The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on Historic Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We have four great national institutions, the National Museum Wales, the National Library of Wales, Cadw and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales, acting as custodians for our rich heritage and culture. Together they preserve evidence of the entire span of human activity in Wales, from the tiny fragments of bone that attest to the presence of humans in Wales more than 200,000 years ago, through the greatest monuments of architecture, literature and art, to the books and ordinary objects of today that will become the treasures of the future.

As a nation, we should be immensely proud of these institutions. They not only guard our cultural heritage, but also make it accessible and enjoyable for our own citizens and for visitors from across the world. These institutions are fundamental to our nation’s identity, so we must respond to the challenges that they already face and help them become more successful, more resilient and, ultimately, more sustainable in the future.

UK Government austerity has stretched heritage sector budgets over the last few years, and a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report warns of increasing pressures to come. We have done everything possible to protect our national institutions from the worst of these cuts, yet a fundamental question still remains: how can we, working in genuine partnership, improve services, provide sufficient capital investment and ensure that Wales still has vibrant cultural and heritage institutions when the competition for central resources is more challenging than ever before?

There are four pressing issues that we must address if we are going to secure a viable future for the whole heritage sector. First, we have to find new ways for our heritage and cultural institutions to innovate and be ambitious about the role they play in our national life. We need them to work together to form a compelling vision of that future. Institutional boundaries should be no barrier to the quality of service offered, whether that service is to visitors, our own communities or indeed the heritage assets themselves.

Second, we have to increase the number of people using our heritage and cultural institutions. This will mean setting stretching targets for visitor numbers and developing novel ways to attract new audiences. We have to accelerate our work to widen access to arts and culture for groups traditionally excluded from it. We have a proud record of widening access and engaging more people in cultural activities by supporting free admission to our national museums. I'd like our national heritage institutions to lead the way in social tourism for example, and play a bigger role in tackling the intergenerational gap. We know we can achieve amazing results when we set the bar high. Cadw, for instance, has had its most successful year ever in terms of admissions numbers and, as a consequence, generating commercial income. This has been achieved by restructuring itself to maximise the opportunities presented from managing some of Wales’s most iconic visitor attractions. It has run several award-winning marketing campaigns, invested in major improvements to the visitor experience, doubled its events programme and, in doing so, helped open up the monuments to families and younger people in a way it has never done before.

Third, we need to market and promote our cultural and heritage institutions more vigorously and effectively. Our national institutions will need to have clearer, more powerful and more engaging brands and offers if they are to be noticed in a world where competition for people’s time and attention is growing ever fiercer.

The final challenge involves people. The skills, passion and expertise of people working in our institutions bring them to life just as much as the cultural assets that they contain. We need to give greater respect and recognition to these people and offer them greater opportunities to develop their careers in the field. The skills required to care for our heritage are precious and we need to retain our specialists to conserve and interpret our inheritance for future generations.

I don’t have all of the answers, but of one thing, I am absolutely certain: our national heritage institutions will be stronger if they work together, sharing their experience and expertise to find innovative pathways to a more secure and sustainable future. This will require institutions to collaborate and work together in new ways and perhaps, where necessary, pool resources. I know this is contentious, but it is possible to do without compromising the unique identities and independence of our institutions.

I believe that part of the answer lies in the creation of a new body, which we have provisionally called Historic Wales. I am convinced that we have here a real opportunity to bring a sharper focus and clearer identity to the commercial work of our national institutions. Bringing their commercial functions together will not undermine the independence or identity of the individual institutions, rather it will enable them to market their world-class cultural assets more effectively to the people of Wales, Britain and the world. A truly joined-up commercial approach amongst our national institutions will give them the ability to become financially resilient and engage further with the public. That is why, in September, I published the report ‘Investing in the future to protect the past’. The report, chaired by Baroness Randerson, sets out options for giving a stronger, unified identity to Wales’s national heritage institutions. The options considered in the report range from improved partnership working to more radical solutions, such as the creation of a new charity or the merger of organisations.

The report was not the start of the process. As part of the development of the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the future delivery of public historic environment services was considered, including the amalgamation of Cadw and the royal commission. We have reviewed the views expressed at that time, many of which concluded that structural change was timely and necessary.

