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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, vaccine passports have been determined to be necessary in Scotland. The UK Government have indicated they will not be putting vaccine passports into action in England. The people of Wales are waiting to see what action you will be taking later this week. On 13 July, you said that you were fundamentally against the introduction of vaccine passports. Now, I appreciate, if I asked you what your Government will do on Friday, you will say those discussions are still live, so I am specifically asking you, given your previous position of objecting to the use of COVID passports, will you be leading the discussion in the same vein in Cabinet or has your position changed. And are we expecting a change in the Government's overall view of vaccine passports on Friday? 

Well, Llywydd, I start always from a position of scepticism about any measures that place additional barriers in the path of people going about their everyday lives. It should always be a proper discussion, and you need to be persuaded to do something, rather than starting from a position of being in favour of them. There are real ethical issues to be considered in relation to vaccine certification, there are practical issues, there are legal issues, and I think it's right that our starting point in Wales should have been that we would need to be persuaded that there was a public health benefit from vaccine certification. That debate does indeed go on this week in the Cabinet. We've met twice on the issue already. We will meet again on it this week, making sure that we have the best possible information about the public health benefits that vaccine certification might produce, against the disbenefits that come from it.

We've not been helped, Llywydd, I have to say, by the position of the UK Government on this. I have lost count, Llywydd, of the number of meetings that I have sat through with UK Ministers, in which they have lectured me about the necessity of vaccine certification. And when I have raised with them the ethical, the legal, and the practical issues that need to be resolved, I've generally been treated as though these were details that ought not to get in the way of this necessary course of action. As late as the end of last week, we were being told by UK Ministers that they would be going ahead with vaccine certification in England. If I was in the leader of the opposition's position, I would probably wait to hear what they actually say on that matter today, in case there is yet another change in their position since the weekend.

Here in Wales, we will not make a decision on the basis of what is convenient for the Conservative Party and the various factions that exist within it. We will continue to weigh up the public health benefits against the very real concerns that there are with vaccine certification. Then we will come to the best decision that we are able to make.

Clearly, on these benches, we've been consistent, First Minister. We've always said that vaccine passports should not be introduced in Wales. We've held that position, and we continue to hold that position.

I notice that, in the near two and a half minutes in which you responded to the question—and I am grateful for the detail that you gave—you did not indicate whether your position has changed on the position of vaccine passports, which is what I asked you about. I was asking: would you lead the discussions in Cabinet from your position on 13 July, which was against vaccine passports, or has your position moved now, and you are more favourable to the introduction of vaccine passports?

I think that it is important that people know how the First Minister of Wales will lead those discussions. So, I ask again: will you be sticking to your 13 July position of not accepting the need for vaccine passports, or has your position changed? It's a simple question, First Minister.

My position, Llywydd, is the one that I set out. I start from a position of scepticism about vaccine certification. That doesn't mean that I cannot be persuaded, if the evidence of their public health benefits in September, in a different context to the one that we faced in July, outweighs the disadvantages. That is a very closely balanced set of arguments, which is why the Cabinet will have a third discussion of it all, based on the best evidence that we can secure.

If the balance of advantages has tipped in favour of some use of vaccine certification, then that is what the Cabinet will collectively determine. If the balance remains on the more sceptical side of it—and if we don't see that we've reached the point where it would be beneficial—then the Cabinet will decide that as well. What we don't do is to do what the leader of the opposition appears to do: to take a position and say that, regardless of the evidence and regardless of the context, he knows what he thinks.

I certainly do know what I think, and I asked a second time to see whether I knew what you think, and I don't really now know what the hell you think, First Minister. It was a simple enough question.

The two questions that I have asked on COVID passports indicate clearly that decisions have been taken here in Wales that are different from other parts of the United Kingdom, as rightly they should. We are standing here in the Welsh Parliament. We have a Welsh Government. It is vitally important that we have an independent inquiry. I pushed you on this before the summer recess. The Senedd had the chance to vote on that, and the governing parties came together and voted that motion down, regrettably.

