Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, do you support the aspiration to achieve a million Welsh speakers by 2050, and, if you do, can you tell us how you intend to meet that aspiration?

Well, she knows that I do. It was a manifesto commitment on the part of my party. There are many ways of achieving that. One of them, of course, is making sure that the Welsh in education strategic plans across all local authorities deliver what they should be delivering.

Thank you, First Minister, and I agree that the aspiration is a good one, and I’m glad that you’ve mentioned education. In your consultation on creating a million Welsh speakers, you explain how education must play a central role. Your main objective, and what you’re asking local authorities to achieve, is, I quote:

‘A significant increase in the number of children and young people educated through the medium of Welsh or bilingually in order to create more Welsh speakers.’

And that they should, and, again, I quote:

‘Move schools along the language continuum, to increase the availability of Welsh-medium school places’.

Do you accept that it is Government policy, and that means that local authorities have to increase the number of Welsh-medium schools, and Welsh-medium school places, in their area?

Yes, they are expected, of course, to show how they will do that via their Welsh in education strategic plans. Those plans are subject to approval by us as a Government, and we intend to make sure those plans are robust and that they will deliver.

First Minister, you will know that national policy has informed the decision in Llangennech in Carmarthenshire to convert a school from dual stream into Welsh medium. Now, that decision needs support from you, but it also needs calm explanation to residents. I’ve got some serious concerns about the, frankly, toxic atmosphere that has emerged on this question. And I’m aware that, among a group of residents campaigning against Carmarthenshire County Council’s decision, there are some people standing for the Labour Party in Llangennech in May’s county and community council elections. Now, it’s come to my attention that some of those candidates claim to be working with UKIP, checking and agreeing the UKIP leader’s statements on this issue—[Interruption.]

Can we hear the question, please?

First Minister, is it acceptable to you that there are Labour Party candidates working closely with UKIP on the question of Welsh-medium education? And do you agree with me that the campaign against Carmarthenshire council’s decision has become toxic and unacceptable? And will you outline what action you will take regarding Labour Party members working with UKIP to undermine your own Welsh language policies?

I agree the situation in Llangennech has become toxic. I do not think that the words used by the leader of Plaid Cymru have helped the situation in terms of turning this into a party political issue. There are some comments that have been made by politicians that I do not agree with. I’ve seen those comments, and I think it is hugely important now that calm prevails, that the toxicity—some of the toxicity that I think we last saw some years ago—is now reduced, and that the council, of course, is able to explain to the people in Llangennech as well as they can—

It’s your policy.

It is a Plaid council who implemented the policy. I make no criticism of the Plaid council in that regard, but it is important the council are able—[Interruption.] Well, if the leader of Plaid Cymru asks a question, she may want to listen, because it’s hugely important, as she has rightly said, that the toxicity is reduced. It’s hugely important now that the council is able to fully explain, as I’m sure it’s been trying to do, what its policy is with regard to Llangennech. But it is not for us to explain; it is for the council run by your party—

It’s your policy.

[Continues.]—to explain. It is for us, of course, as a Government, to enable local authorities to produce Welsh in education strategic plans so that we continue to support the language, as we do, and we continue on our quest to ensure that we have a million Welsh speakers in 2050.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, First Minister—thank you, Presiding Officer, sorry. There is an urgent question coming a little later on the Kancoat findings in the public accounts report, but I do want to ask several questions to the First Minister this afternoon on this particular issue, given you were the First Minister when these decisions were taken. So, I think that’s an important consideration.

Given all the warnings that were in place—and it would seem pretty comprehensive from the warnings that were given that there was a weak business plan, that the due diligence was ignored, that Finance Wales said there was an unacceptably high risk and that’s why they turned down the application for funding—what on earth would you suspect possessed the then business and enterprise Minister to agree to the release of this money, despite all the lights flashing on the dashboard that were showing this was such a risky investment, First Minister?

I think what has to be remembered is that the investment panel recommended approval of the investment. The Minister, I have no doubt, was guided by that information.

First Minister, it is a fact that, as the investment continued—because this money was released over time, it was—time and time again, as I’ve said, those lights were flashing on the dashboard. Three point four million pounds was released to this company, and it has been lost, in effect; no jobs were safeguarded, that site is now empty, and you as a Government hold the liabilities of that site because the lease was offered up as security against the loan that was made available. The Government is on the line to turn that site back ready for the landlord to take possession. So, there are ongoing liabilities. As I said, £3.4 million was lost. Every indication shows that, whilst in the first place the decision might have been taken in the best interest of securing that business, as the applications were made continuously to release more money, more and more warning lights were coming on, and yet the decision was taken to release more money into this company. Do you not think that taxpayers are owed an apology by your Government for the loss of this money, and in particular for the inability to safeguard any jobs by the £3.4 million that was put into this company?

