National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

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

The Auditor General for Wales published his report in July of 2015 and the Public Accounts Committee published its report in January of 2016.

I thank you for that reply, First Minister. First Minister, you’ve set up an inquiry into what was described by a committee of this Assembly as a cavalier approach to disposal of public assets, which was scandalous. And this deal has also been described as one of the greatest blunders of recent times in Wales. Therefore, does the First Minister not agree that this inquiry is a test of the competence of the entire framework of scrutiny and administration that makes up devolved administration in Wales? Further to this, is it not true that the magnitude of this blunder demands that the necessary checks and balances are put into place as soon as possible to make sure this sort of debacle does not occur again? At the moment, there appears to be a perception that this matter has been kicked into the long grass.

Well, no. The auditor general recognised that we acted quickly and appropriately once concerns were raised. We commissioned a review of the governance of the regeneration investment fund for Wales, and a peer review of the professional advice, which was conducted by Deloitte, and we made the results of both of these reviews available to the auditor general.

The Public Accounts Committee concluded that RIFW and Welsh Government lost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. Yet, the Welsh Government has claimed it’s not possible to demonstrate that land was sold under value. In responding to the PAC, Welsh Government confirmed that a legal process had been initiated, and said further legal steps were under review. Will the First Minister confirm whether that process and those further steps are civil, regulatory or criminal? And, if he is to seek damages, can he confirm that he first needs to accept that he made a loss?

There are legal proceedings that are ongoing, and, as a result, I cannot comment further.

The facts of this matter are that, just to take Lisvane, land was sold for £2 million, which weeks later was said to be worth £41 million. The issue is a stain on devolution, and I believe it’s a stain on your First Ministership. Do you support South Wales Police reopening the investigation into the Lisvane land deal?

First of all, we must be careful because there was involvement with Ministers from his own party as well. But, regardless of that fact, this was not an episode that reflected well on those who were part of it. That much I accept. Nevertheless, there are legal proceedings that are still outstanding and, as I say, I cannot comment on those proceedings while they remain current.

I am very pleased to see that Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen has made sufficient progress against its recommendations from the core inspection in October 2015 to be removed from special measures. And I hope, of course, the school maintains and continues to improve.

I’m delighted that the First Minister has seen that report, and he will note that the comments of Nick Brain, the executive head of the school, have been that they’ve flown out of special measures. I think it may even be unprecedented—the turnaround has been incredible. I remember shortly after the not-far-short-of-a-crisis that the school went into, the headteacher standing up in a prize-giving ceremony in that school, when their heads were down, and saying, ‘I tell you, we will turn this school around rapidly’ and, by that summer, they had achieved record GCSE results. Will he join me in commending not only the headteacher, but all the school staff, the support staff, the teachers, everybody involved in the school there, but also the governors as well, and also the pupils? This has been a difficult time for the school, but to fly out of special measures in this way, with the support of Bridgend County Borough Council local authority, with the support of Welsh Government and the Schools Challenge Cymru funding, has been an incredible turnaround, and it shows what can be done with leadership at all levels for the good of our pupils and our students.

I think that analysis is absolutely right. Nick Brain has an established track record elsewhere in the county borough. But it shows the difference that leadership can make to an institution that is going through a difficult phase. The staff are pretty much the same, the pupils are pretty much the same, but the leadership, clearly, was not there, in the way that people would have expected. It is there now, and it’s fantastic to see the progress that’s been made.

Can I just add my voice to those sentiments as well? I think this is amazing news for Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen. Even so, the report does note that the curriculum currently limits continuity in the development of pupils’ Welsh and modern foreign language skills, and that it plans to address those in 2017-18. Well, bilingual and even trilingual skills, as I hope you accept, could be agents of social mobility, and, of course, we have the 1 million speakers target. So, is there any support that Welsh Government might be able to give the school, or the consortium that’s involved in this, or additional advice or support, in order to make sure that they actually crack this in this next 12-month period?

We do stand ready, of course, to provide advice, as will the local education authority. But I’m confident that, with the leadership that is in place in the school now, they will be able to meet the challenges that they have been set and, of course, to continue with the good progress that’s been made.

First Minister, it is good news that Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen is out of special measures, and the staff and pupils should be congratulated on making strong progress against the majority of Estyn’s recommendations. First Minister, what help is your Government giving to the school to ensure they make better progress in improving the numeracy and literacy of pupils, and how will your Government ensure this work is not affected by budget cuts imposed by the LEA? Diolch.

Well, primarily, of course, it’s a matter for the LEA to provide support for schools. But, ultimately, a school needs a strong leadership team, and that’s been established at Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen. The results are there for all to see. And we expect, of course, schools, and the LEA, to adhere to Welsh Government policies and to provide advice on that basis.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. The First Minister will know that the Welsh economy is worth about £60 billion a year, and, of that, £38 billion is accounted for by public expenditure, between the UK Government and the Welsh Government—about two thirds of the total. Does he agree with me that there is an urgent need for greater diversification? We do need to get more private capital into Wales, to generate more wealth to raise the tax base, and, therefore, to have the opportunity to spend more on schools, hospitals, et cetera. And that’s why the decision on the Circuit of Wales was particularly disappointing, because that was a project that offered £315 million-worth of private capital to come into Wales, and now that isn’t going to happen, instead of which we’re going to spend another £100 million worth of taxpayers’ money on an empty industrial park. Is this not an indictment of the Welsh Government that, after 20 years, we’ve gone backwards rather than gone forwards?

Well, the point I make about the circuit is that the circuit needed a Government guarantee at the very least. Now, if the circuit was in a stronger financial position, it wouldn’t need that guarantee. What we have done is to move forward with the technology park. It’s based on discussions we’ve had with potential investors. It’s based on the fact that, for some time, it’s been difficult to attract investment into some parts of Wales because of a lack of buildings where people can actually base themselves. And, thirdly, of course, it’ll have a heavy emphasis on skills. The last thing we want is for jobs to be created but for local people not to be able to access those jobs. And the technology park will deliver in all of those areas.

Well, the technology park will just deliver a set of empty buildings. There is no interest in those buildings that the First Minister can point to that gives any guarantee that they’ll be occupied for any automotive firm, or any other firm, actually, whereas, at least with a world-class race track, in the light of decisions that might be made in Silverstone, where formula 1 could move away, then this is an obvious hub to form a cluster of related industries. Without that, there is little prospect that this will be any more successful than the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone in attracting jobs to a part of the world that desperately needs them.

Well, as I’ve said, the reality is this: we have spoken to potential investors and there is interest. We’re not looking to put a building up there that won’t be filled. The reason why we’re moving ahead as we are is because we have taken soundings, and we have listened to companies—companies such as TVR, who are coming to Ebbw Vale, and others—who are interested in creating that automotive cluster. They all said to us that a circuit was not essential to their business plans and they still want to work with us to deliver those jobs. Bear in mind, of course, that the circuit itself would have created very few jobs indeed. It was the phase 2—the technology park, which we’re looking to build— that would have created most of the jobs.

Well, of course, it has been said by the developers all along that the great advantage of this facility was to be the centre of a much larger collection of firms that would generate jobs in the real economy of manufacturing for many, many years to come. Those jobs are now more speculative than before, but instead of a Government guarantee, which might never be called upon, we now have an actual promise by the Welsh Government to spend real money—taxpayers’ money; up to £100 million over 10 years—with no guarantee of a single job coming out of that beyond the construction phase. So, shouldn’t we really be doing a lot more than we are to make Wales an attractive venue for private sector investment, as I said in my first question, in order to raise the tax base so that the Welsh Government has more resources available to it to spend on all the highly desirable social objectives that we all share?

Well, I don’t disagree with the point he’s making. I remind him, of course, about the announcement by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles last week of 300 jobs being created in Newport. We have just seen our best foreign direct investment figures for nigh on 30 years. It’s a sign that Wales is a place that businesses want to invest in, that we are getting better jobs. In the early 1990s, investment was attracted into Wales on the basis that we had the lowest wage rates in western Europe. Those days are long gone and nor they should never return. We are increasingly able to attract jobs into Wales on the basis that our people have the skills required, that, to quote Aston Martin, we have a Government with pride and passion in terms of selling Wales to the world, and the results that we see for FDI speak for themselves.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Do you believe Wales is moving towards free higher education or further away from it?

I believe we’ve put in place a fair package of funding for both undergraduates and postgraduates, and that is of course something that we are proud, as a Government, to do. The package available to students in Wales will be more generous than those in England.

I know it’s the end of term, First Minister, but that wasn’t a very convincing answer. I’ve heard a range of attempted justifications in this Chamber and outside from you and Cabinet members to the announcement that was made last week, but what I’m hearing from students is very different. The National Union of Students believes that tuition fees should be frozen and they say that the announcement your Government has made is a huge step backwards. They say that this will hinder access to education rather than help it, and they say that there should be pragmatic steps towards free higher education. Those students were quoting what was, up until last week, Labour Party policy. Why have you turned your back on them?

Well, the NUS signed up to the Diamond review, so it’s surprising that they now say that they’re not supportive of what is proposed. Of course, they will want to represent students—we understand that. What the Diamond review does is also provide funding—[Interruption.] What the Diamond review also does is to provide, for the first time, support for postgraduate students, which is hugely important. We stand by, of course, the manifesto promises that we made in 2016.

The Diamond review didn’t recommend a hike in fees, First Minister. And also, a number of parties signed up to participating in that review, but they didn’t sign up to implementing whatever outcome was recommended. That is down to your Government. First Minister, you’ve turned your back on students, and you must be hearing the same messages that we have been hearing. Plaid Cymru believes that higher education is a public good and should be funded across the education budget by the whole of society. Students want their universities to be better funded through the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and through your Government, not from their own pockets. Students should not bear the brunt of that demand for better funding because there is a historic funding gap that exists due to your lack of investment as a Government. You want students to pay for the funding gap. We believe that that is unjust.

Now, I note—[Interruption.]—that the announcement was made during the summer holidays—

Can we allow the leader of Plaid Cymru to continue please? We don’t need accusations being hurled around the Chamber. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. That announcement was made during the summer holidays, when students had already left campus. At the end of this Assembly term, will you now give those students some well-deserved good news and abandon that tuition fee hike or does the Labour Party no longer believe in free higher education?

Well, first of all, I’m surprised to hear that she’s distancing herself from the Diamond review, which is news to me, I have to say, at this stage. Secondly, it is not sufficient for her to say that she wants tuition fees to be abolished without saying where the money’s going to come from. It is not serious politics to say that—[Interruption.] It is not serious politics to say, in Wales, that you want to abolish tuition fees and then not say where the money is coming from. We have to deal with the real world. [Interruption.] Secondly—

Let’s hear the First Minister respond. Let’s allow the First Minister to respond.

Secondly, is she saying fees for undergraduates, or for postgraduates as well? That is something that she needs to clarify. What we have done is recognise that postgraduate funding has not been there in sufficient levels in the past, and so the package we offer for undergraduates and postgraduates is both fair and in advance of that available in England.

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, yesterday the auditor general issued this report into the Cardiff and Vale university health board’s contractual relationships with RKC Associates, which, for the uninitiated, is a human resources company. In the 10 years that I’ve being in this Assembly—and I’ve seen quite a few reports, in fairness, in those 10 years—this clearly is one of the most damning reports that I have seen. I’d be grateful to understand what your take is on it, given that the Welsh Government is cited in several references about giving permission for the contracts to be engaged with with this individual and, above all, being on the selection panel that finally allowed the individual to go forward and take this place with the Cardiff and Vale health board.

Well, these are matters, ultimately, for the health board to explain, but I know the Minister will be talking to the health board in order to get an explanation from them and will, of course, inform the Assembly in due course.

First Minister, I had hoped you’d be far better briefed than that. It isn’t exclusively a matter for Cardiff and Vale health board by any stretch of the imagination. This is a health board that is in some measure of special measures from the Welsh Government—financial scrutiny, in particular, because it faces a huge financial deficit of £30 million to £35 million, at the last estimate, in this financial year. The contract that was agreed and the terms of employment in certain respects were paying £1,000 a day plus expenses, plus VAT, according to the auditor general. There is little or no transparency; there is little or no accountability. There is an inability for the auditor general to actually understand how the appointments were made, because there does seem, amongst the former senior executives of the health board, to be pointing to someone else as making the decision and just going round and round in circles. The one clear person who is involved here, because she was on the selection panel when the final appointment was made, is the health board chairman, who was sitting on that selection. Do you have confidence in the health board chairman given the accusations that are put—not the accusations, sorry—the proposals that have been put in this report from the auditor general himself? Because we have seen it time and time again: when these things run out of control, they can have disastrous consequences for the running and management of the health board in delivering services here in Cardiff and Vale.

Well, first of all, the health board is not in special measures. He said it was a kind of special measures, but it’s not actually in special measures in terms of the definition of the term. Secondly, the health Secretary will be taking the matter up with the health board, will be demanding answers, and those answers will be shared with the Assembly.

