That allows us to move on item 7 on the agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister on the legislative programme. I call on Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Today, I’m pleased to announce the first year of our legislative programme. In this Assembly term I will make an annual statement, setting out the primary legislation the Government will introduce over the coming 12 months. Moving from a five-year programme to an annual programme and statement is one step in developing our practices to ensure they befit the parliamentary responsibilities of this place. As I said in my statement on 18 May, we will not introduce new legislation in the first 100 days of this Assembly, and we stand by this commitment. Today’s statement will inform Members and the public of the areas of public policy in which the Welsh Government will bring forward legislation in the first year. This work will begin in earnest following the summer recess.

The first of these areas is taxation. This represents a new and significant era of devolution for Wales. As Members will know, the Wales Act 2014 devolved power to this Assembly to make primary legislation in relation to certain devolved taxes. We laid the administrative foundations in the last Assembly with the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016, which established the Welsh Revenue Authority, which is now in the process of being set up. The Government will bring forward two Bills to establish the two taxes to be devolved to Wales from April 2018: a land transaction tax and a landfill disposals tax for Wales. Through this legislation we will also seek to establish a general anti-avoidance rule for devolved taxes in Wales. These bills will mark the start of a new relationship between Welsh taxpayers, the Welsh Government and the delivery of public services, strengthening the link between taxes raised in Wales and money spent on devolved public services in Wales. For our part, the Welsh Government will be wholly responsible and wholly accountable for raising certain taxes in Wales; we’ll no longer be solely reliant on the Welsh block grant provided by the UK Government. That, of course, is a significant step forward for the nation. We’ll approach the scrutiny of this legislation with openness and transparency, and by listening carefully to the views of Members and stakeholders. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will make an oral statement about tax devolution in Plenary next week.

Llywydd, the Bill on the land transaction tax is a long, technical and complex piece of legislation. To assist Members, the sector and the public to familiarise themselves with this Bill, we’ll publish a near-final draft of the Bill before the summer recess, ahead of its introduction in the autumn.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government will bring forward legislation to repeal sections of the UK Government’s pernicious Trade Union Act in devolved areas. The fourth Assembly refused consent for the UK Government to legislate in those areas, but the Government proceeded to impose them on Wales. That is not acceptable. This Government is committed to delivering improved public services through social partnership with trade unions and public sector employers. We’ve always said that significant parts of UK legislation relate specifically to public services that are clearly devolved, and, despite a number of concessions made by the UK Government to secure the Act, key provisions remain fundamentally harmful to Wales. Our legislation will seek to disapply these parts for our devolved public services.

Llywydd, to deliver improvements to people’s health, we will reintroduce a public health Bill. While it was not possible in the last Assembly to reach agreement on provisions relating to restrictions on the use of e-cigarettes, the Bill did contain a great number of proposals on which there was cross-party consensus. We will, therefore, bring forward the public health Bill as it was amended at Stage 3 in the last Assembly, but without the restrictions on the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed public spaces.

The Welsh Government will also introduce legislation to provide a new legal framework for supporting children and young people, from birth to the age of 25, with additional learning needs. We consulted on a draft additional learning needs and education tribunal Bill last year. We’ve listened to the feedback from stakeholders, and we’ve carefully considered the responses. The introduction of the Bill will be the next step in reforming the current system and delivering improvements for children and young people with additional learning needs.

Finally, Llywydd, we will bring forward a Bill to abolish the right to buy and the right to acquire. We must safeguard our social housing stock in Wales and ensure it’s available to people who need it and who are unable to access accommodation through home ownership or the private rented sector. We need to build more homes, and this Government is committed to delivering an extra 20,000 affordable homes during this Assembly term, but we must also tackle the pressure on our current social housing stock. This Bill will seek to protect that stock from further reductions. The analogy I’ve used before is that it’s like trying to fill the bath up with the plug out.

In the first year of this Government, we will bring forward six Bills. Our legislative proposals span the establishment of Welsh devolved taxes, improvements in public health, and the reform of support for children and young people with additional learning needs. We are committed to working with Members in this Senedd and with communities and stakeholders, as we take forward our legislative programme this year, to ensure the laws we make in Wales are the best they can be for the people across this nation. Llywydd, I commend, then, this legislative programme to the Assembly.

