Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, we were all horrified by the story about Ellie-May Clark’s death over the weekend and the tragedy that led up to the sequence of events—that her mother, obviously, went to the GP surgery, ultimately sought the appointment and, given the medical history of little Ellie, she should have been seen by the GP. No right-minded person could fail to be horrified by what led to those tragic events. I’d be grateful to understand what the Welsh Government is doing—and I’m not blaming the Welsh Government here. What I’m saying is, as the Government of Wales—and this happened in Wales—what is the Welsh Government doing to work with the regulator to address the matters that were raised in the report that looked into this incident?

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that question, because we are all aware here today of the tragic death of Ellie-May, and my thoughts are with her family at this difficult time. It is a professional regulatory matter for the General Medical Council, who oversee such cases at the UK level, as the leader of the Welsh Conservatives will recognise. And, as you’ve acknowledged, it’s what role we can play. It would be inappropriate for the Welsh Government to intervene, but I do think we have to say that, from our understanding, the GMC’s investigation of the GP’s actions underlines the need for high standards of care to be delivered at all times. I’m also aware that the coroner is now investigating and an inquest is due to be held.

Leader of the house, it is quite clear that if the ‘Mail on Sunday’ hadn’t undertaken its investigation, this report would have been buried in the deep, deep recesses of the GMC report and wouldn’t have come to light. We owe the ‘Mail on Sunday’ a great debt of gratitude because they have informed the family of the outcome, because, as I understand it, the family had not been informed of the outcome of the investigation. But it cannot be right that, when you look at these circumstances, these types of investigations are conducted behind closed doors, and that the family and those concerned with these matters are not fully informed of the process and the outcome. Do you believe, like me, leader of the house, that the GMC’s procedures in these matters leave a lot to be required and addressed, and are not fit for purpose?

I think the case was reviewed in accordance with the current GMC procedures. And it is important also to say this afternoon that the health board took the action to refer the doctor to the GMC, following their own internal investigation. So, I think that is, again, where we must recognise that responsibility—that action that was taken. I also notice that Sir Donald Irvine, the former president of the GMC, himself was calling for greater transparency as a result of this tragic case.

Maybe what I’m trying to elicit from you, leader of the house, is a proactive approach from the Welsh Government to identify that these processes are not fit for purpose, as you’ve identified that Sir Donald identified in his own assessment of this procedure. Many times, the Welsh Government is called to make representations on various matters. I would look to you to try and encourage the Cabinet Secretary for health to write to the GMC to address its protocols and procedures because the GMC is there not to look after its own, but to look after everyone. In this case in particular, it has fallen down. I hope that, in responding to my third question, you will indicate that the Welsh Government will be writing to the GMC to ask them to address the deeply, deeply, deeply held concerns of members of this institution, but the wider public in this specific case, which really has let the family down and, above all, is letting Ellie and Ellie’s memory down.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary for health and well-being is certainly going to be looking at this case in terms of the GMC’s role and procedures, but I think it is important that you’ve put your point on the record today, and I’m sure that those points can be made, and will be made, across this Chamber.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Leader of the house, you’ll be aware that, over the past few years, I have pressed the First Minister on the question of widening access to drugs and treatments in Wales. Today, we’ve got some people in the public gallery who are living with multiple sclerosis, and I’d like to welcome them to the Senedd. They’ve asked me to take forward an issue that is of utmost importance to their quality of life. Everyone in the Chamber is aware of the difficulties of accessing drugs and treatments specifically for MS. Leader of the house, what is the Welsh Government’s view on the availability of those drugs and treatments?

Well, there’s clearly an opportunity now, and as a result of the discussions that we’ve had, to look very carefully at the opportunities for those drugs to be made available. Of course, this is part of the way forward in terms of the review of the prescribing of those drugs.

Thank you, leader of the house. We know that Wales was the first country in the UK to approve Sativex, which is a cannabis-based drug, and that was approved back in 2014. The evidence from patients who are prescribed Sativex is consistent and clear: it’s effective, it reduces pain, it reduces spasms, but access to the drug is patchy. A survey for the MS Society found that only 1 per cent of people who said they were eligible for Sativex actually had access to it. The survey also suggested that the number of people living with MS who take disease-modifying therapies appears to be lower than in Scotland or England. There’s a real concern that other new drugs and treatments coming through the system will be equally as difficult to access. If you accept that there is a patchy availability of these drugs, and that that is a major obstacle to the quality of life for citizens in Wales, what resources is the Welsh Government prepared to allocate to the infrastructure around MS, around MS nursing and neurology in order to help patients get the support that they need?

Well, I very much welcome the engagement of the MS Society, an organisation that has represented patients with multiple sclerosis so effectively in Wales, and of course their evidence is vitally important to inform us in the considerations of very clear clinical arrangements in terms of the prescribing of drugs. But it is very important that we look particularly to the effect and beneficial impact, and also availability and access in terms of those medications such as Sativex, which you have just raised.

