National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

Item 1 is questions to the First Minister, and the first question, Nick Ramsay.

Yes. Over the next few weeks and months, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will be meeting local government leaders and other stakeholders to listen to their views, before considering the long-term approach to local government reform, and a statement will, of course, be made in due course.

That’s a very encouraging answer, First Minister. You’re an astute man, and it won’t have escaped your notice that I’ve been opposing the plans to abolish the county of Monmouthshire as part of the local government reorganisation proposed by the last Welsh Government. Now that the Minister responsible for these plans has moved on to greater things, isn’t now a good time to get back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that we, councillors, and the public can all support? I’m more than happy to meet you for a pint sometime to discuss this. [Laughter.]

Well, I think these things are best kept on a formal basis, but I thank the Member for that invitation, nevertheless. Well, yes, those discussions will now begin. There seems to be general agreement that there is a need to move forward with reform of local government, but, of course, there are varying different views as to what form that should take. And, of course, the Cabinet Secretary will have discussions on this over the course of the next few weeks and months.

First Minister, the Auditor General for Wales, in his report, ‘A Picture of Public Services 2015’, last year, noted that, since the UK Government set its austerity programme in the 2010 spending review, Wales has had to manage a £1.2 million—sorry, I’ll say that again, a £1.2 billion funding cut. Despite such savage Tory cuts, local authorities and Welsh councils have continued—[Interruption.] Llywydd, if I may, they have continued to stand up for the communities of Wales. Will the First Minister outline his strength of conviction and commitment to the Welsh Government’s priorities for supporting the effective and efficient local government delivery of public services?

Yes, I will. I know that local government has had enormous challenges in dealing with the cuts that have been imposed on us from Westminster, and they have sought to serve their communities well. There are, of course, areas where there can be greater collaboration, in my view, and areas where there can be greater strengthening of consistency across local government in Wales, and I know that the Secretary is keen to lead on this, in discussions with other parties and, indeed, with local government leaders over the course of the next few months.

With the opportunity of local government reform, will the First Minister urgently take steps to ensure that a new regional structure is put in place, to allow flawed local development plans, with unnecessary use of greenfield sites, to be amended to avoid developer-led urban sprawl? Because, if you recall, on 24 April 2012, First Minister, you said that it was completely untrue that you had announced plans to build on Cardiff’s greenfield sites. You called it a blatant lie, only to be embarrassed by your own party which then published plans to build on Cardiff’s greenfield sites. You misled us all. Will you now redeem yourself in the eyes of the public and implement yet another Plaid Cymru policy?

Well, he has had this tussle before. I’ve made no such announcement ever, as a Minister or, indeed, as leader of any party, and he knows that full well. He raises an important point. It’s a point that’s raised, indeed, by my colleague, Hefin David, as well, the Member for Caerphilly, and that is that it’s not realistic for local development plans to be developed in isolation of each other. There is huge sense in having a strategic development framework across, particularly, the south-east of Wales, where there is great pressure. Cardiff is a city that’s growing very strongly and we should welcome that. But, nevertheless, we do need to ensure that there is a proper regional framework in place when it comes to planning for the growth of the various parts of Wales over the course of the next few years.

Yes. The Swansea bay city region board continues to lead regional alignment and collaboration to deliver shared aspirations for jobs and growth.

May I thank the First Minister for that response? I think that we both agree that Swansea bay city region has a clear direction of travel. I believe in the importance of city regions as economic drivers. Cardiff has had agreed funding for its city deal. Can the First Minister provide an update on funding for the Swansea city region, including the city deal?

Yes, of course. I know that Sir Terry Matthews and the board have developed an initial proposal for a city deal, which has been submitted to both us and the UK Government. It’s seeking a sum of around £500 million over 20 years, and, indeed, the proposal outlines the transformational power of digital connectivity to accelerate growth in the region, and across Wales and, indeed, the rest of the UK. So, that submission has been made. We now, of course, wish to move forward with a city deal along the lines of that that’s been agreed for the capital region.

You will be aware, naturally, First Minister, of the exciting development of the new campus in Swansea bay, at Swansea University, and you will be aware of the huge investment made in that new campus and that the vast majority of that has come from European funding. So, would you agree with me that such an investment would be impossible if Wales were outwith the European Union?

That’s quite right, and it’s true to say that without having that funding available to us, that campus would not exist.

The Swansea bay skills partnership is a work-based learning consortium that has been identified mainly as ‘merely adequate’ by Estyn. With such hopes for the economic potential for the Swansea bay city region, what is your Government doing to ensure that those charged with converting talent into desirable skills actually fulfil those aims?

I believe that is happening. The city region board know full well that the key to attracting investment is making sure that skills are available so that that investment can take place. One of the questions I’m often asked by potential investors when I go abroad is, ‘Do you have the skills that we need in order for us to prosper in your country?’, and we are able to provide them with that reassurance. If we look, for example, at the Swansea University campus, which I know, as my friend, David Rees, will remind me, is in the Aberavon constituency, it is a significant investment in the future of Swansea bay—a hugely important campus and a sign that education and skills provision is taken very seriously in that part of Wales, as indeed it is across the entire nation.

First Minister, for the city region to work most effectively requires greater collaboration amongst the local government partners. Your previous local government reorganisation proposals were at odds with the city region map. Will your new proposals for local government mergers take into account the need for Swansea and Neath Port Talbot to work closer together with Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire?

Well, that would be needed in any event. The Swansea bay city region of course crosses boundaries. We know that political boundaries don’t align themselves with economic boundaries. That’s why the city deal in the capital region involves 10 local authorities, reflecting, of course, what is the economic region, and reflecting the need for local authorities to work together to deliver prosperity for all their citizens.

I now call on the party leaders to question the First Minister and, first of all, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, in the agreement that you reached to form the Lib-Lab coalition that we have as the Government here in Wales today, part of the Lib-Dem manifesto was taken into your programme of Government about reducing class sizes. The cost of that was some £42 million, or the estimation was £42 million. In your own manifesto, you said that the Labour Government, if elected, would be making available £100 million for education over the lifetime of the Assembly. Will this £42 million be additional money that will have to be found to be put into the education budget, or is it part of your overall commitment of £100 million?

We are proud to pledge the £100 million as a main pledge in our election manifesto. That money is earmarked for educational improvement. It’s a matter now, of course, for the Government and for the Secretary to examine how the issue of class sizes can be taken forward.

I notice you didn’t answer the question there, because I think it’s important to understand: will you be making money available over and above your own manifesto’s commitment to meet this new commitment that you’ve taken into your programme for government? It’s a perfectly legitimate question, because I would hope that, before you agreed to this, you did put it through the civil service machine, as it were, and see what the liability would be, because £42 million is not a small sum of money. So, it’s a simple answer: will there be an additional £42 million made available for the education budget to meet this commitment, or has it got to come out of your existing priorities that you’ve identified in your own budget?

No, the commitment can be met outside the £100 million pot.

So, there will be new money coming in to the education budget to meet this commitment. I think that’s the point that you were making. But your education adviser, David Reynolds, has identified that it maybe isn’t the best use of money to increase education attainment levels. But, if you are a school, a headteacher, and a governing body, to meet this requirement, would it mean that you will have to create additional classrooms, have new teachers, or will it mean just sub-dividing classes to meet the requirement that has been taken on board by your Government? I think it’s important to understand exactly how this is going to be implemented, so that governors and headteachers know that (a) the money will be coming to meet the commitment, but, secondly, they will be able to accommodate it within the existing school estates they have. Or will you be making additional capital money available for any building work that might be required?

These are issues that are being examined as we seek to move the policy forward. One of the things that we are proud of is the fact that we have built so many new schools across Wales, that we’ve refurbished so many schools across Wales and that the twenty-first century schools programme will continue. Increasingly across Wales we see more and more children, and more and more teachers, who are being taught in facilities that are appropriate to the twenty-first century, after so many years in the 1980s and 1990s of disinvestment and underinvestment in our schools.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

Bron i dair blynedd yn ôl, disgrifiodd y Prif Weinidog, David Cameron, y tagfeydd ar goridor yr M4 fel troed ar bibell wynt economi Cymru. Mae hynny, ynghyd â’r tollau ar bont Hafren, sy’n gweithredu fel rhyw fath o dreth ar swyddi a ffyniant yn ne Cymru, yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i ni weithredu ar unwaith neu’n gyflym iawn beth bynnag, i ddatrys y ddwy broblem hon. O ganlyniad i’r cytundeb y mae Llywodraeth Cymru bellach wedi’i gyrraedd gyda Phlaid Cymru, mae’n ymddangos ein bod wedi rhoi’r ateb i broblemau’r M4 i’r naill ochr. Tybed a allai’r Prif Weinidog roi rhyw fath o amserlen efallai ar gyfer dod o hyd i ateb.

Well, I don’t agree that it’s been kicked into the long grass. There is a general recognition that there needs to be a solution to the problems around the Brynglas tunnels. The process in terms of the black route continues, but that needs a proper inquiry—that needs proper examination. I am keen that other options are examined as well, as part of that public process. I’m in favour of the transparency that that would provide.

In terms of the Severn tolls, we don’t control them. We think we should control them and, if we did control them, we’d abolish the tolls.

I fully accept the second point that the First Minister made and he will certainly have the full support of my own party in attempting to get rid of this major constriction on economic development in south Wales.

But, as regards the M4 project, my party went into the last election on the basis of supporting the blue route rather than the black route. Our view is that the black route would be better than no route and we don’t want to find ourselves in a situation, such as we’ve had for many years now in relation to the expansion of Heathrow Airport, where there’s endless talk and no action. So, it seems to me that the proposal for this further public inquiry imposition is likely to produce interminable delays so that problems will only get worse and worse and worse. So, the answer to the steel industry’s problems is partly constricted by this difficulty as well.

No, this is a legal requirement; it’s not something that we can escape without the threat of judicial review and nor would we want to escape it. It is part of the process of moving forward with a solution to the issue of the Brynglas tunnels. I don’t think it affects the steel industry in any way, shape or form, but it is right to say that, for many businesses, and, indeed, when we’ve looked at bringing major events into Cardiff, the issue is raised of congestion in the Brynglas tunnels.

The other issue, of course, is that if the tolls disappear on the Severn bridge, the natural brake on traffic that exists there would simply be piled onto the Brynglas tunnels, making the situation worse. So, there is no easy solution other than to look at ways to bypass those tunnels.

I fully accept the logic of that. I just want to say to the First Minister that we came to this place to be constructive in opposition and we want to play the kind of role that Plaid Cymru claims now to be playing in relation to the development of Government policy, and so I just want to say that in relation to the black route or the blue route, my party is prepared to enter into discussions and negotiations with the Government. As I said earlier on, we think that the black route is better than no route and so, if this is necessary to unblock the logjam, then we’re prepared to play our part in it.

I hear what the leader of UKIP has said. It’s important that the process now moves forward. It’s important that the process is as transparent as possible. It’s important that the Government obeys the law, which is why we have the process that we do. I’ve looked at this in some detail and the conclusion that I’ve drawn is that it’s difficult to see an alternative to the black route. Others take a different view, and it’s important then that the process that is followed is transparent and takes the appropriate amount of time in order for an inspector to report and give findings that are transparent for all to see.

The leader of the opposition, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Well, it looks like you might be able to strike a deal with UKIP, First Minister, on the future of the black route. How very interesting. [Laughter.]

Last night, there was a TV debate about the EU referendum, and the voter registration system crashed just before the deadline of midnight. Will you join with me and others calling for an extension to the online voter registration so that we can maximise the number of people who want to participate in this referendum on what will be one of the most important questions facing the future of our country?

Can I say that I entirely agree with what the leader of the opposition has said? It’s not acceptable that people should be denied the right to vote because of a technological problem. I am in the process of writing to the Prime Minister about this, although it seems that, earlier on this afternoon, he gave an indication that the deadline would be extended. It’s important now, of course, to make sure (a) that that happens, and (b) that we understand how that can happen.

Thank you, First Minister. You’ll recall how the former ASW workers from here in Cardiff lost their pensions when their company collapsed a few years ago. It was the existence of a 1980 EU directive that was found by my colleague Adam Price, when he was a Plaid Cymru MP, which forced the Government—at the time, it was a Labour Government—to create the financial assistance scheme and the pension protection fund. While that didn’t go as far as we would have liked—it only guaranteed 90 per cent of the pension and it wasn’t index linked—would you agree with me that, given the current question marks over the future of the steelworkers’ pensions, without these vital protections from the European Union, many workers in Wales would today be worse off than they are now?

Yes, that’s correct. I think it was under article 8 of the convention that the action was taken, if I remember rightly, in court in 2007. And, yes, it is right to say that, as a result of the court’s interpretation of European law, further protection was put in place for those pensioners. It is indeed an example of how the European Union, in this one way amongst many, has protected and enhanced the rights of workers in Wales.

Diolch, First Minister. Now, a lot of the debate so far has been less about providing accurate information that people are able to make an informed choice upon, and more about scaremongering. Will you join me in condemning the dog-whistle politics from the far right that seeks to invoke racist imagery and exploit people’s fears with statements that infer that a vote to remain within the European Union will increase the risk of women getting raped?

I was astounded and appalled by that comment. I’m not surprised by it, but the leader of the opposition is absolutely right, it’s an astounding comment. It would sit very well in the 1930s, actually—the politics of the 1930s, frankly, and some of the parties that existed then. The reality is, I’m afraid, that the debate on our membership of the European referendum—and I say this: I think it’s true on both sides in London—has become overheated. It’s beginning to look like a spat between public schoolboys on both sides, and I think that ordinary people and their views are being ignored. Well, can I say, as somebody, like her, who went to a comprehensive school, who represents a former mining community, at least in part for me, and who represents ordinary working people, that I would not want to see us leave and see those people voted out of a job?

Having brought forward the groundbreaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 to provide Wales with the legislation to effectively tackle climate change, we are now committed to fully implementing them.

Thank you for that response. It’s obvious that climate change is already having an impact on many of our communities, particularly in Mid and West Wales, with areas such as Powys and Talybont suffering from flooding. Would the First Minister agree that it would be of benefit to Wales to ensure that we respect European laws that demand that we have renewable energy and that we should adhere to those targets, and that it makes sense for us to collaborate with our European neighbours, and that that is yet another reason why people should vote to remain as part of the European Union on 23 June?

That’s entirely right. It is true to say that the UK has been dragged into ensuring that the environment is cleaned up and to ensure that our rivers, seas and air is cleaner than it was 30 years ago. I remember, as someone who was a keen fisherman as a boy, that the River Taff was virtually empty. By now, of course, we have salmon swimming up the Taff and that just shows how much good has been done for our environment because of the European legislation that has ensured that the UK does have a far cleaner environment than it had in the past.

First Minister, the woman responsible for the Conference of the Parties discussions in Paris, Christiana Figueres, visited Wales last week. She came to speak at the Hay Festival and she spoke very eloquently on the need for Government, businesses and the voluntary sector, if you like, the civic society, to collaborate in order to achieve the dream of the Paris negotiations.

She also said clearly that an increase of 2 per cent—I apologise, an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in temperature, according to the insurance industry itself, was systematically uninsurable. And therefore Paris, of course, is trying to achieve 1.5 degrees as the biggest increase possible. Are you as a Government, therefore, committed to an increase of no more than 1.5 degrees?

This is something that we will have to consider, of course. It is very important that we ensure that action takes place worldwide. We can play our part, of course—we have done so because of the legislation that has been passed. But also, there is no point for us to reduce what we are doing about climate change if things get worse in another country. So, that’s why it’s so important to ensure that action takes place worldwide and that we play a vital role in that.

May I interrupt the First Minister? There was a problem with the interpretation, but it appears to be back now. So, I apologise for interrupting you, but for a minute, you were only heard in one language. So, if you could perhaps just repeat some of what you have just said—

I must now remember what I said. [Laughter.]

And try to ensure that you say the same thing the second time. [Laughter.]

It’s extremely important that we play our part in Wales. It’s also important, of course, that every country in the world plays its part. There’s no point in us taking action alone, and that’s why it’s important that we have action on a global level and that we in Wales play a vital role.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Russell George.

First Minister, the connection between air pollution and ill health, and even premature death, is well known. With this in mind, I wonder if you could update me on what the Welsh Government is doing to improve air quality across Wales, particularly in our large cities in the future.

Well, one way of improving the environment, of course, and indeed emissions, is to invest more in sustainable energy, which I know is a particular issue in his part of the world. It is obvious that there are some forms of energy that are far less polluting than others, and that’s the way that we have to go and the world has to go in the future. One way, of course, of investing further in terms of reducing carbon emissions is investment in public transport. The south-east Wales metro is an example of that, as will other metro systems be across Wales, in Swansea and indeed in the north-east of Wales to begin with.

There are also other ways, of course, in which emissions can be reduced. For example, where you have problems with traffic, where traffic is idling for some time or moving slowly on a particular road, then a bypass helps. I’m sure he will know that, of course, given the fact that the Newtown bypass is moving forward. That will help to reduce emissions, I’m sure, in his constituency.

Well, membership of the EU and continued access to a single market of over 500 million people provides the people of Islwyn, and indeed Wales, with enormous benefits. It accounts for around 40 per cent of our exports, helps fund long-term infrastructure investment and supports Welsh farming.

Thank you, First Minister. As well as the 190,000 Welsh jobs alone that rely directly upon EU funding, my constituents also benefit from the important rights gained from the UK’s membership of the European Union, whether that’s paid leave—[Interruption.] Excuse me—time off for urgent reasons, breaks during the day, health and safety legislation, and I can go on. You’ve also mentioned taxation in terms of tariffs that the party opposite would like to dump on Wales. I could go on and on. In the face of this—and this is my question, Llywydd—what can Welsh Government do to protect workers’ rights in the face of the born-again Thatcherites in this Chamber who would send us back to the 1980s?