The next step is to prepare the detailed business cases and analysis required to test the viability of the options in Baroness Randerson’s report. That is why, at the beginning of September, I established a steering group made up of senior management from the national museum, the national library, Cadw and the royal commission, and, of course, trade union representatives. It is chaired by Justin Albert of the National Trust. I have asked the steering group to examine options critically and to determine how Historic Wales can best be constituted so that our national heritage and cultural institutions can harness their collective expertise and resources to best effect. I have asked the group to give me its initial advice in January. This advice will put me in a better position to develop a detailed plan for Historic Wales, which, as I have said repeatedly, will be subject to public consultation in due course.

I don’t underestimate the challenge ahead and I want to work with the heritage sector to make Historic Wales, in whatever form it is constituted, a dynamic and innovative entity that can help Wales sell itself to the world. I am, therefore, willing to listen and engage with anybody who wants to contribute constructively to the developing vision for Historic Wales. However, as I have said before, the status quo is no longer an option. This is no time for the short-term protection of empires: the stakes are simply too high. We must not fall into the trap of knowing the value of what we have, but wilfully ignoring the tough choices that need to be made to protect it.

Can I thank you as well, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today? We prefer statements in this Chamber, rather than written statements, particularly when we have matters that are, as you alluded to, rather controversial. I think we’re all proud of the institutions—you’re not unique in that—and I think we’re pretty proud, too, of the people who populate those institutions and make them the unique institutions that they are. I don’t even have a huge problem with your analysis of the four pressing issues that you raised in the statement. My issue is, rather, with your approach to finding an appropriate response to those.

You say that you don’t have all the answers, but it’s become clear that you already have a preferred answer, which is the last of the four options put forward in the PricewaterhouseCoopers report referred to in your statement. That was confirmed in your letter of 27 July to the director of the national museum, and, I understand, in response to a freedom of information request from Plaid Cymru, although I might be wrong on that. If this is indeed a manifesto commitment, as you said in September’s statement, I’d like you to point out where I might find it. If it’s hidden behind a Labour Party e-mail capture wall, I’m not sure that you can claim that the people of Wales actually voted for this, particularly as the PwC report, which offers alternatives, appears to have been confidential until this September.

So, my first question is: how have you personally concluded that an option 4 Historic Wales is your preferred outcome? You may cite the improvement in Cadw’s income generation as a result of the collaboration between Cadw and Visit Wales, but, as far as I can tell, you haven’t merged the functions of Cadw and Visit Wales. Any restructuring, you’ve just said, has been within Cadw.

My second question is: as the steering group knows your preference, how can we be confident that it can approach the evidence in the PwC report with a completely open mind? I want to make it clear that I don’t say anything about the integrity of the members of this group—I absolutely don’t—but you have sent a strong signal that, in your view, and despite the contents of the PwC report, an option 4 version of Historic Wales, representing significant merger, would, by implication, be better than the other options offered in that report.

My third question is this: your statement and evidence to the culture committee make it plain that you have a strong belief in the necessity for collaboration. I don’t think, actually, any of us disagree with you on this. Certainly we are happy, as Conservatives, to see stronger collaboration on commercial activities. But, just over a year ago—this is according to the director of the museum—Cadw, the museum, the royal commission and the national library came together and formed a looser, option 1 style partnership to collaborate on a number of issues, including commercial activity. In your view, where did this fall short to the extent that you consider a formal merger has now become necessary?

Finally, because I appreciate that there are lots of people who want to ask questions on this—there are a lot of concerns—I’ll just repeat two questions that I asked you a few weeks ago that you didn’t answer. The first was: what did you learn from the Welsh Government’s aborted attempt to merge Cadw and the royal commission? You say that there was support for structural change. What I remember is an awful lot of opposition to that structural change and, in fact, the Welsh Government capitulating on that. Secondly, if you get a steer from this Assembly, which is in balance, that an option 4 Historic Wales model is not acceptable, will you take it off the table? Because the First Minister is fond of repeating that, when it comes to Brexit, he expects the UK negotiation position and post-exit arrangements to be agreed by all the nations and not imposed by a UK Government, and I see no difference in the principle here. If the steering group reports in favour of transfer, rather than delegation, to a new body of a wide range of functions, despite the level of campaigning activity that we have already seen, then this suggests that an option 4 style Historic Wales will be a matter of imposition rather than agreement. Thank you.