I notice you didn’t give a vote of confidence to the chair of the health board, and I offered you that opportunity. Can you not understand how frustrated and how angry members of the health board feel when they see a report like this that identifies consultants being brought in on £1,000 a day plus expenses? Over the 18 months of the employment, £26,000 plus VAT in expenses alone—that’s more than a nurse starts on, that is. And then, when a final contract was offered, they came to the Welsh Government to seek permission to raise the ceiling from £136,000 a year to £150,000 a year. Now, this is a health board that has been in the news because of the court case last Friday—that staff are facing prosecution and also demands for payment of incurred fines. But, more importantly, there will be huge anger among key members of the health board and patients who use that health board when they understand the cavalier nature in which this situation has arisen. It cannot be allowed to continue. As I said, the Welsh Government’s permission was sought to allow these arrangements to progress, and the Welsh Government gave its permission. So, you do have a key role to understand this and actually make sure it doesn’t happen again. I also note that the director general of the health service has written to all health boards in Wales to understand whether there are any arrangements like this in other health boards. Are you in a position to clarify the position on your understanding of arrangements, in particular when it comes to consultancies like this in other parts of Wales that could bring the health service into disrepute?

Well, first of all, I do have confidence in the chair. Secondly, this matter is something that needs fuller investigation, and Assembly Members will be told what the outcome of that investigation actually is.

He mentioned the issue of staff car parking. This has been something that’s been in the news recently. It is important, I think, that the reasoning behind the court case is understood. The reason why enforcement was put in place was because there had been a death on the site, partially due to illegal parking and partially due to the traffic flow going through the site. Some 16,000 traffic movements go through the University Hospital of Wales at the moment, and it is right that there is proper enforcement of illegal and unsafe parking. That has to happen on a site that is this busy. Why these individuals went to court and what advice they received is difficult to know. I do know that one of them in particular had 59 parking tickets. Again, no explanation is given as to why that is. It’s unfortunate for those individuals—I understand that—but it is hugely important that there is proper enforcement on the UHW site in terms of safety, and to stop people parking there all day, in order to make sure that patients who arrive on site do have places to park. So, enforcement has to happen. Otherwise, are we saying that people can park there without any fear of any kind of penalty? Things have gone very far with regard to three individuals; it’s difficult to know why that is. I can say that the idea that they face costs of £150,000 is nonsense. We don’t know where that figure has come from and that has absolutely no basis in fact. But UHW is a site where there is a great deal of traffic movement and there does need to be enforcement regarding that movement.

The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015, sets out investment for public transport for 2015-20 across all parts of Wales.

First Minister, your Government has recently decided, once again, not to prioritise any train stations in Pembrokeshire, despite the fact that certain stations, such as Milford Haven station, do need significant improvements. Now, I appreciate that when you as a Government invest money in rail projects, you will do this with stakeholders such as Network Rail, Arriva Trains and so on, but given that you are spending significant amounts of money, can you tell us what you’re doing to ensure that any Welsh Government funding that funds improvements is distributed fairly, so that all parts of Wales are taken into account?

There are criteria that are open and that can be seen, and that are used to decide which stations should be supported over the years. It’s a completely open process. It doesn’t favour any part of Wales. It just considers the investment required. Of course, through the investment of Welsh Government, the Fishguard town station was opened, after being closed for many years. There are also more services on that line. We always consider how we can improve the rail services and the bus services in Pembrokeshire.

First Minister, you confirmed on Friday in the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister that the franchise won’t be one where all profits are returned to Government, but one where you have to contract with a private company. So, what steps are you taking, therefore, to ensure that any profits that come from growth and investment made by the Welsh Government in that franchise are returned to people in Pembrokeshire and beyond, and that we don’t see the current situation where one company is making a profit on the back of public funding?

That is something that I would accept. I can say that and nothing else, I think. We don’t have the opportunity to run the railway ourselves or through a management company. But it’s crucially important that we have a model that is as close as possible to one that reinvests any profit back in the service itself, and also to ensure that the people of Wales see an increase in the quality of the service—not just having more trains, but also trains that are good ones to travel upon. That’s extremely important as part of the franchise.

Yes. We remain committed to supporting the existing eight enterprise zones located across Wales and a written statement will shortly be published to detail how that’s being achieved.

I just want to thank the First Minister for that response. The 1980s enterprise zones were not successful in Wales, with the largest in Swansea becoming a large out-of-town shopping area. In fact, the term ‘enterprise zone’ in Swansea is used to define an out-of-town shopping area. When are the current zones going to be reviewed, and what will constitute success?

Well, success, of course, involves creating more jobs. It does not involve creating another shopping park, which, as the Member rightly says, happened in the lower Swansea valley in the early 1980s. I can say, in terms of governance, that the Cabinet Secretary met with the enterprise zone board chairs on 12 June to have an initial discussion around enterprise zone governance and the future direction of the enterprise zone programme in Wales. I know that the Cabinet Secretary plans to meet the chairs again at the end of the summer to continue those discussions, focusing on ensuring that future arrangements meet the requirements of the Government and emerging Government policy.

First Minister, there are eight enterprise zones across Wales. None of them cover my own constituency. I would say, in mid Wales, there is a great feel for entrepreneurship and there is a higher level of business start-ups than perhaps in other parts of Wales. So, what I would ask you, First Minister, is: do you think there is a case for an enterprise zone, or a growth deal, for mid Wales, particularly focused on growing businesses and creating higher paid jobs?

We’ll always examine that case. I mean, two things are important for his constituency. First of all, of course, is infrastructure, with broadband being one element of that. Secondly, there is an issue with the electricity grid, which is controversial, I understand, in his constituency, but the current grid is not particularly strong when it comes to developing manufacturing in the future. He knows, as I know, how controversial pylons are in his constituency, so I’ll leave it at that. But, it is an issue that will need to be resolved in the future. But, I’m more than happy to consider what such a growth deal might look like, how it would work geographically, as well, in some parts of Wales, and, of course, I share with him his desire to see more and better jobs closer to home.

Many people feel that the Circuit of Wales was a massive missed opportunity for the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone. Last week, referring to a pre-arranged meeting with the company, you said that

‘the company accepted the issue with regard to the issue of being on balance sheet and the risks that that posed to us—they did not argue with it.’

The chief executive of the company, Martin Whitaker, said that,

‘Clearly that statement is incorrect.’

‘We made it clear that we did not agree with this assessment.’

First Minister, which of you is lying?

What I said is correct. I stand by my words.

The last of those eight enterprise zones is actually in Port Talbot, in my constituency, and the only one in South Wales West. But it is important that we see that now used to actually grow the local economy and grow local businesses. How are you monitoring the progress in that enterprise zone to ensure that that actually does take place and that the purpose of the zone is actually being achieved?

We’re confident that the enterprise zone is working well in Port Talbot. We know, of course, that there’s an opportunity for world-class manufacturing; the development, for example, of full ICT infrastructure that will develop for us a relationship with Tata Port Talbot; developing the energy and environment capability of the enterprise zone; construction of appropriate business and office units; and assisting the building of a Baglan bay innovation centre. I can say that, since the inception of the zone, a number of inquiries have been received, seeking information about support for growth or new locations. These are at the early stages of development, but there are, potentially, some significant inward investments.

Last week, the Minister for Skills and Science set out the Government’s agenda for employability. Working Wales recognises this Government’s commitment to ensure work-based learning remains inclusive for all, irrespective of need.

Last week, I met with Dr Stephen Beyer of Cardiff University, who is working on the Engage to Change project, which was set up using money from dormant bank accounts and based on a partnership between the Big Lottery and Welsh Government. The aim is to get 16 to 25-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training and who have learning disabilities and/or autism into long-term employment. One of the organisations working with it is Trinity Fields School and Resource Centre in my constituency, where I’m a governor, and I declare an interest. I think it’s got an important role, this project, in supporting job coaching and work experience for those young people. I think it could also have implications for transition under the new arrangements being brought forward by the additional learning needs Bill. Would the First Minister therefore support a model of this kind if the pilot through Cardiff University is proven to be successful?

Yes, we’ll look to see, of course, how the model works, and we’ll evaluate the model, but we’re very keen to make sure that we have as much available to get people into work, particularly those who have learning disabilities and those who are on the autistic spectrum, and of course we look forward to seeing what the results of the project are.

I am sure the First Minister will agree that higher education should engage with work-based learning to address the economic imperative for the supply of workers with appropriate skills and knowledge to equip them for the changing nature of work in the present job climate. What is the Welsh Government doing at the moment to encourage increased co-operation between employers, employers’ organisations and further and higher education to deliver and expand the relevant workplace learning in Wales?

We work very closely, of course, with employers because we know that work-based learning is hugely important to develop people’s skills in the future. We are looking at how to develop people’s employability and how we work with businesses in order to make sure that people have the skills they need for the future.

Many employers feel young people leave the education system today lacking the practical skills they need for the labour market. Many people have degrees, for instance, but are not regarded by employers as being work-ready. Do you think that the university system in Wales could do with a shake up?

I think universities have actually improved over the years in terms of the way they work with business. It’s true to say that some 10 years ago the link was very tenuous. Universities didn’t see themselves as needing to work with businesses in the way that they do now. I’ve certainly worked with universities and gone to universities where they are working very closely with business, and where they see themselves as an economic driver to create start-up businesses. That’s something that I very much welcome.

It is key that the voice of citizens is continually heard when developing and providing high-quality health and social care services.

Well, yes, it is, and your Government is currently consulting on scrapping statutory community health councils. I see this as a retrograde step and a dangerous step, particularly for us in north Wales, because we need a strong, independent voice that is locally based, and that can challenge the health boards and challenge the Government when needs be. The health council in north Wales has made over 500 ward visits in the last year, which is some 500 more than Healthcare Inspectorate Wales have done in north Wales. We need to broaden the role of the health council, not centralise it into an ambiguous national body. Now, the new model that has been mentioned in your consultation is based on the Scottish health council, which has been recently described as a ‘toothless hamster’. Do you agree that going down that route in Wales would be a major mistake?

Well, we know that a number of people have argued that we need a new model in order to ensure effective representation of citizens in health and social care. This isn’t anything that will weaken the voice of the citizen. Of course, we wish to hear people’s views on the schemes and plans that we have for a new, independent body and, of course, we would be very happy to hear what Members and members of the public have to say in order to ensure that this is something that will strengthen patients’ voice.

First Minister, will you join with me in welcoming the construction of a new state-of-the-art £350 million hospital in Cwmbran, named the Grange University Hospital? It will help to modernise health services across Gwent for my constituents also in Islwyn. Judith Paget, chief executive of Aneurin Bevan university health board said, and I quote,

‘We have received fantastic support from local people living in the Health Board area as they understand the benefits this hospital…will bring.’

First Minister, isn’t this the Welsh Labour Government and the Welsh national health service in synergy, working together, listening to patients in the provision and development of health services? How can we continue this good practice in the interests of our people, who know that the NHS is safest in Welsh Labour hands?

The Conservative benches didn’t welcome that statement. They were complaining about it. I sense the Member’s enthusiasm, which is great, but not as great as that of the Member for Torfaen, whose enthusiasm is there for all to see within the Chamber itself. But this shows, of course, that we are investing in modern health facilities for our people, and this is a great example of that happening under a Welsh Labour Government.

Getting back to the original question, the Vale of Clwyd Trades Union Council, in responding to the 29 June Welsh Government White Paper, quality and governance of health care in Wales, proposing the abolition of community health councils, said that because of its make-up, the North Wales Community Health Council is the ideal body to be our patients’ voice and watchdog. How do you respond to that statement and to the response by the North Wales Community Health Council that the proposals would see the end of long-standing arrangements set up to place power in the hands of local people to monitor how their NHS services are working, and, for example, the proposed new citizen voice body would not have legal rights to hold health organisations to account for the way in which they deliver their services?

Well, we’ll examine that response, along with many others, and that will inform the final decision that we take. The fact that something has been in place for many years doesn’t necessarily mean it should continue in the future, but we look forward to the results of the responses that we get through the consultation.

Well, our focus on prevention is having a positive impact in both north and south, with almost 8,800 households prevented from becoming homeless.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. You’re probably aware that every year, about 15,000 people become homeless in Wales, including 2,800 children. Of those, a few hundred will be living on the streets. Last week, my office was able to help find accommodation for a former armed forces veteran who, because of mental health issues, found himself homeless. According to homeless charities, there’s an estimated 7,000 ex-servicemen and women living on the streets in the United Kingdom. What is your Government going to do with local authorities and other associated agencies to ensure that your armed forces covenant in Wales is fulfilled?

Well, we have developed a number of distinct approaches to support some of those members of our community most at risk of homelessness. That includes the new housing pathway to help ex-service personnel; the national pathway for ex-offenders; the pathway to help young people avoid homelessness and an accommodation framework for care leavers to ensure they get the help they need to find suitable accommodation. That pathway is in place because we recognise, of course, that there are many members of the armed services, together, of course, with others who are particularly vulnerable, who need that specific help.

Local authorities across Wales, according to your Government, are expected to provide some form of cold weather provision for homeless individuals and rough sleepers, irrespective of whether there is a statutory duty owed to them. Guidance on this policy, First Minister, though, is very ambiguous. Certainly, in my own authority, there are no set temperatures or indications of what kind of weather conditions are included within the policy. Therefore, how this is applied can vary on an almost daily basis during very extreme weather conditions. What discussions will you hold with regard to introducing a more uniform guidance across Wales, so our most vulnerable homeless and rough sleepers are not, quite simply, left out in the extreme cold?

