National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda is the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, and the first question is from Vikki Howells.

We are committed to supporting jobs and growth in all regions of Wales, and we need to look at maximising the benefits for Valleys communities from major investments, and we’ve made a long-standing commitment to locate Transport for Wales’s HQ in the heart of the Valleys.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The news that the Transport for Wales hub, along with the Cardiff capital region city deal programme offices, will be located within RCT is excellent news for my local authority. Together, both could see the location of hundreds of good-quality jobs into the Valleys, and serve as powerful boosters to economic regeneration. How will the Welsh Government build on this to maximise the benefit of both schemes to the northern Valleys, and to my constituency of Cynon Valley in particular?

Well, can I thank the Member for her question, and pay tribute to the way that she’s championed regeneration and pride in the Valleys? I was delighted to announce that the headquarters of Transport for Wales will be located in Pontypridd. I must also pay tribute to the leadership of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council for offering a compelling vision of the local economy.

I do think that we need to utilise all opportunities offered up by announcements like this in a much more joined-up way, through a new economic contract, bringing together partners across Government, local government, through our skills training providers, to ensure that we squeeze maximum value from Government investments. By looking ahead to the opportunities that are to come, we know that there will be more than £1 billion of spending, on electrification, metro, and other associated rail infrastructure, so we must ensure that we work together, on a regional and on a national basis, to reap more rewards from our investments.

Cabinet Secretary, once in a blue moon an opposition Member is pleased to congratulate the Government on the decision they’ve made, and I do think Transport for Wales being based in Pontypridd is the right decision, because it sends a very clear signal, I think, that the city region concept is an important one, but a city region as a city and a hinterland—and the hinterland is not peripheral; it is very much part of the whole region. Particularly when we look at the employment, the cultural capital, and the educational resources in Cardiff, we want to make those as fully accessible as possible, and, therefore, this will send a signal that the connections between the Valleys and the city, and the bigger urban areas, are a vital part of our vision for the future.

Can I thank the Member for his contribution, his question, and his kind words? I think he is absolutely right—it’s essential that, where we can, we decentralise, in order to drive regeneration and economic growth in those areas that have not benefited from all of the gains of economic growth in recent years. So, whether it be Transport for Wales in Pontypridd, or the Welsh Revenue Authority elsewhere in the Valleys, or the development bank of Wales in north Wales, I think it’s essential that we look at these opportunities, and, again, squeeze maximum value, by working together. In the future, we may be able to see other investments and the move of other responsibilities. Potentially, for example, with the creation of Historic Wales, we could see an investment in mid or north-west Wales, or the west of Wales.

And I do think that the regional approach to economic growth is the right way to go. With the Cardiff capital region, we know that it’s estimated that 25,000 jobs will be created as part of that particular initiative, across the 10 local authority areas. My ask of the Cardiff capital region would be to ensure that there is no lumpiness in terms of economic growth across the region. And, in order to address the current lumpiness, there will have to be targeted spending and a concerted effort to benefit those areas, as I’ve said to Vikki Howells, that did not benefit so well from economic growth after the 2008 crash.

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

It’s a sad fact that there’s been very little done to replace the old heavy industries that once provided employment, housing and infrastructure throughout the Valleys. Much is promised by the city region, but there’s little detail, and, in those communities that will be affected, there’s much confusion as to exactly what it will deliver. We also then have the Valleys taskforce, which, coincidentally, sprung up shortly after Labour lost a rock solid seat in the Valleys. I wonder whether that was just a coincidence. Can you tell me whether there is any joint working arrangements between the city region and the Valleys taskforce? Is there a regular channel of dialogue between you and the Minister responsible for the taskforce? We need more jobs in the former coalfields, and we need better quality jobs as well, and failure to deliver on this with the city region or the Valleys taskforce is not an option.

Can I thank the Member for her question? I did see her tweet where she asked a very good question. It’s a question that I think many communities could ask, based in the city region area. That particular question was, ‘What’s for Rhondda in the announcement?’ And I think that’s absolutely right, because I’ve been asking recently who has benefited in the recovery since the financial crash. And it’s quite clear that those who have not yet seen any sign of a recovery are those who live outside of more intensely urbanised areas where we’ve seen the greatest economic growth. They are people who, by and large, are younger, and people who don’t own their own homes. They’re the people who have not benefited from the recovery. So, just as I said to David Melding that I expect redistribution of wealth to come through the redistribution of opportunities to create wealth, I think it’s essential that we do more to attract investment into the Valleys, but also to support and grow those companies that are already there.

In terms of inward investment, we estimate that a third of all foreign direct investment that came to Wales in the previous Assembly came to the Valleys areas. So, there’s no doubt that the Valleys have had a good degree of investment, but the structural problems of that particular regional economy require a more concerted and joined-up effort, and, for that reason, the taskforce was convened. The Member asked an important question about who is on the taskforce, how the taskforce is liaising, working with and interfacing with other initiatives. I can assure the Member that I am a member of the taskforce, and so too are representatives of the Cardiff city region. And I think it’s essential that the work of the taskforce is fully reflected in the developing economic strategy for a more prosperous and secure Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, obviously, the city deal concept is going to be the driver of much economic activity and regeneration, both in the Swansea area and the Cardiff area. With the Cardiff city deal, 10 local authorities make up that agreement, many of them in the Valleys areas. The way we measure success, obviously, is via gross value added and economic activity coming out of the Valleys. Where would you see GVA in the Valleys being in the next five to 10 years? What key gateways have you put down to see the increase in GVA?

I should perhaps refer the Member to a speech I gave last Monday at Coleg y Cymoedd—a transformational institution that has been able to improve the pride in the local area, and also improve the skills of people who live there. In that speech, I outlined my vision for a prosperous and secure strategy that will seek to not only grow wealth and well-being in the aggregate, but also reduce the inequalities in both, across regions and across Wales. And, so, it’s my view that not only should GVA be improved, relative to England, and the Valleys relative to the rest of Wales, but that we should also seek to drive up gross disposable household income, because it’s that measure, it’s that money that people have in their pockets, that gives people a sense of control over their own lives. In turn, it’s that power, it’s that ability to have a degree of control over one’s life, that you’re able to judge well-being against. And, so, I would suggest that GVA has to increase as part of the city region approach, but it must increase at a sub-regional level across all communities, because if we see the wealthy getting wealthier, and productivity in areas that are already high in productivity increasing at the expense of the wealth of those who are least well off, and at the expense of productivity in less urbanised areas, then the project will have failed. I think we have to iron out the lumpiness in terms of productivity and in terms of economic growth, and we must find the ways of ensuring that we share opportunities to create wealth right across regions.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Could the Cabinet Secretary explain the decision not to electrify the Ebbw Vale line?

Moving forward with the franchise of the metro, we will, of course, be looking at the Ebbw Vale line. At present, the responsibilities for rail infrastructure reside with Network Rail, and we have repeatedly expressed our disappointment that, in spite of having 6 per cent of rail lines on the Wales and borders franchise area, we’ve only had 1 per cent of investment in the current control period.

I think it’s worth pointing out that we, as a Welsh Government, have spent more in the current period on rail infrastructure than those who are responsible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, but does he not agree that the South Wales East region fares poorly when it comes to infrastructure improvements under the metro project, compared to other parts of Wales?

As I’ve said to other Members, I think it’s essential, as part of our new approach and our refreshed approach—and I, again, in my speech last week also gave an indication of how I’ll be restructuring my department—that we pay more attention to those communities in those areas that have fared poorly during a period of economic growth. The Member asked about infrastructure and in particular connectivity. I think that’s absolutely essential, and the development of an £11.5 million extension of the railway line form Parkway to the Works site in Ebbw Vale, providing direct rail access to the enterprise zone, and which was completed in May 2015, is a great example of how Welsh Government can use its resources and its levers to better effect to ensure that all parts of Wales gain in economic growth.

I do in fact congratulate the Welsh Government on that extension into Ebbw Vale. It’s certainly very innovative and it’s great to see rail tracks being laid again.

Arriva Trains Wales tell us that they’re unable to offer a service into Newport because there is full capacity for the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line. Surely electrification and the enhanced service that this promises could help facilitate the operation of the line into Newport, which is a desperately needed link.

Of course, electrification of the main line and electrification of the Valleys lines are huge, huge asks that we’ve repeatedly made. In terms of capacity, there’s no doubt that electrification can assist in terms of being able to run more rolling stock more regularly, but, equally, we need to see more rolling stock on the existing railway infrastructure. I’ve spoken with Arriva Trains Wales, and with other operators, regarding the capacity problem that is affecting the rail services of Britain. I hope that ATW will be in a position, within the coming days, to be able to make an announcement concerning the Valleys lines.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, I had the opportunity to visit the Republic of Ireland with my colleague, Steffan Lewis, to meet Irish Government officials, policy makers and politicians to discuss the consequences of the UK leaving the EU for Ireland and for Wales. It’s fair to say that they shared our sense of trepidation. But,as with the economic crisis of 2008, they have at their disposal a tool that we do not—independence—and I don’t just mean an independent state, but also a whole raft of powerful executive bodies, established by the state, independent of, but working closely with, the central Government machine to drive economic strategy: the IDA, Ireland’s inward investment agency; the business development body, Enterprise Ireland; and Board Bia, the Irish food board, just to name some of them.

Now, this model has delivered a handsome return for Ireland, as we know—its GDP per capita has more than trebled since the 1980s, while we have sadly stagnated in relative terms. So, can I plead with the Cabinet Secretary, again, in the context of his current review of the Welsh Government’s economic advisory boards, to consider the case for an arm’s-length independent trade and investment promotion agency for Wales? The Republic has one, and Northern Ireland too; so does Scotland, and England through UKTI. Even the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands have one. Can we afford to leave Wales naked in weathering this storm?

There are a number of points to make, I think. First of all, the Irish economy has fared well in part because so much of the Irish population is based in a city, and we know that cities have grown faster in terms of the economy than rural areas. So, it’s difficult to actually compare a country where a huge proportion of the population occupies an urban area that has grown faster by virtue of its urban nature, to Wales, where we are a far more rural country. That said, there are certainly lessons that can be learned from not just Ireland, but from other countries as well, and, as our fourth biggest export market, I think it is essential that we continue to engage with Ireland.

The Member may have seen in my speech last week my proposals to create regional economic units that will be able to drive economic growth and promote economic activities within their respective areas. I think this gives us a great opportunity because we already have the structures emerging on a regional basis, with the city regions and the growth deal region, to ensure that there is not competition, there is not duplication, but instead that there is a consistent approach at a local government level, a business level, and at a Welsh Government level as well.

As the Cabinet Secretary has just said, Ireland is a strategically vital export market for the Welsh economy, worth more than £800 million a year. Now, on the negative side, during our visit, we were told that moves were already afoot to start channelling freight to mainland Europe away from Welsh ports and through Roscoff. Is the Cabinet Secretary aware of this, and what is the Welsh Government planning to do in response? On the positive side, we were told that Irish businesses are looking to invest in the UK and in Wales in order to build up their presence in the UK market after Brexit. Now, this is a specific opportunity for the Welsh economy, with many established Irish companies, such as Dawn Meats in Carmarthenshire, for example, already here. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary whether his officials have already drawn up a list of Irish companies looking to invest or expand their existing operations? And, finally, given the important interrelationships between our two economies, will the Welsh Government consider investing in a permanent representation in Dublin and encourage his Irish counterparts to reopen the consulate general here in Wales, so we can strengthen the economic partnership between our two countries?

I think the partnership between our two countries extends, of course, beyond economic values as well. There are incredibly strong cultural ties between Ireland and Wales, which can deliver great economic benefits as well. I recall speaking with the President of Ireland a few years back about how we could utilise the Year of the Sea for the purpose of, potentially, a cultural crossing to not just promote our respective cultures, but also to drive visitors to and from Ireland and Wales. I think there are huge, huge potential opportunities—which can be had in spite of leaving the EU—to grow and develop our economies, which are often based on mutual interests. I do believe that there are opportunities for further investment in Wales by Irish investors, particularly in higher quality and higher GVA areas of economic activity—for example, in the life sciences sector.

In terms of ports, the development fund that is being made available for Welsh ports will be important, as will direct engagement between Welsh Government, local authorities, and also the ports themselves. I recently took part in a panel discussion with representatives of Welsh ports, and there is no doubt that, whilst there is trepidation concerning Brexit, there are also opportunities. We need to maximise those opportunities and ensure that we all work together to overcome the barriers and the challenges that Brexit will face. In terms of our ability to attract further foreign direct investment, of course Brexit will pose a challenge; we know that. But we’ve recorded, in recent years, record high—or near-record high—levels of foreign direct investment. We would hope to be able to maintain a good interest by foreign investors in the Welsh economy, but it’s also my intention to place a sharper focus on the potential growth of our economy, based on inward investment from England and Scotland, Northern Ireland, and also, of course, the growth in our existing companies, to ensure that they can be de-risked from growth and they can maximise on their potential.

It’s gratifying to hear that the Cabinet Secretary is engaging with Irish politicians. Could I urge him, in further discussions that he’ll have, to learn from some of the tools and tactics that the Irish themselves have adopted? The Irish Government has recently, for example, published a designated trade strategy. Wales doesn’t have, at the moment, a specific trade strategy. It sets out a targeted, regional approach for Asia, for the middle east, and Africa—key sectors where there are particular opportunities identified. It’s a whole-of-Government approach, which also incorporates other bilateral relationships, including education, culture and development aids, et cetera.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary will be aware that the most recent export statistics show that, even though Wales has a healthy trade surplus influence with the EU, we have a £3.7 billion deficit with the rest of the world, and that’s going to be a key market, obviously, post Brexit. We need a strategic approach from the Government, but we also need a sense of urgency. The Irish Government have already, through Bord Bia, created a Brexit barometer to help businesses assess how ready they are for the threats and opportunities that Brexit represents. As well as offering a similar barometer for Welsh business, perhaps the Government might want to sit the test themselves, because, compared to the Irish, I’m afraid we are currently wanting in the level of planning and preparedness for the biggest economic challenge that any of us have ever faced.

