Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

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 Melding. 

Our first priority after the Grenfell Tower tragedy has been to ensure residents of high-rise blocks are safe. We have provided £3 million to remove and replace cladding in the three social sector blocks affected, and we're working with private sector companies to establish their plans to complete the essential work.

First Minister, of course, I acknowledge the work that's been done in the social sector, and very welcome it is, but, last month, Wales's chief fire adviser said that residents in private high-rise blocks may have to live with unsafe cladding for years because of wrangling over who should pay for it, and the Residential Landlords Association has called on the Welsh Government to offer short-term loans to the privately owned buildings for remedial works while the issue of liability is sorted out. Do you, First Minister, agree with me that, for the private sector, the priority should be to remove dangerous materials from these buildings and the issue surrounding liability contracts and responsibility should come later?

Usually, the structure and exterior of a building are matters for the landlord. In the case of a high-rise building, it's usually the management company in normal circumstances. They are responsible. Now, there are private companies across Wales who are looking at the buildings that they own and are taking action in order to make them safer, and so they should. Now, I'd urge those private companies who own buildings to do just that. They will have made a substantial amount of money in the main from those buildings. It's only right then that they contribute back to the upkeep of those buildings and not expect residents or tenants to pay. 

Just to expand on that point, I'm not entirely convinced that it's just as easy as saying that the management company should pay, because some of these management companies have previously been made up of residents associations, and that means that, by virtue of the set-up and the constitution of those management bodies, the residents themselves are the ones who will be paying. So, for example, in Prospect Place, you've got a mixture of people who are on benefits, you've got a mixture of professional people and elderly people. Some people will not be able to afford their contribution to that cladding. So, again, I would ask you: what is the Welsh Government doing in addressing this issue with the private sector? In the UK Government—I'm not one to praise them very often—they are having UK round-tables with the industry, telling them how they might address this issue, whereas I'm not seeing here the same type of urgent action on the private cladding that I've seen elsewhere. 

Well, no, that simply isn't correct. There have been meetings with organisations. You're right to say that some management companies are made up entirely of residents within a building. They have to take on board the liabilities as well in those circumstances. It is an advantage to those who live in the building because they feel they have greater control over the communal area of the building, but there are disadvantages, particularly when it comes to liability. 

We will, of course, work with residents organisations. I can say that the Minister has already had a constructive meeting with representatives of the residents management company, the developer and managing agents for a number of the buildings that we're talking about. We'll continue with those meetings to see what help could be provided where there is genuine difficulty as far as some residents are concerned in order to make buildings safer.

Our response was published on 27 June. It does recognise, the original report, the progress that's been made, but there is no doubt that there is more that needs to be done to improve young people’s mental health and well-being. I can assure Members that we will examine very carefully those recommendations we have accepted in principle and look very carefully at what more we might be able to do in order to provide assurances for the committee and the report that it has produced. 

First Minister, committee members from all parties, many education and health professionals, as well as schoolchildren, worked hard over many months to produce this report 'Mind over matter'. Our Chair then met with you personally to ask you to lead a cross-Government response, since we do need the health Secretary to engage with our work as much as the education Secretary. First Minister, what have you got to say to everyone who helped with our report now that they see you've accepted only seven of our 28 recommendations, and that eight have been rejected in whole or in part, while 13 have been described—and many regret Welsh Government's increasing use of this get-out phrase—as just accepted in principle?

Well, my understanding is that the report makes one key recommendation and 27 separate recommendations. We have accepted fully or in part 23 of those recommendations. It's important that, where there has been acceptance in principle, that we look very carefully and seriously at how to implement or take forward those recommendations, and we will do that because we are aware, of course, that mental health is one of the key priority areas for us, identified in 'Prosperity for All'.

First Minister, you are very well aware of my deep concern about the Welsh Government response to 'Mind over matter'. Now, I don't want to pre-empt the committee debate tomorrow, because it wouldn't be possible to do this issue justice in a question, but can I just ask you to give me your assurance that you will very carefully consider what happens in that debate tomorrow, with a view to ensuring that we do actually get the step change that we so desperately need for our children and young people?

Yes. I can give my friend and colleague that assurance. I know that this is an issue that she has given a huge amount of commitment to, and I want to make sure that the Government's response in the longer term is the kind of response that she would want to see, and other members of the committee. There will, of course, be a fuller debate tomorrow, and these issues can be explored in greater depth at that point.

I also want to record my disappointment with the poor response of the Government to the recommendations made in this report. It’s clear to me that the Government doesn’t share the same ambitions as committee members in terms of the transformational change required in this area, particularly in looking at the trajectory in terms of the increase in the problems that we see. We need to meet that challenge with far more enthusiasm rather than just accepting in principle, which, to me, is code for business as usual.

Now, having more than one Cabinet Secretary or more than one Minister responsible for certain areas can be a strength, but, in this case, for me, it’s clearly a weakness because there isn’t one individual taking ownership of these improvements and driving those changes through. So, may I ask whether you as First Minister, because of the nature of the way in which the committee feels that this should be a national priority, will take that lead role?

Well, if that’s required, I will do that, of course, particularly with CAMHS. As I have some direct experience of CAHMS, and as I’ve seen some of the problems that people have had with their children particularly, this is something that I want to ensure is driven forward. May I tell Members this: I will take tomorrow’s debate into account, and the Government will respond tomorrow, and beyond tomorrow, in order to ensure that we can strengthen the services available?

Questions now from the party leaders, and, on behalf of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, this week is of course the seventieth anniversary of the national health service, and I'm sure you will join me in celebrating the service and the tireless work of health professionals, who, over the years, have continued to deliver the best possible outcomes for patients across the UK. First Minister, in light of this significant milestone, are you ashamed to be the only leader of a UK nation to have ever cut an NHS budget?

Can I first of all pay just a word of tribute again to the Member's predecessor, with whom I crossed swords for seven years, I think, in this Chamber? It went very quickly, I suspect, but could I wish him the best for the future as well, and to welcome the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire back to the role that he occupied back in 2011 for a short period of time?

Can I assure him we are proud of the record we have on the NHS? We are the party that established the NHS. We spend more on health per head than England does. We spend more on health and social care by some distance than England does. And if he is suggesting to me that somehow things are better under his Government in London, I simply repeat to him a sign I saw, which touched me, in Tredegar on Sunday, and it's this: 'We have a statue to Aneurin Bevan; we'll never have a statue to Jeremy Hunt.'

Well, of course, here he goes again—the First Minister, wanting to talk about England. He doesn't want to talk about Wales. You are the First Minister of Wales. Now, of course, perhaps the outgoing First Minister doesn't actually want to talk about financing the NHS in Wales, but at least the incoming First Minister is starting to accept his party's mistakes of the past. Only last week, at the WLGA conference in Llandudno, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services made it clear that it was a mistake to cut the health budget in 2011, when he said that—and I quote:

'The cash flat budget settlement didn't work'.

First Minister, do you agree with him?

What I can say is we have put enormous resources into the health service now for many, many years. It is perfectly proper for us to point out what he—his party—would do if they were in Government in Wales, because we have seen the example of what they have done in England: mass prioritisation, a postcode lottery—[Interruption.] Yes, I know it hurts, but you've got to listen. A postcode lottery of treatment, prioritisation, cuts in health spending in real terms, not keeping up with the health spending in Wales, massive cuts in social services. If they talked to their colleagues—their own party colleagues—in local government in England, we will see from them, and hear from them, the devastating impact of his party's cuts in England that thankfully—thankfully—we have been able to prevent in Wales. I just remember one thing: we have, for the past eight years and more in this Chamber, had to suffer the effects of austerity that has been imposed on the people of Wales by his own party. I would accept his criticism perhaps more favourably if he were to stand up today and demand that his own Prime Minister and what's left of her Government end austerity in the UK.

Well, I'm not going to take any lectures on spending from the First Minister and, indeed, the Labour Party. It was the Labour Party that left a deficit of £150 billion back in 2010—[Interruption.]—and we all remember—[Interruption.] We all remember the former Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, who said there was no money left. This party has had to clear up that mess. [Interruption.] First Minister—

I think we all need to calm down a little bit and listen to Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the effects of the cuts back in 2011 are still being felt by communities across Wales today. The starving of vital NHS funds in recent years has led to Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board in north Wales being put in special measures, the centralisation and downgrading of services and hospitals like Withybush in west Wales, in my constituency, health boards struggling and, in some cases, unable to break even. Waiting times satisfaction rates are down, according to your own Government's survey, and thousands of people across Wales are still struggling to access their GP. First Minister, the UK Government has pledged a funding boost of £1.2 billion to the Welsh Government every year—[Interruption.]—for the next few years, every year for the next few years. Will you now commit to spending every penny of that funding on the NHS in Wales and give the Welsh health service the birthday present it so vitally deserves?

Well, he is more animated than I've seen him for the past 11 years in this Chamber. He doesn't need to audition for the job; no-one else wants it, at the end of the day. [Laughter.] But let me say this to him: again, he wants to avoid the austerity that his own party has imposed on the people of Britain. It is because of austerity that we find ourselves in the position where we would want to spend more money, more resources in health and other areas but we are unable to do so. Once again, on being given the invitation today to stand up and call for the end of austerity, he has failed. I can't say 'once again' because it's the first time he's done it, but he has failed the people of Wales in terms of what he has done.

Once again, he spreads this myth—he spreads this myth about a £1.2 billion consequential. That is not true. Let me explain why it's not true. What will happen is, the consequential will come, and then there will be cuts in other areas. There won't be £1.2 billion. It will be far less than that. We know that because that's what's happened over the past few years. So, what we will find is there may well be a consequential, but it will be far less than £1.2 billion, because his party are going to make sure of that. His party are going to make sure that they will make cuts in local government, they will make cuts in other devolved areas, and they'll pass those cuts on to us and shave that figure of £1.2 billion down to something far, far less. So, let's see, if he wants the leadership of his party, whether he will say today that he will demand of his party in London that we should get a full £1.2 billion and more, just as they gave £1 billion to the eight Members of Parliament from the Democratic Unionist Party.

The Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In the seventieth year of the NHS, it remains Wales's greatest invention, and it is, of course, the staff to whom we owe the greatest gratitude. So, I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say 'diolch o galon i chi i gyd' on behalf of all of us.

Now, Wales's ageing population means that care services are unable to deal with the pressure that they're under, leading to thousands of unnecessary referrals to the NHS. It's in your gift, First Minister, to create the national care service that Plaid Cymru has been advocating for some time now, to alleviate that pressure. Will you do it?

Well, it's not clear what a national care service would do. It is right to say that there is still work to be done in aligning further the work of social services with health. We know there can't be a divorce between the two. The two run very much together. And that is what we are doing, working with our local government colleagues, to make sure that there are fewer people who are delayed in hospital—we're seeing delayed transfers of care go down—and also, of course, working with primary care providers to make sure that they are able to provide the care that people need to avoid them going into hospital in the first place. 

It's not happening quick enough, First Minister, and that's why we've advocated this national care service. Bold changes are needed for our health and social care services to reflect the changing demographics in this country. Bevan's bold vision saw the creation of the NHS, and a similar bold vision is needed now for a national care service. We can all agree that the NHS is a Welsh institution that is the envy of the world, but Wales's place in the world is putting it under threat. Unlike the promises on the side of the famous big red bus, Brexit's danger for the NHS has come into sharp focus this week. NHS England's chief executive officer, Simon Stevens, confirmed that there is extensive planning taking place for a 'no deal' Brexit. First Minister, can you tell us exactly what planning has been taking place here in Wales in the Welsh NHS for a 'no deal' Brexit scenario?

No amount of planning will help us to recruit doctors in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit. It's a disaster. In fact, people were told two years ago that it wouldn't happen. Now, they are being softened up for a 'no deal' Brexit that will lead to many things, and she is right to point this out. What it would mean is that it would be far more difficult to attract doctors and nurses into our health system. Every single health service in the western world relies on medical staff from other countries, because they want to be able to attract the best, wherever they are from. The message that's being sent out from Britain at the moment is: doctors and nurses from other countries are not welcome here; that, somehow, this is not the country to come to; it is too much bother to come to; there is too much bureaucracy in the future. That is not what we want. A 'no deal' Brexit cannot be planned for, because if we can't attract doctors and nurses from other countries, we will not make up the numbers that we need in Wales. That's why we continue to fight, as she does, for a Brexit that is sensible and makes sure that the people of Wales don't suffer.

I'm really concerned that you have no plan for a 'no deal' Brexit, First Minister. They are planning for this in England. You should be planning for this here in Wales. Now, I know that we both want to see our NHS weather the Brexit storm. You are in a position to do something about it, though. I don't have faith in Westminster to ensure a steady hand on the tiller. 'No deal' needs planning, and that planning needs to start now, for the sake of patients and for staff. 

One of the most startling revelations relates to our access to medicines, post Brexit. Thirty-seven million patient packets of medicines are imported into the UK from the EU every single month. Now, in a 'no deal' scenario, there is no guarantee about a single one of those packs. Medicines regulation is not a devolved matter, and NHS England has confirmed that they are preparing to stockpile medicines made outside the UK for English patients. That's what planning does.

First Minister, are there specific Welsh contingency plans, or are you going to leave it up to the Department of health in Whitehall to ensure that Welsh patients can access the treatments that they need post Brexit?

Yes, we will do what we have to do in order to cater for that scenario, but let's not pretend here that any of this is good. She makes the point that there is planning for a 'no deal' Brexit. There is no planning for a 'no deal' Brexit. It's more like people running around in circles screaming. There are no plans at all for it. Let's look, for example, at the ports. Where are the plans to put in place the structure in the ports to deal with extra customs checks, possibly extra border controls, the queues of lorries that would be created as a result, and the parking that would be created as a result of that? Nothing. There is no planning for it. The reason why no planning has been done on a 'no deal' Brexit in Whitehall is because they convinced themselves that the EU would crumble and therefore there would be a deal. It would be an abject failure on the part of Brexiteers if, having promised the people of Britain in 2016 that there would be a deal that the EU would agree to, they then broke that promise two years on. They would have some explaining to do to the people of Britain.

The leader of the UKIP group, Caroline Jones. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, the whole of my region and communities breathed a sigh of relief when news broke of the deal being struck between Tata and ThyssenKrupp. It ended years of uncertainty for workers at Port Talbot and Deeside. So, the Port Talbot works is to get one of its blast furnaces repaired, helping to guarantee the jobs of the thousands of employees until 2026. However, I note from the announcement that the firm only have an ambition to avoid compulsory redundancies until then. So, it's clear that the sector still needs significant help if it is to succeed. First Minister, what additional support is the Welsh Government going to offer the steel sector in Wales in general, and the Port Talbot plant in particular?

The £60 million package that we've already alluded to in this Chamber and outside. The UK Government have offered nothing. There's been no interest at all from the UK Government for the past two years. There was—when David Cameron was there, there was interest, and I acknowledge that. Since then, nothing. 

I do, however, welcome the deal. The unions have given it a welcome as well. I think we have to remember we have then the guarantee of no compulsory redundancies till 2026. We also have, of course, the promises in relation to blast furnace 5. Two years ago, things were very bleak indeed. There was a real question mark as to whether the heavy end of Port Talbot could continue in the future. The plant was up for sale. We've come a huge way since then. Part of that is because of the work that we've put in as a Government—the money we've put on the table, the talking that's taken place, the engagement that we've had with Tata. And in the two years since 2016, when things looked very difficult indeed, we now have—let's not pretend that things are out of the woods yet, but we now have our steel industry in a far stronger position than it was then.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. The UK Government does indeed have a lot more to do for this sector. There's a strategy to use 3 million tonnes of steel in the next five years on infrastructure projects like HS2, Hinkley C and the upgrading of the UK motorways, but this doesn't go far enough, because every single infrastructure project should be using UK steel, and every defence project should be using Welsh and UK steel. And every publicly funded and supported project should also be using UK steel. So, has your Government suggested this in your discussions with the UK Government? We can't afford to lose our steel industry because of the short-sightedness of Government policy. It is of strategic importance to our nation that we maintain steel production here in the UK, which means here in Wales. First Minister, is your Government considering other ways to support the sector in Wales, perhaps looking at a tidal lagoon at Port Talbot that will help to reduce energy costs for the plant?

I think we have to be careful here, because the steel industry, like other industries, does depend on an export market. If we actually say to other countries, 'Only steel from Britain is allowed to be used in Britain', they'll say, 'Tough—you're not entering our markets either.' So, we have to be very careful about what we do. 

What we do need to do, of course, is to make sure that our procurement policy is as strong as it can be, as far as using Welsh steel is concerned. We also need to make sure, of course, that we support the industry to become stronger in terms of exporting. Certainly, a small but significant amount of steel is exported to the US, where the tariffs now have made it not so much difficult for Welsh steel, but more expensive for their buyers in the US. So, we've just got to be very careful here in saying that it's only steel from Britain used in British projects, as other countries will then take the same attitude, and we must be careful not to cut ourselves off from the export market. 

Thank you, First Minister. While the steel industry is of national and strategic importance, we can't ignore the impact that it has on our environment. Living in the shadow of the Port Talbot plant, I see on a daily basis the effect the steelworks has on the environment, with huge plumes of acrid orange smoke released into the air that we breathe and thick layers of dust covering everything from our cars to our windows. So, it's little wonder that Port Talbot has been ranked as one of the most polluted towns in the UK. It is not as bad as it once was, because gone are the days of the acid rain. However, the impact on human health is still present and is still a threat. So, First Minister, what actions will your Government be taking to ensure that investment at the plant doesn't come at a cost to human lives? 

Well, I think, in fairness to Tata, they have certainly improved the situation in terms of emissions over many years, including looking, of course, at reusing the gas that is flared for energy in the plant. Inevitably, where there's a steelworks, that will have an effect on air quality, but the key is, of course, to make sure that that effect is minimised over the years.

Port Talbot also, of course, has a very congested stretch of motorway that is well below the standard that would be built these days, and it's a problem that's not easy to resolve, because it would take a significant amount of money to resolve the issue by looking purely at a road-based solution in Port Talbot. But we want to make sure that we work with Tata—and Tata have been doing this anyway over the years—so that the steelworks reduces its emissions, which it has done as the Member has recognised, and to continue that trend in the future.

The new contract for rail services does include a number of proposals for improvements to public transport in each region of Wales. They include proposals that will accelerate delivery of the north-east Wales metro and also funding to develop a south-west Wales metro as well.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. As you are aware, there are many valleys that are not going to be served by the south Wales metro, including the Afan valley. I've received a petition from residents in the Afan valley concerned about bus services in the Afan valley and the reduction in services. In fact, we have Abergwynfi and Blaengwynfi served every two hours, and so is Glyncorrwg, and you can't even get to Glyncorrwg by bus after 5.15 in the evening. Now, this is going to have an impact upon lives because this is an area where a large proportion of people don't own cars and rely upon public transport. What can the Welsh Government do to ensure that the valley gets equal treatment to the areas that are being served by the metro so that it can have services that will deliver for people there—getting to hospital, getting to appointments, getting to the services that they need to get to?

Well, I can give the Member two assurances. First of all, we are looking at potential legislation to start to regulate bus services again in Wales, because as I've said in this Chamber before, there are many Members in this Chamber who have had complaints brought to them about bus services that we can do nothing about, because the private companies, apart from the subsidised services, can do pretty much as they want. I had unhappy dealings with the transport commissioner, years ago, when that person was based in Birmingham, where not much was done. So, we will have greater control, and we can, obviously, look at sharing that control with local government over the next few years.

Secondly, to re-emphasise the point, the metro is not just about vehicles that run on rails—if I can put it that way—it's about buses as well. And it means, if we're going to have a properly integrated transport system, that the bus services link in, for example, with Port Talbot Parkway station, and that people see that they have a seamless integrated public transport system. Buses are very much a part of that, and buses in the Afan valley will be part of that as well.

Since 2010, spending on bus provision by the Welsh Government has fallen by 20 per cent and the number of registered bus services in Wales continues to fall. This is certainly having an effect right across Wales, but particularly in rural Wales, I'd suggest. So, can I ask, First Minister: what are you doing to solve this crisis in Wales? And do you agree with me that what passengers in Wales want is a cleaner, safer and more reliable, especially, bus network, which is valued and funded properly by the Welsh Government?

You privatised the buses. [Interruption.] Well, not him personally, but his party and said it would be marvellous and that there would be competition. Whereas, in fact, of course, most of what we have now is a private monopoly, and where, in reality, there's no competition at all. 

Secondly, I have to point out to him, when it comes to promises on transport, his own party has a poor record. Where, for example, is the electrification to Swansea that was promised by one Conservative Prime Minister and that promise was then reneged on by another Conservative Prime Minister?

He also fails, again, to point out the effect of austerity as if, since 2010, we have had a tranche of money provided for us every year to spend as we want and we are therefore swimming in notes. We are not. His party has made sure that public spending has been cut across the whole of the UK. But despite those challenges, we have maintained bus service support grant allocations to local authorities, at £25 million per year. It is for each local authority to determine which bus and community transport services to support using that grant. So, if there is a service that should be subsidised, then the first port of call for the Member is his own local authority.   

What assurances can the First Minister give that the new major critical care hospital, the Grange, near Cwmbran will be accessible by public transport for all parts of the Caerphilly constituency by the time the hospital opens?

It won't be a service that runs on the rails, if I can put it that way, on light rail or heavy rail, but via buses. It'll be hugely important—we understand the importance of this—that the hospital is served by an efficient and widespread bus network that does connect with wider rail services where people need that. So, yes, public transport and ease of public transport is a hugely important part of planning for the hospital.