Well, I do know that the economists who back Brexit tend to be, shall we say, minimalists when it comes to the protection of workers’ rights. Arch-Thatcherites from the 1980s are indeed people who don’t believe that manufacturing is important. That is what I have heard from Professor Minford, for example. That’s what he’s insinuated. The reality is this: I go abroad and when I bring investment into Wales—and we’ve been successful in doing that—the main question they ask is about EU membership. They are not interested in coming to Wales. They are not interested in coming to the UK. They are interested in accessing the market of 500 million. If we can’t offer that access, that investment won’t come. It’s said that this is our money. It’s not Welsh money. This is money that comes to Wales from Brussels that would go from Brussels to London instead. We can guarantee, because we know in this Chamber, that once you introduce that middle man, the middle man will take a cut. Wales benefits. It’s a net beneficiary, and that money would simply go to London, rather than come to Wales. At least with the situation we have now, it is right to say that that money comes to Wales, and it’s guaranteed that that money would not come to Wales in the future and the people of Wales would lose out.

The First Minister will know of Cwmcarn Forest Drive, an attraction that is an asset to the Islwyn area and one that has benefited from European Union funding. Will the First Minister agree with me that, in order to overcome recent difficulties at Cwmcarn Forest Drive, European funding in the future could be crucial, and will he further agree and commit to Welsh Government working to unlock all possible funding sources to ensure a future for Cwmcarn Forest Drive?

Absolutely right. I know there’ve been issues on the forest drive, of course, with tree disease in years gone by. It’s a hugely useful attraction for the Islwyn constituency, and we know that we need to access all the pots that are available to us in order to maximise the impact on the local economy that the drive provides.

First Minister, between 2014 and 2020, Wales will benefit from around £1.8 billion of European structural fund investment to support communities such as Islwyn. In view of recent warnings that this funding could end after 2020, even if the UK stays in the European Union, what action will you take to ensure that the future of European structural funding for Wales is there?

European structural funding won’t be there at all at the end of this month if things go the way that I would not want them to. There is no guarantee at all that that money would be made up by London. We know that our farmers receive £260 million a year. That is not money we have that we can give, but that money nevertheless is provided to our farmers. There is no way that the south-east Wales metro can go ahead unless we can have access to European money or an equivalent pot. I do not believe that the UK Government will make up, penny for penny, pound for pound, the money that the people of Wales would lose as result of leaving the EU.

Obviously, we all know that there is no such thing as European money; it’s British money coming back to us after they have purloined a half of it. But can I say, perhaps the First Minister isn’t aware that Islwyn is said to be the most Eurosceptic constituency in Wales? Can you blame the constituency? For instance, most of the factories on the Oakdale estate in Islwyn employ almost exclusively migrant labour, as, of course, is widely the case throughout the whole of the south Wales Valleys. Would you like to comment on that, please?

I can. There are enterprises in Wales, like the St Merryn abattoir, that would shut if it wasn’t for the fact that they can access at least some migrant workers. And it means that people who live in the area are able to keep a job that would otherwise be lost to them. There are plenty of examples. General Dynamics. He mentions Oakdale. General Dynamics employs, in the main, people who are local to the area, and they are an important employer in the area. The reality is that he sees things from a perspective of London; I see things from a perspective of Wales. And the reality is that we get money from Europe. That money would stick in London—you would not see it. We would not see it in Wales in the same quantity. It is a reality that we in Wales get back more than we put in to the European Union, and I see things from a Welsh perspective and from the perspective of ensuring that we get prosperity and market access for the people of Wales.

The court closure programme will have a significant adverse impact on access to justice in Wales. We have provided a robust response to the UK Government, and although the decision has been taken, that is something that we have pressed very hard for in order to have enough courts in Wales. But, unfortunately, that is not the view of the UK Government.

Thank you, First Minister. Unfortunately, one of those courts earmarked for closure and will close is the main court in Carmarthen town centre, which is a historic building for the whole of the town. Now that that decision has been taken, the people of the town are eager to take back ownership of that building and turn it into a resource for the town. It is, of course, full of history and full of the story of justice within Carmarthen. Could the Government be an advocate on behalf of the county council and the town council with the Ministry of Justice because the letters that I have written have received no response whatsoever from them, in order to ensure that discussions can commence in order to see if it would be possible to retain the building for the benefit of the people of Carmarthen?

Well, the building itself, of course, is a very old building. To me, it’s an important building; it’s where I prosecuted for the last time in the Crown Court, many years ago now. So, there are some people—well, they’re not still in jail, I don’t believe, because of me. I don’t think that that’s much help in terms of support ultimately, but, no. May I therefore ask the Member to write to me, and I will then write to the Government in London to ensure that there is a response and to ensure that it’s possible for local people to take over a building that is all important to the history and heritage of the town?

First Minister, in the last session we discussed the courts closure programme and I raised with you specifically the issue with regard to the Pontypridd magistrates’ court, more from the perspective around Wales of what is a cost-cutting exercise with courts, but one that is restricting access to justice for some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities. First Minister, I wonder whether now is the time for the Welsh Government to at least carry out a review of the impact of some of those UK Government decisions on our communities? We’ve never really been given proper answers to the points that were raised during the consultation, which seemed more of a charade than a genuine consultation, but there are very serious access-to-justice issues arising. It’s all very well passing laws and having all the justice in the world; if people can’t access it, they have no justice at all, and the UK Government has totally failed us in this respect.

It was a fundamental principle of Welsh law until 1536, and a fundamental principle of what we would now describe, I suppose, as the law of England and Wales since then, that justice comes to people. That’s the reason why High Court justices travel around. In the last few years it’s now been suggested that people have to go to justice, and travel a long distance, and when they get there, not get representation either, while they’re at it. That shows how much of a deterioration there’s been in the justice system, but I’m fully in agreement with him that there’s a need to review the impact on people, because as somebody who worked in the courts for many, many years I can see nothing now but things getting slower and justice being either denied or delayed to too many people.

First Minister, I know you have a very close family connection to Northern Ireland, and I wonder if, on your visits to Northern Ireland, you’ve observed the policy of the Northern Ireland Executive to consolidate as many administrative, local government and legal buildings, and public service buildings, as possible, so that they can have hubs that maintain access to the citizen. Is this perhaps a model that you could look at with the UK Government to ensure that as many courts and tribunal buildings stay open?

I think that makes perfect sense. With regard to the criminal courts, of course, they need to have access to cells, so they are in a different category to the county courts, which have been in administrative buildings for many, many years across Wales. But I think the suggestion of sharing a particular building or facilities makes perfect sense in order to provide a coherent and consistent service for the public.

Yes, I know this is, of course, an issue that is of huge importance to the Member and his constituency, but I will be providing an update a little later on the floor of the Assembly on Tata Steel generally and on the work of the taskforce during my oral statement.

I thank the First Minister for that answer, and I will wait to hear some of the points, but one of the issues I want to highlight is the fact that, since the announcement in January of over 1,000 job losses, 750 of which were in my constituency, in Port Talbot works, we have seen most of those jobs actually go, and at the end of this month the remainder of those jobs go. Now, the earlier parts have been through voluntary redundancy or early retirement approaches, but there are going to be compulsory redundancies in the next bunch of job losses. I just want to know whether the taskforce is now preparing for those job losses to help those people who are going to be out of a job, and particularly their families, who’ll be facing challenging times ahead of them in the coming months.

We are very much aware, of course, of the need to support those who have lost their jobs as a result of the announcement that’s already been made. And I will deal with that as part of the statement, if I may.

First Minister, in the previous taskforce minutes I noted that Nick Bourne had offered to create a seminar on the dumping of steel so that the steel companies could come together to discuss those possibilities. I personally feel that that is more pertinent than ever considering that we’re hearing a lot of blatant mistruths from some quarters in this Assembly with regard to the dumping of Chinese steel. Is that particular seminar going ahead, and if it is, can you tell me what will happen with that seminar and who will be involved so that we can have a national discussion at a crucial time, before the European vote?

I’m not aware of the seminar, but I will write to the Member with more details about that. She does raise, of course, an important point, and that is fairness in the market. It wasn’t the European Commission that vetoed the idea of tariffs, it was the UK Government—something that I believe they now regret. Other Governments have done this; there’s no reason then why Europe shouldn’t do the same. All we’re looking for, of course, both her and me, and, of course, the Member for Aberavon, is fairness for our steelworkers.

This is a matter, of course, for the UK Government, but I will consider writing to the Home Secretary to see if she has made a decision about the need for an inquiry.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I met with the Home Secretary as a member of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and, in fact, received a very positive meeting with her in the latter part of last year. Since then, very detailed submissions have been lodged. Of course, since then, there’s been the Hillsborough verdict and, of course, the direct link between events in Orgreave and the way in which evidence was used or abused—they’re very similar events, with the same constabulary, again, in Hillsborough—obviously establishes a very significant connection. Andy Burnham MP has given his support to an inquiry, and the assistant chief constable of South Yorkshire has welcomed one, and I understand now that the four Welsh police and crime commissioners are also supportive of the need for there to be an inquiry into this issue. Can I ask the First Minister that any representations made will be supportive of what is the need to have an inquiry into a long-outstanding injustice that still remains in the minds of many former miners from south Wales?

I have to say I believe that the case is strong for such an inquiry. We all saw what happened with Hillsborough, and the length of time it took for the truth to out. The same thing must happen, to my mind, with Orgreave. The 1980s were not a time of transparency, with a Government that did not believe in respecting people’s rights. Well, the truth must come out, and an inquiry is one way of doing that.

As the son of a miner who was at Orgreave during the strike, may I endorse Mick Antoniw’s demand for a full inquiry? Would the First Minister also agree that the remit needs to be as broad as possible, for example, to look at the claims about the use of the armed forces at the time, to look at the co-ordination of statements by police, as happened with Hillsborough, and of course the use of the media in order to mislead people as to what actually happened there, in the case of Hillsborough with ‘The Sun’, but in the case of Orgreave with the BBC of course?

That is right, of course; I know the story of what happened there. What’s exceptionally important is that we can see the truth, that there is an inquiry, that we understand what actually occurred, and therefore what did not occur. But, what is important is that the truth is brought before the people of Britain so that we can all understand what happened 30 years ago.

Wel, mae Cymdeithas Bêl-droed Cymru ac Ymddiriedolaeth Bêl-droed Cymru yn bwriadu defnyddio Ewro 2016 fel catalydd i wella pêl-droed yng Nghymru. Fe fydd yna ddatganiad yn hwyrach y prynhawn yma ar hwn. A gaf i gymryd y cyfle hwn, felly, i ddweud ‘pob lwc’ i’r tîm ar ran y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn gyfan gwbl, os gallaf i? Rydym wedi sicrhau ein bod ni yna, ond byddai’n bleser mawr i weld buddugoliaethau dros yr wythnosau nesaf, yn enwedig wrth gwrs ar 16 Mehefin, yr wythnos nesaf.

I will endorse those words by the First Minister as we turn to a European issue that all of us in this Chamber can agree on. I know that we all want to wish our national team well. It would be a very strange thing if I didn’t refer to the particular contribution by those from Anglesey to the national team, and I’m particularly pleased to wish Osian Roberts, a member of the coaching staff, well and Wayne Hennessey in goal. I will mention the work behind the scenes by Trefor Lloyd Hughes over the past few years. But, would the First Minister agree with me that we now need to use the success of this squad, and the success that hopefully will be achieved in France, as a springboard, and that we need to use the squad as a role model not only to enhance Wales’s profile and to promote football as a sport, but also to promote physical activity, which is so important to public health?

There are two things here that are important: first of all, to ensure that young people participate in sport and see football as an activity to improve their health and, secondly, of course, to ensure that the profile of Wales is raised not just in Europe, but across the world. We saw what happened in 1990 with the Republic of Ireland when they went to the world cup. It had a huge impact on their economy and in terms of tourism. I had a meeting with officials this week to see what kind of preparations have been undertaken in order to raise Wales’s profile in France. That work is progressing well, not only in Paris, of course, but also in the three cities where the matches will be played—well, where the first three matches will be played—by the Welsh team.

The legacy of Wales’s football success will be in our young people. In Newport, we have 1,699 active junior players playing in 140 teams and 16 clubs. In addition to this, we have a successful academy system at Newport County, who support and develop our stars of tomorrow. Will the First Minister ensure that the Welsh Government will continue to work with the FAW to support and nurture the talent of our future football stars in Wales?

Absolutely. It was my pleasure to open the academy in Newport, the national academy. We did provide financial help to the FAW in order for it to be set up. It is hugely important to have modern facilities with access to good coaching at the elite level of sport in order for there to be a high level of performance. But, it is important as well to make sure that facilities are in place to encourage people to play sport at all levels and that’s exactly what we will continue to do, working with organisations like Sport Wales.

The Wrexham Supporters Trust director, Spencer Harris, said earlier this week:

‘Having Wales in the European Championships is massive for a club like ourselves.... Wales at a tournament is the perfect opportunity to help our club.’

How, therefore, will your Government work with people like Spencer Harris to ensure that that legacy—the Euro 2016 legacy—reaches Wrexham and all corners of Wales?

It’s important to understand that, and that’s why we’ve been working with the FAW and the trust to make sure that the anticipated success of the Welsh team is reflected across all corners of our nation, but particularly of course that it is seen as a help in terms of driving investment in the economy and tourism in all parts of Wales for months and years to come.

It’s good to hear that the footballing authorities in Wales are planning to use the European championships as a way of creating a future legacy for sport in Wales and I hope that that does, in fact, take place. But, in the short term, before we establish the legacy, there’s the actual event itself. It’s good news that we have fanzones now being created in Swansea and in Cardiff, so that more people can actually participate in the public enjoyment of the Euros. Is it worth considering whether the Government could support similar fanzones in major population centres in the other regions of Wales? [Interruption.]

Okay, thank you.

One of the issues with fanzones—. I’ve seen something from Cardiff and I believe that Swansea and perhaps Newport have similar plans—they’ve not sought help from Government. From our perspective of course, we have to be careful. If we offer support for one, it has to be support for all and there’s a limit of course to the amount of financial support that can be offered. But, I do welcome the fact that fanzones are being set up and that they will be set up across many towns and cities in Wales.

Thank you, First Minister.

Item 2 on the agenda is the business statement and announcement and I call on Jane Hutt.

This week’s business is as set out on the Plenary agenda with oral statements from the Government on the Wales Bill, Tata Steel and the European football championships. Additionally, Business Committee has agreed to schedule a procedural motion to elect the Assembly Commissioners, which requires the suspension of Standing Orders. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

Minister, I would like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the ongoing industrial dispute between National Museum Wales and the Public and Commercial Services Union. As you’re aware, the staff have been on indefinite strike since 21 April. I believe the staff are suffering hardship as a result, in particular in Big Pit where the strike has been solid; the museum has been closed for several weeks, and I do pay tribute to the staff for the commitment they’ve shown. I very much welcome the early efforts of the new Secretary to resolve this dispute, but it does now need urgent resolution, and I would be grateful if he would be willing to update the Assembly on his efforts.

I thank Lynne Neagle for that question to the business statement. The First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, as you have acknowledged, are taking a very keen interest in progress on this issue. They’re aware that recent meetings have been held between the national museum and PCS, and the national museum has confirmed that it made a significantly enhanced offer to PCS over the weekend, and a meeting to discuss this offer is being held this afternoon. So, we, of course, await the outcome of this meeting, and hope that agreement can be reached in order to bring this long-running dispute to an end.

As this is the first business statement we’ve had for some weeks, I might have one or two things I’d like to ask the business Minister that I hope we’ll hear from the Government over the next couple of weeks. I want to first of all say that I support what Lynne Neagle has just called for, and, of course, this strike is affecting museums across Wales, in fact, and many museums in rural parts of Wales as well. I’m confident, business Minister, that Wales will vote to remain within the European Union, but it is conceivable that the UK will vote to leave. Can you tell whether the Government is preparing any contingency plans in the event of a ‘leave’ vote, and the effect and the shock that would be to the Welsh economy? Is it possible to have a statement, therefore, on any contingency planning that the Welsh Government is doing in advance of that possible outcome?

The second issue that’s come on the agenda very recently is the further fall in milk prices for Welsh farmers. This is not an easy situation to resolve—I understand and appreciate that—but I think we’d all value an early statement from the new Secretary regarding milk prices, support for the dairy industry in Wales, and, in particular, I think, what discussions the Welsh Government is having with the banks, who have lent quite generously over the years at low interest rates to many dairy farmers, but who are now experiencing, of course, some real cash-flow difficulties, and the banks, in some cases, are being rather heavy-handed on some of those repayments. And I think the Welsh Government has a role to play in interlocution with banks and the dairy industry in that context.

The final point I’d like to raise arises from, I think, the question, that, to be fair, the Leader of the Conservative party asked regarding the Government’s present policy of reducing class sizes for nursery school pupils. I looked very carefully at this when I was responsible for education policy for Plaid Cymru, and I wasn’t convinced by the evidence. But I’d love to see the evidence that the Welsh Government now has that justifies this expenditure as regards other expenditure that is far more valuable, as I saw it, regarding investment in the profession itself and the skills and standards of developing the education professionals—not just teachers but classroom assistants as well. So, I hope that we can have an early statement from the new education Secretary—I welcome her to her place—and that that early statement will set out the evidence for this policy that the current Government now has.

I thank Simon Thomas very much for his first questions to the business statement in this fifth Assembly. Of course, Simon Thomas will be clearly aware of our stated position as a Welsh Government that Wales is best served by being a member of both the United Kingdom and the European Union, and, clearly, we hope that will be reflected in the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. It is very important, of course, that we also draw attention to the adverse impact, and we’ve had an opportunity to share some of those points of concern this afternoon, as is only appropriate. I think that is where we will want to concentrate our efforts at this point in time.

On your second point about milk prices, I know that the Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs has already been able to start discussions with representatives of the farming unions, and to look at key issues of concern that are facing the farming sector. And, of course, these will be issues that she will be looking at very carefully.

Of course, in terms of reducing infant class sizes to under 25 pupils, it’s a very important issue for parents and, of course, can have a very positive effect on teachers’ workload. It is a priority area for the Welsh Government, it does stem from our progressive agreement co-signed with the First Minister and Kirsty Williams, and now, as the First Minister has already said in answer to questions this afternoon, this clearly will be taken forward in terms of the best way in which that can be delivered.