I agree that we do have an incredible challenge on our hands, and ahead of us, but I also believe that we have the right people within Government, and in partnership with Government, to see us through what will be a turbulent time. In terms of our operations abroad, I think one of the biggest mistakes that were made in recent times is the loss of many of the Welsh overseas operations. Of course, we’ve now reinstated them, and the results have been impressive. We now have officers in key strategic territories, in key strategic cities, engaging directly with potential investors, but also ensuring that we can promote Welsh goods and services to those markets where we know the greatest growth potential is. So, for example, whether it be in China—in Shanghai, Chongqing and Beijing—or whether it be in the United States, through Atlanta, San Francisco and New York, we are already targeting those territories, those regions and those cities where the growth will come from. But, in terms of a trade and investment strategy, this is part of the work that’s taken place between my office and the office of the First Minister to ensure that Wales is promoted better abroad, that we have a clear brand abroad, and that we are perceived as a place where people can access the highest quality goods and services, and where we have some distinctive values concerning the sustainability and fairness of our economy.

Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Russell George.

Cabinet Secretary, much has been made of the recent Demos report, which highlights the impact, of course, of Brexit on UK regions such as Wales. Now, on looking at the report in its entirety, a number of relevant and pertinent points are highlighted, including the potential for city deals and devolved administrations to look beyond the UK and the EU to attract foreign investment. In Wales there is still a very heavy reliance and strong reliance on exports, of course, to the EU. The latest figures suggest that 67 per cent of our exports go to the European Community, compared to just 44 per cent in 2012. So, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what steps you have taken to ensure that local authorities involved in city deals are using their influence to help Welsh businesses look beyond Europe and prepare for new exporting markets?

I think the Member makes a very important point in that local authorities have a significant role in promoting economic growth within their respective areas. One of my concerns in my time in this job has been the lack of capacity in some parts of Wales to do just that at a local authority level, and that’s why I commend the approach being taken at a regional level, through the city region and growth deal region areas, to bring together those who are successful in driving local growth and those who are experienced in exporting. Now, what we’ve done in south Wales and in north Wales—and we’re looking to do the same in mid Wales—is to bring together, at a local authority level, those who are responsible for economic development, and those who are experienced in exporting, and reach out to all potential exporters within any given region to make sure that they are being given all of the advice and support needed to take advantage of exports in the future.

Cabinet Secretary, there are investment opportunities, of course, outside of Europe, which the Demos report highlights, including China. Now, China currently represents 2 per cent of the Welsh export market, and exports have reduced by 3.5 per cent since 2013. A recent trade mission to China was largely to cement links with Welsh companies, but little has been reported on any substantive success in that regard. The Welsh Government has had five trade missions to China since 2012 and yet exports have not substantially increased since those visits. Will you, Cabinet Secretary, outline what you’ve planned to rebalance Welsh exports in favour of large markets such as China?

The trade mission wasn’t just about securing more export opportunities. It was also about securing investment opportunities as well, and, in that respect, the trip was clearly a success, because, during the course of the mission, I agreed two deals for investment in Wales, creating a good number of jobs. But the Member is right that there are huge export opportunities, particularly, I believe, in the food and drink sector in China. In terms of exports alone, the sector has grown by 95 per cent in the last 10 years, and, in terms of changing tastes and attitudes and customer persuasions, we know that China is a growth territory.

Recently, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs announced a £21 million fund through Project Helix to look globally at where emerging trends and changing trends offer up greater opportunities for the food and drink sector. This is to be commended. I think it will give us a great opportunity to grow the sector internationally and to create more jobs at home. But, insofar as China is concerned, I’m in no doubt that the strong cultural ties that we’ve established over the last decade should now result in more economic wins for Wales, and, in the years to come, that’s where I’m going to be focusing my attention. I think a great deal of work and a huge amount of success has been realised in terms of developing the cultural bonds between Chinese regions and Wales. But now I want to see those bonds translated into more jobs, more investment, and more exports for Welsh companies.

Now that the UK Government has triggered article 50, I would say it’s imperative, of course, that Wales has an economic strategy in place in order to support what is a fragile economic market. So, what is your plan to support SMEs specifically during this time? Can I also ask when you’ll be publishing your response to the UK Government’s industrial strategy?

I’ll be writing to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the coming weeks, outlining my response to the proposals. I’ve already met with Greg Clark in person and I’ve told him what I’ve said publicly, which is that there is little to disagree with in the strategy. There are areas of the strategy where I have a particular interest, especially those areas where we could see additional resource brought to Wales through research and development and innovation funding, and also through potential sector-specific deals. The quid pro quo is that the UK Government will work with Welsh Government in developing more detail of the industrial strategy, and, based on the discussions that I’ve had with the Secretary of State, I’m confident that we will be able to work closely together in this turbulent time, for the benefit not just of the Welsh economy, but of the whole of Britain.

Yes. Our Wales Screen service provides a full crew and locations service and promotes Wales to the global production industry. This results in Welsh life, our locations, and talent being featured on screen in a number of productions each year.

Thank you for that answer. I am pleased that efforts such as the showreel have succeeded in increasing the numbers of companies and projects that do shoot in Wales in recent years, but, compared to other countries, we’re still falling behind. I’d like to ask you what efforts you are making to improve how external production companies and film projects promote the fact that they have filmed in Wales. Can you also outline how you are encouraging companies and projects benefitting from Welsh Government funding to set their films in Wales, rather than, as is too often the case, using Wales as a stand-in for somewhere else? I’ve had a concern from a constituent about trying to encourage a distinct cultural element to any grants that are given out by Welsh Government. Ffilm Cymru seem to be quite explicit on their website that they will be promoting Welsh cultural content in relation to the films, but with regard to tv and Welsh Government funding, people are not so sure as to how you would potentially promote people who are interested in telling a story about our history to the people of Wales if they don’t know that they can do so.

I’m going to apologise in advance for using an expletive in answering the Member’s question. We do, where possible, influence productions so that they are not just filmed in Wales but also set in Wales. An example is ‘The Bastard Executioner’, which producers originally intended to be set in England, but which, after discussions with Welsh Government, was set instead in Wales. I think it would be worth my while to write to Members detailing the criteria that must be met in attracting investment from Welsh Government, because it does include specific requirements.

For example, it requires one or more of the following: exposure of as broad a range of images of Wales as possible; the telling of indigenous stories simultaneously in English and Welsh, which has proven to be hugely successful in productions such as ‘Hinterland’; and the exposure of the image of Wales to a wide international audience. But I’ll write to Members with full details of the criteria.

I think it is impressive that the Welsh creative industries have grown at a pace faster than any other region in the UK outside of London. This shows that there is a huge appetite to film in Wales. But, it also demonstrates the quality, I think, of the crews that we now have in Wales, particularly along the M4 corridor, which is proving to be one of the most magnetic filming hubs anywhere in Europe at present.

Cabinet Secretary, may I congratulate you on your energetic and sterling efforts to ensure that Wales is promoted in television and film productions? I noted with interest the promotional showreel introduced by Hollywood A-lister Michael Sheen, which features clips from some of the latest major productions filmed in Wales and which does promote everything that the country has to offer as a filming location. Twenty-sixteen was a successful year for Wales Screen, which handled 386 production inquiries with more than £41 million spent in Wales by productions, supported by this Welsh Labour Government. Cabinet Secretary, what can the Welsh Government do to encourage further promotion of Wales and Welsh culture in television and film productions?

Can I thank the Member for her question and also for the very keen interest that she’s shown, since her election to this Chamber, in the creative industries? Every single production that’s funded by the Wales Screen fund is required to pass a culture test. It goes beyond the culture test criteria designed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it also has Welsh-specific criteria designed to promote Wales and Welsh talent. I think that’s adding to the value of the Wales offer to film and television producers around the globe. Wales Screen works very successfully to attract productions to film in Wales, showcasing our incredible landscapes, which incidentally are the No. 1 factor for tourists to come to Wales, and also our cityscapes, to international audiences.

The Member may be interested to know that Wales Screen officials also market what can be had and what can be achieved in Wales to an international audience through direct contact with producers in the United States and in other key areas of the world, such as Cannes. We also host inward visits from top industry executives to market the benefits of making television and film in Wales. We also, on a very relentless basis, as shown through the recent promotion of the showreel, raise awareness of Wales as a great place in which to film.

Yes. The road safety framework for Wales sets out the actions we and our partners are taking to achieve our casualty reduction targets. I announced capital and revenue road safety grant funding on 22 March.

I was particularly pleased to see that, as part of that announcement last week, there was funding for road safety measures in my area, and particularly near schools. Hakin and Hubberston, Newtown High School, Presteigne primary and Lampeter are all now going to benefit. So, I thank you for that. But, under the Wales Act 2017, Welsh Ministers will now have more power over roads and transport, and that actually includes national speed limits. So, will you be exploring, Cabinet Secretary, how those powers might be used to further advance road safety, particularly in reduced speed outside schools and in built-up areas?

Yes, I most certainly will. I’m keen to see more 20 mph zones introduced around schools. There is only so much that our financial resources can achieve through educating young people. Other measures must be introduced and I do believe that we should look at reducing the speed of motorists passing places of education. For the next financial year, as the Member has highlighted, we’ll be making available almost £4 million in road safety capital grants to fund 31 road casualty reduction schemes across 16 local authorities, and we’re also delivering schemes that are benefiting 21 schools across Wales. But I do think that we need to continue to roll out our Safe Routes to Trunk Road Schools programme, which is seeing a huge number of schools in areas that are adjacent to trunk roads have 20 mph limits introduced. In terms of the powers that are to come to the Welsh Assembly through the Wales Bill, at this moment we don’t have powers to set a national speed limit. But the Wales Bill will give us the power to vary the national speed limit on local and trunk roads, including special roads, and it will also give the National Assembly the ability to legislate on national speed limits. I am looking this year— the Member may be interested to know—at the speed limit review, which is a review that examines whether speed limits should be reduced in congested areas, especially where there are schools. I’m looking to update that this very year because, as I said, I think it’s imperative that we do reduce the speed at which vehicles are travelling outside and near schools.

Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware that heavy goods vehicles frequently leave the road on the A470 between Talerddig and Dolfach where there is no road barrier or curb in place. You previously informed me that you intend to carry out another speed limit review of trunk roads this summer, which will prioritise a list of sites. However, the speed limit isn’t really the problem here; it’s the layout of the road and the fact that there are no warning signs or barriers. So, can I ask: will you commit the Welsh Government to assessing other preventative measures in addition to the imposition of speed limits on main trunk roads throughout mid Wales?

Yes, I’d gladly do that. And can I suggest that I visit that particular stretch of the A470 with the Member? I recently had representation from the Member’s colleague Darren Millar concerning a similar road in his constituency. I took a site visit there and, as a consequence, we are now looking at altering the signage at the road, which is often confusing. I think it’s absolutely essential that we give a clear indication to motorists of what is a safe speed, and not just the speed limit. Where the speed limit needs to be reduced we will do so on an evidence base, but also in conjunction, often, with the concerns of local communities. But where a road requires additional work to make it safer, I’m more than happy to consider investing in the particular infrastructure.

I’m particularly interested in cycle safety in my region. Can I draw your attention, Minister, to the active travel route map for Aberystwyth, which doesn’t include the Ystwyth trail? Now, the Ystwyth trail is the only traffic-free route from Aberystwyth out to suburbs like Rhydyfelin and Llanfarian. I know it well and it’s a very well-used route. However, it can’t be mapped, apparently, because the crossing across the trunk road in Trefechan isn’t up to standard. The trunk road is in your purview, but the local authority cannot map that and include it as an active travel or safe route because the crossing is deemed a ‘critical fail’, according to the Sustrans audit of the route. What action can you take, together with the local authority in Ceredigion, to try and improve that crossing so that we can include the Ystwyth trail, which has been constructed at some expense—including European money—in order to include it in our active travel so that it becomes more well-known and well-used in Aberystwyth and its environs?

Can I thank the Member for bringing this particular matter to my attention? It shames me to say that I wasn’t actually aware of this particular concern until today, but I will bring together officials of the local authority with trunk road officials to examine how this particular problem can be overcome, because on the basis of what the Member outlines, this challenge is not insurmountable and, first and foremost, we must consider the safety of cyclists, and we’ll do just that.

The strong performance of the ICT sector has created over 9,300 high-value jobs in Wales and we have the fastest growing digital economy outside of London. Our ongoing support to this enabling sector will assist the development of all Welsh businesses through the increased adoption of digital technologies.

Thank you, Minister. I see it as a very important industry and sector, which is continuing to grow, especially in areas such as e-commerce and robotics. Whilst, as you’ve said, there’s been very fast recent growth, Wales’s relative performance in information and communications technology is, according to the Office for National Statistics, one of the worst in any ONS-defined sector. We must also avoid getting into the 1970s mindset that ICT is mainly finance. Will the Cabinet Secretary congratulate Swansea city region on its commitment to the growth of the ICT industry as part of the city region programme?

I certainly will. The successful signing of the £1.3 billion Swansea bay city region city deal will provide an enormous economic boost, with investment spread right across the region, driving growth right across the south-west Wales region. I am sure that the Member knows that it’s been developed as a vision of how the region can position itself to take advantage of next-generation technology, drawing on its existing strengths, and consists of four themes: the internet of economic acceleration; an internet of life science, health and well-being; an internet of energy; and an internet of smart manufacturing. I think it underlines perfectly the enabling digital technologies in all areas of life that are essential to grow our economy.

With that in mind, of course, we have developed digital competency in schools and we’re developing digital frameworks for industry right across Wales. I can assure the Member and everybody else in the Chamber that we totally get that it’s not just about finance—it is, in fact, the underpinning technology for most advanced manufacturing in the world.

I agree that the city deal may well provide this big digital leap forward, but it’s worth remembering as well that Swansea is where Trudy Norris-Grey made her leap forward from—you obviously know, Minister, that she’s the managing director of central and eastern Europe public sector at Microsoft and chair of Women in Science, Engineering and Technology. She claims that there are ‘fabulous opportunities’, to use her words, for women to take up careers in IT, but they don’t know about them. So, I’m wondering how Welsh Government can help Welsh businesses themselves—it’s not a question of skills so much as the businesses themselves—to better promote IT careers to women.

Trudy is an excellent role model—indeed, she co-presented with me at the WISE event that we had to get women into STEM here in the Senedd, which was an excellent event. We’ve worked very hard to get recognition of all of the aspects of the report on women in a talented Wales—I never get the title quite right—which, basically, is a cross-Government and cross-sector—business as well—vision of how we can get more women into STEM and, indeed, of how we can highlight careers to young girls in particular by highlighting the careers of really excellent women in STEM technologies right across the sector.