But, it is a fact that, over the summer recess, the Scottish Government has commissioned an independent inquiry. The UK Government has commissioned an independent inquiry. Organisations such as Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, Medics4MaskUpWales and COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru have come out asking for this independent inquiry to be commissioned here in Wales.

You have the power to do that, First Minister. The Scottish First Minister has done it. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has done it. Will you today now reflect on that position, and give the assurance to the Welsh Parliament that you will commission a Welsh independent public inquiry that can look into the very matters that your Government Ministers have been making decisions over, so that we can have that scrutiny and we can have that clarity here in Wales, and ultimately get the successes highlighted, but also understand where the failures occurred?

Well, Llywydd, the Scottish First Minister has honoured a manifesto commitment of her party in the Scottish election. There was no such manifesto commitment from my party—we’re not in the same position at all. We are in the same position as the UK Prime Minister, because the independent inquiry that he has announced was announced with the agreement of the Welsh Government and on the basis that the actions that have been taken here in Wales would be independently and fully scrutinised by that inquiry. That is the agreement that we have come to. I know that he doesn’t agree with the Prime Minister on that, but I have reached an agreement with him, and I intend, provided that the terms on which we have agreed are carried through, to honour the agreement we have made.

I discussed all of this again, Llywydd, in a meeting with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Michael Gove, less than two weeks ago. I’ve written to him since to set out the terms on which I believe we reached our original agreement. I say in my letter to him that I want to be very clear that the Welsh Government’s decisions should be scrutinised in a full and comprehensive manner, that Wales must not be an afterthought or a footnote to a UK inquiry, and that for the UK inquiry to have credibility in Wales it is important it is able to proceed in a way that allows it to focus discretely on Wales as part of its remit. I set out a series of ways in which that can be secured.

I make it clear in the letter that if the UK Government isn’t able to give us assurances that the terms of reference, its membership, its resourcing, its methodology—. If they are not able to give us assurances that the UK inquiry will do what it was intended to do—have a specific focus on the decisions here in Wales in the context of what has happened across the whole of the UK: the common advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that we have received; the UK chief medical officers network; the decisions of the Treasury; the decisions of the UK Government itself—. All of those create the context in which Welsh decisions have to be understood and can best be understood. An inquiry of that sort will offer people here in Wales the very best insight into decisions that were made fully and independently—made here in Wales, made in the UK context. I’m looking forward to a reply to that letter. Provided that I get the assurances that I think that we’ve had previously, then I will be prepared to go ahead with the agreement we have already reached with the Prime Minister.

Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. When faced with the choice of using a regressive tax—like national insurance—to fund public services, or a progressive alternative, then a Tory Westminster Government will always choose the former. Do you think this strengthens the case for devolving national insurance to Wales, particularly given the prime Minister’s insistence on ripping the devolution settlement to shreds in dictating how the additional revenue is to be spent? Given also that the amount of money raised is going to be as inadequate to the task as the Prime Minister is to his job, does the Welsh Government believe there remains merit in pursuing a Welsh-made solution in the form of the Holtham levy or some other alternative? Will this be one of the questions addressed by the inter-ministerial group, which today you’ve announced you are reconvening?

I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for that question. He reminded me in his opening question that I once, in a different capacity, gave evidence to the Silk commission, just across the corridor here when they were taking evidence in this building, where I argued that the devolution of national insurance would be a more useful tool for a Welsh Government than the devolution of income tax powers. They didn’t agree, as you know. I definitely agree with what Adam Price has said about the choice the UK Government has made to fund the future of health and social care. There were better decisions that could and should have been made that will not add the £20 that is to be lost in universal credit with, now, national insurance contributions that fall regressively, as Adam Price said, more on those who earn the least than on those who earn the most. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that people in Wales now will be making that contribution.

Where the Holtham report is relevant, I believe, is in the advice it gives us as to how the money that is raised could be applied, the use that could be made of it, rather than, I believe at this point, thinking that we could impose a further subvention on people in Wales, raising more money from them, even for this very important purpose. So, the inter-ministerial group, the paying for care group that met regularly during the last Senedd term, will be reconvened. It will look at the sums of money, when we have confirmation of them, that will come to Wales, and will then look at, including the proposals made by Holtham, how that money can be put to best use to secure the future of social care services in Wales.