That process has started. But, of course, there’s nothing to stop the local authority doing this themselves and actually saying what their guidance will be, what temperatures they will recognise. There’s nothing to stop them doing that, but, nevertheless, we are moving forward with the process of starting to look at strengthening the guidance to introduce greater consistency across Wales.

May I draw your attention to a recent case of a constituent who was homeless? Citizens Advice and I tried to assist him in securing a crisis home until a more permanent home could be provided for him. I understand the pressures on local authorities, naturally, but in this case the council didn’t believe that they could place this individual in the priority category. But in this case, what we had was an individual who had a mental health diagnosis and who had a support worker that had been designated to him. Now, in that sort of case, do you, as First Minister, agree that we must consider those who have a mental health diagnosis as priorities?

It’s very difficult, of course, to—. As regards people with mental health issues, nobody would argue against ensuring that they have the support they need. If the Member would write to me with the details of his elector, then I would be happy enough to consider the situation to see what we can do to help.

The Minister for Skills and Science met with Damian Hinds MP, the Minister for employment, last Thursday. Our Minister stressed our profound concerns and urged that the DWP work with the Welsh Government to explore alternate solutions, including co-location where feasible, to ensure that good jobs can be kept locally.

Thank you, First Minister. I too met with Damian Hinds last Wednesday, along with the MP for Llanelli, Nia Griffith, and once again found him to be urbane but indifferent to the plight of the workers in Llanelli, where the 150 jobs will be relocated. An estimated 50 of them will not be able to take up that offer of relocation because it simply isn’t practical on part-time work to be able to travel to Cardiff. The impact will be significant in areas like Llanelli. Despite the pledge of the Prime Minister as part of her industrial strategy to spread the wealth, and, as you say, despite the offer of the Welsh Government to help to relocate the offices to assist the Department for Work and Pensions, there was no intention to engage seriously with the Welsh Government on this. When the Welsh Government brings forward its economic strategy later in the year, will you make sure there are specific provisions to rebalance the economy to compensate for this centralisation programme that the Tories are pushing through?

Well, our mantra is ‘better jobs, closer to home’. That guides what we do. We know that it’s hugely important that Government jobs are available across Wales. We’ve done that; we’ve opened our offices across Wales. Those offices that existed in Carmarthen, in Caernarfon and Llandrindod, we’ve always resisted the pressure to do away with them. They are still there, because we know how important they are to the local economy. Unfortunately, the same principles and values are not shared by the DWP.

It’s very disappointing in terms of what’s happened in Llanelli, specifically the fact that so many people aren’t able to relocate. But in turning to your response to Lee Waters, your own jobs strategy does talk about the closure of offices too. You talk about reducing the number of offices to some 14 or 15. So, in reality, how are you different to the DWP?

Well, some offices have closed over the years—very few people worked there and they were very close to other offices. What we will never do is centralise jobs in the future. That’s why jobs have been moved out of Cardiff over the past 10 years, and that is something that we wish to take further.

The new Grange hospital, of course, represents a significant commitment of £350 million that will provide services for the people of Monmouth and, of course, the former county of Gwent. And that, of course, will represent a significant step forward in terms of healthcare for the people of Monmouthshire and beyond.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. It was a pleasure to join the health Secretary yesterday at the new Grange University Hospital site—a much better name, I think, than the old ‘SCCC’ that we’ve been calling it for so long. It’s been a long time coming. I think it was 2007 when I first attended a meeting about the construction of the new hospital. Back then I remember a discussion about this not just being about the critical care centre, but the way it would free up space at existing hospitals such as the Royal Gwent and also Nevill Hall, and that that would allow for future reconfiguration. Back in 2007 it was anticipated that there would be a new Nevill Hall by now in 2017-18. Clearly that has slipped back. What is the timescale for the remodelling of the health services surrounding the critical care centre—the second piece of the pyramid, so to speak? Because the critical care centre is very important, but it is one part of the overall health jigsaw in south-east Wales.

Well, bear in mind, of course, that our capital budget was cut by 40 per cent, so it was difficult for us to move forward with the programme as we would have wanted to over the last few years. That said, of course, there have been already a number of local service improvements, including direct access to physiotherapy at Nevill Hall. There’s community dietitian and weight management services available there now, enhanced community diabetes services and enhanced pharmacy management of patient medication. So, already we are seeing the development of new services in Nevill Hall, and that development will continue, of course, in the future, and after the Grange hospital has opened.

Question 11, Neil Hamilton.

Question 12, Mark Reckless.

Question 13, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

War memorials are an important part of our heritage, and a permanent reminder of sacrifices made and losses sustained by communities. I am pleased that the Welsh Government grant scheme, launched in 2014 as part of the commemorations of the first world war, has helped to protect war memorials across Wales.

Mi gofiaf i heddiw fel y diwrnod lle cyrhaeddom ni gwestiwn 13, ac mae fy niolch i Neil Hamilton ac i Mark Reckless am fethu ag ymestyn am eu ffeiliau yn ddigon cyflym. Rwy’n ddiolchgar o gael y cyfle, ac mae hwn yn fater, digwydd bod, rydw i’n teimlo’n reit gryf yn ei gylch o. Mae cofebau’r rhyfel mawr—mi wyddoch chi amdanyn nhw—ar sgwâr y pentref yn bethau sy’n cael eu gwarchod, ac mae Cadw yn gwneud gwaith arbennig yn eu gwarchod nhw.

Ond mae yna gofebau rhyfel eraill o gwmpas Cymru—mewn capeli, er enghraifft, neu hyd yn oed mewn hen ffatrïoedd—sy’n cofio pobl sydd wedi colli eu bywydau mewn rhyfeloedd. Mae angen gwarchod y rheini hefyd, ac a gaf i wneud apêl ar Lywodraeth Cymru i sicrhau bod gwaith yn gallu cael ei wneud—mi allaf i roi’r Llywodraeth mewn cyswllt â’r bobl sy’n gwneud ymchwil yn y maes hwn—er mwyn ein helpu ni i warchod ein treftadaeth ni ar gyfer y dyfodol a chofio’r rheini a gollodd eu bywydau?

A gaf i ddweud fy mod i wedi cyrraedd cwestiwn 15 o’r blaen, ond dim ers amser, achos roeddwn i’n cael fy nghyhuddo o roi atebion rhy fyr. Achos hynny, penderfynais i fod yn rhaid i mi, felly, ehangu’r atebion yn y pen draw. Rwy’n gwybod bod cofeb Llanrhuddlad ar Ynys Môn yn cael ei ystyried ar hyn o bryd, ynglŷn â chael ei restru fel cofeb sydd yn arbennig. Mae honno’n enghraifft anarferol, rwy’n deall, o gofeb a gafodd ei ail-ddylunio ar ôl yr ail ryfel byd ac sydd â ffigwr milwr o’r ail ryfel byd arno.

Un o’r pethau oedd yn rhaid i ni ei wneud pan ddechreuom ni’r cynllun hwn oedd sicrhau ein bod ni’n gwybod faint o gofebau oedd yna, achos nid oedd gan neb rhestr ac nid oedd neb yn gwybod ble yn gwmws yr oedden nhw. Ond beth sydd wedi digwydd lan i nawr yw bod mwy a mwy o bobl wedi ystyried bod gyda nhw gofeb ac wedi, wrth gwrs, ystyried bod yn rhaid cael bach o arian er mwyn sicrhau bod y gofeb honno yn cael ei chadw yn y ffordd briodol. So, felly, os oes yna rai ar Ynys Môn, mae’n hollbwysig ein bod ni’n gwybod ble maen nhw, ac, wrth gwrs, mae’n hollbwysig eu bod nhw’n gwybod ym mha ffordd y gallan nhw gael unrhyw fath o help.

Thank you, First Minister. The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt to make the statement.

Llywydd, I want you to consider a point of order.

Ah, right. This is a point of order, not your statement. Okay. Point of order—Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want you to consider a point of order made regarding Adam Price’s question, which I felt was inappropriate in relation to Standing Order 13.9, to the First Minister in relation to the Circuit of Wales this afternoon.

I listened to the question clearly. There did not seem to be any accusation that needed to be ruled out of order in that question. It was clearly a question put to the First Minister, and the First Minister clearly answered the question. I don’t consider I need to say any more at this point.

I’ll move on to calling the Minister for her statement—Jane Hutt.

I’ve a few changes to make to today’s agenda, Llywydd. The First Minister will shortly move a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow us to hold a debate on the publication last week of the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Later this afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will deliver an oral statement on the development bank of Wales. Business for the first three weeks of the autumn term is shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

In First Minister’s questions, I raised with the First Minister this damning report that’s come from the auditor general around the way that Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board has recruited someone to a senior position within its structures at director level, has engaged in carrying over considerable sums of public money—over £300,000 of public money—that there does seem to be little or no accountability over and an inability to provide invoices for. You’ll find real anger amongst the workforce of the Cardiff and Vale LHB area. I do believe that this report requires an immediate response from the Welsh Government so that we can understand exactly how the Welsh Government will work with the health board to meet these responses that are required to build confidence back in the LHB.

As I said in my question of the First Minister, this LHB is facing a financial deficit in this financial year to the tune of £30 million to £35 million, and, when you see it engaging in employing consultants in the first instance on a £1,000 a day plus expenses plus VAT, and then agreeing an employment contract and seeking the Welsh Government’s permission to extend the pay banding up to £150,000 from the Welsh Government’s own ceiling of £136,000, there does need to be a response from the Welsh Government to reinvigorate the confidence that staff may have lost, because of this report, in the ability of the management and the directors to actually have good governance and look after the well-being of the LHB. So, I’d be grateful to the leader of the house if she could elicit either a statement or a letter to Assembly Members from the Cabinet Secretary for health to clearly outline how the department of health in the Welsh Government are dealing with this report.

I will only repeat what the First Minister said in his response, which is important, that it is a matter for the Cardiff and Vale university health board. Indeed, of course, we have received—I’m sure you have, Andrew R.T. Davies—. The chair has written and we have very clear statements made by the new chief executive of the Cardiff and Vale university health board on this matter. But I think it is important to repeat that the chief executive of the NHS in Wales, on the wider point, Andrew Goodall, has written to all of the health boards to seek urgent assurance that good governance arrangements in relation to procurement and recruitment are in place across Wales.

Cabinet Secretary and leader of the house, in May we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the Wales coast path. Many people have walked that and enjoyed the benefits of that walk but, as such, they have no recognition for that walk. Can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, or perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, depending on which one takes the lead on this, as to how we can actually encourage more people to take that walk, to give certification to people who do that walk, as on other great walks across this country, so that people will be recognised for what they’ve been able to achieve? Perhaps it can also be used as a beneficial aspect of tourism to actually have aspects or elements of that walk certificated.

I think it’s very appropriate that we take this opportunity, and thank you, Dai Rees, for raising this. Of course, the coast path’s been a great success. In fact, the report for 2014-15 showed that the economic impact of the coast path generates approximately £16 million of gross added value to the Welsh economy, and around 715 person-years of employment each year. In fact, recent research shows it’s higher than that. We also know, of course, about the health benefits that came through in the 2014 assessment. But I think it’s the links that also are important—to the other trails, like the Taff trail, and the coast path to the Valleys. And the certification of that and the paths, of course, that is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary to consider.

Leader of the Chamber, I’d like a Government statement on parking charges for NHS staff. I think we’re all aware of the court case last week, and nobody wants to see nurses having to shell out thousands of pounds simply for trying to park to do their job. Many of us feel that it’s not right either that a French company takes millions of pounds out of Wales just so that sick people and staff can get to a hospital. We’d like your Government to act as a mediator in this issue, and we’d like to know what is happening to make public transport to the Heath improve, so people don’t have to drive there. Finally, I’d like you to address the matter of the car parks being taken into public ownership by the Welsh Government, or compulsorily purchased by, perhaps, your colleagues across the way on Cardiff Council.

Thank you. Neil McEvoy’s very aware, of course, of the Welsh Government policy—very clear policy—of no car parking charges at hospital sites across Wales. We’ve been very disappointed, as I know he would understand, that the University Hospital of Wales contract has had to be maintained over recent years due to contractual arrangements that had been put in place, and the prohibitive cost if we were to try and withdraw from that. But the contract will cease in 2018, at which point there will be no charges to staff or patients. Assembly Members will all be aware across the Chamber that the chair, Maria Battle, has written to Members on sustainable travel and car parking at UHW, and, of course, recognising the very difficult situation, which the First Minister also responded to earlier on, in terms of the impact on staff.

Can I ask the leader of the house for a statement from the Welsh Government on the financial deficit faced by our secondary schools in the Newport area? When setting up the budget for 2017-18, Newport City Council was warned that there was a funding crisis with all secondary schools in deficit and some without reserves. I have been told that one of the schools in that area is facing a deficit of nearly £0.75 million, which is serious money. If this situation continues, it could lead to job losses and activities such as sports, music, and drama disappearing from our schools forever. Could we ask for a statement on this matter urgently, please? Thank you.