I had the privilege to sit next to a woman who was working in the genetics field at the St David Awards, and she was the winner. Indeed, we’re going to look to sponsor her to do a series of role model events right across Wales, for example, to highlight the role of BME females, and their essential role, actually, across the STEM area. One of the things I’m absolutely passionate about is giving young women the right role models to succeed. So, the Member will be aware that we’ve been promoting the purple plaque campaign, for example, to highlight the role of women across these areas of Wales in order to give those role models. We’ll be including business, through Business in the Community and our Business Class roll-out plans, in that, and I will be chairing the cross-Government board to make sure that we get that on track as well.

In the context of the Swansea bay city deal, and as that deal is now progressing, can I ask you what steps you as a Government are taking to assist those local councils in south-west Wales to deliver the private investment from IT companies that is crucially important to the success of the deal in trying to create quality jobs?

The Government’s been working very closely with the city deal partners in order to get the deal signed and approved, and to make sure that we have, although it’s not an appropriate word, shovel-ready projects—I don’t know—or finger-ready projects to go in this area—I’m not quite sure what the analogy is there. We’ve been working very hard as well with ESTnet, for example, to make sure that we have the underpinning digital technologies in our businesses to make sure that happens. I’m also running the Government data and digital group, which will be assisting local authority partners to make the most of their digital technologies, and we’ll be making some announcements in the near future about how we are rolling out some public sector development in that field in order to assist economic development in local authority areas.

We will make a decision on funding once we have all the submission detail; once the rigorous process of due diligence has been completed to our satisfaction and once the proposal has been considered by the Cabinet.

The Circuit of Wales, of course, is not asking for direct funding, as the £425 million is private investment. What they’re looking for is a guarantee—that’s what the project is awaiting. And, having exerted extreme pressure on the Circuit of Wales to come up with a commitment within two weeks, what confidence can the Cabinet Secretary give to those investors and enthusiastic supporters of the project, that a decision will be made imminently because every day leads to, I think, a weakening of that confidence that this project will go ahead?

Can I thank the Member for her question? And, of course, that extreme pressure that was applied did result in the formal proposal coming forward. The developers of the Circuit of Wales were not able to provide the information required to allow the due diligence process to commence until the end of last week. And it’s also regrettable that the information is currently incomplete. However, my officials and the appointed external advisors have commenced the due diligence process on the basis of the information provided, and, of course, subject to the company responding in a timely manner to any further enquiries. We then expect to able to report to Cabinet by mid-May.

Further to this question, we all recognise the eagerness of people, especially in Blaenau Gwent, for the decision on the Circuit of Wales project, particularly when you consider the claims made about the number of jobs it will create in the area. Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that this pressure will not result in decision making being taken until the most vigorous assessment of the viability and economic benefit of this project has been completed? Thank you.

Yes, I can. The number of jobs promised by the project developers will be thoroughly scrutinised by the consultants that are carrying out the due diligence process. The fit-and-proper-person tests began this week. There is a market appraisal being carried out by consultants who are looking at the potential job gains from the project, as well as the viability of the project as a whole in the current marketplace. I think it’s absolutely essential that the people of the Valleys, and, in particular, in Ebbw Vale, have a clear understanding and appreciation of the potential of this project, alongside, and potentially in addition to, other major schemes that are being forward by investors across the Valleys region, including but not exclusively limited to the Caerau Park investment, the Trago Mills investment at Merthyr Tydfil, and also the potential for a major planetarium in Hirwaun. All of these projects have huge potential, individually and collectively.

Seven weeks ago, at that dispatch box, on 8 February, the Cabinet Secretary told the Senedd that the due diligence process would take between four to six weeks. Now, if there’s been a problem with a lack of complete information, why hasn’t the Government done what the private sector would do in these kind of situations, in projects which are far larger than this, which is to get everyone in a room—their auditors, Grant Thornton, the company, their funders et cetera, and the Welsh Government—so that we can actually sort this out? In relation to the date that he’s now given us of mid-May, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the risk that poses to the financial viability of this project, given that that lengthens the requirement for bridge finance?

I need to be absolutely clear: we will not bypass due diligence for any decision. And it’s in the interests of the Circuit of Wales developers to ensure that we move as speedily for the consultants, carrying out due diligence, as they did for me when I set that time frame of two weeks to bring forward a formal proposal.

In terms of bringing them all into the room, this is precisely what we have been asking for, and we have been applying immense pressure. We have been applying immense pressure to the developers to provide the information that is required of them by the consultants. With that information, due diligence can be completed. It is in the interests of the developers to bring forward that information so that the people of Ebbw Vale and the Valleys know whether this is a viable project.

Can I support what Adam Price has just said? It’s not so much due diligence that we’re dealing with here but due dilatoriness, I think, because the Circuit of Wales developers have wanted this meeting around the table for some time, and they’ve not been given it. The limited nature of the guarantee that is being sought here is, I think, an important element in consideration. Because the guarantee itself is for funding on only 50 cent of the funding costs, but will be secured on 100 per cent of the assets, and it will not kick in anyway until those assets have been built, and there’s something physical that can form a security. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary has to go through a process of due diligence, but will he please get on with it?

We already did. That was the whole point of setting the two-week limit on bringing forward the formal proposal. Since that time, the Circuit of Wales developers have known precisely what information is required in the data room and they know precisely how to provide that information. It is for them to bring forward the information to conclude this matter, to give confidence to the people of Ebbw Vale and to prove that this is a viable project for Wales.

Yes. Current legislation permits the testing of autonomous vehicles across the UK. We recognise the potential that autonomous vehicles may have in improving road safety across the country and we’re maintaining a watching brief.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Well, driverless cars may eventually, of course, make an appearance on mid Wales’s roads in increasing numbers. As a result, what assessment has your department made of the use of autonomous cars, especially on minor roads and single-track roads, and especially in the circumstances where one of them requires you to decide who should reverse?

I’ve not reached the point of determining who is responsible for reversing. [Laughter.] But what we have been assessing is the potential of installing designated autonomous vehicle lanes on major trunk roads. I think this would give us an opportunity to capture a greater degree of investment in this particularly important sector of the automotive economy. Such investment is costly; it’s not inconsiderable, but it would give us an opportunity, for example, to test autonomous vehicles in a very safe way, including their ability to reverse when they meet head-on with other autonomous vehicles.

Thank you Cabinet Secretary.

Questions now to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. The first question, Leanne Wood.

Thank you for the question. Cwm Taf university health board, with its partners, continues to develop and deliver its plan to improve access to services to meet the health and well-being needs of people living in the Rhondda, as locally as possible.

On this significant day in politics, I think it’s worth noting that 22 per cent of general practitioners in Cwm Taf university health board are not originally from the UK. The constituency that I live in and represent relies heavily on doctors from overseas. This is not a new phenomenon, I’m sure, and it’s not a unique situation to ours locally. There are now serious concerns about how withdrawal from the EU will affect Wales’s ability to attract doctors from overseas in the future. Cabinet Secretary, what work is your department carrying out to ensure that the impact of EU withdrawal is minimised on our health services here in Wales?

I recognise fully the point that the Member for the Rhondda makes. It’s a concern, as you know, of this Government, too. In the aftermath of the referendum, and since then, we’ve made absolutely clear that members of staff and members of our communities from within the European Union and further afield are welcome here, not just as workers in our health and care services, but as citizens of our communities. Of course, you’re right to point out that there are significant numbers of people from outside of this country, from the Indian sub-continent in particular, but also those who are European Union citizens. Both the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council have done their own surveys, which show that a significant number of healthcare workers and doctors within our UK health system are reconsidering their future in the UK as a direct result of Brexit.

We are, of course, trying to consider and plan for future scenarios. The challenge is: until we have a viable plan before us as to what that means, it’s very difficult for us as a Government to have those conversations with the healthcare workers. We will be absolutely clear about the consistency of the message from this Government that people are welcome to stay and are valued, not just as workers but as part of our communities, but also I’ll continue to meet doctors’ representatives and other healthcare professionals themselves to discuss it. In fact, I’m due to meet the BMA to discuss this very issue next week.

Cabinet Secretary, pharmacists are very well placed to help GPs and improve access, therefore, to GP services, particularly around the management and review of medicines. I do think we could do better in this regard because there’s a lot of evidence that the poor use of medicines, or sometimes inappropriate use as well, is dragging back some of the health outcomes that we could otherwise gain.

Yes, I quite agree with you, which is why we’ve already invested in the Choose Pharmacy platform, the information technology platform that allows people to go for the minor ailments scheme to a range of pharmacies. Cwm Taf was one of the leading areas in Wales in delivering that, including in the Rhondda constituency that we’re discussing today. They’ve made the most progress of any health board in ensuring that the Choose Pharmacy facility is available.

It’s more than that; it is also about looking again at the previous initiatives I’ve announced, making sure that the payment for pharmacies isn’t just by volume, but the commitment we’ve made not to introduce the cuts they’ve had in England is also about delivering quality, not just volume, in the service provided, but also there’s the work that I’ve instigated with the chief pharmaceutical officer to discuss reviewing the medicines release scheme, and, actually, in particular, hospital pharmacies and what they do and what we could potentially get done on a community basis as well—that would help people to leave hospital on a more rapid basis, reinforcing the need for community services, and also mean that hospital pharmacies do what they really do need to do rather than having a longer wait for people to leave hospital. So, I agree entirely with you on the policy direction. The challenge is how fast we can move on an agreed area of practice.

We are already investing more in primary care in Wales. Overall, we spend some 22 per cent of our health budget on primary care services. I’m providing an additional £43 million a year through the national primary care fund and I recently announced that the new GP contract will increase investment by £27 million in the year just ahead of us.

I welcome those increases. To the extent that health systems in the UK have a reputation internationally for delivering good value, considerable emphasis is placed on the role of GPs as gatekeepers to the significantly more expensive parts of the system, particularly in hospitals. Given the pressures on GPs, would it not potentially assist the health Secretary, with the deficits he faces at hospitals and pressures elsewhere in the system, if he could ensure a steeper increase still in the investment going into GPs and their recruitment?

I wouldn’t quite agree with your reference to GPs as being gatekeepers. GPs are much more than gatekeepers to other parts of our healthcare system and service. What we are progressively doing with our partners in both the Royal College of General Practitioners and in the BMA is we’re looking to develop an agreed agenda on having a broader multidisciplinary team, of which GPs are essential leaders for primary care. I’m genuinely encouraged by the work being done in primary care clusters. And it’s fair to say—and I think I’ve said this before—that a range of GPs were relatively cynical about clusters when they were introduced, whether it would be an exercise in bureaucracy rather than service development and improvement, to help them deal with the very real pressures that they face. But there’s been a real buy-in into clusters, and GPs themselves can see how services are being developed and delivered with them in a leadership position to improve the quality of care they’re providing, but also to do something about the workforce pressures that they themselves face.

So, we’ll continue to deliver investment to support our aims and objectives of making sure primary care really is the continuing engine of the NHS here in Wales and we’ll continue to respect doctors and to have a genuine conversation with them and other healthcare professionals. I’ll have more to say in the rest of this year about recruitment and a range of other issues as well.

Cabinet Secretary, obviously earlier in the week it was well documented that four of the health boards are facing significant financial challenges, double what their equivalents over the other side of Offa’s Dyke are facing, and it will be a real struggle for many of these health boards to be able to reconfigure some of their services whilst managing those budgetary pressures. How confident are you that the four health boards—in particular, Hywel Dda has a budget deficit of nearly 10 per cent for this year—will be able to reconfigure services to the primary sector, given the pressures they face, on their budget, just managing what they’ve got?

I don’t accept your characterisation of the deficit as double what’s across our border. Over 90 per cent of trusts in England are in deficit. I just don’t accept that is an accurate and honest presentation of the position. In terms of the reality of managing within their means and managing to reconfigure services and deliver—a reshaped primary care—that actually relies on our relationship with our partners. It relies on our ability to recruit the right mix of staff into working in a different way. The direction of travel we are taking is actually encouraging people to work in Wales, and to stay in Wales as well. It’s a better environment for GPs to work in, as well as other professionals too.

There will never be a time when the NHS is free from financial pressures—and I don’t try to pretend that at all. But I don’t think that the conversations around the headline deficits that we’ve discussed at length over the last two days are any sort of excuse for not getting on with delivering a much greater emphasis on primary care, in shifting services into primary care, and recognising the key importance of this area of the service for the future of our national health service.

Can I raise a point of order, Presiding Officer?

No, you can’t.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. My colleague Steffan Lewis yesterday asked the First Minister to reopen a specialist mother and baby perinatal unit, following the closure of Wales’s last unit in 2013. The First Minister said that, in the past few years, fewer than five new mothers were referred to an in-patient unit in Wales. I’ve no idea what he was talking about—we haven’t got a mother and baby unit in Wales. Where he got the figure five from, I’ve no idea either. But his argument was that we don’t have the demand.

Between January 2015 and January 2017, we have identified 21 women in the Cardiff area alone who would have been admitted to a unit had that still been open. Of those, six were referred to an out-of-area unit, but only two actually went, because the others did not want to be separated from their families. Do you accept that the demand is higher than the First Minister suggested yesterday?

The First Minister was accurately presenting the number of women who had actually been admitted into an in-patient unit in each of the last three years. And there’s an issue of genuine significance and importance here, which I don’t try to underplay at all. What we have to be able to do is understand the evidence available to us of what a genuinely sustainable and the proper quality in the service we’re able to provide. The previous service, the staff weren’t able to maintain their skills to provide the sort of high-quality service people would want.

And the challenge is not whether a single unit in itself would actually resolve all of those problems, if it was physically located within Wales. As you know, I’ve commissioned, through the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee, a review of the evidence on what is available in Wales from a need point of view, and our ability to meet that need, whether in Wales or otherwise. That review will report later in the year and, of course, I will expect to share the findings and the advice, and my response, with Members who are here today, and I’m sure will maintain an interest in it. I accept that it is, obviously, important to Members across this Chamber.

Referring to the answer of the First Minister yesterday, Steffan Lewis asked specifically, as I have done today, about mother and baby unit referrals. We have no mother and baby unit in Wales. Community services, they only came in three years after the closures, but, of course, we appreciate that they’re needed. But, in instances of post-partum psychosis, for example, we need in-patient mother and baby facilities. That is what the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines say. The service standards quoted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists don’t even refer to critical mass figures; they merely say that services should be planned on a regional basis, that people should have equity of access wherever they live. They speak of using staff to work in the community when in-patient occupancy levels are low. They certainly don’t advocate closing units.