I thank the First Minister for his statement. I personally welcome the fact that we have an annual statement; I don’t know if this is an admission that the previous Government had legislated too much and had governed too little, and, if we do see more governance and less legislation, that may be no bad thing. In light of last week’s decision also, it is true to say that the Government should have its hands free to respond to a very swiftly changing scenario rather than tied up with too much legislation.

May I just turn to the six Bills that the First Minister has set out? Plaid Cymru will welcome these in principle. We don’t know whether we will support each one once we’ve seen the detail, of course. We saw that with the public health Bill the last time, and I’m pleased to see that coming back in a form that seems to be more acceptable to Plaid Cymru, certainly. I also welcome the fact that we have two Bills relating to taxation and the devolution of taxation, and it’s very important in that context that you do wish to establish an anti-avoidance rule as part of the way we go about legislating on taxation. I think that’s a fundamentally important principle from the outset.

I also welcome the fact, in light of the fact that the land transaction tax is likely to be extremely complex, that it will be published in draft form, which will allow a committee to scrutinise it in detail and to consult further on it.

Plaid Cymru, of course, will support the principle of ensuring that the Trade Union Act doesn’t actually have an impact on the way we deal with public services in Wales. We’re also seeking an opportunity to deal with the issue of zero-hours contracts, which is having such a detrimental impact on our communities. We will look again for an opportunity, if possible, to raise that.

So, can I just raise a few things with the First Minister that he hasn’t included in the statement? I do understand that it’s an annual statement. But, as we welcome the additional learning needs Bill, it does raise questions as to what the Government is going to do more broadly in the area of autism, of course, which would be relevant to adults too. We know that there is a new action plan from Government, but I am certain that we should see legislation in this area during this Assembly. I do hope that the First Minister will confirm that that is his intention too. Likewise, although legislation on reasonable chastisement and dealing with children in the same way as adults are dealt with is not here, I would want the Government to confirm that that is a priority for Government during this term too.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

There is no mention in the statement of any legislation that may be required as a result of the Diamond report. Is that because the First Minister believes that anything that emerges from Diamond is likely to happen in the second legislative year, as it were, or does he have some other means of dealing with Diamond? In light of the fact that a decision to exit the European Union has been taken, there are all sorts of pieces of European legislation—I won’t name them all, Deputy Presiding Officer, but, simply in the area of environment, there are more than 200 different pieces of legislation that are now part of the way in which we deal with our environment here in Wales. Some of the very important directives on habitats, water and waste are not things that have been imposed on us by Brussels, but things that we have welcomed and have worked with in order to strengthen our environmental law in Wales. So, how do you anticipate that we will be able to deal with that issue as we move towards exiting the European Union? Surely, as an Assembly, we would want to retain some of these things that have been so successful in protecting our environment and protecting biodiversity.

The final question emerging from that is: how will we deal with changes to the common agricultural policy and farm payments, which, again, emerge as we leave the European Union? If not in the next year, does the Government feel that we will need to legislate during this Assembly in order to deal with that issue?

Could I thank the Member for those comments? To start with autism, this is something, of course, that is being considered at present by the liaison committee, in terms of seeing in what way we can develop legislation on autism, and particularly whether we can ensure that the action plan can be strengthened through being placed on a statutory basis ultimately. That is being dealt with in that process.

In terms of physical chastisement, that is being developed at present. There was, of course, a commitment in the Labour Party manifesto to move this forward, and it will happen, but not in the first year. However, there is work happening on policy and on ensuring what kind of legislation is needed. In terms of Diamond, that’s something relatively new. I don’t think that there will be legislation this year, but there might be changes in the wake of what Diamond has said, and we’ll have to consider that over the next few months.

Regarding the environment, one of the things that we don’t know at present is what will happen to EU law once we leave the EU. We know, of course, in terms of the Republic of Ireland or Irish Free State model, as in the 1920s, what they said then was that the law would stay as it was until it changed. What we need to consider in this process is whether we will need to re-legislate on everything, or will everything stay in place, which gives us more of an opportunity, then, to consider having some kind of comprehensive legislation in order to ensure that we have law that draws everything under one Act. That’s a big piece of work, of course—something perhaps for the Law Commission to consider, ultimately—but what’s not clear at present is what will happen to EU law once we leave. Will it continue, or will it fall by the wayside? We have to be ready for that.

