Questions now from the party spokespeople. Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Counsel General, I'm sure you'd agree with me that we do need to turbo charge post-Brexit economic growth in Wales. I'm aware that the UK Government is working collaboratively with devolved administrations to establish at least one free port in each nation of the UK. Here, in north Wales, of course, we are fortunate to have Virginia Crosbie, Welsh Conservative MP for Ynys Môn, heading up the Anglesey Freeport Bidding Consortium, alongside M-SParc, Bangor University, Stena Line, Anglesey County Council and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board. As the only bid in Wales to include an university, the free port could attract major new employers, bringing permanent employment to boost the supply chain across the whole region. It is clear, from your 'End of Transition Action Plan 2020', however, that the Welsh Government has been working with ports and the relevant local authorities to consider the needs of individual ports. So, would you put on record that you fully support Holyhead as the lead candidate to be a free port in Wales as a means of posting the port post Brexit? 

Well, I'm grateful to Janet Finch-Saunders for identifying the needs of ports, and the economies near to ports, as being in need of particular support as a consequence of leaving the European Union. That is certainly the case, and our approach as a Government very much is the one that she described in her question, which is to work with ports, port authorities, hauliers and businesses and the Governments, of course, to advance their interests. I wonder whether she would agree with me that if the UK Government is seeking to support the development of a free port in Wales, in providing funding for that, that ought not to be based on a Barnett consequential, which would deliver around 5 per cent of the overall cost, but on the basis of a much more significant investment of around 10 per cent, which is about one port out of the UK Government's aim of 10 across the UK. So, I would welcome her confirmation to me that she regards a Barnett consequential approach as inadequate to take forward the kind of proposal that she supports.

Counsel General, thank you, but I have to disagree with you at this point because I was actually quite happy to read today that £8 million will be coming forward to Wales to help with our free-port initiative. Now, Ynys Môn would be the ideal place because it has one of the lowest GVAs in Wales—£1,050 compared with £11,769 for Cardiff. And too often here, as a north Wales elected Member, I am fed up with people worried about the north-south divide.

Now, staying with ports, you may recall that you stated the following in your end of transition action plan:

'We are working to ensure we minimise any possible disruption to the transport network, the ports and local communities in Wales.'

Now, we're both aware of the challenges facing our shellfish sector and the £23 million the UK Government has already made available to back our seafood exporters. But we believe that you could be doing more to minimise this disruption. Some Welsh fishers are spending £15,000 on a refrigerated van to transport live scallops all the way to Plymouth. The Welsh Government could stop all of that by taking one decisive step: introduce financial incentives to develop purification plants here in north Wales. So, will you look to work with Welsh fishers who are looking for that support and work with the UK Government to support the shellfish sector post Brexit by quickly developing purification plants near our Welsh ports?

Well, I'm pleased that she stayed on the theme of ports. I didn't quite get from her rationale why she thought it would be appropriate that Welsh ports ought to be funded at a lower rate than ports in other parts of the UK, so I will ask her, please, if she could help me with that when she asks her next question. I do think it's an important part of standing up for the Welsh ports.

On the question of the shellfish exports, as she will know from our previous exchanges in relation to this, the Welsh Government has always stood up for the interests of fishers and has advocated, therefore, a very different approach than the one that, unfortunately, the UK Government chose to take in its negotiations. And I'm afraid the challenges that face the sector in Wales, which are very significant, are ones that are directly referable to the choices made by the UK Government in those negotiations. And I don't think it serves anyone really to seek to obfuscate that reality. What we will do as a Government is to continue our support for the sector in any way that we can, but the responsibility for changing the landscape here in a way that can genuinely support the shellfish and fisheries sector at large lies at the door of the UK Government. We will continue to be co-operative and work in a collegiate way with them in the interest of all sectors in Wales that have been damaged by the kind of negotiation that the UK Government has pursued, but, ultimately, some of these things lie simply in the hands of the UK Government and they need to act in response.

Llywydd, I'm sorry, but I have to dismiss the Counsel General again. Eight million pounds coming to Wales to help us with our free ports is a good news story, and, you know, it does get tiring to keep hearing the whining and the moaning and the constant groaning about when money is available to come here to Wales. Why don't you ever say 'thank you' to the UK Government?

Now, the development of purification plants in Wales really would be a good news story. In fact, I would hope that the UK Government would co-operate with you, as I'm sure my proposal would fit well with the aim of modernising the fishing industry. So, whilst I would be pleased to hear a commitment from you to work for once with the UK Government on this, you seem to have an allergy to UK Government investment in Wales. Last Thursday, you joined with the Minister for finance to complain that the UK Government intends to directly allocate funding for regional and local development in Wales via a levelling-up fund. You accuse UK Government of, and I quote,

'going out of its way to take money away from Wales'.

Money will be going directly to schemes here in Wales, so please stop these fake news stories. Stop trying to create a needless constitutional battle just because you cannot tolerate a UK Conservative Government that is building on its strong record of delivering for Wales, including protecting nearly 400,000 jobs, supporting more than 100,000 self-employed people and over 50,000 businesses since the start of the pandemic. Why don't you show some of that kindness shown earlier with other Ministers and actually say for once, 'Thank you, diolch, UK Government'? Diolch, Llywydd. 