The royal college tells us that we can expect 140 women a year in Wales to require admission to a mother and baby unit—more than enough to make a unit viable. Now, there must be, in that context, a case for reconsidering your position on whether Wales should have a specialist mother and baby unit. And, indeed, going beyond the situation in the south of Wales, the RCP figures point to the need not just to reopen that centre, but for a new centre in the north too, if it’s demand we’re looking for.

I think we do need to think again, like I said, to take a step back, and think about what we are able to do, and able to do to the right quality and the right state that all of us would expect. I’ve indicated, the figures—I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that there’s been a misdescription of the figures. We’re talking about people referred to an in-patient unit, who have gone to an in-patient mother and baby unit, that we have actually commissioned that care for mothers and their babies. And the challenge over the figures is really about, ‘Is that enough to sustain a unit in Wales?’ as opposed to politicians’ arguments. That’s why I’ve commissioned WHSSC to undertake the review. So, it isn’t about you and me, as party politicians or individual representatives, trying to make a case on the basis of our understanding of figures. I’m actually going to people who run and deliver a service, and will commission that service, to understand if that need is there, and could and should we best meet that need by locating a unit physically within Wales. Because, of course, you’ll know that the distance to, say, a unit in Bristol is a challenge for a number of women in Wales, just as it would be if you lived in St David’s to a unit in Cardiff, if you lived in Ceredigion, or if you lived in Bangor. There’s a challenge here about that physical access to a unit regardless of where that unit is physically based, whether in Wales or outside. And that has to be part of the honest question that we ask ourselves, and that’s why I’ve commissioned the advice as a proper objective basis upon which to make a decision.

But where units are based does matter. It matters in terms of access, as the Royal College of Psychiatrists say. It is quite clear, I think, from our figures and case studies, that the consequences of outsourcing have been to see mothers choosing no in-patient treatment over treatment that means separation from their families. So, patient care has suffered. There are child safety issues coming into play here, and it makes no financial sense either. It has become clear that the service being commissioned in England, whilst treating fewer patients, has ended up being more expensive. Your Government has pursued centralisation and outsourcing without question it seems. And on this one in particular, is it not time that you admitted you got it wrong?

I really don’t think that that is a responsible approach to a really challenging issue for all of us. Everyone in this Chamber will care that we ensure we get the right response for families and babies here in Wales. Just on the reference to outsourcing, just to be absolutely clear, ‘outsourcing’ is often referred to as ‘privatisation’ in that sort of language. We are commissioning care from the NHS in England. We aren’t privatising the service. You haven’t suggested we are, but ‘outsourcing’ is regularly used as a term that other people understand to be privatising the service. That absolutely hasn’t happened.

I don’t recognise where you say that there are child safety issues that arise from this because we don’t have a physical mother and baby unit here anywhere within Wales. And I simply say to you again: in terms of the location, I accept that location matters. That’s why I say that if you live in St David’s in west Wales and the unit is physically in Cardiff, that practically is a long way for you to travel in any event. Simply saying, ‘Locate a unit in Cardiff’ does not resolve all of the physical access issues. And there has to be a more sensible conversation to make sure we get the right response to this. That’s why we’ve commissioned expert advice, so that there’s a properly objective basis for me to be scrutinised upon, but also for the Government to make a decision upon. And I am proud of the fact that we are investing in community services, because, often, what people do want is support within their community and that’s often more appropriate.

I’m looking forward actually to—. I understand that the Children, Young People and Education Committee are looking to have an inquiry into this area, and I look forward to giving evidence to that committee, answering questions before Members and, again, having an evidence-based discussion for all of us about what is the right choice for families and their babies in Wales.

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Angela Burns.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made of the rates of ill health and absences within the Welsh NHS?

We regularly review absence figures. In fact, it’s part of the appraisal process that I have with the chairs of each of the health boards. I look at their absence rates and whether there is improvement or otherwise. We’ve seen some improvement in the last three years generally, in particular in the Welsh ambulance service, and I don’t think that’s unrelated to their improvement in performance. So, it’s a regular cause of concern, but I wouldn’t pretend to have every single part of the detail at my fingertips today.

Let me give you a little bit of help on that one then. The data that the Welsh Conservatives have obtained from health boards show that anxiety, stress, depression and other unspecified psychiatric illnesses affected 7,945 NHS staff members in 2015-16. Those 7,945 staff members racked up a total of 345,957 days of absence, which is equivalent to 948 years of person hours that were lost to the NHS in one year. That’s 948 years’ worth of person hours. Cabinet Secretary, I’d be really interested to know what you are going to be doing to address this issue. And, remember, that was just on mental health issues. That did not take into account absences due to other diseases, musculoskeletal conditions, or any other physical ailment.

This is why it’s a priority for discussion with chairs in their appraisal process between myself, as the relevant Cabinet Secretary, and chairs of health boards. So, there is an understanding that we want to see further improvement. Some of this, in terms of absence management, is understanding the reasons why people are ill and out of work: sometimes that is about work and sometimes those are reasons outside work. But it’s about what appropriate support is required to help some return to the workplace. That’s why we place importance on occupational health services. For example, we’ve actually expanded, alongside the British Medical Association, the occupational health service for GPs as well, to think about how that works for people employed in primary care too. So, this was also raised with me by Unison, when I recently met them in terms of the campaigning work that they’re doing with their members. I understand perfectly why any trade union would want to raise the issue with me in that conversation. So, it is an issue that we understand; it is an issue where we want to see further improvement because, ultimately, it’s better for the individual member of staff, better for the service that they work in and ultimately for the service that we fund and provide.

I couldn’t agree with you more that this is an issue that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It’s more than just the individual. Yesterday, we had a long discussion about the deficits that we are seeing in the Welsh NHS in some of our trusts. We know that we have a recruitment issue—we can’t get enough doctors, nurses and all the other staff. We also know that, for example, the cost of bank nurses who are on contracts for over a year is extraordinarily high, as is the cost of locum doctors and consultants. We know that health boards are not recruiting secretarial staff when they’re about to leave until after they’ve gone, which of course puts consultants and doctors really far behind because they can’t get the notes out on all the patients that they see, and it’s creating a real logjam. If we could just bring some of those hours back into play through adequate support for those individuals, then that would have an enormous financial and medical benefit for the NHS.

These statistics, in comparison to the English statistics, are pretty damning. You just mentioned ambulance staff, but the latest figures that are available, which are July to September 2016, show a rate of 7.5 per cent of staff off in Wales, compared to only 5.4 per cent of staff off in England. This gap’s been similar over the last five years.

Cabinet Secretary, in England, they’ve been piloting a rapid access to treatment system. I wonder if I can persuade you to start having a good look at this. I have discussed it with some of the health boards. This is not about trying to develop a two-tier NHS, and I want to make that absolutely crystal-clear, but given our lack of financial resource in the NHS, and given the difficulty that we have in replacing staff and recruiting staff to the NHS, it seems to be really imprudent not to try to encourage the NHS staff that we have to come back into work sooner rather than later. It’s good for them. You said it yourself: it’s great to support them. There are some good lessons to be learnt over the border and I’d like to see that you are big enough to be able to accept that there are other home nations that have tackled this in different ways. Let’s see if we can bring some of that best practice over here and get some of our hard-working staff back into the saddle, because we need them and they need to be back in their jobs, earning a good salary, and feeling much better themselves.

I have no difficulty at all in looking at other parts of UK nations to understand where there is better practice for us to adopt or to adapt. In areas of HR management, we always look at where best practice exists so that staff do feel properly supported. I recognise the comments that you made about the financial position of the health service—about the very real challenges that exists, with health inflation always running at a higher rate than other services too.

The reason why our ambulance rates have improved and why I think, in the next figures to come out, we can expect to see improvement in our figures here in Wales is largely because the working environment has improved and because staff do feel better supported now. I won’t pretend that everything is perfect—far from it—but I do expect to see a continuing effort to see the partnership approach, which we value here in Wales, deliver improvement, not just in terms of our industrial relationships, but actually in our abilities to support people to get into work at an earlier stage because I think that the great majority of our staff want to be in work and want to be providing care directly for the communities that they live in and that they serve. So, I don’t think there’s any disagreement about the policy direction; it’s simply about our ability to deliver that improvement.

UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, the overspending by the local health boards can be equated to the large amounts spent on agency nursing. Last year, the Welsh NHS was spending £2.5 million each week on agency staff, which will undoubtedly be cut back next year. However, we simply don’t have the permanent staff available to make up the shortfall, so it will be patient care that suffers. Cabinet Secretary, how will your Government ensure that local health boards are sufficiently funded to provide safe staffing levels in the coming financial year?

We fully expect every NHS service to have safe staffing levels. I recognise what you say about agency costs, in that it isn’t just nursing agency costs; there are agency and locum costs across our system that are part of the very real financial challenge that we face in delivering and sustaining models of care. There’s an honest conversation to be had about whether we are sustaining models of care that are right and appropriate, or whether we’re actually spending money in a way that isn’t very efficient or appropriate. So, that’s a conversation that each of us will need to engage in, but, of course, in the field of nursing, we’re extending nursing levels with the implementation of the nursing levels Act. So, I expect to see more nurses recruited to Wales on a permanent basis.

But, following the first question that’s been asked, you’ll recognise that there is a challenge to that with the reality of how European Union based staff feel about coming into the UK. There are figures that are publically available on the number of nurses that have either left the UK, or are no longer considering coming here. In particular, in England, the source of recruitment from the European Union, as I say, has dried up significantly, and that is a real challenge for us in sustaining our services, and what that does mean in terms of having to pay an even higher cost to get staff into our health service to provide the care that all of us would expect to be delivered.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Assembly passed the nurse staffing levels Act last year with the promise that this new legislation would deliver safeguards for patient safety and put an end to situations where nurses find they have insufficient time to properly care for patients. Your Government is currently consulting on the statutory guidance that leaves out any mention of the recommended nurse-to-patient ratios and any mention of the supernumerary status of ward sisters. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that this consultation sends out the wrong message about safe staffing levels, and will you commit to revising the guidance to include everything that was promised when the Act was debated?

It’s exactly what it is—it’s a consultation. I expect to have responses, I expect to have advice from our professional nursing officers here, including, of course, the chief nursing officer, on what is appropriate in terms of delivering patient care and meeting the objective of the Act that this place has passed, and in delivering high-quality nursing care as we look to further develop the nurse staffing Act in other areas of practice across our NHS here in Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Safe staffing levels should apply to all settings. As we move to a health service that aims to deliver more and more services in the community, we must ensure that community nursing teams do not have an excessive patient workload. The number of district nurses working in Wales has fallen by over 40 per cent in recent years, but, according to the Royal College of Nursing, their workload has increased tenfold. What plans does your Government have to introduce safe staffing levels for community nurses and what actions are you taking to increase the number of district nurses and reduce their workload?

Well, of course, we will be guided by evidence and the professional advice of the chief nursing officer’s office. That’s actually something that the RCN supports. They’re very pleased that we haven’t taken the approach across our border in effectively removing a chief nursing officer from within the Government to give professional advice to the relevant Minister. I’ve been absolutely clear with the RCN and other stakeholders that I’ll be guided by the evidence and advice on the implementation of the nurse staffing levels Act, and taking an evidence-led approach to further expanding that reach across the service. So, we’re looking at different options about where would be the next appropriate place within the service to introduce and to reinforce the Act.

But, in terms of our ability to recruit more nurses in district nursing and beyond, of course, recently I announced a £95 million additional investment in nursing and other professions for the NHS here in Wales, which should lead to another 3,000 training places across professions and that will include 30 per cent more nurses after an extra 10 per cent last year, a 22 per cent increase the year before that and more than a 4 per cent increase in midwives in this year, as well. So, we are investing in our future and I’m proud to have taken that decision to safeguard the future of our service here in Wales.

Yes. I expect all patients to be seen in a timely manner based on clinical need. I expect the health board to continue to work closely with the planned care programme to develop a sustainable service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I understand that much of the routine orthopaedic surgery in the north Wales region is outsourced to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt hospital in Oswestry. May I just read from a letter I have received from a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, which, as I’m sure you’re aware, is under special measures? He says that not investing in elective orthopaedic services for decades has created a situation where the health board is trapped and now cannot even protect these elective orthopaedic services. He goes on to say that this poor investment planning, lack of vision and short-term arrangements that have gone on for probably over two decades is now encroaching on the quality of life of many chronic joint pain sufferers, who are waiting scandalous times for their treatments.

Do you know, Cabinet Secretary, how much money is going over the border for orthopaedic treatment? Do you agree that this money is better invested in north Wales? In reply to Mark Reckless, you said that you respect doctors and want to have a genuine conversation with them. In light of that, would you agree to meet with me and several orthopaedic surgeons in north Wales to help you to better understand what the actual problems are, but also to look at positive outcomes and how we can address these problems?

Of course, I recognise the challenge of orthopaedics as a speciality in north Wales in particular. It makes up the greater number of those people waiting too long, and waiting beyond our waiting time standard, in the north Wales area. I also recognise that we commission care on a regular basis from providers within England. In fact, the spinal surgery speciality is commissioned from Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt, and we’re currently commissioning additional places and additional procedures over the border as well, and that’s because we do have a problem and some people waiting too long. We can either say that we’re prepared to invest some money in the here and now to try and make sure that we bring those numbers down, or we say that we’ll only spend that money within the system. It’s a balancing act, of course, and what I’ve been really clear about is that we need to maintain and improve the level of performance in the here and now, because it isn’t in a place that I or any other Member would say is acceptable. That also means, though, that the health board have to, with the clinical community, come up with a plan for the future.

I actually met the orthopaedic team in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd on my last trip to north Wales, just a few weeks ago, and they too recognise there’s a need for improvement. There’s a need to have a view across north Wales, rather than three or four centres competing with each other about what a new service might look like, so that it’s not just about the operative end where people go in for procedures, but also about the care in the community—so, primary care, the musculoskeletal service. We’ve got to look at the whole picture. I’m expecting that there will be a plan that will come to the health board within a matter of weeks, as opposed to several months, setting out proposals on what the future could look like. So, I’ve met surgeons in the past, and I’m sure I’ll meet members of the orthopaedic team in the future, but I’m looking forward to receiving that plan to then understand what the timescales are for success, and what they believe success could and should look like for people in north Wales.