In terms of the CAP, there is an opportunity for us to discuss with the farming unions what kind of Welsh agricultural policy we should have, ultimately, and what the payments would look like. Policy is one thing, but money’s another, of course, and we have to ensure that every penny that’s given to Welsh farmers at the moment is still available, ultimately, from the British pot, if I can call it that.

So, it’s not obvious as to whether we will need primary legislation on CAP—we are considering that—but the process of discussing this with the unions is starting next week. I know that there is a meeting on Monday to kick this process off in terms of developing a Welsh agricultural policy.

First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. If I could also endorse the sentiments around the autism Bill, this is something that I have questioned you on in First Minister’s questions, and it is good to see that work is being carried out by the Welsh Government to see exactly what is the most appropriate way to take these issues forward. I think this is one area where there is cross-party consensus, and I would welcome regular updates from the Government as to the progress they are making.

I would also ask the First Minister—. I appreciate, obviously, the events on Thursday and the points you made in the earlier statement clearly indicated that the legislative programme will be difficult to shape and craft, going forward, because there are uncertainties as to exactly what scope the legislative programme might need to consider and how it might to need to adapt legislation, if at all, here in Wales depending on how the negotiations go. But I think we were all familiar with the last Assembly and how, for an 18-month period at the beginning of that, legislation was very slow to come through this Assembly. You’ve indicated that six Bills, obviously, are going to come through in this legislative session, but we did hit that brick wall, as all legislatures do when their term ends, and the public health Bill was lost.

I think everyone regretted the public health Bill being lost, because there was a lot of good stuff in that public health Bill, and, if the Government had listened to the representations that were made from many quarters—and my party I include in that—around e-cigarettes, that legislation could actually be on the statute book and actually available to professionals to use in improving public health here in Wales. So, I would hope that the sentiment you’ve expressed in this statement about listening, and about working with parties in this institution and also people who respond to consultations, is very real in this legislative timeframe we’re talking about, because the public health Bill last session clearly showed what damage can be done when, actually, sensible lobbying and sensible proposals are not taken on board, and that Bill was lost.

I would ask: do you just envisage the new public health Bill that is coming forward just being what was the public health Bill minus the e-cigarettes, or are there other areas that, through its legislative passage through the committee stage in the last session, the Government didn’t take on board, but carried a great deal of merit and would deserve exploring and maybe incorporating in the public health Bill going forward? I think you’ve indicated that it is going to be just a replica Bill, from what you were saying, but I would ask the First Minister and his Minister to give consideration to some of the consultations and, indeed, some of the representations that were taken through last time that didn’t make it into the Bill, because there are areas that do commend improving that Bill if that can be done.

The additional learning needs Bill—we had a piece of legislation in our own legislative programme in the Assembly election campaign, and I do welcome that Bill being put into the legislative programme, especially as one of the first Bills to come through. You talk about how it will create a new environment to improve additional learning needs provision for young people and children; how exactly do you see that legislation working to make those improvements, because the real benefit of legislation is its being able to be enacted on the ground? We all support the principle of making those improvements, but could you give us an example, from the consultations that you’ve touched on here, as to how that Bill will make a real difference to young people’s lives here in Wales? We disagree on the trade union provision in the legislative programme. We debated this in the fourth Assembly and I’m sure we’ll debate it in the fifth Assembly, but it commands support from your benches, and obviously it will command support from other parties, and so that will be an integral part of the legislative programme.

I do regret the legislative part of this programme about the right to buy. I do believe that that is one of the biggest drivers of aspirational attainment over the last 30 years: the ability to own your own home. And 138,000 people have benefited here in Wales from the ability to own their own home. You say that it’s like filling the bath with water without the plug in, but actually, if you have a housebuilding programme that actually meets the demands placed by people to acquire houses, then obviously you are going some way to actually meeting that need and meeting that demand. Successive Welsh Governments have not had a housebuilding programme to meet the requirements and the need across Wales, and that’s evident from the numbers that have come forward. But, again, I appreciate that’s an ideological difference between us, and you will bring that legislation forward and it will be scrutinised accordingly.