Well, the Member is fully aware that local authorities in Wales have the flexibility to set appropriate budgets for the needs of their communities. Funding for schools in Wales is up, despite the cuts to our block grant by your UK Tory Government. Last year, we delivered an extra £35 million to councils for school services and, indeed, data show that the funding delegated to schools has increased last year from £2.123 billion to £2.142 billion this year. We have committed, of course, to spending an extra £100 million over the Assembly term to raise standards. But I would also ask the Member, Mohammad Asghar, if he would like to ask Justine Greening whether we can have a fair share of the funding that she announced, which we understand is being taken from other budgets within the education allocation in England. Not a pound or a penny for our Welsh Government. Has it gone—? Is that because it’s gone to the bung to the DUP?

As everyone is aware, the fatal fire in Grenfell Tower that killed at least 80 people was caused initially by a fire that started in an electrical item. Can I ask for a Government statement on electrical safety, including proposals for tests for white goods, especially in high-rise flats, but I think that all white goods—? Can I just remind the leader of the house that any item taken into Tŷ Hywel, for example, has to be PAT tested before you’re allowed to install it?

Well, we’ve committed, as Carl Sargeant has said, to learning all relevant lessons from the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, and to take all appropriate action. That’s why Carl Sargeant has convened the fire safety advisory group. We don’t want to pre-empt that group’s work, but we do need to identify a stronger case for mandatory testing than there is now.

There are two issues that I wanted to raise. Lunch time today, families in Wales affected by the contaminated blood scandal met on the steps of the Senedd to make clear the impact that this has had on people in Wales. Obviously, over the summer there’ll be negotiations and discussions about what form the public inquiry will take. Obviously this has been very hard-fought-for by families in Wales. Would the leader of the house commit to ensuring that the Assembly will have regular updates on progress when we return from the summer break?

I did have a second issue. I wanted to raise—the second issue is that of Llanishen reservoir in my constituency of Cardiff North. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, there’s been a long-running fight over this reservoir and everyone locally is delighted that Dŵr Cymru has now taken it over and plans to invest in it. But, initially, the reservoir needs to be drained and this has been approved by Natural Resources Wales. Would it be possible for the Cabinet Secretary to arrange for a report to the Assembly, later on in the year, about the progress on this exciting scheme, and also what role Natural Resources Wales will play in the future?

I thank Julie Morgan for her questions and was also glad to join Julie Morgan and families affected by the contaminated blood scandal on the steps of the Senedd, with other Assembly Members from the cross-party group, this afternoon. We wholeheartedly welcomed last week’s announcement of the inquiry into the infected blood scandal that led to people contracting hepatitis C and/or HIV. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport is writing to the Secretary of State, setting out our expectations. And, of course, that has very much been driven through the work that you’ve pioneered, Julie, and the cross-party group. Our expectation is that the UK inquiry will engage and listen to those affected in Wales, in both setting the remit and in the taking of evidence—that came through strongly this afternoon. Consideration will be given to the 10 points identified by the Haemophilia Society, and there will be meaningful engagement between the four Governments in taking the UK inquiry forward. We will update Assembly Members about developments when we return from the summer break.

On your second question, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, will be happy to provide an update to the Assembly on the progress of the Llanishen reservoir scheme in the autumn.

A surgery in my constituency in Pen-y-groes, Dyffyn Nantlle, is to close at the end of the month, leaving the area with one fewer doctor. Now, I’ve been seeking information about this since I heard rumours that the service was to be lost. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for health on 24 April, copied to the chief executive of Betsi Cadwaladr—I didn’t get a response. I wrote again on 23 June to Vaughan Gething asking for a response—again, no response. I raised the issue with the chair and chief executive of the health board at a meeting on 19 May, and they made a promise that they would look into the issue. I wrote again to the health board on 29 June and, again, got no response. In the meantime, the health board did respond to a press request on the issue but it appears now that that information is incorrect. It’s clear that there are communication problems within the Government and the health board, and this causes great uncertainty for patients in my constituency. Will you therefore look at this lack of communication and report back to me as soon as possible, please?

I am grateful for that question because it does point to the importance of that communication, not just between yourself and the health board, but also for your constituents in terms of practice closures, such as the one you describe in Pen-y-groes. I think it’s important to recognise that there is funding going in to ensure and support the sustainability of high-quality primary care services, as a result of agreed changes to the GP contract, and also an investment of £95 million into a support package in terms of education, training of healthcare professionals, and £40 million to improve primary care estates. So, obviously, putting this now on the record today as part of the business statement will mean that some progress, I hope, will be made.

Can I request an update from the Welsh Government on its actions in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign to get justice for the many women who have been unfairly affected by the UK Government’s changes to the pension system? And, leader of the house, I’m sure that WASPI campaigners would also welcome the Welsh Government putting on record that it condemns the crass, insensitive and insulting comments from the UK pensions Minister that they should simply look for apprenticeship opportunities in order to alleviate their financial hardship.

Vikki Howells has consistently raised this important campaign, and although pension matters are non-devolved, and the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK Government, we as a Welsh Government remain very concerned about the disproportionate effect the changes arising from the Pensions Act 2011 are having on a significant number of women. Welsh Ministers have written to the UK Government about these issues. It’s been highlighted in our concerns in Plenary. Indeed, women from the WASPI campaign I know are coming in to meet with Assembly Members this week, and we will continue to offer our support for the efforts of this campaign, to highlight the serious impact of these changes, and decry the insulting comments made, which again, unfortunately, indicate the attitude and the lack of concern or interest in the important needs of these women who have been so adversely affected by these changes in equality and state pension age changes.

Leader of the house, tomorrow I am sponsoring a celebration of Welsh musical performance culture in the Senedd, with the Arts Council for Wales at 12 noon in the Neuadd. I invite the leader of the house, yourself, Llywydd, and all Members to the celebration event. As well as a range of youth performances, the event will be headlined by one of Wales’s greatest sons, Bryn Terfel, and it won’t be the ‘Ring Cycle’. [Laughter.] Leader of the house, will the Welsh Government look to make a statement to the Siambr on the development of a national music performance strategy for Welsh children and young people, a national performance strategy able to deliver and offer instrumental tuition and orchestral access, regardless of wealth, and ensure Wales retains its position as the land of song?

Well, I think all of us, across this Chamber, will want to congratulate Rhianon Passmore on the way she has been able—with, of course, the Arts Council of Wales—attract such distinguished figures. And others, who can spend some time joining that very important event, I know will do so. But I think your more important point is to link this to the importance of the Welsh Government’s commitment to culture, musical education, and to, as you say so clearly, make sure that Wales is at the forefront in terms of being able to educate our children, and enjoy Wales as the land of song.

Leader of the house, I’m rising in irritation that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives had two pops at the Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board, without any opportunity for any other Members to add to this. Although, clearly, there was a breach of compliance, the chief executive of the Cardiff and Vale health board has said very clearly that there will be no further breaches of compliance by staff on his watch, and this has exposed an error in the way in which procurement has been conducted. But it seems to me that there is a balance to be struck, in terms of understanding that, clearly, there’s been a breach of compliance, but the work overall that Cardiff and Vale does is much to be valued.

I’m grateful for that comment from the Member for Cardiff Central.

I thank the leader of the house.

And this brings us to item 3, and the statement by the First Minister on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is withdrawn.

There is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the next item of business to be debated. And I call on Jane Hutt to move the motion.

I move.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

And that brings us to the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. And I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, the publication last week of the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill represents a hugely significant moment in the development of the debate about the way in which the UK will leave the EU. There’s no doubt that we need legislation, to ensure the continued effect of EU-derived law after we leave the EU, but whether this Bill is what is needed is much open to question.

While the UK Government may have changed the title of the legislation, previously known as the great repeal Bill, this is a rare and, it would appear, isolated example of Government humility in its approach to Brexit. Once you get beyond the front page, there is little if any evidence of the Prime Minister’s supposed willingness, after the general election, to consult widely, and to listen to other views on the vital questions that face the UK. But there are many issues, of course, that I could raise here, for example: whether it is right, when the purpose of the legislation is purportedly to maintain the rights we possess by virtue of our membership of the EU, to scrap the charter of fundamental rights; whether clause 6, which would end any powers of the European Court of Justice on the day we leave, is a piece of political grandstanding, which has no place in what is portrayed as a technical piece of legislation—and there will be other things as well.

But I hope Members will excuse me today if I concentrate on the huge challenge that the Bill represents to the devolved settlement as it’s developed over the course of the last two decades. This is rooted, let’s remind ourselves, in popular consent. The 2011 referendum, for example, saw a large majority vote in favour of giving this National Assembly primary legislative powers. Despite the very clear and repeated warnings from myself, and the whole of the Welsh Government, that we would not accept any attempt to use EU withdrawal as a cover for a recentralisation of power, that is exactly what this Bill, as drafted, aims to achieve. It’s an attempt to take back control over devolved policies such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries—not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Now, this matters—it matters because devolution is about having the opportunity here in Wales to determine for ourselves policies that are appropriate to Wales, and which clearly have the consent of voters here in Wales. We cannot turn back the clock to the age when a Government with a thin majority in Westminster, and no mandate at all from Wales and Scotland, could impose policies like the poll tax in the teeth of the opposition of the vast majority of elected representatives from Wales and Scotland.

The Bill seeks to put in place, with no limitations, qualifications or so-called sunset clauses, new constraints on this National Assembly’s ability to legislative effectively after Brexit on matters where we currently operate within legislative frameworks developed by the EU. If this Bill is passed in its current form, we will be prevented from legislating in any way that is incompatible with retained EU law. Existing EU law will be frozen, with only the UK Parliament being allowed to unfreeze it. In practice, this will provide a window for the UK Government to seek parliamentary approval to impose new UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas such as agriculture, the environment and fisheries.

Now, Llywydd, this is totally unacceptable and it strikes at the very heart of devolution. It’s the thin end of a very big wedge. If we accept this, how long would it be before the UK Government would start to argue for UK-wide frameworks for health and education on the basis of its unique role in representing the whole UK and the importance of devolution not getting in the way of a global Britain? After all, if the price that the United States demands for a quick trade deal is to give private companies enhanced rights to deliver NHS care, why should the National Assembly and the Welsh Government be allowed to stand in the way? That would be their argument.

Would the First Minister give way?

Yes.

Thank you for giving way. I wonder if he could share his views on why some elements of the Bill in its current form, from the UK Government’s perspective, includes sunset clauses. There will be an expiry on certain functions that are being conferred upon UK Ministers. But when it comes to devolution, despite the public pronouncements that this is just a temporary measure for the sake of good housekeeping, there is no sunset clause relating to the power grab on devolved areas of responsibility.

His observations are quite correct. I can’t explain their reasoning, but certainly it is right to say that there is no—. Despite what they have said in public, there is actually nothing in writing in the Bill that suggests a temporary basis for what they are proposing, and that, of course, is of great concern to us. The UK Government will argue that this does not constrain our freedom to act any more than is the case today—it just replaces the powers of the EU and the European Commission with those to be exercised by the UK Parliament and the UK civil service. But EU frameworks are developed on the basis of proposals from a European Commission that is not the creature of one Government, often after intense negotiation between 28 member states and the European Parliament, and they are independently supervised by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. What’s more, at the moment, in negotiations within the EU about, for example, the future of the common agricultural policy, we are guaranteed a role, through the memorandum of understanding, in shaping a UK position that reflects the needs of all parts of the UK, not just England.

Now, of course, having resolutely refused to listen to the very consistent messages—no-one can claim this is out of the blue—from myself, Mark Drakeford, and officials, about the complete unacceptability of any proposals such as those they’ve now made in the Bill, the UK Government now appears to be rowing back. Of course, I welcome that, but forgive me if I do so only cautiously. We’re told that the freeze is only an interim measure, though there’s nothing in the Bill that gives us any confidence that this could be relied on. We’re told that the proposals are intended to provide a window to build trust and give space for discussions to reach agreements on what frameworks are necessary after we leave the EU and what they should contain, and we are told that Ministers are keen to start these discussions urgently. Now, I’m not quite sure how holding a gun to someone’s head and saying that you don’t intend to fire it is expected to build trust, and, if the UK Government were serious about starting discussions on frameworks, I don’t understand why they’ve done absolutely nothing about it in the last six months since we made this proposal in our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—a White Paper, of course, jointly produced with Plaid Cymru.

Would the First Minister give way? I’m grateful. Just on that point, of course it doesn’t build trust when you don’t meet with Ministers and don’t have a JMC and so forth. But even if this Bill did have a sunset clause inserted into the devolved parts of it, would that be sufficient, in his view, to build that trust?

No, that would cut across what we’ve always said, which is that the powers should come to Wales and then all Governments should agree that those powers should be frozen, but, by consent, until such time as new frameworks are developed. The key principle here is consent, not imposition. So, ‘no’ is the answer. It wouldn’t be sufficient.