I’d like to thank Suzy Davies for her questions and for acknowledging that, in terms of commercial activity, it is important that all organisations that receive public funds look to what they can do more themselves to make themselves more resilient. It’s absolutely essential, especially for many people who may be watching today who can’t make ends meet who look to national organisations to help themselves become more resilient, to give more back to the country. I know there are presidential elections today; well, national institutions should be asking more of what they can do for their country through what Government is able to allocate in their resources, rather than just look for more resources to do the same.

In terms of processes—and largely your questions relate to processes—the letter of 27 July relates to comments that were made, I believe, in committee by the CEO of the national museum, when he said that he was surprised that option 4 had been selected. Actually, if we look at that letter of 27 July, and I’m sure the Member has it—if not, I’m very happy to publish that letter, but also, Presiding Officer, I’m very happy to publish the letter, with the CEO’s agreement, that came ahead of my letter of 27 July. My letter was in response to his and I’d happily publish that letter as well. My letter of 27 July states that

‘the report sets out a number of different options for growing the sector and makes it abundantly clear that there is much cause for optimism if we work closely together and realise the synergies that clearly exist. In view of this’— and this is the crucial line—

‘option 4 may provide a solution to some of the issues and indeed opportunities that you raise in your letter.’

Why is it so bad to look at the opportunities that were raised in that letter? That letter, as I say, I would happily publish—not the letter of 27 July, but the letter from the CEO of 29 June. So, I am still open-minded, but what I would suggest to Members is that it is important to look at those options, as the steering group is going to do, in an open-minded fashion, and to assess them dispassionately for how they could benefit the entire sector.

You ask about Historic Wales and its place in the Welsh Labour manifesto. It was in the Welsh Labour manifesto. We live in the digital age, so the manifesto was online. If you go back and have a look at it, download it online, it is in there. It is in there, where we talk about the importance of Historic Wales bringing together commercial activities. I know that we name specifically within that the national museum and Cadw, but of course on the steering group there is also the royal commission and the national library. There may be synergies there as well. But this is for the steering group. This is for the steering group. I put on record again my assurance to you that I have an open mind. But what I will not accept is a status quo or a tinkering around the edges. Now, the Member in another question asked about a loose arrangement that was operating. Well, I’d ask back in return: if that was successful, why not make it slightly more robust—strengthen it? If that was successful. But I don’t think it was, because, over the years, we’ve heard many, many organisations talk very warmly about the need to collaborate more. But, often, they do not collaborate enough; they just don’t carry out what their promise is.

In terms of evidence, let’s take a look at it. In terms of evidence, we can look at the actual attendance figures, because the effectiveness of any marketing operation—of any commercial operation—is how many people you are engaging with, how many you are attracting. I’m sure that we would agree on that. So, if we look at the National Museum Wales, it’s done a good job in attracting people to the sites and in educating people, but not good enough. I want more. I want the people of Wales to be more active culturally and in terms of physical activity. I want more people to be more active in the arts, and, at the moment, while it’s good, it’s not good enough.

If we look at the figures, first of all—and these are the most recent figures—the most attended site is St Fagans, with 531,000; the second, 491,000 for the Cathays Park national museum, Cardiff; third, the National Waterfront Museum at 261,000; Big Pit, 144,000; the National Slate Museum, 142,000; the National Roman Legion Museum, 71,000; and the National Wool Museum, 31,000. We then take a look at the most attended historic attractions in England and Wales. We’ll see that comparable figures would have the most attended national museum site just fall behind the bus tours of Edinburgh, which is a paid attraction; half the number of people that visit the Riverside Museum. The Roman Baths is a comparable site in terms of cities—Bath to Cardiff—and it’s paid for. They attract 1,044,000. I’ll just go on a little bit more in terms of similar sizes. In Sheffield, the Museums Sheffield Millennium Gallery, which is free, attracts 764,000 people. Brighton’s bigger, granted, but Brighton Pier attracts 4,600,000 people; the National Museum of Scotland, 1,567,000; the Scottish National Gallery, 1,377,000.

