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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last Friday, the Permanent Secretary released her report into the leak inquiry that you commissioned from her around the Cabinet reshuffle that took place in November of last year. The report indicated that there had been no unauthorised leaking. Are you confident that there was no authorised leaking, and will you—will you—make that report available, so that we can read through that report and actually come to our own conclusions?

Yes, I'm confident there was no authorised leaking, as he has put it. But can I say there's a very important point here to remember? People came forward to give evidence to this leak inquiry on the basis of confidentiality. What he is asking the Permanent Secretary to do—because it's her decision—is to out those people, for the evidence to be made available and their names. Such a course, I have to say, would be both dishonourable and dishonest, and would bring the Welsh Government into disrepute.

Secondly, there are other inquiries that are ongoing. It's hugely important that people feel able to come forward to give evidence to those inquiries. Now, if they are not able to have the assurance that they are going to be able to give evidence confidentially, then they will not come forward. There is a real risk that if the action that is—. This is not what he is urging on me, but the action he is urging on me could lead to witnesses being intimidated, and not coming forward. That is not something that he is actively suggesting, I understand that, but that is the outcome of that.

And so it is hugely wrong for any inquiry, where people are asked to give evidence confidentially, to then find that their evidence is in fact going to be made public, and their names. That does not help in terms of bringing or encouraging people to come forward, with evidence, in further inquiries.

I would agree with you, First Minister. I want to create an environment that encourages as many people as possible to engage with the various inquiries that are looking into the events surrounding the Cabinet reshuffle of last November. And certainly it wouldn't be my intention to out anyone, because that would be against the principles of any inquiry or investigation. But it's not unreasonable, for me or any other Members, in light of any one of 101 tweets I could point to—and I'll just use this one tweet that is on social media:

'told by sources that Carl Sargeant Communities Secretary is losing'.

An important thing is that it is not 'lost' but 'losing' his job, and that was before the Cabinet reshuffle happened. Now, that's not unreasonable, and I could point to many others from other journalists and lobbyists who used the same sort of language. So, it is not unreasonable for people who have witnessed what has gone on to pose the question: why was such language being used by people in a professional position and people we know who had access to the Government information machine to put such messages out there? Again, I'd ask you, using the redaction process and making sure people's identities are covered, that this report be made available so that we can consider its findings as we consider many other reports that are made available to this Assembly. 

So, it's Twitter now, is it, that is used in order to judge whether—? [Interruption.] Twitter is not evidence. Twitter is not evidence; Twitter is gossip. There has been an inquiry. That inquiry was conducted by the Government's head of security. Unless there is evidence that the Welsh Conservatives have that that inquiry was in some way compromised, then the inquiry is over. I have given him the answer that he has required and I have to say to him that I am not prepared—it's not my decision; it's the Permanent Secretary's—to countenance a situation where people are told, 'Come forward, give evidence confidentially' and then they are told, 'Oh, now we are going to release all your evidence and your names'. That brings the Government into disrepute. 

No-one's asking for names, First Minister, and there are plenty of processes that you can point to where people's identity is protected. I did point to Twitter, but I point you to social media as well. I've given you the examples here. That's the language from professional people that was being used around the time of the Cabinet reshuffle, and they were using it two or three days prior to the reshuffle. I would hope that you can be exonerated and that some of the horrendous allegations that are levelled at the Government and at you can be discounted, because ultimately we know what tragedy followed from it. But it is difficult for me, other Members and interested parties to have confidence in reports that we are prevented from seeing.

Now, I hear what you said twice to me today. I have three questions. There must be a way of allowing information to come forward that is redacted and that can give confidence that the opinions that have been formed around some of the allegations can be discounted by this report. Not having sight of this report makes it very difficult to argue that case. I would argue for you to sit down with the Permanent Secretary to come up with a formula that will allow us to have sight of as much of the report as possible, preventing any disclosure of names or identities of people, so that we can have that confidence, because the evidence—and I can pull out many other examples—points to information that was already in the public domain before Ministers and Cabinet Secretaries came in to have that discussion with you. That's a fact. 

I have to say that if anything on Twitter is evidence then by all means never give evidence in court—never give evidence in court. It is innuendo, gossip, tittle-tattle, the kind of thing that some politicians love. I deal in evidence. There has been an inquiry. That inquiry has gone forward. People were invited to give evidence to that inquiry and it was a matter for them whether they gave evidence or not. Giving evidence to the inquiry was important and we encouraged people to come forward. That inquiry is now finished. The fact that it doesn't sit with the strange conspiracy theories of some people, I'm afraid, cannot be helped. But unless there is evidence that Members have that somehow the head of security of the Welsh Government was compromised, that the Permanent Secretary was compromised, the inquiry has reported and the inquiry is clear in terms of the results of that inquiry.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton. 

Has the First Minister seen the report from the Centre for Cities entitled 'Cities Outlook 2018', which estimates that 112,000 jobs may be at risk in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea as a result of automation? There are those who unkindly say, of course, that Welsh Labour has led the way in robotics, but there is a serious point here as well, because the areas that are most likely to be affected by automation adversely are those areas which are already de-industrialised and where unemployment is highest. In fact, Alyn and Deeside, according to this report, faces the largest threat—35 per cent of jobs at risk from automation. So, can the First Minister tell the Assembly what concrete plans the Welsh Government has to deal with this looming threat that lies ahead of us?