I'm not sure I recognise the worldview of the Member, where Welsh people should be grateful for having investment made out of their own taxes in Wales, but it is, I suppose, a worldview. My preferred approach is to make sure that two things happen. Firstly, in relation to areas that are not devolved, that the UK Government stops short-changing Wales, so whether that's in terms of energy infrastructure or digital infrastructure or rail infrastructure, it would be good if the UK Government actually invested on a comparable basis in Wales. In relation to matters that are devolved, I'm afraid, as I mentioned earlier, these sums of money are small sums of money, and they are not being deployed in a way that reflects the interests of Wales. I'm not making a constitutional point, as it happens; I'm making a point about effective investment in the Welsh economy, and that is the work that we've been doing as a Welsh Government with Welsh businesses, and I'm afraid none of the work that the UK Government has done has benefited from that. I welcome investment in Wales. I would welcome considerably more investment from the UK Government in Wales, deployed on reserved areas more effectively by them and on devolved areas by the Welsh Government.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I say what a delight it is always to follow Janet Finch-Saunders in spokespersons' questions? I was going to start with levelling-up as well, Minister, and perhaps a different view. Last July, I asked you what you were doing to fight back at the UK Government's power-grabbing UK internal market Bill, you'll recall. In December, I asked what you were doing to ensure Wales's interests were represented in the Brexit negotiations. You will recall that as well. Just last month, I asked what you doing to ensure Wales did not not lose out as part of the UK shared prosperity fund proposals, and we've heard some more about that today. Another week gone and here we are again discussing the latest attempt by the Tories in Westminster to undermine Welsh democracy. So, the levelling-up fund was announced, as you know, by Westminster last year, a fund said to be open to all areas in England. Under previous plans, Wales would get our share of the £800 million through the Barnett formula and we would spend it according to our priorities here. The Westminster Treasury has now announced they will be deciding how that same £800 million is spent in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and there is no ring-fence for Welsh funding. I'm just putting that on the record, Minister, to help you out here. Does the Minister agree with me, rather than levelling up, these latest proposals are instead spreading resources thinner, taking our money away from where it's most needed, and that, for Wales, levelling up means losing out?

I do agree with Dai Lloyd that, in terms of both the quantum of the funding and the fact that it's not ring-fenced to Wales, the notion this is a levelling-up fund is an inaccurate description. There is a better way of doing this. There are substantial funds that are available, clearly, but there is a way of doing it that does in fact reflect the needs of businesses and communities in Wales and, as I said earlier in answer to earlier questions, reflect the approach that we have sought to take as a Government of working with stakeholders right across Wales to develop a framework for investment into the future, rather than have something that is discretionary in that sense.

I would say to him I think the way he started his question was right, if I may say, to acknowledge that this is a Conservative Government in Westminster that is pursuing this approach. I think it is possible to make this work on a UK-wide basis with political will in a way that much better reflects the needs of Wales, and that is the vision that we as a Welsh Labour Party and a Welsh Labour-led Government have for regional funding into the future. 

Thank you for that, Minister, and, obviously, your statement in response, when it came out last week, as well as what you've said today, your response to this latest debacle, is rightly strongly worded and full of condemnation of the Conservative Government in Westminster. However, yet again, it's a bit short on practical steps on how the Welsh Government is now going to protect Wales's interests, because we're in a bit of a war zone here in terms of losing money and losing powers, and this is not the first example, as I intimated at the start of the first question. So, can I ask you, Minister, what practical steps are you taking to ensure that Wales isn't undermined and short-changed once again with this levelling-up fund?

As I mentioned earlier, we have articulated a very different vision for how regional funding should work in Wales, and that is the case that we continue to make. We think that is a much more rational way of supporting the Welsh economy on a Wales-wide level but also the regions of Wales, and to devolve decision making in a very productive and more effective way. He will know, given the list of items he read out at the start of his first question, that we have taken every step that we can to stand up for Wales as a Government, including bringing legal proceedings in relation to the Act. While this item itself isn't capable of being challenged, the Act is currently under judicial review, or we're seeking judicial review in the courts. So, he will know that we take, as a Government, every step open to us to defend the rights of the Senedd and the rights of the people of Wales. I look forward to a day when we have a Government in Westminster that is genuinely interested in making sure that all parts of the UK flourish within a reformed union, and the sooner we have that with the election of a Labour Government in Westminster, the better for all of us.

Just turning for my last question to Brexit and ports, we've heard a bit, but a slightly different slant. Obviously, Holyhead was, until December, and that's only two months ago, the second busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the United Kingdom after Dover. About 450,000 trucks rumbled through each year on their way to Dublin, with cargos of meat, agricultural produce, second-hand cars and items destined for the shelves of Irish supermarkets, all flowing through Holyhead. The UK's departure from the EU has changed all that, plainly. In just seven weeks, freight volumes have plunged by 50 per cent. The port's owner, Stena Line, is warning that the slump could be permanent, and we are seeing new sea routes. Obviously, the Minister will have studied the maps, like myself. We've got Dublin, Rosslare and Cork on one side, and new sea routes opening to Roscoff, Cherbourg and Dunkirk on the other, avoiding Wales altogether. So, can I ask, does the Minister further agree with me that this shows that the problems popping up at Holyhead and other Welsh ports show that Brexit is having a real detrimental effect on the Welsh economy and are not simply just teething problems that are just transient?

I absolutely agree that these are not to be dismissed as teething problems. They are issues to be taken seriously, and we are doing that as a Government because of the reasons the Member outlines in his question. We are very clear that the land bridge between Ireland and mainland Europe is strategically very important for us, and we are doing everything that we can to bring resolution to this. As the Member will know, in terms of what is reserved and devolved in this space, the particular issues that are causing the challenges are in fact reserved. But we have worked, and continue to work, with the UK Government, with the Irish Government and others to try to find resolution to that, working as well more broadly with the range of relevant stakeholders to develop a plan of concrete action to try and resolve some of that. I do want to be very clear that we regard this as being an important area for resolution, and the key message that we get from stakeholders is that it does, in fact, cost in some cases quite considerably more to travel on the direct routes between Ireland and Europe. So, there's an important opportunity for us there, it seems to us, to find a resolution to this so that we can restore the land bridge as the primary transit route in the way that we would all wish to see.