The joint ministerial council, whose job it is to oversee such negotiations, hasn’t even met since February due to the prevarication of Ministers in London. The powers that the UK Government wants to take over future legislative competence, though disproportionate and wrong-headed, were at least hinted at in previous UK Government statements and its White Paper. But, the Bill also contains a shock in respect of the so-called Henry VIII powers, which it’s proposed should be taken by Ministers to correct existing legislation to make it workable in the new context.

Now, those powers that the Bill proposes that should be vested in Welsh Ministers are limited and constrained in extremely unhelpful ways. The powers to amend directly applicable EU law or regulations, and the like, which account for most of the EU legislative framework for agriculture for example, are retained solely by the UK Government. Since UK Ministers want to retain their own powers in parallel to those of Welsh Ministers, to amend any legislation within devolved competence, it even appears that UK Ministers will be able to amend legislation within the competence of the National Assembly without being answerable to the National Assembly to explain what they’re doing and why. Once again, since the publication of this Bill we’ve been told that UK Ministers will only use such powers after consulting—consulting—with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, but there’s nothing in what is an extremely complex Bill to say that, and even that would be insufficient. And if that’s really the case, I fail to see why it would be more difficult, in the case of EU regulations that need the same fix across the UK, for the UK Government and the devolved administrations to agree the most appropriate way forward and then each consult properly with their own legislatures. Surely, that is the democratic response and approach.

Llywydd, we’ve been very clear that we understand and support the idea of a Bill to provide clarity and certainty for citizens and businesses as Brexit takes effect. We accept, too, that there will be a need to make some amendments so that existing law is workable in the new context of the UK being outside of the EU. We’re willing to play our part in that. Our ‘Brexit and Devolution’ paper put forward a clear and workable approach to the question of how to ensure a level playing field across the UK in respect of policies where there are currently EU regulatory frameworks. That approach has received broad support in this Assembly and from academic commentators as well as from colleagues in Scotland. But, the UK Government’s response has been a mixture of bluster, condescension and disrespect. We need better than that.

We’ve still not been told whether the UK Government considers the approach that we’ve put forward workable, and, if not, why not. Why have they concluded that without even trying to move forward by agreement that that is what they want to do? In terms of process, the JMC(EN), which should have had a crucial role in all of this has not met since February and, as a consequence, has had no oversight of the development of the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has been developed without any proper consultation with the Welsh Government. Can I say, the Welsh Government was not involved in drafting the Bill? That is entirely incorrect. We have not had proper consultation at either political or official level, and it’s only very recently that draft provisions were shared with our officials on the basis that nothing would change. ‘This is what you’re getting and, incidentally, nothing will change as a result’. It’s hugely important that that is understood. The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, as I said earlier on, have not been involved in drafting the Bill. I don’t believe the Secretary of State was trying to be deliberately misleading, but it shows how shambolic the internal communications within the UK Government are.

In terms of substance, as I’ve made abundantly clear, the Bill is unacceptable in its current form in the way it deals with devolution. When I wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 June—and I have not had a response from the Prime Minister to that letter—I urged her not to embark on a fight with the devolved administrations she did not need at a time when, as a UK, we faced unprecedented challenges. No response. There was a response from the Secretary of State, but the letter, with respect, wasn’t sent to the Secretary of State; it was sent to the Prime Minister and no answer was forthcoming.

Now, let me be clear: we will not hesitate to fight as hard as we can to prevent the unacceptable parts of this Bill from becoming law. We will not recommend to this National Assembly that it provides legislative consent to a Bill that fundamentally undermines our own powers. We will work across the Assembly and with the other devolved administrations to defend our devolution settlement. And, to this end, we are continuing intensive work on a possible continuity Bill, which we will introduce if the UK Government does not amend the withdrawal Bill in such a way as to address our concerns. This is not about trying to prevent, undermine or complicate Brexit. It’s about resisting an attempt to recentralise power to Westminster and Whitehall and turn the clock back to the 1980s. So, I ask the whole of the Assembly to support us in this fight to defend devolution and the right of this institution and all its Members to determine policies appropriate for the people of Wales and, therefore, to support this motion.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in his name. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch Llywydd. The First Minister frequently says that he accepts the referendum result, but, of course, he doesn’t really. He’s like those Japanese soldiers who used occasionally to be found in the Borneo jungles years after 1945 still fighting the war as though it had never been ended. This is another opportunity for the First Minister to grandstand on an issue where the Welsh people voted a different way from him in the referendum campaign. There is nothing in this Bill whatsoever that will reduce the powers of this Assembly or undermine the devolution settlement. What we’re doing via this Bill is actually devolving powers from Brussels to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, and devolving them from people whom we not only don’t elect and can’t dismiss, but can’t even name—the people who are the ultimate decision makers in the EU by opaque processes—[Interruption.]—opaque processes that are far removed from a democratic institution such as this.

The First Minister in his introduction to his speech today mentioned the charter of fundamental rights. This is a very good case in point. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, this, by the way, was the document that the then Minister for Europe, Mr Keith Vaz, described as being of no greater binding force in law than ‘The Beano’. He said that in 2000, and yet the European Court then decided that it was actually binding in European law upon us, and yet Tony Blair had said quite categorically in 2007, ‘Let us make it absolutely clear that we have secured an opt-out from the charter’—an opt-out that was illusory. So, what the First Minister is doing, of course, is trying to accommodate himself to a decision made just over a year ago of which he did not approve.

The Bill says, in clause 11, that there is nothing that this institution was able to do before exit that it will not be able to do in future. And yes, of course, there is a period of transition. The First Minister is always saying that the process of delivering Brexit is so complicated that we need an extended period of transition in order to bring it about. Well, that is, to an extent, right, and that is what this Bill proposes. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions, and other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales, have said many times that there is no intention on the part of the UK Government to undermine or detract from the devolution settlement. On 29 March this year, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons,

‘no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them.’

Now, that is a categorical statement, and I see no evidence whatsoever for saying that the Prime Minister did not intend that to be carried out and nor does she now. Indeed, it’s fanciful to imagine that a cataclysmic change of the kind that the First Minister fears could possibly take place today. He complains that we can’t trust the Government. Well, we can’t trust the House of Commons and the House of Lords as the houses of Parliament. Well, that is true of the existing devolution settlement. It’s always been possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to repeal all the devolution statutes if it wants to, but nobody seriously expects that consequence ever to arise, certainly not in our lifetime. So, this is a wholly illusory manufactured crisis for temporary political advantage as the First Minister sees it.

The process of withdrawal from the European Union is going to be complicated because of the volume of legislation that has been generated by the EU, usually by wholly undemocratic means, over the last 44 years. European Union regulations—which originated in the Council of Ministers, it’s true, voted on by the Council of Ministers, but over which we have no direct control from the legislative institutions of the United Kingdom—apply to Wales. At least now, by devolving these powers temporarily to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, it’ll be elected politicians who are answerable for the decisions that are taken, and we will have a means of participating in the process. I do accept that the First Minister has a point in saying that there should have been proper consultation between UK Ministers and Welsh Ministers in recent months. He’s absolutely right to say it, and I do believe it is disrespectful to the Welsh Government and to this Assembly for them not to have done so, but, nevertheless, I don’t think that we should confuse that with the political reality that the British people, and the Welsh people, voted to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, and there has to be a legislative process to bring that about. Because of the volume of legislation and the complexity of legislation that is concerned here, it is impossible to make all the detailed changes in the short time that is available to us before the end of the two-year period—

Will you take an intervention?

I’m afraid I can’t. I’m over the time already and I have to sit down. So, what I would say to the First Minister—

You said it. [Laughter.]

Yes, what I would say to the First Minister—in conclusion, Llywydd. What I would say to the First Minister, in conclusion, is: get with this, rather than trying to fight against it, because you will not be taken seriously if you carry on trying to resist a process that is inexorable and that the Welsh people themselves have voted for.

I’ll just conclude that by saying let’s find solutions together. The European withdrawal Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, providing the maximum possible certainty and continuity to businesses, employees and consumers across the whole UK that they will not be subject to unexpected changes, and ensuring that the statute book is able to function on the day after we leave the EU. The Bill is therefore technical in nature, rather than a vehicle for major policy changes—making inoperable legislation operable and giving both UK and devolved Governments a time-limited power to correct laws by secondary legislation that would otherwise not function properly once we left the EU, with powers going to the Welsh Government to make changes in devolved areas, and UK Ministers only able to make changes on devolved matters with consent.

This Bill will ensure that Welsh businesses, including farmers and steel producers, can continue to trade with the European Union immediately after the UK leaves the EU. The Bill also recognises that the UK as a whole must be able to guarantee EU principles in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. The same rules and laws will apply to businesses and the same rights to workers as we leave the European Union. Although the Bill would ensure retained EU law the day after leaving the EU, this will only be in a holding pattern within a transitional arrangement that will provide certainty after exit and allow for intensive discussions with the Welsh Government, National Assembly and other devolved administrations and legislatures on common frameworks to, for example, ensure that there are no barriers to working and trading within the UK and no risks to agreeing future trade agreements. As a result of—

Will you give way?

Hefin.

Can I just ask him to reflect? The UKIP amendment seems to be more supportive of the Conservative Government than the Conservative amendment. [Laughter.] Could I ask what sort of argy-bargy went on within the Conservative group to agree it?

Well, wait and hear the rest of my speech. I haven’t discussed this with the UKIP group. [Laughter.] The UK Government expects there to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration. Because the Bill affects the powers of the devolved administrations and legislatures, the UK Government will seek the consent of the devolved legislatures for the Bill.

It is regrettable that the First Minister described the Bill as, quote, ‘a naked power grab’ last Thursday, and then said the next day that the Welsh Secretary had assured him that they will work together to make the situation acceptable when this assurance had already been provided before he issued his ‘naked power grab’ statement. As a UK Government source in Wales confirmed last Thursday, his initial response was completely different to what they were seeing in talks behind the scenes.

However, I hope he will support our amendment, which recognises that the Parliament and Assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the modern democratic settlement of the United Kingdom and should be fully engaged with the future—

Will you take an intervention, please?

[Continues.]—make-up of a vibrant UK post-Brexit. I’m sorry, I’m time limited. I’ve already had one intervention.

The UK Government intends to work closely with devolved administrations to identify areas that do not need common frameworks and which could, therefore, be released from the transitional arrangement. Beyond that, however, we do need agreed UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlement. After all, if frameworks are agreed, there will be no constitutional problem. Although this Bill does not take back existing competences from the Assembly, there is, as we heard, no end date for the restriction on devolved competency created by the retained EU law model it will introduce. The UK Government argues that this would remove incentives for Welsh Ministers to agree a UK framework. In contrast and in reality, however, we know that both the Welsh Government and this Assembly have consistently called for an agreed framework. There is therefore no reason why the Bill could not state that the restriction on devolved competency would end when common agreed frameworks come into force. Further, although international agreements in the devolved areas of agriculture, fisheries and the environment are reserved to the UK Government, the principles applying to these areas must provide a foundation for future agreements on common frameworks between the Governments of the UK as a basis of any free trade agreement.

It is therefore essential that this Bill should address these and other matters, and I therefore welcome confirmation from the UK Government that on the issue of amendments, the Bill’s Second Reading is scheduled for Westminster’s autumn term, specifically to allow devolved administrations the time to go through the Bill in detail during the summer. So, let us responsibly go through that Bill, identify the amendments that we can all agree upon, and engage with the UK Government and Parliament to introduce them at the Second Reading. Thank you.

This debate takes place with a matter of urgency. We should be under no illusions about the UK Government’s EU withdrawal Bill—what was called the repeal Bill. It’s nothing less than an attempt to tighten London’s grip on Wales. Leaving the European Union is a matter of deciding how to implement a referendum vote. We must all remember that there have also been two referendums on devolution, and in both 1997 and in 2011 my party fought tooth and nail as part of those campaigns, both of which were successful. People in Wales have voted twice to empower our own Welsh democracy and our own national institutions. The EU withdrawal Bill overrides and overrules those votes in a way that is unacceptable.

Where frameworks for the operation of a UK market must exist, they should be co-decided by the devolved Governments. We have a clear interest in agriculture, in environmental protection, in structural funds and in other areas of regulation that benefit people in our society. The Welsh voice in deciding how new frameworks and returning powers operate must be heard loud and clear, and those powers should not be intercepted by Westminster and placed in some kind of indefinite holding pattern where our only defence is to trust the goodwill of Whitehall.

We are relying on the Government’s word that this will only be a transitional arrangement. As we’ve heard, there is no sunset clause in the Bill for retained EU law falling under devolved competences. Neither is there provision in the Bill to allow devolved administrations to come to a formal agreement with the UK Government. All of those issues, it would appear, will be subject to bilateral negotiation and will be resolved at the discretion of the UK Government.

So, what can this Assembly do in practical terms? The inclusion of a continuity Bill in this motion is crucial. Plaid Cymru believes that it is essential that we have such a Bill to protect the constitutional status of Wales. It deserves to be repeated for the record that my colleague Steffan Lewis first advocated this Bill back in November 2016. This was before the UK Government repeal Bill White Paper was published. Even before the UK Government’s intentions become obvious, Plaid Cymru believed that steps should be taken to ensure that those EU regulatory frameworks could be retained in Welsh law. We took that view because we anticipated what the UK Government’s intentions would be. Those intentions were clarified in the UK Government’s repeal Bill White Paper, passed this last spring, but it’s fair to say that Plaid Cymru saw this threat coming.