We recognise the potential of marine energy in creating low-carbon energy and providing economic and social benefits to our coastal communities. Welsh Government policies have supported the development of a range of marine technologies, and we will continue to work to realise the opportunities associated with this sector.

Thank you, First Minister. After the disappointment of last week, it was good to visit Anglesey with Rhun ap Iorwerth on Friday and to see many exciting plans there related to marine energy—mainly Minesto, which has just launched its new tidal energy device in the harbour in Holyhead. The question arising is whether the £200 million that you as a Government had allocated to support one specific proposal for the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay is now available for a range of marine energy developments, for example those around Anglesey, or for a new lagoon proposal in Swansea bay. What are you intending to do to lead development in this area?

It’s true to say that that sum of money wasn’t directly allocated to Swansea, although it was needed at the time. We are considering in which ways we can assist and support marine technologies across Wales, particularly the lagoon in the north, to see what we as a Government can do to support the technology. But, we must consider that the big money, namely the money that the UK Government could have put into the Swansea lagoon, for example, is not devolved. But, it's true to say that we are still considering how we can support these technologies in the long term.

First Minister, this puts you in a bit of a quandary, I think, because of course we heard offers put forward for a new Swansea bay lagoon over the weekend, and while there are obviously questions about that and why they didn't put this offer forward sooner and whether the figures stack up, you did offer £200 million to support a Swansea bay lagoon on figures that actually proved unworkable in the end. So, what figures would you be looking for to persuade—[Interruption.] They were the same figures you had. We had the same figures. So, what figures would persuade you to consider keeping the offer on the table for Swansea bay?

I owe an apology to Paul Davies, there is another candidate who has just thrown her hat into the ring. I'm sorry for that. We can see the evidence there. [Laughter.] 

The reality is that the failure of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is entirely in the hands of the UK Government. She talks about the figures; we don't accept the figures. Bear in mind that these figures were deemed unworkable by the very same people who got the figures for Hinkley wrong in the first place. So, why should we then trust the view of the UK Government? Let's bear in mind, all we asked for was the same treatment as Hinkley. That was it. If she is saying the figures for Hinkley were wrong, then that is something for the UK Government to explain. We just wanted the same chwarae teg for Wales as Hinkley got, and we were let down once again.

I will be making my annual statement on the legislative programme before the summer recess.

We look forward to that. But the Minister with responsibility for the Welsh language has stated that she is going to push proposals for a Welsh language Bill forward as part of that programme. The main thrust of those proposals is to encourage a total change of direction in the Government’s language policy, diluting rights, scrapping the commissioner, and taking us back to the legal framework of the failed Welsh language Act of 1993. So, what evidence is there to support the Government's proposals? Will you delay before introducing a new Welsh language Bill in order to carry out a comprehensive review of the case for such a Bill? Isn’t it entirely clear now that we need to strengthen, rather than dilute, legislation in light of the most recent attack on the Welsh language from Trago Mills?

I share your unhappiness with what Trago Mills has said, of course—and I’m sure that that’s true of everybody else in this Chamber. The aim of the Bill is to strengthen the legal structure relating to the Welsh language, not to weaken it. With the system that we have at present, and especially with the legislation that we have at present, it’s not clear to me that the legislation is clear enough or strong enough in order to have a Welsh language Bill ultimately. It’s also important to consider what kind of legislative framework should exist, but also to consider how we can persuade more people to use the Welsh language. Although I wasn’t present, I understand that the Tafwyl festival attracted 40,000 people into Cardiff over the weekend. That, to me, is a good example of how you can persuade people to use the Welsh language and to have a good attitude towards the language. And it is important to consider how we can strengthen legislation and the law, but it’s also extremely important to consider how we can persuade people just to make sure that they can have fun through the medium of Welsh.

Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] It's always good to get a cheer. [Laughter.]

First Minister, could I thank you for the very kind comments—with your indulgence, Presiding Officer—you expressed last week, and also to Members across the Chamber who have been very kind over the last couple of days in the comments that they have made on my departure from office? But I certainly look forward to challenging the Government, and I have a different view sitting here now of the Labour backbenches; I can see the whole backbench now.

But I would like to ask you on the legislative programme. I visited a charity in Cardiff North recently, Tomorrow's Generation, and they specialise in providing support for children who suffer with dyslexia in mainstream education. They made the point that in many countries across Europe—Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Italy, Switzerland and in England—the legislative framework that gives rights to children who are diagnosed with dyslexia is far stronger. Could I encourage you to have a look at the legislative framework that is available here in Wales, compare it to other examples in Europe, and if there does need to be a tightening of that legislative framework, that those changes are made and the Government brings forward the proposals? I can see the Cabinet Secretary saying it is not; I'm just conveying the message that was put to me by the charity. If it is not, then great, but if the changes do need to be made then I'd hope the Government would consider them. 

First of all, the reception he had there from his own benches was substantial, and it shows they miss him already, I suspect, but secondly, he raises an important point. If he will allow me to look at this issue and write to him with a substantive answer, he can then convey that answer to those who've expressed their concerns. 

Infrastructure investment is vital to the prosperity of the whole of the UK. I will continue to press the UK Government to ensure Wales gets its fair share.

First Minister, I hope you enjoyed the secret ceremony you attended this week to rename the second Severn crossing the Prince of Wales bridge, against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people in Wales who were not even invited. [Interruption.] 

I do want to hear Neil McEvoy's question. 

It took freedom of information requests to reveal how desperate you were to go to the unpopular ceremony, and how cosy your relationship is with Alun Cairns. Last week, you voted against a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State, even though key Conservative manifesto promises were broken, including rail electrification between Cardiff and Swansea. So, I wonder when you were quaffing drinks with Cairns and royalty if you spoke about the report from the transport committee in Westminster that exposed how Wales is sidelined on infrastructure spending, and made clear that decisions will always favour London. The report showed how absurd it was to cancel much needed infrastructure projects in Wales at the same time as billions of pounds of expenditure were announced for London. Now, nothing is being done by Cairns. Whilst money is thrown at the south-east of England, we have cuts for Wales. [Interruption.]  

You do need to come to a question now, Neil McEvoy. 

The Secretary of State is starting to be an embarrassment to our country, as well as stopping us developing our economy. [Interruption.] This is the question. Hopefully, this could be understood. 

Get to it. [Laughter.] 

How could you vote—? [Interruption.] A very simple question to answer this week. How could you vote last week against a motion of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales? It's very simple.

In two minutes and five seconds, because I looked at the clock, the Member managed to take an issue on which I agree with him quite substantially, and presented it in such a ham-fisted way as to annoy almost everyone in the Chamber. That is his talent—I understand that. But I have to say that we will always fight to make sure that Wales gets its fair share of infrastructure investment. We do not have a fair share at the moment. He mentions a secret ceremony, so secret, in fact, that I wasn't even at it. [Laughter.] But, there we are, and he will have seen coverage of it on the news in any event. But certainly I share his desire to make sure that Wales gets the promises that it has been given in the past kept, in terms of electrification and in terms, of course, of seeing more money made available for the infrastructure that we need in Wales.

I was just about to ask you, First Minister, how you managed to wangle an invitation to this secret ceremony that I didn't get invited to either, but you've taken the wind out of my sails on that one. [Laughter.]

Would you say that the question about the—[Interruption.] [Laughter.] And there's always the Alun Davies road going from Brynmawr to Abergavenny, isn't there? [Laughter.] Maybe when you're First Minister we'll see that as well, Alun. [Laughter.]

Let's get to the question. 

I'm getting to a question. The question about the name of the bridge has been raised many times, but isn't it more important, First Minister, that the tolls on that bridge have been reduced and are going to be abolished later this year? Whatever you think about the name of the bridge—some are for it, some are against it—isn't it a fact that people are now going to be able to enter Wales and leave Wales without paying what many in this Chamber have called a tax over so many years? That's to be welcomed. That's because of this UK Government.

I do welcome the removal of the tolls, and it's about time too. People have been paying for many, many, many years, probably beyond the cost of the bridge as it was built in 1996. So, I share his congratulation, if that is the word, to the UK Government for lifting the tolls, but it's taken them long enough. I mean, the reduction of the tolls was due entirely to the fact that VAT was no longer chargeable on them. It wasn't some kind of largesse that the UK Government provided in terms of the tolls themselves. But, yes, there are opportunities now, of course, for us to get over what has been a psychological barrier to investors who are looking at Wales and make sure that we continue with our great success that we've had with foreign direct investment and improve those figures over the next few years.

The 'Mapping the Social Business Sector in Wales' report notes that the sector is now worth an incredible £2.37 billion to Wales and provides jobs and volunteering opportunities to around 100,000 people. I’m sure the Member would agree that the sector makes a valuable contribution to our society.

Thank you, First Minister, and I would wholeheartedly agree with that. I recently visited Cylch Meithrin Seren Fach in Mountain Ash in my constituency, a registered childcare provider. They're supported by the Wales Co-operative Centre and achieved really positive results in their recent Estyn and Care Inspectorate Wales inspections. As we are in Co-operatives Fortnight, and with improving childcare being such an important Welsh Government goal for this term, how is Welsh Government supporting the establishment of childcare providers on a co-operative model, which in turn brings so many additional benefits to local economies?

I can begin by saying that, to date, Social Business Wales has provided support to help the group develop a business plan, a sustainability environment policy, an eco-code and a sustainability health check, and we do refer any individual looking to establish a co-operative model to Social Business Wales, because we want to make sure that we create the right support that is needed, both through Business Wales, Social Business Wales, us and the Welsh European Funding Office to make sure that worthwhile projects such as this are able to flourish in the future.

Can I ask you, First Minister—? It's not only organisations like the ones described by Vikki Howells, co-operatives and mutuals, that are supporting education. There is a wealth of charities also that are involved in giving support to our education system. There is Groundwork North Wales, for example, providing education to young people on environmental issues. You've got the North Wales Superkids charity, which is doing great work with people across north Wales, covering communities from Holyhead all the way down to Wrexham, and, of course, Big Ideas Wales, which encourages enterprise in our schools by getting business people into those schools in order to encourage young people to be entrepreneurs. What support is the Welsh Government giving to them in order to foster that sort of approach, so that young people can have the opportunities that they might not have otherwise?

Core funding for social enterprise support in this financial year has been awarded to the Wales Co-operative Centre and Social Firms Wales. They support the delivery of our objectives to develop the social enterprise market and to provide bespoke specialist business support to social enterprises. For those that are not social enterprises, of course, there are other areas of support that are available. And, of course, as I mentioned earlier on, we do provide funding towards the £11 million ERDF-supported Social Business Wales project.

We are committed to improving outcomes for future generations through investment in early years and increasing prosperity for all by focusing on employability and economic growth.

Can I thank the First Minister for that response? Many of my constituents are facing a financial crisis during the summer holidays, having to find 10 extra meals per child for six weeks. Whilst Carolyn Harris MP is providing food for some children for two weeks of the holiday, there will be substantial unmet need. Faith in the Community has met some of that need, but the closure of Communities First puts the continuation of lunches and breakfasts in some of our poorest communities in jeopardy. Will the Welsh Government investigate the cost of continuing free breakfasts and free school meals for those eligible during the school summer holidays?

Well, we have made available a grant of £500,000 per annum to the WLGA since 2017 to support the programme Food and Fun—Bwyd a Hwyl. Last year, it ran in 38 schools, covering 12 local authorities and all seven local health boards, with approximately 1,500 children benefiting from the programme. The 2018 programme is anticipated to run in approximately 60 schools. It will cover 16 local authorities, and, again, all LHB areas. The indications are that an estimated 3,000 learners will attend the scheme this summer.

The First Minister will be aware of the comprehensive report published yesterday by the Wales Centre for Public Policy, entitled 'The Welsh Tax Base: Risks and Opportunities after Fiscal Devolution'. I don't expect he's read it all overnight, but, in it, innovative approaches are suggested for regressive taxes, particularly council tax. And, as we know, people living in the lowest valued properties pay nearly 5 per cent of the worth of their house in council tax whilst people living in the most expensive properties pay as little as 0.25 per cent. But the report crucially suggests that we take a holistic approach to taxation and fiscal policy generally rather than looking at individual taxes in isolation. The report says tax reform should be pursued in an integrated way. For example, a more progressive approach to council tax could be linked to changes in land transaction tax or income tax rate. Is that approach supported by the First Minister?

I think that there is a great deal of scope over the next few years to examine models such as that. At the moment, of course, two taxes are devolved; income tax will soon follow. I think, first of all, it's important to bed the system in, but I do think there is the opportunity for debate across political parties, and in political parties, to see what kind of tax system we would want in Wales. There are positives and negatives with council tax, of course. We know that there are some people who pay a high level of council tax whose incomes are actually quite low. We know as well, of course, that, with things like a local income tax, the question then arises of: do you pay where you live, or do you pay where you work? These things have to be looked at carefully, and I'm sure they'll form part of the debate over the next few years.

Finally, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Lywydd. After two decades of Labour Government in Wales, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'Poverty in Wales 2018' report found the proportion of households living in income poverty in Wales remained higher than in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that poverty among couples with children had been rising since 2003-06. In that context, how do you respond to the statement by the Bevan Foundation that, if people feel that policies are imposed on them, the policies don't work, and that a new tackling poverty programme should not be directed top down?

I always think that listening to the Conservatives talking about poverty is a bit like somebody trying to stand up on a paddle board without falling off into the sea of austerity that's gathered around it. The reality is that it is his party that has done so much to cut the incomes of our poorest people. How can we rest as a society when we know that in England there are nurses who have to go to food banks? We used to say to people, 'If you get a job, you'll be better off.' That's no longer the case. We've seen in-work benefits cut, we've seen tax cuts for those who earn the most, and then we have Conservative politicians wondering why levels of poverty have gone up. Yes, we have, of course, our plans to tackle poverty, but we do need a change of Government in London so we have a Government that is far more committed to a more equal society.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item of business is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are two changes to tomorrow's agenda: the time allocated to the Counsel General's oral Assembly questions has been reduced to 30 minutes, and also Business Committee has agreed to postpone the UKIP debate until September. 

Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement on Welsh Government support for concessionary fares in Wales? This week, Newport Transport is introducing changes to bus services in the city. These include the removal of the 10A and 10C bus services altogether, which were used by many elderly passengers living in assisted housing areas in Newport. One of my constituents was told by Newport City Council, and the quote is: the amount of money that Newport receives for concessionary fares has also been reduced, which means that they have to take more in fare revenue from the passengers—quote closed. As my constituent says, 'If you live in an area with a high volume of older people who use bus passes, you're out of luck with your bus service.' Quote closed. Please could we have a statement on the effect of these cuts on bus services in Wales, particularly on the mobility and well-being of the elderly passengers who have seen their services cut and abolished altogether? I think that, not long ago, they looked after us and it's about time that we looked after them, especially in this frail age and old-age period. Thank you.

Well, yes, I agree with the sentiment that Mohammad Asghar expressed at the end of his question there. Obviously, that's why we give concessionary bus travel to older people, because we do agree that they need to have better mobility and so on. The matter of subsidy is a matter for the local authority and the First Minister just answered a question to that effect. I think the very specific point that he raises about his own council is best asked in oral questions to the transport Minister.

There’s already been discussion on the attitude of the owner of Trago Mills towards the Welsh language, and the First Minister, in response to Siân Gwenllian, said very clearly that he didn’t agree and was unhappy with such comments. But I would ask for a statement from the Minister for the Welsh language, or a letter, at least, to Members to explain exactly how this situation arose. This was an investment that was portrayed as an investment in the Merthyr area, and many people are now asking whether this company were given any support to invest in the area, and, if they were supported by Government or the local council, wasn’t respect for the heritage and language of the local community part of that investment?

Further to that—not to rehearse the questions that have already been asked about the legal status of the Welsh language—the attitude of this company towards other minorities, if I may say so, over the years, has also emerged. Something that I don’t want to repeat in this Chamber—some comments about gay people, for example. If this is the price that we have to pay for investment, then it’s worth us retaining our respect and telling these investors where to go, perhaps. But, specifically, I want to understand from Government what the Government’s involvement was with this investment. Has the Minister now contacted Trago Mills and can she share that with us? I know that the language commissioner has done that, but I would like to know what the Government has done about this.

The second issue I want to raise with you is the fact that there is a carbon dioxide shortage at the moment. It’s made the front pages in terms of the shortage of beer for the World Cup, but there is something far more important happening in the food industry at the moment. A shortage of carbon dioxide means that it’s not possible to package meat so that it can remain fresh, or use carbon dioxide as a means of stunning animals—it's not the electrocution method that's used, but carbon dioxide, as a gas, is used now to stun animals, and there is a question of animal welfare arising in that regard. So, could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on the use of carbon dioxide in terms of animal health and food packaging and an assurance that this is still being done to the expected standards in Wales? Secondly, this highlights just how difficult withdrawal from the European Union will be, because this carbon dioxide shortage does reflect the chain through some five factories in Western Europe that produce the gas to the standard that is expected. Is the Welsh Government now having discussions with the Westminster Government in terms of preparing to ensure a sufficient supply before we leave the European Union and post exit?

The Member raises two very important issues. On the Trago Mills issue, I think we all share his outrage, I think is not too strong a word, at some of the language used. I also won't repeat it; it doesn't require the publicity. I will ensure that all Assembly Members are updated, probably by way of letter, as to where we are with that. This company has caused problems wherever it's gone in Britain, I think it's fair to say. I well remember the protests when it set up in Cornwall about the environmental damage that occurred and the damage done to both flora and fauna in that area, so it hasn't covered itself in glory elsewhere in the UK. So, I will ensure that all Assembly Members are updated as to where we are with that.

On the carbon dioxide shortage, the Member raises a series of very good points about that, and, again, I will make sure that all Assembly Members are informed, by way of letter, where we are with the situation, both in terms of animal welfare and in terms of the security of supply as we exit the European Union.

Since the last questions to the leader of the house, we've had the news from Westminster that the five women's prisons they were going to build have been abandoned and, instead, there will be five women's centres, which I think is a matter of great rejoicing. I know the leader of the house will share that with me, because we've campaigned for this for years. So, it does seem a fundamental change of policy, finally recognising the unique situation of women in the justice system. So, would it be possible to have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary responsible about what implications this will have for Wales? Are we likely to have one of these residential centres in Wales and what discussions have taken place with Welsh Ministers about this very welcome change in policy?

Yes, absolutely. Julie Morgan is entirely right, I am delighted that our long campaign to see justice for many of the women in prison for offences generally of poverty, actually, received the right kind of response. The Cabinet Secretary is meeting Ministers at the Ministry of Justice on 18 July to discuss our approach to tackling female offending, including the potential to develop a different approach to the secure female estate for Welsh-domiciled women to ensure that they get the right support in their communities and, if at all possible, are diverted entirely from the prison estate. Once he's had that meeting on 18 July, I'm sure he'll be delighted to update all Assembly Members on how it went.FootnoteLink

Could I, in a sense, support Simon's call for a statement regarding the Trago Mills investment, but also including the confidentiality of correspondence for inward investors? My region benefited from £65 million, I understand, of investment in this site. Its head was condemned by both the Welsh language Minister and the Counsel General for expressing his view regarding bilingual signage. I haven't heard any similar condemnation from anyone in Welsh Government about the leaking of that correspondence in the first place. Do we now have a fit-and-proper-character test for inward investors, and, if so, can we, perhaps, clarify the scope of that? The individual concerned said, at least according to the South Wales Argus, that welcome signs,

'departmental descriptions, directional, welfare and safety signage will...display Welsh and English language',

but then said they didn't plan 

'to cascade its use a great deal further at present.'

Can Welsh Government clarify what standards are expected in terms of bilingual signage from private businesses? Could we also say if any other inward investor or, indeed, any of my constituents in south-east Wales, questions Welsh language policy, can they also expect to have their confidential correspondence leaked? What impact does the leader of the house think that will have on the willingness of such people to engage with Welsh Government in future? Could we have guidance on exactly what such correspondence—or how egregious views must be in order to be considered offensive, such that they will be leaked in this way? Finally, will there be any inquiry regarding the Welsh Language Commissioner and this leak?

Well, I don't think those are matters for me in the business statement, Mark Reckless. I think you should address them to the Minister responsible.

Leader of the house, as you know, under the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016,

'The Welsh Ministers must compile and maintain a list of historic place names in Wales.'

Now, the purpose of this list is to provide access to one central source of historic names in Wales, to raise awareness of the value of historic place names, and to support those who make decisions about names of houses, lakes, mountains, and so on. Now, there is no legal status for the names on this list, of course, even though I tried to ensure that last year, but I lost the vote on having an Act to safeguard historic place names in Wales. Now, recently, we’ve heard about new housing developments such as Regency Park in the Llanilltern area, to the north of Cardiff. The development is close to a sixth century monastery, established by St Illtud, but the developer has chosen an inappropriate name for the development, which has no historic connection to the area at all. There are similar examples of losing historic place names across Wales, and so, as the Act has now been adopted for some time now, will the Minister for culture bring a statement forward to this Chamber, looking at the effectiveness of the register and the work that is being done to promote it? This would also be an opportunity for us all to discuss whether there are other ways in which we can safeguard our heritage and language.

I think the Minister will be providing an update at an appropriate time once the Act has bedded in. As Dai Lloyd said, we did have a bit of a debate at the time that the Act went through about the matter he raises. I'm sure that will be an appropriate point for him to raise it again. 