Look, that historic environment of Wales is crucially important in terms of visitor numbers, in terms of its ability to educate and to engage people in skills training. It is doing good, as I say, but it’s not doing good enough. I want to make sure that in the years to come we can look back and say, ‘We did all we could to bring together the sector to promote itself collectively for the benefit of all’ and that the key players within the sector operated as a team for one another’s benefit. At the moment, I do not think that that degree of collaboration is sufficient.

In terms of the second question, again this related to whether people on the steering group are approaching the work that they are conducting in a sufficiently open mind, based on the assertion, which is wrong, that I have a preference for one option over another. Well, actually, today I can assure the Member that members of the steering group are very keen to participate in any way they can in achieving an outcome that will be of benefit to the entire sector. I can say that because of the letter that’s appeared today in the ‘Western Mail’. The Member may be aware of the letter, but I’ll just read it out. It’s from the president of the national museum. It’s also from the president of the national library. It’s also from the chairman of the royal commission. It reads:

‘we know it is timely and essential that we look for new opportunities to ensure that heritage is as relevant, as accessible, and as resilient as possible, and that it is based on working in collaboration…it is in this spirit that we are working pro-actively, as members of a Steering Group, with the Welsh Government’.

We are working together. Let’s all play to win, and let’s not see sabotage at the game.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? Having said that, I would much prefer it were we having a debate in Government time, as I have requested twice in this Chamber previously, because the matters before us are of crucial importance, as the Cabinet Secretary has already suggested. They are crucially important to us as a nation, and I agree with him on that.

In those bleak days of the political wilderness pre devolution, we looked to institutions such as the National Museum Wales and the national library as the pillars of our nation’s memory, as a definition of Wales, as an independent representation and an independent voice that spoke up on behalf of Wales to say that it still existed, despite the other bleak and black circumstances. People were asking questions in the 1980s such as ‘When was Wales?’ and you could walk into the National Museum Wales or into St Fagans and say, ‘This is where Wales is: this is where Wales is in the midst of everything else.’

The national museum was established by royal charter in 1907, which incorporates and assures its independence. You are aware, Cabinet Secretary, of all the letters and e-mails that we as members of the culture committee and as individuals have received, each one of them criticising your intention of establishing Historic Wales. I am very pleased that you’ve been able to point to one letter that is not critical and that appears in the ‘Western Mail’ today, because every other letter I’ve seen is damning in its criticism. So, we need to address this issue.

To return to that royal charter of the national museum, the intention was, in English:

‘To tell the world about Wales and to tell Wales about the world.’

That is the mission of our national museum and that holds true today. Yet you seem to have created the idea over the past weeks that this decision to establish Historic Wales is almost a fait accompli, without listening enough. That is what people are telling us: this has been rushed through; nobody is listening and nobody is communicating.

I do believe that it’s important, because I do believe that Government plans are affecting the independence of the national museum in an unfavourable way, which means that amalgamating the museum with Cadw, and Cadw is part of the Government, is most certainly going to endanger the independence of the National Museum Wales. We’ve all been to visit St Fagans recently; £25 million is in the process of being spent and St Fagans has been innovative and a world leader in its field. All of that will be put at risk if we insist on amalgamating the national museum with Cadw.

We’ve had numerous prominent people in the field, including the Labour historian, Dai Smith, being extremely critical. I’ll quote him in the original language:

‘Income generation, commercial exploitation and partnership working are not dirty words or false concepts, but they should be entirely secondary to the rooted role we have given to our cultural bodies for more than a century.’

And he goes on to say that this is

‘precipitate implementation without the due diligence of informed discussion and evidential investigation.’

I tend to believe and to agree with Dai Smith. Obviously, I don’t agree with Dai Smith on every topic, but on this I do agree with him.

Looking at page 4 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, in the purpose and objectives section, there is a suggestion of establishing a separate commercial institution, which does suggest that conclusions had already been reached, even at the beginning of the year, and PwC were asked to secure evidence that would actually bear out that intention to create a separate commercial institution. This is not an objective process.

Following a freedom of information request I submitted recently, it’s become obvious that there were no minutes of Baroness Randerson’s review group. Why weren’t there any minutes from her group’s meetings? This is incredible when you think about the implications and importance of these recommendations to the sector.

