National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, being held here in the Senedd today. Can I first of all—? Doing the introductions, I've forgotten what the introductions are in terms of the safety in this class. It's a long time since I've chaired a committee here, but it is that we're not expecting the fire alarm to operate. If it does, we'll take our instructions from the ushers, or at this point, you can follow me because I'll be one of the first through the doors.

We operate bilingually, so the headphones are there. Can I just ask you, can you make sure that if you're using your iPads or whatever, can you make sure they're on silent? The constant pinging eventually does get to me; I can be quite tetchy at times. So, I think those are the introductions there.

We've had apologies from Jayne Bryant and from David Rowlands, and then we've had a very last-minute apology from Mike Hedges, who, apparently, has been caught up in this dreadful accident that's occurred on the M4. The rest of us are all here. Can I ask, does anybody need to declare any interests that they haven't already declared on the register before we move on? No. Okay, fine. Thank you.

So, there we go. We welcome the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, and his official Jo Salway, to what will be his last Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, unless you say something we want to fetch you back next week about.

No. [Laughter.]

So, there's the little warning, I suppose. But it is to welcome you to this committee meeting and to thank you for your paper. If that's all right with you, we're going to try and look at—. The idea was to ask you, over your tenure, how you feel Welsh Government, under your leadership, has performed. There are a number of areas that we want to cover, so we're going to try and go through them. The first two or three—we're going to start with the economy, education, skills and health. Then we're going to go into how devolution's affected certain areas. And then, transport, environment, and then anything else that we feel we want to add.

Just for Members to know, we've got roughly an hour and a half, so plenty of time for sharp questions and some good answers as well, and some interaction, perhaps, about that. I don't know whether you want to make a short introductory statement, First Minister, or whether you're happy to go into questions.

I'm happy to go into questions. Given the fact this is my last committee, I think I've done more than 20, actually, over that time, and 330-odd First Minister's questions. And I have been asked more than 3,000 questions, although, whether I answered them is a matter for other people to decide. But I thought what I would do in each of the areas is, obviously, take the questions, but to give, perhaps, an overview of where I think we are, and also to try to be honest in terms of where the challenges still are as well, because one of the questions I'm always asked is: where is there work still to do? There always is, so, I'm more than happy to offer what I think is a frank assessment of where we are.

Right, thank you very much. You're not going to get 3,000 questions today in this hour and a half, I can assure you, but you'll probably get quite a few. Thanks very much for that. If we start with the economy, then, do you want to do a brief overview of where you think the economy is before we then bring others in for questions?

Well, Brexit, obviously, is the greatest challenge at the moment, and that's for perhaps further questions in the future. We've explored that at some length and, obviously, that is a challenge and it's very difficult at the moment to predict what's going to happen. We've all seen what's been happening in London over the past 24 hours.

When we first had devolution in 1999, Wales's economy had been largely based on an economic policy that involved bringing jobs into Wales on the basis that salaries were the lowest in western Europe. That was the way unemployment was dealt with. Well, of course, eventually, that investment will go elsewhere if labour costs are the sole criterion of a business's investment programme. They'll eventually go. We saw that. Many businesses went to eastern Europe when accession happened, when they joined the European Union, and, of course, we've seen businesses go elsewhere beyond that.

So, what we've tried to do over the past nine years and beyond is to focus our efforts in two areas. Firstly, growing small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales—an area that was neglected, in my mind, in the 1980s and 1990s. And secondly, of course, a sharp focus on foreign direct investment, but the right kind of foreign direct investment, not, 'Come to Wales because it's cheap', but, 'Come to Wales because we can offer you a supportive Government, we can offer you, yes, some financial packages,' but that's not the only criterion that's used by businesses, and, 'We can offer you the skills pipeline that you need.' What have the results been? Well, we see unemployment at 3.8 per cent—that's lower than the UK average. That would've been, I think, unheard of not so long ago, to have an unemployment level that is that low. We've seen employment levels at a very high level and we've seen economic inactivity drop almost to the point of being at the UK average, which again, historically, is something that didn't happen in Wales.

The one area where we need to continue to work, of course, is the area of gross value added per head. Now, there's no doubt, of course, if you look at GVA per head, one of the issues that has to be considered is: how much of the population is retired and how much of the population is in full-time study? Because, of course, they act as a drain on GVA; they bring down the GVA per head. So, if you have a higher than average retired population, that will affect your GVA. They might be personally very well off, but in terms of GVA, they act as a drain in terms of the economic figures.

So, the challenge in the future is to keep on increasing the amount of money going into people's pockets. We know that average pay in Wales has increased relative to the UK. In 2009, median weekly pay for full-time employees was 90.2 per cent of the UK average and in 2017, it was 90.6 per cent. In terms of productivity, that also has improved as well. But the challenge will be in the future to maintain the levels of investment that we've seen, and that's going to be difficult if businesses feel that they can't get the access that they've previously enjoyed to the European market. We have said to visitors coming to Wales—. For some, it's not an issue, but for others, it's a hugely important issue, because Wales is an important part of their European manufacturing operations, or Wales is part of an important, large European market. So, at the moment, I think it's fair to say that there are investment decisions that have been delayed until such time as there is more certainty with regard to Brexit.

I think it's worth remembering that we've moved away from the model of, 'Let's throw money at a business and then it will come.' Yes, of course there are financial packages that we offer, but they're not the be-all and end-all. Aston Martin, of course, who are equipping their manufacturing plant in St Athan at the moment, were quite open when they said, 'Well, we were offered more money by other places, but we were impressed by the passion and professionalism'—their words  not mine—'of the Welsh Government.' That's what we need to do,

And, of course, finally, projecting ourselves abroad. In 2011, I took over responsibility for the overseas offices. It was very jumbled; they were reporting to different civil servants, they were not reporting to Ministers; the overall co-ordination was not what I wanted it to be. What happens now is that every office reports directly to me, they send me a report every month. I know what they're doing and they have the confidence to know that the work they're doing is being noticed as well.

We've expanded the number of overseas offices and we reorganised North America so that Washington has become the headquarters for the other offices. What's been important is Wales's presence has grown—around the world, but particularly in the United States, which is our biggest single investor. We hold a reception on Capitol Hill around about St David's Day every year. It's attended by many hundreds now. It's a big event, and that all helps to raise Wales's profile. We have a caucus of more than 20 congressmen, as they're called, in the US. They are a very useful touchstone for us in terms of gauging what's happening in American politics and understanding what we need to do to break down barriers for Welsh exports, for example, with Welsh lamb. So I think we're in a good position there in terms of the way we are projecting ourselves to the world. We will need to open more offices in important markets. We do need to carry on working with the UK Government, because they have vast resources that we couldn't possibly replicate, but we've placed offices around the world in markets where having a distinct Welsh presence is a real advantage.

So, that's where I think we are. The challenge for us is to keep the momentum going, and also to make sure that we continue to provide the skills pipeline that businesses need, because that's what they're looking for, 'If we come to Wales, can we get the people that we need?' Having a sharp focus on that in the future will continue to be important.

Okay, thanks. So, Russell, you've got a set of questions, and then David Rees and then we'll see where we go.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Good morning, First Minister. I'll ask perhaps the three-thousand-and-first question to you. 'Taking Wales Forward'—you've set out how you're going to deliver more and better jobs, and perhaps you've addressed the issue about more jobs in your opening comments, but can I concentrate on better jobs? Do you feel that you've achieved that in your time as First Minister?

Yes, I do. If we look at what we've attracted into Wales: I've offered Aston Martin as an example; the work we did to ensure that the heavy end, particularly, in Port Talbot didn't close down in March 2016 when the omens were very, very difficult; the support we've given to businesses, in your constituency as well, to make sure that they continue to feel welcome in Wales. And one of the areas that I think it's important we've focused on is that it's not enough for somebody to say to a business, 'Come to Wales', and then, when they're in Wales, forget about them. You've got to make sure that you have a relationship with them, and we have anchor companies with relationship managers who have regular contact with those businesses so they feel welcome. So, to my mind, we've been very successful in attracting investment into Wales based on high-skilled work rather than simply looking at labourers. We look at Raytheon in Deeside, we look at the investment that's been put into Airbus, we look, of course, as well, at GE and the work they've done. All these companies are companies that we've worked very closely with for many, many years.

A statistic you've probably heard before: 20 years ago, average weekly wages in Scotland and Wales were around about the same, and today they're significantly lower in Wales than in Scotland. Some information that the Assembly library has provided me—it doesn't look good reading for Wales: in Pembrokeshire and the Vale of Glamorgan, median gross weekly earnings actually fell between 2011 and 2018, and that's even without adjusting figures for inflation. Why do you think that is?