Leader of the house, I'd like to ask for three statements this afternoon, please. I'll do the two easy ones first. The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services yesterday issued a statement regarding the concordat that the Welsh Government has reached with the Ministry of Justice. Reading through the concordat, it actually describes mainly functions, but it doesn't rule out the possibility of discussions on a future superprison on Welsh Government-owned land. So, could you ask the Cabinet Secretary to actually bring a statement to the house, so we can ask questions on that concordat, on what it actually means regarding the justice issues that we have fought for for so long in Port Talbot? I want to make sure that what we've achieved to date remains achieved. 

On the second point, we're obviously awaiting the White Paper on the future relationship of the UK with the EU. We all await with bated breath. Last week, I was in Brussels talking to many, many individuals over there who expressed deep concern over the failure of being able to get somewhere simply because they didn't know where they were going. Can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance or the First Minister once that White Paper is published, so we can see and ask questions as to how it affects Wales and what we see as the future as a consequence of that White Paper, so that we ensure, in the very short time we have left before a decision is reached, that we are able to express those views clearly and to have consultations with businesses in particular who have already indicated their concerns over the future relationship with the EU?

Thirdly, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport has left now, but it would be interesting to have a statement on the steel industry and the agreement that was reached last Friday between ThyssenKrupp AG and Tata. That clearly puts a provision in place for medium-term sustainability until 2026. As has already been stated this afternoon, there'll be no compulsory redundancies before that point, and the upgrade of blast furnace No. 5 will last roughly that period of time. But it is important, when we look at the long-term sustainability of the works, and the future here in Wales, and the long-term impact—. I would like to understand what the Welsh Government's position is on the long-term position of steel in Wales, and how we can support the industry, and in particular the Tata and ThyssenKrupp merger, to ensure that the industry doesn't suffer in 10 years' time, and that it isn't a short-term stop gap to keep people happy now; it is actually something that we've always believed in, which is that there's a future for steel making here in the UK, and particularly here in Wales. 

Absolutely, David Rees. Obviously, the First Minister, in First Minister's questions, broadly welcomed the announcement of Tata Steel and ThyssenKrupp on the signing of the definitive agreement, and I'd just like to reiterate that the Government is extremely glad that that's gone through. We also noted that the steel trade unions have stated that they recognise the industrial logic of the partnership and consider it to be the best solution to ensuring the long-term future of Tata Steel's UK operations. This Government is committed to continuing to engage with the company and the trade unions to consider the detail of the announcement and how it might impact on the securing of iron and steel making in Wales over the longer term. The First Minister also mentioned keeping a weather eye on, for example, our export markets and what the tariff situation is and what we can do to support the industry in the meantime. 

With regard to the UK operations, as you said, we'll ensure that the commitments in the existing memorandum of understanding with the trade unions are taken into account into the joint venture. We welcome the announcement of the employment pact to 2026, and, indeed, the upgrading of the blast furnace. But be assured that we're still fully engaged with the company at every level, to ensure its continued prosperity and success, and we share the concerns that the Member has expressed on a number of occasions in supporting the steel industry in his constituency. 

In terms of the concordat, I think if you have very specific constituency issues to bring up with the Cabinet Secretary, it would be best to bring those up specifically in questions with him. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a general statement on the concordat as we've already got the concordat in public. I don't think he's got anything of other general interest still to say on that. And on the relationship with the EU, we will certainly be bringing forward a number of occasions on which Members will be able to closely question the Ministers involved in those negotiations, to ensure that Wales gets the best possible deal out of the so-called negotiations as we continue.

Can I call for a statement from the Minister responsible for the new childcare offer? I was very pleased to see that the 30 hours of free childcare is going to be extended in different parts of north Wales later on this year from September, including into Conwy, which forms part of my constituency. But, of course, there is one single local authority that is going to be left out of the offer from September of this year, and that's Denbighshire. I have written to the Minister in respect of this matter, but I think it would be beneficial for all Members of the house to have some sort of assurance about this, because there are parents who are concerned that there may be cross-border issues if they are working in one local authority area and trying to make a claim for free childcare in another and how that might impact upon the practicalities of being able to enjoy the benefits of the 30 hours that might be available. So, I think some clarity on that should be afforded, and I would urge the Minister to consider extending the roll-out into Denbighshire from the same date—1 September—as all of the other local authorities in north Wales, to overcome the potential problems. [Interruption.]

Llywydd, I feel as if I'm caught in a conversation between two people here. It's clear you're in correspondence about the issue, and the Minister is indicating to me that he's about to write back out to you. It's obviously a series of pilot programmes; Denbighshire is not the only authority in Wales that's not in the initial tranche. I understand that the Minister is about to write to you and explain exactly where we are with it.

David Rees pipped me to the post on Tata. I want to ask for a statement on the issues with regard to Thyssenkrupp, but also in relation to the investment the Welsh Government has pledged already between Plaid Cymru and Labour. I know that phase 1 has gone ahead. I'd like assurances on the other phases, but also a general statement that will show us what is happening in relation to state aid post Brexit. I know that there are varying issues there, and I know that the First Minister has already indicated on the record to us that there still is disagreement on that with the UK Government. So, a general statement on steel would be beneficial.

Also, if we could have an update from the Cabinet Secretary for health on how the consultation is going with regard to the eating disorders framework. I do welcome it, as I've said previously, but we had a cross-party group meeting recently, and some of those in the health service who were there weren't aware of the consultation happening, so I just wanted an update as to how they are being told that they can engage with the process, because I want as many people in the health service to be involved in the review as possible, so we can have a fully comprehensive analysis of eating disorder services, to get the best deal out of any revised frameworks. So, that would be my second call. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary is indicating to me that he's brought it to their attention just this week. We are, of course, extremely concerned that all consultations get the widest possible response. He's indicating to me that he's brought it to renewed attention just this week, so hopefully that will elicit the broad range of responses that Bethan Sayed is quite right in saying we need to have in order to be able to evaluate the policy.

On steel, of course, the large number of us who represent that region have a great deal of interest in the continued strength of the steel industry. A number of statements on the record have been made today about that, and I'm sure that you heard that, alongside Plaid Cymru, we're very keen indeed to make sure that all of the assurances that we've already given are heard loud and clear by the new collaboration.

I wish to return again to the threat of closure by Virgin Media of their facility in Swansea. Can I firstly ask for an update on the Welsh Government support for the main submission to try and save the whole site and the call centre agents, based on their quality and skills? Secondly, can I ask for an update on support for the non-call-centre operational staff, of which there are about 80, who are putting a proposal for an alternative site locally or an expansion of other sites in south Wales?

Thank you for that. The Member is continuing to show his concern for the large number of people who are under threat of redundancy in his constituency and in the Swansea area in general. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport met with Virgin Media on 14 June to further discuss the plans for closure and the reasons behind the decision, and to offer what support we can to help reverse that decision. The consultation period commenced on 23 May, and it will run for a minimum of 45 days. We are assisting with a counterproposal from the employer's representatives aimed at keeping the site open, and we're awaiting the outcome of that consultation. Should the plans for closure continue after that consultation, the taskforce will be ready to support affected staff, and that includes discussions with any particular groups of staff who have a specific proposal for parts of the business to be self-standing here in Wales.

As I'm sure you know, emergency teams are working in my area, working extremely hard to extinguish fires that have been caused by the very dry weather. Carmel, Bethesda and Bangor Mountain have been affected, with at least 45 families having to leave their homes. I am extremely grateful to the firefighters and the other emergency services, as well as the communities themselves who have come together to support those who have been affected by these fires. So, can I ask what connection has there been between the Government and local services, and are you confident that they have sufficient resources in order to deal with this crisis in Arfon and elsewhere in Wales?

Turning to local government reform, a few months ago we learned through a blog from the Cabinet Secretary for local government that he was going to proceed with new proposals for the reorganisation of local government, putting aside the proposals in the predecessor Minister's Green Paper on regional collaboration. On Friday, I learned from a tweet from a journalist at the WLGA conference in Llandudno that the Cabinet Secretary for local government was now happy to give up on his reorganisation map, which will come as no surprise to any of us. But with such important statements affecting the way public services are run and delivered for the future, do you not think that we need to think carefully as to whether these announcements should be made on social media? Is that the appropriate means of conveying major policy changes such as these, without a formal written statement to Assembly Members? To me, that undermines the credibility of the Welsh Government, and also the credibility of the Assembly as a whole. So, I would like two statements: one noting the way forward—what next for local government, and what next for the reorganisation—but also I'd like to know what directives there are for Ministers as they present information that is of national significance to the National Assembly.

In terms of the fires, I also want to pay tribute to the staff who have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of both the countryside and the people using the countryside. And, Llywydd, I repeat the appeals by the fire service for people to be very careful, for example in things such as where they park, to ensure that a hot exhaust pipe is not touching highly flammable grasses, for example, which, in this very dry weather, can cause real issues. I'm sure the Minister will update us on the circumstances once we have a full picture of what's been happening.

In terms of local government reform, my understanding is that the Minister is intending to update the Assembly once the consultation responses have been properly analysed. The conversation he was having was about the conversation that was going on at the WLGA conference, which, of course, is an ongoing consultation.

Leader of the house, I've got two questions. First, tomorrow I'm facilitating a meeting in the Senedd of the Welsh Mesh Survivors group, and it would be helpful to have an update from the Welsh Government on the ministerially directed implementation group announced by the Cabinet Secretary on 8 May, chaired by Tracy Myhill.

Secondly, leader of the house, can you clarify whether the Welsh Government's guidance on the wearing of school uniforms in secondary schools has been updated to respond to these hot weather conditions? With temperatures reaching over 30 degrees over the past week, I'm aware that there are some schools allowing pupils to wear shorts—that's both girls and boys—if preferred by pupils and parents, whilst others are not.

Yes, indeed; the hot weather has been a real pleasure for most of us, but there are some real issues about appropriate responses. School uniform and appearance policies are set by each school headteacher and governing body, but they do give schools the flexibility to relax the rules if they wish, although we would expect some discretion to be used during periods of hot weather by the headteachers. Our guidance on school uniform and appearance policies suggests governing bodies take a flexible approach to basic uniform requirements during hot weather, as opposed to having separate uniforms for winter and summer—so, very much along the lines that Jane Hutt has just remarked on. Clearly, common sense needs to be used in these circumstances so that pupils remain comfortable and can continue with their learning, which is, after all, the overriding priority. I'm sure that headteachers will take that into account.

In terms of the vaginal mesh issue, the priority of the women's health implementation group in the first instance will be to oversee the implementation of recommendations from the vaginal mesh and tape review. We anticipate that the group will consider any recommendations arising from the endometriosis and faecal incontinence reviews in progress. The activities will be directed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on advice from the chief medical officer and chief nursing officer, and will have a central role in providing leadership and strategic direction to ensure an all-Wales approach is in place to help break down barriers and join up pathways between primary, secondary and tertiary care and manage women's health in the community. So, it is a fully rounded approach, which I'm sure we all very much welcome. 

Leader of the house, on Wednesday—that's tomorrow—Sarah Champion MP will lead a debate in Westminster on tackling demand for commercial sexual exploitation. It centres on the question of whether the UK should follow the United States and other countries by banning so-called prostitution websites. There's mounting evidence that websites like Vivastreet and AdultWork are enabling a huge rise in sexual exploitation and trafficking of women to the UK for profit, making money by placing ads on behalf of gangs and individuals running networks of women, and many of those women are trafficked from abroad into the UK. Vivastreet operates in 19 countries and is owned by an off-shore holding company in Jersey, and AdultWork is registered in Panama. Could we have a statement, following tomorrow's debate, from the Government on its assessment of online sexual exploitation here and whether Wales will add its weight to the campaign by calling on the UK Government to ban the online pimps and traffickers?  

Can I pay tribute to Joyce Watson for her determination, as always, to tackle all forms of violence against women and exploitation, which we fully share in the Welsh Government? Our action through our legislation on violence against women, domestic violence and sexual violence, our work to stop modern slavery and our work with partners to disrupt organised crime all aim to put in place measures that will protect women and girls, and in particular, as Joyce points out, those most vulnerable to exploitation, trafficking and modern slavery. We are very happy to continue to support all action that seeks to ensure that such women are protected, and I'm very happy to write to the Home Office and ensure that we add our weight to the campaign to ensure that protections are adequately in place.

A few weeks ago, I hosted the launch of 'From bumps to babies', an important new report on perinatal mental health in Wales, which was a collaboration between NSPCC, the National Centre for Mental Health and the Mental Health Foundation. This publication, of course, followed the publication of the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report on perinatal mental health. As you'll be aware, one of our key recommendations was that mother and baby provision should be established in south Wales, and provision made for mums in north Wales. At the time of the publication of the report, back in the autumn, the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee was considering that, but, to date, there seems to have been very little progress. So, I'd like to ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary so that we can be updated on this very important provision for mothers.  

Yes, the Cabinet Secretary is indicating that he's very happy to write to Members and give us an update.

First, I'd just like to agree entirely with the words of Julie Morgan about the change in policy on women in the criminal justice system—not just for the women, to ensure that they are appropriately helped to rehabilitate, but also for the absolute transformation in the lives of the children of prisoners, who rarely get their needs taken into consideration in the devastation that occurs when women get carted off to prison.

Secondly, I'd just like to add to what Jane Hutt said about the issue of school uniforms in this hot weather. One of the secondary schools in my constituency is insisting that girls wear tights in this weather, which is really bad for their health as well as their concentration. So, it would be useful if the Government could give some guidance on this. 

The substantive issue I wanted to raise was around integrated ticketing. I wondered if we could have a statement on that, because the cross-party group on transport heard from the operations director of Transport for Wales, and the statement we were getting was less than categorical that we would go ahead with this. I know how important this is to people across Wales who endeavour to navigate their way from bus to train to bus to get to work, and I think we really do need to have a joined-up policy on this. I think it's pretty crucial to ensure that we are making sure that going by public transport is cheaper than going by car when we're trying to get to work or indeed shopping.

The other issue I wanted to raise, which I don't expect you to have an answer for, but I wondered if we could ask the Government to produce a statement on a fair deal for supply teachers, because many of the agencies that assist headteachers who need to get hold of people in a hurry are continuing to flout the agency worker regulations by using something called the Swedish derogation. There's going to be a march this Saturday from Cardiff Central station to New Directions, which is currently flouting the regulations, and I wonder why the Welsh Government is putting any work their way when they are still flouting the regulations that we currently enjoy through being a member of the European Union.

Yes, on the first issue, on women in prisons, I couldn't agree more. Jenny Rathbone is very much part of the group that has been campaigning for such changes for a long time, and I would just commend to the Chamber the consultation that Mark Drakeford recently announced on preventing councils from imprisoning people for non-payment of council tax, which we know impacts heavily on women and girls, for example, and other such civil offences that really should not result in imprisonment in those circumstances. So, I commend that consultation to Members if they haven't already seen it.

In terms of school uniform, as I've highlighted, there is guidance to say that discretion should be used, and it's worth highlighting that to a school, if the Member is aware of one that's not using its discretion appropriately in this very hot weather.

In terms of the integrated ticketing arrangements, the Cabinet Secretary has emphasised many times that we're very keen on integrated ticketing arrangements that ensure both through-travel and reasonable travel. I'm sure he'll be reiterating that in his next statement on our use of the bus powers that have been discussed several times already today.

In terms of the fair deal for supply teachers, the Member's clearly aware of some specific instances around that company. I suggest she writes to the Cabinet Secretary for Education highlighting that, and perhaps copies it to all of us.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services noting the seventieth anniversary of the establishment of the national health service. I call on the Secretary to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. As Members are already aware, this week marks the seventieth anniversary of our health service. This is a particularly proud landmark for us here in Wales, given that its founding father was of course our very own Aneurin Bevan. The son of a Tredegar miner who left school at the age of 13 and seemed to be set for a life working underground. Had it not been for a trade union movement committed to self-improvement and mutual support he would not have had the education and opportunities that ultimately set him on a career path into politics.

Of course, Bevan’s formative experiences indelibly shaped his political views: the absence of a universal healthcare service, a patchwork of local arrangements based largely on the Victorian Poor Law where those who could pay got care, and those who could not usually did not. The disparities and hardships that created and perpetuated are unimaginable to those of us brought up with the NHS. However, as we know, the local Tredegar Medical Aid Society offered Bevan a glimpse of what was possible when individuals took action collectively for the common good.

The battles that Bevan fought to establish the NHS are well documented, and his reputation as a firebrand was certainly one of the reasons why Attlee chose him for the task. In the face of ferocious and highly personal criticism, he succeeded in delivering a healthcare system with three fundamental principles that still hold true today in Wales: services are free at the point of use, they're financed from central taxation, and everyone is eligible.   

The achievements of the service that he delivered, and the positive impact this has had on our society, are too numerous to list. Yet it is far too easy to take for granted the extent to which we all rely on our health and care services from cradle to grave. Every single one of us has benefited from the eradication of diseases that in the past would have debilitated or taken the lives of people in their hundreds every year. We are now able to treat or cure illnesses and conditions that, even 20 years ago, would have seemed impossible. As a result, of course, more of us are living longer.

And these are incredible achievements to be celebrated. Yet we know that there's always more to do. A growing and ageing population places ever-greater demands on our services. The ever-faster rate of medical and technological advancement is creating opportunity and expectation, together with more funding dilemmas for services with finite budgets and a myriad of competing priorities. In many ways, none of this is new. Almost from day one, the NHS has been surrounded by arguments over funding, spiralling budgets, and arguments over structural and organisational arrangements, capacity and the rationing of services. 

What is different now though is the scale of the challenge, its urgency and the scale of the operation. Last year in Wales there were some 20 million patient contacts, more than 700,000 first out-patient appointments, more than 600,000 in-patient and day cases, more than 479,000 ambulance calls and more than 1 million people seen in our accident and emergency departments, whilst some 82,000 adults and around 16,000 children depended on support from our social care services. Between them, these services have a combined budget of over £9 billion and employ a workforce of over 170,000 staff. And all this for a population of just over 3 million.

And when we consider today, of course, we still face the challenges over a range of health inequalities. And I want to recognise now the pioneering work done on the inverse care law in Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan health board areas and the signs that they're actually closing a gap on health inequalities, which is a remarkable achievement. And it's worth reflecting, of course, on the passing away of the Welsh GP Julian Tudor Hart at the age of 91 on Sunday. As will others, I've met him and been impressed by him, but, more than that, the impact of his 1971 The Lancet paper on the inverse care law continues to prompt debate and recognition of how we still have a continuing responsibility to tackle health inequalities.

We know that meeting these challenges and coping with the different demands that the future will bring means that our services will have to change and adapt, as they have had to do in the past. That's why, with cross-party support, we commissioned the independent parliamentary review to examine our health and care system, and, having taken their advice on what needs to change, we've spent the early part of this year working with stakeholders across Wales to develop our long-term plan for health and social care. So, 'A Healthier Wales' is the first joint health and social care plan in the UK. It sets out actions that we will take as a Government to support our services so that they can deliver the transformation required and ensure that our services are fit for the future.    

As we reflect on and celebrate our past, we have choices to make for our future. More of the same cannot be the answer. We cannot allow our NHS to be changed by service failure. We have to empower and enable change to improve services and outcomes. And, crucially, we have to listen to our staff and provide them with a platform to lead a debate with the public about the future.

When I receive praise for the national health service, the letters and the conversations that I have themselves often refer to the amazing technical capability of the health service. However, they always talk about people. Because the service isn’t bricks and mortar—the health service, above all else, is our staff. Because the NHS would survive without me, but it won’t survive without our staff—the doctors, the nurses, the therapists, scientists, admin staff, the cooks, the cleaners, the paramedics, the porters and many more—all of the people who keep our service alive with their skill, their commitment and their compassion, and it's a tremendous honour to serve our staff. 

The other big 70 we celebrate this year is, of course, Windrush 70. Many of the Windrush generation played a pivotal role in shaping our national health service, the same incredible people who are being denied their place in the Britain that they helped to create. This country is their home, and our countries are better places for the Windrush generation, and they have been poorly repaid for their loyalty. We cannot and will not allow their fate to stain the hands of this generation.

Our NHS and social care sector is lucky to have such a skilled and diverse workforce. We have a rich history of welcoming people who were born or trained both in and outside Europe. We should not simply value them for their public service but for the contribution that they make as our friends and neighbours in each community that we live in and represent. Bevan was famously quoted as saying:

'no society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.'

This Government still holds true to that principle today, as it was then. There will always be more for us to improve here in Wales, but I am proud that we have stayed true to Bevan’s ideals. We rejected the market in favour of a planned system, we have increased budgets faster than across our border over the last five years, we abolished prescription charges and capped the costs of social care.

But Bevan himself was not simply a man of fine words and principle. He compromised with reality to deliver an achievement of lasting value that touches and improves the lives of every one of us. If he were here today I think he would recognise the need to improve and not to get stuck with what we have instead of what we deserve. I think he would recognise the battle of ideas and the clash of values. I am certain that he would recognise our values, support them and fight for them.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for health for bringing forward today's statement. It's 2018—70 years of our national health service and, wow, what a rollercoaster it has been. Like you, Cabinet Secretary, I absolutely recognise the determination and passion of Aneurin Bevan. He saw a need, he built on ideas put forward during the war years, and as part of Attlee's Government he was tasked with trying to bring our country back together again. He moved forward with the NHS, that amazing construct that we have today.

Just very briefly, Deputy Presiding Officer, some of the innovations and extraordinary celebrations we should have—1958: the introduction of polio and diptheria vaccinations. They used to kill people by the millions—gone. How wonderful is that? In 1968: the first-ever heart transplant in Britain was carried out in Marylebone by Donald Ross. In 1978: Louise Brown. In 1998: NHS Direct. In 2008: a debate we only had last week about extending this—the national programme to vaccinate girls against the human papilloma virus. What wonderful marvels that we have now done this. 