I think your second question also relates to the wider services that we can provide to MS sufferers. Much progress has been made in terms of availability, in terms of research, drugs and appropriate treatment, but it also has to be the wider care pathway as well.

Well, I very much hope that we do see extra resources for this, leader of the house. The lack of availability of Sativex has led people to pursue alternatives of their own. I recently met with a 64-year-old woman from Cwmbran who has primary progressive MS. She experiences pain and spasms on a daily basis, and her daily drug regime includes morphine, codeine, paracetamol, pregabalin and diazepam. Because Sativex isn’t available in her area, she uses cannabis as a replacement, obviously risking problems there with the law. How is it okay to take morphine, but by buying cannabis she risks prosecution?

On 10 February, following a Government-commissioned review, Ireland joined Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and many other countries around the world in recommending that cannabis should be legalised for medicinal use. There’s also support for this in Scotland, and we’ve heard at least one police and crime commissioner from Wales recommend that the same thing happens here. Will the Welsh Government follow our Irish and Scottish counterparts and advocate the decriminalisation of cannabis to relieve the symptoms of multiple sclerosis and other conditions?

What I would like to do is to ensure that we can make those medications, those drugs, available, such as Sativex, which obviously has proven benefits. I certainly would want to ensure, from your questions today, leader of Plaid Cymru, that we look very carefully at access to and the availability of those clinically proven and beneficial medications for people with MS in Wales.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. Two weeks ago at First Minister’s questions the leader of Plaid Cymru raised the dispute that’s going on in Llangennech over the conversion of their primary school from bilingual to Welsh-medium instruction only, and described the atmosphere in the village as toxic. The First Minister appealed for calm. Since then, the leader of Plaid Cymru has interpreted calmness in a rather unusual way. Plaid Cymru have set their internet trolls upon the activists who want to maintain dual-stream education in Llangennech and have twisted innocent Facebook posts in an attempted character assassination of their opponents. Jonathan Edwards, the Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, supported by the leader of Plaid Cymru, has engaged in a public campaign of intimidation of one of those activists for having the temerity to seek my help as one of their AMs in the fight against Plaid Cymru intolerance. Indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru has even published on her Facebook page a photograph of one of them, following which this lady has been verbally abused in the street and spat at.

As leader of the house, will you defend our collective rights as Members in this Assembly, as representatives of the people of Wales, to seek redress of grievances on behalf of all our constituents, regardless of their political views, and condemn the attack on the constitutional right of all my constituents to seek my help on the future education of their children?

Well, I have to say that I’m a bit concerned that the leader of UKIP is not helping to reduce the toxic situation that has been described. I think this is something where, in terms of our responsibilities, indeed, your responsibilities—and we must be very clear here, and perhaps the leader of UKIP needs to be reminded of this: the Welsh Government can’t comment on any proposals for change that are under consideration by a local authority. It is the responsibility of local authorities, the planning of school places—it rests with them.

I fully accept that, but the process by which the decision was arrived at in Carmarthenshire County Council has wider implications and calls for a change in legislation. There was a consultation exercise that was carried out, which was a complete sham. There were 1,418 responses—698 responses were in support of the proposal and 720 were against it. But, one of the responses against had 757 signatures and that was regarded as one vote out of the 1,418. You don’t have to provide an address or a post code if you respond to the consultation—27 of these were anonymous, there wasn’t even a name.

In these circumstances, given that there is clearly very substantial opposition within the catchment area of the school to the imposition of Welsh-medium only instruction, surely there is a case here for a stay in the proceedings whilst we consider whether this change—which in the longer term may well be desirable—should be brought in? Let’s take public opinion with us rather than fight it.

These are, as I’ve said, matters for Carmarthenshire council. As a Government, we’re supportive of the Welsh language. We want to see an extension of Welsh-medium education and more children involved in it. It is for Carmarthenshire council to justify the decisions it takes—clearly, sensitive to the fact that local authorities must comply with the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the code and look at the range of factors when proposing change.

It is certainly true that they must comply with the legislation, but they can comply with the letter of the law whilst wholly ignoring its spirit, and that is exactly what has happened in this case. There hasn’t been a consultation, there’s been a ‘non-sultation’, because the decision was arrived at even before the consultation exercise was begun. Is it not time now for Carmarthenshire County Council to have a proper consultation exercise, which is independently conducted, with all those within the catchment area of Llangennech alone, and ignoring the responses that have nothing to do with the area that is most concerned?

Again, I have to say, Llywydd, it’s not a matter for Welsh Government to intervene. Of course it’s important that any local authority does take into account the views of those who live locally and, indeed, a consultation was held between 28 January 2016 and 18 March, to which there were 267 responses. It is now for us to let the process progress in terms of the legislation, the school standards Act 2013 and the school organisation code.