Well, the Cabinet Secretary will deal with the issue of Kancoat when the urgent question is raised. But if I just explain more generally: we deal with hundreds of businesses; some of them fold. We cannot possibly say that every business that we help will inevitably be successful. No bank could do that, and it’s the same for any Government. But I can say that, of the projects that we have supported, only 2.4 per cent of them have failed to deliver on their objectives that were attached to their request for financial support, and so we have a success rate of well over 90 per cent in supporting businesses. That means, of course, there will be some businesses that are not successful, but they are very much the exception rather than the rule. That does not mean, of course, that we should not continually review the way we conduct due diligence, and that is something that we will continue to do. But I do think it needs to be put into context, remembering, of course, that of the businesses that we have helped, the vast majority of them are successful, which is why, of course, unemployment in Wales is so low.

First Minister, you were the First Minister at the time, and I do accept that these decisions are based on risk and that some will go wrong, but the point I’ve made, through the two questions I’ve put to you, is that there were numerous warnings highlighting the risk to the Government and to the taxpayer by releasing the money into this company. Finance Wales, which is a lender of last resort, for example, said that it was too risky to release the money on a loan basis from their good selves, and their remit for operation is to be a lender of last resort after normal commercial banking has been exhausted. So, I do take that point that, ultimately, there is an element of risk in all the decisions you take, but it is a fact: as we stand here today, £3.4 million has been lost, not one job guaranteed or protected and, ultimately, the taxpayer is out of pocket and the Welsh Government have continuing liabilities from this decision. I asked you on my second question: do you think that there should be an apology on your behalf from the Welsh Government to the Welsh taxpayer? I offer you that opportunity again. Will you apologise for the loss of this money, which is taxpayers’ money, in this particular instance, when so many warnings were made and so many of those warnings were ignored by your then Minister? Ultimately, it’s the taxpayer who’s lost out.

I accept what the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has said—that he understood the situation in terms of the initial grant of support. This was a start-up business. Start-up businesses are inherently risky, but there must be an acceptance of risk by Government. Otherwise, we wouldn’t support anything. It’s the same for commercial banks; they will find themselves in that situation from time to time. This organisation, of course—the business, rather—was set up at a time when the economic situation was precarious in the aftermath, or the near aftermath, of the financial crisis. As I said, the Cabinet Secretary will go into detail in terms of what the timetable was, but I can say that we are proud to say that unemployment in Wales is so low. It’s lower than in England, it’s lower than in Scotland and lower than in Northern Ireland. Historically, that has been a tremendous achievement. We have supported over 1,000 businesses to create jobs in Wales. We’ve brought investment into Wales—the best foreign direct investment figures for more than 30 years. It’s correct to say that, on occasion, there will be businesses that fail and it is difficult then to have the money returned to Government. But in the context that we operate here, 97.6 per cent of the businesses we support are successful in providing jobs for the people of Wales.

Leader of the UK group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. It’s quite clear that the policy of the American Government is going to change in many respects as a result of the election of President Trump, not least in respect of policies on climate change. Scott Pruitt, who is President Trump’s nominee as head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has already caused to be removed from the department’s website the US commitment to the UN climate change negotiations. Now, given that the United States, China and India, between them, are responsible for more than half of the global carbon dioxide emissions in the world, and China and India have not signed up to any absolute reduction in the level of those emissions, regardless of one’s views on whether man-made climate change is a reality or not—regardless of views on that—does it make sense for Britain, and Wales in particular, which is responsible for only 0.05 per cent of world carbon dioxide emissions, to be saddled with a dear energy policy that is a millstone round the neck of the manufacturing industry and industries like the steel industry in particular?

Well, I have to say I look at the weight of evidence, and the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly—overwhelmingly—in favour of showing that climate change is happening, and, secondly, that human activity is causing it either to happen or to be exacerbated as a result. Those people who claim otherwise are on a shaky scientific basis. I look at the weight of evidence, and it is quite clear to me—. He will know, as he was a lawyer once, that it’s the weight of evidence you have to look at, not select what you think best supports your argument when it flies in the face of scientific reality.