Well, it's difficult to give one particular reason. Pembrokeshire, of course, saw the closure of the Murco refinery, which wouldn't have helped, but Valero is there and is doing well. There's no one reason why that should happen in the Vale, but if we look at Wales overall, we are seeing better paid jobs, particularly, that have come in. I think we are still—part of it is dealing with the legacy, although that legacy is diminishing now, of what happened in the 1980s and 1990s, of low-skilled, low-paid jobs being attracted into Wales, which brought the unemployment rate down, but also brought down GVA per head. But I'm very confident that we have the right base now to build on in the future, because we're attracting the right kind of investment. We look at CAF as well in Newport—again, skilled jobs, well-paid: that's the market that we operate in now. We're not there to attract jobs at any price regardless of the salary rate.

Someone's gone to the trouble to count the words in your economic action plan, and there are 17,136 words, I'm told, in the plan, with just two mentions of wages. Do you think that your economic strategy adequately deals with the need to increase skills and particularly increase wages?

Yes, I do, because we know that the way to increase wages is, by and large, to do two things: firstly, to increase people's skills, and secondly, to increase productivity. Productivity is an issue not just for Wales, but, alas, for the whole of the UK. We lag behind—well, far behind Germany—and that's something that we will all need to address in the UK as a whole, and that's the way to raise wages. But with the investment decisions that we've had over the past few years, and with the companies we're now beginning to attract, I'm very confident that we will see wage rates going up, because these are businesses—. Renishaw plc is another example in Miskin. These are businesses who need highly skilled people, and the fact they've chosen to come to Wales is a sign of their confidence that we can provide those people. We look at General Dynamics and Tenneco in Merthyr—again, hugely important investments, hundreds of jobs being created there in a part of Wales where 15, 20 years ago, it was very difficult indeed to attract companies, but Merthyr is really beginning to motor now.

The challenge will be, of course, to make sure that we see a relatively even growth in the economy across the whole of Wales, and not just in some parts of it. 

Are you satisfied with the response to the new futures fund? So far, 34 businesses have been awarded £7.7 million to spend over the course of four years. Are you satisfied with that? 

Well, all funds take time to start to gain momentum but, at the moment, what I'm detecting amongst businesses is that they're very reluctant to take any decision, even to look for funding, without knowing what the outcome of Brexit will be. Bear in mind that businesses look to access funding on the basis of their future business plans. If their future business plans are unclear because they're not sure what their market will look like, or what the market will look like for perhaps the larger businesses they supply, they will hold back quite naturally.    

You mentioned in your opening summary that Wales has expanded its presence throughout the world, which is, of course, welcome and good, but, of course, it's results that matter rather than just a presence as well. Are you concerned that only two projects have been awarded from the economic futures fund under the exports and trade call for action?  

Again, I think Brexit is playing very much on the minds of businesses. They're still wondering what sort of access they'll have to their core market, which is Europe, and I think that is holding them back. I don't think we're in the position where businesses are yet taking decisions to withdraw investments. I don't think we're at that point, although we have seen some examples of that, or one example of that recently, but we are at a stage when businesses are holding back. My worry is that we will come to a point where businesses will say, 'We're not going to wait any longer; we'll go and invest somewhere else. We'll go and invest in another European country where we know we'll get access to the market of EU-27', which is why it's so crucial to get certainty—although it's difficult to see where we are at the moment—in terms of what that access will look like. Bear in mind that 60 per cent of our exports go to the single market, and businesses have been saying to me, 'We're just holding back at the moment in terms of doing anything until we've got an idea what our market access will look like'. 

Thank you. 

David. 

Thank you, Chair. First Minister, you've mentioned in your written evidence the investment in steel, and that's important, obviously, for my constituency. But, what I'm trying to work out is the industrial strategy for the Welsh Government. Ken Skates, your Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, many times stated that he was waiting for the UK's industrial strategy to be published before he could identify something, and that's perhaps why we didn't have the economic action plan until late last year. But Tata Steel is an example: if that industry does disappear, and it's sometimes out of your control as a Welsh Government because it's a private business, and the UK Government has got some levers that it may not be using—or, actually, it's not using—to support that sector, what is the strategy to look at replacement jobs? Because some of the companies we talk about coming in may offer 100, 200 jobs; Tata employs 3,500 directly. That's a huge gap between the two sets of figures. So, what's the strategy that the Welsh Government has to look at the future direction of the industrial agenda in Wales?    

To keep the jobs. Tata employs 3,500—or 3,750 I think it is at the moment—just in Port Talbot alone, leaving to one side Llanwern, Orb,  Shotton and Trostre. So, our strategy has been very much focused not on, 'Well, let's accept that jobs are going and so let's think of an alternative', but it's been very much focused on keeping those jobs. I have to say, as I've had many, many dealings with Tata—including, on one occasion, flying to Mumbai for one meeting and flying back again—that what I've found with the company is that they will listen and they will work with you. They are a company who do care about what happens to their workers. I think there are some companies who will just say, 'Well, there we are, this is a business decision and that's it'. In fairness to Tata, that's not the attitude that I have found. They have wanted to find a way forward. 

If I'm honest, in March 2016, when Tata put its businesses up for sale, it was very difficult to see a future for the heavy end at Port Talbot at that point. But, working with Tata—it's true market conditions have improved since then—and working with them to see what we can do to help in terms of investment and helping them to invest has meant that we've got to a position now where we can see a future for Port Talbot. They've invested in blast furnace 5, which is a sign—they've said to me, and I accept it—that they are looking to the future. I'd be more worried if no investments were happening in Port Talbot, but that is happening now. Let's not pretend that things are easy in terms of the steel industry in the future. The uncertainty now is what will happen in terms of the JV with Thyssenkrupp, but we've come a long way since 2016 for the better. Whoever takes over from me next month will know how important Tata is, and particularly of course how important Tata is to Port Talbot. There is no way you can make up 3,500 jobs in any short space of time, which is why it's so important to ensure that those jobs stay there. 

That's why I'm asking the question as to what the strategy is down the line, because the UK economy has gone very much service driven rather than manufacturing driven these days. We still have a larger proportion of manufacturing in Wales than in other parts of the UK. What is the strategy for the Welsh economy to ensure that we still have that balance of approaches? Are we looking for particular niches? If Mike Hedges was here he could tell you about Dundee and its niche in video games, as an example. Do we have a focus on the niches we are looking at, to actually move forward so we can attract businesses in?

There's no point trying to present yourself as all things to all people. There's no point going to a business in a particular area when there's no equivalent business in Wales. It's very difficult to attract them in because they will say, 'Where's your track record?' So, what do we focus on? Automotive, aeronautics, life sciences, defence industries, and we focus on tourism, of course, just to give you some idea, and steel—those areas where we have a track record. We're able to say to those investors, 'Come to Wales because there are other companies like you who have been successful.' They will know that if there are other companies like them it creates a pool of expertise that they can all draw from. From my perspective, manufacturing will continue to be important. You can't really call yourself an economy unless you make things. Okay, you can make things that you can't hold in your hands—software is a product, a good, or a service. This is what the debate, of course, revolves around, with the proposals a few weeks ago.

Steel is a particularly important industry because there is a strategic importance to it. Donald Trump has said—not that I often quote Donald Trump—that steel is strategically important to the US, and I agree, because steel is strategically important to the UK, which is why I always made the point to David Cameron that it had to be taken as a unique case. If you don't produce steel, if you have to import all of it, you find yourself in a position where you are at others' beck and call. So, for me, it's a question of continuing to focus on those areas where we've been successful in the past, where we have a track record—and they're good areas, they're areas where there's a lot of potential for growth—and keep on focusing on those areas. 

John, you've got one on procurement. 

Yes, I was going to ask about procurement, First Minister. It's very, very important, obviously, that the private sector in Wales as well as the public sector in Wales procure goods and services from Welsh-based firms, and then we can get profit circulating in the Welsh economy rather than money being sucked out of the country. I think one issue is making sure that supply chains to private companies are based increasingly within Wales. There are issues there for CAV, for example, and the space on the site around it where suppliers could be based if we could attract them into Wales. But, generally, with public procurement as well, I think we're all very familiar with the power of public procurement in terms of getting more economic activity in Wales but also addressing problems around fair work and getting people out of economic inactivity.

There's a whole host of things that can be done through public procurement that are very important to us. There's been much attention recently in terms of Preston and some of the success that they've had by being very, very focused on public procurement, looking at the top-value contracts of the big public sector players and bringing that business into the local area. They've had great success, hundreds of millions of pounds annually. We've talked a lot about procurement over a number of years. We continue to do so. I just wonder what's your assessment of what we need to do from here on to succeed to a greater extent in terms of everything that good procurement policy can bring.