As I’ve already mentioned, there are also concerns about the lack of consultation with both the sector and the public. And, of course, we’ve heard that the idea that this is contained in the Labour Party’s manifesto is also rather odd, because we all publish printed manifestos and it wasn’t included in the Labour Party’s printed manifesto, this intention to create Historic Wales. Why keep this commitment so quiet, if you have to actually go into an online annex to find it? It hasn’t been an open or a transparent process.

Nobody would disagree with collaboration, further collaboration, or the need to develop the marketing and business side. Everybody agrees with that, and there’s always work to be done. But you are going a step too far in endangering the whole existence of our national museum.

Felly, i wrthsefyll y teimlad hwnnw, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, a wnewch chi heddiw ddiystyru uno llawn y sefydliadau hyn—

I already have done.

[Continues.]—the full merger of Amgueddfa Cymru, National Museum Wales, with Cadw? Will you rule out implementing option 4 of the PwC report during this Assembly term? Because, Cabinet Secretary, in another context, when we’ve been discussing the national infrastructure commission for Wales, NICW, you have shown admirable flexibility and a want to listen to concerns and a walking towards even agreement. You’ve shown that flexibility, admirable as it is, in our discussions that we’ve had, that you are willing to move, and I would commend that approach once again, here. Because as National Museum Wales once inspired many of us, years ago, in a barren land without an Assembly, I feel it is incumbent now that this Assembly stands by that National Museum Wales now in its hour of need. Please do not do this; please think again.

Well, I’d like to thank the Member for some kind comments and points that he’s made. You’ve recognised that I listen, that I can face challenge, and that is exactly what I am doing, and that is exactly why I will listen to the steering group and those experts that sit on the steering group that represent our national institutions—not just the museum. And I know you talked a lot about the museum, but it’s not just about the national museum; it’s about the great institutions that we have that represent the entirety of the heritage sector that I feel passionately about. And so I will listen to those experts. Yes, I can rule out that there’s going to be a full merger of the institutions, as you asked me to do, but, in terms of those options, I’m going to leave it to the steering group to produce a well-informed set of recommendations.

The Member makes many points, but let’s just establish a starting point: that we all are passionate about the future of our heritage sector. We all want our cultural institutions, not just national institutions but the local ones as well, to be stronger. That’s why I commissioned the expert panel review on museums, that’s why I’ve established the community learning libraries fund as a transformation fund, not just for libraries but for museums as well. It’s a shame that the national body that represents community museums didn’t actually realise that I’d done that when I outlined in April, during the election campaign, that that was our intention with the community learning libraries fund. We’ve established that as a transformation fund, because I said at the time we can’t wait for the creation of an entirely new fund if community and local museums are going to go to the wall in the meantime. So, I extended that from £1 million to £1.4 million. That’s done.

We commissioned the expert panel review on libraries. Now, let’s just look at libraries. Let’s just look back to 2008, when a former Secretary of State suggested that, with the impending problems that public finances would face, local libraries had to diversify, there had to be some co-location of resources and services. He was accused of being a cultural barbarian, wanting to put fish and chip shops—and that is an exact quote, fish and chip shops—by people who, yes, were well meaning, who cared about libraries, but their care ultimately led to the suffocation of hundreds upon hundreds of libraries in England, because they were traditionalists of forces of resistance who refused to accept that there had to be change, that society had moved on, that we have to appeal to people in a new and innovative way. And if we look at the barrage—a tsunami—of commercial messages that people are hit with every day, surely you must recognise that now, more than ever, to be relevant, you have to have strength in the branding, you have to make sure that your advertising, your marketing, is as effective as it can be to cut through what I have called ‘fast food for the soul’—that pop culture that is hitting people every moment of the day through social media and so forth.

So, it’s essential that we do more for the heritage sector to market itself, but they need to make sure that they work closely together as well. You say everybody agrees on collaboration—yes, they do, but some don’t actually carry through their warm words, and I am placing the emphasis on the delivery of collaborative efforts, not just talk about collaboration. In terms of the manifesto, as I say, we are living in a new age now and Welsh Labour decided to go digital first to recognise the fact that most people now themselves operate digitally first. So, we placed our entire manifesto on the internet and I will happily print off sections that cover culture and that refer to Historic Wales. I do recognise that some people did struggle to access those pages, but I would be able to talk and walk through the process of downloading and printing off the manifesto. I’m aware of the many letters that have been submitted, but I hope my comments today reassure many people who are concerned, and have genuine concerns. I think some of the letters, and I’ve read many, are based on misinformation or simply fear that cannot be accounted for.