So in backing this motion, Plaid Cymru is strongly of the view that this country would be in a stronger position today if a continuity Bill had already been laid. But we are where we are, and so it is essential that this Bill is developed and published now without further delay. In supporting today’s motion, Plaid Cymru urges the Welsh Government to go ahead and publish that Bill.

The motion also makes it clear that there would be other steps if the UK Government continues to go down this route. Every parliamentary, governmental and legal avenue must be pursued in order to hold them to account. We cannot have a specific type of EU withdrawal whereby this National Assembly, our future Welsh Parliament, is undermined or belittled, and I know that other devolved countries feel the same. It’s worth considering and acknowledging that these technical and constitutional issues may well not be the talk of the pub, the street or the workplace. That’s fair enough. But people in Wales do expect their country to be respected and to be listened to. Taking back control must mean powers coming to Wales, and for us it has to mean that Westminster must treat this country with the respect that we deserve.

The trouble with this Bill is that it isn’t about withdrawal from the EU, it’s about withdrawal from the devolution settlement. Let’s be clear: it would have been perfectly possible for the UK Government to present a Bill that takes us out of the European Union whilst also respecting the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. But what the Bill does in truth is that it exposes two things: firstly, unfortunately, the vulnerability of our devolution settlement, and secondly, that we are still tied to what is by now a totally outmoded view of parliamentary supremacy. We have a situation where the UK Parliament is legislating to give powers to Welsh Ministers. Now, we recognise—and the external affairs committee in its deliberations recognised this explicitly—that time constraints and practical limitations might mean that is a necessity. But the UK Government, if it’s acting on behalf of this Chamber in taking those steps, should do so in accordance with the requirements and considerations of this Assembly, and there is nothing in the Bill that provides for that.

Parliamentary supremacy is a concept for another age, and in this democratic age, where the people of Wales have expressed a clear view in a referendum that this body should have primary legislative powers, this should not be set aside by the UK Parliament in any respect, and it certainly should not be set aside by UK Ministers. Yet that is what the Bill does. In doing so, it take us way beyond even that idea of parliamentary sovereignty, giving UK Ministers the ability to amend devolved legislation democratically passed in this Assembly—in fact, contrary to what Mark Isherwood said, without the requirement for consent. It is no surprise to me that the Secretary of State for Wales is such an enthusiast for this Bill. It turns him into a viceroy, in fact.

We are looking at a situation not just where this Assembly has powers taken away or legislation amended by UK Ministers, but where it is at a disadvantage against what is the English Parliament when acting in relation to reserved matters. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Assemblies cannot change the pre-Brexit legislation that they must comply with, and yet the English Parliament, piggy-backing, in effect, on the UK Parliament’s parliamentary sovereignty, is not constrained in that way. So we have a fundamental unfairness built into the provisions of this Act. What possible justification could there be for us accepting that lack of a level constitutional playing field?

Finally, on the question of a continuation Act, I hope that the Government will bring that forward as soon as humanly possible. I think it’s an opportunity for us to assert our view of the powers that we retain in this place, but it’s also an opportunity for us to assert an alternative vision, and one that isn’t principally based on that outdated idea of parliamentary sovereignty but on constitutionality and subsidiarity.

Let’s be clear: Labour and Plaid’s proposals regarding Brexit, including this continuity Bill, are an attempt to remain in the EU in all but name by those who campaigned to stay in the EU and are not willing to accept the result and voice of the majority of Welsh voters. But the ‘remain’ side seem to forget their line of attack at times. In one breath, they’ll say that leaving the single market is unjustified as the lack of a detailed referendum question means that no-one knows what the public’s opinion is, yet in the next breath they claim they know that people didn’t vote for more controls on immigration. Labour and the other remainers are also very fond of the argument that our nursing, social care, veterinary and other sectors are dependent on migrant labour, but that reliance is home grown, caused by successive governments in the UK and Wales failing miserably to fund the training for our own people to do this work.

The First Minister, in his debate with Nigel Farage, made it clear a number of times that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving—leaving—the single market. Can the First Minister and the other remainers in this place not for one second just accept that perhaps people did hear what he had to say about leaving the single market, but simply disagreed with him? [Interruption.] No. Mr Jones used to think—and still thinks—that many of the decisions about Wales would be better made by a European civil servant than his own Welsh Labour Government. Whilst I agree with him that important decisions should not be left to Labour, I do not think they should be left to the EU either. Labour have messed up everything that has been devolved to this place so far, whether it’s education, the NHS or housing. But this is a matter of democratic accountability, and the ability to sack those who make bad decisions. If the out-of-touch, complacent decision maker, who has no understanding of what life is like for the average person in Wales, consistently makes mistakes, people can stop voting Labour and let someone else have a go, but only on matters devolved to here, or in general elections for issues that are still UK competencies.

The proposal of a continuity Bill is yet another example of Labour deciding that they know best and ignoring the will of the Welsh people: that we will want to stay part of the UK, having some decisions made at a UK-wide level, but to leave the EU. Labour and Plaid want us to remain in the EU and the continuity Bill is their way of dealing with the offence they felt when it was clear that the electorate didn’t agree with them. Labour are ignoring the wishes of the voters simply because the voters ignored the wishes of Labour. Carwyn Jones and the other remainers in this place cannot in one breath say that the general election was not about Brexit, as he did before polling day, and then use the result to say the voters rejected true Brexit afterwards.

However hard the other parties try to bend the election results to fit their own ideology, you cannot deny that the majority of Welsh people agree with UKIP when the discussion is about Brexit. The First Minister mentioned it would mean leaving the single market, and the propaganda booklet sent out by the Tory Government on behalf of the ‘remain’ camp made a reference to leaving the single market on a majority of its pages in its scaremongering. If you say we cannot know exactly what people were voting for because the question lacked details, then we must default to the simplest assumption, that the vote to leave was exactly that: a vote to leave entirely. If a voter had wanted to retain any part of EU membership, be that freedom of movement or membership of the single market or anything else, they would have voted to remain. But they didn’t. The people wanted out, with all the consequences that entailed.

The continuity Bill—a step towards retaining membership of the single market, in my opinion—including all of its rules and submission to the European court—[Interruption.] We will see. We’ll see. The people didn’t vote for the EU to continue making our laws through the back door via a continuity Bill. The Welsh Labour Government say they stand for working people, but the decimation of all that has been devolved to it is a betrayal that shows the only thing Labour and Plaid politicians actually stand for is election. Thank you.

I welcome this much-needed debate in light of the publication of the EU withdrawal Bill, formerly known as the repeal Bill, formerly known as the great repeal Bill. From the outset, of course, Plaid Cymru has no issue with the principle of an Act that transfers into the jurisdictions of the UK all EU laws and regulations, so that on separation day we do not fall over a cliff edge. Plaid Cymru’s preference for that process, though, was for an immediate negotiation to commence after the referendum between the Governments of these islands to agree on a legislative framework so that EU laws could be transferred domestically in a way that upholds and respects the constitutional arrangements of our nations. This could have been concluded before article 50 was triggered, of course.

There are several clauses in the EU withdrawal Bill that cause great concern, but of special concern are, obviously, clause 11, relating to devolution, and clauses 7(1) and 7(2). Clause 11 should come as no surprise to anyone, sadly. It amends our constitution to ensure that our Parliament has no competence over EU regulations that would otherwise automatically fall within our competence upon separation day. Notice was given to us of this intention in the UK Government’s White Paper. In that White Paper, they intentionally misrepresented current arrangements for the agreement of EU frameworks as a means of laying the groundwork for the power grab that they now intend to formulate in law.

Llywydd, I remember much celebration in this Chamber at the time of the last Wales Bill becoming an Act due to the enshrining of the Sewel convention in our constitution. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has removed any doubt, if any exited, that it is simply not worth the paper it is written on. Westminster is supreme, and two devolution referenda in Wales can be trumped by just one single clause in one Westminster Bill.

But, as unacceptable as clause 11 is, we should not lose sight of clauses 7(1) and 7(2), and I would urge the First Minister not to be distracted by just clause 11 as the standalone. Even if clause 11 is removed, the powers delegated to UK Ministers in 7(1) and 7(2) are so far reaching and broad that UK Ministers can issue regulations and, indeed, amend or repeal any law, as they deem fit, passed by any Parliament in the United Kingdom in order to mitigate any failure or deficiency, as they see it, in retained European Union law.

That allows for the imposition of new bodies, new policies and new regulations on matters that are the responsibility today of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly. These powers, as well, I expect will be used to amend elements of the 759 international treaties that the UK will no longer be a direct party of from separation day onwards. Of those 759 treaties, 34 relate to food and agriculture, 69 to fisheries, 65 to transport, 202 to regulatory co-operation and 295 to trade—all of these either wholly or partially within the current Welsh constitution.

I welcome the fact that today’s motion commits us to the publication of a continuity Bill for Wales, and I don’t underestimate for one minute the significance of that endeavour. I’m disappointed that a framework Bill for a continuity Bill was not published last year—who knows, it might have raised the political stakes to a level where the UK Government might have thought twice about publishing the nonsense Bill that they published last week.

The Welsh Government has previously, of course, published an alternative Wales Bill with a clear political objective, and a continuity Bill could do something similar, as well as address the practical benefit of providing clarity and continuity for Welsh citizens, key sectors of our economy and communities after separation day. Not to do so—not to proceed with a continuity Bill—in my opinion would be a dereliction of our duty to uphold the expressed wishes of the people of Wales in terms of how they decide they want to be governed. We waited 600 years for home rule. We cannot allow it to be eroded within the next six months by a mob in Westminster with no mandate to do so.

Let me in the first instance reiterate UKIP AMs’ total and unconditional commitment to having any devolved powers that return from Europe passed in total to this Assembly. However, I find it quite incomprehensible that there are two parties in this Assembly that have become so vociferous with regard to this land grab of powers that are to be devolved to the UK from Europe, when they were quite content to let those very powers reside in Brussels ad infinitum. This despite the fact that there are only—

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

I’m grateful to him for giving way. He will know, of course, that at the moment, at the Council of Ministers, Welsh Ministers address the European Council of Ministers and European frameworks are agreed jointly between member states, with devolved Governments having a role. Under this wonderful partnership of equals that we have in these islands, our Government will not have any say in any future UK regulation or framework that they decide to impose upon us.

Well, wait a minute. There’s only one in 27 as far as the Commission is concerned with the UK Government in Europe, and the Commission, as you know, makes all the decisions with regard to powers that will come out of Europe and affect the Welsh people.

This despite the fact—and I’ll go on to make this point—this despite the fact that we had only four representative MEPs in an undemocratic Parliament in the EU, as opposed to 40 representatives in Westminster, a democratic Parliament—most of whom, I’ll point out, are Labour MPs. And all this against the backdrop that over the last term of the European Parliament, all of the 14 amendments to European Acts laid down by UKIP, which would have benefited Wales, were voted down by Labour and Plaid MEPs purely through party political prejudice. I’m afraid the rhetoric of both Labour and Plaid on these matters rings conspicuously hollow.

About a year ago—a year ago next week—I took part in a debate on the Country Land and Business Association stand in the Royal Welsh Show with the leader of UKIP, Neil Hamilton, where I set out very clearly that Plaid Cymru does agree with the need for UK frameworks as we leave the European Union, and wanted to work in building up those frameworks for agriculture, fisheries and for the environment. But, let’s be clear: this Bill does not deliver a framework; it delivers an imposition. Nothing betrays the motives of those who wanted to take us out of the EU better than the manner of us departing from the EU, because they have taken every opportunity not to resolve matters, as the Conservative Party claims, not to resolve uncertainties, but to create confusion, to sow and disguise their lack of a plan, their lack of ambition and their lack of ideas, and, simply put, to grab power back from this Parliament.

This is going to be one of the most important Bills that the Westminster Parliament will consider for some decades. It’s certainly an important Bill for us to consider, but let’s take an overview of the Bill. If we are parliamentarians here, and I hope we all are, then the fundamental principle is that Parliament makes the law and Government administers the law in line with Parliament’s views. Admittedly, from time to time, you delegate powers to Ministers through specific delegated legislation, but what’s striking about this Bill is the potency and scope of the powers given directly to Ministers. These include the famous Henry VIII powers that not only seek to amend or repeal retained EU law, but other Acts of Parliament and Acts of this Parliament as well. That goes way beyond what is demanded of any piece of legislation to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion.

It was the House of Lords Constitution Committee in a recent report that said it feared the Bill, when published, would effect ‘a massive transfer’—their quote—‘a massive transfer’ of power from Parliament to the Government. That is precisely what this Bill does, but not just from the Westminster Parliament to the Westminster Government, but from this Parliament to the Westminster Government.