Well, the situation with public procurement has improved, but there is I think a structural issue that will need to be addressed in the future, and that is that there are many Welsh businesses that are not big enough to be able to bid successfully for larger contracts. Now, I remember when I was rural affairs Minister I was asked the question continually by farmers, 'Why is it that the Welsh NHS doesn't procure Welsh lamb and Welsh beef?' So I looked at it and the reason was there was no-one to do it. At that point, there was no Welsh business big enough to supply the Welsh NHS day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out. So, there was a structural problem. That was resolved, actually, by businesses working together. I think that still exists in the larger contracts. If we look at construction, for example, the point has been made to me by Welsh construction companies, which I've always regarded as quite big, that the larger construction contracts tend to go to bigger companies outside Wales because they just can't bid at that level. There are two ways of dealing with that: either you break down big contracts, which is what the French did with school meal contracts, which is why they came under the radar in terms of procurement; they didn't have to go through the normal process because they were all under €5,000 a year. So, you can do that, break down the contracts, but there is a cost, inevitably. Now, it is perfectly right to say that that extra cost would be recycled into the local community, but there's an upfront cost to Government, as a rule. 

There's another alternative, which is to continue to encourage companies that are used to competing with each other to actually work together to bid for the bigger contracts. One of the problems we have in Wales is that our economy, yes, is very heavily SME based, but we have relatively few large companies—very few that are headquartered in Wales. The test that I always say is: how many companies in Wales could sponsor the Welsh rugby team, for example? There are four or five, I'd say. And that's a weakness in our economy, which we need to address. How do we encourage companies to get bigger in the future? One of the ways of doing that, I suspect, for some businesses, although not for all, is to look at working together or even merging, because then they'll have the critical mass and the size to be able to bid for the big contracts. 

In terms of Preston, First Minister, do you feel that there's anything in particular we can learn from the experience and success that they've had?

We're always ready to learn from Preston, but of course that's on a smaller scale. The kind of contracts that we tender for tend to be much, much larger, and that means they can often be out of reach for many Welsh companies because of their size. So, you have a choice: do you break them down and/or do you encourage Welsh businesses to work together, which happened in the food sector, in order to put themselves in a position where they can win those contracts?

You mentioned skills and the economy quite a lot, and I know Bethan's got a couple of questions around further education and the film industry. 

The other question I wanted to ask was with regard to the film industry. I was with Equity's south Wales branch last night, and I heard quite a lot of concern with regard to the film industry in Wales, and the fact that many companies are coming in to Wales to film, which, of course, we are happy with, and we support, but those companies quite often are not using any Welsh actors. And there were instances—I don't want to name films now—where they got Welsh Government funding and they didn't actually film in Wales and they didn't use any Welsh actors as they promised, as part of that Welsh Government funding. I know there's a clause in the agreement that would allow for companies to show production chain work, but it doesn't reflect then on our screens, and it doesn't reflect in the production companies and how they work here in Wales. 

Is there a way of changing that, now that Creative Wales has been instigated, which will now house the media investment budget, whereby we could potentially have quotas for Welsh actors in these new productions, so that we can ensure that Wales is properly represented on our screens?

I think that's a fair point. It's a point that's been raised with me as well in the past. People have said to me, 'Well, what we find is that production companies come in, but they bring their own people. They don't use local people. They don't use local acting talent.' And that's a point that's been made to me. So, officials are looking at this, because, clearly, from our perspective, what we don't want is a situation where we have productions filmed in Wales, but there's no actual—. Well, there's a benefit in terms of people spending money in Wales, but there's no benefit in terms of encouraging production talent and encouraging acting talent as well. So, this is something that's firmly on the radar because of what's been said to me, and obviously what's been said to the Member. 

I'll finish, but we have a situation where Welsh actors are registering that they live in England because they'll get paid three, four times more than if they say they live in Wales. That has to be a problem for us, if we are encouraging actors to move from this nation because they can't get paid to the level that they would do if they were living in England. And I think if that production is actually being filmed in Wales as well, then that's something we should be very concerned about as a nation. 

Yes. I've not heard that, but, clearly, that would be unacceptable. From our perspective, we couldn't provide financial support for a film, only to find that, as it were, the living wage isn't being paid. So, I will take that on board—I've not heard that—and ask officials to add that to what they're looking at in terms of the point that was raised earlier, which has been raised with me. 

Okay. Have you got a supplementary on skills?

On the FE side of things. 

Go on then. 

Just a quick one. It's been highlighted obviously, the impact of financial cuts and austerity through the years on FE. We've seen that in various budgets, because of the consequence. Now, that's been going on during the time when there's been funding from Europe to support some of the programmes. We know that's going to stop. What actions or preparations is the Welsh Government taking to look at how we can support those types of programmes and those individuals who benefit from those schemes, post Brexit? 

Well, we are planning, of course, for the post-Brexit world. We've already put in place the EU transition fund, which is aimed at training, making sure that businesses are able to access the right level of training to make them more competitive in the future. But we can't make up the loss in European funding. It's £600 million a year, if you include farming subsidies as well. If that money is not available post 2022, it's bound to have a negative effect. We can't find that money from anywhere. Now, it is said that there will be a UK shared prosperity fund. All I know is that it's been suggested; I know nothing else at all about it. We don't know how much money would be made available, we don't know how it would operate. We are concerned that any fund would cut across devolved responsibilities. If the fund effectively is a UK version of current EU funding schemes then that's probably something that in the right circumstances we could accept. But a promise was made that we wouldn't lose a penny in funding and I expect that promise to be kept. 

Okay, thank you. We're going to move on to health, and you wanted to do a quick overview on health. Can you do it in about three minutes? There's the challenge today: your overview of health, not to take the rest of the time up on health, but if you could just do a brief overview of health and then we'll move to some questions. 

We're coming to the point in the next few years where health will take half of our budget. It is an area where there is ever increasing demand. Any demand goes up by about 7 per cent every year. We have managed to maintain funding on health. We spend—you've heard me say it many times in the Chamber—more than England. It's not just about money; it's the way the service operates as well, I understand that. There are great challenges for the health service across the UK, which all Governments in the UK are wrestling with.

If I'm frank with the committee, the great difficulty with health—the great challenge—is ensuring that there's money available for preventative health while, at the same time, of course, ensuring there's enough money available for acute care, and that balance is not easy to achieve. We know that if you improve the underlying state of people's health then the demand they make on the health service in the future will be less. They'll be older when they need its help more, they will avoid potentially life-changing conditions, such as having a stroke, and that, we know, is important. But we know how important it is to keep up spending, not just on revenue, but also on capital: new machines that can assist diagnosis in the future, they're hugely important. 

I'm not going to pretend to the committee that the present structure of the health service will stay as it is forever and a day. There will be times when services have to move to make them safer and more sustainable. It's never easy, and Members will know, whenever they've been in that position, that the public become very concerned about it. But that doesn't mean, of course, we can't do something in order to make the service more sustainable. 

One of the great campaigns I think that's been important for me is Choose Well. I think we're still in a position where too many people default to the GP. More people are going to the pharmacists—they are clinically trained now; they will go to a nurse in a GP practice; they will then go and see a GP, although there's a remarkable breadth of service level differences between GPs in Wales, because most of them are independent contractors; and the people don't default to A&E, which is the one service in the NHS that can't turn people away, of course, as A&E specialists say to me.

So, there will be challenges in the future. The pressure on the NHS can only get greater. We can't divorce the health service from social services, because, of course, if people are unable to leave hospital at a time that's right for them, because they can't get the support they need from social services, that has a concertina effect all the way back to A&E, where they might be occupying a bed that they don't need anymore and that bed is not available to somebody who is in acute need of a bed. That's why we've always been very careful to make sure that we see health and social care and social services as one thing that needs to be delivered, because social services have such a huge effect on numbers in the healthcare system itself.

I could go through lots of statistics, but what I wanted to do this morning was just to give an overview of where I think we are and where the challenges are as well. There will always be challenges in the future with health; it's an area where spending has to be kept up with, year after year, and it's an area where there will be new challenges. Yes, in some areas, we've seen treatments now that are far easier, and far cheaper, than they used to be. Cataract operations now are much, much, much easier than they were, say, 30 years ago. The same has happened with minor operations—people don't spend as much time in hospital. But balanced against that, of course, is the capital cost of new machines, and also the increasing pressure on the health service that comes from an ageing population. I think the average age of admission to hospital from A&E is 85, which is why we find that there are always winter pressures across the UK. I understand that there are more admissions to A&E in the summer than in the winter, because people are out and about, there are injuries, broken limbs, and so on. But the nature of admissions in the winter is such that many of them are older people with respiratory complaints, because of the weather, and of course they need greater care. They need to be admitted quite often, and that's where some of the pressures come from.

