As I said here in January, everyone will be disadvantaged until we identify and meet the accommodation needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, enabling the provision of authorised residential and transit sites. It can't be acceptable that, according to the 2011 census, 62 per cent of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in Wales have no qualifications, 51 per cent in England and Wales were in employment compared to 73 per cent overall, and just 70 per cent described themselves as being in good health, compared with 81 per cent in England and Wales overall.

In your statement, you rightly say we want to reflect the diversity of cultures and ethnicities. What consideration, looking back, have you given to the 2006 Pat Niner report on the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers in Wales, commissioned by the then Welsh Government? I think Jane Hutt launched it, as I recall, in Llandrindod Wells, and I was the only AM present to watch her do it. But in addition to many of the issues you highlight, they identified that those diverse communities also travelled over specified geographical areas that didn't match the borders that the rest of us live by, whether those were county borders or national borders. So, what consideration have you given as you go forward to developing an approach with the communities themselves and the different authorities across those borders, so that they may collectively agree and deliver on the needs of communities, who, by definition, are moving around across that area?

You refer to more pupils from these backgrounds being on the school roll than ever before. I think before I've raised with you the concern that was raised in Flintshire over John Summers High School, when the local Gypsy/Traveller community stated that their views had not been reflected in the consultation document that led to the closure of the school, where the school had almost uniquely in the region developed trust with the community. They became part of the same wider community. The children came to school, were passing exams, doing well, achieving, but the community themselves stated that that could be compromised, or would be compromised if the school closed, which it did. Going forward, possibly in discussion with your colleague the education Secretary, what consideration are you giving to introduce or implement measures to prevent that happening again and ensure that the community have a central voice where they might be impacted in such a critical way?

In 2017 we know the Welsh Government launched the 'Enabling Gypsies, Roma and Travellers' consultation. How do you respond to the statement by respondents to that, that the plan was too broad with not enough actions able to evidence how they would be realistically achieved, with one respondent saying the plan was not new but a collection of actions from other existing plans, to the Tros Gynnal Plant consultation, where respondents said that while a new plan was a good idea, they were still to be convinced whether such strategies would actually make a difference to their everyday lives, and the launch of the 'Travelling to Better Health' document in 2017 to increase confidence in the health system, where respondents in one local health board were found to have received discriminatory treatment, including being unable to secure an on-call appointment with their GP, and midwives not visiting a site for antenatal check-ups?

Obviously, you're very familiar with the situation in Bangor Back Lane in Conwy, which we both visited, and your intervention has helped them take forward action on the sound mitigation fence. But they have also subsequently written to your colleague the economy and transport Secretary regarding the road surface, where they understand that this may not be completed until as late as October 2022. In consequence, because they believe promises by the council at the time when the Welsh Government funding was provided have been breached, they are suffering physically and mentally from the noise and stress, receiving in-patient hospital treatment in certain cases. And they've written to the Cabinet Secretary seeking a detailed plan of action from the Welsh Government to resolve the matter to the residents' satisfaction. I don't know whether you're familiar with that, but if you are, I wonder if you could update me; if you're not, I'd be grateful if you could pursue that. 

And the final point I wanted to raise—it's something that was highlighted—and I'll give an example in Flintshire, although it's not unique to Flintshire. In 2011, obligations to meet the need for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation sites led to the granting of temporary planning permission for five years for a site because of assurances made to the planning inspector by the council that within such a period, the need would be met by Flintshire. But because it wasn't, Flintshire granted further temporary permission for five years, even though it's widely recognised that the site isn't suitable for a permanent site, then, subsequently, the granting of temporary planning permission was quashed in court because Flintshire had failed to fulfil its responsibility to deliver an alternative provision in accordance with the legislation. So, in such circumstances, what powers does the Welsh Government have to intervene? I don't know whether you can comment on this individual case, but how can you influence the situation when something appears to have gone so wrong that it's ended up in court twice for determination?