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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could I identify with the comments that you made earlier in this session, Presiding Officer? And could I ask you, Trefnydd, in light of the horrendous scenes that are coming from Turkey and Syria, and the size of the death total that's going up in the hundreds, if not the thousands, every hour, what assessment has the Welsh Government made of the assistance that we in Wales will be able to give? Very often, that involves search and rescue teams, it involves humanitarian aid and medical supplies generally. Obviously, the UK Government will be leading on this, but Wales has a proud tradition of helping out in situations like this, and speedy and timely intervention is critical. I assume you've made an assessment that the Welsh Government can make a key contribution. So, what will that contribution be and what dialogue have you had with the UK Government to make sure it happens in a timely manner?

I know the Minister for Social Justice has asked her officials to begin those discussions with the UK Government. She herself will be making a statement to the Senedd—probably a written statement, I would imagine. Those discussions have started and, as I say, further information will come forward. You're absolutely right, we do have a very proud tradition. I'm sure there are already people being identified to go and support the rescue operation. As you say, it's just devastating for the region. I do think the number of people killed is going to be significantly in the thousands, as you referred to.

I'm sure, as Members, we'd be greatly appreciative of an update as soon as possible, because not unreasonably, obviously, constituents and organisations that are able to help are getting in touch with us, and that would be most welcome. I can see the Minister indicating that will be forthcoming. 

Last week, we had from the auditor general the report on the purchase of Gilestone Farm. It made for interesting reading. The description by the risk assessment board of the Welsh Government was that the process that was used to buy Gilestone Farm was 'novel'. Some people think of Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister in the civil service speak when you think of such language. But, when you look into some of the comments within that report, it identifies six meetings over the period when key decisions were being made with officials and the Green Man Festival. They were on 22 October, 26 January, 28 January, 11 February, 7 March and 23 March. Not one single note or minute was taken of those meetings. Not one single note or minute. You're a Minister of some considerable standing, leader of the house, and have been in Government some considerable time. Can you think of a situation where an interested party would be so heavily engaged in discussions where they could potentially be such a beneficiary of a considerable sum of public funds and not a single minute, note or record of six meetings was taken during that time?

I have to say, I am a Minister that does make a lot of notes. I've always done that, and I've always dated them. I think that's really important. But, I think what we need to look at in relation to the auditor general's letter—. I think it did make for interesting reading. There were a lot of positives in there, which I'm sure you won't welcome, but there were a lot of positives around the way that Welsh Government did use that funding. Sometimes we have to be a bit more innovative. Government, by its very nature, is risk averse, and that's absolutely right when you're dealing with public money. You have to be very careful. But I did think, for me, I took a lot of positives from that letter. The pressures on our budget have been very well documented, especially the real-terms decrease we face. Any decisions to make use of funding, regardless of time of year, must ensure the proposals present value for money, and they've got to be clearly aligned with our policy priorities and they need to follow due process. I didn't see anything in that letter that didn't say that we did that.

Minister, there are businesses the length and breadth of the country who apply to Welsh Government and the UK Government for support, sometimes for several hundred pounds, sometimes for thousands, sometimes for tens of thousands, if not millions. Here we have an intervention by the Welsh Government of £4.5 million where you cannot pinpoint a single note or minute of the interaction between the potential beneficiary of that intervention and the Government officials that were making decisions to advise the Minister at that time. In fact, the same Government officials commissioned the valuers and the legal firm to undertake the work without ministerial advice. Their advice was finished before the Minister actually said that they could spend the £60,000 on the procurement of that service.

My point is that many businesses the length and breadth of Wales—and you'll be familiar with this from your postbag as a constituency Member—bemoan the fact of all the level of information they have to provide to support grant application. We understand that there have to be the checks and balances, because it's public money. But why, in this case, was there not a single—not a single—note that could be drawn on to show the level of interaction and what was discussed, given the very quick intervention and turnaround time that the Government used in this particular aspect of purchasing the farm, which the auditor general highlights. There was no time pressure, because there wasn't another purchaser chasing the property. It's in his report. I can see the Minister turning round saying, 'That's not true.' It's in the auditor general's report. He could not find any other time constraint other than the self-imposed time constraint of Welsh Government. So, I ask you again: what examples in your ministerial career can you think of where such an interaction would not have had a minute, a note, a record so that that could be held in the accountability and transparency process and people can feel that they will get a fair crack of the whip when they apply for Government funding?