I think we are able to say to the people of Wales that we have a health service where most people get the right treatment, at the right time. But there will always be challenges in the future, and I suspect there will always be challenges regardless of what the shape of the Government is in Wales in terms of providing a health service that people want.

Okay. Thanks. Dai, you've got some questions around health.

The Chair's quite patient at times. Lynne, did you have—? You had some questions around—.

Yes. First Minister, you and I have been here the same length of time—since 1999—and, the whole of that time, concerns have been raised about the support for children and young people's mental health. As you're aware, the Children, Young People and Education Committee published a very ambitious report, 'Mind over matter', which sets out a route-map to finally tackle that problem and make it a national priority and deliver the step change that we need. I am very pleased with the way that both Cabinet Secretaries have engaged with the committee since that difficult Plenary debate, but I'd like to ask you: what assurances can you give that, as you leave the Assembly now, going forward, the mental health of children and young people is going to be a priority and that we are actually going to finally nail this issue?

I remember, a few years ago now, we had a spate of suicides amongst young people in Bridgend. It was an appalling turn of events as far as the media were concerned, because they weren't linked, didn't know each other—it happened to be a spike at that time, awful though it was. But I've no doubt that some of the media coverage actually caused some of the later suicides—not media coverage in Wales, I have to say, but I know that young people outside Bridgend College were asked questions such as, 'What's it like to live in Bridgend?' They'd say it was boring, and that was turned into, 'It would be better to be dead than live in Bridgend.' That's what they said. And I saw the reaction of media outlets to what was a really difficult situation for the families as well, trying to link it into some kind of death cult. There was even a film made about it. None of this was true. None of this was true. These young people, some of them knew each other, but they were miles apart. I had people saying to me, 'Well, Bridgend's a small place, isn't it?' I'd said, 'Well, no. There's 130,000 people in the county', which they hadn't realised, and it was described as a depressed seaside mining town. We're five miles from the sea, there's never been a mine in Bridgend, in the town, and the economy is pretty good. But, anyway, that's where I start, because I saw then the difficulties that can arise when this kind of bandwagon happens.

So, what's happened since? Well, first of all, mental health—there's no doubt in my mind, going back 20 years ago, it was a cinderella sector. There were very few advocates for spending money on mental health. There were far more attractive areas like cancer, like heart disease, like stroke. Mental health was a bit of a cinderella. So, what did we do? Well, we've ring-fenced mental health spending in Wales and we've increased funding to £655 million for 2018-19. We've also included, of course, mental health as a priority area for us in the future, because we know this is an area that, in many ways, has been under the radar for so long.

You mentioned children and young people particularly. We now have, of course, a counsellor in every school in Wales. Now, that's not enough of itself because there are many young people who just won't go and see a counsellor in school. So, that will help for some but not for others. Child and adolescent mental health services was set up, of course. I think it's fair to say that CAMHS became so successful that a great deal of pressure was put on it and the waiting lists did go to a level that was not acceptable, which is why we put more money into CAMHS to bring those waiting lists down. 

I think part of the reason why CAMHS became quite overloaded very quickly was because GPs would refer to it—'There's a service there, we will refer to it'—because there was nothing else. So, if you have somebody in front of you, if you're a GP, who you believe has a mental health problem that can't be dealt with via drugs like sertraline, which control mood rather than depression, you will inevitably, I think, pass that person on to that specialist service. What wasn't available was counselling. I think, for a lot of young people, access to counselling outside the school environment will be an important part of mental health provision in the future, so the choice is not between school counsellor or clinical help. So, that's where I'd like things to go in the future. We will need that not just for children and young people but we need it for adults as well, particularly men, who are not good at sharing their feelings. I was in the Ford factory in Bridgend this week and they have a very strong emphasis on people in the workplace looking out for their colleagues, any change in behaviour, just to look for those early signs. Sometimes it's impossible to detect, of course, but sometimes it can be. 

So, we've come a long way. There's work to be done, there's no question about that—but what I'd like to see developed in the future is a hierarchy of help, if I can call it that, where you've got the school counsellor, which is fine for some but not for others, where you've got a counselling system that would need to be consistent across Wales and then, of course, above that would sit clinical help for that pretty small number of young people who actually need that help, rather than going straight there. To me, that's where the challenge will be—counselling and making sure that's consistent across Wales. 

Okay. Thank you for that. Would you not agree though that, actually, probably the bigger challenge is to go below the counselling level and to make sure that we have a nurturing, whole-school approach to mental health in all our schools in Wales—one that enables young people to cope with their problems but also to ask for help when they need it, to identify problems amongst themselves, and that, actually, we should be going back to base camp, really, on that and building that resilience? 

Yes I do. As I said at the beginning, counselling of itself if not enough. The pressures on young people now are far worse than they were when I was their age, because, if people were bullied or if they were under pressure, once they left school it tended to stop, but now it's everywhere. I've seen it. You and I have children of about similar ages. You and I have children of about similar ages. Social media, the pressures that social media put on young people—it's 24 hours; there's no escape from it. I've seen some of the things—. The way that they talk to each other is incredible. So, that pressure is far, far greater than ever it was; there's no question in my mind. And I think you're right—that is the kind of approach that we need. We're doing it with workplaces—a bit difficult, I suppose, with teenagers, with their self-awareness and their lack of confidence, but there are ways of doing it, I'm sure. So, yes, I think it is an area in the future that we must look at very, very carefully. How do we create that ethos in a school? I think there are some schools that do it, but it's not consistent across Wales. To avoid the need for counselling in the first place or worse—. So, I think that is something that will be—something that will need to be looked at by the next Government. 

Okay. David on health boards.

Just a quick one on health boards. First Minister, since you've been First Minister, clearly, you've seen changes in health boards. You've seen, as you said yourself earlier, an increase in the allocation of the pot, of the budget, to health services—a rise to almost 50 per cent. We've definitely seen a growing number of management levels in health boards, and I understand why the level of staff at the face is not as high and growing as quickly, because of the challenges we see in trying to get those people in. But isn't it now time to look at how can we scrutinise better the health boards? Because we have one health board in special measures, we have several health boards with targeted interventions. There seems to be limited public scrutiny of these health boards, checking whether they're effectively using their money, they're effectively managing their services. Isn't it time now we looked at a different system of how we scrutinise health boards?

The health boards are responsible to Ministers but they're also, of course, open to scrutiny by the Assembly. So, where scrutiny would go beyond that is not clear. Now, some have said to me, 'Well, what we need is a system of elected health boards.' Some have put forward that idea. It sounds attractive. The worry I would have with that, which is why I've why never supported it, is that, if you have elected health boards, they will tend to look only at providing services in their own area, to their own electorate. And we know, for example, with Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, many services in ABMU are provided for the Hywel Dda area—they're bound to be, because of Morriston. Now, I wouldn't want a situation to arise where an elected board was to say, 'We're not that interested, really, in what happens beyond the Loughor—we're going to provide services to people who vote for us.' So, I think that's a danger, if that were to be the structure. 

With management, I've seen with my own eyes that good management can make a real difference in health provision. We have seen examples of bad management, where that hasn't happened. And, where that has happened, we've taken action. We had to do it with Betsi Cadwaladr. People say to me, 'Well, why are there so many managers in the NHS?' Well, there has to be a proportion—the right proportion—of managers. But it is a huge organisation. It does need to be managed. We can't expect doctors to manage it: (a) they're not managers, (b) they haven't got the time. So, taking clinical staff out of their daily duties to run a huge organisation is not a practical step to my mind. 

I don't think I ever mentioned that, but—. I'll give you an example of management. My wife, as you know, works in the health service. Her line manager used to report to the board. Now, her line manager reports to his or her line manager and the financial manager. They both report to managers above them, who report to a director, who reports to the board. The levels and tiers have been increasing, and there's no check on it. There's no scrutiny of how those boards are actually managing all this. I don't want elected boards, but I do think that better scrutiny needs to be had.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the Cabinet Secretary, of course, in terms of holding boards to account, and the Assembly committees themselves—. That's an issue that can be explored, I'm sure, if the Members want to—. I don't know if you've raised it with the Cabinet Secretary, but—

I will, don't worry.

Yes. I know you will. [Laughter.] And we encourage you to do it.