And when was the last time that a piece of statutory instrument was rejected by the Westminster Parliament? When was the last time that these pieces of delegated secondary legislation were actually scrutinised and rejected by Westminster? Well, I’ll tell you when: 1979. That was the last time that a statutory instrument was rejected. We have rejected statutory instruments here, but that’s the last time Westminster rejected them. So, you’re giving all this power to Westminster Ministers with no control; in effect, no parliamentary control. And, of course, the Bill raises real issues here, and here I think the best thing I can do is quote from a public law analysis of the Bill. And I quote to start:

‘At the moment, devolved legislatures are forbidden from doing things that breach EU law’—

that’s written in to our fundamental Wales Acts of course—

‘even if the thing they wish to do concerns a subject-matter that is devolved. When the UK leaves the EU, by default that restriction will go—in effect causing powers to flow from Brussels to the devolved capitals…. But’—

the analysis continues—

‘the Bill erects a diversion, providing that repatriated powers, even when they relate to devolved subjects, will instead go to London.’

That’s not a Plaid Cymru analysis. That’s not a Labour Party analysis. That’s a public law professor analysis of what this Bill actually does. And that’s why, of course, we need clause—well, I don’t need it—but that’s why the Conservatives want clause 11 in the Bill. If the Bill didn’t do anything, if leaving the EU didn’t repatriate these powers directly to us, why put clause 11 in there? You only put clause 11 in there because you know damn well what’s going to happen when we leave the EU. Those powers won’t stop at number 10 or number 11 Downing Street, or anywhere in Whitehall; they’ll come straight down the Thames, through the Cotswolds and straight down the Severn to us. That’s what will really happen. That’s why clause 11 is there, because the Conservative Government know what would happen.

Let’s just turn very briefly to the environmental impact of this. If we allow this Bill to go through in its present form, it will be Michael Gove that will decide on environment and agriculture here in Wales. GM crops, currently not allowed in Wales through the EU framework, could easily be decided through this framework. Neonicotinoids, the bee pesticides banned since 2011, could easily be allowed. Michael Gove wants to bring them back, he wants to allow bee pesticides to be sprayed; he could do that under this framework. Air pollution—which we fought against here in Wales—the Conservative Government has a very poor attitude towards air pollution and could easily override the European Court of Justice rulings that have saved and helped clean up air pollution here in Wales. And bovine TB, which I raised with the First Minister on Friday, is part of an EU-agreed programme for the eradication of TB. If the Westminster Government thought it would be better for a trade deal to have a cull of badgers throughout Wales, it could easily do so under this Bill. This Bill is a real threat not only to our constitution, it’s a real threat to our daily lives.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. Listening to Simon Thomas there, he gave some very concrete examples of what can happen—what will happen, indeed—if the Bill remains as it is. Much of what the Bill contains, I would agree with. Much of what Mark Isherwood said I agree with, in terms of what he was advocating: namely, no change; certainty—I agree with; making sure that there is not a sudden change when we leave the EU; and making sure, of course, that there can be, where appropriate, UK-wide frameworks in the future. I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s the way it’s being done that’s the problem. At the heart of this Bill is a rejection of the principle of consent and an acceptance of the principle of imposition. To put it crudely, what this Bill has at the moment is a proposal that England can do what it wants, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can’t. Now, it’s either one rule for all or no rules at all. Surely, it has to be that way.

There will be some, I’m sure, on the Conservative benches who share my disquiet. Today, I can understand why they feel now’s not the time to express those views. But, can I say, this is not a scenario where we are trying to oppose something without having put something else forward as an alternative? We’ve done this for weeks on end. We’ve said to the UK Government: we understand the need for continuity, we understand the need for certainly. Let’s make sure—as Simon Thomas says, clause 11 wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for the fact that these powers come straight to us—let’s all agree we will not change things until we are all agreed. That is the mature partnership approach that should be taken in the UK now. Rather, the UK Government’s taken the approach that the UK Government is supreme and everyone else must simply follow along. But the UK Government has said that it wants the consent of this legislature. Now, that consent cannot be conditional. It cannot say, if we do not give consent, ‘Well, actually, we’re going to ignore you.’ It’s not the doctrine of limited consent—an extension of the Brezhnev doctrine. This surely is an example where there should be proper consent. I want to work with the UK Government to get to a point where there can be consent, but we are not in that position yet.

It is true to say that various UK Ministers have written to us and said, ‘We want to work with you, get your consent and get agreed frameworks.’ Well, two things strike me: first of all, why wasn’t this done before? Secondly, why isn’t it on the face of the Bill? None of this is on the face of the Bill. There’s nothing on the Bill about sunset clauses in terms of clause 11. There’s nothing in the Bill about making sure that this is simply a holding pattern for a temporary period. It’s indefinite, and that’s the problem. What is being said by UK Ministers is not what we see on the face of the Bill, and what is said must appear on the face of the Bill to make it remotely palatable.

I listened carefully to what Neil Hamilton said. He has, in this Chamber, been consistent in his view that those powers that return from Brussels should come here. But now we hear his support for a middle man, in effect—that powers should be kept in London, becoming the new Brussels for a while, and then come here. Why? Why shouldn’t they come here in the first place? They’re our powers to begin with. They’re our powers that’ll be returning to us. Yes, it’s right to say we’re not losing powers in that sense, but these are powers that, by right, should come to Wales. So, why should they go somewhere else first? That is the argument. I regret that he seems to have changed his position on that and has become closer to the Conservative Party view on this.

As I said, if this is temporary, why doesn’t it say so on the face of the Bill? And it doesn’t. We must guard against that. Unless it’s in writing, why should we take it at face value? The other thing that we must remember is that there is no restriction at all on the UK Government here. It can do as it sees fit, not just for England, but for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as well. That cuts across the fundamental principle of devolution, and is not something, clearly, that we could support. There are grey areas. Simon Thomas has referred to them. What happens if in trade negotiations there is a requirement to do something with regard to animal health? What if, in a trade deal, as I mentioned earlier on, there is a requirement that we should have to privatise parts of our health service in order to make a trade deal palatable to another country? There are grey areas, which is why it’s so important that, in order to avoid this kind of conflict in the UK, we work together from the very start, and the principle is established from the start that we work in partnership for the good of all the four nations, and not just thinking that all the power and all the wisdom rest in Westminster. We know that isn’t the case.

With regard to the continuity Bill—quite right to say that Steffan Lewis was the first one to raise it. I was unpersuaded at the time. I couldn’t see what it would deliver. He persuaded me. I give him that credit. And it is right to say we’re moving forward with the Bill. We’d look to publish a Bill. We aim to publish in the course of the autumn. It’s not without complication, I have to say. It’s not clear how complicated a Bill like that would be, but it is something, as I’ve said, that we would look to do. We would prefer it if the UK Government were to accept amendments that we would draft as a Government in the UK Parliament. That then, of course, would obviate the need for a Bill, but, clearly, we have to keep that as part of our armoury, if I can put it that way, in order to preserve the powers of the people of Wales and the institution that they themselves have elected.

I have to say to Michelle Brown, yes, the election was about Brexit. Her party took 1.8 per cent of the vote—1.8 per cent of the vote. They rejected without question—without question—the version of Brexit put forward by UKIP, and UKIP—your leader, Paul Nuttall, if anyone remembers him—said that the election was about ensuring there was no backsliding on Brexit. And look what happened to you. The public did not agree with the position that you took because of the vote that you had. And I have to say I’m disappointed to hear a member of UKIP go weak-kneed when it comes to defending the powers of this institution. The whole UKIP argument has been, ‘We want to bring powers home’. That, in fairness, has been their argument, but it doesn’t count as far as Cardiff or Wales is concerned, there has to be some kind of stopping off point, and that shows, of course, that their view was always about bringing powers to London and not necessarily to Cardiff. It’s a shame, because that’s not where they were a few weeks ago. Now, we see, I’m afraid, UKIP’s true colours.

Steffan Lewis is right to talk about the other clauses. It’s not just about clause 11. There are other clauses, as he mentioned, that wind their way, that knit their way, through the entire Bill, which we must be aware of. And I have to say, as far as David Rowlands is concerned, the European Parliament is no less democratic than the UK Parliament. It’s elected in the same way, so there’s no difference between the ways that these Parliaments are elected. This is not—I’m not going to persuade them, let’s face it—. This is not about preventing Brexit. This is about making sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights and powers of the people of Wales, as voted for in a referendum—as voted for in a referendum—stay with the people of Wales. This is what this is about. This can be achieved, accepting, of course, the need for UK involvement in some areas, by agreement and by partnership. What could be more mature, more sensible, more democratic, and more rational than that? And that is the view we’ll be putting to the UK Government. Let’s see if they are able to live up to the words that they have put to us so far.

I would like to be in a position where we get to a point in the Bill where the Bill could potentially be recommended to the Assembly. We are a long way from that position—a long way from that position. It can be done, but the principle of consent and the principle of the democratic legitimacy of this Chamber and this nation have to be accepted as part of those negotiations. If that is accepted by the UK Government then, to quote David Davis yesterday, let’s get down to business, let’s make sure that, when Brexit happens, we have a proper decision-making mechanism between the Governments of the UK, we have a proper way to take decisions, we have an independent adjudication process to examine those decisions, and let’s look to the future as a UK that is a true partnership of nations, and not a UK that apparently thinks that its constitutional present is based somewhere in the 1950s.

And so, today, as Welsh Government, and, indeed, others in this Chamber, have echoed, we look forward to taking the word of UK Ministers to make this Bill acceptable not just to the Government but to the Assembly, to make sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights of the people of Wales are preserved.

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

The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on rail services and metro procurement. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today, I would like to provide an update to Members on progress made with the Wales and borders rail service and metro procurement. Our vision is for a modern, efficient rail service, using modern technology and working practices to deliver considerable service improvements for passengers throughout Wales.

This agenda brings with it undoubtable challenges, but also fantastic opportunities to deliver on our wider aspirations for a bigger and better multimodal integrated public transport network, serving the needs of passengers, walkers, and cyclists all over Wales, whether they are from Wales or visitors looking to see as much as possible of our beautiful country. The agenda will be supported by a number of ambitious interventions, including rail electrification and enhancement schemes, the north Wales metro, improvements to the road network and the M4, and lasting improvements to bus services.

We are delivering these interventions in a partially devolved context. However, this is not satisfactory. We have pressed the UK Government to devolve control and funding over rail infrastructure to Wales, as recommended by the Commission on Devolution in Wales. And, in the absence of devolved funding and control, Wales must be given its fair share of infrastructure investment, noting the historic underinvestment here in Wales, and we continue to make this case. We have, however, made good progress.

In 2014, responsibility for the specification and procurement of the next Wales and borders rail service was transferred to the Welsh Government. In 2015, we established a not-for-profit company, Transport for Wales, to help advise and support us with public transport projects, in particular to help procure rail services. Presently, its focus is procuring the Wales and borders rail services to meet passenger needs across Wales. However, this will develop in the years to come.

We intend to create a rail service that benefits the whole of Wales, communities along the border and in England. We have a unique opportunity through the Cardiff capital region city deal, which includes £734 million for the south Wales metro. The capability and approach that we develop in delivering the south Wales metro will put us in a good position to roll out the metro concept in north Wales, and, indeed, other parts of Wales, in a way that best suits local needs. Following consultation and engagement, we identified our priorities, which reflect the rail service that people in Wales want. Based on those priorities, and with the support of Transport for Wales, we are undertaking a procurement exercise for the next rail service contract. We have been successful in attracting four high-quality bidders.

I am pleased that stakeholders have participated and engaged positively and proactively to help us develop our thinking for future rail services. Transport for Wales is today publishing the summary of responses to the recent public consultation. I welcome the recent report by members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills committee on the next rail service. The report rightly recognises the challenges that the Government faces in the future. I look forward to publishing my responses to the recommendations of the report in due course. We want all of Wales to benefit from more efficient rail services on better, more modern trains. Through this procurement, we want to ensure a sustainable model that meets the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This approach will enable us to make the most of every penny that’s invested, to provide a long-term future for our communities.

We expect a number of outcomes from our procurement exercise and for future rail services in Wales. Through the procurement process, we have incentivised bidders to develop high-quality bids that exceed our expectations. We have also included carbon-reduction targets, with incentives to improve over the life of the contract. As a minimum, I expect that current services and frequencies are maintained, as well as growth in services in prioritised and much needed areas. Alongside this, we want to see improvements in the quality of rolling stock, such as the provision of at-seat charging points, more effective luggage and bicycle storage, and controlled emissions toilets for a cleaner network. Work is also under way for the provision of free passenger Wi-Fi at the 50 busiest stations in Wales and on those trains not already fitted with the necessary equipment.

I announced yesterday the addition of five extra four-carriage trains to increase the amount of rolling stock available in the current franchise. The introduction of these trains will allow for persons of reduced mobility compliance works to be made to the existing class 150 and 158 stock and will provide options for increasing capacity on busy routes. The extra trains will also provide opportunities for the new franchisee to deliver improvements early in the new Wales and borders rail services contract.

I expect new improved rolling stock to be delivered early within the new rail services contract so that passengers get the benefit as soon as possible and that trains are fully accessible to those with limited mobility. I expect the introduction of journey time improvements and enhancements to services, including enhanced north-south services in each direction in the morning and evening with better quality rolling stock, and also increased train services on Sundays throughout Wales.