I think it's fair to say there had been discussions with Green Man about potential sites for some time. This wasn't just something that happened very quickly. Those discussions had been going on for some time, and the high-level outline business case that had been provided was enough to progress with the purchase. So, as I say, I think there were a lot of positives in that letter from the auditor general and we very much welcome that, and obviously we will look to learn lessons as always. There are always lessons to be learned.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. When Plaid Cymru suggested in November that you used a combination of the Wales reserve departmental underspends and unallocated funding to fund a better pay offer for NHS staff, the Minister for Health and Social Services told us there was no unallocated spending available, there were no underspends, and that you couldn't use the Wales reserve. 'Even if we did have underspends,' she said, 

'let's be clear that this could not be used to fund pay awards.... Reserves can't be used for everyday spending.'

She said, 

'They can only be used once, and they're held for emergencies.'

For months you refused to negotiate, for months you refused to admit more money could be found, and for months you refused to acknowledge that we were in an emergency. Now, you've effectively u-turned on all of that. What took you so long? 

Well, we're very pleased to announce that an enhanced pay offer was able to be made last week to the health trade unions, and that did call for several of the health unions to call off the strike action yesterday and today, and those discussions are obviously ongoing. We've had to prioritise money, we've had to look at reserves, we've had to look at underspends, and, obviously, as the year goes on, those underspends come to the fore, particularly this time of year. We're all, as Ministers, pressurising our officials to make sure what underspend there could be, and to make sure we use it to the very best of our ability. We've said all along we would have preferred a UK-wide conclusion, really, to this. We couldn't wait any longer for the UK Government to do this. We've managed to find a bit more money, and I think that money has been welcomed by the majority of people. 

The offer now of just 1.5 per cent extra as a pay rise on top of your, frankly, derisory original pay offer, has been described by Sharon Graham of Unite as 'a sticking plaster'. For many in the NHS this real-terms cut of more than 4 per cent in their pay will rub salt in the deep wounds caused by more than a decade of austerity. When you say now that this is your last and final offer, that this is, to quote the health Minister, 'the only deal in town', then why should anyone believe that statement when you've contradicted yourselves as a Government on so many occasions? You could, couldn't you, turn that one-off payment of 3 per cent into a permanent pay rise, again by using a combination of the Wales reserve next year and a reduction in agency spend? Instead of rejecting that now, only to accept it later, why don't you just do what is right right now? 

Well, we've already used the next two years' reserve, so we've already done that. What we've done in that 3 per cent additional offer is—1.5 per cent is consolidated, as you said, and the other 1.5 per cent isn't. I have to say that we're doing this at risk obviously. This has been the hardest budget I've ever dealt with as a Minister, and I'm sure everybody sitting around me on the front bench would agree. We've done our very best, and I think the Minister and her team, who worked relentlessly to bring this deal forward, and also along with the Minister for Finance and Local Government, who has found that funding, they should be congratulated not criticised for a u-turn or whatever you want to call it. This has been welcomed by the majority of people. We would not, of course, have wanted to see industrial action in the way that we have, and we're very pleased that the majority of trade unions did postpone the action that they were going to take on the sixth and seventh. That will allow time for meaningful negotiations to carry on. The Minister's door is always open, and I think it's really good that we have been able to carry on those discussions. We've also got to ask the NHS to do things. So, I know, as part of the proposal, the Minister is asking them to look at agency working to see what money could be saved from agency staff as well. So, it's about everybody playing their part and working together. 

But you can go further than that, Minister, can't you, because you do have the ability to raise additional revenue through your tax-varying powers? Now, I understand the Government's position is that you don't want to touch the basic rate, but even if you simply matched the increases in the higher and additional rates that are being introduced in Scotland on 1 April—the 42p and the 47p—that would raise £76 million, enough to turn your one-off payment this year into a permanent pay raise. And if you were able to use alternative means of doing that, you could use that £76 million instead to raise care workers' wages to £12 an hour. Why don't you use the powers that you have at this time to do what is right by this group of workers? You describe yourself as a socialist Government; why don't you take this opportunity to act like one? 

We are a socialist Government, and I think just what we've done in this last week absolutely shows that; it shows the difference between us and the UK Government. But our position on tax is very clear; any analysis of the levers that are available to us as a Government via the Welsh rates of income tax demonstrates we simply cannot raise enough fairly enough to make good the holes that have been created by the economic crisis and ensure higher pay in our public services. So, I don't think it would be right in a cost-of-living crisis to ask anyone that pays the basic income rate to pay any extra money. And you refer to the higher rate, and we don't know if there would be any unintended consequences. I think you will have heard the Minister for Finance and Local Government saying in the same programme that you were interviewed on on Sunday that there could be unintended consequences. People who earn the levels of salary that they would have to earn to pay that higher rate of income tax, they're not like other people. They could just up and leave Wales and move to England, for instance. We don't know what would happen, and I think that is a piece of work that really needs looking at very carefully. I'm really not sure that your judgment on this is correct.