Right, Nick, you've got one on information technology in the NHS.

Yes. Welcome. I'm just getting there. Welcome, First Minister, to your last scrutiny session. You said that the NHS is a huge part of the budget at the Assembly and growing, almost 50 per cent. Clearly, the computer system within the NHS is a significant portion of that budget and growing increasingly important. The Public Accounts Committee recently did a very hard-hitting report on this area, and found that, although in the region of £460 million had been spent on it over a number of years, we still haven't seen the sort of progress that I'm sure you would have wanted to have seen at the start of your tenure, and, indeed, going back beyond that, your predecessors would have wanted to see. So, as you leave office, what advice would you give to your successor in how to get to grips with this issue once and for all?

Well, there is a review that's been put in place to look at how we deal with this. Some of it will be money, some of it will be attitudinal change—that was identified. The fact that people are comfortable with using a system that's been in place for a long time is not a reason to keep it. Now, I think part of the problem goes back 30 years. When the first data protection legislation was brought in, it only covered electronic information and not paper records, so the NHS kept paper records for years because they didn't want to release people's medical records. That's not an excuse now, of course, but it was one of the last to actually digitise, as it were—one of the last organisations to digitise. No, it's not acceptable to have as a situation—and I see what the report says—where there are easy solutions to make the system work better, but they are not in place. It will take investment, so we are reviewing it now, and it will take a change of working practice as well, I suspect. People get very familiar with systems, but it doesn't mean those systems work properly, or indeed that there are not better systems that can be employed, and that's what the committee's findings will help us to do.

I appreciate it's early days, with the report only recently been released, and I think you're right: it's a huge system within the NHS; the IT system is a huge part of that. So, you would expect there to be some issues with developing that. I think our concerns were that if you looked at radiotherapy patients, chemotherapy patients, there was a clear line of a problem from these systems failing, and the outages, and then there actually being delays in treatment, which for some patients would be very important. So, I appreciate your answer.

Do you think there is a bigger issue here? Not just in the NHS, but it seems to me, when you try to initiate big projects like IT in the public sector, there seem to be more problems with developing that than out in the private sector, where you have other cloud-based systems, which have their own problems, admittedly, but it always seems to be slightly magnified in the public sector. Do you think there's a capacity issue there, across the board, in people who are up to speed with modern technologies?

I think in the private sector the problems are not apparent. In the public sector, they become apparent straight away. There have been software issues in the private sector, but of course they don't broadcast that, for obvious reasons. So, I don't think it's a capacity issue. I do think that it's incumbent on everybody to examine carefully the way they work and to see if there are better ways of doing it, and if digitalisation means that, for example, it's much easier to access records than was previously the case—. I know there are examples where, within the health service, quite often x-rays are sent somewhere else, and then they are looked at, and then they are responded to. That's easy enough, so there is no reason why problems with record keeping and the transfer of records can't be resolved. It's not the most difficult—I would think—system to put in place, and that will form part of the thinking when the report is responded to.

Just finally, very quickly: we know a significant amount of money has been spent on this already, just shy of £500 million, or, well, £450 million—£460 million. So, spending the same amount of money on this, more money again, isn't the answer, is it? There's got to be a root and branch review of the way that the systems are operating.

That's what will happen. It's not a question of just, 'Let's put more money into it'—it's clearly not going to be sufficient. It's a question of targeted investment and looking at the way the system currently works and then changing it.

Okay, thanks.

We're going to move on from health, but I can't move on until I've said—. You mentioned it's for the health Secretary to look at health boards, but can I say, your intervention on one particular issue—on the sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre in north Wales—is much appreciated? Is that a level of where it has to become outside of the bracket of a particular Cabinet Secretary and then you have to take a decision over that? Because that has certainly helped north Wales in terms of health. So, is that something that you will be saying to your successor—'Always keep your finger there and never be afraid to step in when you feel it's necessary?

One of the advantages of being First Minister is you can do that. It may not find your colleagues' favour, but you can do it, because what happened with the SuRNICC was that Lesley Griffiths was the health Secretary, and she was conflicted, so there was no question of her being able to take the decision anyway. So, where there's a conflict where there's a Minister involved, that decision then defaults to me, whether it's planning or whether, in this case, it was the SuRNICC.

I remember, with the SuRNICC, thinking, 'Well, the problem we have here is the service will go to Alder Hey, where we will have no control over it.' Now, I know many services for patients in Wales are delivered in England and that's going to continue in the future. What I wanted to do was to see if a sustainable and safe way—because you've got to do it; you can't make a political decision—could be found to maintain the service in the north of Wales, and we got that. Having got that, it was then possible then to say, 'Right, we can keep the service.' The next question then was, 'Where does it go?' That's, again, never an easy decision, but on that—. The pressure was—. There's a lot of pressure regarding the issue, but we did find a way, through getting independent people in, of making sure we could put a safe and sustainable service into that—well, eventually it was Glan Clwyd, of course—and the Chair is smiling when I say that—but, yes, you can—

The Chair did a lot of work.

In those circumstances, the easy thing to do is to say, 'Well, there's nothing we can do', but you have to explore a little bit more thoroughly. I did that, and we got the result. 

I wanted it on the record. So, that's fine, thank you.

We're going to move on to the next section, which is around children's rights, child poverty, and there's a justice question and questions on youth homelessness and devolution of broadcasting—quite a catch-all, really, but nevertheless important in terms of that. Is there anything you want to say, or are you happy to go straight into questions? 

I think, given the time, probably straight into questions. 

Straight to the questions, okay. Lynne—children's rights and child poverty. 

Yes. I mean, I'm happy if John wants to do the child poverty, actually. I'll just ask a question on children's rights.

First Minister, the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 kind of put Wales at the centre of the children's rights movement and we were the envy of the world, really, less than 10 years ago when it was brought in. I think the committee has some concerns that, since then, there has been a dilution of focus on children's rights, especially with the prominence that's been given to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. If you had to do a report on where we're at now with children's rights in Wales, what would your parting comment be?

Well, I mean, you mentioned the Measure in 2011. We were the first country to introduce that measure, and that means Ministers, of course, have to have due regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have had discussions with the children's commissioner as to whether there's scope to extend that, and I had discussions about that a few weeks ago with her. So, that discussion is ongoing. We were, of course, the first UK nation to establish a children's commissioner—before my time as First Minister, but nevertheless an important appointment.

Of course, we are looking to legislate—we will legislate—on removing the defence of reasonable chastisement, which I think is a hugely important manifesto commitment, maintaining a child's right to grow up in a safe environment. That, I think, is hugely important.

Extending the voting franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, again, is an example of wanting to ensure that young people are engaged at a younger age in the political system. We are, of course—and this, of course, is controversial; some Members had some mileage out of this—the only country in the UK to have consulted children and young people on Brexit, and that report is due pretty soon. We published our first children's rights scheme in May 2012—that was extended in 2014. And it is right to say that the well-being of future generations Act does also include the issue of the rights of children and young people. 

Do you want to—? Lynne. 

So, you're satisfied we've got the balance right, are you, in terms of a lot of the policies that are being driven in Wales now, especially at local government level, are emanating from the well-being of future generations Act, which, clearly, everybody needs to implement? But, you know, we had a concurrent meeting yesterday of the finance, the equality, local government and communities, and children committees to look at the whole area of impact assessments, and one of the things that we were concerned about was that, perhaps, children are just getting a bit lost in that agenda because we're assessing so many areas now.

That's why the children's commissioner's so important, because if at any time it was felt that somehow the voice of children and young people was being diluted, then the children's commissioner is there to remind Government of that, and I'm sure those discussions will continue with the children's commissioner in the future. 

Okay. John, do you want to do the child poverty and then youth homelessness as well?

Yes, thanks, Chair. As we're all aware, First Minister, Wales still faces very many socioeconomic challenges, and we've had history of different strategies and policies in Wales to tackle poverty and child poverty. Quite recently, Communities First, for example, ended, and we no longer have an overarching tackling poverty strategy, which the committee that I Chair is of the view should be reintroduced. How would you respond to the challenges that Wales still faces? We know that many of the levers are within the UK Government's control, but nonetheless, there are many that the Welsh Government can influence and take direct action on. So, at this stage, reflecting perhaps on your time as First Minister, what, to you, are the most important messages in terms of where we need to go from here to tackle these persistent and, for many communities in Wales, still crippling problems that affect every aspect of their lives and their life chances?

There are two issues for me. One is putting more money into the pockets of parents, but the second also is providing support for families when they need it. We'll all have seen examples of families where there are problems with drug use in the family, problems with alcohol abuse, and simply giving that family more money won't mean that the children will see it, bluntly. So, there's that element to it as well.