At the end of this month, I will be publishing a summary of the Welsh Government’s requirements for the next Wales and borders rail service and the south-east Wales metro. We continue to work with the UK Government to transfer the relevant powers needed to successfully deliver and run future rail services. Whilst this is happening, we are proceeding with the procurement with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Transport under an agency agreement between the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. Due to the cross-border nature of rail services, there has been close working between the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport. Discussions are also ongoing between officials, supported by Transport for Wales, and Network Rail regarding the transfer of the core Valleys lines to Welsh Government, opening the opportunity for us to ask our bidders to put forward innovative and cost-effective rail solutions in the region.

A quality and reliable railway service that is part of an integrated public transport system across Wales is central to our vision. This is also reflected in the ‘Moving North Wales Forward—Our Vision for North Wales and the North East Wales Metro’ brochure. The north-east Wales metro will be a part of a wider transport modernisation programme across the whole of north Wales that recognises the opportunities for achieving economic growth and well-being that can be realised from improved connectivity for all transport modes within the region and across borders.

Effective cross-border working is essential if we are to attract investment and achieve the maximum benefits, and we are identifying a range of potential interventions for the short, medium, and long term, to maximise the benefit of cross-border connectivity into England, Ireland, and beyond.

I am committed to working with partners across Wales and across the border to identify and develop these further initiatives and, in particular, to improve transport integration across all modes, including integrated ticketing.

I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today and for his comments in regard to the work of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. I look forward to his acceptance, I hope, of all of our recommendations.

First, with regard to the procurement process, your letter of 12 July to me on the merits and risks associated with publishing the full draft specification to Assembly Members, notes that you will not publish the draft specifications in full. However, you’ve not made it clear either in your letter or in your statement today whether or not the final specification will be published, when it is published, when it—. I’ll start that again. You’ve not made it clear either in your letter to me or your statement today whether or not the final specification will be published when it is issued to bidders in the final procurement stage, once the invitation to tender is issued. You have previously confirmed that you will also not publish the evaluation criteria in full. In oral evidence on 6 April, the Welsh Government director of transport also appeared to indicate that the final specification would not be made public when it’s issued to bidders, instead saying that the Welsh Government could consider publishing the final specification once the contract has been awarded next year.

Now, I do understand that it is normal procurement practice for those public authorities procuring rail franchises in Britain to publish the specification, and I’ll give you an example, the Department for Transport’s invitation to tender for the East Anglia franchise was published in full in September 2015. Also, Transport Scotland published the full invitation to tender for the ScotRail franchise in January 2014. So, it does therefore appear that the Welsh Government is taking a different approach to procurement and moving away from, perhaps, established practice. You have not formally clarified whether or not the final specification will be published, so I would be grateful if you could put this on the record today and explicitly say whether the invitation to tender, including the final specification, will be published when it is issued to bidders this summer. And, if not, I would be grateful if you could say why not, given that invitations to tender and specifications for British rail franchises are generally published and commonly face public scrutiny once they have been published.

I will say, Cabinet Secretary, this is a contract that’s estimated at in excess of £4 billion for both the franchise itself and the metro infrastructure. It’s, of course, the largest ever awarded by the Welsh Government and there’s a great deal of interest in its content. I’m sure you’ll agree with that. So, do you, therefore, agree with me that transparency in such a large contract is in the public interest, especially given the evidence from stakeholders that suggests that the procurement process has been opaque from the start?

I would like to briefly ask a few questions on rolling stock. I think it’s good news that Wales is going to get the new class 319 trains for use on the Wales and borders franchise from 2018 to 2021, but can you outline, Cabinet Secretary, whether or not the five units will be delivered at once, how many units will be taken out of service and how long to make them DDA compliant, which part of the network will these trains operate on, and what additional capacity will be created as a result of the new rolling stock?

Finally, acting Presiding Officer, I think it is essential that the Welsh Government maintains public confidence that the new franchise has been specifically designed to deliver value for rail users in Wales. I therefore hope that the Cabinet Secretary will answer my questions in a way that demonstrates how the new Wales and borders franchise will guarantee the realisation of public demand for a rail service that delivers fair and affordable fares, new trains, modern trains, an integrated network and a more environmentally friendly service.

Can I thank the Member for his comments and questions, and thank him, again, for chairing the committee’s inquiry into the new franchise? It was an excellent piece of work, a very thorough and comprehensive report. I’m looking forward to responding to it in full. Meanwhile, I think it’s fair to say that the recommendations are very much in tune with the Welsh Government’s aspirations for a better, more integrated rail service, one that’s integrated well with bus travel and active travel.

I should say at the outset that, in order to ensure that there is fair and open competition, and to protect the integrity of the procurement process, it’s not always going to be possible to release or comment on specific details on the procurement, as to do so would put Welsh Government at risk of legal challenge. Now, the Member raises the important question of the draft specification and final specification—immensely complicated pieces of work, incredibly complex, and we need to secure the best value for taxpayers and the best possible outcomes in a competitive process. For that reason, there is a need to balance transparency of the process with best value and the best outcomes. So, whilst we will not be publishing the specification, and whilst our competitive dialogue approach is distinctly different to many that are being adopted in other areas, as I said in my statement I will be publishing a summary of the Welsh Government’s requirements for the next Wales and borders rail service and for the metro as well.

In terms of the rolling stock, I was pleased to be able to announce additional rolling stock. The details of the exact roll-out of each component will be presented in due course to Members, but it will be utilised in a way that enables other parts of the rolling stock catalogue to be adapted accordingly for people with limited mobility. And in terms of the additional capacity, that will be rolled out wherever current capacity is stretched. It will therefore be used on a demand-led basis.

As a regular rail passenger and commuter, I’ve taken a keen interest in the next franchise and I know there are many other Members in the Chamber that are in the same position. Now, we know that in terms of who will run the Wales and borders franchise, four private sector bidders have come forward. There’s an interest in rail nationalisation and in public ownership from all corners of public opinion. The usual reason that people want the railways to be in public hands is around the question of profits disappearing from the network, and in many cases not even going into private hands but into the state railways of other countries—and the irony of that is not lost on most people.

Even in Wales, where railway profits are low and subsidies are high, there is still profit leaving the Welsh railway network and going to Germany. Now, we know that the legislative situation at the UK level appears not to allow for public sector bidders to compete for these franchises, and the Wales Act 2017, which the Labour Party here supported and my party did not, continues to disallow public sector ownership. So, I want to turn to the question of not-for-dividend or not-for-profit models. You’ve repeatedly committed to these in your various manifestos. Is it the case that a not-for-profit rail, as per your manifesto, is not happening and cannot happen now within this next franchise?

Moving on to the question of overcrowding and quality of rolling stock, I noticed the announcement you made yesterday that five new trains are being provided next year—five. We know that the greatest problem with the current franchise is that it was awarded on a no-growth basis. That mistake was recognised by previous Welsh Governments, but very little could be done about it. Now we have to avoid the mistakes of the past and have a way of dealing with any challenges that arise in the future. A break clause would allow the next franchise to be reviewed at regular intervals during the length of the contract. It would also allow future Welsh Governments, including a future Plaid Cymru Government, the option to take rail into public ownership if the legislation changed and it became legal to do so. So, will the Cabinet Secretary be including a break clause to enable that to happen?

My final question is on electrification, and it’s linked to yesterday’s rolling stock announcement. Electric trains, in whatever form, will provide a cleaner, greener and more comfortable passenger experience. Is electrification still on track in Wales, and will it be rolled out according to timetable?

Can I thank the Member for her questions and the keen interest that she has in rail transport across Wales? Until we have the powers that are equivalent to Scotland, the Member is right, we would not be able to enable public bodies to run our rail services. But I can tell her that in the new franchise—I think I’m on public record as saying that profits that have been earned in the current period have been excessive, but they will be capped in the next franchise, whilst there will also be incentives for the operator partner to ensure that services are improved, both in terms of quality and in terms of the regularity of services.

In terms of Transport for Wales, this was established by the Welsh Government as a not-for-profit company to provide support and expertise to the Welsh Government in connection to transport projects in Wales. Now, although Transport for Wales is currently designing and undertaking the procurement process for the next Wales and borders rail services and metro, on behalf of the Welsh Government, once the franchise has been let, Transport for Wales will oversee the management and the joining up of services, such as marketing and integrated ticketing, which could be, again, delivered on the basis of not-for-profit principles. But over time the aspiration is to secure the necessary powers that would enable Transport for Wales to take on a much wider range of transport functions, indeed similar in nature to the operations of Transport for London, and the way that it manages the public transport network in the UK’s capital.

The Member is absolutely right that the franchise that we adopted was at best flimsy, and today is not fit for purpose. It was based on a zero-growth assumption at a time when many experts were predicting reduced passenger numbers on railway services. That has proven to be anything but the case. Over the next franchise period we expect passenger numbers to increase by 74 per cent, and it’s essential, as part of the franchise process, to be able to demonstrate how bidders are going to be addressing the increase in passenger numbers. But there will be break clauses that would enable the Government to review the effective operation of the franchise and which would provide the Government with regular opportunities to assess the success of the eventual winner of the bidding process.

With regard to electrification, we’ve been very clear that electrification must be delivered in a timely way to Cardiff and must extend across to Swansea, as was agreed. Yes, it comes with a considerable price tag, but the fact of the matter is that, during the current control period, Wales has fared incredibly poorly in terms of the amount that we’ve had spent on Network Rail’s Wales franchise area. Only in the region of about 1 per cent of UK investment has been spent on the network in the Wales and borders franchise area—that is wholly inadequate given that it comprises something in the region of 6 per cent of the UK’s network. So, it’s absolutely essential that the modernisation of the south Wales line continues through to Swansea. Indeed, it’s essential that we receive our fair share of investment in rail infrastructure, and if that is not possible it should be devolved to us with a fair funding settlement. It’s also worth saying, I think, that modernisation of the rail network, and particularly in regard, again, to electrification, is essential in delivering on our objectives to decrease our carbon footprint. In terms of the decarbonisation agenda, if the UK Government is not able to modernise the railway network right through south Wales, then it will have a major impact on our carbon objectives, and that would be something that we would not be content with whatsoever.

It’s also essential that, if the UK Government deemed electrification was not to continue through to Swansea, then the money would still, in our view, have to come to Wales. It should not be spent elsewhere than Wales. As I say, if the UK Government does not believe that it should electrify that line, or modernise the entire network, then give us the powers and the resource and we’ll do it.

Many of my constituents are very interested in the development of the metro and the awarding of the new franchise, and have attended quite a lot of meetings that have involved discussing the specifications and other consultations held by Transport for Wales. They did hope to see publicly the specification document, and I note the Cabinet Secretary did say earlier on that he would not be publishing the specification document, but a summary of the requirements. So, I’ve been asked to put forward their views that they really feel that they should see as much as possible being made publicly available, because, obviously, they don’t expect to see anything that is commercially sensitive, but they do expect to see some very clear bidding specifications and criteria to be in the public domain, because it is of great public interest, and I would be grateful if you could reassure me about how much will be made public. Also, I think one of the recommendations from the business committee was that there should be a passenger-friendly description, because this is a unique way of doing procurement, and I think it’s probably the first time it has been done in the UK. So, I think it’s really clear that the fact that it is unique, that it doesn’t in any way move away from openness and transparency—. So, I want the Cabinet Secretary to respond to that.

Then the other issue is that I really welcome the money for the new rolling stock, the new trains, that was announced yesterday. I note that £1 million has been put in by Arriva, which is very welcome in view of the fact that there is obviously going to be a bidding process for the franchise very soon. I’d like reassurance that those trains will continue to be available whoever wins the new franchise.

Can I take that final point first? I can assure the Member that the rolling stock will be available so that, as soon as possible in the new franchise, passengers will be able to experience improvements in terms of the quality of the trains that they’re carried on. In terms of the specification, I will endeavour to ensure that the requirements, when they are published as a summary document, are as full and as accessible to passengers as possible. The Member has consistently represented her constituents with passion and determination as far as rail transport and the south Wales metro in particular are concerned, and I would look forward to further communication with her based on the engagement that she has with her constituents. I think it’s worth saying again that Transport for Wales is publishing the response to their latest consultation today, and I think that will be helpful in pointing to those areas that have concerned passengers right across Wales most, and how that then, when the summary document of the requirements is published—how they match up very well. There have been two consultations that have taken place during this process. They’ve attracted a significant number of responses from across Wales, and that’s in no small part because of the work of the Member and others in this Chamber in promoting the importance of the next franchise and the development of the south-east Wales metro.

I’m sure all of us in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee will welcome the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary of the funds for the addition of new rolling stock, particularly as we’ve heard many times in our inquiries the problems of shortages of suitable rolling stock. Cabinet Secretary, as you know, the central Valleys lines are a crucial part of the jigsaw that will make up the south Wales metro. So, does the Cabinet Secretary have any firm commitment to the type of rolling stock for these lines, especially with regard to whether they will include light rail options? Because, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, light rail will not accommodate freight. So, can he give us a commitment that freight will still be part of the railway strategy for the core Valleys lines, and also, of course, for those lines outside that designation?