Can I just ask you, Minister, given that this health board is in special measures—? We are almost two years into those special measures and one of the reasons it was put into special measures was because of the performance against referral-to-treatment waiting times, including on orthopaedic waiting times. Over the period it’s been in special measures, run, effectively, by the Welsh Government for those services, those waiting times have gone up. Do you accept some responsibility for the poor performance at the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, and will you apologise to those constituents in my constituency who are waiting 112 weeks for routine appointments at Glan Clwyd for their orthopaedic surgery?

I’m ultimately responsible for everything that happens within the health service as the Cabinet Secretary for health. That means all the things that don’t go well, where people wait too long, as well as those things where people want to praise the service too. I don’t shy away from my responsibility in any regard whatsoever. In the discussion that I had recently with surgeons in Glan Clwyd, they were clear that they wanted to get over that those long waiters have not been waiting for routine appointments; they’re actually at the more complex end. But the challenge is, and they accept that—

One hundred and twelve weeks is the routine waiting time.

[Continues.]—regardless as to whether it’s routine or complex—and these are complex patients that we’re talking about—they’re still waiting too long. And, actually, it’s the job of the health service to come up with a plan to resolve that, and that’s what the surgeons say they’re committed to doing, and that’s why, in response to Nathan Gill’s questions, I was able to indicate I’m expecting that plan to be delivered and discussed with the board over a matter of some weeks, and I look forward having a proper briefing on what that plan contains and the measures of success to be delivered within that. As you’ll know from our previous conversation in the last questions, Darren Millar, there’s been an 83 per cent increase in demand over the last four years against a one third increase in the number of operations carried out. We clearly need to do something to better manage the demand and the ability to meet that demand within north Wales.

We’ve continued to protect social care with significant funding. An additional £55 million has been made available for social care in 2017-18, and this includes the £20 million for social care announced earlier this week. We have also provided £60 million for the integrated care fund.

Thank you, Minister. I am happy to acknowledge the additional moneys that you’ve committed to social care. Even so, by my calculation, I don’t think the full Barnett consequential of the Chancellor’s £2 billion for social care has found its way into your budget, but I’ll leave that for another day. Because, despite those considerable additional funds made available for social care in Wales, local authorities in my region have cut next year’s social care budget by £2.2 million, raised it by just 0.3 per cent, or have predicted an underspend on last year by nearly £0.5 million. If you’ve found extra money for social care because social care needed that money, how are you making sure that local authorities are spending it on social care? I’m sure you can give me a far more informed answer than the default answer that I got from the First Minister yesterday. I think we all have far more confidence in you than in Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you.

Well, the majority of funding, as you’ll know, provided by the Welsh Government to local authorities is unhypothecated through the revenue support grant, so that does give local authorities the freedom to spend this funding according to their own priorities and their own needs that they’ve found. But, it’s important to recognise that specific grants do have a role to play in ensuring that new priorities are resourced and given sufficient importance in delivery terms. So, I’d refer you particularly to the additional £10 million funding that we’re providing to local authorities to meet the challenges of the national living wage. This will be allocated to local authorities using the standard spending assessment formula, but half of that grant will be made available upon commitment of local authorities to the terms, grants and conditions, and then the second payment will be contingent on our confidence that the grant is delivering its objectives. So, meeting the pressures that the national living wage put on the sector is extremely important in terms of giving us a workforce that is sustainable and that is well paid, well remunerated and respected and that eventually will lead to a career that people want to come into, where they see career progression. Obviously, the work that Social Care Wales will be taking forward from Monday as of next week will be important in that, as will the registration of domiciliary care workers from 2020.

We have a wide range of policies designed to help support people with long-term, fluctuating health conditions to maximise their quality of life for as long as possible.

Thank you. Given evidence that the suicide rate amongst people with the neurological condition myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME, is more than six times higher than that of the general population, what actions is the Welsh Government taking to move forward with the recommendations set out in the ME/CFS and fibromyalgia task and finish group’s August 2014 report to address the lack of appropriate healthcare services for people with ME?

I don’t have the specific detail to answer the detail of that question. I’ll happily write to the Member, and copy in other Members, to give him detail on the specific questions that he raises.

I’ve recently been doing some work to support the campaign to raise awareness of ME or chronic fatigue syndrome ahead of ME Awareness Week in May and to support the work of ME Support in Glamorgan, which is run by a constituent of mine. What the campaigners tell me is that they’d like not only better awareness among GPs about the condition, but faster diagnosis. They also say that they’d like specialist facilities here in Wales, as some are having to travel far afield to help their recovery. What can the Cabinet Secretary do to help promote faster diagnosis, and are there any plans to create a specialist centre in Wales?

I’m not aware that we have plans to create a specialist centre in Wales. We do, though, have a chronic fatigue syndrome and an ME implementation group that are considering how we improve the service here in Wales. And, again, when I respond on the initial point, I’m happy to provide a more general update for Members on the points you raised as well, about faster diagnosis and plans for the future service.

We’re pleased that the overall figures show access is improving, but recognise there is still more to be done, including scaling up new ways of accessing services, and we’re working with the General Practitioners Committee Wales and health boards on new initiatives to improve access to integrated, GP-led multi-professional services.

Thank you for that answer, but I wonder if you are intending to—or are working with the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales? Because, of course, you recently published a report that was entitled ‘GP Services in Wales: The Perspective of Older People’, and it highlighted that far too many of the older population find making an appointment challenging, find the GP service inflexible and unresponsive to their individual needs and circumstances, don’t recognise the difficulties they have in accessing or being IT literate, or using information technology communication methods. So, I just wonder what you and your Government are doing to ensure that older people do not feel that the one place that they should really be able to access with ease is actually being slowly walled off from them.

I recognise the challenge, and, of course, it’s not just older people who occasionally have difficulties accessing primary care. The great majority of people don’t, but, if you’re in an area where it is a challenge, it doesn’t really help you that you get told that, somewhere else in Wales, access is much easier. On the specifics of the older person’s commissioner’s report, I’ve already written to health boards highlighting the recommendations and indicating that I expect them to respond to them. Because, in the new ways of working that are being developed, there is always a need for professionals running and delivering the service to discuss those with their patients, so they understand what they can expect and about how to make best use of any change in the system. Because I do recognise this is an area where improvement is needed, and that’s part of our conversations with the BMA through GPC Wales.

Surely, Cabinet Secretary, one of the other ways of improving access to GPs is to reduce unnecessary burdens, and I’ve seen first hand the tremendous work of community pharmacists in my own constituency dealing with, for example, minor ailments. So, I wonder what hope he holds out that the Choose Pharmacy platform, where patients can, with some knowledge, actually access community pharmacies to deal with those things that will take some of the load away from GPs—so that GPs are freed up then to deal with very much the type of patients that Angela Burns has just been referring to.

I’m generally optimistic about the ability of community pharmacy to play a larger role, as well as the pharmacists that clusters are employing themselves to help with access in their own individual areas. You’ll be aware that we invested £750,000 in introducing and delivering the community pharmacy IT platform across Wales. The roll-out is progressing, and I’m happy to say we remain absolutely on track for over half of pharmacies in Wales, by the end of March next year, to be able to deliver the Choose Pharmacy platform. That will mean the ability to go to a local pharmacy to undertake the minor ailments scheme is significantly improved. It should also mean demand is much more appropriately managed, so that people who really do need to see a GP have a better prospect of seeing them, but also the GP should then have more time to see those patients as well.

On the back of that question, of course, naturally, we still have to have GPs to deal with those problems that only a doctor can deal with. And this week we’ve heard that the Coelbren surgery in my region is going to close because the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board has failed to find general practitioners to work there, even though they’ve been trying for some months to do that. In light of that, what are you, as a Government, going to do to find a solution to this problem?

It’s a regular cause of comment and discussion with the profession and with partners around it. Of course, I was recently at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s inquiry, giving evidence about doctor recruitment. I’m looking forward to providing figures on filling our training places for GPs in the next few weeks, and I do think that the ‘Train. Work. Live’ campaign has had a really positive impact. We’ll also know more about that—not just about the social media profile it’s had, but actually with actually filling those places as well. But there will always be a challenge in actually remodelling primary care and understanding, where those centres currently are now, should they still be the places where we recruit and deliver the service to in the future, So, it is part of that wider conversation on reshaping and reforming primary care.

I’ll say it again: the conversations we have with the British Medical Association, with the Royal College of General Practitioners, but other professionals as well, are really important in doing that. This isn’t a process of imposition. It’s a process of conversation, partnership and learning on what already works. That’s why the visit that I had to the Neath Pacesetter with both Jeremy Miles and David Rees was particularly important to see how some GPs are already living up to and changing the way they deliver care, with a wider range of care being available. Actually, for GPs themselves, they think it’s a better way for them to work and a better way for their patients to access the service.

Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitment to embed healthy living in all of our programmes and to publish a ‘healthy and active’ strategy. This will build on our current legislation, programmes, and work across Government that aim to support people to make healthier choices.

Thank you for that. I believe the most important action that can be taken to improve the health of the people of Wales is to promote a healthy lifestyle. One of the successes of Communities First in Swansea was its programmes of smoking cessation, improving diet, and increasing physical activity. What is the Government doing to try and reduce smoking rates, reduce inactivity, and combat obesity in order to improve the health of the people of Wales?

I thank you for that question. Over many years we have seen some good success in terms of reducing smoking levels in Wales. Actually, fewer people now smoke in Wales than have done since records began, but I think it’s fair to say that we still have some way to go. In order to move towards getting to our target of 16 per cent by 2020, we’ve established a new tobacco control strategic board to produce a new tobacco control delivery plan for 2017 to 2020 to oversee that action. I think it’s particularly important that we support young people not to start smoking in the first place, and we have the JustB programme, run by Public Health Wales, and that trains young people to talk to other young people about the benefits of staying smoke-free, and also the Commit to Quit programme, which is run by Action on Smoking and Health Wales, which helps young people to stop smoking.

With regard to tackling obesity, you’ll be pleased to know that, in our deliberations at Stage 2 of the public health Bill, I’ve agreed to bring forward amendment at Stage 3 that will commit the Welsh Government to introducing a strategy in order to tackle obesity. We also, of course, have that commitment for the ‘healthy and active’ strategy, which does put health and well-being as one of our priorities, where it rightly belongs, with numerous proposals then in order to take that forward as a cross-Government objective.

We also have some settings-based approaches through schools and workplaces, and also our legislative approaches, such as the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, and campaign work such as the Public Health Wales ‘10 Steps to a Healthy Weight’ programme, as well as many local interventions for preventing or managing obesity, some of which you referred to in your own area.

In South Wales Central, the University Hospital of Wales is the only site. Across NHS Wales there are three hospital sites that have external contracts in place until 2018 and that charge for parking. Parking at all other sites is free of charge to patients, staff, and visitors.

Yes, thanks for the answer. There has been a lot of contention about the charges, particularly at the university hospital, known as Heath hospital colloquially. Recently, there was an instance of a nurse who was charged despite leaving a sign on her dashboard saying that she was a cardiac emergency nurse on call. So, the wardens may have been over-zealous in their approach. I understand that the deal is running out next year. Could the Minister give any assurances that, once the deal does expire, parking charges will end at Heath hospital?

Yes, we’ve been absolutely upfront that those charges will end at the end of the contract. Look, I think there are two different issues, though, with respect, that I think may be slightly being confused, Presiding Officer. One is charges for car parking spaces, and the other is parking on site. There has been an issue at the Heath about parking on site. It’s helpful for all Members to remember that part of the reason why a different approach was taken to parking in other places outside of car parking zones and car parks themselves was because there were challenges about the site itself and, in fact, there was a death, probably as a result of parking in an inappropriate place on the site. So, we need to consider the two different things separately: one is how parking is managed on the Heath, outside of car parks, and the other is our clear commitment to free parking on all hospital sites by March 2018.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the statement by the First Minister on the response to article 50. I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Llywydd. Members will know that the Prime Minister of the UK has this afternoon written to the President of the European Council formally declaring the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union, as required under article 50 of the treaty governing the EU. So, today marks the end of easy rhetoric and the beginning of serious negotiation.

Gallaf ddweud, Llywydd, fy mod wedi trafod y llythyr erthygl 50 yn gyffredinol â’r Prif Weinidog pan gyfarfuom yn Abertawe yr wythnos diwethaf. Dylwn ei gwneud yn glir, fodd bynnag, na welais y llythyr cyn heddiw ac ni chawsom ein gwahodd i gyfrannu at y broses o’i ddrafftio. Mae hyn yn annerbyniol ac yn benllanw i broses hynod rwystredig pan gafodd y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eu trin â diffyg parch yn gyson. Mae hyn i gyd hyd yn oed yn fwy anffodus o ystyried mai nod datganedig Llywodraeth y DU ei hun oedd datblygu fframwaith negodi ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Maent wedi colli’r cyfle i roi mynegiant clir i’r nod hwnnw.

Lywydd, mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn credu yn y DU lawn cymaint ag y mae Llywodraeth y DU yn credu ynddi, hyd yn oed os yw ein gweledigaeth yn wahanol iawn i’w gweledigaeth hwy. Os yw’r Prif Weinidog yn credu go iawn yn yr undeb ac yn credu mewn adlewyrchu dymuniad y DU gyfan, yna mae angen iddi fabwysiadu ymagwedd wahanol iawn. Nid wyf yn gweld sut y gall y Prif Weinidog honni ei bod yn negodi ar ran y DU gyfan pan fo’n anwybyddu hawliau’r Llywodraeth hon i siarad ar ran pobl Cymru.