Leader of the house, please could we have a statement on land banking from the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children? Land banking is a real problem in my constituency of Cynon Valley and across Wales, with prime sites in many towns and villages being held, thereby blocking the regeneration that could boost house building, create new jobs and improve our urban environment. I was pleased that the Welsh Labour manifesto contained a commitment to consider options to tackle land banking and I’d be keen for further information about the Welsh Government’s approach to address this problem.

I thank the Member for Cynon Valley for that very important question. It’s crucial, of course, that we do increase house building and support employment as a result of that—key priorities, of course, for the Welsh Government. House builders in Wales insist that they don’t land bank and the business model doesn’t allow them to hold on to assets that don’t work for them. We need to make sure that the best use is made of land in terms of accelerating the rate of house building, including, of course, in your constituency. We are doing further work on exploring whether land banking is a significant issue in Wales and that will include reconsidering whether any lessons can be learned from the Barker review of housing supply—that was back in 2004—and the Lyons review of 2014. That did make very specific recommendations and, of course, we will respond to those—we are responding to those, but we will explore again whether this is a significant issue. So, thank you to Vikki Howells for raising that question.

Can I congratulate you, Minister—Cabinet Secretary, should I say—on your appointment, or reappointment, back to the Cabinet? Two statements, if I could, I seek off you—and I do declare an interest as a partner is a farming business. The first is, obviously, a statement on what the new Cabinet Secretary will be doing to seek to achieve a better working relationship with the farming unions in addressing the price pressures that are on the farm gate at the moment, and in particular the continuing pressure, as was raised by the Member for Mid and West Wales, in the dairy sector. There are huge pressures there, and I know we’ve had review and we’ve had analysis from previous Governments, but there is a competitive role that the Government could play here in working with the rural development plan, and the measures within the rural development plan, to assist some investment in processing capacity. I’d be most grateful if a detailed statement could come forward where a timeline can be identified in that statement as to the delivery of support to the dairy sector.

And, secondly, supporting many agricultural businesses but also many small businesses that do look for microgeneration projects—the ability to get grid connection is a huge issue, and very often the simplest response from Western Power Distribution and the other distribution network operator in north Wales is just to say ‘no’, and all of a sudden an alternative stream of income that could be brought into a business, which would help that business through a difficult time or to continue to expand and create new jobs, is cut off before it even gets off the ground. I’d be most grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could bring forward a statement as to what discussions she and her officials will be having with the DNOs in Wales to see how they can bring forward a comprehensive plan to increase grid capacity, so that many microgeneration projects can have the ability to plug into the grid and seek that alternative revenue, which could make the difference between that business staying viable and that business closing down.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his questions and for his welcoming comments. I’m very pleased to respond that the Cabinet Secretary has already swiftly met with the farming unions and has had a very good response, and has been able to share key agenda points, which, of course, include those that you raise today. I’ve already commented on the fact that milk prices have been on the agenda, but also the capacity in terms of the grid and the opportunities in terms of microbusinesses are a key issue that I know she will want to take forward in terms of her new responsibilities, and also the importance of ensuring that this can enable the development, particularly in a rural area, of those businesses.

Can I add my support to Lynne Neagle’s comments about the strike at the museum? I think this really needs urgent resolution. Following the debate and discussions that arose at First Minister’s questions, would it be possible to have a debate in Government time about the implementation of the planning Bill and, in particular, the strategic planning element that was included in that Bill? My colleague Hefin David, the Assembly Member for Caerphilly, and I have both been very concerned about the possibility of development on Caerphilly mountain. We not only want to protect the unique environment but also deal with the issues of possible increased traffic and congestion. It seems very important that there should be a strategic look at that whole area. So, would it be possible to have a debate in Government time to look at this issue?

Thank you to Julie Morgan for that important question. Of course, the Planning (Wales) Act 2015 does provide that legislative framework. It does enable a group of local authorities to prepare a strategic development plan and it will therefore deal with some of those cross-boundary issues that you draw attention to with your colleague Hefin David in terms of Caerphilly and the proximity in terms of Caerphilly mountain. So, a way forward of course is to make more efficient use of resources. It’s a key advantage of the strategic approach to planning. But I think I would say in terms of progress that good progress has been made in implementing the improvements to the planning system, with two thirds of provisions having already been commenced and supported by the necessary subordinate legislation. So, I’m sure an update would be appropriate.

Before asking my question and making my comment, may I declare an interest because my wife has recently been made a partner in the family farming business? But what I would ask for is an early statement by the Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on the new Government’s approach to tackling bovine TB. Now, in responding to a question in this Chamber a fortnight ago, the First Minister said, and I quote, that:

‘One of the first things that the Minister will be looking at is what the next stages will be in terms of dealing with bovine TB.’

We know, of course, that the vaccination policy has been halted. We know that there is new evidence coming from England where there is a cull policy and there are obviously lessons to be learned in that regard. So, I’d ask you to ensure that there is an early statement on the new Government’s policy in this area.

I thank the Member for this question. The Welsh Government, as you know, is committed to delivering a science-led approach to the eradication of bovine TB. Our comprehensive TB eradication programme includes annual testing of cattle, strict biosecurity measures and movement controls, and this approach is aimed at tackling all sources of infection. Of course, we are aware that this will be an issue for the Cabinet Secretary in terms of one of her early considerations of the situation.

Minister, could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure regarding Silcox coach company? You will know that, on Monday, the 134-year-old Pembroke Dock-based company went into administration and that that resulted in the loss of around 40 jobs. It is of course really sad that a company with such heritage and roots in the community has ceased trading. Nonetheless, our concern now must be for those who have been affected by those job losses and also to secure the services that Silcox operated in Pembrokeshire, particularly school transport and essential local bus services. So, I just wonder, Minister, whether we can have a statement that would give some reassurance to that community that we here are taking those concerns very seriously.

Joyce Watson has drawn attention, appropriately, this afternoon in a question to the business statement so that we are aware of not only the potential impact in terms of job losses and services in her region—and, of course, this is a matter that the Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will be clearly looking at in terms of his new responsibilities.

Cabinet Secretary, can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health and social services to provide an update to the house on the special measures and their impact in the Betsi Cadwaladr health board area? The Minister will know that it’s now 12 months since the board was put into special measures and since the publication of a scandalous report on mental health care at the Tawel Fan ward in Glan Clwyd Hospital. And, yet, according to the update papers that have been provided to the latest health board meeting, there’s still no mental health strategy in place for the health board, and neither of the two reviews that have been commissioned by the board into the outcome of the Tawel Fan scandal have been completed. Not one person has lost their job as a result of the dreadful situation that occurred on that ward, and it’s about time heads should roll. Can we have an urgent update, in order that we can consider this, because I think the people of north Wales deserve much better?

Well, it’s clearly a key priority for the new health Secretary. And, of course, he has not only made sure that one of his first priority visits was to Betsi Cadwaladr—actually, we have also had a very good response from the chair of Betsi Cadwaladr, in terms of progress that’s been made, as a result of us taking that key responsibility as a Welsh Government. But, I mean, clearly, we also have to recognise the fact that the health board has taken action to improve its responsiveness to patient concerns and complaints, reviewed its governance and processes, and engaged much more fully and effectively—and you need to hear my response to your question, Darren Millar—and improved, of course, the clear engagement—important engagement—with both public and staff too, and regarded this, clearly, as a priority. And it is for the patients, of course, that we have to respond to those concerns.

And, finally, Hefin David.

I’d like to add my voice to Julie Morgan’s request for a debate on the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. I’d say that it is to the Welsh Government’s credit that they’ve already passed the necessary legislation to create strategic development plans. But, particularly in the debate, I’d like to see a discussion about the strategic plan for south-east Wales, including the 10 local authorities. I feel that local development plans don’t connect very well, and the strategic planning process is a way of resolving the pressure that is inevitably on local authorities.

And one word about the way the debate should be conducted; I think we could be constructive in this debate. It isn’t a party political problem, which is why I was surprised earlier, during First Minister’s questions, that Neil McEvoy—placid bloke that I’ve heard that he is—decided to be party political about it. I don’t think it needs to be party political—[Interruption.] I don’t think it needs to be party political; I think it can be a debate that is constructive. The only way we’re going to solve this problem is if we work together, across parties. So, I’d like us to reflect on that when we conduct the debate.

Well, I thank the Member for Caerphilly for that question. Of course, there is no better example of how local authorities have worked together than with the successful development of the city deal, the 10 local authorities, which is also as a result of cross-party engagement of local authority leadership at that level—at regional level. But I think you have made an important point, in terms of the legislation. It is about initiating a plan, and we have that opportunity now, which can reflect the principles of local democracy, and it is for local authorities to collaborate and to submit proposals to the Welsh Government, and, of course, we would welcome that in terms of that strategic approach to development as a result of our new, successfully secured Planning (Wales) Act 2015.

Thank you, Minister.

I move on to the next item on the agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister on the Wales Bill. I call on Carwyn Jones.

Llywydd, I would like to make a statement about the UK Government’s Wales Bill, which was introduced in Parliament yesterday.

I hardly need say that this Bill is of fundamental importance to Wales, and Members will be aware that it has had a tortuous history since the previous incarnation was published for pre-legislative scrutiny last October. In November, the Welsh Government published a detailed critique, which concluded that the Bill was not fit for purpose, and would introduce restrictions on the Assembly’s competence inconsistent with the 2011 referendum mandate. That analysis was endorsed by expert stakeholders and by the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in March. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended the Bill should be paused to enable substantial further work before introduction, and the Bill published yesterday is the product of that work.

I have to say, Llywydd, that the new Bill is far from perfect, and there are many important details still to work out, but it’s better than the previous draft. It has benefited from discussion with Welsh Government officials, and those discussions are continuing. I would have preferred a later introduction to allow more progress to be made, but the Secretary of State has assured me that discussions with the Welsh Government on detail will continue, and that there should be scope for further substantive reconsideration of the Bill provisions during its passage.

On that basis, I’m able to give this draft a cautious welcome. I recognise that progress has been made, but further amendment will be needed on a number of key issues. I have made that clear to the Secretary of State, and will be writing to him to set out these views in detail. But, can I outline briefly the positive progress that’s been made, and summarise the most important outstanding issues?

The Bill contains provisions for new powers in such fields as elections, energy consenting, transport and marine licensing. We have always welcomed these, and the drafting has been improved. The constitutional provisions, dealing with the permanence of the Assembly and the Sewel convention are substantively unchanged and are broadly welcome, although the Sewel provisions, as is the case also in Scotland, unfortunately don’t cover all the circumstances where Assembly consent is required. Removal of the outdated restrictions on the Assembly’s internal arrangements is also, of course, welcome.

One of the biggest problems with the earlier draft Bill arose from the provisions recasting the conferred-powers model into a reserved-powers model. The UK Government had argued that protecting the joint jurisdiction of England and Wales within the new model required the imposition of new restrictions on the Assembly’s legislative competence. This was an unacceptable and unworkable row-back of existing competence, which greatly increased complexity and uncertainty in the Assembly’s powers. The new Bill is a significant improvement, and the Assembly will have extensive powers to modify the private and criminal law in relation to matters within its competence. These provisions still need considerable further detailed work to achieve some degree of consistency, coherence and overall workability, but they do represent positive progress.

At the same time, however, in extending the Assembly’s competence into new areas of law, the Bill will bring even more sharply into focus the tension within the single jurisdiction that was evident in the original draft. In our supplementary pre-legislative scrutiny evidence, we argued for a distinct jurisdiction as a solution to this tension, and we published an alternative draft Bill, which provided a more sustainable, longer-term solution. The revised Bill makes crystal clear that, over time, the divergence of the law applying in Wales and the law applying in England will continue to grow, to the point where a distinct or separate Welsh jurisdiction is inevitable. I’ll continue to argue that this issue must be addressed in this Bill if it is to be at all credible as a long-term settlement for Wales. Now, if the UK Government does not see its way clear in this Bill to a complete resolution, it should put in place, at least, arrangements that pave the way for a longer-term solution.

The new Bill also represents some improvement in respect of UK Government Ministers’ consents required for Assembly Bills. The reduction in the need for such consents is welcome, but there is, again, considerable complexity, and further work is needed before it will be possible to say whether the overall outcome is acceptable and workable. There has also been progress in reducing the number and scope of reservations, but we’ll be pressing for amendments to remove several that remain, including, for example, the community infrastructure levy and alcohol licensing.

I will mention briefly the other most important outstanding issues with the Bill. It removes the referendum provisions in the Wales Act 2014, with the effect that the Treasury would be able, by Order, to commence income tax devolution without the consent of the Assembly or Welsh Ministers. I have made it clear that I will not be able to support income tax devolution without a clear overall fiscal framework agreed by both Governments, and that this agreement will be a precondition of supporting a legislative consent motion for the Bill. I think that is entirely reasonable, where there is mutual agreement.

The Bill’s provisions on water are unacceptable as they stand—they don’t deliver on the St David’s Day commitments. Teachers’ pay remains a reservation in the Bill, due to continuing discussions on the funding transfer needed to support devolution, though there is agreement on devolution in principle. It will not surprise Members when I say that the estimate that we place on the cost of taking teachers’ pay and conditions is somewhat different to that that the UK Government is prepared to offer. And all those issues must be addressed.

To conclude, I do welcome the progress that has been made so far, but significant further improvement is needed to make the Bill fit for purpose and fit for the Assembly to consider giving its consent. Where we can reach agreement, the UK Government will bring forward amendments. There will inevitably continue to be some fundamental disagreements, such as on the devolution of policing—good enough for Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Manchester, not apparently for Wales—where the Welsh Government will continue to press and to encourage Parliamentary debate.

Llywydd, during the last Assembly, I did seek to take forward discussion of the devolution settlement as far as possible through cross-party consensus. I’ll continue to take that approach and will be sharing my letter to the Secretary of State, responding to the Bill with the party leaders here and at Westminster. There is much work to do in a tight timescale and I hope we can work together, across parties, to get the best outcome for Wales.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales stated that the new Wales Bill would ensure that our democracy comes of age through a Bill that delivers permanency and accountability. It appears to Plaid Cymru that the UK Government’s words, once again, appear to be hollow.

The new Wales Bill will entrench Wales’s status as the poor relation in this union, limiting our democratically elected Government from acting in the interests of the people it was elected to represent, keeping as much power as possible in the corridors of Whitehall, while devolving just the bear minimum.

Yes, it’s an improvement on what we had before, and of course there are aspects to this that should be welcomed. However, the Party of Wales maintains that there is no reason why our people shouldn’t be trusted to run their own affairs when the people in Scotland are given much more trust to run theirs.

First Minister, you’ve repeatedly advocated that Wales should be treated on the basis of equality with the other devolved nations within the United Kingdom. In the rest of the common-law world, legislatures have their own legal jurisdictions; Wales is unique in that sense, having a devolved legislature, but for only part of the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct legal jurisdictions, and yet the Secretary of State still refuses to acknowledge the need for Wales to have its own legal jurisdiction—a move supported by a body of legal experts, academics and politicians. I’d therefore be grateful to know what assessments you’ve made, First Minister, in order to maintain your stance, and that of Plaid Cymru and all the legal experts, that Wales should have its own legal jurisdiction.

Following on from that, the new Bill includes a new section that was not in the draft Wales Bill and neither is it included in the Scottish or Northern Irish dispensations. The section that I’m referring to is section 10 of the Bill—the justice impact assessments. While this section might seem harmless on the face of the Bill, we have concerns that this section could act as a block on the Assembly’s legislative powers. How can we make sure that this is not a watering-down of the necessity tests, and will not act as a blocking mechanism against laws that are made here?

In reaction to this section of the Bill, Professor Richard Wyn Jones, a leading expert on devolution, has said that ultimately the Secretary of State will be able to override a piece of legislation passed by the democratically elected Assembly. It’s a mindset that sees the Assembly as a second-class legislature. There is no similar provision at the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. What assessment have you made, First Minister, of the durability that the replacement of this section could have in terms of leading to a veto of Welsh laws by the Secretary of State?

There are other matters that we would wish to cover here. A particular interest of ours, especially since the police and crime commissioner elections, is the devolution of the police, and we will be returning to that question at a later date. But my final question to you, First Minister is: with the devolution of the electoral system, would you be prepared to indicate your personal preference for the electoral system for the Welsh Assembly elections in the future? Would you agree with me that, in order to ensure that future elections are more reflective of the will of people in Wales, the system needs reform? Is this something that you would be prepared to consider at the appropriate time?

Can I thank the leader of the opposition for those questions, the last one perhaps more mischievous than the rest? I can say to her that, of course, parties have very different views on what the electoral system should look like and, indeed, what the size of this Assembly should be, but there is no reason why discussions cannot take place as to what the future might hold once those powers are devolved.

She knows that I’ve said, as, indeed, has she, many times, that there is no justification for Wales to be treated in an inferior way, as a constituent nation of the four nations of the UK. This Bill does not go as far as it should in providing assurance in that regard—there’s no question about that. Why should Wales be treated differently to Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of approach? I’ve never been one to argue, of course, that, in some way, Wales is different to Northern Ireland with half our population, or, indeed, to Scotland in terms of a differing approach.

On the point of the jurisdiction, one of the things I have to say to Members is that Members should not assume that this Bill is driven in any way by some kind of logic. The reality is that we could end up in a situation where public order offences are created in Wales that are then policed by a police service that is not accountable in Wales and anybody convicted ends up in a justice system and, possibly, in prisons that are not run by the Welsh Government. There is no logic to that at all. If, as seems likely, the vast bulk of the criminal law is devolved bar a few offences, probably about 20-odd, again, we’ll have a situation where, to my mind, the argument for keeping a single jurisdiction becomes considerably weaker again.

We’ve put forward what we think is an entirely rational and practical solution, and that is that the legal jurisdiction would become formally different, as it is in Northern Ireland, as it is in Scotland, or the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey, or at least 50 jurisdictions in the US. It’s not a major step forward in that sense; there’s not some kind of major change, but it makes it easier in terms of law making, but we share the court system. We could, realistically, I believe, have a shared court system with England, where the procedures are much the same, where the costs are shared appropriately, and yet, of course, we would have the freedom to pass laws in Wales. I think that’s a pragmatic and sensible way forward, and I will continue to urge that on the Secretary of State. Unless there is some movement on the jurisdiction or policing, this settlement is a step forward, but it’s not durable and it’s not sustainable.