It’s right to say that China and India face challenges, but China is up to the challenge. China is investing heavily in alternative fuel sources. It knows it has a problem. Anybody who’s been to Beijing and the big Chinese cities will know that there’s a problem there with air pollution. The Chinese Government recognise this, which is why they are looking for those alternative fuel sources. They know that they cannot continue with the current situation, but while they are going in the right direction, my fear is the US will go in the opposite direction, flying in the face of the weight of scientific evidence.

The First Minister has sidestepped my question. My question is not to do with the argument about whether man-made climate change is a reality or not. My question relates to: what difference does it make if we sign up to targets that are going to pose enormous costs upon us, not just in terms of cost for industry but also on ordinary people? After all, nearly a quarter of the households in Wales are in fuel poverty, spending more than 10 per cent of their incomes on keeping themselves warm in the winter, for example. So, this is a real burden on poor and vulnerable people. If it makes no difference to the outcome in terms of global emissions, why should we saddle ourselves with these enormous bills? China and India are not signed up to reducing the absolute level of their emissions. What they’re signed up to is reducing energy intensity, but that has to take into account the extent to which they expect their economies will grow, and their economies are going to grow to a greater extent than they reduce their fuel intensity. So, absolute emissions are actually likely to increase in India and China, and that makes the problem even worse, and we’re the fools who are paying the bills.

Well, that view is only valid if you accept that you’re happy to see environmental degradation; happy to see air quality reduced; happy to return to the days when, I think, it was the River Irwell in Salford that was literally flammable when a lit match was thrown into it; happy to return to the days when the River Ogmore in my home town would run different colours according to what had been thrown into the river. Because the natural journey from moving away from seeing climate change as important is to see the environment as unimportant as well. We know that those people who do not accept that climate change is happening—many of them do not accept that there’s a need for an environmental regulation either, certainly to the extent that we see now. This is not something we can dismiss. We can’t simply say, ‘Well, it’s something that we can just put to one side’, nor do I accept that this is something that imposes cost. The reality is that I’ve heard him argue for more coal-fired power stations. The irony is rich in what he says. The coal would have to be imported. So, there are issues of energy security as well. Should we not invest in wind power offshore? Shall we not invest in tidal energy, rather than over-relying on energy sources that have to be imported into Britain? So, energy security and mitigating climate change, to me, run hand in hand.

The First Minister is refusing to address the issue behind my question. Wales is responsible for 0.05 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is not a flammable gas, by the way. So, what he said about the air quality in Peking is irrelevant. Sulphur emissions are completely different. The argument about particulates in the air everybody accepts. It was a Government 60 years ago that introduced the Clean Air Act, and everybody is in favour of that. This is a totally different question. My point is that Wales is one of the poorest parts of western Europe. We have nearly a quarter of our households in fuel poverty. They’re having to spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds, which they can ill afford, every year paying for our renewables obligations under EU directives. If the United States is now going to resile from commitments to reduce its own carbon dioxide emissions, and if China and India are not signed up to it anyway, what is the sense in us making infinitesimal difference to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the world—an obligation that is causing real harm and real poverty in households in Wales?

I do not think that I said that the air in Beijing was flammable. I’m not sure that the hydrogen or, indeed, the oxygen content is so high that the air would catch fire or even explode. I was referring to a particular river, the context of which is well-known. My concern is that those who say that climate change is unimportant quite often take the view that environmental regulation is a burden on industry. I do not accept that. But again, I come back to this point: the wind blows; it’s free. The tide will be there as long as the moon is in the sky. There is a capital cost, of course, of putting in place the infrastructure to generate energy, but once that is in place, the generating costs are very low indeed. I don’t know what his alternative is. He hasn’t outlined it. He talks of coal. He did his best to wreck the coal industry. The reality is that we will never produce enough coal in the UK now to supply our energy needs. We would have to import it from countries like Australia. We would have to import natural gas from countries that are not looking to do us a favour. We would have to import more liquid natural gas from countries around the world. We do that already. Now, whilst I know the energy mix in the UK is going to continue in the future—and indeed, 25 per cent of the liquid natural gas in the UK comes through Milford Haven, and that is something that will continue in the future—I do not see the wisdom in saying what we need to do is to go back to the technology of yesterday, with the pollution of yesterday, and look to ignore the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and put our heads in the sand. He is somebody who is proud, he says, to be British. Then let him display his pride by saying that he wants the UK to lead the way when it comes to dealing with climate change.