Fodd bynnag, Llywydd, rwyf bob amser wedi dweud yn glir fod yn rhaid parchu canlyniad y refferendwm ac anfon llythyr erthygl 50 yw’r canlyniad rhesymegol i’r canlyniad hwnnw. Galwais gyfarfod o’r Cabinet yn gynharach y prynhawn yma ac ar ôl misoedd o ddyfalu, gallwn symud ymlaen yn awr at y trafodaethau. Lywydd, ym mis Ionawr, amlinellodd Llywodraeth Cymru, gan weithio gyda Phlaid Cymru, ymagwedd gredadwy, gynhwysfawr ac awdurdodol tuag at adael yr UE yn ein Papur Gwyn ‘Diogelu Dyfodol Cymru’. Diffiniwyd blaenoriaethau Cymru yn glir gennym ar gyfer trafodaethau’r UE a gwnaethom hynny mewn ffordd sy’n gweithio ar gyfer y DU gyfan. Galwem am barhau mynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl. Galwem am fwy o reolaeth ar fudo drwy wneud cyswllt clir â gwaith, gan warchod rhag camfanteisio ar weithwyr, am gynnydd yn y grant bloc i gymryd lle swm cyllid blynyddol yr UE o £680 miliwn, heb unrhyw ragamodau ynglŷn â sut y caiff hwnnw ei ddefnyddio. Galwem am barch llawn i’r setliad datganoli wrth ddiwygio cyfansoddiad y DU i’w wneud yn addas i’r diben ar ôl gadael yr UE—pwnc y bûm yn ei drafod heddiw gyda chyd-Aelodau’r Blaid Lafur o bob rhan o’r DU. Galwem am gadw’r mesurau diogelu cymdeithasol, cyflogaeth ac amgylcheddol a ddatblygwyd drwy ein haelodaeth o’r UE, ac am roi trefniadau trosiannol ar waith i sicrhau nad oes ymyl clogwyn i fusnesau wrth i ni bontio o’r UE tuag at berthynas newydd ag Ewrop.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno â’r Prif Weinidog fod Undeb Ewropeaidd gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Brydain, a bod Teyrnas Unedig gref a llwyddiannus yn fuddiol i Ewrop. Mae arnom angen ein gilydd, yn rhan o’r UE ai peidio, ac rwy’n croesawu pwyslais y Prif Weinidog ar berthynas ‘newydd, ddofn ac arbennig’ gyda’r UE. Rwyf bob amser wedi dweud nad yw gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd yn golygu gadael Ewrop. Dylai’r ymagwedd tuag at drafodaethau adlewyrchu’r ysbryd hwn o ddiddordeb cyffredin.

Mewn llythyr atom heddiw, mae Llywodraeth y DU yn dweud ei bod wedi ystyried ein chwe blaenoriaeth wrth lunio ei safbwynt negodi, ac er gwaethaf y diffygion enfawr ym mhroses negodi fewnol y DU, credaf y gallwn weld tystiolaeth o hyn. Ceir tir cyffredin ar y farchnad sengl—rydym yn galw am ‘fynediad llawn a dilyffethair’ tra’u bod hwy’n dweud y

‘fasnach fwyaf rhydd a mwyaf diffrithiant bosibl’.

Mae’r DU yn awyddus i gyflawni hyn drwy gytundeb masnach rydd dwyochrog pwrpasol â 27 gwlad yr UE. Nid ydym yn credu mai dyna’r unig ffordd, na’r ffordd orau o reidrwydd hyd yn oed, ond rydym yn cydnabod y gallai’r dull hwn weithio mewn egwyddor. Mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn cydnabod bod rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn cynrychioli safbwynt diofyn y DU yn absenoldeb cytundeb. Ailadroddaf yr hyn a ddywedais sawl gwaith: byddai canlyniad o’r fath yn drychineb i Gymru ac yn fy marn i, i’r DU yn ei chyfanrwydd.

Lywydd, rwy’n cytuno hefyd â’r ffocws ar berthynas arbennig y DU ag Iwerddon. Mae llawer o sylw’n cael ei roi i gadw ffin feddal ar y tir rhwng gogledd a de Iwerddon, ac rydym yn cefnogi’r flaenoriaeth honno. Ond mae fy ffocws i ar ffin forol Cymru ag Iwerddon, yn enwedig porthladdoedd Caergybi, Abergwaun, a Doc Penfro. Mae’r ardal deithio gyffredin gyda’n cymydog agosaf o ddiddordeb allweddol i Gymru, fel y mae i Iwerddon, ac roedd y Taoiseach a minnau’n cytuno ar hyn pan ddaeth i fy ngweld ychydig wythnosau yn ôl.

Lywydd, mae angen dwy gyfres o drafodaethau wrth gwrs, fel y mae llythyr y Prif Weinidog yn ei ddweud. Y gyntaf yw proses ymadael erthygl 50 sy’n seiliedig ar gytuniad. Yr ail yw perthynas y DU â’r UE yn y dyfodol. Yn ein barn ni, o ystyried maint y gwaith hwn, a hyd yn oed gan dybio cymaint o ewyllys da â phosibl ar y ddwy ochr, mae’n annhebygol iawn y bydd hi’n bosibl cwblhau’r ddau gytundeb o fewn dwy flynedd. Am y rheswm hwnnw, rydym wedi dadlau’n gyson am gyfnod trosiannol i bontio ein perthynas newidiol ag Ewrop. Unwaith eto, rwy’n credu bod Llywodraeth y DU, yn raddol, wedi cyrraedd yr un safbwynt gan ei bod yn sôn fwyfwy—ac yn benodol felly, mewn gwirionedd, yn llythyr y Prif Weinidog—am gyfnod gweithredu i reoli’r broses o adael yr UE.

Lywydd, fel gydag unrhyw gyd-drafod, bydd angen rhywfaint o barodrwydd ar y ddwy ochr i gyfaddawdu a chytuno ar gyfnewidiadau. Rydym yn realistig ac yn deall pam na all y Prif Weinidog ddamcaniaethu’n gyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd ynglŷn â pha gyfnewidiadau y bydd y Llywodraeth yn barod i’w gwneud wrth i’r trafodaethau ddatblygu. Ond o’m rhan ni, rydym yn glir fod yn rhaid i fynediad llawn a dilyffethair at y farchnad sengl fod yn brif flaenoriaeth i’r DU. Bydd unrhyw beth llai na hyn yn ddrwg i Gymru.

Lywydd, gadewch i mi fod yn glir. Rydym yn barod i weithio gyda Llywodraeth y DU i ddadlau’r achos dros berthynas newydd, ddofn ac arbennig gyda’r UE, wedi’i hangori mewn cytundeb masnach rydd cynhwysfawr ac eang gyda 27 gwlad yr UE, sy’n darparu mynediad llawn a dilyffethair, neu fynediad rhydd a diffrithiant os yw hynny’n well gennych, at y farchnad sengl. Mae hynny’n hanfodol i’n busnesau, i’n heconomi, i ffyniant Cymru yn y dyfodol ac yn wir, i’r DU gyfan. Byddwn yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i hyrwyddo’r achos hwn, yma yn y DU, ym Mrwsel a chyda’n partneriaid Ewropeaidd. Rwy’n ailadrodd eto: ni ellir dweud yn ddigon aml y byddai rheolau Sefydliad Masnach y Byd yn drychineb i Gymru.

Lywydd, fel y mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid a Llywodraeth Leol a minnau wedi dweud yn ddigon clir, mae proses y Cyd-bwyllgor Gweinidogion a’n hebryngodd at y pwynt hwn wedi bod yn destun siom a rhwystredigaeth ddifrifol i ni, ac rydym yn parhau i bwyso ar Lywodraeth y DU i’n cynnwys yn uniongyrchol ac yn llawn yn y trafodaethau eu hunain wedi i’r fformat gael ei gytuno gyda’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae llawer o gwestiynau pwysig sy’n parhau i fod heb eu hateb yma yn y DU, wrth gwrs, yn enwedig ar gyllid a’n materion cyfansoddiadol. Addawyd i Gymru na fyddai’n colli ceiniog o gyllid o ganlyniad i Brexit a byddwn yn dal Llywodraeth y DU at ei gair.

O ran y materion cyfansoddiadol, mae’r Prif Weinidog yn dweud y bydd gennym fwy o bwerau datganoledig ar ôl gadael yr UE ac na fydd unrhyw beth sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd yn cael ei fachu’n ôl. Os mai felly y bydd, fe groesawaf y canlyniad hwnnw. Os nad felly y bydd, bydd y Llywodraeth hon yn gwrthwynebu’n egnïol—fel y bydd eraill yn y Siambr, nid oes gennyf unrhyw amheuaeth—unrhyw ymgais i fachu pwerau’n ôl neu i sicrhau bod y pwerau’n aros yn Whitehall yn hytrach na dod yn syth yma o’r UE. Bydd gennyf fwy i’w ddweud am hynny ar ôl i’r Papur Gwyn ar y Bil diddymu mawr gael ei gyhoeddi yfory.

Lywydd, o ran trafodaethau’r UE, os yw Llywodraeth y DU yn barod i weithio’n adeiladol gyda ni, yna rydym yn barod i wneud popeth yn ein gallu i helpu. Mae gennym enw da o fewn yr UE, yn enwedig ymhlith sefydliadau’r UE, am fod yn Ewropeaid da. Mae hynny wedi cael ei ddatblygu dros lawer o flynyddoedd drwy ein safonau uchel wrth weithredu rhaglenni Ewropeaidd, ein gwelededd ym Mrwsel a’n cyfranogiad gweithgar a brwdfrydig mewn ystod eang o rwydweithiau a phartneriaethau Ewropeaidd. Rydym yn barod i ddefnyddio ein henw da fel cyfalaf i helpu i ddadlau achos y DU am berthynas â’r Undeb Ewropeaidd a fydd o fudd i’r ddwy ochr yn y dyfodol.

Mae gan Lywodraeth y DU, a’r Prif Weinidog yn arbennig, gyfrifoldeb trwm yn awr wrth arwain y trafodaethau. Bydd angen iddi hi a’r tîm o’i chwmpas sylweddoli bod negodi’n llwyddiannus yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol ichi wrando a pharchu barn a buddiannau cyfreithlon y rhai y byddwch yn negodi â hwy. Ond gorchwyl cyntaf y Llywodraeth hon yw siarad dros Gymru, a byddwn yn gwneud hynny gydag egni a phenderfyniad. Ni fyddwn yn pwdu ar y cyrion, ond yn hytrach, yn chwarae ein rhan ac yn gwneud yr hyn a allwn i sicrhau’r canlyniad gorau i’n cenedl yng Nghymru.

First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. It clearly is an historic day—the Prime Minister triggering article 50 that begins the formal negotiation process after the referendum result in June last year.

I do take exception to your paragraph that talks about the Welsh Government being left out of the loop and not included in the negotiation process. I have to say that the Prime Minister herself has been to Wales five times, and David Davis himself has engaged many times with your good self and others in this Chamber, I might add, as has the Secretary of State for Wales. Whereas I look at the engagement the First Minister has sought to try and undertake with people who were on the majority vote after 23 June—neither he nor his Government have engaged at all with anyone who was on the majority side of the vote on 23 June and sit on this side of the Chamber. And so a bit of consistency, I think, would benefit the First Minister when he is throwing these allegations around. I also do regret bitterly the language that the First Minister used yesterday in First Minister’s questions: that he could see no money coming to agriculture after 2020, or structural funds. What evidence do you base that on, First Minister? Or are we to assume that that is official Labour Party policy and you are merely talking to Labour Party policy?

The letter today that the Prime Minister has sent to the President in Brussels clearly identifies the strands that she believes the negotiations should undertake. And I do hope that the First Minister does welcome the strands that the Prime Minister has identified in her letter, in particular with specific reference to Ireland and the peace process, and the significant discussions that will be require around that, and the importance of having parallel discussions and not isolating the settlement for the breakaway to the continuing relationships that the UK needs to develop with the EU. And I do hope that the First Minister will be able to endorse that sentiment; and indeed I do hope that he will able to endorse all the principles that are contained in the letter that the Prime minister has sent—and also the principles that the Prime Minister laid out in her Lancaster House speech, which clearly laid out 12 key principles that will form the basis of the negotiations over the next two years.

It is important that the UK Government does work with the devolved administrations to make sure that there is continuity in the message and continuity in the negotiations. I fully accept that, First Minister, and I will work tirelessly to make sure that does happen. And I do believe that there should be no—as the Prime Minister has clearly said—power grab or law grab back from any of the devolved administrations to Westminster. And the Prime Minister has clearly stated that, and, ultimately in her letter today, she clearly identifies the substantial passage of responsibilities and powers that she does see being transferred to the devolved administrations.

In your speech today, First Minister, you do identify—and I think it is a very relevant point to identity—the workings of the JMC, because there is a huge piece of work to be done domestically—as I have identified in other contributions that I’ve made within my speeches in this Chamber—about how the UK will function when we do come out of the European Union, and how—and it is my preferred model—the UK frameworks that would be put in place for agriculture, for structural funds and for HE funding will work on an equal basis to make sure that no one part of the UK is disproportionally affected by any changes that might come out. And so I would be grateful if the First Minister could give us a feeling of how he believes the JMC should develop in the coming weeks and months. Because I do think there’s a real danger that we do take our eye off what change we can effect in this Chamber, and the role that the Government here will have, by focusing too much on what’s going on in Brussels, while not focusing on what we need to be doing here in Wales to make sure that whatever negotiation and agreement arise out of that negotiation benefits all parts of the United Kingdom.

The other point I would like to make as well: What I think is really important is the great repeal Bill, the White Paper that will be published tomorrow. I notice that the First Minister does identify in his statement today that he will have much more to say on that, but it is important that, again, that is another area that we could have a huge impact on in making sure that Wales—in the transfer of responsibilities when they do come back from Brussels—that the right responsibilities do come back to this institution so that there is a positive dividend for devolution and a positive dividend for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England in that restribution of powers and responsibilities at the end of the two-year negotiation period.

The other point the First Minister rightly identifies is the focus on transitional arrangements that potentially might have to kick in if the two years do not prove sufficiently long enough to conclude the majority of the negotiations. What type of transitional arrangements does the First Minister and his Government have in mind that might be required? It’s one thing talking about transitional arrangements, it’s another thing understanding what exactly they might mean. And I do think, given that the Prime Minister clearly identifies in her letter today that she’s not looking for having a no-deal approach—as she points out, it is important the deal is concluded, but a deal that is fair to both partners working in these negotiations. Because this is not about putting Europe down and it should not be about putting the UK down. This is about making sure that we retain our strong links with Europe as partners in security, defence and economic opportunities, whilst recognising that sovereignty will return to these islands and those decisions will be taken within these islands, but reflecting, importantly, that the islands that the sovereignty will return to are not the islands that were the same in 1972 when we first went in to the European Union. We do have devolved Government, we do need to recognise that and the Prime Minister has given that commitment. But I do make that point that I opened my remarks on, First Minister: I believe the UK Government is sincere in its commitment to work with you and the other devolved administrations. It is a real shame that, over the last eight or nine months, you have not chosen to work with others in this Chamber.