My fervent hope was that we would get legislation that would settle, in the main, the issue of Wales’s constitutional status for some years to come. She and I will have different views, perhaps, on what the end of the road is, but, nevertheless, it would’ve settled the argument for some years, but that’s not what we will get, even though I recognise, of course, that there has been progress made here. I don’t understand why policing is such a totemic issue. Scotland has it, Northern Ireland has it, London has it, Wales apparently not. Whenever I ask the question, the answer I’m given is, ‘Well, it’s a red line for us’. There’s no logic behind it and it’s for the UK Government to explain.

On justice impact assessments, I don’t see it in quite the same way. I would not be in favour, of course, of the Secretary of State having any powers to veto legislation that is created by this elected legislature, but the justice impact tests are similar, to my mind—I’m not arguing in favour of them—to regulatory impact assessments where we pass a law and we say, ‘Well this is the effect that it will have on the courts’. That’s it. There is nothing else that they could be possibly used for. They’re not grounds for some kind of Westminster veto over Welsh law. It would be a document that would need to be produced, but nothing further could come of it. That’s my interpretation of it and I don’t defend them, but I don’t think it’s quite as difficult a point, even though I wouldn’t particularly be in favour of them as perhaps has been suggested. I don’t think there would be any process—or I can’t see any process—whereby the UK Government could then use a justice impact assessment it didn’t agree with in order to prevent Welsh law being put onto the statute book.

There will be a much greater chance, of course, to look at the detail of the proposed Bill over the next few weeks and months. I do hope that the timetable in Westminster is not so rushed that it becomes highly problematic for amendments to be put down, as there do need to be amendments. Why, for example, if public order is going to be devolved and the law regarding public order, alcohol licensing isn’t devolved, when the two of them, to me, run closely together? Is that just an oversight or is there some kind of logical reason for that? The reason that’s been given to me over the last few months for not devolving licensing is that it’s bound up in public order. Well, if public order is devolved, then so should licensing be as well.

There needs to be more opportunity, of course, over the next few days, for parties to look at the detail of legislation. We need to delve more thoroughly into some areas to see what they mean exactly. That said, the vehicle is not as broken down as the last vehicle we were presented with, but there needs to be a lot of work done to sort the engine out and the seats and the wheels. That is exactly what we need to do over the course of the next few weeks. At least it wasn’t something that appeared without an engine or with any wheels, which is what the last Bill was. I look forward, of course, to working with other parties to make sure that we get something that’s coherent, sensible, fair and, above all, sustainable.

Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I’d also like to commend the Secretary of State for the way he has engaged in the process before the publication of this Bill, in meeting all the parties in this Chamber and many from outside of the Chamber and up in Westminster, to bring forward a Bill that is a dramatic difference, shall we say, from the draft Bill that was debated and discussed in this Chamber some months ago. I do think that we have a Bill that will dramatically increase the responsibilities of this Assembly and, ultimately, to the benefit of the function of public services here in Wales, but, indeed, the economy and, above all, the reputation of this Assembly. I do think we do need to grasp this opportunity to make sure that this Bill does proceed in a timely manner because some of these provisions do need to be arriving here sooner rather than later.

I hear what the First Minister said about policing, but would he agree that, on policing, that shouldn’t act as a roadblock to find a consensus for this Bill to actually proceed and actually deliver on some of other issues that clearly would benefit, such as the elections, such as energy consents, marine consents, et cetera, which are vitally required to increase the capacity of this place to legislate in favour of the people of Wales?

I do also hear what the First Minister says about teachers’ pay, and I do have a disagreement with him on that particular issue. I’ve sat on many committees and also in hustings where previous Labour Ministers have talked at length about how they would not want teachers’ pay. In fact, Leighton Andrews, formerly of this parish, argued vehemently against the former education spokesperson, Nerys Evans, in the 2011 election as to why there should be no devolution of teachers’ pay to this institution, because it is a step towards regional pay, it is, then. I’d be really grateful to understand why the First Minister is so keen to see the devolution of teachers’ pay. Would he not say that that would be a stepping stone to creating a regional pay structure that could be stretched into the other areas of public service? Again, I would hope very much that the First Minister would not see this as another obstacle that could be put in place to stop the Bill progressing in a timely manner through the House of Commons and House of Lords.

I agree entirely with the fiscal framework that the First Minister has touched on in his statement. That does need to be put in place to make sure that the transition on income tax powers for any future Welsh Government does need to be comprehensive, does need to give reassurance and, above all, does need to make sure that Wales is not left out of pocket. I will work with him on that to make sure that that does not happen, and, any discussions that he would like to have over that and any support, I think that is a vital bit of spadework where all leaders in this Chamber can seek to achieve consensus and, ultimately, go to Treasury and to Government Ministers in a unified way, because actually, what we found in the fourth Assembly, when this Chamber speaks with one voice, we actually achieve a hell of a lot of more. I think the improvement on this Bill was achieved greatly by the unified voice that came from this Assembly when we had the debate here and the whole Assembly voted on the merits, or not, as the case may be, of the original draft Bill that was before this Chamber for discussion.

I do note the move on the distinct jurisdiction. I do disagree with the leader of Plaid Cymru when she says that all legal expertise wants a separate jurisdiction. I might have misheard, but I thought you did say ‘all’. There is a body of opinion that does want a separate jurisdiction, there is a body of opinion that wants the status quo, and there is a body of opinion that is quite happy to move to this ground of distinct jurisdiction while the body of Welsh law evolves and develops. I do think we’ve moved significantly in the right direction, and I do believe that that move should be warmly welcomed, and it is progress that can be further enhanced as the body of Welsh law grows in the coming years.

But, I do, as I say, want to see this Wales Bill commence its progress through the House of Commons and House of Lords so that we can, ultimately, get the increased responsibilities that will enable the Government and the legislature to actually get on with the job of doing what the people of Wales elect us to do, which is seek the improvements in communities and lives across the whole of Wales. I do very much hope that we can work to build a speedy process for the implementation of the Wales Bill that was launched yesterday.

Can I thank the leader of the Conservatives for his comments? I do recognise that the engagement has been far better. I think it’s fair to say that. Certainly, we had far better engagement from the Wales Office, but it was more difficult from departments like the MOJ because, for some departments, their Ministers are elsewhere at the moment, and it’s not easy to track them down for reasons that he will know.

On policing, this is an oddity. How can there be a lasting settlement where you have a police service that’s devolved across the UK but not in Wales, where I suspect all four PCCs would be in favour of devolution of policing—they were all elected—and where the people of Wales voted, in the main, for parties that want to see the devolution of policing? So, it’s not as if there is a groundswell of opinion in Wales who do not want to see the devolution of policing. The police will be asked, over the course of the next 10, 20 years, to police very different laws, potentially, in England and Wales. To me, that doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.

There are some areas that make no sense for devolution: dealing with national security or organised crime—of course not. There are some issues that need to be dealt with, to my mind, across the UK. In fact, the reality is that doesn’t happen at the moment, but it should happen in the future. So, there are some areas of policing that I can see are better handled at a UK and, indeed, European and world level, for that matter.

On teachers’ pay and conditions, he seemed to give the impression that he was against the devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions. That’s not the view of his party in Westminster, which has agreed, in principle, for that devolution to take place. It’s an oddity, again, that everything in education is devolved apart from pay and conditions. There are examples elsewhere in the public sector where pay and conditions are devolved. It’s not unusual. He talks of regional pay. Well, bear in mind, of course, there are no UK pay and conditions—never have been. Pay and conditions are devolved in Northern Ireland and they are devolved in Scotland. If the concern ever was that, somehow, pay and conditions in Wales would be worse than elsewhere in the UK, that is absolutely not what I and, I suspect, everybody else in this Chamber would want to see—of course not. But what it does give us the ability to do is to construct in the next few years a coherent package of training, terms and conditions for our teachers, which isn’t possible at the moment, but which is possible and has, in fact, been done in Scotland. So, for us in Wales, there is an opportunity there.

On the issue of the jurisdiction, as far as ordinary people are concerned, I can see this is not something that has people marching in the streets. This is the only common law jurisdiction anywhere on the planet where there are two legislatures in the one jurisdiction. It doesn’t exist anywhere else at all in the world. Why is that important? Because it leads to confusion. Simon Thomas, in the previous Assembly, illustrated the point when he said that a constituent had come to see him and had asked why a Bill that, on the face of it, applied to England and Wales only applied in England. The reality is that when we change the law, we don’t change or create Welsh law, we change the law of England and Wales as it applies in Wales. It’s a hugely complicated way of doing something actually very simple. It was done in Northern Ireland without question. It was done in Scotland—it’s always been there in Scotland.

The history of the Commonwealth is such that whenever a Parliament is created, whether it’s autonomous or independent, the jurisdiction has always followed, except in Wales. Now, again, the argument that Wales in some way should be different, to my mind, doesn’t hold. I think there is merit in the argument that we don’t want, certainly at this stage or, perhaps, for many years to come to create a separate courts system, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, with the attendant cost that that brings. I think that’s a valid and strong argument, but this issue will need to be dealt with in the years to come. It’s a shame it’s not being dealt with now before it becomes a problem in the next five or 10 years.

But, nevertheless, we’ll continue to engage, of course. I want to get to a point where we have a Bill that takes us forward in terms of devolved powers. I suspect there will be some areas of disagreement that won’t be resolved, but I hope that those areas can be minimised as much as possible.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, like you, I give a cautious welcome to the Bill, because my party is a devolutionist party. That’s what our contribution to the debate on the EU is all about: devolution of powers back from Brussels to Westminster or to Cardiff. But, in the context of this particular Bill, as you’ll be aware, clause 16 is about the introduction of tax-varying powers, but removing the requirement that is in the current legislation for a referendum to be held before those powers are activated.

Your statement says that you object to these powers being devolved without the consent of the Assembly or Welsh Ministers and, hence, being imposed by Treasury Ministers. Well, I agree with that to this extent: that if there was to be no referendum then I certainly think that the Welsh Assembly ought to be allowed to make that decision. But I see no reason why the provision, which is in the current law, to consult the Welsh people should not be activated. That was the promise that was given before the last Wales Act was given the Royal Assent. This is now a breach of faith with the Welsh people. It’s a big decision because not only could there be tax-varying powers, but of course there could be tax-raising powers. Nothing would be worse, I think, for the health of the Welsh economy, than to do what many Labour Governments have done in the course of my lifetime—to impose penal rates of taxes, which utterly destroy the wealth-creating potential of the Welsh economy.

The impact assessment that accompanies the Wales Bill blandly says that the debate has now moved on and therefore we don’t need to have this referendum. There’s no justification provided in the impact assessment for this change, and I’m asking the First Minister, supposedly a democrat, to consult the Welsh people before he consents to the activation of tax-varying powers in the hands of this Assembly.

Well, a number of the parties in this Chamber—and his, in fairness—contained proposals with regard to the future of income tax varying powers in their manifestos in the election, and the people of Wales gave their verdict. From my party’s perspective, we said that we would not increase the burden of income tax on people during the course of this Assembly term. People went into the election knowing that. They did not vote in huge numbers for parties who said, ‘We are opposed to partial income tax varying powers coming to Wales’, or indeed for parties that demanded there should be a referendum. The point is this: Scotland has been offered far more substantive tax-varying powers than Wales, with no referendum; Northern Ireland has tax-varying powers on offer to it, particularly with regard to corporation tax, which are hugely significant in terms of what could happen there—again without a referendum. Is there really a need for a referendum every time there is a change in the devolution settlement? [Interruption.] Well, the promise was made by the UK Government, not by us. For the interest of the UK Government to explain its position, all the parties explained their positions in the election last month and the electorate gave their view. The electorate were not of the view that they wished to vote for parties that wished to have a referendum or indeed were opposed to income tax varying powers. The power has to be used prudently. I understand that. He talks of a time when there were penal rates of income tax. I was in the junior school at that time, so I’ll bow to his experience of that. But, certainly, my experience of the Labour Governments of late were not that they introduced penal rates of tax, and nor would be want to do the same. What it does, of course, is give us the opportunity to create a revenue stream against which we can borrow prudently. If we don’t get income tax varying powers, we can’t borrow money and we can’t actually build the M4 relief road. So, actually, income tax varying powers lead to larger schemes that we have no hope of paying for otherwise. In England, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland it is normal, with the borrowing powers that those Governments have, to borrow money for big schemes. If we don’t have access to that, we can’t do anything with major transport infrastructure, although, of course, the powers have to be used prudently and sensibly on behalf of the people of Wales.

I have seven other speakers. If you are all sharp and short with your questions, I hope to go through all of you. Mick Antoniw.

First Minister, I think we have to welcome the tone of the Secretary of State for Wales’s statement because it does indicate a willingness to work to improve to actually achieve a common objective of actually working legislation. If that actually happens, then that will be a good thing. Can I say that I do have considerable concerns about the approach to the jurisdiction issue? Because, for me, it actually goes to the core of the legislation and we do not want a situation where we continually have to try to work out the relationship between our powers, the laws of England and Wales, and the jurisdiction point. That was a problem that the last Secretary of State for Wales had considerable difficulty with. There has been an attempt in this draft Bill to deal with that, but there is this rather strange passage in the legislation, which says the purpose is

‘to recognise the ability of the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers to make law forming part of the law of England and Wales.’

Now, it seems to me that that just perpetuates the fundamental misunderstanding of the jurisdiction issue. There is no mystique to it. There is nothing magical about it. All the jurisdiction of England and Wales is is basically laws passed in Westminster applied to England and Wales as the area in which the jurisdiction exists, but we now have an additional legislature, and that is Wales. If we are going to recognise and create a framework through statute that says, ‘We recognise the specific existence of Welsh legislation’, it cannot be within the law of England and Wales, because you have the UK Parliament, which now sits—and you have English votes for English laws—as effectively an English Parliament passing legislation solely in England, and the legislation passed in Wales is not just what we pass, but it is also the legislation passed in Westminster, but only applies to England or does not apply to Wales. And unless that fundamental contradiction is actually resolved, we are going to continue having these arguments; we will not be resolving this and we’ll be discussing this year on year, which is something that we clearly want to see an end to. And the same issue is perpetuated. I hear what you say in respect of the judicial impact assessments, and I think you’re absolutely right on them in terms of their effect, but if you have one for Welsh legislation, you should have one for English legislation as well. So, it’s getting that balance right.

Now, I think the issue is fudged to some extent, because the proposal from the Secretary of State for Wales is to establish a committee that will actually look into these. Now, my biggest concern is that we have a committee that’s going to consider something that certainly I think and, I think, many people think is fundamental to getting this legislation right, and we need a timescale on it. We need a framework within which it’s going to work, because we need to actually resolve this as part of this legislation. It cannot be something that has to be tacked on later on. I was wondering what discussions you might have had or will be able to have in respect of that particular proposal from the Secretary of State for Wales on the formation of the committee, the timescale and the framework within which it is going to work.

Could I thank the Member for the way in which he has explained the complexity, in his own way, of the current situation? There is no timescale that the Secretary of State has put forward. What is strange is that nobody has argued that the jurisdiction will remain for ever and a day. Everyone says that it will have to change at some point in the future. The question is, should that issue be dealt with now or dealt with at a time when pressure is so great that it has to happen quickly? And the history of Welsh devolution is that, when pressure builds, action is taken, rather than steps being taken before the pressure emerges.

He is right to say that this is not some kind of totemic issue. The UK doesn’t exist as a jurisdiction; it never has done. Scotland has always existed as a separate jurisdiction, Northern Ireland since 1920, England and Wales only since 1536. It’s a long time, but only since 1536, and, since that time, a legislature has been established here in Wales. On that basis, the jurisdiction normally follows the legislature, but that is not the position that they find themselves in now. It’s almost as if they’re trying to make the laws fit the jurisdiction, rather than the other way around. The previous Bill, the problem with it was that the restrictions that were being placed, which actually took us back to a position before 2011, were in order to try and squeeze the law of England and Wales into the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Now it seems we have a situation where the jurisdiction will exist pretty much in name only, but, over the years, in many areas, substantially different laws will be created. To my mind, that’s not a durable solution. Yes, you can manage it in the short term, possibly, but, in the longer term, it’s not going to happen. We are already in a situation—as I’ve listened to judges who’ve told me this—where lawyers, be they solicitors or barristers, have come to Wales and argued the wrong law, because they assume that, because they’re in the same jurisdiction, the law is the same. Now, I would hit them with a wasted costs order—if that sounds too harsh, it’s probably why I’m not a judge—just to get the message across. But that’s a problem now, and unless the jurisdiction issue is dealt with in some way—not necessarily a separate jurisdiction, but a distinct jurisdiction—that problem will only continue in the future.

I thank the First Minister for his statement. I had hoped, First Minister, that this would be the final piece of legislation that the UK, in the Parliament that I occasionally visit, would pass on the Welsh constitution, but it appears to me that we haven’t reached that point as of yet. So, in asking my question to you, and in asking for your support in your response, I’m going to set a challenge for our colleagues beyond Paddington station to use the time between this debate today, which is the first full public debate on this particular Bill, and the Third Reading in the House of Lords at the end of the process and the passing of the Bill, to amend this Bill sufficiently so that it can be full constitutional legislation to change the circumstances of Wales.

I do think that there are enough seeds sown in this Bill to allow that to happen. I will give you one example in a brief question: the recognition of Welsh law. Now, we know that there is Welsh law because we make it here. So, thank you very much, Westminster, for acknowledging that there is such a thing as Welsh law. But we do have to move further. Therefore, can you tell us how you intend to report back on your interesting negotiations with the Secretary of State and the UK Government during the period between what we’re doing now and the end of the parliamentary process so that we reach that point that you and I both want to reach: having a relatively final and clear piece of legislation so that we don’t return to legislating on the Welsh constitution every three years?

Well, may I thank you for the question? It’s true to say that there is a sufficient opportunity here to create a sustainable constitutional settlement. This Bill goes some of the way towards that, but not the whole way. To me, what’s important is that the United Kingdom Government accepts that there are constitutional issues that need to be settled. As I said earlier, I will write to the Secretary of State. I will make sure that the leaders of this house see that letter, and of course any response. It’s important that Members know what the journey of the negotiations over the next few weeks, given that the timetable is going to be very short.