It says something about the callousness of this Conservative Government that you've already referenced this afternoon that they believe the right thing to do now is to remove the universal credit uplift when millions of families are facing devastating hardship. So long as our welfare in Wales is the responsibility of the moral vacuum that is Westminster, then families here will continue to suffer.

You and I have discussed this theme many, many times, and I note that the Government's amendment to our Plaid Cymru motion tomorrow refers to you continuing to explore the case for the devolution of the administration of welfare. Could you share with us how that work is progressing and give us some sense of its scope, and particularly a timetable, as many of the families the policy could help are in a state of urgent need?

I again thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for that supplementary question. He'll remember that I welcomed the report of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, chaired by John Griffiths in the last Senedd term, when they produced their report, 'Benefits in Wales: options for better delivery'. That was the start of a debate about the devolution of the administration of welfare benefits. It was followed up, as he will know, by a piece of work that the Government commissioned from the Wales Centre for Public Policy, leading to their report, 'Administering social security in Wales'.

One of the focuses for our action is the inquiry announced by the Welsh Affairs Committee on 15 June. They are to have a benefits inquiry. It's an important inquiry, because it allows us to conduct these arguments in the Westminster context, where, in the end, the decisions about devolution of welfare benefit administration would be made. Officials of the Welsh Government have already supplied evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee at the start of their inquiry. I'm sure that if they invite Ministers to give evidence to it, we'll be happy to do that as well. I think it offers us an opportunity to develop the argument for how, if the devolution of administration of certain benefits could be transferred to Wales, with all the necessary financial costs that would come with it, that would allow us to administer benefits in a way that will be consistent with the preferences of the Senedd and, I believe, the preferences of people in Wales.

These are rights that people have. They are often in difficult circumstances. They deserve to be treated in a way that is fair and is compassionate. I don't think you could think that either of those are characteristics of the way that the benefits system has been administered over the last 10 years.

'The solutions to Wales's problems will never come from Westminster' is, for many us, a foundational truth of Welsh democracy. That's true of the problems that are unique to Wales, but also of the global problems to which Wales is not immune, but which we can make, possibly, our own unique contribution to solving. In that context, it's inspiring to see the momentum growing behind exciting, pioneering ideas like the universal basic income pilot. We in Plaid Cymru welcome the embrace of a new policy experimentalism at the heart of Government, and in that spirit, can I ask: would you be prepared to actively consider extending this to a four-day-working-week pilot that could be run in parallel to that and the UBI? And do you accept, First Minister, if these radical experiments in Welsh social innovation succeed at the pilot stage, then the necessary next step will be identifying those reserved powers in employment, taxation and welfare, which we'll need to fully implement across the country? Wales needs its pilots, but don't we also need a new map and a new shared sense of where we may be heading?

Well, I agree with two important things in what the leader of Plaid Cymru has said, Llywydd. First of all, I absolutely agree that one of the huge advantages of devolution is that it allows for experimentation; that it allows for policy ideas to be tried out, for radical ideas to be given a practical opportunity to demonstrate what they can achieve. And I definitely want this term and this Government to be part of that living laboratory of devolution, as it was referred to, wasn't it, by Bill Clinton in the American context. And I agree as well that the current settlement is far too full of ragged edges, and frankly inexplicable anomalies. How is it that Wales has responsibility for bus services, for train services, for active travel, but it explicitly in the Government of Wales Act said that we have no responsibility for hovercraft services? Now, who was it in Whitewall who thought that of all the things that we could be in charge of in Wales, we expressly could not be trusted to be in charge of hovercrafts? And that is just one example. The last Act that set out the reserved-powers model is shot through with anomalies of that sort. Indeed, the Welsh Government produced a draft Bill that would have produced a much more coherent line between reserved and devolved responsibilities. So, I agree very much with what the leader of Plaid Cymru said: that that is a debate that nobody sensible could regard as concluded.