Well, we look to work with elected Governments, of course, where we can. But in terms of some of the questions that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has raised, the problem—. He is right to say there’s been engagement; I’ve met with the Prime Minister and the engagement with David Davis has been good. I’m more than prepared to accept that. It’s not been good consistently across the UK Government, I have to say. Different approaches have been taken by different Ministers. Unfortunately, of course, as regards the letter, we were not aware of what was in the letter until it was actually announced in the Chamber of the House of Commons. As it happens, I thought the tone was right in terms of the way the letter was presented. It emphasised that we are fellow Europeans; that we should develop a deep and significant relationship with Europe, and I believe that is correct.

In terms of farming, I have to say to him that there are voices in DEFRA saying, ‘No subsidies after 2020’—I’ve heard them. There are people in his own party, like Boris Johnson, who take the view that WTO rules are fine. That is a 40 per cent tariff on what he produces on his farm: milk. Now, from his perspective, and he is one of many farmers, I have to say I don’t think any business can survive a 40 per cent tariff on dairy products while at the same time seeing a reduction in or the disappearance of subsidies. We have no guarantee beyond 2020 that anything will exist in terms of financial support for our farmers. If the UK Government was serious about that, it would say. All it has to say is this: that from 2020 onwards, the same amount of money will be available for our farmers and it will be distributed in the same way. That’s it. That resolves the issue. They have not done that. So, it’s perfectly right to point out to our farmers—and it was said to me over the weekend by farmers themselves that they are deeply concerned that this will see the end of farming subsidies and £260 million taken out of the rural economy.

Some of the issues that he has talked about: well, first of all he talked about the issue of devolution of powers. What is not clear is whether the UK Government have a definitive view on where powers rest when they return from the EU. They have said, on more than one occasion, that this institution will have more powers and there will be no clawback of existing powers, but I don’t believe they include the current EU frameworks as existing powers. That’s the problem for us. Now, if they say tomorrow that they are looking to replicate the current frameworks that exist in agriculture and fisheries—well, there is some merit in that in terms of the sense of it, but under no circumstances would we accept that they have a right to do so without the consent of this Chamber, or the consent, indeed, of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. If there are to be any frameworks of any kind, even if they simply replicate what already exists for the time being, that must be done with the consent of this elected Assembly that represents the people of Wales.

Could I turn to the JMC? The JMC is just no longer fit for purpose. The JMC is a talking shop, and has been since it existed. We cannot afford for this to carry on. If we are to have an internal single market within the UK—and he’s heard me say this several times—it’s important that the JMC becomes a council of Ministers where common frameworks are negotiated and agreed, which everyone signs up to. For example, if there’s going to be a new regime regarding state aid rules within the internal market of the UK, well, there’s sense in that, but they have to be agreed. Otherwise, from our perspective as a Government, we will not feel that we have any duty to observe them. Secondly, of course, where there are rules there has to be a court to enforce those rules. It’s the same in the US; it’s the same within the European single market; and the same thing would have to apply within the UK single market as well.

I did note what he said about talking about the right responsibilities being devolved to this place. Let me make it absolutely clear: my view is that anything that is devolved now will return from the EU straight here when we leave the EU. It will not go via Whitehall. It will not go to Whitehall to decide whether we get it or not. That includes agriculture, it includes fisheries, it includes issues of regional economic development, it includes environmental issues—those are issues that are devolved. Our devolution settlement does not say that these matters are devolved, except issues that are currently dealt with by the EU. And that would be a substantial change to the devolution settlement, and would go against the 2011 referendum. And I do not think that would be democratic, nor would it be right for the people of Wales.

Transitional arrangements are hugely important. I’m glad they’ve been recognised. Bluntly, I don’t think any negotiations will start before the autumn—there are French and German elections. Any deal has to be agreed by next autumn, not next March. Why? Because there is a ratification process within the EU, not just with the Commission, not just with the Parliament, but with 28, I think it is—possibly more than that—28 different Parliaments, all of whom would need to ratify any new treaty, and that takes months. That means that, by March 2019, if we are to avoid a cliff edge, there would have to be a fully ratified treaty in place. That is unlikely, I would suggest—highly unlikely is what I would say.

What is the alternative? Well, the UK could slip into European Economic Area membership in the meantime. Outside of the EU, that is true, yes; it’s correct to say part of the single market, yes; it’s correct to say still within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice; and, yes, it’s correct to say with a contribution being made. It satisfies the result of the referendum, and is a way of providing a transitional arrangement until such time as a free trade agreement may or may not be agreed. I think that’s the sensible point.

I do agree with the observation that he made that the UK, when it leaves the EU, will not be the UK of 1972—a unitary state, with one Government—and that’s worth remembering. It’s worth remembering as well the UK was desperate to join the common market in the first place, because its economy was tanking. And those of us who remember the early 1970s, remember that the UK economy was in a real mess, particularly manufacturing, and had been for about 20 or 25 years at that point. But it is right to say that going back to the way things were, pre-1973, is not an option. We are now four nations, four Governments, and a partnership, to my mind, that needs to work towards a common purpose. That is recognised by the UK Government, and I welcome that, but it’s important that’s turned into reality.

Today will mark a profound day in the history of Wales. While Wales voted narrowly to leave the European Union, the UK Government’s intention is to take us out of the European single market as well. This is the largest economic and trading bloc in the world. For Wales, that single market is the destination for some 67 per cent of our exports, a higher level than any other part of the UK. And the UK Government’s intention to reach a free trade agreement will not put us in the same position as Norway, Iceland or Switzerland. I do hope that we will be in a position to debate the UK Government’s statement very soon. It will be essential for this Assembly to scrutinise that statement, of course, but I have some immediate questions now on the Welsh Government’s view.

First Minister, we need to be very wary of the UK Government’s actual intentions, compared to the warm words that we’ve seen from the Government earlier today. They admit that the UK will lose influence over the European economy. They speak of securing the freest possible trade in goods and services, but they admit that this won’t be a single market membership—it won’t comply with the four freedoms—and, therefore, it could lead to tariffs. I’d like to know the Labour Government’s position on this, please. Do you believe that a free trade agreement can lead to continued single market participation? Do you anticipate tariffs, and if so, which sectors do you think would be most at risk? What does today’s triggering of article 50 mean for Airbus, for Toyota, for manufacturing as a whole?

I want to turn now to the future of this Assembly, and the future of this nation. We should be under no illusions about today’s article 50 notice. It does not fulfil the wishes of the Scottish Government, nor, to my mind, the Welsh Government. It certainly doesn’t satisfy Plaid Cymru. The language from the UK Government is that they have an expectation of a significant increase in devolved powers. Anyone who takes that at face value needs a reality check. The UK Government, by definition, is in power. The balance of powers within the UK is within their remit, and it doesn’t have to be negotiated with EU institutions. The UK Government should be providing us with guarantees, not expectations. First Minister, what will the Welsh Government be doing to secure that increase in powers that we will need to protect and boost our economy as Brexit happens? Is it now time to make the case for a new Wales Bill, a Wales Bill that is actually fit for purpose?

The UK Government statement on article 50 contained no mention of agriculture or the environment. EU funds are only guaranteed up to 2020, meaning we need to secure the replacement arrangements during this Assembly term. First Minister, you stated in response to my questioning yesterday that agricultural subsidies could disappear. The need for certainty is now urgent. Plaid Cymru will not accept any loss of agricultural funding as a result of Brexit. We have been clear that Wales should receive the same funding and that we should have full policy control over how it is allocated. Are you prepared to fight for that funding in the coming period, First Minister?

Turning to the actual negotiations, the UK Government has indicated that the devolved Governments will be consulted. I haven’t been filled with confidence about how the Welsh Government has described the consultation that has happened to date. Today, we hear language about the United Kingdom negotiating with the EU as a single state, but there are now two years ahead of us, which are critical for the future of Wales. You say in your statement that today marks the beginning of serious negotiation. Given that you’re disappointed and frustrated with the JMC process, how will you now work with the UK Government? You’ve stated that you will not sulk from the sidelines, so how are you going to put the Welsh national interest on the agenda? And given that you didn’t see that letter beforehand, nor did you have any opportunity to input into it, can you honestly say that, up until this point, you have been listened to by the Prime Minister? You claim to see evidence of movement, but, First Minister, to us, it doesn’t look like there’s been much movement at all.

A number of questions there that were asked of me by the leader of Plaid Cymru. First of all, one of the ironies of the argument that I’ve heard from the Prime Minister is that the Scottish referendum should not take place because people don’t really know what they’re going to be voting on. Well, that’s exactly what happened last year. People were asked whether we should be members of the EU, but, of course, the detail and minutiae are not known. We don’t know what people’s view is of the single market, or whether we should be in the customs union or not, or their views, particularly, on immigration. We can guess what some people thought about it, of course, we heard it ourselves. But the problem is that now is the time for detail to be filled in, although my hope is that the pragmatists in the UK Government at the moment hold the upper hand over the nationalists, and that sense will prevail. I listened carefully to Phillip Hammond’s interview this morning on Radio 4. It was an interesting interview. He talked about—. He was frank about the challenges for the UK. You heard the Prime Minister say today that membership of the single market is not an option. Well, she and I will know—we’ve had this debate. It may be a semantic debate, but, nevertheless, it is a debate, as to whether participation is the same thing as membership. But for the Prime Minister to use the words ‘to rule out membership, but not rule out participation’, I actually thought was interesting, but we’ll have to wait and see. Maybe Kremlinology or Whitehallology only takes you so far.

With regard to immigration—again, I’ve said this before, and I welcome what the Prime Minister said today about immigration being important, particularly, of course, ensuring that people are able to come to the UK and use their skills. And as I’ve said before, there will be no control over immigration. It never was going to be—it was always a myth, because of the open border with the Republic of Ireland. You cannot control your immigration if you have an open border. It’s an oxymoron just by definition.

In terms of the free trade agreement, the problem I think with the free trade agreement is that, if you look at FTAs across the world, they almost always exclude food, agriculture and fisheries. They are always outside of the agreement, and they are, therefore, subject to tariffs. And my great worry is that we end up with some kind of agreement with the EU that excludes agriculture and fisheries, where tariffs are imposed. There are other dangers in having free trade agreements with, for example, Australia or New Zealand. They are not in Wales’s interest at all. Replacing a market of 500 million with a market of 4.8 million in New Zealand, while, at the same time, allowing New Zealand lamb to flow unhindered into Wales must be great for New Zealand, but very bad for Wales, and we would oppose tooth and nail any free trade agreement with New Zealand or Australia, or any other country that threatens our farming industry.

In terms of the effect on Airbus and Toyota, there are two issues that those organisations are concerned about. First of all, tariffs—increasing their costs, but, secondly, of course, their ability to move workers around. It’s literally the case for Airbus that they need to move people from Broughton to Toulouse within a day. They don’t want to be playing around with visas and trying to deal with the paperwork. That will inevitably mean that Broughton is at a disadvantage in the years to come. So, there must be the ability to shift people around in the course of a day or two so that they can work in another country or within the European Union without the need to go through unnecessary paperwork.

Well, in terms of devolved powers, I can only read what I’ve seen thus far. The proof of the pudding will come in the eating, of course. We’ll have to wait and see what happens in terms of devolved powers in the future.

I think that one of the issues as well that the UK has to be wary of is that the EU was actually, or had become, part of the glue that held the UK together. Without that, then it’s hugely important to restructure the UK in order for it to be robust in the future. The case, for example, of Northern Ireland—the only identity that people shared in Northern Ireland was a European one. Beyond that, they have nothing in common in terms of an identity. We must be careful, then, that Northern Ireland doesn’t find itself staring, or looking backwards, into what happened before. There’s no need for that to happen, but we must be wary of that.

Wales Bill—there has to be another Wales Bill. I mean, the one we’ve got now is something that we can use for April next year, but it’s far from sustainable—we know that. The issues such as policing, jurisdiction and air passenger duty, just to name three issues, are not resolved—they need to be resolved. There is no reason why, in the future, Wales should be treated in a second-class fashion compared to Scotland.

In terms of subsidies, the issues that I’ve already mentioned are important, that is we need to see certainty beyond 2020. We need to see the allocation ring-fenced at a UK level and then, of course, us getting our Welsh allocation. It cannot be Barnettised, otherwise we get an enormous cut through Barnett; it cannot come with strings attached either. By all means, we can negotiate and agree a common framework—fine, but by negotiation and not by imposition. But I am concerned that what might happen to that money is that it will stick to fingers in Whitehall rather than come to Wales at the moment.

The other issue that worries me about farming is this: for years, agricultural subsidies have been outside of the normal budget process. I believe that agricultural subsidies need to be ring-fenced and a ring fence agreed by all four nations, otherwise, every year, in this Chamber, the debate will be as to whether farmers get more money or the health service gets more money. I just don’t think that’s in the interest of agriculture, to be honest. I think it should be taken out of that arena.

In terms of negotiation, as I’ve said before, the JMC is not fit for purpose. If the UK is going to survive, it has to adapt. It can adapt, but that does mean a proper council of Ministers with a proper decision-making process and a dispute-resolution process that is independent, because how else could any of us have faith in it if it carried on with the current situation, where, if there is a dispute between ourselves and the UK Treasury, the dispute is resolved by the UK Treasury? That’s hardly an independent and disinterested system for dealing with disputes. Tomorrow will give us more of an idea of the direction of travel and, of course, over the course of the next week, I’m sure, there’ll be ample opportunity, as there should be, to examine very carefully the issues that arise over the next few days.

Can I regret that the First Minister, yet again, has failed to rise to the level of events? Does he not see that today actually is a great day for the United Kingdom, and a great day for Wales, because what we’re seeing here is the beginning of a process of the restoration of democratic self-Government to Assemblies such as this, where we’ll have Ministers who make decisions and are held to account for them, and if we don’t like what they do, we can vote against them? That’s a privilege also that the people will have on a regular basis in the form of elections. So, is that surely not an unambiguous gain for this country? Of course, I don’t expect the Welsh regionalist party opposite—the European regionalist party, which is the excuse for the Welsh nationalists opposite, to understand that. They would far rather that we were governed from Brussels than from Cardiff. Surely, the Welsh Labour Government should take a more sensible view.