So, I say to you, Cabinet Secretary, Aneurin Bevan—he started something, but it's now become ours, and it's become ours and every political party's, every politician's, but above all, yours as Vaughan, mine as Angela, and that of others in this room. This is our NHS. It saved my life three years ago, it saves the lives of many people, it's always there when the chips are down, and we shouldn't forget that, and it is our job to move this NHS forward.

I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if we go back to Bevan's overriding principles—I just want to ask you three questions on three of them. A shared responsibility for health between the people of Wales and the NHS: how can we really get the people of Wales to buy into this, focusing on prevention not just cure, focusing on not just the obviously unwell, such as someone with cancer or a broken leg, but those who have illnesses buried deep within their souls that they cannot be seen so easily, people with mental health issues? How do we deal with those people who aren't sick in the conventional sense of the word, but are vulnerable, elderly, frail and need that help? How do we rewrite and strengthen that contract between the people of Wales and our NHS?

Another Bevan principle is a service that values people, and above all values, I think, the staff. There are some 80,000 staff who work in our NHS and this is why we've repeatedly called for a rapid access to treatment scheme for NHS staff. We lose over 900 years of staff hours every year because people are away, stressed and sick. You talked about the letters that you receive praising the NHS, and I get those letters. I get letters praising the staff and I get letters despairing of where the system has broken down, and where people have been let down because they can't get an appointment, they can't get a return call, they can't get the treatment they need. And those staff who deliver that NHS service of ours, day in, day out, Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, mother's day, father's day, whenever it is—they need our support, because they're working in a system that is flawed, that is creaking at the seams and that doesn't have enough resources to go around. So, what can you do, Cabinet Secretary, to really put those amazing 80,000-plus people at the heart of our NHS, because if we do not do that, then the 3 million people of Wales will be let down, and we want to keep that NHS going? 

Finally, how do we get that true patient and public accountability? I'd like to answer that partly, and challenge you to answer it partly—it's about the political football. Today, we had the Bevan Commission saying that too often the NHS is used as a political football. On Monday, Jeremy Hunt announced the most extraordinary app that can now be used by people to do all sorts of things, from making appointments to getting NHS 111 calls, to seeing what their prescription medicines are to reordering—a great idea. There's fantastic innovation going on in Scotland, particularly with the technology. Here in Wales, our own organ donation transplantation. All the home nations have great ideas. Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to really looking at how we can learn from best practice not just within our own country, but best practice in England, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland, so that the NHS that belongs to every single person in the United Kingdom is here in 70 years' time, not just for Aneurin Bevan, but for you and for me, and for everyone else in this room?   

Thank you, Angela. I do welcome what you say about the personal thanks to the NHS, not just the general improvement of public health. You mentioned polio, measles and a whole range of other things that killed lots of people in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s that have been eradicated because we had a universal service that was able to deliver a comprehensive vaccination programme. So, it has been a tremendous achievement, and just as you have personal reasons to be grateful to the NHS, I too do, and I imagine other people in this room will have their own personal stories for themselves or their loved ones. 

I'm going to start with your point about the shared responsibility of people and the health service. I remember one of the first things I voted on when becoming an Assembly Member in 2011 was a report from the Bevan Commission about key principles for the future of the service, and one of those was about the personal responsibility of individual citizens, and how we need to have something where we have a positive conversation and relationship between the citizen, the service and, of course, the rest of the state, because we do have a shared responsibility for the choices that we make. It's one of the things that we regularly talk about on almost every major cause of disease, illness and death—so smoking, how much we drink, how much we exercise and what we eat. In addition to that, we need to make some of those healthier choices—[Inaudible.] —easier. That's part of what we need to do, because if it's simply a finger-pointing or lecturing exercise, then we'll get what we have. So, there is a broad change from the Government, from public services but also from the business world as well, because work has a huge impact on people's health outcomes. Not just work, but good work makes a huge difference to the outcomes that people have. Of course, there is then how we persuade people to accept their own measure for their responsibility for the choices they make, and in particular the choices that we make for our children. 

I want to turn next to your point about the political football of the health service, and on the one hand this is, of course, inevitable. Labour Members will understand and I think will, rightly, complain about the way in which the national health service in Wales is regularly talked about in Prime Minister's questions. We heard previously the points about the 'line of life and death' being Offa's Dyke. Now, I think those things of course are bound to produce an inevitable and angry political response. But what we have to be able to do, though, is to recognise that there is innovation that does take place across the United Kingdom, and learning to be taken. There are points that, actually, it's in our interest to work together. The tier 2 visas, for example—I asked for that decision to be made, but I know that every organisation representing staff in the UK did, and I also know that the UK health department wanted the Home Office in the UK to change course rather sooner. So, it was in the interest of all four parts of the UK that that change was made. I welcome the fact that the change was made, even though we'll continue to have arguments about why the change wasn't made earlier, and yet we know that, in innovation, people do look to Wales. I'll give you an example there. On ambulance services, I know we still have scrutiny and disagreement about the changes that I chose to make for the ambulance service, and yet if you talk to people within the ambulance service around the UK, they are coming to Wales to look at what we have done, how and why, and we see pilots from Wales, where Scotland and England look remarkably similar to what we have done here. You won't hear an English Minister stand up and say that they're looking to learn from Wales, but that is practically what happens. So, in some way, the inevitable politics of it are actually about what we have to learn from other parts of the UK, including England, as well as what we have to give.

I just want to come back to your point about it being a service that values people and the huge numbers of employees that we have. We have over 91,000 people employed in the service and nearly 80,000 full-time equivalents, and yet key part of 'A Healthier Wales' is the quadruple aim and the need to value our staff. A good place to work with motivated staff will deliver a better service in every single part of activity, in public service and the private sector. I know you'll know that, having run your own business. I know it from my own time being a manager and an employer.

At the launch of the plan—this is the point I'll finish on, Deputy Presiding Officer—we spoke to staff within the service, and they recognise that changes that have been made to the way they deliver health and care already have not just delivered a better quality of care but a better place for them to work, and they're motivated by that change. I regularly hear on each of the visits that I undertake a sense of frustration about the way politicians behave and talk about the service and about wanting us to not just have the maturity to say, 'Here are the big challenges, let's create a parliamentary review', but it's about the way that each of us choose to behave in taking that plan forward, because most people who work in our national health service want to see a little more honesty about those challenges and some more licence and support for taking on the big challenges that we recognise exist and being brave enough to make choices about them in the future.

First of all, may I wish the NHS a very happy birthday, an institution that's so important to all of us?

A very happy birthday to the NHS. A birthday is a time for celebration and, more than anything, I think we celebrate all the NHS staff—hundreds of thousands of them over 70 years who have made the NHS what it is. They're our friends, they're our families, they're our loved ones. My grandmother—I was trying to work this out today—would have left the NHS in its very first few years. She was a nurse at the Royal Liverpool hospital and I know that she would be looking back with amazement at what the NHS has become. Any birthday is a time for reflection; the 70-year anniversary is a time to reflect on the feat in itself that we still have an NHS that has lasted this long. It's a fantastic achievement in itself. When it was created, there were great doubts about whether it would last, about whether it would be sustainable, and about whether the concept of providing care free at the point of delivery would lead to an onslaught of people seeking free treatment. At risk of playing political football, there are those on the right of politics who still question the sustainability of the NHS and think that privatisation is the way forward and raise fears of an onslaught of people seeking free prescriptions and so on. But I'm confident that we'll be looking back at 140 years, when 70 years has gone by again, and I'm sure the same questions about sustainability will be asked then. But the key thing is that all of us have to be clear that that sustainability is a priority, a priority for us in all that we do.

The point has been raised about the NHS being used as a political football, and I'll say at the outset here that I have no doubt that this Government and the Conservatives and everybody else represented want the NHS to perform as well as it possibly can. We have different approaches, of course, on how that could be achieved, and I think that, where we can work together, it is in the interests of everybody in Wales—the staff of the NHS and patients too—but it is important that we do hold Government to account. And I make no apologies—20 years after Labour took control of the NHS in Wales—about raising questions about why you've failed to get to grips with the workforce challenges in the way that I think could have been done; why there's still a lack of integration of social care; why there is still poor performance of waiting times compared with other nations in the UK. And the patients and staff of the NHS look to us to hold you in Government to account on those areas.

I'll ask you a few questions: one, I think the biggest threat, and I'm sure you'll agree with me, at the beginning of the second 70 years of the NHS, is the very real threat of a hard Brexit. I would appreciate your comments on some of the—. The concerning answer that I heard from the First Minister earlier today, when he suggested there are no preparations being made within the Welsh NHS for a hard Brexit. He suggested that there's no way the NHS could prepare for a hard Brexit. I don't believe that for a second, and now is the time to be making sure that all possible steps—however challenging they may be—are taken to prepare us for a hard Brexit.

Secondly, about valuing staff. I'd appreciate your thoughts on how we support staff who are overworked. We know we need more staff in the NHS, and, of course, we've put forward ideas such as the training of doctors, for example, in Bangor. We need to relieve that stress, but how will you deal with overworked staff and the help they need now?

And finally, in terms of the future, the third paragraph, I think it was, of your statement, refers to the fundamental principles underpinning the NHS. I don't think we've achieved the fundamental principles when it comes to care, and I would appreciate your comments on how we achieve the aim of providing care as well as healthcare for people in Wales, because those principles are as important in care as they are in the NHS.

Thank you for the comments and the questions. First I'll reflect on the progress made since pre the health service, as has been eluded to. Yesterday, I was at Llandough hospital looking at the mural where they'd actually developed some of the recognition and research into pneumoconiosis. After that, I saw a patchwork quilt with a number of different stories about the NHS. One of them was a grandmother who had done a patchwork quilt in memory of her 10-year-old sister who had died before the creation of the national health service because her dress caught fire, and the coroner's report said that the doctor refused to attend without payment of his fee. That shows the sort of progress that has been made. So, for all of our arguments, there is enormous progress—things that simply do not happen now, or if they do, they are a national scandal rather than a common part of life.

It's also worth reflecting that prescription growth in Wales—as you mentioned prescriptions—the growth has been lower in Wales than in England since the introduction of our free prescriptions policy, so it's not led to a ballooning amount of prescriptions being provided.

On your questions, I think the two biggest threats facing the national health service are the twin storm clouds of Brexit and austerity. If we continue to have not just the health service, but the wider range of public services that are key determinants of people's health, being underfunded, then we'll continue to pile on more demand into the health service, and we'll be blamed for that, whilst other services complain about more money going into the health service itself. We will have an unvirtuous circle.

You will recall from last week's statement the significant risks that a hard Brexit provides for the national health service. There's a level of a lack of awareness about the scale of those risks. I don't think it's a fair or accurate presentation to say that this Government is in any way complacent about those risks, or is somehow being blasé about not needing to plan for them. Of course preparations are being planned for a hard Brexit, but the point being made is, some of the consequences of a hard Brexit are impossible to resolve without consequence.

Last week, we had a really good example that you raised, and that I've mentioned at other times before. The radioisotopes used for treatment in the health service, almost all of them come from Amsterdam. If we have a hard Brexit, we will not be able to replicate production of those between now and March next year, or even the transition period that's likely, and so treatment will simply not exist in a range of areas. You have to be honest that that is one of the consequences of a hard Brexit, and you can't stockpile radioisotopes. So, there are challenges that we simply can't replicate if we leave on hard Brexit terms. And as I said last week, the biggest danger to the future of the health service, in the immediate future, is a hard Brexit. And, of course, Simon Stevens and NHS England recognise it too, which is why they've mentioned it in public.

On workforce planning, the creation of HIW will give us a new structure to plan for the whole workforce. And, again, we can't have competing demands from staff groups asking for more of them or for lobbying groups. So, whether it's more people in one part of medicine, more people in one part of nursing or therapy, we'll have to look at the whole service in the round and recognise that there is a team of professionals who work together to deliver healthcare. I expect to see a significant improvement in workforce planning and you'll see more of that once HIW is created from October this year. 

On your point about care, it's worth reflecting that, of course, social care has always been means-tested. Part of the difficulty in integrating health and social care is that the health service is free, paid for by taxation, and social care is means-tested. What we're looking to do is to try to eliminate some of the wrangles about funding, so that the citizen does not fall between the cracks, between the two services. That is why the parliamentary review recommendations and the plan we have for health and social care is so important. It's why I place such value on having regional partnership boards for health and social care to plan together, so that the citizen need not know and need not worry too much about whether they're in health or social care. It'll make it easier for the citizen to access those services, which is why the progress on pooled budgets is but a means to an end of making sure that we derive much greater value from the £9 billion of integrated funding that exists there, and much greater outcomes. I expect that integrated model will deliver exactly those outcomes that all of us in this room would wish to see.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. It is a huge privilege to be able to stand here today and celebrate 70 years of the NHS. 

Without the national health service, I wouldn't be here today. Eleven years ago, a hard-working NHS doctor discovered my breast cancer and an army of other hard-working doctors, nurses, radiographers and pharmacists saved my life. Without the NHS, many of my constituents, family and friends wouldn't be here. Seventy years ago, the average life expectancy was 65 and infant mortality was at around 52 deaths per 1,000 live births. Today, we can expect to live well into our 80s and it's believed that children born today could live well into their 100s. Infant mortality is down to well under three deaths per 1,000 and we have all but eradicated many of the biggest childhood diseases.

We have Wales to thank for this. If it wasn't for the Tredegar Workmen's Medical Aid Society and the vision of Tredegar-born MP Aneurin Bevan, we wouldn't have an NHS, and without the NHS, we wouldn't have kidney transplants, hip replacements, CT scans, bone marrow transplants or a whole raft of medical science improvements.

What makes the NHS such a success is the staff. Their commitment and dedication must be celebrated and we all owe them a debt of gratitude. From porter to paediatrician, admin assistant to anaesthetist, the NHS would be nothing without its hard-working staff.

The NHS is a fantastic achievement and one that we should rightly be proud of. But while we celebrate the achievements of the last 70 years, we have to look to the future. As our population grows and many of us develop long-term life-limiting conditions, and as medicines become more bespoke and therefore expensive we have to adapt. The NHS today is very different from the NHS in 1948 and will be very different in years to come.

Cabinet Secretary, I believe that your long-term plan is in the right direction, but we have to ensure that the policies are delivered on the ground. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development described the NHS as fairly mediocre with great policies not being translated into great practices. What can we do to ensure that policies can make it to the front line, and how can we improve buy-in from staff? The NHS is the world's fifth biggest employer, so any changes will require buy-in from a lot of personnel.

Cabinet Secretary, the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine have raised concerns about the impact of fatigue and shift patterns on the NHS workforce and have launched the Fight Fatigue campaign. Our NHS is reliant upon the staff, and we have to put the well-being of staff first. Cabinet Secretary, will you support the Fight Fatigue campaign and ensure the roll-out in all health boards across Wales?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff, once again, and hope that I can play a very small part in ensuring that the NHS is around to celebrate its one hundred and fortieth anniversary, still providing world-class care free at the point of delivery. Thank you.

Thank you, Caroline. Again, I recognise your personal story and recognition of the fact that the NHS has helped to protect and maintain your own life, and also the huge progress made in improving health and in removing significant causes of disability, illness and death. Again, we've all mentioned staff within the service, and it's absolutely right that we do.

The challenge then is about whether we're prepared to take forward our headline commitment to a conversation about the future of health and social care into delivery. That doesn't take away from people asking awkward questions of the Government—it never will do, and it should not do—but there are still challenges about how we make choices when change is proposed in different parts of the country and what we're actually prepared to do. That isn't simply a challenge for one party, it's a challenge for all of us, because all of us will be challenged by changes within our local areas, which we represent, and the concern that people have where something they value and understand is proposed for change. That's why it's so important to have staff leading the conversation, staff talking to other staff, staff talking and listening to the public, because I guarantee that 10 politicians talking to the public about the NHS will never be believed compared to a handful of members of staff talking about the challenges they face. It's understandable why people trust staff in that way. So, we do need to listen to staff, but the key stakeholder in improving public health is the individual citizen themselves, in their context. The choices we make have a much greater impact on health outcomes for the nation than the technical service that is provided by the NHS.

On your point about Fighting Fatigue, last week, I agreed a fatigue charter with the British Medical Association, so I'm looking to see how the Fight Fatigue campaign links to the charter that we've agreed, because I do recognise that our staff need to be able to go into work and not just be content and motivated, but to have time to have rest and to perform their duties without coping with fatigue itself. So, I'm interested in the area, I'll have a look at the campaign that is being launched and how it actually is consistent with the charter that I've agreed with doctors' representatives within the last week or so.

It's great to use this opportunity to recognise all the achievements of the NHS over the last 70 years, particularly recognising the longer lives and the drop in the infant mortality rate, the huge drop in unplanned pregnancies, and I'm particularly pleased to welcome the initiatives we've been able to take here specifically in Wales, such as the free prescriptions, because I think that is absolutely right in delivering healthcare free at the point of demand. I think it is a great credit to the Welsh Labour Government that we have brought in free prescriptions, and, of course, the free parking as well. I think the free parking in hospitals is vitally important, because the last thing you want to do is worry about finding money to park when you're either going to an out-patient appointment or, in fact, visiting your loved ones. So, I think there is so much to celebrate, and it goes without saying, my total commitment and support for what the Welsh Government is doing for the NHS.

But I did want to use this opportunity to bring up the contaminated blood scandal, because, obviously, this is one of the big issues that the NHS has had to cope with. I wanted to bring it up today, because the terms of reference were agreed yesterday in Parliament, so that means we can now move on with the inquiry. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, we have all been very involved with this inquiry here, including the Cabinet Secretary himself, with the families and the people who have suffered. Of course, in Wales, 70 people did die as a result of this scandal. So, what we really need to do now is to do all we possibly can to see that we do get answers, because there have been two previous inquiries, but those haven't really found out why this contaminated blood continued to be given to people who were suffering from haemophilia, many of whom went on to contract AIDS/HIV through the contaminated blood.

So, I wondered what the Cabinet Secretary could tell us about what involvement he sees from the Welsh Government now that this inquiry has started, and whether there is any support that the Government can offer to the group who, under the leadership of Haemophilia Wales, are putting the case for the Welsh patients to the national inquiry. I'm hoping that the cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood will possibly be involved as a core participant, as we've been campaigning for this judge-led inquiry, but we do want everybody in Wales to make their voices heard. So, I just think it's appropriate to raise this on the day that we are marking the seventieth anniversary, because it's an issue to do with the health service that is so vitally important and so current for many of our constituents in Wales. 

Yes, and I want to recognise in particular the point about the contaminated blood inquiry, because the impact of the health service is so great because we recognise the challenges we would have without it. That also means that there are times when healthcare goes wrong and has a huge impact on people's lives too. And there is always learning to be taken from complaints and from when we get things wrong. And, actually, the contaminated blood scandal has led to a significant improvement in the safety and the traceability of the use of blood and blood products within our health service. We can be really proud of the work that is being undertaken by the Welsh Blood Service in pioneering a different range of ways to deliver medical benefit. The challenge then, looking back, is not just how we learn lessons but this challenge of understanding what really happened, because that's the biggest grievance that I think people have, that they don't ever think they've been told the truth and they never got to the truth. So, I welcome not just the inquiry, but the way that Sir Brian Langstaff has gone about the inquiry as the appointed Chair—a recently retired judge and a man of significant integrity. I think he's developed trust from a community who weren't really sure they could trust the inquiry itself. And I also think it was helpful to move the sponsor department from the UK Department of health to the UK Cabinet Office as well, and I welcome the move that was taken to do so. 

So, we do want to encourage people to give evidence. My officials continue to have regular conversations with Haemophilia Wales and other stakeholders here in Wales about their expectations for the inquiry and the practical business of how we support them to give evidence to the inquiry, including here in Wales, which we have asked for and I think will happen. And our challenge is how we have a conversation with not just the Cabinet Office, but the inquiry itself about how it goes about its business to make sure people really can tell their story and ask questions where they think they've not been answered before. And, in that regard, I'm very pleased that Sir Brian has indicated that he expects to have additional experts for particular parts of the inquiry. So, they haven't ruled out having an additional wing members to sit with him when it comes to deliberations, but, in the evidence-gathering part of it, he is looking to make use of additional expertise for different parts of what went wrong at the time, and I think that is a real advantage. So, I approach this with some cautious optimism at the outset, but we will, of course, continue to listen to and work with stakeholders here in Wales. 

I welcome the opportunity to welcome this statement and also to wish a happy birthday to our national health service at 70 years of age. May I start by paying tribute to Aneurin Bevan and Dr Julian Tudor Hart, who passed away in the past few days, and whom I met on a number of occasions as a fellow GP in the South Wales Valleys? But, essentially, we are celebrating the survival of a vision of free treatment based on need alone and a health service funded from general taxation—everyone, therefore, sharing and paying for the risk. It is something quite unique across most of the world, namely that all of these people share the risk as well as contributing towards payment. And the health service, therefore, is dealing with real health inequalities, because having to pay for treatment is always going to make things worse in terms of health inequalities, because some people won’t be able to afford treatment.

Now, I’ve been a doctor for 38 years. Now, that’s over half the existence of the NHS, and I’m still very proud to still be a practising doctor working for the NHS. That is a source of great pride to me, I have to admit, because some people who come to see me as patients were children when I started working as a GP, and now they are grandmothers and grandfathers themselves, and it is an honour to be an unbroken line within the lives of very many people in Wales.