The other point I’d like to touch on as well is the land transaction tax, and the complexity that you talk about in bringing this piece of legislation forward. I’d be grateful if you could give us assurances that the complexity is around the areas that the Bill is looking to deal with not, maybe, meeting some of the observations that have come from the professionals and from the sectors that are going to be affected by this Act that you are going to be bringing forward. There is concern from the sector around the scope of the legislation that you are looking at. So, I would be grateful if you could maybe give us an indication as to why exactly you have identified those complexities. Thank you for your statement this afternoon, First Minister.

Could I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments? Yes, there are some areas where we’ll not agree. With the right to buy—and I’m sure we’ll have this debate again in the future—there are parts of Wales where the housing stock is half of the level that it was 30 years ago, and trying to make that up is hugely difficult. But, that’s perhaps for another day.

Yes, on the public health Bill, as I said earlier on, it will be a replica of what was in place at Stage 3. Of course, consideration will be given to amendments as they appear to see what can be done in terms of amendments that might improve the legislation.

He is right to say that a lot of legislation went through the Assembly in the last term. I anticipate fewer Bills coming from Government this time around. I think that will ease the pressure, certainly, that many felt on Bill committees, especially in the last two years of the last Assembly, but also it gives more time and opportunity, potentially, for private Members’ Bills to be considered as well. We are very much aware of the fact that much, well, all of our resource, pretty much, went into Government Bills in the last Assembly, and it’s important that there is the availability, within reason, of resource for good private Members’ Bills and time allocated to them. What we’re doing in terms of the amount of legislation will facilitate that.

To come back to the point about the environment, the difficulty we have with environmental legislation is that much of it is trascribed from the European directions. A lot of it is England-and-Wales legislation, especially the more humdrum areas, if I could put it that way. We just did it that way because it was more convenient. That will need to change. What happens to England-and-Wales regulations in the future? And there are a number of issues that I raised earlier on in terms of when will the law fall—will it continue or will it fall as soon as we leave the EU? These are matters to consider. Is there then scope at some point in the future for a consolidating environment Bill, looked at by the Law Commission? That’s possible, but clearly not, I suspect, for some years, given the complexity of that process.

With the ALN Bill, he will be aware that a draft Bill was consulted on in the second half of last year. Feedback has been received on that, and a summary of responses to that consultation will be published imminently so that Members are aware of what the proposed Bill will actually look like and what it will do, and the responses will be then made available.

With regard to the land transaction tax Bill, even though it’s a highly complex Bill in terms of its technical complexity, it’s designed to be as user-friendly as possible. Quite often, of course, the complexity has to be dealt with within a Bill in order to provide clarity further on down the line from people who are looking to see how the tax operates. Any tax legislation is necessarily complicated, but it needs to be as understandable as possible, particularly for the general public.

Otherwise, I noted the comments that he made on some of the Bills that he indicated in principle he might be in a position to support. I won’t hold him to that; I know that these things have to be taken through, and those areas, of course, where there will be difference between us.

Like Andrew R.T. Davies and, indeed, Simon Thomas, in relation to the autism Bill, UKIP supports that, so there is a true cross-party consensus in this Assembly on that at least. I can’t say the same for everything else in the statement that the First Minister has made this afternoon.

As regards the devolution of taxation, personally I’m not opposed to that; there is a difference of view within UKIP on this subject, but nevertheless I personally am in favour of tax competition between jurisdictions. And we can see the important beneficial effects that that’s had in the Republic of Ireland, where they had sensible corporation tax rates and that brought about a massive move of financial services to Dublin. On the other hand, we can see what happened when the socialist Government in France decided to impose a 75 per cent income tax rate, and that’s driven a huge number of professionals to the City of London. So, whatever happens ultimately—and we regret the fact that there will be no referendum on this issue, as was promised—but whatever happens ultimately about the form of devolution of taxation in Wales, it is very important, I think, that we see this in the context of the business environment in which the people who really create the jobs in this country have to work—in the private sector. And anything which helps to make Wales a less attractive location for investment and for people to come and live and work would be very counterproductive to the interests of Wales.