I’m delighted, as the First Minister is, to give a very cautious welcome to this step forward, but it does seem as if it’s always a slightly hesitant step, slightly catching up with where we should be. So, I would certainly urge the First Minister—and I think it seems to be the will of the Chamber today—to push hard in the negotiations, to work with colleagues in Westminster, not only with the Wales Office, but with other colleagues, to try and get more out of this, because, certainly, he was at the forefront, when the last Wales Bill came forward, of criticism amongst Welsh civic society and others. It was unloved, it was undernourished, and ultimately it was abandoned in the constitutional wilderness. This is an opportunity, as the gentleman opposite who also has experience of Westminster has just remarked, to actually make something good for the people of Wales, not just for the good of saving the embarrassment of Wales Office Ministers. I would give him my strongest support in taking that message forward, because there is good in this Bill, but it’s nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

Can I thank the Member for his comments? The difficulty with the last Bill was that, basically, the Secretary of State wrote around to other Whitehall departments and said, ‘What do you think should be devolved?’ Now, they must have thought Christmas had come at that point, and we had the Bill that we had, that ignored even what had happened in 2011, with the resounding referendum result. That’s why we ended up with that Bill. This Bill has reflected on the two major constitutional issues—the consents issue and the issue of legislation and our ability to create legislation freely. That’s been done, and I welcome that. So, the structure of it is far more secure than the structure of the previous Bill, but there’s a lot of work to do on the detail.

Can I welcome the tone of the First Minister, and also his ambition to work with the UK Government to actually now achieve a very comprehensive piece of constitutional law? Should this Bill proceed to the statute book, it will be the fourth Wales Act in 20 years, and I think I’ve said before that most people don’t change their cars as quickly as that, so to have such frequent changes in fundamental constitutional law is obviously not particularly to be recommended.

Can I warmly welcome the end of the necessity test? I did, in the speech on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs report in this Chamber in March—sorry, in January—point out that the Americans dealt with this sort of concept in 1819 and moved on and achieved great stability in their constitution by not acknowledging such tests. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has reduced the number of reservations. This is welcome. We did have over 250—it was very difficult, actually, to count them—but we now are, I think, just about below 200. But, I would recommend that we go back to the fundamental concept of a reserved-powers model, and that’s to reserve to the central Government the powers it needs to function—and I use ‘central Government’ in this context to mean the UK Government. As you hinted, I think the approach has been the other way around in Whitehall, and it needs to change, so that they really acknowledge the durability, the permanence of the devolved settlement. There are still too many reservations and the principle we need to apply has not been yet fully applied. Your illustration was most apposite in relation to licensing. Frankly, if you cannot allow a national legislature to deal with licensing, and you think that’s a fundamental problem, then I think you’ve got great difficulty with the way you approach the whole constitutional question at hand.

Can I finally say that I do think that part of being a grown-up is to live with paradox? It’s a constant challenge. But, it is difficult to understand that the output of this legislature is the law of England and Wales, when it is obviously the law of Wales only. Now, that is the position, and trying to explain the legal technicalities of how we make law, I think, is highly convoluted, and it cannot lead to clear thinking. But I just want to make a practical point here, because I think the First Minister’s words are to be warmly welcomed, indicating he’s going to work with the UK Government to clarify this attempt to make Welsh law more distinct and manage the administrative, the practical, consequences of a growing body of distinct Welsh law. And it does come down to having judges who are competently trained to take cases now in Wales, and the lawyers who argue those cases as well. This is not a trivial matter, because our law is going to get more and more divergent, and over very, very important issues—someone referred earlier in questioning to our new planning law—so this has to be done. And I should say that, as we go down that road, and in fairness to the legal profession they’ve already acknowledged this, the reality of the separation that is now occurring will become more and more difficult to ignore. I suppose at that point we will all acknowledge that we have arrived at a separate jurisdiction.

Can I thank the Member, as ever, for his comments? One of the issues that’s been raised of concern with me is lawyers in Wales saying, ‘Well, if we’re a separate jurisdiction, does that mean we won’t be able to practise in England?’ That isn’t the case. It’s quite normal for lawyers to practise across common law jurisdictions. When I was in practice, it was possible to practise in Northern Ireland as long as you joined the Northern Ireland bar, which was £70, I think, in those days, and then you could practise. As long as you joined the appropriate professional association, there was no bar to practice at all. Scotland’s an entirely different matter, as Scottish law is much closer to the law of Germany, Spain or France, for that matter, than it is to the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So, there is no bar to that and nor would I want to create a situation where it was difficult for Welsh law firms to seek work outside of Wales. That’s important for our economy. That’s not what a jurisdiction does. It just makes it easier for laws to be applied and easier for the public to understand them, but certainly it doesn’t make it more difficult for firms to operate. For example, over the past 10 or 15 years in Belfast, a lot of firms from London have moved in, and Northern Ireland is an entirely separate jurisdiction. They haven’t seen that as a bar to practising in Northern Ireland. So, I think that’s an argument that can be resolved, as far as the legal profession is concerned.

I welcome the changes in the new draft Bill. I don’t think it goes far enough, but I think there has been some progress, so it’s a cautious welcome. I have a few quick questions. I think there’s been general welcome that electoral arrangements are going to be devolved to this Assembly, and I’m looking forward to the time when the Assembly may vote for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for the Assembly elections. I think that’s one of the great things in the Bill that we shouldn’t forget: that we will have that power. Can I ask the First Minister, would it give us the power to enable local authorities to have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds? So, I also wondered if the First Minister could answer that question.

On the policing issue, I think it’s very disappointing that there’s been no movement on the policing issue and I would ask the First Minister to do everything within his power during the negotiating period for this Bill to try to change the minds of the Westminster Government because it is inexplicable, especially in view of the fact that all of the other devolved bodies have had it devolved.

Finally, I wondered if he could address the issue of youth justice. As I understand it at the moment, the Welsh Government is responsible for youth justice services, but not the youth justice system, which I think is very confusing and is something that could, presumably, be clarified quite simply. Is it possible to do that in the negotiations over this Bill?

Could I thank the Member for her comments? She’s always been a doughty advocate, of course, for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. That would lie within the power of this Assembly in terms of Assembly elections. In terms of local government elections, my memory of the last Bill, certainly, was that the local government franchise was reserved. Whether that’s been clarified in this Bill I’d have to examine. It’s clear as far as we’re concerned, but it’s not clear as far as local government elections are concerned. I welcome her comments, obviously, on policing. On youth justice, yes, the policy and the system should rest together to my mind and we’ll continue to make that case to the UK Government.

Thank you, First Minister. I think some of the issues in the Wales Bill, which we’re all discussing and we seem to think are very important, to the majority of the people of Wales are not really issues that they’re concerned about. The one big issue that almost everybody is going to be concerned about, and I myself have a fear about, is the tax-raising powers and the possibility of those without a referendum. In 2011, when we had the referendum on further powers, we were told then that is was not about more AMs and it was not about tax-raising powers: it was a tidying-up exercise. We now find ourselves being told that the two Governments—the Government here and the Government in Westminster—have a cosy consensus between them and that they’ve decided that we don’t really need to put this before the people of Wales. Well, Leanne Wood herself has just mentioned that the will of the people of Wales must be adhered to, and Andrew R.T. Davies talked about the fact that here, this house, must speak with one voice. This house does not speak with one voice. There are seven UKIP AMs and we do not agree—[Interruption.] We do not agree that there should be tax-raising powers without a referendum. Next year, there is an election in every single household in Wales, for the councils. In 2017, every council election is up for grabs. If you want to save money, if you want to be democratic and you want to give the people of Wales a say on this crucial matter, why not have a referendum at the exact same time and allow the people of Wales to have their say? Do we want this Government here to have power over their purses and wallets? I personally don’t.

Well, it was the people who’ve elected us here. I stood on the manifesto in my constituency including policies on income tax-varying powers and got elected as did—[Interruption.] I got elected, at the end of the day, in my constituency. [Laughter.] And, all Members, indeed, were elected here. But, the point is this: the people of Wales were asked their view on this last month and they expressed their view. Your party had seven seats—yes, that’s true—but there are 60 Members here and so there was not a groundswell of massive support for your party, even though I recognise that you did, of course, increase your support and it is evident in the fact that there are seven of you here.

I have to say, of course, that your party does not have a sound history of supporting devolution. You and I were together in Blackwood in the 2011 referendum and you opposed the primary law-making powers at that time. Your party, for the first three Assembly elections, at least, opposed the existence of the Assembly. Now, there’s been a change. Okay, I will grant that. But, I know that for many of your members the very existence of the Assembly is not something that they’re comfortable with. Lord knows, we saw many of the letters that some of them sent over the years into some of the newspapers: they weren’t particularly happy with the Assembly, Wales or the Welsh language. That’s changed.

I accept the point that you make today that you are looking to develop a devolution settlement that is more robust, but the point I make is this: in Scotland, there has not been a referendum and nor has UKIP called for a referendum on the extensive tax-varying powers that Scotland will get. In Northern Ireland, where corporation tax is being devolved, again, UKIP have not called for a referendum in Northern Ireland. So, what makes Wales different, especially given the fact that all parties in their manifestos dealt with this issue, and the people of Wales decided that they wished to support parties—overwhelmingly support the parties—that would look to see tax-varying powers devolved, and particularly look to make sure that those powers, when they arrive, are used prudently? But, I say to him again: no tax-varying powers, no M4 relief road; there is no way of having one without the other.

Thank you, First Minister.

I move to the next item on our agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister on Tata Steel, and I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Llywydd, this Assembly was recalled during the pre-election period, partly at my request, but essentially to recognise the intense concern of steel communities across Wales and, indeed, all of us in this Chamber about the future of Tata’s plants. Since then, I’ve had many discussions with Tata, the UK Government, trade unions and potential buyers and investors. Today, I wish to update the Chamber on the state of play and the progress that’s being made.

Members know that I went to Mumbai a couple of weeks ago to continue my dialogue with Tata about the sales process. Throughout this process, my primary concern has been for the Tata workforce, the steel communities and the need to secure a long-term and sustainable steel industry for the whole Tata operation in Wales. This is the case I’ve pressed consistently and directly with Tata’s senior leaders.

Members will understand very readily that commercial confidentiality limits what can be said in any detail, but I can confirm that our discussions have been constructive and significant, and Tata’s position remains that its priority is to conduct a sales process that secures a positive outcome. And Tata is now in the process of evaluating the offers it has received. Now, whatever decision is reached by Tata, we stand ready to support any bidders going through to the next stage that will see jobs and sustainable steel production remain in Wales.

Last Wednesday, we saw the launch of British Steel, following Greybull Capital’s purchase of Tata’s European long products division, primarily based in Scunthorpe. That offers some solid grounds for confidence that there is a viable future for steel making in Wales and the UK more widely, and that’s what the Welsh Government, and indeed this Assembly, has been saying all along.

This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure attended his first meeting of the UK Government’s Steel Council. The work of the Steel Council is being taken forward through four working groups that are considering not only how we respond to the current steel crisis, but the long-term sustainability of steel making. Our officials are in daily contact with the UK Government and also attend the Steel Council’s four work streams.

In the meantime, the work of our Tata Steel taskforce continues; it held its most recent meeting on 9 May. Support and advice is being provided by Jobcentre Plus, working closely with Tata, Careers Wales, the Welsh Government and other partners. There’s been a positive response to awareness sessions, with about 300 attending so far. A jobs fair was held on 28 April, attended by 38 high- calibre employees, and planning for a further jobs fair is under way. Union representatives were positive about the support provided to date.

The taskforce recognises there will be a need for continuing communication with former employees over the coming months, as some individuals may not want to immediately take up offers of support. Further advice sessions are planned for June and July, and these will be opened up to the supply chain as appropriate.

The taskforce’s work streams also continue their work actively. The health work stream is assessing evidence on what impact there will be on primary and community services. Community workshops are also planned to provide information about the support available to those affected by redundancy and wider family members. The training and skills, and business and supply chain work streams are also working closely together, also linking, of course, to the work of the health work stream. It’s helping to ensure full consideration is being given to support for individuals working in the supply chain, as well as Tata’s direct employees. Llywydd, Business Wales is currently working with 60 of Tata’s key supplier companies on a one-to-one basis, and is bringing in wider support, including skills and training support as necessary.

Could I turn to procurement? On procurement, we are continuing to analyse the Wales infrastructure investment plan, which provides visibility of our priority programme and projects, to establish a forecast of future steel requirements. This will be published shortly to provide clarity on those requirements. Work is also well progressed to strengthen our procurement policy, which will clarify the importance of opening up opportunities for UK steel suppliers.

In our transport contract documents, we’ve pushed matters still further where the use of UK steel is concerned. Not only do we state that the contractor must ensure that materials used by them and their subcontractors comply with the requirements of BES 6001, but we’ve also explicitly stated that there is an expectation from the Welsh Government that the contractor will not use dumped steel from overseas markets for any steel used on the project.

Moving to other areas of support, we’ve delivered the enterprise zone in Port Talbot. This follows helpful discussions with Neath Port Talbot council, the business community, and the taskforce, drawing on the expertise of the private sector through the enterprise zone board, chaired by Roger Maggs, whose special contribution I would like to note publicly.

Llywydd, steelworkers do their work in tough conditions, and a secure pension is a vital benefit. The UK Government launched a consultation on 26 May on options for providing security for the British Steel pension scheme. Pensions are not devolved, but I am absolutely clear that the integrity of the pension scheme must be protected, and the trustees, Tata, and the UK Government must work together to secure a fair and proper outcome for scheme members.

Llywydd, this Government remains absolutely committed to doing everything possible to secure a successful outcome to Tata’s sale process. This is a priority for all of us, and I’m grateful for the substantial cross-party support for our steel communities, and I will, of course, continue to keep Members updated.

Thank you, First Minister, for an advance copy of the statement. The UK Government is reportedly putting significant pressure on Tata to reverse its decision to sell its UK assets in return for the writing off of its pension deficit liability and a £900 million loan. Could the First Minister clarify and place on the record his understanding as to whether that is the case? And does he understand and possibly even share the natural scepticism of the workforce as to whether a company that has repeatedly favoured its plant in IJmuiden over Port Talbot—most recently in the outright rejection of the rescue plan only a few months ago—can have any credible long-term commitment to steel making in Wales? I have to say anyone who’s seen the McKinsey plan may be forced to conclude that the way in which Port Talbot was mismanaged by Tata Steel Europe at that level was a contributory factor in the severity of the problems it faced. Surely, handing back the keys to these same decision makers over the heads of local managers and workers is not something we in Wales should readily support, when there are other, better, locally owned alternatives.

Would the First Minister also accept that allowing an extremely well-resourced global conglomerate like Tata, which last year made some £4 billion in net profit, to walk away from its pension responsibilities would create a moral hazard in setting a precedent that would permit other transnational companies to do the same? Is he also concerned—as I am—that Downing Street’s apparent preference for a swift, deceptively simple back-room deal with Tata to a fair and transparent sale process may be driven by a desire for politically expedient news before 23 June rather than the long-term interests of the economy and steel communities? While he and I share the same desire for a similar outcome in terms of that referendum, will he agree that, in any case, as the consultation on the proposed changes to the indexation of the pension fund that he referred to does not close until 23 June, it would be premature for any final decision to be made in relation to Tata before that date?

Finally, seeing as Tata is now, curiously, it seems, in the position of adjudicating whether it or one of the bidders should receive substantial public investment being offered, when he meets with Tata next, could he ask, in the interests of a properly transparent process, if they will accept and allow the Steel Council that he referred to to commission a fully independent assessment of the options currently on the table in terms of their benefits and costs, not just for Tata, but for the public—taxpayer and steelworker alike?

Could I thank the Member for his questions? There is little with which I would disagree. What is absolutely crucial is that there is a long-term sustainable and secure future for our steel jobs. It’s right to say that Tata have said that they wish to sell; that remains their board’s position. I’m not sure that that is necessarily a position that will hold forever and a day, if I can put it that way. I can well imagine that the workers in Port Talbot and the other plants would be concerned if it were the case that Tata were to continue without there being guarantees put in place as to what Tata’s plans would be for the future. If the UK Government put financial help on the table, I would expect them—and I’ve not heard of any particular sum—to receive in return guarantees as to Tata’s future investment in the Welsh steel assets. To do otherwise would seem to me to be difficult to defend.

With regard to the pension scheme, he’s right: the pension protection fund is a fund that was set up to deal with pension funds that have, effectively, crashed because the sponsoring business had crashed. This is not the case here. We would not, in any event, support the British Steel pension fund going into the pension protection fund. The alternative that’s been put forward is still hugely difficult as far as beneficiaries are concerned, and the message that it will send. If, for example, there’s a deal where Tata remain, where there’s substantial financial support for Tata, and the pension liabilities are removed, the message to every other business in the UK is, ‘Well, let’s do the same thing’ and I don’t think that the public finances can deal with that. At the beginning of this process, the intention always was that the pensions issue would be dealt with in order to assist a new bidder and a new buyer. To do it for an existing company is fraught with hazard, as he rightly says.

I hope that the UK Government are not considering political considerations at this stage, but rather are considering the future of our jobs and our communities here in Wales, and elsewhere in the UK. It’s difficult at this stage to see if the Steel Council could conduct an independent assessment, given the scale of the non-disclosure agreements that are in place with regard to the seven bidders. It is hugely important, however, that the bidding process is examined in some detail. Tata have assured me that that will happen, that they will examine the bids very carefully, and, ultimately, of course, Tata have a global reputation that’s good. They surrender that reputation at some cost to themselves, and they know that. So, from my perspective, whatever the outcome is—and I want the outcome to be a sustainable and secure future—Tata will need to demonstrate that they’ve played fair by the workforce and they’ve created the conditions where the industry has a future. And, as I say, that reputation is worth something to them. They emphasised that to me in the meetings that they have had.