We can’t overemphasise the relief of taking money out of the equation—taking money out of the consultation, if you like. Of course, prescription charges were introduced in 1951, and Aneurin Bevan left the Cabinet as a result of that. And, of course, the Government here scrapped prescription charges some 11 years ago. With the abolition of prescription charges, we truly can focus on the best treatments, because having to pay for prescriptions in England means that you pay over £8 for every item on your prescription. Therefore, we don’t have to under-treat our patients here in Wales because we as doctors may be concerned about the cost to the patient. We don’t have to change treatments and we don’t have to fail to prescribe something because of the cost here in Wales, and that is very much in contrast to the situation over the border in England.

We would be staggered, therefore, if we were to have to save money, or sell our home, or pay a huge price for health services—can you imagine such a situation? In many nations today, you have to save money for an operation, for example; well, that isn’t the case with the NHS. But, surprisingly, today in Wales, and in the UK, that is the situation with social care. People are expected to save up. They are expected, on occasion, to sell their homes. They are expected to pay a huge amount for support and social care today. I would say, as we celebrate a free NHS, based entirely on patient need, funded from general taxation, that we need the same solution for social care, and that that should be provided free of charge, on the basis of a national social care service. Would you agree?

Thank you for your comments. Funnily enough, you mentioned Julian Tudor Hart—I know a man whom you have met several times yourself—I last met him at the south west Wales faculty of the Royal College of General Practitioners, and he still had plenty to say at that point in time, as he always did. I recognise what you say about sharing risk and sharing benefit, and we see developed countries—not just developing world countries, developed countries—where they don't have the same privileged access that we enjoy as a right in this country, the United States being the most obvious example, where people still cannot afford what we would think of as basic healthcare.

On your challenge about social care funding, of course, in 'A Healthier Wales', we committed to reviewing the future needs on a social care basis and to do that in partnership with local government and, in particular, the Association of Directors for Social Services, but also to review the funding to go with that as well. In that regard, in the last week we had the report from Gerry Holtham, looking at the future and potential options for how we might choose to use our powers in this place to fill the gap in social care funding. I would be delighted if we did not need to do so, if there was a different settlement at a UK level for public services, but we should not wait for that to be the case. His proposal of creating a fund that is ring-fenced for social care purposes is particularly interesting, and Ministers across the Government are looking at those proposals to try and understand what that would mean for us. I look forward to a range of cross-sector engagement and involvement in what those proposals mean, because this is a challenge for the country and not just for one political party.

I have two more speakers, and I will call both of them even though we're running out of time, but that's no indication that you can go on for five minutes, and I'm sure you won't, either of you. David Rees.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I won't. Can I, first of all, thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon? It gives me an opportunity to put on record my thanks and appreciation to all the NHS staff who have worked over those 70 years and who are still working and will be working in the years ahead of us. Again I put on record, Deputy Presiding Officer, that my wife is one of those members of staff at this point in time. Can I also pay tribute to Dr Julian Hart, who passed away on Sunday? Of course, he was a GP in Glyncorrwg in my Afan Valley. He actually worked alongside Dr Brian Gibbons, my predecessor, and also former health Minister. So, he is well-known to many of us, and his loss is a sad loss to society because of the work he did for deprived communities, particularly in the Valleys.

Cabinet Secretary, you've highlighted many issues, and I think one of the biggest things you've highlighted is perhaps the understanding that there is a need for change and we have to empower that change, both within the service and also within the public. Part of our role as politicians is to take that challenge on board and to lead that change—[Inaudible.]—anywhere else and to recognise that we can't always keep on saying, 'Well, it worked better 10 years ago, so that's the way it has to stay', but in doing so we need also therefore to look at strategies for that change. Clearly, recently, in my own area, we've seen a change in the strategy of bed closures as an example, but we don't have a clinical strategy. The Welsh Government has put together fantastic programmes and plans—the cancer care delivery plan, the respiratory care plan, and many others—but the question I want ask is: where's the joined-up thinking to ensure that all these plans can work together to deliver a clinical strategy for the whole of the service, and how do the health boards also ensure they have a clinical strategy? So, when we come across a service that is working better, that is improving because of efficiency measures, instead of closing beds we look at how we can best use those beds to improve the strategies in other areas to deliver the service for our patients. I think that is an important way forward because I—like Angela Burns—want to see it, not for 30 years or 70 years—and I won't be around in 70 years—but for years ahead, so our children, their grandchildren and their children beyond that will have a service that they can rely upon as free at the point of need. I have a sister in America, who doesn't have that service, and, believe you me, we don't want to see anything like that. We need to ensure that the health service continues, but we do have to embrace change, but also change that carries us with it, and carries the patients with it. So, therefore, that's important.

Can I also ask the question: the South Wales Programme was clearly one of these mechanisms by which we would see this change, but I'm seeing very little as a consequence of the South Wales Programme, so when will we see more on that to ensure that the service change, which was led by clinicians, will actually deliver those changes we so desperately want? Because we know that there is a difficult challenge ahead of us. We know the resources are difficult.

Finally, on the workforce, I think Rhun ap Iorwerth highlighted a very important point about how we develop it, and you answered quite well. It's not just about nurses and not just about doctors; it's a wide range of staff. Can you assure that Health Education and Improvement Wales covers that wide range of staff, and, if we are talking about new equipment, we also have the additional staff to resource that new equipment? Because a positron emission tomography scanner in a new hospital is fantastic, but it needs staff to work that PET scanner, and those staff are important to delivery.

Good to hear mention of one of my predecessors, Dr Gibbons, who I saw recently, in reference to Julian Tudor Hart as well—and Dr Gibbons is still full of ideas and views about the future of the service.

On your point about clinical strategy, there is a challenge about what should be national and what should be regional, and how that clinical strategy needs to rub up against and be designed in concert with the wider care strategy within regions. That's why we're looking at how social care and health have high-level plans that are designed together, as well, indeed, as health boards themselves working alongside each other. So, the work that Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, for example, are progressively doing more of with Hywel Dda Local Health Board is really important. They have a more joined-up view of what services should be provided where, and what that means in terms of both access and excellence for those services as well, and never forgetting, of course, that we still want to maintain local services. Because when we talk about joining services up, it's often a focus again on hospital-based services rather than where over 90 per cent of ill-health interactions take place. That again comes back to the point about our staff, and the crucial importance of staff leading a conversation about what change looks like and why it is or isn't a good thing. As I was saying, me turning up in a suit doesn't persuade a whole bunch of people about what the future of the service should be—having six different health and care professionals is much, much more persuasive, particularly if they recognise them as people who live in that community and serve that particular community, wherever it is.

Your point about the South Wales Programme is well-made. It was clinician-led. There was agreement on what to do, and we have achieved a number of those things but, again, it usefully highlights the point about the pace and the scale of change. We have taken a long time not to deliver all of the programme, and that's one of the things we need to be able to get over and get around for the future, because the pace at which we're able to move frustrates everyone, it makes people anxious about whether change will really happen and it means that we don't deliver the improvements we recognise are necessary as quickly as possible. So, yes, the south Wales work is still being delivered, and key building blocks have happened, but I want to see much greater pace in the future for the change that we are talking about. Otherwise, whoever is a successor in this role at some point in the future will still be talking about the same things, the same challenges and the same problems, and not being able to make change happen. I can assure you, I hope, that Health Education and Improvement Wales will take an all-staff approach to all grades and types of staff. It is about a holistic and genuinely integrated approach to the future of the staff that we need today and, of course, for tomorrow. 

Finally, Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I welcome your statement, Cabinet Secretary, on the seventieth anniversary of the NHS? It was born in Wales as a result of one man, Aneurin Bevan, who had the political will and strength of conviction and vision to take this forward, building on the local Tredegar Medical Aid Society, as you said, which so inspired him.

Cabinet Secretary, you may not have had the opportunity in your busy schedule to see the ode to the NHS created by Welsh poet Owen Sheers with his film To Provide All People. It was broadcast last week and last weekend. He chose to honour his local district general hospital, Nevill Hall, and in a preview in the Radio Times—it was filmed at Nevill Hall—he spoke in tribute to Nevill Hall, where his mother received her knee replacement, his premature daughter received life-saving care, and his eldest daughter attends ophthalmology clinics. Will you join Owen Sheers and myself in thanking the staff of Nevill Hall Hospital for their devotion to care and clinical excellence, which we know is replicated in our hospitals across Wales? Would you also agree with Owen Sheers when he describes what Nye Bevan achieved—creating the NHS as a monument to the communal, and yet providing care for the individual, meeting the health needs of the population? Do you agree that this is how we must sustain and safeguard our Welsh NHS?

I would also like to pay tribute to Dr Julian Tudor Hart, who sadly passed away at the weekend following a very active retirement, leading the Socialist Health Association, following 30 years as a 'new kind of doctor'. He wrote a book about that, obviously, from his Glyncorrwg health centre experience, where he inspired Dr Brian Gibbons to come from Ireland to work there and then become health Minister here. Julian was a huge influence on me before I became an Assembly Member and the first Minister for Health and Social Services. During my time in that post, he was an inspiring and supportive influence in those early days. I would like you to express again your recognition of his contribution with the inverse care law. I looked at the paper in The Lancet that he wrote—it was back in 1971—and in the summary he says:

'The availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served. This inverse care law operates more completely where medical care is most exposed to market forces, and less so where such exposure is reduced.'

Do you agree that is still pertinent today as evidence, and that we have a duty here in Wales to ensure that it is our policy and our commitment to provide free healthcare for all, without the negative impact of market forces?

Julian Tudor Hart's work will continue to challenge not just this part of the national health service system, but actually every part of the developed world. The challenge is that those who most need medical care are the least likely to receive it and utilise it, whereas those with the least need of healthcare tend to use health services more, and more effectively. That's a challenge for a range of our public services, actually, not just the health service. That's why it's particularly interesting—and I mentioned it in my opening—that you can see both Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan university health boards making real progress on their inverse care law programme work. That's a real cause for celebration for us, that they are turning the corner on health inequality. The challenge now, as with so many others, is to be able to roll it out more consistently across the country. 

I recognise again the points made about the communal and the individual contribution and benefit with and from the health service. I have found time to watch To Provide All People. I particularly enjoyed it: a range of stories, and the actors were reading words provided by people describing their real experience of the health service in a range of different areas. It wasn't a work of fiction. It was telling the stories of people in and around the service. It was particularly poignant for me because that's where my father passed away—Nevill Hall. I remember getting a tearful call from my mother and going to the house that they had retired to in Llangynidr and finding the remnants of where my father had fallen over, visiting him in hospital, talking to him. I was the last one in my family to talk to him in Nevill Hall. I don't just remember the fact that they cared for my father, but I particularly remember the kindness and the compassion they showed to my mother. Because she could not accept that he wasn't coming back. When he was on a ventilator she didn't believe that he wasn't going to come back, and the fact that they did that gently, but they did it as they should have done, not to provide false hope, I thought was a great kindness. It's that kindness and compassion that I think people remember when they think of the best part of our health service—not just the machines, but the people who provide and deliver the care.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 this afternoon is a statement by the Counsel General on the Supreme Court reference of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On 7 June, I published a written statement announcing that I had made an application to the Supreme Court for permission to participate in the reference of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill. My participation in the proceedings, along with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, has been confirmed, which means that the Supreme Court’s analysis and reasoning in the reference will be informed by the views of all constituent parts of the UK.

In accordance with the timetable agreed by all the parties to the proceedings, I filed my written case with the Supreme Court on Friday of last week. Let me be clear: the Welsh Government’s participation is not about our own Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018. As you know, through the changes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and an inter-governmental agreement, we have secured protections for devolution in Wales and made sure that laws and policy areas that are currently devolved remain devolved.

However, the issues raised by the Attorney-General and the Advocate General for Scotland in their case raise questions regarding all of the devolution settlements in the UK and are not all limited to the Scottish Bill nor to the Scottish devolution settlement. So, our participation in the Scottish case before the Supreme Court touches upon these issues that extend beyond the Scottish settlement and that relate to the future functioning of the UK after Brexit, where it is vital that Wales has a voice. I want to be clear that I do not address the specific issues that are particular to the Scottish Bill and the Scottish devolution settlement, which are, of course, addressed by the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the Advocate General for Scotland. My written case therefore focuses on the following four issues.

First, I address the question of what impact leaving the EU has on the competence of the Assembly. I strongly contend that leaving the EU will see all those powers in devolved areas that currently sit with the EU—for example in relation to agricultural support—no longer being constrained by EU law. As the Supreme Court itself noted in the Miller case, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved legislatures’ competence. It is for the Assembly to determine where, if at all, it wishes to 'pool' any of those powers through common UK-wide frameworks.

The second issue relates to the legislative practicalities of withdrawal. My case states that legislating for the domestic consequences of withdrawal from the EU, where those consequences relate to matters which are not reserved, falls squarely within the legislative competence of the Assembly and not within the international relations reservation.

Thirdly, I contend that it is perfectly within the Assembly’s competence to legislate in advance of exit in order to make the necessary changes needed to be in place from day 1 after the UK leaves the EU. Indeed, if that kind of legislation could be said to violate the current EU law restriction, it would be equally true that Parliament could not lawfully legislate in such a way prior to the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, an intention that is at the heart of the UK Government’s own EU withdrawal Act.

The fourth point in my case deals with the scope of the courts’ power to review Assembly legislation outside that expressly provided for under the Government of Wales Act 2006. The Supreme Court made it clear in the AXA case that where the democratically elected devolved legislatures act within the scope of the devolution frameworks laid down by Parliament, their acts are reviewable by the courts only on very limited grounds, and only where fundamental rights or the very essence of the rule of law is at stake. The examples that the court gave in that case included an Act that would abolish the right to judicial review, for example, or that would otherwise abrogate fundamental rights. The Scottish continuity Bill is clearly not legislation of that extreme kind.

I hope that this clarifies my role in these proceedings. It is not, as some have incorrectly—indeed, bizarrely—suggested, to support the Attorney-General and Advocate General in their reference of the Scottish Bill, but to make sure that the voice of Wales on these broader questions is heard in defence of devolution before the Supreme Court. And in case anyone is unclear on my position with regard to the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act, I will reiterate that I remain 100 per cent confident that the Act is within the competence of the Assembly. Had the Attorney-General not withdrawn his reference following the successful conclusion of the inter-governmental agreement, I would have defended that Act in full before the Supreme Court. Now that all parties have filed their cases, we await the hearing, which takes place on 24 and 25 July, and I will of course keep Assembly Members updated with any developments.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I do accept the point that this is an important referral, even though it is not an active one for the Welsh Government, now that they have come to an agreement, and a very solid agreement, in my view, with the UK Government. It was always our position, this side of the Assembly, that the legislative consent motion process remains the key defence, but there are ambiguities in it, especially when a Government deems that it can unreasonably withhold consent, which I think many of us believe is the position in Scotland. But that takes us into more controversial territory, no doubt.

How jurisdiction disputes are handled is very important in decentralised forms of government and all systems have to have robust mechanisms to do this. And I would argue that the Supreme Court has a good track record in devoting the necessary time and thought to resolving these disputes. The current one is obviously a very tricky issue for them to consider, because the Scottish Presiding Officer did in fact believe their Bill was outside their jurisdiction. This is clearly a key factor and it does need to be resolved, although I do note what the Counsel General says in defence of the Welsh Act.

As UK governance becomes more significant as a result of the EU exit, we will need maximum clarity on the boundaries between UK and devolved law making, especially because, inevitably—and this is true in all decentralised systems—there's an awful lot of areas of shared responsibility, or at least the actions of one Government will affect another, sometimes to such an extent that can inhibit the real ability to legislate in a certain policy area. These are crucial matters; I completely accept that. I do have confidence that the Supreme Court will deliberate effectively and what they decide will be of great assistance to the evolving British constitution, especially under the challenge of Brexit. So, I don't have a particular question to the Counsel General other than to say that I will, obviously, follow the proceedings very carefully when they start their deliberations later this month.

I thank the Member for that and for his observations. I would just say that I think that this is, as he indicates in his question, a route that is, obviously, laid down in statute for clarifying issues of constitutional law. The reason for the intervention was not really in relation to the specifics of the Scottish Bill. Clearly, that is a matter for the Lord Advocate in Scotland to make the case in defence of the Scottish Bill. My comments about competence were my own comments in that sense. But the way in which the Attorney-General had set out the case took us beyond, in my view, the narrow issues relating to the Scottish Bill and, indeed, even to the Scottish devolution settlement itself. There are, obviously, in particular following the entry into force of the last Wales Act, now greater similarities than there were in the past. So, the approach that I have taken is, generally speaking, not to reiterate the points that the Lord Advocate made in defence of the Scottish Bill, but to confine the case on behalf of the Welsh Government to broader constitutional principles that affect the devolution settlement here in Wales. I felt that that was important to bring focus, really, to ensuring that the concerns of Welsh Government and of this place, I hope, were heard in a context that was germane and specific to the Welsh experience and Welsh settlement.

It would take a distinguished barrister to draw up questions on the basis of this statement, but having said that, I do have a few points to make, and at least one question to ask. May I first of all make the point that it’s not the Scottish Government that has refused its consent to this legislation, of course, but the Scottish Parliament, including the Counsel General’s own party, as well as the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party in Scotland? So, this is a case that’s hugely important to the UK constitution, and although I accept entirely what the Counsel General has said—that his intervention does not relate to that question, because he has avoided any adjudication between the two views on the competence of this Bill as far as Scotland—. It is important politically, however, that this issue is resolved, and that the Scottish Parliament is supported in its declaration of its rights. That’s how we develop parliamentary powers, according to the tradition of these isles, it has to be said.

May I also say that, broadly speaking, Plaid Cymru and I agree with the four areas that he has chosen to intervene in? They are important to this Assembly, or this Parliament as it will be. The one that emerges from the AXA case is extremely important, I believe, because it makes clear and strengthens the decision taken as to where the courts intervene in terms of the action of devolved legislatures, which is important, and the Bill raises some of these questions. Therefore, it’s appropriate that the Counsel General should have been part of that process in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Welsh Government but also in representing the Welsh constitution in that regard.

But the main point raised is the first point that he makes. He states that he is part of this case because he believes that the competence of this Assembly will broaden as we exit the European Union, because European legislation is to disappear, and we do one of two things: we either state—as we have done in our own continuity Bill, which is now an Act, the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018—that that legislation remains in place, or, either alone or in agreement with others, we put other legislation in place. Therefore, it is important that that is stated clearly. Now, in his statement he describes that as:

‘to "pool" any of those powers through common UK wide frameworks.'

But, strangely, having been given an invitation to run a sprint race, he’s decided to tie this Assembly in a three-legged race with the Westminster Government, because that’s what the inter-governmental agreement does, of course, for seven years, which is to restrict our ability to use these new powers flowing to the Assembly, but rather, through an agreement agreed between two Governments, which will not be constituted as the same Government in seven years’ time, to do everything jointly.

Of course, he has a different interpretation to mine and Plaid Cymru’s interpretation as to whether this will be a threat to this place or not, but when he uses the word ‘bizarrely’ in his statement, or, to use Ceredigion’s parlance, in a slightly comical way—what is comical in this statement and in his beliefs on these matters is that we already have examples of where the Westminster Government isn’t following the spirit of the inter-governmental agreement. There’s talk of a fisheries Bill, an agricultural Bill—papers being discussed at the end of this week on a possible trade deal with the rest of the European Union, according to the external affairs committee, which met yesterday, I believe, haven't been shared with the Welsh Government. Only the headings have been shared. So, it doesn't appear to me that the inter-governmental agreement, which underpins the fact that the laws emanating from the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act isn't part of the case in the Supreme Court—it doesn’t appear to me that the Government has prepared a strong enough agreement, but I’ve made those points in the past, and I’m just taking advantage of the opportunity to restate them, which brings me to my single question.

This involves the Scottish Bill and the role of the Counsel General, but, having said that, he will know that our legislation isn’t part of this process because it—well, it hasn’t yet been repealed, but the desire to repeal it legislation was part of the inter-governmental agreement. Now, what steps will the Counsel General now take to repeal our own legislation? Will there be a consultation over the summer on these steps? Will there be an opportunity for this Assembly to discuss and to review the inter-governmental agreement, and how will lit work over the summer months in terms of many of the important decisions that I’ve just referred to? And what, therefore, will be the end point for this Assembly in deciding to repeal the Act or otherwise?

I thank the Member for those several comments on a wide range of issues, and the question at the end. I’ll try to ensure that I do refer to the main points that he made. Of course, I accept that it’s the Scottish Parliament’s consent rather than the Scottish Government’s consent that was given.

This statement is an opportunity for me to be clear that the Welsh Government is not taking these steps in favour of the United Kingdom Government’s position. Comments were raised by Members of his party in Westminster that that was the case. That’s not the case at all. I hope that that’s very clear from what I have explained in my statement earlier.

Regarding the point about the constitutional principle discussed in AXA, it is important that we do have certainty on that particular principle.

The way that this issue comes before the Supreme Court is appropriate, that is it comes through reference to the Supreme Court. A technical question arises as a result of that, whether the general principle would be valid in that context or not. But far more importantly is the fact that the standard that must be reached in order for the court to be able to intervene is much higher than what we have in mind here, as would be appropriate within the devolution settlement.

I have discussed several times with the Member the difference of opinion that we have on the inter-governmental agreement, but just to be entirely clear again—if he believes that there is a possibility of some 20 powers being agreed to be frozen, and that that would be a decrease on the powers there, what’s the analysis of the over 40 powers coming to this place without any kind of restriction on those powers? I just don’t recognise that statement as one that restricts the powers of this place and that of the Welsh Government too. And to be perfectly clear, the Welsh Government expects the United Kingdom Government to operate in accordance with the agreement in all areas, and to ensure that they keep to the letter and the spirit of the agreement on all occasions.