One of the reasons why—if this is the case—the First Minster has not been listened to by the Prime Minister, no doubt, is because he’s still refighting the referendum campaign and he is the voice of doom and gloom. He makes Gordon Brown look positively cheerful in comparison. He sees none of the opportunities and all of the potential problems. Nicola Sturgeon uses the process for political posturing for a referendum that she actually doesn’t want to have because she knows she will lose it. Surely, if we want to play a full part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government about the future after we leave the EU, the time to do that, on a positive basis, is now, and not to constantly harp on about the negatives and the uncertainties that exist, come what may.

It is somewhat rich for the First Minister, as the leader of the Conservatives pointed out, to complain about not being involved in the process when he has resolutely set his face like flint against the involvement of other parties, other than Plaid Cymru, in the process of negotiating a common position that Wales could have vis-à-vis the UK.

As regards full and unfettered access to the single market, insofar as that means free trade, he knows that the Government is already committed to trying to obtain that objective, and it’s in the mutual interest of both parties—the EU and the UK—that it should be secured. We have a massive trade deficit with the EU amounting to £60 billion a year. In cars alone we have a £20 billion a year deficit with Germany, so there is a massive bargaining counter that we have in our hands in the negotiating process, yet all the First Minister can say is that we won’t be able to sell any cars because there might potentially be a 10 per cent tariff on cars. Well, we’ve already seen an 18 per cent devaluation in the pound in the last 12 months anyway, which more than compensates for that compared to where we were last time.

Of course there will be problems for agriculture in the way that he describes, but it will be within our competence here in this place to decide how to deal with those. He will be the leader of an administration that will have complete control over agriculture as a result of our leaving the EU, and I wholly agree with him—I wholly agree with the point that he made—that there should be an immediate repatriation of powers from Brussels to Cardiff where that is appropriate under the devolution settlement we already have, and that there should be no blockage in Whitehall or Westminster in the meantime.

As regards a transition process lasting more than two years, a lot of people will see that as a thinly disguised ploy to try to keep us in the EU for even longer than the process that is set out under the Lisbon treaty. There should be no prospect whatsoever of elongating the negotiating process, because Parkinson’s law might then come into play, whereby the work expands to fill the time available and an infinite amount of time will mean an infinite extension to the time that we remain members of the European Union.

There’s plenty of time now for the Welsh Labour Government to develop lines of policy that they would like to see. For example, in agriculture, what kind of subsidy regime do we want to have in Wales after we leave the EU? That’ll be something that will be completely within his control. I do agree with him that we need to sort out the funding of future policy, and I agree with both Plaid Cymru and the Government that we should have every single penny that has been sourced via Brussels—all British taxpayers’ money in any case. Every single penny of that should come to Wales, whether it’s for agricultural support, structural funds or whatever, and it should then be for the Welsh Labour Government to set its own priorities in the light of that. The Welsh people can take their own view on whether those priorities are right or not at the time of the next Assembly elections.

As regards the constitution, I again wholly agree with him that the devolution settlement must not in any way be undermined. But, what is happening now through the triggering of article 50 is that we’re actually enhancing the devolution settlement—we’re actually enhancing the powers of this Assembly and enhancing the power of Welsh Ministers to govern ourselves in a way—. This is the paradox of the so-called nationalists’ position, of course: they don’t want to have democratic institutions such as the National Assembly for Wales deciding what our environmental policy is going to be, what our agricultural policy is going to be and so many other areas of policy that are currently the preserve of the European Union.

So, I say to the First Minister: do cheer up. This is a great opportunity for us, as well as a challenge. Of course, there are challenges and opportunities in life in general, but surely the opportunity to strike free trade agreements with the 85 per cent of the global economy that is outside the EU—. Given that the United States takes 22 per cent of Welsh exports, for example, is there not a great opportunity there to plug into the process of negotiation on free trade agreements in order to ensure that the UK Government, negotiating on our behalf in a unitary state insofar as we still are one, takes Welsh interests fully into account? They’re unlikely to do that if he carries on with the dire dirge of doom and gloom that we regularly get, day in and day out, in Wales. He was at it yesterday in question time, and today: ‘WTO rules will be a disaster for Wales.’ Well, the average tariff under WTO rules is about 3.5 per cent. Admittedly, they would be higher for certain sectors that are important for Wales, such as automotive and agriculture, which is, generally speaking, as the First Minister said, not the subject of agreement in free trade agreements. But, surely, the opportunity from being positive rather than negative is to play a real part in the process of negotiation with the UK Government and if he carries on as he is, then he will continue to be ignored.

Well, I have to say to the leader of UKIP: he describes the day as the day of the return of democratic self-government; if Scotland votes ‘out’ in a referendum, I wonder if he would say that about Scotland. But, it’s a strange point to make in that regard.

The UK never lost its sovereignty. It always kept its sovereignty. It’s a sovereign state and it still shares its—. It always will share its sovereignty. It’s a member of national organisations that are multistate organisations where sovereignty is shared with those organisations, otherwise you’d never have any treaties, you shouldn’t be a member of the UN, and you shouldn’t be a member of any supranational organisations. It’s cloud-cuckoo-land to suggest that the UK or any other state, for that example, is in any way wholly sovereign in the classical sense of the nineteenth-century.

There is some irony—and I know this annoyed Plaid Cymru Members, but to me it caused me some amusement—but I never thought I’d see the day when UKIP would accuse Plaid Cymru of not being Welsh or nationalist enough. Given that five years ago, UKIP as a party was robustly anti-Welsh and robustly anti-devolution, there is some irony there, isn’t there, in terms of that? Yes, things have changed. There’s no doubt about that.

In terms of refighting the campaign, the campaign has finished; that was last year. This is a question of what we do next. I have to say to the leader of UKIP that I’ve heard nothing from him constructive at all. We have accepted the result. We’ve put forward concrete proposals. We’ve put forward a White Paper. We’ve put forward proposals for the internal governance of the UK. What I get from him is, ‘It’ll all be fine.’ No concrete proposals at all. I look forward to seeing them when, and if, they get round in UKIP—if they can agree with each other, that is—to producing them.

The other thing I have to say to him is that I disagree fundamentally with him that a free trade agreement will cover everything. It just will not do it. He must understand, surely, that the European Council of Ministers represents 27 different countries. The ratification process for any deal will require the ratification of some national parliaments and, indeed, some regional ones, particularly in Belgium. The ratification process, however, does not include BMW and Mercedes-Benz, who do not have a seat on the table of the European Council of Ministers and will not have the opportunity to influence what the entire European Union does in terms of its final trade arrangements.

In terms of tariffs, I can say to him that the average tariff is 5.5 per cent. There are hundreds of them: there are tariffs on hats and umbrellas. But more seriously, there are tariffs on automotive, aircraft components and most heavily on food, most heavily on food, particularly dairy products. I cannot believe that he believes that the answer to the imposition of tariffs and their effect is to crash the currency. Keep the pound low, make it really expensive for us to import goods, send inflation through the roof, but that’s fine because that will offset tariffs. That is not a sound or sustainable economic policy.

In terms of the WTO, again, he seems to think that crashing out with WTO rules is a good thing. The UK is just 60 million people. The European Union is far, far bigger as a market. We will be hurt hugely by the imposition of tariffs. Our manufacturers will find that their goods are more expensive. Apart from the financial barrier, there is a psychological barrier. If you were an investor from another large economy, why would you invest in a country where there was a tariff barrier in place between one of your factories and the other? That is clearly not going to happen. The automotive industry tells us that, the aircraft industry tells us that. I wonder who he’s speaking to when he takes the views of people on board.

I do look forward to the £350 million a week that will now spent on the NHS across the UK. That has been completely forgotten about, and conveniently. He reminds me of somebody who is part of a group of people who threw a brick through the window and now are criticising the people who are trying to put the window back together again by saying that the window was never broken in the first place or that we’re putting it back together in the wrong way, or even some of his party are arguing that they never put the brick through the window in the first place. The reality is that there are some of us who are trying to move on, some of us who are trying to ensure that the UK has a future outside of the EU, that Wales is not damaged as a result of leaving the EU, but his party has come forward with no proposals at all—no proposals at all. Even yesterday—this is a good one—there was a leaflet saying that UK fishermen would have access to a 200 mile fishing zone. In case he hasn’t noticed, the UK is within 200 miles of other countries all around the UK. There is no 200 mile fishing zone. That only exists if you have a 200 mile gap between you and another country, and that doesn’t exist as far as the UK is concerned. I have to say, the nonsense still continues with UKIP, but I offer him the chance to come forward in the next few weeks with something sensible and concrete that we can debate and examine.

Could I ask one very straightforward question based on the contributions already from opposition spokesmen? Has the Prime Minister given any guarantee at all on funding for agriculture and rural development up until 2020, and that that funding would be passed for Wales? And my second question is: in response to the comments last week by one of the prime ‘leave’ campaigners—now somewhat in exile himself, Michael Gove—that this was now an opportunity to diminish or strip out entirely the European habitats and wildlife directives—and bearing in mind the implications of that for Wales, let alone the ecological coherence of networks around the UK and EU—what are his thoughts on the idea that this is now an opportunity to engage in a race to the bottom of environmental standards?

I can say to the Member that guarantees are in place until 2020 but not beyond. That’s the problem. Beyond that, there are no guarantees of a single penny and that’s why we need certainty with regard to that. Michael Gove, I’m afraid, represents a section of the Conservative Party who are minimal government enthusiasts. They will sit quite happily on the right wing of the Republican party, I suspect, in the US. They see things like environmental protection as a burden on business. I can say that, for example, the habitats directive will be a matter entirely for this institution to decide what it wishes to do with in terms of environmental regulation in the future. But I can certainly guarantee that despite the views of Michael Gove, what we will not be doing is going back to the days of high pollution levels in our rivers and making Wales a less green and attractive place than it is now.

We are out of time on this statement. I have many speakers left uncalled. I will call a few further contributions as long as they promise to be short and concise. David Melding, set the tone.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Last week, First Minister, the president of the Committee of the Regions, Markku Markkula, said that the Committee of the Regions would provide the EU’s chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, with a picture of the evolving situation at regional level. Mr Markkula also said in a debate in the Committee of the Regions last week, and I quote,

we must work to protect well-established ties between regional and local authorities in the EU and the UK’.

It seems to me this is turning in a positive direction and it’s important that we use our membership of the Committee of the Regions to ensure that those who are negotiating on behalf of the EU get a full picture of the situation here. I wonder, as well as the representatives, whether the Welsh Government will perhaps meet with Mr Markkula and his colleagues.

Well, I’m more than happy, assuming a meeting is possible, but it’s absolutely right to say that, in keeping with what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that we are not leaving Europe. It’s hugely important that we retain and strengthen our ties with organisations across Europe—that is in Wales’s interests and it’s in the interests of all people across Europe to co-operate in such a way.

I thank the First Minister for his statement and I must say, even though I’m unsurprised, I still find it remarkable that in this so-called family of nations, the democratically elected First Minister of this country is excluded from drafting a letter to mark our withdrawal from the European Union.

My questions to the First Minister today are regarding the process itself, but in terms of the process, not to lose sight of the things that we can still lead the initiative on. So, the First Minister has spoken about the reformation of the JMC into a proper council of Ministers with independent arbitration. Does he plan to publish further detail on that and how the UK internal market can be governed in a fair and democratic way post Brexit? But, not just the structures within the UK as well, because he’s rightly pointed to the relationship that we have with Ireland and the common travel area. Does he agree with me that it’s time now for us to look at reforming the British-Irish Council so that it more closely resembles the Nordic council model where, of course, you have a mixture of sovereign states, devolved territories, EU member states, non-EU member states and so on?

And finally, does the First Minister share my anger that as things stand, only two parliaments in these islands will have a meaningful vote on the final treaty with the European Union—the Westminster Parliament and the Irish Parliament, as an EU 27 member state—and that parliamentarians in Wallonia will have a greater say on the future of this country than the parliamentarians of Wales?

Yes, I do, and he will have heard me say many times it’s my belief that any treaty should be ratified by the four Parliaments and not just by one, for any number of reasons, including the fact that any agreement may well affect areas that are wholly devolved, such as agriculture and fisheries. It wouldn’t be right in principle for us to be bound by something that we had no role in negotiating nor agreeing. I think that’s a fundamental principle that is well known in Belgium. It’s not yet known in the UK, but it needs to be known in as a principle in the UK.

In terms of relationships with other countries, Ireland will be an important partner for us in the future. We have a maritime border with the republic and those links will be strengthened in the future, and we will look to work with our friends in the Irish Government for mutual interest.

With the British-Irish Council, it’s in a curious position in the sense that one of the members of the British-Irish Council will be remaining in the EU. There are some issues as to whether Ireland can be part of discussions on the EU, because of its EU membership, in the British Irish Council—that’s complicated. There are three other members that are not members of the EU, but are members of the customs union and may well find themselves hauled out of the customs union without being asked—the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. They never had a vote on it, but they will be told by the UK Government, ‘You’re leaving, like it or not’. They have no means of renegotiating entry into the customs union, because they have no control or power over foreign affairs. So, their position is even worse in the sense that they will be taken out of a trading arrangement without their people ever being asked their opinion on it. So, there are a number of complications that will need to be dealt with via the JMC process and the BIC.

In terms of the detail, yes, we’re more than happy to publish details, but he will know the principles that I’ve already explained, which are: a council of Ministers, four Governments agreeing frameworks on the way forward, and also, of course, an independent adjudication process, so that we can all have faith that there is a trade court or other body that is policing the agreed rules of the single market fairly. That’s the way it works in the European Union, that’s the way it works in the United States, that’s the way it should work in the UK.

And, finally, Eluned Morgan.

Does the First Minister agree with me that today is a profoundly sad day for the nation and also for our children and our children’s children? And, of course, those who will pay the highest price for article 50 will be those who can least afford it.

[Inaudible.]

I wonder if the First Minister could tell me his interpretation—[Interruption.]

I think the Member would like to apologise for the remark, which I also heard. Very quickly.

Llywydd, I was listening to the Member, and—[Interruption.]

No. Just apologise. However it was meant, just apologise for how it was heard.

Well, what was unparliamentary about the remark?

Are you refusing to apologise?

Well, what is there to apologise for?