The fact that the timescale has stretched is encouraging to the extent that it means that Tata are looking, to my mind, at the bids very seriously, but there are, as he will know, a number of hurdles that have yet to be overcome. The support that we offer as a Government is still there. I have spoken on several occasions to two of the bidders and listened to their plans, and, to my mind, both those bidders are serious bidders. I say once again that it’s important that Tata give the bids full consideration, that they look to sell the assets at a fair price and provide a future for our steel communities, and it’s vital that the UK Government look to the long term, rather than thinking that a short-term solution is durable, because it’s not. We need to think not about the next few months, or indeed about the next two or three years, but about how we construct the future for our steel industry for the next decade and beyond.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, obviously, the previous statements that you’ve made to this house, both written and oral statements. I do commend you for going out to Mumbai, along with Sajid Javid, and standing there as two Governments, shoulder to shoulder, to seek assurances from Tata Steel. I would be grateful to understand exactly at what level those meetings were held between yourself and Tata Steel, so that, obviously, on the assurances that were given, can give us some clarity as to what level within the company they were passing those assurances back to you, because I think it is vital that we understand the structure that Tata are using, (a) to evaluate the bids and (b) to secure a successful outcome from this process.

I do disagree with the previous speaker’s comments about the UK Government’s positions and back-room deals. I think that, from the Prime Minister down, each and every one has spoken about the long-term security and the importance to the UK economy of a steel industry here in the United Kingdom, rather than just shoring something up for three or four weeks. I think, given the commitment of the Prime Minister, Sajid Javid, and the UK Government, along with the First Minister’s own Government, there is a willingness to make sure that this is a long-term deal rather than something that will burn out after a very brief period. Indeed, many of the comments in previous statements were around those very issues, that we do not want a purchaser going into any of these sites—because it is not just Port Talbot, it’s many other sites in Wales and also across the UK—and dismantling those sites and lowering the output of those sites. I do hope that you’ve been given assurances from Tata that, in their bidding evaluation, they are looking to secure the long-term future of each and every one of the sites, and indeed the integrated nature of the operation that they do have here in the United Kingdom, because many of the satellite sites, shall we say, do depend on, obviously, the Port Talbot works staying and making sure that output continues at current and increased production levels going forward.

So, I would be grateful as well, if Tata shared any information with you as to the viability of the bids that have come forward—. You said that there are seven bids on the table and I appreciate that there are non-disclosure agreements there for confidentiality reasons, but are you in a position to give any more clarity around the strength of those bids and the dynamics of the bids, in particular about the whole-company approach, or are quite a few of those bids just looking at the various options in isolation?

I would also like to extract from the First Minister some understanding as to the work that his Government in particular has undertaken around business rates. You have said that the Welsh Government have been trying to re-evaluate the grounds that they might be able to work with—walk on, should I say—to present a more enhanced business rates package. Because your understanding, when you last addressed this house, was that it was a very minimal package that would have been able to have been offered by the Welsh Government, but I have seen in the press and have heard you previously saying that the Welsh Government have been undertaking work, and I presume that that work is discussing with the European Commission and discussing with the Westminster Government around what type of enhanced package you might be able to bring forward, and I’d be most interested to know whether there is any more progress on that business rates package that you might be able to bring forward.

I would also like to understand: what does the First Minister understand by the term ‘dumped steel’? Many Members in this house and in the press have speculated solely on the Chinese aspect of dumped steel, when, in fact, there’s Russian dumped steel on the market, and there’s South Korean dumped steel as well. Is there almost an understanding, when you’re dealing with contracts—because you talk in your statement about having it in the terminology of contracts and the expectation of Government contracts that dumped steel would not be used. Do you become country-specific? Is there a category that you focus on? I think that that is important to understand as well.

In respect of the pensions and the pension liabilities, I think everyone would agree with the sentiment that you have identified within your statement, First Minister. It is a challenging territory that has been brought forward, but we do understand that, obviously, the pension liabilities are a major obstacle—for any successful purchaser to take on that liability. I would be grateful if you could expand on the language that you’ve used in your statement to clearly understand where the Welsh Government stands around the proposals that are in the consultation and whether the Welsh Government does formally support a particular proposal to help assist some of those liabilities being alleviated for any future purchasers of the sites so that the sites can be taken over and the production and the job security guaranteed for the workers on the sites, whether they be just site-specific or indeed across the whole steel industry. As I understand it, the consultation was asked for by the trustees of the pension fund and the UK Government obviously have come forward with that consultation. I do think that we do need to know clearly where the Welsh Government stands on that consultation and what is the favoured option of the Welsh Government, because it is such an integral part to concluding a successful sale of the steel-making operations.

The one final point that I’d also like to make is that you do touch in your statement on the retraining opportunities. David Rees, the Member for Aberavon, touched on this. Regrettably, whatever the outcome of the sales process, there have been redundancies at the sites—in particular Port Talbot—and other steel sites—Llanwern in particular—have had redundancies announced. It is important to understand that the training packages that have been put in place are meeting the requirements of the redundancy notices that have been served and the workers that will require retaining and support. Are you confident that the packages that are in place are meeting the needs of those workers and, in particular, in a way that will get them back into employment in a timely manner? Thank you, First Minister.

I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his questions. The meeting that I had in Mumbai was with senior executives and one board member of Tata. The meeting did last for some time. We explored a number of issues, one of which, for example, is what further support might be offered on business rates and that is something that we’re looking at. The difficulty is, of course, how you tailor support for one particular enterprise without opening the door to others as well, and how you create a situation like that fairly and in an affordable manner. Those discussions are ongoing.

In terms of dumped steel, we usually define that as steel that’s quite often being sold on a market below the cost of production, sometimes through a revenue subsidy provided by the government where the steel is produced, outside the European Union, but then undercuts steel production in a particular market that doesn’t attract a revenue subsidy. That’s one of the definitions you can give for dumped steel. We know that the problem that’s occurred in the world market is because of the slowdown of the Chinese economy. The Chinese have produced steel that their own economy cannot absorb and so they’re selling it in other markets, and that’s caused the price of world steel to slump, meaning that those steel enterprises that have the most difficult and challenging conditions have found it most difficult. In the UK, we know energy prices are high, the pound, although it’s now falling quite quickly, has been historically high, which has made it difficult to export and, of course, the tariff regimes that have been put in place by other markets around the world.

On pensions, we’ve not yet offered our view on what would be our preferred option. Originally, the proposal that I made was that if a new buyer came in then the pension scheme would be dealt with in a similar way to the way in which the British Coal pension scheme was dealt with, in order to make coal more attractive for privatisation, in other words, taken out of the equation for a stake to be taken by the UK Government—and we know the UK Government is doing pretty well out of that pension at the moment—in order to guarantee the benefits of those in the pension scheme, but also to remove the pension scheme from the equation for a new buyer. It’s significantly more complicated if the operation continues under the same owner, I would argue. It’s right to say the trustees asked for the review—they have to, under law, do that and that’s why the process began.

I think I’ve given some detail on what’s been done to help people who are being made redundant. Although we don’t have exact figures yet, it seems that a substantial number will take early retirement, and will be of an age when they’re able to do that. So far, as I mentioned earlier on, there are some who have received help. But, in order to make sure that those who don’t come forward immediately do have access to help in the future, as I said earlier on the statement, over the course of this month and next month, that help will continue to be available.

I commend the First Minister on his statement. In particular I endorse warmly his remarks about Roger Maggs, the chairman of Excalibur and a school friend of mine from many, many years ago at Amman Valley. And I endorse all that Adam Price—another distinguished product of my old school—said in his response to your statement also about the pension fund at Tata.

You mentioned, a moment ago, that this could be dealt with in the same way that the British Coal pension fund was dealt with, but the difference between the two, of course, is that there is a deficit in the Tata pension fund and there’s a massive surplus in the British Coal pension fund, from which the Government has siphoned off a very large sum of money for its own purposes.

Tata just can’t be allowed to get away with walking away from their responsibilities to the steelworkers of Port Talbot and elsewhere. The pension fund is currently worth about £14.5 billion and there’s a deficit, I understand, of about £500 million. These are not the only assets that Tata owns in the United Kingdom. Of course, they own Jaguar Land Rover and the profit on Jaguar Land Rover for the last reported year was £3.6 billion. So, Tata can well afford to plug the hole in the steel pension fund in Port Talbot and elsewhere, and I think they should be held to their responsibilities. I certainly endorse the point on moral hazard that Adam Price made.

I warmly endorse the First Minister’s efforts, including going to Mumbai, to try to resolve this crisis, but, of course, he is constrained by the limits on his powers, as indeed is the Secretary of State at Westminster. The Minister said in his statement that his primary concern has been that steel communities need to secure a long-term sustainable steel industry for the whole Tata operation in Wales, but, unfortunately, of course, he’s not able to do that because energy prices in this country are 50 per cent higher than elsewhere in the EU and we have been unable to impose—[Interruption.] This is Unite’s own document that says this—the trade union—so you can take their word for it or take it up with them if you disagree. And we have, as regards tariffs on steel, had a pathetically inadequate response from the European Commission and an even more pathetically inadequate response from the UK Government because all that the EU Commissioners propose is a 24 per cent tariff, whereas the United States has put a 522 per cent tariff on cold-rolled steel, which is a vital ingredient in the production at Port Talbot.

There is also, of course, the possibility that a new buyer could be found for those steel assets. The British Government would be woefully restricted in the amount of aid that they could give to a new purchaser and even more restricted if Tata retains the ownership because of the EU’s state aid rules. Similarly, in the statement, the First Minister said that, as regards transport contract documents, the Welsh Government expects that any contractors would not use dumped steel from an overseas market. Well, an expectation, of course, is not worth the paper it’s printed on. There is no legal power in the UK Government or the British Government to require users of steel in this country to exclude dumped steel from what they do.

So, unfortunately, what we are faced with, because of our membership of the EU, is that Government either at Westminster or in Cardiff is powerless to take the decisions that are vital to the continued production of steel in south Wales. And I’m afraid that we’re just like ghosts at the feast. We’re talking here today as though we could do something about this problem but, in fact, we can’t. On 23 June, we have the opportunity to take the decision that puts the levers of power back into the hands of Ministers like the First Minister here in Cardiff and indeed the Prime Minister at Westminster.

First of all, I thank the leader of UKIP for some of his comments. He is right, indeed, on energy prices. We’ve been saying this for the past five years to the UK Government. It is right to say—I’ve spoken to Celsa, for example, who’ve said to me that energy prices in Germany are 20 per cent lower and in Spain 37 per cent lower. Why? It’s the nature of the UK’s energy market. That’s the problem; it’s nothing to do with the EU—it’s the way the UK has structured it. What they say to me is that, basically, they’re offered tariffs that would be offered to a domestic consumer. In Germany and Spain there are discounts for energy-intensive industries, but not in the UK. The UK energy market is arcane, opaque and not transparent because is quite clear that energy prices are more expensive here. It’s not just me; any energy-intensive industry is saying this: they are cheaper elsewhere in Europe. That needs to be dealt with. Some progress has been made in that regard but not enough, to my mind.

He is right to say that Tata should not walk away from its responsibilities. It has not indicated that it should. It has indicated to me, of course, that its reputation is important around the world. The kind of aid we can offer is hugely attractive to any potential buyer—the money we can put on the table as the Welsh Government; the substantial resources the UK Government can put on the table as well. These are all perfectly compliant with state aid rules. What we can’t do is offer an ongoing revenue subsidy—that much is true—but we have to remember that, at the end of the day, steel needs a market. The UK isn’t big enough to provide a market on its own for British steel. If we were outside of the European market, the tariff barriers would go up and that would mean that steel from Britain would be more expensive as it entered the European market. I noted what Professor Patrick Minford—that’s the second time I’ve mentioned him today in this Chamber—said today when he said that his approach would be that there should be no barriers at all to goods coming into the UK. He would have no tariffs on anything coming into the UK, even if other countries put up tariff barriers themselves. I just don’t think that that’s a sensible—. He is somebody who is produced as an economist for the Leave campaign. That is his view; I don’t agree with that view. To my mind, you need to have access to as many large markets as possible, and leaving the EU, especially with steel, would put British steel at risk of having substantial tariffs put against British steel entering the European market. We’ll have that argument again. It’s not an argument, of course, that Tata have used; their view is that they are a European operation. Indeed, many of the assets in Wales, like Shotton, for example, are connected very closely with operations elsewhere in Europe, which would be quite difficult to untangle. What is right to say is that all the Welsh operations are connected to Port Talbot.

One of the concerns was that there would be an attempt to cherry-pick—that those operations like Orb, like Llanwern, like Shotton, like Trostre, the rolling mill in Port Talbot, which are making money, would be cherry-picked and the heavy end at Port Talbot would go. But the reality is, as I’ve said in this Chamber before, all those plants are supplied with steel from Port Talbot. It would take about six months for them to find a source of steel from somewhere else. In the meantime, they’re reliant on stocks, they’re going to be laying people off and they’re going to start losing customers. So, they are reliant on Port Talbot making steel to supply those plants. From our perspective, just to re-emphasise it, we take the view that all of Tata’s assets in Wales should be bought as a package and that there should be no cherry-picking.

Concise questions from now on and I may get through all nine speakers. Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch. Thanks for the update, First Minister. Many of my constituents in communities across Flintshire are understandably concerned about the future of the Shotton site and fear that it often gets lost in all of the headlines.

Shotton has two successful, viable, profitable businesses that have risen, almost phoenix-like, from the ashes of the record mass redundancies of the 1980s. Shotton has a bright future with the right support, and on that note, I must pay credit to the leadership that you’ve shown on this and leadership that, I know, is recognised by the workforce there. I’ve co-ordinated meetings with management and trade unions at the Shotton site and know, first hand, the highly skilled, hardworking and flexible workforce. First Minister, can I ask that you will continue to ensure that Shotton is not forgotten and that the workforce there is kept fully informed?

I can give an absolute assurance that that’s true of Shotton, of Trostre and, indeed, of the works in Newport as well. I know that there’s been some fear amongst the workers that, whenever steel is talked about, it’s always Port Talbot. It is the biggest employer, of course, but we know that all of our steel plants in Wales are hugely important and we know that they’re interdependent. The Member will know that I visited Shotton very soon after the announcement; I did the same with all the plants across Wales and will continue to make sure that the steel industry in Wales is seen as one whole industry that must be bought as a whole, and developed and invested in in the future.

I’m grateful to the First Minister for bringing this statement and I agree with some of the comments that have been raised here today, although I would like to say, in relation to the dumping of steel, the UK Government has already previously refused higher measures on the dumping of steel, and so, if we did come out of the European Union, you would expect opposition on that level. So, I can’t understand the rationale that is being brought to the debate today in terms of the UK Government somehow being more supportive of putting higher tariffs on Chinese steel.

Particularly concerning to me is the precedent the UK Government could be setting with the pension fund, as has been mentioned earlier. The moral hazard argument is one that was well rehearsed with Ministers and their officials while dealing with ASW and Visteon cases, all to no avail—our warnings fell on deaf ears in Whitehall.

But, I just wanted to focus briefly on the internal dynamics at Tata as reported by steelworkers to myself. Has the First Minister heard that officials from Tata Europe attended a town hall meeting in Port Talbot in the past fortnight, at which they got up and severely criticised the workforce, causing the trade union delegation to get up and walk out? This seems to be the latest concern surrounding Tata Europe leadership and its conduct before and during this period.

You’ll know it was largely comprised of the Hoogovens management—the company that was effectively saved from bankruptcy through the Corus merger with British Steel. Since Tata brought Corus, steelworkers say the IJmuiden plant has received the bulk of investment, including the same kind of investment that Plaid Cymru have mooted in relation to a new power plant, predominantly because of the Dutch management and the influence that they have. Is that something that you have heard, First Minister?

Also, it’s been claimed that Port Talbot’s financial position was effectively made to look worse than it was, because the cost of materials bound for both steelmaking sites were booked solely for Port Talbot. So, I heard of one example of a shipment of iron ore that stopped off in Wales first before going to the Netherlands, with the entire cost borne by the Port Talbot site. Is that something that you’ve heard about, First Minister?

Then, of course, my question comes to the order book. As far as we know, this has been centralised in the Netherlands. This is considerably worrying to my constituents who see it as an opportunity for Tata Europe to pick off the best contracts even though, as I hear, they are not capable of fulfilling some of them, leaving Port Talbot and the rest of the UK operation to fail. So, I would like to know whether the Welsh Government has enquired as to the whereabouts of the order book and questioned the rationale for moving it to the Netherlands, and whether efforts have been made by yourself or your officials to repatriate the order book ahead of any potential sale. Do we have reassurances from the company that it is happy to open its books to potential buyers for the diligence phase of any sale? I think these are questions that need answering, for the workforce especially, who have raised those points with me, but also for the wider steel industry here in the UK.

Many of the comments that the Member has made I’ve heard, like the issue of IJmuiden. I wasn’t aware of the town-hall meeting, although I’ve heard something about what had happened, but I wasn’t aware that it was in Port Talbot. I have heard it said to me that Port Talbot has been made to look worse than it is. I’ve got no evidence to back that up, but I’ve heard that said. I’ve heard, for example, that there are issues with regard to the port, and particularly fees charged by the company owning the port. Why on earth there is a separate business owning the port compared with the steelworks, only the Tories in the 1980s could explain to you, but that is, nevertheless, the situation there. There have been issues that have been said to me with regard to charges at the port. So, there are a number of issues that have been raised where there is no easy answer.

In terms of the order book, well, of course, due diligence would have to be carried out by any buyer in any event. Nobody’s going to buy assets or buy a business without looking at the books. It’s fair to say there has been investment in the steel industry in Wales, particularly in Port Talbot. We saw the blast furnace No. 5 being rebuilt. We have put an offer on the table with regard to the power plant. We worked with the company three years ago over looking at whether a mine could be sunk in the curtilage of the steelworks. So, all these things have been explored.

Research and development is another issue. We need to make sure that, as we look at the future of the steel industry over the next few years, that R&D capacity exist in Wales. I know that Swansea University have expressed an interest in that, and we’re keen to work to make sure that that R&D capacity does exist in Wales. We’ve been successful for the past few years in attracting more R&D into Wales to supplement the manufacturing that we do and the same will be important for steel in the future.

So, all this work is being done. I’ve heard many of the issues that she has raised being raised with me and with others. I hear that Port Talbot is now breaking even after three months ago losing £1 million a day, which is a substantial turnaround, but, of course, there will be a need, as the sale process continues, to make sure there is an understanding of what the true financial situation is with regard to the steel industry in Wales.