He asked about the steps that are appropriate to take under that agreement in order to repeal the Act—as it now is—the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act. The agreement within that agreement is for us to take steps now to ensure that that does happen. The mechanism for that is that we put forward regulations before the Senedd in draft form for 60 days whilst the Parliament sits; that is, not over the summer recess. There must be a debate then and agreement on those regulations before they become law. They were laid on 8 June. Because of the summer recess, it won’t be possible to have a debate on them until the start of October, and then it's after that that the process will go forward, after the Assembly has had an opportunity to discuss them. I have to be clear again that there's no restriction in that agreement on me as Counsel General to take the steps that I have taken to intervene in this case. I wouldn't do it unless I was concerned that the wider principles were at stake, and so we have taken this important step.

I welcome the statement. It's perfectly reasonable, I think, that the Counsel General seeks to intervene in this case brought by the Lord Advocate of Scotland. Devolution is an evolving process and there are inevitably going to be uncertainties and ambiguities that are created by the legislation that is the means of bringing it about. We moved from a conferred-powers basis to a reserved-powers basis, and in a sense that perhaps provides more work for lawyers to unravel the areas of doubt that will continue to remain as experience of life throws up practical problems to be solved. So, I do think that the Welsh Government is entitled to take part in these proceedings. In fact, it is vital that we do resolve the ambiguities that are inherent in the Scottish case.

I would like to pay a compliment here to the Welsh Government, as I've done before, in comparison with the Scottish Government, that they've taken a practical approach to withdrawal from the EU and not tried to turn it into a kind of political football match as has happened in Scotland. I appreciate that there are other parties behind the refusal of legislative consent in Scotland as well as the Scottish nationalists, but I do think that, although the Scottish position is different because devolution has gone further in Scotland, nevertheless, the arguments that they're producing are specious and are fundamentally designed to inhibit the withdrawal process. So, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has taken a different view, and it is sensible that they give Wales's voice a hearing in the court as well.

I also think that the four issues that the Counsel General has identified as necessary to be resolved are vital questions in this case. I fully agree with the Government's view that all powers currently vested in Brussels that under the devolution settlement should come to Wales should be vested here, and it's always been, I think, a paradox that those who complain that the devolution process is being undermined are actually talking about powers that we don't currently have the powers to use anyway. So, I think the important point that the Counsel General made earlier on was that the EU withdrawal in this respect does potentially enhance the competence of this Assembly. It gives us more power. It may not go as far as Plaid Cymru would like. I fully understand their objections and reservations; they're entitled to make those points because they don't believe in the United Kingdom as the political structure within which we will continue exist. I think it's very important that their point of view should be expressed and that these arguments should be put in this Assembly and that the Government should defend itself against those arguments. It's very important that this should be done in the most open and transparent way possible.

I also think that it is very important that the court's powers to review Assembly legislation are further refined through cases of this kind. There will inevitably be areas of uncertainty that need to be resolved, and the common law process works by case law so we build up a corpus of constitutional law, not just by statute but actually more fundamentally in the interstices of the law through individual cases turned over long periods of time into legal principles and conventions. So, I think that this is an inevitable step in the devolution process and also in the process of withdrawal from the EU. It's one that I welcome, and I wish the Counsel General well in his advocacy for Wales in the case.

I thank the Member for those remarks. I think that the very point of devolution is that different parts of the UK can reach different outcomes and different conclusions about how to approach this sort of question, and that is what happened, ultimately, in this case. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, took a different view ultimately than we did here in Wales, and that is inherent in the nature of devolution and, in fact, if you're a devolutionist, it's a thing to be celebrated. Different considerations apply, but the Welsh Government was clear from the start that our main objective was to secure appropriate amendments to the EU withdrawal Act, as it is now, and that the continuity Bill was a means of achieving progress in relation to that.

I would also say that we have benefited throughout by working very closely with the Scottish Government in relation to the development of the inter-governmental agreement, and subsequently, as well. I think this is the start of a longer process as all parts of the UK withdraw from the European Union; that kind of collaboration and co-operation will, I think, stand us in good stead as we go forward over the coming months, and no doubt, years.

Just on the point that he makes, really, which echoes the point in the Supreme Court case of Miller, i.e. that without a legislative intervention, the withdrawal from the European Union extends the competence in those devolved areas rather than limits it. The argument that an Act of Parliament is needed before a devolved legislature can act in area where EU law is withdrawn is obviously fundamentally at odds with that observation. But I would also point at the inter-governmental agreement—as it was originally conceived, which had the much broader attack, actually, on the devolution settlement—was accepted by the UK Government as requiring, under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion, which suggests an acknowledgement on their part that there's a baseline level of competence, even in relation to matters relating to the withdrawal from the European Union. So, I think that is at odds with how the Attorney General's put his case here, and I hope that we will prevail in relation to that when our arguments are made before the Supreme Court.

I'd like to thank the Counsel General for his statement. It's very interesting to understand the position for that need to intervene, and I fully support your points. I understand the need to separate the way in which this institution has actually decided upon a consent, based upon the agreement and the amendments, and the Scottish Parliament, as Simon Thomas quite rightly pointed out, took an alternative decision.

But you're also focusing upon the implications for devolution and the rights of this Parliament to make a decision on devolved competencies, which you believed we were well within our rights to do on this particular Bill. Have you made an assessment of what if Scotland was also within their rights, and the Supreme Court rules that Scotland was correct in putting that Bill forward, therefore, making it legitimate? And what issues then will we be facing in Wales compared to what Scotland will be facing? Because Scotland will have different powers and different laws because it will be approved, compared to what Wales will now be operating under, and therefore the frameworks issues we're going to be discussing might be under different scenarios as a consequence of that. Have you made that assessment yet?

Well, the Scottish Government has indicated it wants to participate fully in those common framework discussions in any event, so, in practical terms, that will be available as a mechanism to all parts.

Obviously, the withdrawal Act applies to all parts of the UK, to state the obvious. As of where we are today, there is no Act in force in Scotland that cuts across that. Obviously, as we take steps to repeal the Act here in the Assembly, there will be no legislation here in Wales either. So, there will be, if you like, a level playing field across all parts of the UK. Obviously, that could change if the Scottish Bill becomes law.

I think because of the nature of the cases that have been put, and the arguments that have been put in response, speculating about the exact balance of that, and how it's dealt with by the Supreme Court, isn't something that I think is particularly sensible or probably possible at this point. But we'll obviously be keeping that under review and will watch how submissions are made in the Supreme Court, and we'll be taking a view and responding in relation to that.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item on the agenda is the statement by the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care on the Learning Disability: Improving Lives Programme. I call on the Minister to make his statement. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, for this opportunity to give an update to Members on the Learning Disability: Improving Lives Programme after the publication of the report last week.

This cross-government review of learning disability policy, services and funding stems from our commitment to improve the lives of all our citizens and to address inequalities where they exist. This work was commissioned by several of my ministerial colleagues, and we have taken an approach of looking across the whole life course, covering early years, housing, social care, health, education, employment and skills. I am delighted by how many people supported us to develop these recommendations, with the programme team speaking to over 2,000 people from across Wales. We listened to people’s real lived experience, as this offered insights about where we need to focus to have the greatest impact. People told us that whilst there are pockets of good practice and strong services, too many people still have to fight for the support and adjustments to services that they need to allow them to lead an ordinary life.

The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, our long-term plan for health and social care and 'Prosperity for All' have embedded within them the need to centre our services around the person and to build the capacity of our communities to support better health and well-being. As a Government, we need to do all that we can to support people to be more included in their communities and I believe that the improving lives programme provides us with the route-map to achieve this for people with a learning disability and for their families.

The recommendations are extensive, however, I believe that the three immediate priorities are: the reduction of health inequalities, increasing community integration and improving planning and funding systems.

Evidence from a number of reports shows that the life expectancy of people with a learning disability is considerably lower than others in our population. The improving lives programme aims to reduce this inequality and prevent premature deaths. Reasonable adjustments in all healthcare settings will enable people to access appropriate services in a timely fashion. Annual health checks for people with a learning disability are important and work is currently being undertaken to explore ways in which we can increase the uptake of these. This includes developing a standardised, all-Wales, easy-read invitation letter, promoting joint working between colleagues in primary care and learning disability services to ensure that all those eligible for health checks are known to services.

In our general hospitals, we aim to increase the use of the care bundles, originally launched in 2014, following a coroner's report into the death of Paul Ridd, whose family now run the Paul Ridd Foundation—a key partner in supporting our work on health inequalities. The Paul Ridd Foundation has a full programme of hospital learning disability champions training and has ensured that wards across Wales have a resource folder to support the use of care bundles.

Our second priority is that of increasing community integration. Two weeks ago, I visited a Mencap Cymru friendship project and I was struck by the personal experiences of stigma and isolation that the children and young people told me about. They also told me how they felt that there was a difference in the aspirations society had for them and for young people as a whole. I am sure that all Members would agree that tackling the stigma that people with a learning disability and their families face must be a key priority. We need to push for the same attitudinal change we are beginning to see around mental health, by celebrating the contribution that people with a learning disability make to our communities, and using our funding streams to ensure that people achieve their aspirations.

So, some of the things we will look to do will include: working with the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to increase housing options and ensure people live closer to home, through the targeted 20,000 new homes agenda; using the £105 million, three-year integrated care fund capital programme announced last week by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to support people with a learning disability to lead independent and successful lives—I look forward to working with the regional partnership boards to achieve the best results for people with a learning disability from this boost in investment; and supporting projects for people with a learning disability through the revenue arm of the integrated care fund, to which we have again allocated £50 million in 2018-19. The scope of the fund has expanded to include regional partnership boards' priority areas for integration, including people with a leaning disability, resulting in financial backing for a wide range of projects that increase the community integration of people with a learning disability.

Finally, we all will recognise that one of the most powerful ways of ensuring that people feel integrated into their communities is ensuring that people have a route into work. With only 6 per cent of people with a learning disability in paid employment, I recognise the enormity of the challenge we face. So, I will work with the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning to explore options for people with a learning disability to access employability support, including the possibility of introducing supported paid-work placements.

Our final priority is the need to look at improving data and access to funding. Social services registers indicate that there are 15,000 people with a learning disability in Wales, but it is thought that there are many more not currently in receipt of services. As the needs of these people change, they may well require greater support. So, it is therefore proposed that we conduct research and gather data on the population of people with a learning disability in Wales to better understand their needs going forward.

We also need to make better use of existing funding through looking at how direct payments are used and reallocating health and social care funding to enable swift packages of care to be agreed, combined with the joint commissioning of services.

So, I am indebted to the support of the learning disability ministerial advisory group in delivering this report and the recommendations. I very much look forward to working with them and the chair, Mrs Gwenda Thomas, and the co-chair, Miss Sophie Hinksman, to deliver services that will indeed improve the lives of people with a learning disability in Wales. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you for your statement. As chair of cross-party groups, including on disability and autism, I endorse your statement: there are pockets of good practice, but too many people are having to fight for the support and adjustments to services they need to enable them to lead an ordinary life.

You refer to working with the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. How, alongside her, will you be looking at the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, recently considered by the cross-party group on disability, which showed that only one in 22 Welsh authorities have a percentage target for accessible and affordable homes, and also at concern raised in my own North Wales casework that there's a disconnect between the needs of individuals, particularly on the autism spectrum, to live independently with appropriate support and local authority awareness and engagement with, often, social housing providers, such as First Choice Housing Association, which are working in my region, to plan for and deliver those? Because when they get it right, it can revolutionise the quality and independence of lives.

You refer to regional partnership boards. How do you refer to the concern that I know was expressed to you by Age Alliance Wales at the beginning of this year that the third sector representatives, including in this area, on those RPBs felt sidelined? This was a view or concern also expressed to me as recently as last Friday—when I opened with the chief constable of North Wales Police the Centre of Sign-Sight-Sound in north Wales—by regional partnership board representatives who attended as guests.

You refer to ensuring that people have a route into work. What engagement have you or your colleagues had with the new regional Department for Work and Pensions community partnership teams, which have been recruited externally, primarily from the third sector? I recently met people in my area who had previously worked in an autism charity and for Remploy, delivering a 12-month project supporting vulnerable people, upskilling Jobcentre Plus staff and building bridges between the public, private and third sectors.

You referred to the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act in the report that you're making the statement about, and, of course, this places a specific duty on local authorities to promote the involvement of people in the design and delivery of care and support services. The 'Part 2 Code of Practice (General Functions)' very much emphasises that, giving people clear and unambiguous rights and responsibilities. How, therefore, do you respond to the situation, for example, currently occurring in Wrexham where changes within Wrexham adult learning and disability services to the work opportunities project in Wrexham threaten the jobs of around 100 people with learning difficulties? I'm told by a number of families that Wrexham adult services are reviewing the projects, and as part of the review, running a consultation period, but the terms of the review and consultation are misleading, because they suggest that social services are listening to what parents are saying and will take this into account before a decision is made, when the reality is the decision has already been made. The officer, they said, claimed that the review was being carried out to meet the criteria of the social services and well-being Act, but they don't see how this can be the case.

Just two final groups, if I may mention—. The National Deaf Children's Society, as you know, has highlighted concern about the continuing attainment gap for deaf learners. As they say, deafness isn't a learning difficulty, but deaf learners are being disabled by the continuing inequity in outcome. They're 26.2 per cent less likely to attain an A to C grade in English, Welsh language, maths and science, in combination, than the general school population. Of course, this has been going on now for as long as I've been in this place. And also, to their concern, although deaf children struggle to have their social care needs acknowledged and understood, and the Care and Support (Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2015 say:

'A local authority must ensure that any person carrying out an assessment...has the skills, knowledge and competence to carry out the assessment in question',

in the case of a deaf child, too often assessments are not informed by specialist knowledge of deaf children's social care needs.

Finally, in relation to the event I hosted at lunchtime today for Epilepsy Wales, I hosted their annual Supporting People with Epilepsy in Wales event, and they asked me to raise these final points. One in five people with epilepsy have a learning difficulty. Those with complex epilepsy have very common learning difficulty comorbidity, but people with complex epilepsy are not being able to access treatment or services, such as, and particularly, the keto diet, even though this is a first-line treatment recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and also recommended by NICE for children with epilepsy after unsuccessfully trying two first-line drugs. They raise concern about awareness and support services. They raise concern about mental health support services. They raise concern about further investigations when a diagnosis is not obvious, including the need for genetic tests, which, too often, as we heard from the people present, were not being offered. 

I'll conclude on that point. I could, unfortunately, as you can imagine, go on all day on this subject, but I hope that you will give real consideration to these concerns, every one of which has been raised with me by non-politicians without party political interests.

Thank you very much, Mark. I think there may have been about seven or eight points there, so I'm going to try, if I can, to deal with them as quickly as I possibly can. First, in terms of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report, which made some recommendations against themes such as more accessible and adaptable homes, installation of home adaptations, matching people to the right people who need them, and supporting people who live independently, well it very much falls within the work streams that we've now identified within this independent living programme and the ministerial group as well. So, we will work within that to make it quicker and easier for people to secure helpful adaptations when they need them, to improve access to building the facilities.

We're also currently collecting data to help us understand how we can streamline this process further. So, we will carefully consider the recommendations in that report, and it'll help us inform our ongoing work, with the local authorities, I have to say, as well, and with wider partners, to improve access to suitable homes. In terms of engagement with the DWP community partnership teams, I will indeed make sure that we have that ongoing engagement with them. It's important to have joined-up work across different streams of Government, both devolved and non-devolved.

In respect of Wrexham adult services, I'm sure they'll have heard the point that he's made today, but, if he wants to write to me with any further information, I will be happy to ask my officials to enquire about anything that he's raising.

I recently attended the deafness and hearing loss CPG, where some of these issues were raised, and I took them up immediately with my officials. It is important that appropriate assessment by local authorities is conducted and the right specialist services are provided. 

On the points raised around epilepsy, I'll certainly take those back. I'm sure my colleague Vaughan Gething, the Cabinet Secretary for health, will have been listening as well, and I'll take those back to him so that we can discuss those further.

In respect of regional partnership boards, Mark, you're absolutely right. The point has been raised about the meaningful engagement at those. In fact, there is some really good practice and, in fact, one of the regional partnership boards is chaired very ably by a third sector partner, representing the wide umbrella reach of those third sector organisations, and, in some, it's really working very well; in others, it's an evolving feast, because the RPBs are relatively recent. But I have indeed, and in fact I'm on a tranche of going around the regional partnership boards at the moment, and it's one of the things that I'll be stressing to them as I go around, the meaningful engagement with social value, with third sector organisations—both in delivery, but also at a strategic level. I think that has covered all the points, but, if I've missed any, I'll happily chat to you afterwards as well.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? Yes, indeed, the improving lives programme for those who have learning disabilities—and, of course, from that title, and from my personal experience over the years, there is a genuine need to improve the lives of those who have learning disabilities. If truth be told, these people have been forgotten. Perhaps I should state now that I have been a trustee with Swansea People First—the organisation for people with learning disabilities—for almost 20 years now. We have extensive experience locally of the co-ordination that we need with health services, and care services as well. But, first of all, I note the excellent work that the voluntary sector does in this area. Swansea People First, of course, and similar organisations in Wales as a whole, give excellent support to our people. But there is a significant challenge—there's never enough resource, we're losing services, issues are always at crisis point, the system is always under pressure, and the support staff are always changing because they lose their jobs or they're on short-term contracts.

And, of course, in how Swansea People First is run, we have meetings as a management board that include people with learning disabilities themselves. They're on the management board too and we produce minutes and so on in language that everyone can understand, with images and so on. We need more of that kind of collaboration and provision of information. The City and County of Swansea council are part of this very often, and, when they can, in a system that is also under pressure, they do excellent work.

I welcome the intention for the different sectors to collaborate, because there is a genuine need for the different sectors to collaborate, especially in times of austerity, as we're facing at present, and where budgets are very scarce. But, in acknowledging the need to collaborate, people do need to be able to work in the first place—that is, that we have enough staff, especially in terms of community nurses in the care sector. It's those specialist nurses that we need, who can provide the care for those with learning disabilities and sometimes very complex needs. We've seen, over the past years, a decline in the number of specialist nurses, especially those working in the community and in our social services. So, that's a challenge, and I would ask the Minister to outline what he's going to do about that challenge. I'm sure that there is a great deal of work happening behind the scenes. In terms of the statement this afternoon, we can't see all of the details, but it's fair to note that there are concerns about staffing levels.

There are also concerns with regard to the need to fund long-term projects. I'm aware that Swansea People First have bid for different projects over the years, and they are excellent projects, they're funded for a certain period of time, then the funding runs out, the project comes to an end, we lose the staff, we need to come up with a new idea for a project, and we need to bid for further funding. All of this sucks the energy from a system that's already facing more than enough pressure.

My final point—as well as all of this collaboration, people with learning disabilities need employment; they need careers. Only 6 per cent of adults with learning disabilities are in employment. Being in employment is one of the most important things that any individual can face. It defines us as an individual, and we're disenfranchising our people who have learning disabilities from having that hope. I hear what you say about the need to fund projects that do support people in work placements and in work experience, but we need to be much more proactive. I think we need to have a purposeful system to ensure that people with learning disabilities are in employment in the first instance, and to make that a priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Dai.

Some important points there. First of all, thanks to you and others who do work with organisations that represent people with learning disabilities—your role with Swansea People First. But there are many others throughout the land, actually, that do tremendous work as well, and you rightly paid credit there to all the volunteers and the charitable sector, the third sector, who make this possible.

You raised the important point there about how we make this sustainable. I don't think it's looking for individual pots of funding so much, although there has been some good work done under the ICF funding. So, for example, when you mentioned there the issue of nursing, one of the things that the ICF funding—. One good example—and, in fact, the report draws out some of these good examples—is in north Wales, where there was ICF revenue funding that went to what was called the Diana service in Wrexham. This provided additional nursing support for children with complex medical conditions, keeping them at home in their community. Twenty-one children received this service in 2017-18. There were others in Gwent and west Wales that I can draw attention to.

But, actually, the ICF funding, of course, is there to pilot and innovate, and then to say to those areas, in line with our statutory commitments, 'If it works, if it looks good, then take them up there and make them part of your core business.' That should be whether or not it's in the statutory sector, quite frankly. So, if there is support that is needed to make the right interventions that change the lives of people with learning disabilities and it's proven, then we would be looking, in the wider taking forward of the long-term plan on health and social care as well, to make sure that that works, that we draw in those sorts of avenues of funding as well.

Dai, you mentioned the issue of careers, as I referred to in my statement as well. There are a couple of things here. One is actually challenging the stigma and the misconceptions around here. Because people with learning disabilities have much to contribute, actually, in the workplace, and that's what we need to say right up front. But then, I think there are ways—and I mentioned one of them, possibly, here, the discussions that I can have with the Minister for Welsh language and skills, exploring things such as paid supported placements. I think the evidence shows that, once an individual has their foot in the door, it leads then to long-term paid employment. So, we do need to deal with that.

But it is the right challenge, and I think, on all these matters—the ones that have been raised here today but also in going forward—the ministerial advisory group and I would be keen to hear suggestions of the way forward, whether it is in terms of sustainability or actual work streams that build on the 27 actions identified within this report. Because this is going to be not an overnight fix—this is a journey of improvement, improvement, improvement.      