What have we done? First of all, we have a statutory duty to set child poverty objectives. We're making progress in achieving those. That's the underpinning part of this. We are reducing the number of families living in workless households. Since devolution, the economic inactivity rate in Wales has fallen by 6.2 per cent. The equivalent figure for the UK is 2.2 per cent. So, we've done better, but there's more to do, we know that. We're making a difference through employability programmes such as Communities for Work, helping parents as well to overcome barriers to getting into work, so the childcare offer is important for that, and the parents, childcare and employment programme is important as well.

Also, we're looking to increase the skills of parents and young people living in low-income households. That's important—the more skills you've got, the more employable you are and the more money you're going to earn. How do we do that? Well, the employment delivery plan sets out the actions we're taking to support people to increase their skills, to secure employment and, of course, to secure their in-work progression. And, of course, action to tackle the link between poverty and poor health is a key feature of programmes such as our Healthy Child Wales programme. We look at the education system—the pupil development grant is designed to help those from the poorest backgrounds, and, of course, schemes such as Flying Start and Families First help families to put them in a position where they are able to improve their own lives financially and in terms of the family structure, helping children, then, of course, to get out of poverty.

So, it is important to make sure that people have jobs that pay enough for children not to be in poverty. In-work poverty is, for me, the scourge of this decade. There was a time that we said to people, 'If you get a job, then you'll be better off.' That's not true for a lot of people. We see it with people going to food banks who are actually in work, and that is something—increasing people's wages will be important for in the future. Again, it's also about making sure the families are supported as well to make sure that they can put themselves in a position to take advantage of the schemes that we have in place, and then, of course, improve their position and that of their children.

Do you feel, though, First Minister, that there is a need for an overarching tackling poverty strategy so that people in Wales can take an informed view as to whether necessary progress is being made, so that Assembly Members and committees can adequately and properly scrutinise the Government, so we know what the targets are, what the indicators are, what the evaluation is, and Government can be held to account more strongly than is currently the case?

Of course, we do have that statutory duty to set child poverty objectives, and that is what we are judged against. We have those objectives and then, of course, it's open to scrutiny committees to judge how far we've come in meeting those objectives. 

Could I go on to youth homelessness briefly, then, Chair?

Yes. 

Youth homelessness—First Minister, I think many of us are aware of the strength of feeling in Wales that we're the fourth, fifth or sixth biggest economy—the UK is—on the planet, and nonetheless people are sleeping rough. There's a real problem of homelessness, queues at food banks, and, you know, people see a real disconnect there. Many people are of the view that surely Government can do more and should do more to deal with these problems. You've made a commitment now to end youth homelessness; I think £10 million has been announced for the next financial year. Obviously, youth homelessness is not going to be ended within that one-year period of the forthcoming budget, so do you accept that that commitment for necessary funding to deal with these issues has to persist beyond the next financial year? There has to be provision beyond that in terms of that funding announcement.

Yes, there will need to be. The issue is more complicated than sometimes is portrayed, because reaching out to young people and, indeed, homeless people in general can be difficult. I was with the Salvation Army before Christmas, they have their purple bus where they feed people who are living on the streets, and I asked them, 'What do you think could be done?' They said, 'Clearly, some people have got complex needs, drug use, alcohol.' They said, 'We have people here who would prefer to be on the streets because they're so detached and so lacking in confidence they'd prefer to be on the streets on their own than actually in supported accommodation.' That did take me aback when they said that to me, which shows that with some people there's a lot of work to do to bring them into a situation where they can benefit from schemes that help with homelessness.

With youth homelessness, I think it's important that we as a Government don't try to replicate what's being done by those in the charitable sector who have the expertise. I think we do it best when we work with them. I was with Llamau a few months ago, and I spoke to—they're called 'clients', but, some of the young people there who had benefited from the help that Llamau had given them. Their stories were very diverse, as you can imagine. For some, they'd literally been thrown out of home when they were 16 or 18 and they were sofa surfing. For others, they had left abusive homes and could no longer live there. Ultimately, their confidence was so shot that they saw no way of getting a roof over their heads and then getting a job and getting on with their lives. But Llamau had done it. They had helped these young people and they were now thriving. So, for me, the message from that was: don't try and replicate what experts are already doing, draw on their expertise, help them—clearly, they need financial help to do that—work with them to deliver a programme to eliminate youth homelessness.

Mick, on justice. 

First Minister, in the post-war settlement, things like health, education, poverty and so on were the cornerstones of policy. One of them that was also a cornerstone, of course, at that time, was access to justice, because it was seen as something that was about empowerment. You could not tackle disempowerment, you could not tackle poverty, without ensuring that people had rights, which meant that they had access to those rights. As we become a jurisdiction, as we now are a legislature, as courts are closing, as legal aid is being abolished, we probably have a majority of our population in Wales now who are disempowered from any realistic access to the justice system. I know the Thomas commission is being set up, and I suspect this will be a significant feature of that. How do you see the landscape as to where we are and the empowerment of people and communities tied in with access to advocacy and access to their rights within the new Welsh society?

I cut my teeth for 10 years at the criminal bar, mainly. Most of my work was legal aid. Some of it was crime, some of it was personal injury, some it was family law. It's not now possible to do that because of the cuts in legal aid. The effect that has had on the courts system and on the public is to take us back 300 years, to my mind. I have spoken to judges who've said to me—it never happened when I was in practice, but it's a regular occurrence now for litigants to appear in front of them in person defending themselves, up against professional prosecutors. Any system that has that kind of imbalance on a regular basis, or at all, isn't going to work. Because judges may feel, 'Hang on a second, when I sum up that case, maybe I should just give a little bit of leeway to the defendant because they haven't had somebody to represent themselves.' I think judges might then feel, 'Am I giving a defence speech rather than summing up that case?'

Also, of course, it's having an effect on the ability of the courts to process cases. Lawyers do many things, as you and I know, but one of the things that lawyers do is to keep the wheels of the system churning. Because if you have a case in the criminal courts where you have a litigant in person, it takes three or four times as long for that case to be heard, because everything has to be explained to the person defending themselves, whereas it's a much quicker process when you have lawyers involved. So, it does worry me greatly.

In personal injury law, we've seen the growth of no-win, no-fee, with—you and I were discussing this a few weeks ago—a concomitant drop in professional standards that we both felt was there, but, nevertheless, that's the system now. In family law, again, you've got district judges trying to deal with, quite often, complicated ancillary reliefs on the basis of the fact that there are no advocates there.

So, the courts system, I think—. Apart from those who can afford to access it—commercial law, company law—the courts system is grinding slowly to a halt. I say that quite openly, and people do not have the access to justice that they once had 20 years ago, and that means that justice will not always be done in those circumstances.

How do we resolve it? Well, it's not devolved, but it is an issue the commission will look at. Let's say that justice is devolved. Do we look at, basically, legal aid? We could just look at replicating what we had before. Do we say, 'Well, in the criminal courts, basically, there will be a public defender's office at a far greater level than we have now', given the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service, which at one time only prosecuted in the magistrates' court, now has advocates prosecuting in the Crown Court? So, that's almost become a public prosecution service, where the independent bar is slowly being pushed out, except in the most complicated of cases. Is that a model?

What I do know is that we can't carry on as we are, because how can we possibly say that we have a justice system that works when it's now a regular occurrence where people are defending themselves and prosecuted by those for whom it's a profession? The balance isn't right.

Within that context, is there a concern with a number of things: one, that, effectively, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable in our society who are the ones who are, effectively, almost debarred now from access to justice? Secondly, Welsh Government has done a lot in terms of the funding. In fact, the only resource that's available is, effectively, Welsh Government funding for those, in terms of welfare and in terms of many housing and social issues, through Citizens Advice and bodies like that, through the third sector and so on.

Do you think we need a new—? I don't want to pre-empt what the Thomas commission will come up with and how that will be dealt with, but we need to actually look at a new model of advocacy support, a new system that actually empowers and gives voice, because what is the point of us being a legislature and having a Welsh jurisdiction if, within our own country, people do not actually have that level of empowerment?

It is a point that's been raised with me by the commission—it's something that we discussed yesterday. You're quite right, there are great dangers in taking on board a system that's in financial decline, because all that means is that you then get the blame for something that you cannot change. That's something I'm very much aware of, and we will look to see what kind of—if justice is devolved, what will the financial settlement be? There'd be a Barnett consequential that we don't get now, and, of course, how might we restructure the current system to make it more accessible?