Automation is very much part of the economic action plan. How we deal with automation is very much part of that. I know that many of my colleagues who sit on the back benches, Lee Waters amongst them, have been very vocal about the need for us to face this challenge. As I say, it is something that has been recognised in the economic action plan as something that we have to deal with. Now, how that is done depends on how fast automation goes, predicting which sectors will be automated first, and then, of course, upskilling our people. Training our people to look at new jobs is a hugely important part of ensuring that we have jobs in the future.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with the First Minister on that, and, indeed, in paying tribute to the role of Lee Waters in raising this issue in the Assembly, but there are other things that can be done as well. The areas that are most likely to be affected by this, again, according to not only this report but also one by another organisation called Future Advocacy—it says that one in five jobs in every constituency in the whole of the United Kingdom could disappear by 2030. In the cities in particular, these are affected mostly by mass immigration. Without leaving the single market, of course, we won't be able to recover control of our borders and select the groups that have the skills that we will need in future, whilst also controlling the flow of those who will actually exacerbate problems that are going to take place of their own accord in any event. Even on the latest figures, which were substantially down on the previous period, net migration stands at 230,000 a year. Newport, Swansea, Cardiff and Wrexham are the cities that are most affected by this in Wales. These are the areas also that are most likely therefore to see wage compression further exacerbated as a result of automation. So, will the First Minister now accept that some sensible controls on migration are necessary? And that does mean leaving the single market.

Well, no, it doesn't, because of course that would destroy the market that we sell in. He knows full well that 60 per cent of what we export goes to the single market and that 90 per cent of food and drink goes to the single market. If those exports are jeopardised, if demand drops for what we produce in those markets, we'll lose jobs. It's that simple. It's not a question of immigration, it's a question of making sure that we have the markets that we need in order to sustain demand for what we produce and then of course be able to sell. We know that the European single market is most important. If we cannot cut a deal with the European single market, there is no hope for cutting a deal with any other market.

Well, I certainly don't agree with that at all. It's not the case that trade will suddenly seize up if we leave the single market. It'll affect certain sectors more than others, that's certainly true, but there's massive scope for import substitution given the huge trade deficit that we've got with the EU—but I don't want to pursue that line any further now.

The other point that I want to make, though, is the pressure on housing in the whole of the country, and particularly in south-east Wales. We're likely to see this increase as a result of getting rid of the tolls on the Severn bridge, which we're all in favour of, but nevertheless there's bound to be some effect on the local property market as a result of the difference in house prices on this side of the Severn compared with on the other side of the Severn. The ONS has said that rents in the UK have gone up by 23 per cent in a decade, which is faster than the growth in incomes, so again the pressure is upon those who are at the bottom of the income scale more than anywhere else. Towns like Newport, of course, are relatively poor towns in income terms. So, will the First Minister agree with me that these are pressures that need to be taken fully into account and there needs to be a policy on the part of the Welsh Government to do something about this?

We need more houses. It would help, of course, if people didn't object to every single housing application that appeared on their doorstep, which we know has happened in the past, and his party are well known for that opposition. We as a Government have a target of 20,000 affordable homes. We're well on track to deliver that and we need to make sure that the pressure is taken off the housing market by ensuring that there is more supply of houses. As a Government, that's precisely what we're doing.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. First Minister, when there are lengthy waiting lists for treatment, private health companies give patients the opportunity to avoid those waiting times by paying a fee. Many constituents have informed me that they have been encouraged to consider paying to go private for treatment or swifter diagnosis. That means that treatment becomes something that is based on the ability to pay. Do you agree with me that that is akin to creating a two-tier health system, and isn’t that gradual privatisation, if truth be told?

No, not at all. We are completely against privatisation, and that is why we have spent more on health than ever before—in order to ensure that the services are available for our people.

I would argue that it is increasing the role of privatisation. There's another form of creeping privatisation going on that I can point you to. Are you aware that under your watch there are plans to privatise more dialysis services in the north of Wales? And we're not talking here about the contracting of a company to do a particular job of work, say, tackling a backlog of elective surgery; we're talking about outsourcing core NHS services to a private company. Figures seen by Plaid Cymru suggest that the saving will be around £700,000, and much of that saving, it seems, will come from staff entitlements to sickness pay, to holiday pay and pensions. You must agree that that is creeping NHS privatisation.  

The facts, as he put it, I cannot agree with—I agree with him. I'm not aware of the situation as he describes it, but if he writes to me with details, I will, of course, investigate. 

I'll certainly send Betsi Cadwaladr's plans for the increased privatisation of dialysis to you. Those two examples are very, very different, but there's a common theme there, I think, of private companies playing an increasing role in healthcare, picking away at NHS services. I'm not really driven by ideology on this—at the end of the day, surely we want a better NHS for both patients and staff. But profiting from waiting times, profiting from core services, creating a two-tier system where the rich get signposted to quicker treatment, outsourcing to cut costs to the detriment of hard-working NHS staff—this is not acceptable, we know it's wrong, I'm quite confident that the public think it's wrong, so why is Labour in Wales allowing it to happen?  

We are not, but I'm surprised to hear him say he's not driven by ideology, because we are, I can tell you, on these benches. We are driven by the ideology of making sure that people have an NHS free at the point of service. Now, if Plaid Cymru doesn't believe in that or doesn't have an ideology on the health service of all things, then perhaps they could tell us more. No, we do not agree with privatisation. That is why, of course, we have set our face against initiatives such as private finance initiative, set our face against initiatives that we see in England, where the NHS is being privatised. In Wales, the NHS will remain in the public sector.