Similarly, with the form of regulation—and we’ve talked in general terms about what’s going to happen as a result of Britain leaving the EU—the business environment as created by the regulations that businesses have to observe gives us another opportunity, actually, to make Wales a much more attractive place in which to invest and to work. It will be a hugely complicated task to unravel, amend and indeed to decide what to keep from 43 years of regulations and directives. Some of it is delegated legislation and a lot of it is not—regulations are, of course, a direct application, and the language of those is the language of the EU. So, a lot of that will have to change, but it does give us the opportunity to reduce the regulatory burden. And in this context, I’m disappointed to see in the statement the description of the land transaction tax as long, technical and complex. And I have to ask, considering that stamp duty in the United Kingdom raises a relatively small part of the public revenue—there is a trade-off between the complexity of legislation and the benefit to the exchequer. The tax code in the United Kingdom has doubled in size since 1997, and yet very often it’s for no very great benefit, if any benefit at all, to the public at large. The point about avoidance is that clever lawyers will always seek to find a way around tax legislation, and the more complicated it becomes the more loopholes frequently are created. I speak as a tax lawyer myself, so I’m sure that the legal and accounting profession will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of more legislation of this kind. But we will certainly take a constructive but critical attitude towards all legislation of that kind.

It’s only to be expected, I suppose, that there should be legislation in the field of trade unions; after all, the trade unions overwhelmingly fund the Labour Party and one does have to deliver on whatever deals may have been done. But to describe it as ‘pernicious’ I think gives the clue to what the real purpose behind this is. The trade union reforms of the 1980s, which the Labour Party I thought had accepted, actually were an immensely important part in turning Britain away from the basket case economy that we had in the 1970s to the modern go-ahead economy that we’ve had in this country for 25 or 30 years, despite problems in recent years as a result of the financial crisis. I don’t suppose that we’re going to find much agreement on the trade union legislation.

But as regards the right to buy legislation, again, that’s something that we will oppose because it doesn’t actually help people who need social housing to tie up houses for generations—very often houses lived in by people who don’t have any social need. After all, we heard that Frank Dobson, who was a member of the Labour Cabinet, lived in a council flat in St Pancras on a minute rent. If that had been freed up for real social housing, then, of course, somebody who had a real need could have had it met. Bob Crow was another one who lived in a council house all his life and gloried in the fact, yet he was paid, as a trade union general secretary, well over £100,000 a year. These are not, by any stretch of the imagination, people who need social housing. They are in fact the equivalent of bedblockers, and they are denying people who are in real social housing need the chance to have a roof over their heads. As a result of the right-to-buy legislation, millions of people in this country were given the same freedom that everybody else has had for generations, and it freed them from the tutelage of Labour-controlled authorities that wanted the political control that the ownership of housing stock would give them. So, this is a step backwards in time, and UKIP will certainly oppose that.

But there are other Bills, in the field of public health and in the case of additional learning needs, which I’m sure will command the general approval and respect of all parts of this Assembly. I can give a warm welcome to parts of this proposed legislative programme. Others we will not be quite so accommodating towards. But as I started out by saying when we first came to this Assembly, we will play a constructive part in the debates and deliberations and help to make Wales a better place to live in as a result of the legislation that we put through.

Well, I can assure the leader of UKIP that there is nobody in my constituency living in social housing and earning £100,000 a year. That much I can guarantee. The response I give to him about what happened in—he mentions one part of London—is Wandsworth and what was done there, where people were forced out of houses and flats and those houses and flats were sold at a huge profit to the council, trying to socially engineer an area for political gain. That’s the way it happened in Wandsworth. Look, if people wish to buy a house, that’s their right, but they should not buy a house that is then removed in terms of it being available for people who need social housing. We know that the outcome of the right to buy and the right to acquire has been a huge deficit in the number of houses available to people. For many, many years, councils were actually forbidden to build council houses and to make up the deficit that was being created by the houses being sold. That’s why we have a situation where we are forever trying to play catch-up. We cannot catch up and provide our people with the right level of housing if we constantly sell off houses at the same time, finding, as England is finding, that the amount of money that is received as part of that sell-off is not enough to replace the house in terms of building a new house. That’s the debate we’ll be having, I’m sure, in the future, as this legislation proceeds.

When it comes to land transaction tax—stamp duty—it’s obviously a tax that is going to be devolved. We want to use that in the most constructive way possible as far as the construction sector are concerned. They’ve been very much part of the discussions that we have been having. When it comes to red tape, it’s a familiar refrain when people say, ‘What we need to do is to cut red tape’, but they never specify what they mean by ‘red tape’. One of the things we have to understand is that, if it wasn’t for the EU—we’ll return to this in a moment—Britain’s environment would be as poisoned as it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It was the EU that dragged Britain out of the torpor it was in then, where one of the rivers in Yorkshire would catch light if you threw a match into it. The reality is that much of the environmental legislation has been a force for good, and people appreciate it and want to see an environment around them that is not needlessly poisoned.