First Minister, can I thank you for your statement today? It’s clearly important to ensure that not just Members in the Assembly are updated on the progress of the discussion with Tata, but that my constituents and the steelworkers in my constituency are actually fully aware of what we’re trying to do. The Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr was quite right in some of his questions that some of those levers are actually in London, unfortunately, and some of those concerns we have—and they did come to the table late, I’m sorry to say—are laying with them and we need to address those, very much so.

Bethan Jenkins highlighted a couple of points, which I don’t want to repeat, so I’ll avoid that if I can. But the question comes as to the confidence of the workforce in Tata. At the moment, there is a total lack of confidence of the workforce in Tata. I think what we would want from the Welsh Government is reassurance that it will work with buyers who come in to ensure that there is a sustainable future for the steel industry, not just in Port Talbot, but in all the other plants across Wales, to make sure that steel becomes and remains a major factor in the UK industrial strategy.

Have you had discussions also with the UK Government on an industrial strategy? I walked with the steelworkers in London two weeks ago where they called for an industrial strategy for steel for the UK Government, and they still seem to be lacking in effort in the UK Government in that area.

You mentioned the ports. Have you had discussions with the Associated British Ports in relation to the use of the port and the association the port has with the steelworks? So, it’s how we can work with Tata steel or its buyers to ensure that the inputs coming through the docks can actually work in another very effective price?

First Minister, you also highlighted the losses. I’ve also been informed that the losses are far lower and are working towards break even, and the May figures may actually be break even. So, we are now in a mode of actually getting to a stage where the industry is becoming a viable, attractive proposition for any buyer, and I think that’s one of the reasons why Tata are now realising they made a big mistake in January when they made those announcements, and an even bigger one in March.

But let’s go back also to the question I asked in your First Minister’s questions in relation to the taskforce and the support given to those employees who have either lost their jobs at this point, or are about to lose their jobs in the next weeks. Can you give reassurances that not only are the training packages in place, but there will be opportunities for work? Because we can train as many people as we like, but if there aren’t opportunities for them to gain employment then all that will happen is, in a few weeks’ time, they’re going to be facing the challenges of just sitting at home. We need to ensure that the enterprise zone becomes a working, successful operation, that the packages and the work streams that we talked about with the taskforce for looking at businesses are actually attracting investment and jobs so that those people, once they’ve trained, can get employment. That’s crucial to them. The last thing they want to do is to get trained and then go back to their homes without a job. It’s crucial that they have that dignity in place.

And have you had discussions with our MEPs and the European elements? Because the European Parliament actually did throw out the market economy status argument, very much so, and I was disappointed to hear the negativity from the UKIP leader regarding true steel. There’s a lot of positivity in our town, a lot of ambition and hope in our town, and we don’t want to see the negative visions being produced by that party.

Now, the other question about Roger Maggs—you praised him, but, of course, he is also chair of the enterprise zone. Can you give us clarification as to the separation of the two roles he has, with Excalibur and the enterprise zone, to ensure that we go forward collectively and in a positive manner?

The final point, First Minister: I want to praise you for the leadership you’ve shown over this time. Given the election campaign, when we required it, you definitely showed the leadership and strong leadership we needed in our town and constituency. You demonstrated to the rest of the UK what can be done. I just hope that others follow your suit.

Well, can I thank the Member for those kind words and could I reciprocate by saying that he has been a doughty and avid campaigner for those people whom he represents? I know this myself through the late-night phone calls that I’ve had from him, and he is somebody who has been very concerned to protect their interests.

I think he’s absolutely right to say there’s a lack of confidence amongst Tata workers—how could there not be—because the future is yet uncertain. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, and people are bound to feel insecurity, not knowing what the future holds.

In terms of an industrial strategy, that’s not something that the UK Government have come forward with. They have focused on the matter in hand. I think it’s right to say that they might have been quicker in realising the situation that was occurring. That said, I think it is fair to say that they are looking to find a solution and, certainly, Sajid Javid has been in regular contact with me in order to explain what he has been doing, so I have to acknowledge that. I mean, it was quite remarkable, all the way through an election campaign, no political capital was made of the issue in any way, and I think that’s a reflection of what the people of Port Talbot would want—the political parties working together in order to find a solution for everybody.

With regard to ABP, the ports, of course, are not devolved yet, but they will be. It is curious that we have a port in Port Talbot that, effectively, only exists for the steelworks that, in any rational world, would be owned by the company owning the steelworks. That’s not the case. So, effectively, there’s not a huge amount of choice other than the coal and iron ore coming in through the port. It can’t go, realistically, anywhere else. It has been said to me, certainly by one of the bidders, that there is concern about the cost of using the port. It’s not helpful as far as the future is concerned, and that is something that the UK Government themselves have said, and they were having discussions with ABP to make sure that the port was reasonable in terms of what it was charging for raw materials to come through it.

I have, of course, been in contact with Derek Vaughan. The Member is right to say that market economy status has not been agreed as far as China is concerned for any number of reasons. He asked, of course, about the people who are affected by this—support particularly. I’ve outlined already what is available. It is right to say that the enterprise zone needs to be taken forward quickly—we acknowledge that—and it’s right to say that the skills are important, but also the jobs that are appropriate to those skills are also important. That’s what the enterprise zone is designed to deliver. Thus far, the numbers coming forward have been quite low, reflecting, I think, the situation that a lot of those who have taken voluntary redundancy are looking to retire, but what we don’t know is whether there are still people who have not yet come forward to get the support and help that they need. We will stand ready to help the people who work in Port Talbot and in other parts of the industry in Wales to help them to retrain and get the jobs that they need.

Thank you for your statement, First Minister, particularly your comments regarding procurement. In your statement you mentioned a commitment to the long-term sustainable steel industry and confirmed to Neil Hamilton, later in the debate today, that that included what you called the heavy end of works at Port Talbot. Yet, it was reported a few days ago in ‘The Guardian’ that none of the bidders were guaranteeing a long-term future for Port Talbot and were seeking cash from Tata as well as from both Governments. Is it your view, then, that any bid that does not include a future for the blast furnaces should not survive the bidding process assessment being conducted by Tata at the moment?

You also said in your statement that Tata’s priority is to conduct a sale. It does worry me that they confirmed to you, and as you mentioned in the debate we held during recess, that Tata told you that they had a strong preference not to sell. They told the Secretary of State, Sajid Javid, almost back as far as Christmas, I think, that they were intending to sell and now, even this week, Tata’s indicating that they may not want to sell Port Talbot after all. I do share the views of other Members in this Chamber regarding the disingenuousness of Tata, perhaps, if I can call it that. So, in your constructive and significant discussions, as you call them, and your indication that you stand ready to support any bidder, which of course could include Tata, bearing in mind that they’ve indicated they might want to hang on to part of the work here in Wales, what clarity and guarantees have you secured, or are likely to secure, in view of the fact that you’re willing to commit £60 million or more of money that could be spent elsewhere by the Welsh Government, when you’ve been speaking to those bodies?

Then, thirdly, if you have time to answer this, in targeting the job support, what specific conversations have you been having with the Swansea bay city region board about identifying the targeted nature of the offer that the taskforce engagement has been able to provide so far? Because, obviously, it’s not just any job we’d be looking for for these steelworkers, but jobs that have a future as well.

In terms of the questions that have been asked, in terms of the heavy end, the two bidders that I have had contact with wish to preserve the heavy end. They have different approaches to it, and this is public—it’s known that one of the bidders wants to look at the use of scrap in the future, rather than iron ore. The other bidder would keep the process as it is. But, nevertheless, the heavy end at Port Talbot would remain. It’s a more difficult question, I think, if bidders are asked to guarantee that every single job will remain in place. I don’t think that bidders can offer that assurance at this stage, but they can offer the assurance—the two that I have spoken to—that the heavy end will continue, and that’s hugely important. Because once the heavy end goes, it will never be reinstated. Now, when market conditions continue to improve, it’s possible then to employ more people, and that’s important. So, the protection of the heavy end is there.

We would not support, in any way, a bid that included the closure of steel making in Port Talbot because that’s where the substantial chunk of the employment is, and then there will be a detrimental effect on the rest of the operations around Wales in terms of tinplate, Tata Steel Colors and specialists like Orb in Llanwern.

Before Christmas, in a meeting that I had, it was made clear to me that a sale was not on the cards—that it was either carry on or close. After Christmas, the situation changed. Better that than closure, that much is true, but it’s right to say that there was a change in thinking in Tata at that time. Now we find ourselves in a position where a sale is on the cards. Before Christmas, the indications were that the McKinsey report was being taken seriously and that a turnaround would be looked at seriously. It wasn’t suggested before Christmas that closure was on the cards, if I can put it that way, but certainly a sale wasn’t on the cards at any time before that time. We know that that’s what’s happening now.

Of course, the package that we’ve put on the table has been intended primarily for new bidders. That was at a time when it wasn’t believed that Tata would want to stay in any event. There’s no doubt that there will be a need to give certain guarantees as far as any Government help is concerned, whether it’s the UK Government or whether it’s Welsh Government. We can’t put money on the table to find that, in a year or two’s time, that money has effectively disappeared because the assets are being reduced in terms of job numbers and in terms of production, and that applies to the UK Government as much as it applies to us. And we recognise that, in fairness, because that would need to be done.

If a new bidder comes in who is an established steel maker, it’s a reasonable assumption to make that they will want to continue with steel making in any event. If you have asset strippers come in, then obviously there’s a very different thought process. It’s never clear, of course, where you have an existing operator, what their intention in the future might be, and, yes, there will be a need, as far as the workforce is concerned and as far as the public purse is concerned, to obtain certain guarantees as to future investment and a plan for the future for the Welsh steel industry.

In terms of job support, again, that is something that the city region will be looking at. The Member will know that we have an established process for dealing with situations like this, which involve a number of organisations that have come together to offer that support. It’s absolutely crucial, of course, that the skills that are on offer are the skills that are required in the local economy and, of course, the city region board will have a very useful input in terms of being able to make that assessment as to what skills need to be provided in order for people to get the secure jobs that they need.

And finally, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you, First Minister, for your recognition of the position and situation of Newport in the overall steel picture in Wales. You will know from your recent visit to Llanwern what top-quality steel is produced in the Zodiac plant, for example, for the car industry in the UK and beyond. Recently, I also visited the Orb steelworks, where their electrical steels are world-class and exported across the globe. It’s key that Orb very much value their partnership with Welsh Government. They told me about the relationship that had been built and the support that they have in terms of their production and processes and skills training, and that they are very keen to build on that and engage further.

Recently, I met, along with Jayne Bryant as AM for Newport West and the two Newport MPs, Liberty Steel, and, similarly, they are very keen to engage and, as you would know, they have very ambitious plans not just on the steel front, but also in terms of renewable energy, tidal lagoon, and converting the coal-fired power station to biomass. So, they are very ambitious indeed, and all of these steel producers in Newport, First Minister, have said to me and the other political representatives how keen they are to build on the existing relationship with Welsh Government and ensure that, through support and partnership and investment, we make sure that steel in Newport not only has the great history that is widely recognised, but also a very strong future. So, I’d just like your further reassurance today that Welsh Government is very much of a similar mind and will work with all of us as local political representatives to ensure that we go forward in partnership with those steel firms.

Absolutely, and I know the Member has been vocal in terms of advocating the steel industry in his particular city. Of course, we know that Newport has a substantial export market as well—some 30 per cent of the steel produced is exported and they are successful and profitable. It’s hugely important that the future prosperity and sustainability of all the sites in Wales is addressed. But, again, they are all linked to Port Talbot and the steel that is made in Port Talbot that feeds the operations that they carry out. So, I can give the assurance to those workers in Shotton, in Trostre, in Newport and, of course, in Port Talbot that we see the steel industry as integrated within Wales, as profitable in Wales, as having a future in Wales, and, of course, we will continue to speak up for all of those workers.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the European football championships, and I call on Ken Skates.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Members will be aware, this week sees the start of the fifteenth UEFA European Championship in France and I am delighted that this year, Wales will be one of the nations taking part in the newly expanded 24-team tournament. On behalf of the Welsh Government and this Assembly, can I begin by congratulating the Welsh team on what has been a hugely successful qualification campaign and also wish them all the very best for the coming tournament?

This is, of course, the first major championship finals that Wales has competed in since 1958. Many of us will recall quite vividly the painful series of disappointments that the team has experienced over the years and so it is with great pleasure, and indeed pride, that we have seen the team make this year’s tournament. Under the direction of Chris Coleman, the squad has shown great resolve, determination and teamwork and it’s only right to place on record our recognition of the leadership his coaching team and the FAW have shown over the last couple of years. The achievement of qualification is a fitting tribute to Gary Speed, who helped lay many foundations of the team’s current success and who was respected and admired by so many people across Wales.

The first Wales match against Slovakia will kick off at 6 p.m. UK time on Saturday 11 June in Bordeaux, with further group games being played against England in Lens at 2 p.m. on Thursday 16 June, and the final group game against Russia, beginning at 8 p.m. on Monday 20 June in Toulouse. The European championship is one of the world’s highest profile sporting events. In total, in Euro 2012 there was an aggregated TV audience of 1.9 billion and the global profile Wales will achieve in the coming weeks is something the Welsh Government is keen to maximise.

Alongside the other countries competing in Euro 2016, Wales will be represented at a European Village in Paris, organised by the city mayor’s office. The Welsh Government has been working closely with them and with the British Embassy, but in light of the recent flooding in the city the opening of the village has sadly been delayed, due to its location on the banks of the river Seine. Our thoughts are with those in Paris who have worked hard to prepare the European Village on time. When the village does open, the Welsh Government-funded stand will showcase some of our country’s diverse and exciting tourist destinations and adventure hotspots, celebrating our Year of Adventure and providing a distinctive presence for Wales in the centre of the French capital and alongside other nations.

The Wales team media centre is located at the team’s base in Brittany—an appropriate location given the long-standing relationship between Wales and Brittany. Adverts about Wales in several languages will be displayed during the tournament, and information about Wales will be provided to the estimated 300-plus international media who will be covering Wales’s journey in the tournament. Visit Wales has also arranged for promotional videos to be shown on the screens at the special fanzones in Toulouse and Bordeaux, which are expected to attract fans from across Europe. Closer to home, iconic Welsh buildings, including Cadw castles, will be illuminated in red to support the team during group games.

The demand for tickets alone is testimony to how much the whole country is intending to be part of the championships. Around 30,000 Welsh fans are expected to travel to France. The FAW have been clear that the fans have played a huge part in this success and they will, I am sure, add passion to the tournament. Wales play group games against Slovakia in Bordeaux and Russia in Toulouse—sizable cities with plenty to keep fans entertained. However, the Wales versus England match is being played in Lens, a significantly smaller town. Now, whilst I’m sure the inhabitants of Lens will be as welcoming to fans as anywhere else in France, outside of the stadium there are very few places available to watch the game. I fully endorse the messages given to the Welsh fans by the police that they should not travel to Lens if they do not have match tickets.

We are all aware of the current security environment, both in the UK and in France. Fans need to leave plenty of time to travel to games as there will be enhanced security. They should report anything suspicious to the police. The strong advice is to take note of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice, which will be updated on its website throughout the tournament. The police have also advised that fans need to pre-book accommodation and look after their passports, and have emphasised that fans are acting as ambassadors for our country. I fully support this last point. I hope that Welsh fans will travel to France to enjoy themselves, to make friends and to leave a lasting positive impression of Wales with the people they meet.

This is a fantastic time to be a Welsh football fan and an exciting time to be Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for major events. There is a real feeling that qualification is only the beginning for this talented group of players. I, for one, cannot wait to see the team run out onto the pitch in Bordeaux and represent Wales on the world stage. The team, the players and all of the fans have certainly embraced the ‘Together Stronger’ theme, and I know we all take great pride in the success of that team. The whole nation is behind them.

Everybody in the Plaid group wishes the Wales football team and all supporters a successful, enjoyable and safe trip to France. Reaching the Euro finals is a dream come true for many of us, and the achievement of the players, the manager and the FAW has been enormous, and I just really hope they go to France, play football with a smile on their faces and do us all proud. I’m really glad that you mentioned also the enormous contribution of Gary Speed.

Everybody here knows that sport is so important to Wales, so I’m a little confused by the Government’s approach, really. On the one hand, we have a Minister for elite sport, and on the other hand we have a Minister for the grass roots. One question is: don’t you realise that, to get to the elite level in sport, you need the grass roots? The splitting of the portfolio tells me that you’re not really taking this too seriously. So, the first question, really, is: could you tell me what an elite sport is?

Secondly, and moving on, just a mile down the road there’s an all-weather pitch, which is locked and is empty, and nobody’s playing on it, hardly. You’ve got the local kids in Grangetown locked out, in some cases with faces pressed against the fence, unable to play because Cardiff’s Labour council wants them to pay between £34 and £39 an hour. In terms of elite sport, how is tomorrow’s Gareth Bale going to become an elite footballer if he or she is unable to use pitches because they cost too much? [Interruption.] So, will you join me on a visit to Channel View to talk to the children and parents? Also, on a practical level of a Euro legacy project, will you commission an audit of all sports facilities all over Wales, with a view to developing schemes to get facilities used to enable the development of elite sport and to improve public health?

Finalement, je dirais bonne chance à nos garçons en France et ‘Allez les rouges’. Merci. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Member for his contribution and say, well, actually, for many of us, it’s going to be the first time that we’ve ever seen the Welsh national squad campaign on the world stage, so it’s going to be a life first for many of us that I’m sure we’re very excited about. On the last point about carrying out an audit of facilities across Wales—I forgive the Member because he wasn’t in this Chamber at that time—it was actually carried out towards the back end of the previous Assembly. So, that work has been carried out in conjunction with Sport Wales. With regard to pitch fees, this has been a contentious issue across Wales, particularly in the last 12 months, but as my colleague Lee Waters rightly mentioned, it’s also been a problem in his part of Wales, in Carmarthenshire. Perhaps we could visit one of the pitches there as well.