Thank you. We are over half way through the statement and we've had two questions. I'll grant you from spokespeople, but if we can make some progress—. Michelle Brown. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you also for your statement, Minister. I'd also like to thank the Paul Ridd Foundation for their valuable work in helping to produce the report. As you say in your statement, the report's three immediate priorities are health inequalities, community integration, and improving planning and funding systems. The report's first priority, or at least it's the one that appears first on the document, is to address the health inequalities suffered by people with learning disabilities, and rightly so.

Testicular cancer sufferers who also have learning disabilities have a one in 10 chance of dying as compared with a one in 36 chance in the general population. In the most recent year for which we have figures, 75 per cent of people with learning disabilities eligible for colorectal cancer screening had the test, compared with 80 per cent of those eligible people without learning disabilities. Corresponding figures for breast cancer screening were 51 per cent and 67 per cent, and, for uterine cervical cancer screening, 30 per cent and 76 per cent. It's ironic, to say the least, that some of the most vulnerable people in our society are still being let down by the healthcare, social and education systems, after 70 years or so of state education and the NHS.

You've made some general statements about the ways that health inequalities will be reduced, but they are not very detailed. In England, in 2013, a report was produced by Bristol University that made 18 detailed recommendations aimed at reducing premature deaths of those with learning disabilities, and the Government responded later that year. Again, in England, objectives have been set since 2014 for the NHS there to close the health gap between people with mental health problems, learning disabilities and autism, and the population as a whole. Again, NHS England also published a national action plan to develop community services and close in-patient facilities for people with a learning disability and/or autism. I could go on, but I won't. 

Now, no doubt the opposition parties at Westminster have their own views about how effective all that work has been, but the fact remains that the work is still being done across the border. So I'd like to ask: to what extent are you using the information gathered from those studies, and the work being conducted over in England, to inform the work that you're doing here? Have the Welsh Government measured any impact of the approach that the English NHS and the Government responsible for it are taking? Have you looked at that research, have you looked at the reports that have been produced, have you looked at the action plan, and what's your view? Are you learning from it for Wales? The Westminster Government has been looking at this in detail in England, so I wonder why it's taking your Government so long to catch up.

If implemented, your report is likely to make a positive impact, and don't get me wrong, I really do welcome your report. I think it's a good report and I think it's a very good first step. But you do admit that there is no new money to implement it, and the existing budget is under strain. So, what assurances can you give us that what you say you want to do will actually be done and will continue for years to come? Will the money and the funding be there in the future to support it? The people whose lives are affected by learning disabilities deserve to know that they're high upon your list of priorities. So, if there are problems with budgets in the future, which areas of spending will be cut before these proposals are put at risk?

What detailed plans are there to increase the screening and take-up rates in Wales and the other inequalities suffered by people with learning disabilities in the health system? Now, I know the healthcare system isn't in your portfolio, Minister, but the welfare of people with learning disabilities is. What happens to people with learning disabilities in the healthcare system is intrinsic to their overall welfare. So, I'd be very interested to hear what work you're doing with the Cabinet Secretary for health to co-ordinate your activities to work together to improve the chances and reduce the health inequalities that people with learning disabilities are suffering.

The recommendations in the report itself are very laudable, but without knowing who has a learning disability and therefore needs the help, you're at a bit of a loss to help those people. There are a great number of people who haven't been identified, and you've acknowledged that yourself in your report and in the statement. I am very pleased to see that you're actually looking at ways that you can gather the data so that you're better informed in the future. What specific research will you be conducting, though, to gather that data, and how will you actually go out and gather that data? Which sources are you looking at using? Or are your plans in such a prototype phase that you aren't going to be able to tell me that? Finally, what plans have you and the Cabinet Secretary for health put in place, will you be publishing your own action plan to achieve the objectives of the report and, if so, when? Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle. I'm not going to cause you any anger, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'll try and be very, very quick, but there were about seven questions in that as well. Can I go to the core ones here—

You don't have to answer them all.

I'm not going to. Otherwise I would be here—. But I'm going to try and address the key ones.

First of all, in terms of learning the lessons from England or elsewhere, we definitely do that. The LeDeR report that came out looking at issues around the mortality review for people with learning disabilities—we're very aware of that. So, the recently agreed improving lives work actually has very clear recommendations aimed at reducing those health inequalities for people with learning disabilities, and in fact it's been very much informed not only by the stakeholders, but by the Paul Ridd Foundation as well. So, we have a national steering group improving health outcomes for people with learning disabilities, and the remit of this group is to plan and oversee ways in which a national approach to reducing those health inequalities can be taken—for example, by promoting the use of care bundles for people when they go into hospital. As I say, this work within the NHS—and I hope that deals with your point about the work that Vaughan Gething the Cabinet Secretary and I do together on this—is supported by the work of the Paul Ridd Foundation, where brother and sister Jonathan Ridd and Jayne Nicholls have both recently been awarded, in tribute of their work, the British empire medal in recognition of their work to improve care standards for people with learning disabilities.

The other substantive point that you raise, Michelle—there were many—is the issue of the annual health checks. We're aware that the uptake of the annual health check for people with learning disabilities indeed can be improved and must be improved. So, we have indeed established a national steering group to oversee the development of work in relation to these annual health checks and other health issues for people with learning disabilities. Officials from across departments across Government are working with Public Health Wales to develop a health action plan for people with learning disabilities and annual health checks. And on the other points that you raised, I'm happy to write to you, because of the strictures imposed quite rightly on this debate by the Dirprwy Lywydd. Diolch.

It's great that you managed to speak to 2,000 people, but, as you remark in your statement, whilst there are pockets of good practice, too many people have to fight for the support and adjustments to services they need to enable them to live an ordinary life. Inclusion is very much at the beginning of its journey. It was great to see yesterday, at the Jo Cox awards, that the person who won the tackling loneliness award was a mother of an autistic boy who wanted to take part in organised football. She knew that he would never thrive in a mainstream scenario, and now this has become a mainstream football academy used by huge numbers of families with autistic children, with support from Swansea City, who provide a disability coach. This is, obviously, something to celebrate, and well done to Andrea Smith.

Last week I visited Autistic Spectrum Connections Cymru, which is based on High Street in Cardiff city centre and provides a service to people on the autistic spectrum from across south-east Wales. I really would just like to celebrate the work that they're doing. Whilst I was there, I met people taking part in the creative writing group, some of whose work was definitely of Booker award quality. One of the people there told me that he only went out on one day a week because he had other health complications, but this was his one social event of the week. I also met people who were setting up a social enterprise catering business because they say there's no reason why people with disabilities can't be paid the rate for the job, rather than being expected to work as volunteers—you know, fantastic.

I also met an Oxbridge graduate who is advising employers and employees about the reasonable expectations that both sides have to make to ensure that they make a success of the employment contract, and keeping people with disabilities in jobs, just ironing out misunderstandings that could otherwise lead to them being dismissed. Because we have to remember that some of the most brilliant people are on the autistic spectrum. Saga Norén, the detective in The Bridge, demonstrates that. It means that they are, in some respects, better able to do the job than people who don't have autism.

So, there's a lot to celebrate. I'm sure that the programme's going to be in good hands with Gwenda Thomas, because I know that she appreciates the social model of disability rather than the medical model, which I think is extremely important. My question to you is: how are you going to ensure that people with disabilities are not under-represented in screening programmes like cervical, breast and bowel screening? Because if they've got a learning difficulty, they may neither understand the letter that comes through nor understand the importance of screening to ensure that they avoid having serious diseases.

Thank you, Jenny, very much. I also recognise the work of that organisation, Autistic Spectrum Connections Cymru, and others. The issue that you raised is that this needs to be a life-course approach—it's those wide areas outside of viewing it through a medical-only spectrum. It's very much that social model. This is a new way of working, and it's the way of working that has been put forward by stakeholders out there—people with learning disabilities, by carers and others who've said, 'This is the way that we actually need to take forward this programme of work, not putting things in silos.' It's very much the social model.

I think the comments you make on making sure that there's a wide variety of views will have been heard not only by me, but also by Gwenda Thomas as well and also Sophie Hinksman, the co-chair, in taking this forward. It's worth saying that there are now identified policy leads for each of the 26 recommendations within this. There's a commitment to work with representatives from the learning disability community on those 26 recommendations, along with their carers and with other stakeholders, to drive delivery.

The best ways that these ministerial advisory groups have worked is when they are tight and they are focused and they're targeted on the priorities and on the work streams, but they also reach out and engage wider as well. I'm sure that this is the way that Gwenda and Sophie will want to take forward this ministerial advisory group. The good thing, in closing, would be to say that it's at that stage where there is still opportunity for Assembly Members here to input their thoughts on the recommendations and how this group will evolve. Gwenda is now new in the chair, they'll be meeting shortly, they'll be up and running, but they will be listening as well on the way to take this forward.

I welcome this report and I welcome the philosophy behind it. It does remind me of the all-Wales mental handicap strategy that was introduced here in Wales in 1983, which at its time was seen as being very visionary, and I know that is referred to in this report. I was involved in some work with that strategy. So, I wondered if you could tell us if you see a legacy in Wales of that strategy, which was acclaimed at the time. I'd like to be reassured that we're not beginning again, because that was a stress on—you know, the philosophy that was behind that, I think, is very much the same as the philosophy that's here now. So, that's one question. 

The other question is: I wondered if we had many or any adults with learning disabilities who are placed outside Wales and whether you are able to give an estimate of the cost of that and whether there's any chance of bringing them back to Wales.

Finally, in terms of the health inequalities, I was staggered to read in one of the English reports that the overall life expectancy of people with learning disabilities lagged far behind: 23 years for men and 29 years for women, which I think is an absolutely staggering figure. I wondered whether we had any Welsh-based research that's indicated whether that was a similar figure for Wales. I think you've already answered about how you're going to tackle health inequalities, but could you comment on those figures?

Thank you, Julie, very much. The prime legacy of that earlier strategy is indeed the philosophy of this in taking it forward. So, it is cross cutting, it is very much driven by stakeholders, it is very much that lived experience approach rather than a top-down Government-driven one that says, 'Here are the easy answers'. That philosophy of working, and in taking forward the work streams on the recommendations, is what is probably the greatest guarantee that this will be well focused, well targeted and will deliver the right results. 

In terms of the adults with learning disabilities outside Wales, I don't have a precise figure to hand, but I know you'll be interested to know that what we are developing at the moment is some more, I would suggest, progressive thinking about how we can develop the models, including bespoke support that will allow us to not rely simply on out-of-county, and out-of-Wales when it does happen, and to make sure that adults with learning disabilities are actually placed within the communities, within the support structures that they know. We have some innovative work going on at the moment within Government and with stakeholders to try and develop those models that are a different thinking on the way forward on this. 

You asked for details on the actual numbers within Wales. Now, I don't have those to hand. I have the UK figures to hand, but not the Wales-only figures. What I can say is that we do now have, as one of the areas of priority, a national steering group improving health outcomes for people with learning disabilities, and this has a couple of sub-groups that are looking at these specific areas. So, I think, as the group evolves, I'm sure I'll be able to come back to the Senedd and update people on what we're identifying in terms of numbers, but also what we're identifying in terms of solutions for that going forward. But I think this is something that we're very hopeful that the group will actually focus on.

Finally, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Perhaps I can just start by saying, of course, that autism itself is not a learning disability. I think that's perhaps something we should make plain in the Chamber. Autism Spectrum Connection Cymru's one-stop shop that we've been speaking about, as far as I understand, is being forced to close because it's lost its funding. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at that, please, Minister.

My one question was about the cross-Government review of learning disability policy, and I'd be grateful if you could tell us something about how you've consulted with the culture Minister, in particular. I'm thinking in particular of Hijinx Theatre company which, of course, has performers with all kinds of abilities, and perhaps you didn't realise that they'd been taken on by Cardiff Airport in order to help their staff with their communication strategy. So, it's not just a case of actors of this nature going into businesses and raising awareness, but they're actually doing good work in helping Cardiff Airport, in this case, to improve their communications. Thank you.

Thank you very much. On the specific of Hijinx, I can't comment directly on that one, clearly, but there is an expectation that in delivering this the statutory obligation that we place on providers, but also those who have funding at their fingertips, is that they actually use it to deliver these outcomes that we are focused on. And, yes, in terms of bringing this forward, it's not only been the wide involvement with over 2,000 stakeholders, but also right across Government as well. That defines this programme, so including with the Minister for culture—the contribution is right across Government. I think that has to also characterise the taking forward of this work as well, as the recommendations are taken forward and the ministerial group comes back and says, 'This is where you now need to target your priorities, your funding outcomes and so on.' It has to be across Government.   

Thank you very much, Minister. 

Item 6 is a debate on Brexit and the fishing industry, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm pleased to lead this debate today on what is a very important issue for the people of Wales and, in particular, for our coastal towns and communities as we leave the European Union. 

Our coast and seas are an incredible natural asset contributing millions to the economy of Wales, supporting thousands of jobs and have a rich heritage and culture. The gross value added generated by the marine sector in Wales in 2014 alone was around £370 million. Over 60 per cent of the Welsh population lives near our shores, with all our major cities and many important towns located on the coast. 

Shortly after the referendum, I assembled a round-table group of representative stakeholders to seek their help to identify and understand the potential challenges and opportunities Brexit presents for Wales. The seas and coast sub-group formed from members of my round-table and the existing Welsh marine advice and action group have helped to provide a focus on our consideration of Brexit and our seas. Members have worked with Government to shape five key themes to work towards as we leave the European Union. This will guide further policy development and contribute to achieving our shared vision of productive, healthy and biologically diverse seas.

I've made arrangements for these to be circulated to Members today, and the themes include: planning to make the best use of our seas, which includes delivering the marine plan; provide effective stewardship of our marine environment and natural resources, including our contribution to a network of marine protected areas; continue to be responsible partners in the UK, including working closely with our partners across the UK in terms of science and enforcement, and we will work with those with whom we share a sea area; secure a fairer deal for the fishing industry, including rebalancing the UK share of fish quota and grow opportunities in domestic and overseas markets; and standing on our own two feet by enhancing our marine science and data collection capability, and reviewing our fisheries legislation to embed sustainable management of natural resources principles, and make sure it's fit for purpose. I ask Members to consider these themes as part of the debate today. 

Leaving the European Union presents an opportunity for a Welsh fisheries policy with the best interests of Welsh coastal communities and fisheries at its heart. To fully understand these opportunities, I commissioned the Wales Centre for Public Policy to provide independent insight on the implication for fisheries policy in Wales following Brexit. I wish to thank the WCPP for their work, and I'm pleased to bring this report to the Assembly today.

I hope Members note the significant and distinct challenges facing the industry. As outlined in the Welsh Government's White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future', the Welsh fishing industry deserves a fairer share of fishing opportunities in the future. I believe it's important that the Welsh fleet has a prosperous and sustainable business model to encourage investment and attract future generations into the industry. Fishing opportunities for the fleet are currently managed through a mixture of Welsh legislation and the common fisheries policy. These set the total amount of fish available and establish the rules for managing fish stocks that spend part of their time in our waters. However, the CFP is heavily skewed towards more industrial-scale fishing, and my approach in annual negotiations is to ensure that the small-scale sector obtains a fairer deal.

Some commentators talk about a Brexit bonanza of fish returning to the Welsh fleet. The CFP has not served UK vessels well in terms of the share of the fish. The WCPP report confirms that Wales's share is only a fraction of the UK share. Any additional fish will need to be negotiated stock by stock and that will take time. Any additional fish realised through these negotiations are a public good, not a commercial asset to be bought and sold. It should be available to rebalance fishing opportunities.

The nature of fishing in the four parts of the UK is different in scale and the species they target. We have a long history of working together to manage our respective fleets and the mobile fish species. In Wales, for historic reasons, the fleet is primarily small under-10 m vessels. The fishing industry is reliant on non-quota shellfish species, such as crab, lobsters and whelks, around 90 per cent of which is exported to the EU or other countries via EU trade deals. Most of our shellfish is exported as live or fresh products. This means that timing is critical. You can imagine the difficulties exporters will face if this shellfish is held up in UK or EU ports due to non-tariff barriers.

It is clear that any future policy can only succeed if we maintain full unfettered access to the EU market for our existing fisheries products. Both the WCPP report and our stakeholder groups were clear on this. I continue to push hard for this at meetings with my counterparts at Whitehall to get the best deal for Wales as the trade negotiations develop, and I hope the Assembly can support our attempts in this area also.

Thank you for giving way. Just on the general picture that she just portrayed, she's talked about the shellfish industry, which, of course, is not dependent on quotas, and earlier she talked about quotas and the potential for releasing new stock, which we'd assume would be done on a sustainable basis, and she said that such quotas should be for the public good. Does that mean that she envisages Welsh fishing policy going forward to be based on quotas based on environmental sustainability principles but not based on buying and selling?

I just mentioned the additional fish being a public good, so I think it's very much open to discussion and negotiations, and that's something we'll be taking forward.

The First Minister has recently announced funding to help the fisheries and aquaculture sectors prepare, including funding for the research and tactical analysis for EU exit. I want to be very clear: I expect a fairer deal for Wales as part of any future fisheries agreement. I am unhappy with the current quota system and the way it's managed, and I believe that any new system will need to provide a community good and any future fishing opportunities should address historical inequalities.

I expect the UK Government approach to Brexit should be done in a responsible way. I will also push for devolution equivalent to Scotland by gaining full legislative competence for fisheries in the Welsh zone. Welsh Government is responsible for managing fishing in that area but is not able to make primary legislation. It makes no sense to have an artificial line in the sea that prevents us from making consistent legislation for our sea area. There is a need for all parts of the UK to work together in some policy areas in the future—the so-called UK frameworks. The agreement reached by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the inter-governmental agreement recognises this and protects devolution as we exit the EU.

Fisheries management is one of the 24 areas identified where powers returning from the EU fall within our devolved competence and where common UK frameworks are likely to be needed. We are working closely with the rest of the UK to identify what this framework will look like, which parts require legislation, what we want to do together and what we want to do ourselves. Alongside this, we are working hard to prepare the industry for day 1 readiness, and we'll work to reduce any impact on businesses following the UK leaving the EU.

Fisheries are heavily regulated. Over 90 directly applicable EU regulations covering hundreds of pages of legislation have been identified as needing amendment to make it operable. This is a mammoth task, and we are working closely with the rest of the UK to ensure the legislation work post exit, and also devolution, is protected. We're also well advanced in our preparations to amend our domestic legislation. Having a working legislative framework for our seas post exit is of vital importance, and I very much look forward to Members' contributions.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 1 and 3, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, I'm very pleased that the Government has brought forward this debate today, and I find it difficult to disagree with many of the things that the Cabinet Secretary has said. I was particularly pleased to hear her say, in the course of her speech, that she will concentrate on getting a fairer deal for small-scale fishers and a fairer deal for Wales. That's what we all want in this Assembly, I'm sure. I also agree with her in her unhappiness with quotas, and I also approve of her intention to deal with historical inequalities. Unfortunately, we will not be supporting the motion today, but that's only because of one word in it. Because it says in paragraph 2 that it recognises the distinct challenges of Brexit without making any reference to the opportunities.

Now, I know that the Cabinet Secretary is one of the more open-minded of Ministers and frequently makes speeches drawing attention to the opportunities that Brexit brings, particularly to the fishing industry. There are few industries in Britain that have been more adversely affected by our EU membership over the last half century than fishing, and it's vitally important, therefore, that Brexit is capitalised upon in order to revive our coastal fishing ports and surrounding areas, and to revive the British fishing industry, including, of course, the Welsh fishing industry.

I'm pleased, in reading the report that was commissioned by the Cabinet Secretary, to see that it does actually refer there quite explicitly on page 8 to the fact that the common fisheries policy was cobbled together back in 1973 within hours of Britain's application, along with those of Ireland and Norway, to join the European Union. There was no common fisheries policy in the EU before our application to join, and this was a last-minute addition to the EU, designed purely and simply to enable other EU countries to plunder our waters in the North sea and elsewhere. And in doing so, over the last 40 years, they've utterly devastated the fishing industry of this country and the towns and villages that depend upon it.

Ninety per cent of the EU fish stocks, including the applicant countries in 1973, were in the waters of those applicants, and 80 per cent of the fish were actually in UK waters. This was an act of political piracy by the then common market, as it was called, on a grand scale. But that's all history, and now we have the opportunity to reverse the process. We've lived through the most appalling times in the last few decades of industrial fishing, and I was very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary, in the course of her speech, also referred to her intention to avoid that being repeated in Welsh waters.

Fishing is a very small industry—it's only 0.05 per cent of the UK gross domestic product—and, to that extent, it is in danger of being traded away as part of the Brexit process as well as the process that brought us into the EU in the first place. It's vitally important, therefore, that the UK Government does not sell British fishing industry down the river yet again as part of the process of negotiating our withdrawal, because it is possible that the Government will say that full access to British waters will be the price to be paid for some kind of a free trade deal, or another sort of deal, that is in the process of being cobbled together. The EU has played hardball throughout this whole process because their negotiation is not designed to improve the economic well-being of the peoples of Europe but is designed to keep tottering on with their failed federalist political project.

Now, Wales, of course, does have markedly different interests in fishing from other parts of the UK, not least because of the importance of shellfish fishing, as Simon Thomas frequently points out in his contributions to these debates, but we do have the opportunity in Wales to develop the industry in other ways as well. It isn't good for any industry to be over-dependent on particular forms of production, and diversification is an important part, therefore, of the opportunities that lie before us—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Do you not accept, though, that with the agricultural produce and with the fish produce that we have within Wales, if we don't have absolutely unrestricted access to the European market where most of it goes, most of it will become adulterated, that market will actually be lost and the only people who will benefit will probably be the Welsh population who'll be forced to eat lobster every week?