I grew up in Bridgend, where the river used to run different colours according to what had been dumped in at the top: black if it was the mines; if Revlon had thrown lipstick in, quite often you’d see that; sometimes, some of the operations up there would throw dye in and it would run red, green—any colour you want. We don’t have that any more. That is not a situation that we want to return to. I hear what he says, of course, about his desire to play a constructive role and we look to see how that will pan out over the course of the next year.

Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. First of all, can I just begin by associating myself with the comments made about the potential of an autism Act? I’m pleased to say that, even just in this last month or so, you’ve moved your position from this time in May saying that you were hoping to avoid the need for a separate Bill, as that might take more time, to the more attractive proposition in your answer to Andrew R.T. Davies last week, saying that you’re actively considering an autism Act and believe that it needs consideration separate from other legislation. So, I’m pleased about that.

However, you mentioned in reply to Simon Thomas earlier on that that was partly, or due, to some degree, to the liaison committee that you have with Plaid Cymru at the moment, and I wonder if you could just explain whether that liaison committee has helped you conclude that an Act is needed or whether they are influential, in any particular way, about the content of that Act. Because if it’s the latter, I think that leads us to one of the initial difficulties with this committee, outside a formal coalition, in as much as one opposition has the opportunity to influence legislation before it is drafted when the rest of us don’t. If that is the case, can you just confirm that you’ll be prepared for any Act that comes out to first draft, via this process, to be presented to the relevant committee for pre-legislative scrutiny, so that all opposition parties get the opportunity to influence Government legislation before it’s drafted?

My second question relates to the right to buy. I don’t propose to enter into the rights and wrongs of that, but speaking speculatively, if the UK Government were to identify a pot of money to help the English right-to-buy system work more effectively, or to help housing associations carry on with the legislation—sorry, the processes that they’re looking at now, would you be expecting some kind of a Barnettisation from that pot of money to come to Wales? I’m rather hoping that you’ll say ‘no’. I appreciate that this is just a hypothetical question, but I think it’s one worth answering, because if you were to say ‘yes’ to that, there’d be a question, wouldn’t there, about why Wales wouldn’t be raising its own money in those circumstances, towards contributing to its housing stock? Thank you.

The liaison committee has been established between the Government parties and Plaid Cymru. Your party didn’t want to be part of such an arrangement; that’s your choice at the end of the day, so there’s no point complaining about it. Of course that liaison committee will look at what shape legislation might take, but Members of all parties in this Chamber will have the usual opportunities to scrutinise, potentially, if this is what happens, a draft Bill and, indeed, to scrutinise that Bill as it passes through the Assembly. That, of course, will not change.

I wasn’t clear about the point she was making with regard to England. The way these things always operate, of course, is that if extra money is allocated by the Treasury to a Government department in Whitehall in a devolved area, then we receive a Barnett consequential. There is no requirement for us, as Members will know, to spend it in the same way. If money is moved around a Government department, we don’t receive a Barnett consequential, so we’re in the area of hypothesis here. What I do know is that I don’t think it’s wise to build up our stock of social housing on the one hand while selling it off on the other. I think that’s quite clear; that will become clear during the course of the legislation when it’s introduced.

First Minister, I’d like to focus on the very first part of your statement relating to devolved taxes. As you say, the Welsh Government is in the process at the moment of setting up the Welsh Revenue Authority. I did seek to get it changed to ‘Revenue Wales’ in the last Assembly, but that was unsuccessful. So, we have the WRA, and, as you mentioned, landfill disposals tax and land transaction tax.

Can I say I’m pleased it’s been done in this order? When we looked at this in the Finance Committee in the last Assembly, it became obvious that, because the Scottish Government had set up the taxes or the legislation for the taxes before Revenue Scotland was in place, there were problems from that, so I’m pleased that your Government has done it this way around. Can you tell us what other lessons have been learned from the Scottish experience, because I think they’ve got a number of advantages and disadvantages to the way they’ve done it and hopefully we’ve learnt the lessons so we can hit the ground running?