In terms of elite and grass-roots sport, the Member should now be aware that both are now in the hands of full budget-holding Ministers; that was not the case previously. So, actually, I would have thought he’d welcome the fact that we now have two people around the Cabinet table with an interest in promoting sport at a community level and sport at an elite level. Grass-roots sport has more than just leisure and elite sport to serve, it also has health and well-being to support and to serve. By placing it in the hands of the Cabinet Secretary for health, it’s my belief that we can expand grass-roots sport to include all forms of physical activity that serve the health and the well-being of Wales.

Firstly, I would like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary to his new role and thank him for the statement this afternoon on the forthcoming European football championships. For the first time since 1958—that’s long before I was born—people across Wales will have the opportunity to proudly watch our team in a major football championship, and I would like to join you in wishing Chris Coleman and the Welsh football team all the very best. I’m sure that the whole Chamber will agree that the Wales team will do us proud and that we hope that all UK home nations stay in Europe as long as possible.

Will the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, confirm that fans in all parts of Wales will be able to enjoy the championships in fanzones across the country? During the Rugby World Cup almost 150,000 people visited fanzones at Cardiff Arms Park, but there has been some concern from supporters in all parts of Wales that fanzones will not be used to the same extent in Euro 2016. So, I’ll be interested to know what steps the Welsh Government has taken to encourage local authorities, the FAW and other partner organisations to establish fanzones so that communities across Wales can get behind the Welsh team and share the experience together. It will, of course, be a huge boost to the players out in France to know that fans back home are behind them.

Secondly, major sporting events create interest and demand for sporting activities at both junior and grass-roots levels. So, I would suggest a spike in interest should be used to increase the health of our nation. There’s a golden opportunity to boost sporting participation so that we can inspire the next generation and improve public health in general. So, will the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, outline what steps the Welsh Government has taken to use Euro 2016 as a means of boosting the virtues of an active lifestyle and other health benefits of sporting activity?

Thirdly, you referred to the potential for security threats at the championships. Can I fully endorse your advice for spectators to remain vigilant and take note of the FCO advice? However, I would be grateful if the Welsh Government could outline what discussions it has had with the UK Government and with the French Government following concerning statements from Scotland Yard and others in the French interior ministry that it’s impossible to guarantee the safety of supporters who are travelling to France. And, finally, the success of Wales’s football team, clearly, has the potential to bring economic benefits to Wales. You have provided some detail in your statement, but perhaps you could also comment on how this event has the potential to host future major sporting events to ensure that Wales’s success in Euro 2016 will have a lasting legacy. On behalf of the Welsh Conservative group, Presiding Officer, I would like to join others in wishing the Welsh team every success.

Can I thank Russell George for his valuable contribution and for his kind words and I look forward to working with him in the fifth Assembly as well? If I could just pick up on that final point about promoting Wales moving forward, this, of course, is only the beginning of what I see as a golden period for Welsh football and for Wales promoting the game on a global stage, because, of course, next year Cardiff is the host city of the Champions League final—the single biggest day’s sporting event in the calendar. It will be a monumental occasion and this is a perfect opportunity to segue into another grand football occasion.

In terms of fanzones, I’m delighted that Cardiff and Swansea are organising fanzones for the tournament. I am aware that many Members have contacted their own local authorities to urge them to do likewise, including my colleague from Wrexham, who’s been in touch with Wrexham County Borough Council. I’m not aware of other local authorities having agreed to fanzones. But certainly my officials have been in touch with local authorities and with the WLGA to discuss where and what forms of public gatherings could be organised. I think it’s worth saying at this point, though, that the tournament also offers a great opportunity to pubs and restaurants to capitalise on the events, and, indeed, to breweries. So, where those fanzones are being held I would urge the organisers, where and when possible, to make sure that local suppliers and services from within Wales take advantage of those opportunities.

In terms of our promotion, I’d like to inform Members that it’s my intention, I will say ‘if and when’ we qualify for the knockout stages, to open up all Cadw sites on that first Sunday after qualification for free entry for everybody, as what you might call a ‘celebration Sunday’ during the tournament. I think it just marks the importance of the tournament for Wales, and gives people of all ages an opportunity to experience some of our fantastic heritage, which is what so many people come to Wales to experience.

In terms of the legacy of the tournament and what we do to support particularly the development of the game at a grass-roots level, we invest something in the region of £1 million a year in grass-roots football through the Welsh Football Trust, and I’d like to put on record my thanks to them for doing a sterling job, not just in promoting the game but in engaging many young people who might otherwise disengage from education. And, in doing so, they keep them in education and make sure that they get a good schooling.

Now, going forward, the Welsh Football Trust plan to use qualification for Euro 2016 as a catalyst to move closer to their vision of football being more than a game, and there will be four delivery strands that will see football become stronger and more sustainable in Wales, and football enabling the transformation of communities to take place. Those four strands involve boosting grass-roots clubs, and so there is an ambition, for example, to create 100 community football recruitment days across Wales over the course of the summer. Thirty dates have been established so far, but this will significantly help grass-roots clubs.

The second strand is boosting recreational participation within the community. And so, in this regard, the Football Association of Wales have launched Cwpan y Bobl, which is a national recreational five-a-side competition with five participatory groups, including a male and female seniors group, junior group, a walking football group, and also disability participation, to make sure that this truly is inclusive.

The third strand is recreational participation within the school environment, and, again, the Welsh Football Trust, and Lidl as well, are doing sterling work in this regard. And then the fourth is to use football as a tool to inspire and assist education, and you may be aware that there has been the launch of the Euro 2016 primary school education programme, which is available to primary schools from the WJEC on the Hwb.

It’s a significant achievement for the Welsh squad to qualify for major finals for the first time in 58 years, so I’d like to add the congratulations of the Welsh UKIP group to those of everybody else for that achievement in getting there to Chris Coleman and his team and the squad. It’s good that there is thought being given to grass-roots sport in the future with the investment into the Welsh Football Trust, and I hope that will continue. Perhaps for the duration of the tournament it might be an idea—perhaps the Minister can tell me if this can be achieved—if all public buildings in Wales could fly the Welsh flag for as long as Wales are actually participating in the tournament. It could be possibly more striking if we removed the EU flags in the meantime because then it would be more distinctive, and, who knows, by the time the tournament’s over, we may never need to put them back up again. [Laughter.]

I rather fear that, if they did remove the European flag in some places, they could be discarded and then considered litter in the streets, and then we might have politicians accusing immigrants of doing it. [Laughter.] I’d welcome the Member’s warm embrace of the national spirit that we feel the length and breadth of Wales, and, other than to say I would encourage all public buildings to have the Welsh flag hoisted above them, I would just like to point out as well, with regard to Russell George’s comments about safety, that we are in regular contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the threat of terrorism, and the need to maintain the best behaviour of fans at matches. I would encourage all fans to check regularly with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website. There is a headline section called ‘Be on the Ball’ on the website, and I’d encourage all fans travelling to France to take close notice of that.

I had begun to fear that Wales would never again qualify for a major championship in my lifetime. I was one when they qualified in 1958; most Members in this Chamber probably weren’t born. But it’s a tremendous achievement for Wales to get to a major tournament, and I’m very, very pleased that they have done so.

I think that we need to look at it not just as being good for morale and good for self-confidence in Wales, which it definitely is, but for the effect it’s going to have on promoting Wales. In many parts of the world Swansea is incredibly well known because of the success of its football team. I mean, how much would it actually have cost to get the same level of publicity Wales is going to get on television and in printed newspapers over the next few weeks, and, hopefully, over the whole tournament? I remember Greece winning it, I remember Denmark winning it, so we’re not asking for the impossible. How much would it actually cost to get that level of publicity for Wales that we’re going to get now?

But can I add a plea, and I think it’s very similar to what Neil McEvoy was saying? I think that we need to get more 3G and 4G pitches in Wales because we need to strengthen football at a grass-roots level, and we need to get more young people playing it and the opportunity for them to do it. I’m looking forward to the women’s football team also qualifying and I’m hugely disappointed they lost 2-0 last night to Norwich—Norway, sorry—which means that they cannot now qualify. I’m disappointed by that, but I think that, with the progress women’s football has made in Wales, the progress that men’s football has made in Wales, we’re certainly punching well above our weight and I would hope that we can get more 3G and 4G pitches out there, to get more people playing more of the time. Because you may not have noticed, but in winter in Wales it gets awfully wet and some of the grass pitches become unplayable for a long period of time.

Can I thank Mike Hedges for his contribution? I hadn’t realised that he was only one year old in 1958; I now know his age. The advertising equivalent would amount to many, many millions of pounds for the tournament. In fact, when we launched the Year of Adventure at the start of this year, we calculated that, in the first 72 hours, the advertising equivalent, simply by promoting Wales in 2016 as Year of Adventure, had amounted to more than £800,000 globally, with the press attention that it was given. So, I think it would probably be unaffordable to pay for the sort of promotion that Wales is going to enjoy during the course of the tournament.

The Member also will be aware of the collaboration that is taking place between the Welsh Rugby Union, Hockey Wales and the Football Association of Wales in the creation of 100 new 3G pitches across Wales—[Interruption.]—in key sites, including, the Member is right, in Deeside. This links in with a point that was raised by Neil McEvoy about the need for a strategic approach to ensure that people have access to modern facilities as close to their communities as possible.

In terms of promoting Wales, in addition to the incredible value that this will bring us in terms of the advertising equivalent for Wales as a tourist destination, I’m pleased that we’re able to take to France as well some experiences that are compelling and unique. So, for example, in the European Village that is being staged in Paris, within the Welsh zone, there will be a virtual reality experience that will enable visitors to Paris to zip across the industrial and natural environment of north Wales.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for a very good and comprehensive statement? I have to confess at the outset that I’m a failed hooker. I’m a follower of the squashed form of football and fail to understand fully the rules still, but I will be watching and I will be cheering our team on.

There are two outcomes that I’m looking for from our remarkable achievement of getting through to the Euro championships. One is that this now—far beyond rugby, far beyond any other sport—is the world stage of the biggest sport, the massive reach that it has—. I hope, both in terms of the immediate impact on restaurants and cafes and bars and others, but also the longer-term impact of promoting inward tourism into Wales, this great place that we have, this adventure tourism paradise that we have in Wales, but also sporting paradise as well—that’s one of the outcomes, and the Cabinet Secretary has shown some of the great initiatives that are already under way on that.

The second is for those teams—and there are far more, I have to say, football teams than rugby teams in my own patch—in Gilfach Goch and Ogmore Vale, Llangeinor, Maesteg, Caerau, all of those teams are going to benefit, I’m sure, from that grass-roots participation—and their health and well-being—through seeing this on television. And I have to say as well, the Welsh junior girls squad and team who’ve had such a successful year. They train in Bridgend College, at the Pencoed campus in my constituency as well. But I would just give this note of hope as well to those football aficionados here and ask the Minister if he’d agree with me that there can be moments where Davids beat Goliaths. Nantyffyllon youth rugby football team—all my three boys have played for that team—they just won the all-Wales league cup—their own league—and also the Welsh cup, beating on the way there, with apologies to colleagues, Caerphilly, Pontypridd, Bridgend and many others as well. David can beat Goliath. Let’s not give up on hope. This is our Euro championship. [Laughter.]

Well, the Member is absolutely right. This is a tournament where Davids can be incredibly successful. We’ve seen some great surprises in recent tournaments with nations such as Denmark and Greece having won it. Actually, if we look at the rankings of Wales and the other teams that are in the group, we see that Wales is ranked at the moment globally twenty-sixth, Slovakia twenty-fourth, England eleventh—we were ahead of England not long ago—and Russia is ranked twenty-ninth. It’s one of the most compacted groups and it will be very difficult to predict the outcome of many of the matches. So, I firmly believe that, if Wales is David in this tournament, David will be most successful.

In terms of tourism, we’re breaking records in Wales right now, and I’m very pleased that Euro 2016 and, in 2017, the Champions League final, will assist in promoting Wales in 2017 as the Year of Legends, which I think again will capitalise on our uniqueness as a place of great culture and great heritage. So, I’m very excited about that as well.

In terms of grass roots and the role of the Welsh Football Trust in promoting—. And I think you’re absolutely right to identify the girls’ game. There are now 3,500 registered players who are under 18 in Wales. There are currently 1,465 adult female players, so we can see that there’s been a huge growth. But the Welsh Football Trust have great ambition in this regard. They aim to grow the game. They currently have been awarded gold standard association status under UEFA’s grass-roots charter in recognition of the scale and standard of the programmes delivered. And it’s interesting for Members to note that Wales is the first nation to provide education online attracting world-class coaches to our courses, including Thierry Henry.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary. I suspect it’s unanimous that we are behind Wales as our team for this tournament, regardless of who some Members may have supported in the past. Nonetheless, many Members will be aware of well-publicised incidents of major retailers in Wales promoting the England football team in their stores and on their merchandise. Clearly, this is not ideal, especially when Wales will be playing England in the tournament. I must also pay tribute to Lindsay Whittle, Steffan Lewis’s predecessor, because, when he discovered that Panini were selling England sticker books in Tesco and not Wales sticker books, he was climbing the walls, and anyone who knows Lindsay Whittle can imagine that. [Laughter.]

Does the Cabinet Secretary plan to hold any conversations with major commercial retail organisations about the appropriateness of promoting the England football team in Wales during Euro 2016? Would he remind them to act more sensitively when it comes to their stores’ merchandise so that we can all get behind Wales and wish them well in the month ahead?

The Member raises an important point, but I would say that I would like to see English visitors to Wales be able to purchase football items that carry the Welsh flag as well as the English flag if they wish to in order to build the economy of Wales. I am aware of shops—and it has been a contentious issue—that have been selling English merchandise, particularly in north-east Wales, where there is a very porous border. This is not new to this event; this is an issue that has been ongoing for many, many years. I think the key thing for us as politicians to recall is that this is Wales’s first opportunity to compete since 1958 and, rather than focus on what other nations might be doing, let’s focus on what Wales has achieved and what Wales should be doing and celebrate the success of the Welsh squad.

Finally, Jenny Rathbone.

I agree with you that we should be concentrating on focusing on the success of our own team. You’ve already mentioned that both in Swansea and Cardiff there will be a fanzone, and I am very pleased to congratulate Cardiff council on getting the sponsorship together so that there can be a fanzone in Bute park for the three events. I just wanted to raise with you the importance of making it a family-friendly event so that people can bring the whole family, safe in the understanding that this is going to be an event that they’ll want their children to go to. I’m just a bit concerned from the press reports that there’s not going to be any food or drink allowed into the fanzone, and I wondered whether this wasn’t an opportunity to try and force people to buy expensive items of refreshment when it’s incredibly important that people drink water if it’s hot. I just wondered whether you could look into that and make sure it isn’t an opportunity to take money off people rather than to celebrate the success of our team.

Yes. Can I thank the Member for her contribution? It is absolutely vital that, in particular during these hot spells, people do consume as much water as alcohol. It is a matter for Cardiff City Council as to who they have selling refreshments, but as I said a little earlier, I think it’s important that Welsh producers and Welsh suppliers are given every opportunity to capitalise from the event.

The Member is right that, insofar as the fans’ behaviour is concerned, it’s not just the players who are ambassadors for Wales abroad, it’s also the fans—both those who travel abroad and those who remain in Wales—so, I would urge them to present Wales in the best, most respectable way possible and to refrain from excessive drinking.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the motion to suspend Standing Orders in order to allow debate of the next item, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

Formally.

The motion has been moved. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Lywydd. You’re new to your role, as I am to this Assembly, and my comments on Standing Orders do not reflect on you or your office. Indeed, I value the constructive conversations we’ve had on the problem.

There’s no escaping that we are currently in breach of our Standing Orders, which is not a comfortable place for any legislature to be. As a principle, we have transparency and we have accountability. I understand that perhaps not many of our constituents will read these Standing Orders, but I think it’s important that those who may wish to engage with the Assembly and our procedures are able to refer to this document in the way that I’ve sought to, to understand the procedures and the rules that we apply in this place.

We are required to appoint an Assembly Commission within 10 days of appointing our Business Committee. We are now 14 days after that and in breach of that requirement. We do have important issues for the Assembly Commission, for instance regarding the European referendum and some of the legal issues surrounding that and purdah. We now have, on item 6, a motion that I consider to be ambiguous. It states that it

‘suspends that part of Standing Order 7.1 that requires the consideration of a motion to appoint members of the Commission no later than 10 days after the appointment of the Business Committee’.

Presumably, we are only suspending that part that has the 10-day requirement, rather than the whole of the text I have just read. We will then have, in item 7, a reference back to

‘in accordance with Standing Order 7.1’,

which, of course, we have just suspended to a somewhat unknowable or ambiguous degree. What we are clearly doing is acting as required by section 27 of the Government of Wales Act, but I’m concerned that, where we’re not acting under Standing Orders, we’re amending them in a way that is ambiguous, and this is not a place where we should be. I’ve heard various people of great seniority in this place refer to, variously, flexible or pragmatic interpretations of Standing Orders, and I just make the point that this is a serious basis for procedure. The rules should be published, they should be clear, our constituents should be able to see them and those of us who look at these things should be able to rely on them as a guide to how business will actually be done in this place.

When we met 14 days ago, the option I believe we should have taken would’ve been to adjourn our proceedings to allow the Business Committee to come up with a motion to appoint the Assembly Commission and then come back for that motion to be agreed. Were we not to have done that, we could’ve had a motion to suspend Standing Orders, or the relevant part—perhaps 10 working days rather than 10 days—specifically as required, rather than leaving them for us to breach them and then seek merely to amend them to put that right, ostensibly, in arrears. I don’t intend to oppose either of these motions, but I did want to say that for the record. Thank you.

May I thank the Member for that contribution to the debate on this motion? I do agree that it’s not ideal that we need to suspend Standing Orders in this way. However, circumstances conspired against us on this occasion. The Business Committee, as Members will know, did feel that it was unfortunate that we couldn’t comply with Standing Orders on this particular occasion, but the Business Committee did agree to review the 10-day deadline that has led us to this situation where we are debating a motion to suspend Standing Orders. So, I am grateful to the Member for his comments.

I now move, therefore, to the question as to whether the motion to suspend Standing Orders should be agreed. Does any Member object? As there are no objections to the motion, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is the motion to appoint the Assembly Commission. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

Formally.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There are no objections; therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.