Well, Pembrokeshire lobster is extremely palatable, I can tell you. But, yes, I realise that the industry is very dependent upon exports, but there's a massive opportunity for us here, because we have a massive imbalance in our trade in foodstuffs with the EU and if tariffs are idiotically imposed by the EU—not because the British Government won't be interested in doing so—then, we have huge opportunities for import substitution and changing, perhaps, the tastes of the British public to take advantage of the opportunities that will arrive.

Sadly, I haven't time to go into all the complicated arguments of trade imbalances, which I'm sure there'll be other opportunities to go into, but it is important to recognise that this gives us huge opportunities, also, to remedy the environmental disaster that has befallen the British fishing industry over the last 40 years, and I welcome the intention of the Welsh Government to play its full part in that process.

I call on David Melding to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move the amendment. Can I congratulate Neil Hamilton on the sensitivity of his speech in emphasising that environmental concerns must override the free market? I'm sure that many of us have thought that a very, very, very important principle. Hurrah, UKIP now embrace it also.

This is a very important debate and we don't talk enough about it in the Chamber, so I'm really pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has brought it forward. I have to say, points 1 to 3 of the motion, I have no difficulty with, but the fourth one does cause problems. I have read this excellent report, 'The Implications of Brexit for Fishing Opportunities in Wales'—'opportunities'—and recognise the challenges and, in fairness, the opportunities, as Neil Hamilton has outlined, that the Brexit process brings the Welsh fishing industry and the marine environment. These are very important considerations for us to contemplate.

Brexit is an opportunity for Wales to build upon the progress made by the EU common fisheries policy and to create a more tailored and environmentally ambitious regime for Welsh fisheries management after Brexit. We also support the work of the seas and coast round-table sub-group and welcome the themes that they have put forward.

Point 4, as I've hinted, wasn't as straightforward for us, because the only way that a country is going to get full and unfettered access to the EU single market is with the acceptance of the pre-conditions such as the freedom of movement of people, goods and services. The EU has made it clear that there won't be unfettered single market access for any country that doesn't commit to these principles, as they see them, and this is a reality, indeed, that Jeremy Corbyn has publicly conceded. We should be aiming to get the greatest possible access to the single market, through negotiations with the EU in the form of a comprehensive free trade agreement, as is the one that the UK Government is currently working to achieve.

In the meantime, to ensure that we do make the best use of our seas and to ensure that we can stand on our own two feet, we need to develop an effective and sustainable policy that is appropriate for UK waters, and that respects the devolution settlement, but this will require a process based on consultation and evidence, and, again, I welcome the progress that's been made to date.

We know that the UK Government is going to bring forward a domestic fisheries Bill, which is still being consulted on, I believe, and is currently somewhat delayed due to certain difficulties between the UK and Scottish Governments. I sense that the Welsh Government is being more constructive at this stage. But I do urge them to be a strong voice, and you will certainly get our support in arguing the best case for Wales.

The nature and composition of the fishing industry varies significantly across the UK, as has already been referred to, and there's a need to recognise this in the development of UK-wide fisheries legislation and policy. I won't labour the point about our reliance on shellfish and the small size of our fleet and the smaller size of the actual boats. These are important differences. So, this does go to show that the needs of the Welsh fishing industry are different from the industry broadly across the UK. The Welsh Government needs to really be aware of this in the post-Brexit fishery arrangements and the frameworks that are now going to come forward as a result of the EU withdrawal Bill negotiations. 

We've also heard that fish are a common resource and should be managed for the public benefit. There's no other way. They can spawn in one area, feed in another and migrate extensively. This is a very, very important common resource to be managed effectively, and the results of overfishing are all too common and alarming. So, we do need to look at managing a shared common resource like the marine environment and fishing stocks.

For the future, I hope that the Government will take an industry-led approach on this matter for Wales, because I do feel that, for too long, their voices haven't been listened to effectively. I do acknowledge the frustration that was very powerfully expressed by Neil in his contribution in this respect. The research presented to us in the climate committee as part of our inquiry into fisheries post Brexit has told how the examples of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands have shown that collaborative relations between Government, local authorities and the industry are vital for a thriving fisheries industry. So, we need to build on these sorts of approaches. Can I say, Llywydd, that, in approaching it this way, based on evidence and with clear Welsh need at its heart, the Government can expect to have our policy support when they're acting in the best interests of Wales? Thank you. 

I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I move the amendments, and I’m very pleased to contribute to this debate. It is about time that fisheries had a full airing; it's the first debate for some time in the Assembly. I also welcome the new report prepared by the Wales Centre for Public Policy that underpins this debate this afternoon.

As has already been noted, fisheries are a relatively small sector in the Welsh economy, but they are an important part of the livelihood of Welsh coastal communities. One need only visit Porth Meudwy on a summer’s day to see the lobster fisherman who also works with sheep on the Llŷn peninsula to see land and sea coming together. That’s the kind of sustainable livelihood we want to see reflected as we draw up a new fisheries policy.

Although quotas and the way that quotas were dealt with under the common fisheries policy have taken a great deal of attention over the past few years in discussing exiting the European Union, and although I am quite happy to say, and have said in the past, that I wasn’t a fan of the EU CFP, the fact is, when you look at Wales, that 92 per cent of Welsh fisheries' output comes from non-quota fisheries. Of course, we are talking particularly there about shellfish.

It’s also true to say that before we had the powers, 88 per cent of Welsh fishing quotas were sold to Spanish businesses, not by the European Union, but by the UK Government. They approved that. Now, of course, we have greater control over our own quotas, but only 10 per cent of the Welsh quota is caught in Welsh waters at the moment. So, there’s quite some way to go to retake ownership of that area, and we have to do that in a way that is sustainable environmentally, and which also recognises the habitat and the relationship between land and sea.

Just to give you an example of how important this is: as we look at a few communities, we still export £5 million-worth of whelks abroad, but they don’t go to the European Union, they go to Korea. If you've visited the fish processing plant in Newquay, you’ll have seen the effect of that industry, but you will also know that it is reliant on agreements that the EU has beyond the member states, and that’s a market that can be very important to some communities too.

In that context, I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider putting a moratorium on any sale of quota outwith Wales until the situation is clearer, as we discuss these new contracts. That’s why I was so eager to understand whether the Government had a new policy that any new quotas in terms of fish that return, as it were, would be in terms of buying and selling or on the basis of a quota that was based on the environment alone. Because, in my view, the Welsh Government must hold that fishing quota for ensuing years, until we see clearly what the environmental impact is, who can fish our fishing grounds, and what kind of fisheries trade agreement we will have.

We will need access to fisheries beyond Welsh waters. Only 20 per cent of Welsh quota species are landed here in Welsh ports—I know that the climate change committee will be visiting Milford Haven very soon—and 73 per cent of Welsh quota species are landed in other ports within the EU. We can’t, and we don’t have the resources to change that fundamentally over the next few years. So, international negotiations are going to be extremely important but, in the meantime, I would appeal to the Cabinet Secretary to consider placing a moratorium on any further sale of quota.

The second part of the debate that is important to us is that there are sufficient resources to deliver this. I visited, along with Rhun ap Iorwerth, the Prince Madog, which is a research vessel that we have in Wales, run by Bangor University. Clearly, we need more investment in that area. I think the Cabinet Secretary recognised in the Finance Committee last week that we need more investment in this area. We don’t understand enough about our own seas: where the fish are, what their habitats are, and how we can sustain these habitats. So, we need to invest in the research as well as the safeguarding and policing elements of any fishing as we proceed.

And the final point in our amendments—[Interruption.] Okay, I think there may be time.

I just want to very much endorse the comments you've just made. I visited the school of oceanic sciences in Bangor last year. They spoke to me about the Prince Madog. Of course, it is in dual ownership, and I raised it with the Welsh Government. They represented that as a reason not to intervene, rather than a mechanism they need to follow to ensure this ship continues, but I fully endorse you: this ship must continue its great work.

I’m sure that Rhun, in a short debate soon, will be discussing the future of that particular vessel. But I accept your point, of course.

If I could just conclude: in the current context, it is very important that we fight for a non-tariff approach for Welsh fisheries. I will just close by quoting James Wilson who is responsible for Bangor Mussel Producers—I’m sure that some of you will have tasted them on the banks of the Menai—and he described his business in these terms:

'There’s a wagon waiting on the quayside when we land. We take the mussels off the boat and they’re put in the wagon, the wagon drives away. And then it's a 26 to 18-hour transit time from north Wales to northern France or the south of Holland. If they order from me on a Monday, then they expect the wagon to arrive on a Tuesday because they want to...sell them on a Wednesday. It’s that seamless. Anything that introduces delay or uncertainty or whatever you call it in that process becomes an issue in terms of the supply chain. That’s not just a small problem. Nobody wants to eat mussels that are gone off.'

I think there were many wild promises made by the Brexiteers. One of them was that leaving the EU would enable the UK to become an independent coastal state, which we were nearly 50 years ago, but I think that completely ignores some of the realities of life, one of which is that fish don't need passports to cross boundaries, and whatever policies are adopted by the European Union once we've left will affect the numbers of fish that are swimming in our waters, just as much as they did before.

I agree that the EU fisheries policy is not one of the most successful policies completed by the EU, and that was because politicians were always interfering with what were essential environmental and sustainability measures. So, always at the last-minute negotiations at 4.00 a.m. people would water down the proposals that had been put together by the experts. So, we are where we are for a lot of reasons, but not because we were or weren't a member of the European Union.

As Simon Thomas has already pointed out, most of the fish that is landed by Welsh fishermen is not subject to quotas at all, but, nevertheless, we need to ensure that the agreements that are reached with the European Union don't avoid or lose the trade that is already experienced by some of our Welsh ports. I understand that a third of the value of fish landed in Welsh ports comes from EU vessels, and presumably we want to continue to have the benefit of that trade. If half the boats in Milford Haven are Belgian boats, if we don't have a sensible arrangement with our European neighbours, then that will be to the detriment of those ports and the trade that brings.

But I absolutely agree with David Melding and Simon Thomas, and indeed the Cabinet Secretary, that environmental sustainability is a must-do in everything that we are doing relating to the fish because, if we don't, we simply will kill the golden goose. Obviously, it would be wonderful if more Welsh people were embracing the wonders of Welsh shellfish, which David Melding has waxed lyrical on often, and we need to remember that import substitution has got a lot of merits. Oysters used to be the main ingredient for scouse amongst poor people in the port of Liverpool. I'm afraid oysters are now a rare delicacy; so we don't want the same thing to happen to other shellfish, like mussels.

I have to raise the dreadful case of the scallop fishermen a few years ago, who were fined a derisory £50,000 for plundering Welsh scallop beds, when the catch alone was worth £400,000, in the Cardigan Bay special area of conservation. So, this remains a major issue regardless of whether we're in or out of the EU. We have to ensure that people aren't just flouting the law around maintaining the viability of our resources.

Obviously, one of the other massive issues that we face is the fact that all fish nowadays—you can see the plastic detectable in all fish, apparently, that is being landed. That, of course, is really undermining our enjoyment of fish. So, we need to have both of these policies going hand in hand: eliminating plastics from our oceans, and ensuring that people aren't over-fishing, in order to ensure that Welsh fishing people will continue to be able to earn a decent living from fishing—what is a very dangerous job, and something that we will continue to want to enjoy for the future.

I just wanted to make a contribution based on some of the evidence that was presented to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, of which I'm a member—and some of that evidence as recently as yesterday—and to ask Welsh Government how it views this alongside the Wales Centre for Public Policy report. Can I begin by saying, though, that I think this must be one of the first—if not the first—Welsh Government Brexit debate that includes the word 'opportunities', which is a positive word, albeit in the title of the report that has prompted it? At last, I think we seem to have reached a place where we can start talking about opportunities to be won from a sensible Brexit, after years of doom and gloom being the only tradable commodities in this Chamber.

Now, I think we need to start concentrating and start planning for carving out some opportunities, looking for the fact—and allowing for the fact, of course—that we don't know where we might find them at this point in the negotiations. Because whether you view this as the crumbs and the ashes or the gold that paves the streets, I don't particularly care; I just want us to start doing it, and to recognise that free trade with the EU and free trade with the rest of the planet is not a binary choice, and to support the Prime Minister in her attempts to get the best of both. Because we can't eat principles, and intransigence will not slake our thirst, and we can leave the European Union with a comprehensive free-trade agreement and a pragmatic menu that won't please the ultra-carnivores, won't please the ultra-vegans, but can still keep both parties at the table, healthy, well-fed and free to eat at other tables.

Now, the freeing up of the UK fishing fleet is absolutely one of those opportunities, and, acknowledging dissatisfaction with quotas, in our committee, we were told by Professor Richard Barnes that, and I quote him, drifting further from the continent is definitely an appealing option for fisheries. And not least in Wales, where perhaps at least we could consider throwing around ideas about how we can make the most of this—whether it's feasible, even, to grow that small part of our fishing fleet that currently falls outside the operation of quotas. That, of course, will take a determined voice from Wales—somebody with something valuable to say. But that is true also, Cabinet Secretary, of our smaller vessels, and I'm glad you mentioned those earlier, because, obviously, 90 per cent of our Welsh fish catch is outside the EU quota system, as we've already heard. That strong voice is going to be particularly important for tailored environmental support as well, and I endorse what, actually, David Melding and Jenny Rathbone have said about the importance of sustainable fishing and the fishing environment for this.

We heard in our committee yesterday that the ministerial fora that brings the relevant Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and so on from the four national administrations together to help inform the JMC (EN) work particularly well in the case of DEFRA. You mentioned those conversations, Cabinet Secretary, in your opening speech, and I hope that you can confirm for us that that relationship works well and that your voice is heard during the conversations you have. Because as a Member, of course, of South Wales West, with its productive shellfish seaboard, particularly in the west, my constituents will hold you to those reassurances that you've given today, that non-quota stocks won't be overlooked in moves to influence the UK Government on that exciting bigger picture.

We also heard that, as of yesterday, the Welsh Government's Brexit transition fund—that's £50 million this year alone—has paid out just £2.1 million to the food sector so far in order to protect it from the effects of Brexit. Now, Professor Barnes told us—and I think we will agree with this, won't we—that the overriding importance is to make sure that there is a market for our fishing products. Transition is a period to start looking for those new markets, those new opportunities, even if we can't access them straight away. So, this £50 million transition fund can be used to start scoping out new markets, planning how we might start looking now for those opportunities, and exploiting the connections that Welsh Government has promised us through its network of offices around the globe. I urge our fishing fleet, and all our food and drink producers, actually, not just to recognise the challenges presented by the range of possible Brexits, as referred to in the motion, but to start thinking about the opportunities and to use some of this £50 million to start identifying them. Thank you.  

For over 40 years, ever since the then Minister, Geoffrey Rippon, deliberately misled the British public by promising that British fishing grounds would remain sacrosanct if we entered what was then the Common Market, our former sovereign fishing grounds have been plundered by foreign fishing fleets. Under the common fishing policy we lost almost all control over the fishing quotas, even though, prior to us entering the EU, we held 80 per cent of Europe's fishing stocks. The CFP has been a total disaster for fishing stocks, and it was only over the last few years that the policy of jettisoning any non-quota fish back to the sea has been, to some extent, brought under control. It is estimated that literally billions of perfectly edible fish were dumped at sea every year under CFP rules. Not only was this a particularly wasteful practice, it was also an environmental disaster. Contrary to what David Melding said about our credentials in UKIP, it is UKIP that has been making the point of how disastrous this CFP has been to fishing stock.

I appreciate your science-led approach in this matter, and I do hope you extend it to other areas of your policy.

We're realists in this world, David. We won't follow—[Interruption.]

Will he give way? 

As far as Wales—. Yes, David, of course. 

I do thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate what he just said about UKIP's position. Are you therefore as hugely disappointed as I am that your former leader, Nigel Farage, attended one of the 42 meetings of the committee that dealt with fisheries?

That's terrible. That's terrible.

Yes, and quite frankly it was because he read very carefully many of the reports, which is what most of the other MEPs did not do, and that's why he came to many of the conclusions he came to, actually. 

As far as Wales is concerned, it suffered disproportionately from CFP policies because most of the Welsh fleet is under 10m in size. So we only have 1 per cent of the UK fishing quota or 0.02 per cent of the European quota, and I agree fully with Simon Thomas's points with regard to retention of any new quotas coming to Wales. 

After Brexit, the UK should return to the 200-mile exclusion zone as advocated by the United Nations law of the sea, freeing up huge areas of the seas around Britain to British fishing fleets. Incidentally, these are some of the richest fishing grounds in the world. Welsh fishermen will then be able to invest in much larger vessels, perhaps aided by Welsh Government grants, which could lead to a vastly expanded Welsh fishing industry. Post Brexit, the UK could insist all fish caught in British waters be landed in the UK, which would lead to the establishment of a whole array of onshore fish processing facilities. The proposed licensing of foreign vessels until such time as we can rebuild our own fishing fleets could also create revenue to help our fishing industry explore other markets worldwide. Mick Antoniw mentioned that there are other markets worldwide. Ireland's fish product exports to China rose 56 per cent last year alone, and exports—[Interruption.] Yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention, but isn't the point this: that, unless we have unfettered access to the European market, where the majority of our produce goes, it will actually kill off our fishing industry and our shellfish industry, unless we have that? So, isn't the logic of what you're arguing that we must have unfettered access?

Well, I think that's something we would all, actually, want, Mick, but that is not at the expense of the European Union telling us exactly what we have to do, and at the expense of unlimited access to us by any number of people, which is exactly what the people of the Valleys voted against. We will not sacrifice that in order to get free access to the European Union. 

The proponents of the totally negative aspects of Brexit on the Welsh fishing industry totally ignore—and I do not include the Cabinet Secretary in that statement—the entrepreneurship of our fishing fraternity and the huge benefits Brexit could bring to our, let's face it, ailing Welsh fishing industry.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for environment and rural affairs to reply to the debate. Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank Members for their contributions, and I'll turn to some of the points they raised in a moment.

I'll just start with the amendments. I ask the Assembly to oppose amendment 1, and recognise the very real and distinct challenges that do face the fishing industry; oppose amendment 2 on the basis the Welsh Government's been very clear it expects full, unfettered access to the EU market after Brexit, and anything short of this has the potential to harm the industry; and oppose amendment 3 on the basis that an exclusive economic zone will have little or no positive impact on the Welsh fleet and it actually could negatively affect trade negotiations with the EU. I'd ask Members to support amendments 4, 5 and 6. I believe a strong Welsh voice in negotiations is of vital importance, and I of course recognise the importance of this industry to our coastal communities. The Welsh Government has made significant investment over previous years to the sector and we will work hard to ensure it gets its fair share in the future.

Simon Thomas referred to evidence I gave last week to the Finance Committee. I do agree it is an area where we need to continue to put extra funding and resources, but Members will be aware that we've got new enforcement vessels currently being built. I agree around the research—I think that's an area where we need to have some significant input—but we already work very closely with Bangor University and have use of the Prince Madog, which helps us to undertake marine research. 

Neil Hamilton and David Rowlands referred to environmental disaster. Well, I absolutely disagree with that. UK fisheries—as a result of the CFP, it means most of our fisheries are being managed sustainably. We're working towards MSC accreditation of our fisheries—that's a quality mark—and we will continue to do that. 

David Melding, we do very proactively engage with the fishing sector. I mentioned that they sit on the ministerial advisory group. I have regular meetings with the fishing sector. So, I think we do that anyway, but of course we can always do more. Suzy Davies talked about the word 'opportunities' for the first time. As even Neil Hamilton recognised, I do use the word 'opportunities'. It's very hard sometimes to look for them, but I think we have to do that. I engage fully in the quadrilaterals with my UK Government counterparts. The next one's on Thursday in London and it's really important that Welsh Government sits around that table. You also mentioned the EU transition fund. My portfolio did very well in the first tranche, and while you say it's only £2.1 million, I have to say that my food and drink companies are very happy with the funding that we've already got. 

Several Members talked about shellfish and seafood. I've just today announced a new £1 million project to market to both domestic and international markets. The UK market will not absorb the volume of shellfish that we have been exporting, so we need to look for new markets. I was at Liverpool port yesterday, having discussions there around the amount of shellfish that is exported there, particularly from north Wales, and clearly we don't want to see it sitting on the docks. You made a very good point about James Wilson and Bangor mussels. 

I also wanted to be clear to Simon Thomas about the quota: it was Welsh fishing businesses that sold the quota to Spanish boats. It is a public good and I've no intention of allowing quota to be sold out of Wales. We don't own it, we're guardians of it, and it's really important for our future generations. I'm certainly happy to consider a moratorium on the sale and movement of quota outside of Wales and I think we could include that in a future fisheries policy.

So, I'm very pleased with today's debate. I think we all must recognise that the future is very challenging for this sector, but also there is great potential and opportunities, and I will continue to work hard to ensure that we are delivering for Wales over the coming months. I welcome Members' support.

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

That brings us to voting time. The first vote is on the debate on Brexit and the fishing industry. The first vote is on amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2 is the second amendment. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close vote. In favour 13, four abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 2 is therefore not agreed.

Amendment 3. I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 36 against. Amendment 3 is therefore not agreed.

Amendment 4. I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, no abstentions, none against. Amendment 4 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 5. I call for a vote on amendment 5 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed.

Amendment 6. I call for a vote on amendment 6 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.

I therefore call for a vote on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, 11 abstentions, four against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

That bring today's proceedings to a close.