Neil Hamilton, earlier, mentioned potential pitfalls and I think Neil was talking about the dangers of a lack of a robust framework, particularly in comparison with the English framework. That was looked at by the Finance Committee last time as well, and, indeed, the First Minister has mentioned the anti-avoidance rule. First Minister, how will the legislation that comes forward be suitably robust in terms of each of these taxes and ensure that sufficient anti-avoidance mechanisms are in place and, indeed, where they have worked in the UK as a whole over the last many decades, that those mechanisms are retained? I think the leader of the house, in a former guise as the finance Minister in the last Assembly, said that one of the principles that you would be operating would be that there would be no deviation from the UK norm unless it was absolutely necessary and beneficial to Wales. But now that the former Minister has moved on, is that still the Welsh Government’s position? I think it would be useful if there was clarification on that.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, how is all of this going to be communicated to stakeholders and to the public? I think to say that there is a lack of awareness of tax devolution that is coming down the line in 2018 to Wales would be an understatement. It’s a worse situation than that. I know that the Finance Committee previously looked at ways that we could raise awareness of the transfer or the devolution of taxation to this place. Could you update us on work that has been done in this area, because we have two taxes before us now and we’re going to get further taxes coming down the line? This situation, as Members have said, is going to get more and more complex, and it’s important that we carry not just Members, but the public along with us as well.

First of all, the taxes that we will look to introduce will be appropriate for Wales, as we see it. Clearly, they will need robust anti-avoidance measures within the legislation, and Members will be able to see the legislation and what is contained in it when the legislation is introduced.

In terms of learning from Scotland, yes, it’s clear to me that you need to have the revenue-raising authority in place to ensure that the tax can be raised, or certainly as soon as possible afterwards. The Member has already mentioned the difficulties that Scotland faced in that regard.

In terms of communication with stakeholders, what we know—those who need to know about the landfill transaction tax when it’s introduced should be notified through their professional associations through their continuous professional development requirements. There is a duty on them anyway to assure themselves that they fully understand the new taxation system. But, of course, we will continue to keep and review the most effective ways of communicating the changes. As far as the public are concerned, they are used to stamp duty, so they are used to the idea of a duty or tax being paid when property transactions take place, but it’s obviously important to make sure that the professionals understand how the tax will work and, particularly, how it is to be collected and the rules governing that tax. We’ll obviously make sure that everything is in place that can be put in place to ensure that estate agents, for example, and accountants, to give two examples, are aware of the changes.

Finally, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thanks for your statement, First Minister, and I welcome the measures that you’ve announced today. I particularly welcome your prompt move to repeal aspects of the trade union legislation, which, rather than any attempt to satisfy the trade unions, is our attempt, across this Assembly, to give effect to our belief that we should be protecting the rights of public sector workers in Wales.

I also wanted to give a particular welcome to your confirmation that you’ll be bringing forward an additional learning needs Bill. I know, from my own casework, how vital it is that we get the legislative framework on that right. I do believe that the Welsh Government has a unique opportunity here, given the unprecedented cross-party support that there is for this legislation, to actually make a difference to children and young people’s lives. The children and young people’s committee scrutinised the draft Bill and responded to the legislation, and one of the key concerns we had was that the draft Bill didn’t do enough to actually tie in the health service. We all know from our own casework that that is absolutely fundamental—the connection between health and education. I just wanted to ask what assurances you could give that that would be addressed in the forthcoming legislation.

It’s quite correct, of course, when the Member says that there is a direct link between health and education when it comes to additional learning needs. We know, for example, that with looked-after children, to give an example, merely looking at their education achievement in isolation from everything else is never the way to work, which is why we’ve taken the holistic approach that we have. But, yes, of course, the legislation will look to be as realistic and as comprehensive as possible.

In terms of the trade union Bill, of course, on these benches we have an ideological objection to what that Bill contains, but there is a wider constitutional issue here, and that is that the elements of the trade union Bill that we will look to repeal, we believe, are firmly within our devolved powers—there's a constitutional issue as well. On top of that, we know that the UK Government has been advised by lawyers that’s the case as well, because we saw that the legal advice was leaked—not by us, of course, but by others—and the UK Government was told that they had a weak case in arguing that this was not within devolved competence. So, regardless of the important issue here in terms of our view of the Bill itself, there's a constitutional issue, in that we've taken the view that this is a matter for the Assembly to decide and not Parliament.

Thank you very much, First Minister.