The irony is, of course, if you are very, very poor, you will get legal aid, if you're very, very rich, you get access to justice because you can afford it, but, if you're somebody who is in work but struggling, you don't get any legal aid. That's the problem—there's a vast mass of people who, at one time, would've been entitled to legal aid who are now not entitled to it.

So, I'm very much aware of the fact that as we say—as is our position, 'We want to see justice devolved and a jurisdiction established', we must also start thinking about what kind of legal system we want. How will we ensure access to those people who've lost access to legal aid over the years? How will we ensure that we have a penal policy, for example, that's more tailored to Wales? These are all issues that are beginning to be thought through in Government, subject, of course, to what the commission recommends.

Thanks. Bethan on the devolution of broadcasting.

Thank you. I want to turn to environment, and there are a couple of questions. I know Llyr has got a few, and I know Nick wants to come in on the environment.

Nick. 

I remember first meeting you, First Minister, back many years ago, when you were Minister for environment, planning and transport, I think it was back in those days—

Rural affairs. 

—at the Royal Welsh Show. So, you started off early on with looking out for farmers' interests. You must be aware, at the moment, following on from Llyr Gruffydd's question, that there is real concern amongst the farming community about the system post Brexit of supporting them. I hear what you're saying, I hear what Llyr said as well, about the fact that, in England, they're also pursuing changes that are similar in a way, but we do, of course, have different land here in Wales and a different type of farm and which we always have. So, can you give us an assurance that I can go back to those farmers and I can say to them 'Look, whatever the system of funding post Brexit in Wales, there will be money available, even if it's not direct payments, to support the type of farming and the countryside that we've got used to in Wales'? 

Yes, it's simply a question of something in return for the payment. That's what we're looking to do. What we won't do ever is go to a system of headage payments. When I came into the job, we had headage payments, which just meant there was massive overproduction, the quality levels weren't where they should be and the price dropped for everyone. So, we wouldn't go back to that. The days of headage payments are long gone. But we are looking to see what we can do, working with farmers—so, if we give the money, that they are delivering certain aspects for us. Some farmers will say 'Well, we are raising sheep, that's enough. We're feeding the country'. Well, yes, but we need to see—. Farmers are farmers, they want to be farmers but they also have an effect on the environment and they are people who present themselves as environmental managers, but farming is at the core of what they do, I understand that. 

The big question, which I can't answer, is how much money will be available. Now, what I've said, and I'll repeat it here, is that I think the way to resolve the issue of funding for farming is for the UK Government to set aside a pot of money specifically for farming subsidy payments, that that pot should be equivalent to the money we all get as four nations now—so, from our perspective, about £260 million—and that that pot should be available only for farming. Now, that's counterintuitive, as far as we are concerned, because we've always said 'Well, we need to have complete freedom on how to spend the money via the block grant', but this is a very unusual situation, because the only other way of the money being distributed is through Barnett. We do that, we get a 70 per cent cut in our funding and no-one wants to do that. Secondly, I don't think that farmers—well, they've told me—want to see money for farming being allocated as part of a general budget process, because then they're competing with health and education. Do you give money to doctors or farmers? They don't want to be in that position. That to me is the solution, saying, 'There's the money, let's distribute it as it always has been until we all agree on a new system'. That's the sensible way forward. Now, we've got no progress on that yet. So, in some ways this is academic, given the fact that we've got no idea what, if any, money will be available, and, until we get that certainty, much of this will be difficult to predict in the future.  

We're back to Wednesday's debate there, aren't we?  

Yes, I was going to say, we can see time is against us, but a number of Members have indicated they want to talk about Brexit. So, I'm going to allow a session about Brexit, but please look at the time. And then I have two short topical questions at the end, and they will be just short questions and hopefully short answers as well, because there will be other times perhaps to take some of them up. The rest of the questions that we have, we might write to the First Minister in the usual way. So, on Brexit, Mick, do you want to start?

Yes. First Minister, you started with Brexit and it's not surprising that we finish with Brexit. We have a Government in meltdown, we are in a constitutional crisis. The very survival of the UK is at risk, as well as the UK economy. The Government has produced a 500-page document that does not appear to be based on any engagement with the Welsh Government or with yourself. We have an inter-governmental agreement, which is fundamentally based on the concepts of trust and respect between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. You demanded a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss matters, and perhaps you might enlarge a little bit upon that. But if you don’t get a satisfactory response from the Prime Minister, bearing in mind that what has happened appears to drive the concept of trust and respect out of the equation now, should we be giving consideration to not repealing the Welsh continuity Act, which is now on the statute book, which was based very much on the UK Government honouring that trust and respect?

I think we can take the inter-governmental agreement as something separate. There’s no reason for us to believe that the UK Government would dishonour the inter-governmental agreement. On that basis, there is no need to continue with the continuity Bill. In fact, it was something that we would have looked to do because we have an agreement. That would suggest, from our perspective, of course, that there’s no trusting us either. So, yes, it is—it’s one of those situations where you do have to have trust that the other side will keep to an agreement that’s been brokered, and which, if that doesn’t happen, then clearly there would be no element of trust in the future. There’s no suggestion that the UK Government are going to break that agreement.

On Brexit, the Prime Minister telephoned me on Wednesday evening to tell me what was happening. There is a meeting scheduled now between her and me. We’re trying to get that done in the course of the next few days to discuss the issue further. Bluntly, I don’t know who I’ll be meeting at this rate; I’ve never seen such an unpredictable time in politics. We all make our political points on this, but ultimately the certainty isn’t there for business. That’s what worries me. Businesses are saying to me, ‘Well, what’s going to happen?’, and we’re still none the wiser.

The main argument I have with the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration is that it doesn’t give a certainty. It kicks it down the road for a while, but it doesn’t give the kind of long-term certainty that’s needed. It may be that this process is part of that, but we’ve had two years of this. We should have been in a position by now where there was a full agreement that was sustainable and long term on the UK’s relationship with the EU. What we have doesn’t meet the requirements that we laid down some time ago. It’s moved towards our position. The irony is that much of what the withdrawal agreement says is what we were saying two years ago. If it had been adopted then, perhaps we’d have been further forward at this point.

But isn’t the problem, First Minister, this: that you don’t know who you’ll meet? The trust and respect agenda on the basis of the inter-parliamentary agreement is with the current Government. There may be a totally different type of Government in a couple of days’ time. Is this not an area where we just need to keep our options under review?

We always keep our options under review. Who knows what the Government will look like next week. I suspect it will be a Conservative Government next week. Who knows in the future, but, on that basis, the agreement is with the UK Government as it's currently constituted with the party in power, and I expect that agreement to be honoured.

We've got about five minutes for three questions and three answers, so, Bethan.

I was just wondering whether you'd be taking up the offer or the idea that Alun Cairns has put to you to stand as an MP so that you could get some access to the Brexit negotiations, because it seems to me that, without you doing that, there's no way of you having a relationship with the Secretary of State at the moment.

'No' is the simple answer to that. I'm not tempted by that. I think if I were to say that today, I would find that, next week, most of my possessions would be out on the street. So, 'no' is the answer, and the reality is, of course, that I don't think the Wales Office has much influence anyway, bluntly. We have access to the Prime Minister and to David Lidington, in particular, who is down today, which I welcome—the fact that he's come down to meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance today, as his colleague on the JMC(EN). But, no, I don't see how being a backbench MP puts you in a more powerful position than being First Minister.

Well, I asked it in jest, but I think the serious point is: do you now have a view as to whether there should be a vote of no confidence in Alun Cairns? I know you rejected Plaid Cymru's motion in June, but considering his disdain for this institution—an institution that he was a part of—and considering the fact that he has clearly no respect for the Government, at the end of the day, surely the Welsh Government should have a view on these things, if we're going to be taking this nation forwards. So, what's your view now on that?

The view I have, of course, is that there should be a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State. I don't agree with what he said, clearly, and I oppose it tooth and nail, but I am worried about the precedent of tabling a vote of no confidence in a member of another Government, because that leads to all manner of possibilities where we have a vote of no confidence in a Welsh Government Minister in Westminster or somebody tables a vote of no confidence in a Scottish Minister. I think that's ground we need to avoid—

Okay, but—

I think the point can be made politically without the need for a no-confidence vote.

Yes, you can take that out somewhere, because we're up against time. I've got two more quick questions from Lynne and then David and then we've got to move on to topicals.