Independence cannot be a barrier to working more closely together, and, where necessary, to pooling resources. The Member rightly identified one of the core purposes of the museum: about selling what is Wales to the world. And that’s my whole purpose. It’s about selling what is great about Wales together. Yesterday, I was down in London—I was at the world travel fair—and there were countless halls with huge numbers of regions and institutions and companies represented from a whole manner of countries, some of whom had put millions into their stands. The middle-eastern ones in particular, they were phenomenal—some were giving away pens, Bic biros; I’m sure they were giving away Montblancs. It was incredible how much money they were putting into it. So, they were able to present a really strong brand for their areas, what they stand for, the highest quality of what they represent. I was pleased that, on our stand—we don’t have quite as much in the way of resources as some countries, but, on our stand, we had heritage institutions represented; we had Cadw and the national museum together. They weren’t promoting what they were as individuals; they were promoting heritage in Wales, one of the No. 1 factors that people come to Wales to experience as visitors. I want to see more of that sort of activity.

I’ve heard some people say, ‘Rather than focus on change, or rather than force collaboration, why don’t you just give more money, why don’t you just focus more on resources?’ Giving more money won’t necessarily get more people through the doors, and that, at the end of the day, is the No. 1 objective for the national institutions that serve the people of Wales: to be accessible and relevant and welcoming. And, in terms of what Government has done to make sure that places are welcoming, are well maintained, we’ve given an increase in revenue and capital in the next financial year of 33 per cent. I’ll say that again: it’s 33 per cent to the national museum and national library collectively. It’s a huge increase in resource. And if you look at—because some like to compare England and Wales—revenue changes from 2010-11, you’ll see that, for the national museum, it’s 7.1 per cent. For the national library, it’s not quite so good; it’s 9.69. I would love to be able to be in a position in future years to give better settlements, but anybody who has heard commentary about the way that public finances are going to go will recognise that we are going to face even more tough decisions in the future. So, it’s incumbent upon all of us who genuinely care—we all care about the culture sector—to help them become more resilient in the most difficult of financial times.

In comparison with England, by the way, equivalent cuts in England were 15 per cent. Let me just find a few specific examples, as I did with visitor figures. If we look at revenue decreases, and this was up to 2015, albeit, the Imperial War Museums, for example, saw a decrease of 13.8 per cent, compared to, as I say, the decrease of 7.1 per cent for the national museum. If you want any indication, that’s it—of Welsh Government’s commitment to our national institutions, but, for me, I want to see more done together.

No-one listening to him this evening could deny the Cabinet Secretary’s desire and passion to get these institutions to work to the best of their ability. But I have to echo some of the concerns voiced by Suzy Davies and Dai Lloyd this evening. Whilst UKIP is in broad agreement that we utilise all possibilities with regard to generating income from these unique national assets, it is worrying to see that we are talking of yet another body, possibly viewed as another quango, even if this body were in-house. So, firstly, will this body be in addition to the four bodies that now exist? Secondly, as you have mentioned, paragraph 3 on page 2 of your statement points out that Cadw had its best revenue year ever last year. So, given that you admit that the setting up of a new body may be very costly, would it not be better to set targets for the existing institutions or simply merge some of these institutions in order to achieve the required results? Will you step back just one step from what seems to be the line that you’re taking—that’s the fourth option that’s available—so that you review again all the other options? Thank you.

Thank you. I’d like to thank David Rowlands for his questions and just to reflect, actually, as I know that this has been contentious, and Dai Lloyd quoted Dai Smith in his contribution, and perhaps I’ll reflect on another quote of Dai Smith’s, when he said that culture should be disruptive. Perhaps these proposals are disruptive, but in the right way because they are focusing attention clearly on how the sector can collaborate more for mutual benefit right across libraries, museums and potentially archives as well, drawing more attention to the fantastic heritage sector that we should be able to boast about in Wales. Indeed, Dai Smith, just as Dai Lloyd said, identified that commercial functions are secondary. Yes, they are of secondary importance, but it doesn’t mean that they are anything but vital, especially during a period of such severe financial hardship for many people, for many organisations, for the entire country.

