are still problems faced by girls in Wales in terms of inequality and sexism. The young women who spoke were absolutely inspiring in their very positive attitudes, but also revealing how much inequality they do feel that they face in their everyday lives. They said that in school, they felt that they weren’t allowed to play football, the teachers thought they weren’t as good as boys at maths—all the sorts of things that we know tend to happen and that we have to work very hard against to try to ensure that there is a more equal society. I know the Government recognises that very strongly in terms of choice of subjects in school—the STEM subjects, where more boys than girls choose those subjects—and so it’s very important that we keep on with that message. Because with inequalities and gender discrimination, it’s very important that that is tackled very early on.

I’m a firm believer in equality, but there’s one kind of inequality and one group of people that I’ve not heard mentioned in the Senedd yet, and, in relation to domestic abuse, that is men. I agree with Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first women’s refuge in the UK, and she says that domestic abuse isn’t gender-specific, it applies to both genders, because both males and females can be violent and can be abusive.

I tend to feel that the abuse of males is tolerated in Wales; indeed, I believe it’s institutionalised. The emotional abuse of males is permitted. If you take South Wales Police, for example, it’s absolutely impossible to get them to accept a complaint from a man who is being emotionally abused. I’ve got another case on my books now; I’m going to see how we get on next week. In this city, it is shameful that, as a male, there is absolutely nowhere—nowhere—to go for non-judgmental domestic abuse support. I’m looking around this Chamber and, as I’m speaking, I’m seeing smiles and grins, and that really worries me. It also says a lot about the prejudice that we find in this Chamber.

Now, 13.2 per cent of men are victims of domestic abuse; 23 per cent, a very large minority—it is a minority, but it’s a large minority—23 per cent of all victims are male; 19 men died at the hands of their partner or ex-partner two years ago, according to the figures; and what is really revealing is that 29 per cent of men are unlikely to talk about their experiences—they simply won’t talk about their experiences. Twelve per cent of females find themselves in the same situation. So, what I’m here today to do, in just highlighting those facts, really, is to call for real equality amongst everybody, regardless of faith, gender, sexuality, class, colour. What we really need to embrace, as I said, is that very, very simple word and it is called equality, and it’s something that I believe in absolutely passionately. Diolch. Thank you.

Rhianon Passmore. [Inaudible.] I call on the Minister to respond—the Cabinet Secretary to respond.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to respond to this generally positive debate. I’d like to thank Assembly Members for participating in the debate today. I’d also like to thank the Equality and Human Rights Commission for its continued work to improve the lives of people here in Wales. I know they are in the Chamber today—upstairs in the gallery of the Chamber—listening.

Turning to the amendments, we will be supporting amendment 1. The Welsh Government strongly believes in promoting the rights of pregnant women and new mothers at work, and we are committed to working with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and others to ensure women do not face pregnancy or maternity discrimination in the workplace—a very valid point raised by the Member earlier. Last month, Welsh Government officials met with the EHRC to discuss the findings of the report on pregnancy and maternity discrimination and scope possibilities of action.

We support amendment 2. However, we should be clear that the Welsh Government has already been developing options this year to improve gender identity provisions here in Wales. Following a rise in the number of applications for assessments in recent years, we commissioned the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, which commissions gender identity services on behalf of health boards, to develop a gender identity care pathway for us here in Wales.

Llywydd, the committee has undertaken a public engagement event to hear the views of service users and health professionals and will provide options for service realignment to support the new gender pathway. The additional £0.5 million a year announced in the draft budget will assist the committee’s with this work.

We support amendment 3. The Welsh Government agrees that we all have a role to play in tackling inequality and recognising we must come together to address the seven key challenges contained in the ‘Is Wales Fairer?’ report. As I mentioned in my opening address, our new equality objectives have been developed with strong links to these challenges, and many of these have been raised with Members in the Chamber today.

We support amendment 4. The third sector does vitally important work with communities and with Welsh Government, which highly values the opportunity to support and engage the work of the third sector and the communities it supports. The work done by the third sector is vital, and to ensure this sector thrives, we must have a strong infrastructure to support that. For 2016-17 the Welsh Government allocated £6 million to support third sector infrastructure, which includes the core funding of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action.

I am very aware that the EHRC commission and commissioner have been listening to the contributions made by many Members. I will pick up on a few points that Members have raised this afternoon—all very valid, or most of them very valid, in terms of their comments. Mark Reckless—I believe the role of the Welsh commission and their commissioners is invaluable. It’s imperative that we maintain a Welsh voice, a Welsh perspective of inequality, and views on how we manage that. I pay tribute to the organisation that operates here. I also recognise the valuable experience of the union in terms of the effects of the knowledge base that is based in England, but also recognising that the work that is done here for Wales in a Welsh context is very valuable, and we should maintain that, whatever happens, as we move forward.

Joyce Watson and Julie Morgan raised issues around many, many issues, but one of the issues that came to my mind in particular, and I share the views of many—it is very difficult but we shouldn’t miss the opportunity to talk about these things, particularly around hate crime. We had a debate the other week about hate crime where there were many views expressed, some that I don’t agree with, but I accept that people have those views, and we should challenge them in the appropriate manner, and we did at that point. But hate crime particularly—I’m unconvinced why we shouldn’t have yet—. I believe we should include gender-based hate crime. Characteristics that I believe should be counted in the hate crime soundings because, and I quote, chair—it’s not a very good use of language, but I’m familiar with e-mail exchanges that Members have had. Why should it be appropriate to call a female a ‘whore’, but it’s still not acceptable or appropriate to call somebody a ‘homo’. Why aren’t they compared and seen to be the same, as a hate crime? I think we should do some more work on what that looks like, longer term.

I will respond to Councillor McEvoy’s point in terms of the issue around domestic violence. Can I say that this Chamber, this Government, takes very seriously—very seriously—the issues around domestic violence, whether that be male or female? The fact that two women die every week is a significant effect that we mustn’t ever forget. I do hope the Member, with his convictions, in terms of his personal convictions and his passion about tackling domestic violence—. I think there are many things that we also should discuss in terms of domestic violence services when it is wholly inappropriate to attack women. It’s wholly inappropriate to attack another person, and I just hope all Members reflect on that in the contributions they make in this Chamber when they move forward.

You may also be aware, Llywydd, that Kate Bennett, the national director for Wales at the EHRC is retiring from her role after more than 20 years—a fantastic achievement. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank Kate for her long service and commitment to advancing equality and human rights here in Wales. June Milligan was appointed EHRC commissioner for Wales this year, and I’d also like to welcome her to her new role, and I look forward to working with her in the future, and I pay tribute also to Ann Beynon, who did a fantastic job navigating to the point we are at today.

Lastly, the commission is hosting a reception in Tŷ Hywel immediately after Plenary, Llywydd. I’ll take the opportunity to remind Assembly Members to meet the EHRC Wales committee. I encourage all Assembly Members, particularly those who joined us in May of this year, to come along and learn about the fantastic work that the EHRC does in Wales, straight after Plenary, after this session today. And I thank Members for their contribution. I’m sure the commission will have listened carefully to the contributions and will act accordingly, in the appropriate professional manner as they do, and have done.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.

The proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

The proposal is to agree amendment 3. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is therefore agreed.

The proposal is to agree amendment 4. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

The proposal is to agree the motion as amended. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.