It is the most shocking mess, I think everybody can agree on that, and it's difficult to see how it's going to be resolved. I was listening to the English health Minister, Matt Hancock, on the radio yesterday, refusing to deny that he had told the Cabinet on Wednesday that people would die in the event of a 'no deal' Brexit, and yet it's apparent that there are many people who still want to push for a 'no deal' Brexit. Given how bad this situation is, isn't it now time just to say, 'Well, you've had two years to sort this out, you haven't been able to do it, let's put this back to the people and a people's vote'?

You heard my view yesterday. My view has been that if there is no agreement in Parliament, the people have to be consulted. My view has been that you do that through an election, where Brexit would be the issue. If the election is inconclusive, then there's no alternative to a referendum. So, building on that, if, for example, the outcome of the next few days' proceedings is simply a change of leader and a change of Prime Minister, that would not, to my mind, be sufficient, and then there would have to be a second referendum.

Given where we are, how do you resolve a situation where politicians cannot agree without going back to the very people who made the decision in the first place? It's not as if it's exactly the same question. I've said, and I'll say it again: I remember that, for eight years, the Conservative Party's policy was to have a second referendum on devolution, because the result had been so close. That's been forgotten about. But, there we are, let's just park that for now.

It would be a different question. In 2016, people were asked to vote on, not a plan, but an idea. When we had our referendums here in 1997 and 2011, if people wanted to, they could look at a document that told them what would happen if they voted 'yes'. There was no such document. I would say to people, 'Look, the German car industry is not going to step in and create a free-trade agreement overnight.' And then people would say, 'Well, I don't believe that', and there was no way of disproving it, because it was all hypothetical at that stage. Now we know what the deal looks like, I think it's perfectly proper to go back to the people and say, 'Look, the scenario has changed; what do you want to do now?'

Thank you.

And finally, David on this.

First Minister, I will refer to Bethan's point on the comments of the Secretary of State for Wales, because I think it reflects his whole approach, throughout the process, in terms of how difficult it's been for the Welsh Government to actually get information and engage with the UK Government. I know that you've mentioned that it's got better, but it seems, over the last few weeks, to have got worse again, especially with his comments on Wednesday night, when he said, 'It's a reserved matter and nothing to do with you whatsoever.' That's what his comment was, effectively. 

Do you have confidence, therefore, that the repeal of this Bill—? I know you've mentioned that it's a separate agreement—the inter-governmental agreement isn't about leaving the EU—but the repeal of this Bill at this point in time, when we don't know whether there will be a Government of the same colour in January, or who we're going to be talking to in the future, should we now hold back on repealing this Bill so that we keep it safe until a time when we are confident that we no longer need it?

Maybe the issue that should be considered is—. As part of the inter-governmental agreement, it was accepted that we would withdraw the Bill; if we don't, that has implications for the agreement. That's something that we have to consider. To my mind, the inter-governmental agreement is a separate issue to Brexit almost, because it's an issue that affects the relationship between two Governments within the UK. I've seen nothing to suggest that they would break that agreement. We don't know what's going to happen in the future, but that's where we are at the moment.

In terms of what will happen over the next few days, that is, I'm afraid, anyone's guess. It's just very difficult to know. Just to explain: our relationship with the UK Government is not channelled through the Wales Office. The Wales Office, we copy in, but we deal directly with Whitehall departments. I deal directly with the Prime Minister; I don't deal via the Secretary of State for Wales and then go through him to the Prime Minister. So, he's not right to say, of course, that it's a reserved matter in practice. Yes, of course, international trade and international treaties are a reserved matter, but their effect is huge in devolved areas. So, it's never been wise to simply say, 'Well, this has nothing to do with you', because it clearly does. But, again, I don't think the Wales Office has much influence at all on the way that the UK Government actually operates, and certainly the UK Government, I think, finds it easier to deal directly with us.

Okay, thanks. We're going to move on to topical questions, because you can see that the time is beating us. I've got one and possibly a second, depending on how long the answers are to the first question. So, certainly Dai's is considered topical. So, Dai, do you want to ask yours?

Thank you, Chair. An urgent issue that's cropped up overnight: Jungle Cry is a multimillion-pound film by Bollywood, India. They've come to Wales and are filming. They've been in Wales, and I've met with the producer over the summer months. You have also met with the director, I know. This is based on the true story of a boys' rugby team from orphanages in Calcutta, who came to Europe and actually won an international youth rugby tournament in 2007 against all the odds—a true rags-to-riches and David-and-Goliath story. So, they're making a film out of that in much the same style as Slumdog Millionaire and everything is set up. They've been on location shoots, using Welsh and UK film production companies in Swansea and Llanelli, at Parc y Scarlets, Liberty Stadium, Swansea Rugby Club and Dunvant Rugby Club as well. A number of Welsh actors are involved; 60 young rugby players are involved; and also 14 from India, who are from the same original youth rugby team of orphans of a decade ago. 

Last night, the UK High Commission in Calcutta has refused to grant those 14 rugby players from India visas, so they cannot come. The filming of their particular part of this film is next week. If they don't arrive, that Bollywood/Hollywood production company is going to have to seriously look at not filming in Wales now and that's a really serious situation, because they've already spent lots of money. There's one hotel in Swansea that's already been guaranteed £128,000 in accommodation for the film production company. What they want is a letter to the UK High Commission in Calcutta, saying, 'Sort this out over the weekend, please.'

I'm grateful to you for giving me some notice of this outside. I wasn't aware of it, but I was aware of the film, and as you said, I met the director on Monday. I will make sure that that happens. We will write, not just to the UK High Commission in Calcutta, but also to the appropriate bodies in London in terms of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make sure that this issue is resolved and that we can stage a film that will have an audience of not millions, but billions. I can give the committee my assurance that what's been asked for will be done.

Thank you. I have the details here.

Okay, thank you. Can you get your topical question in within two minutes?

Yes.

Go on, then.

First Minister, another topical issue is the Flybe issue at Cardiff Airport. We are all aware that they are up for sale as a consequence of business. Clearly, we had Bmibaby and they went. Flybe took over the gap that existed as a consequence and they operate out of Cardiff to many different locations across Europe. Without those flights, we may see a catastrophic impact upon Cardiff. If planes that are based in Cardiff are moved away from Cardiff, we would see a loss of routes. Will you now look very carefully at how the Welsh Government can support that, because I understand that there was a five-year deal with Flybe and we're still in that—we're coming to the end of the third year of that deal, so there are still some years to go yet—to ensure that Cardiff Airport can maintain those types of flights? We all know the challenges from other airports, and the issues of air passenger duty are separate—this is all separate to that. This is about how we ensure that we keep flights and routes in Cardiff that offer to the people of Wales access to European cities.

It's a period of uncertainty with regard to Flybe. I discussed this with the airport's chief executive some days ago, before the announcement came—there was a suggestion that this might happen. There is no reason to suspect that Flybe won't have a buyer. Parts of its business are successful, and the Cardiff part of its business is very successful. So, at this stage, it seems that there will be a buyer. Cardiff is a hugely attractive airport and the routes are doing well, and that will be known to any operator. We're seeing more Ryanair routes coming in now as well.

So, whilst it is a period of uncertainty, having spoken to the airport they're not alarmed by it. We will wait to see what unfolds over the next few days. Of course, we offered support to Flybe and we stand ready to do that in future. But, there's no suggestion at this stage that we will end up with Flybe not being bought and then the routes being cut from Cardiff—they are successful routes.

Okay. Well, there we are. Thank you very much, First Minister. It was always a tall order to go through nine—nearly 10—years' worth of programmes for government to try to ask you to explain. So, can we thank you and your official for attending your last meeting—we've got through there—and advise you, as usual, that a draft transcript will wing its way for you to check for accuracy? That might be one of the last jobs you perform as First Minister—to check the accuracy of our meeting today.

I thank you for your engagement with the committee over the years that we've been having scrutiny of the First Minister. I thank you for agreeing to come out, as well. I know that we've held this one here in Cardiff, but we've gone out—it's been a policy, and I think it's a policy that's worked to allow other parts of Wales to understand how we work.

It's the first time, I think—. I'm now going to mention it, because we always mention it. It's the first time you and I have been in a meeting where I haven't mentioned sprinklers formally, so we're going to mention them. 

Thank you, Chair. Yes.

So, thank you very much for that legislation, because that has made sure that communities across Wales will be safe long after you have stepped down from being First Minister. Nevertheless, that is your legacy, and that's how I see it—as your legacy.

So, you did mention it.

Did I mention it? Right, okay. [Laughter.] Thank you very much, and I'm sure that Members have enjoyed the scrutiny. We've pushed against the envelope of time, but I thank you very much, and your officials, because we know that a lot of work goes into preparation for this, as it does from our side as well. So, thank you very much. If the committee is happy, we will now close the meeting. Thank you.