We now turn to spokespeople’s questions. The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. As you’ll be aware, the Prime Minister announced at the beginning of the month that there would be an extra £10 billion for the Help to Buy scheme, both to stimulate new home building and to get 135,000 more people onto the housing ladder, with full plans to be detailed in the UK budget on 22 November. Given that the Welsh Government previously launched its own version of this programme some 18 months after the UK made a similar announcement, with recyclable loan finance, how do you understand Wales might be impacted or benefit from this, and what engagement have you had or will you be having with the UK Government accordingly?

We’ve had no indication of any additional funding coming to Wales on that particular point.

Well, I am disappointed, obviously, but I hope you’ll be pursuing that, given this isn’t normal block money, it’s recyclable loan finance—if it’s going to be funded on the same basis; of course, we don’t know yet.

Moving on from housing to housing-related support, of course, at the end of last month, the Welsh Government announced that £10 million annually, for two years, was being restored onto the Supporting People programme. Of course, it was well received, and £4 million of that will go through your own departmental budget. The sector responded warmly, but called for an assurance that this money would be ring-fenced for housing associations and third sector providers. Will it be so, or what assurance can you provide, working with them, that this money will go where it needs to go?

The Member could have been a little bit more generous in his observations. This wasn’t money put back into the system; this was additional money. This Labour Government here in Wales has put in an additional £10 million for two years to tackle homelessness—£6 million of that into the revenue support grant and £4 million into my budget line. I can’t guarantee what that will look like, because it’s about working with the sector and organisations to get the best value to tackle issues around homelessness, and I’m in discussions with agencies already about how that will look in terms of delivery for the future.

Of course, it was a restoration of money that had been taken out of the budget since 2013, and that was welcomed, but we do need to know if it will be ring-fenced because it’s about working with people, for example, through the Big Lottery-funded People and Places programme, which must be funding projects to be people-led, strength-based and supporting people and communities to build on the knowledge, skills and experience that they already have. Again, how will you ensure therefore that this fits those sorts of programmes, and enables people themselves to directly participate in the improvements in their own lives?

The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 places a duty on Government and public sector bodies. We are working with organisations external to the public sector in the third sector. Llamau, the Wallich and other organisations are very keen to understand how best placed we should use this money. I’m not an expert in this field, but they are, and I want to work with them to make sure we direct our limited finances to the right places to help people in need across our communities.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wanted to raise today the problem of drug abuse and particularly drug abuse carried out in public places. We’ve had several recent media reports relating to drug users fairly openly injecting heroin in the Butetown area of Cardiff. This also raises the related problem of discarded needles, which can be a real danger to children, which has also been highlighted by the media. This is a problem not only confined to Cardiff; it is also a recurring issue in many of our Valleys towns. So, my first question is: do you recognise this as a major problem, and what steps can the Welsh Government take in helping the relevant authorities to tackle it?

Drug use and substance misuse is on the increase, but we are seeing an effect of welfare reform having an impact on individuals moving into that space. But let’s not forget that people who are suffering from drug and alcohol or substance misuse are human beings too. We have to think carefully about how we are able to support them in making sure that we can act appropriately to take them off the effects of drugs and alcohol, and put them back onto a pathway of success. It pains me when I see people in our communities taking drugs and the other paraphernalia used to expose themselves to risk. It’s our duty to make sure that we can help everybody in our communities, irrespective of their position in life or where they are.

Yes, and I agree with your sentiments. These are human beings—nobody is denying that— and we need to help these people as far as we can to come off their habits. But, in terms of how to deal with it as an issue of public order perhaps, what do you think about the issue of stop and search and how effective it is in helping to provide a safe urban environment?

The issues around stop and search are a matter for the UK Government and policing but, actually, I don’t think stop and search in itself is helpful in delivering services for people who need to be supported. Our Supporting People programme, along with our substance misuse policy, is designed to help people back into what would be considered a normal way of life, whatever that actually means. But, actually, taking them away from the risk that they pose to themselves and others is something that we should work at carefully.

Yes, and Supporting People, of course, we await what the funding for that will be in the upcoming budget, so I’m glad you mentioned Supporting People. But on a related issue on the drug theme, do you have any update on Welsh Government investigations into so-called safe injection zones, where drug users can inject in a medically supervised environment, and do you have any thoughts of your own on this issue whereby it is a possible way of taking needles away from the streets?

There have been some discussions with authorities, but this is a matter for a different Minister. I will ask the Minister appropriate to write to the Member.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Jenkins.

Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm the following questions? Did the Welsh Government offer the Baglan Moors site for the prison, when, at the time it was offered in May 2016, the site was categorised as a C2 flood risk zone and went against your own technical advice note 15 planning guidance? Can you also clarify whether or not the covenant on the land meant that it could only be used for economic purposes in keeping with an industrial park?

I can’t do just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer there, because there were lots of questions, but if the Member bears with me—. The land that the Member mentions was part of a long list of land that is available to any developer, whether that be from the Ministry of Justice or any other commercial operation, and it is not abnormal for us to do that. Is there a covenant on the land? I believe there is a covenant on the land.

Okay. I don’t think you answered the first question, but I can come back to it again. I just want to try and probe further on that in particular. Why was the flood-risk category only updated via Natural Resources Wales in March 2017? This was the same month that news about the site became—. The preferred option for a new prison, during this time, became public. It’s my understanding from a communication via our councillor, Nigel Hunt, that NRW only informed Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council of a change to the flood-risk category in February, a few weeks before the site was publicly chosen. Why was this? Can you confirm when NRW informed you, or anybody else in the Welsh Government, that the flood-risk category of the land would change, therefore making it viable for a large development such as the prison? Assuming it would have taken some time to compile a list of suitable sites for a prison of this size, it was before the flood-risk category was changed.

I don’t have the detail on exactly when the correspondence was with NRW or otherwise. But I will ensure that the Member is communicated with in terms of that detail. But the Member should be also aware that, because this land is designed with a flood risk, there are opportunities for developers to mitigate against that. So, the Member is alluding to a state of fact, in terms of that land may have had a flood risk imposed on it, but, actually, mitigation by any businesses can be considered in a normal planning process.

The point is, though, that it was changed, and it made it more viable, therefore, for this prison to be able to be built. In the past, it wasn’t as viable for industries to go and seek out that land, and I’m trying to understand why that was and when that decision was made, and I’m not hearing that from you here today. With regard to the covenant, and it’s my understanding, as is yours, as we’ve heard, that there is a covenant in place, I’ve received legal advice, which states, and I quote, ‘Assuming the covenant is legally valid, it means that the site is affected by an obligation in favour of a third party limiting its use to an industrial park only. In those circumstances, building a prison on the site could be a breach of the covenant.’

How do you plan to get around this, assuming you are still going to co-operate with the UK Government and continue to offer this land for the prison? The bottom line, of course, is that we understand that, potentially, things will change in relation to the flooding and the categorisation, and the covenant now ensures it should be for industrial usage. Will you, therefore, go back to the MOJ and say, ‘Well, actually, now we are not co-operating with this piece of land, and we will not therefore be providing Baglan Moors for a prison site’?

I’m really disappointed in the tone of the question from the Member. I’ve been in discussions with her, and many other Members, including Dai Rees, the local Member—[Interruption.] If the Members would like to listen, I’d be more than happy to answer the question. The fact of the matter is that this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice. We, as always, and with our land process, offer land that is appropriate for development. If they wish to look at the covenant, or other arrangements of that land, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, not for Welsh Government.