In terms of the options and whether this would be another quango, I’ve been very clear that it should be the steering group that brings forward recommendations for us to then assess and then to consult on publicly. I am conscious of the need to avoid any additional administration or bureaucracy. The whole point of this work is to make sure that all institutions are as free, as flexible, as nimble, but also as creative and determined as possible to benefit from an increase in commercial income and to be more proactive and engaging with more communities and more people who, traditionally, have felt disengaged or distant from cultural institutions for all manner of reasons, whether it be physical or psychological barriers—to overcome those barriers must be a primary objective of the institutions. That’s why we set up the Fusion programme, which was aimed at fusing together institutions—cultural institutions—with community groups to harness the power of culture to tackle poverty. I would like to see more of that activity carried out with more partners as well. That’s why still I am saying, ‘Collaborate more’. At the moment, it’s just not good enough. We’ve got examples of where collaboration has worked, but it’s just not enough, I’m afraid. So, we do wish to see a greater degree of collaboration, but it’s going to be for the steering group to bring forward recommendations. And you’re absolutely right—Cadw did have its best ever year. And it was because of the success of Cadw that we were then able to allocate additional resource to the national museum and the national library. Let’s all play to win together, rather than compete within the same team. This is about one sector wanting to be the best in the world, so let’s do it as one united team.

We’re out of time on this statement, but I have a few more Members who wish to question the Cabinet Secretary. If we can have succinct questions and succinct answers, that will help us a lot. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Lywydd and thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I’d like to place on record my full support for the proposal that you outline today. We all know how important tourism is as a sector to the Welsh economy, and it’s absolutely vital that we market that strongly moving forward, if it is to retain and enhance the presence that it currently has. My first question relates to the importance of heritage tourism to local economies. A figure of £19 million per year has been suggested previously. Obviously, we need to make sure this benefits all of Wales, so, will the Cabinet Secretary make one of the priorities of Historic Wales that they look to promote historic opportunities across areas of Wales that are not traditionally associated with tourism? Secondly, linked to this is the promotion of otherwise unknown histories, for example, the real working-class histories, the grass-roots histories, that belong to so many people in Wales. How will Historic Wales promote these narratives, such as the story of Tower colliery in my constituency, for example, which would then have the potential to act as a catalyst for further economic growth?

My final question relates to skills and training, and I recall, Cabinet Secretary, your ambition, as stated to the economy committee just last week, for Wales to have a reputation of incredible customer service. But what assessment has been made of the skills gap to make this a reality? In particular, when community groups are involved in the delivery of heritage experiences, such as Cynon Valley Museum in my constituency, how would you ensure that Historic Wales prioritises providing volunteers with the training and skills support that they need?

I’d like to thank Vikki Howells for her very important questions, in particular the significance of the heritage sector insofar as attaining skills is concerned, because I was recently pleased—I’m not sure whether this is for disclosure just yet, but I’m going to say it anyway—to support an application worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds for skills training within the heritage sector, which I know my colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills as well are very pleased with. It will see opportunities created for young people from disadvantaged communities to take part in heritage projects to gain the skills necessary for careers within the heritage sector, and I am very keen to make sure that, as we move to the future, we move beyond the point of talking merely about the heritage sector and the institutions within the sector surviving, and we actually start talking about how they are thriving. That means we’ve got to get more money, more skills and more expertise developed within the sector, and we can do that by bringing them together.

I don’t see why—and it doesn’t require any sort of a merger of institutions, but in terms of the outward facing activities, it would benefit from far closer, meaningful collaboration—we couldn’t have people, for example, with great skills from the library operating in Cathays Park at the museum, or vice versa, working together to promote those unique skills that many people employed in the institutions have, and which simply are not evident in other parts of western Europe. And I think it would be brilliant to be able to promote those skills and those career opportunities right across Wales, because the Member is right—there are some part of Wales, there are some communities in Wales, where the national institutions are not present, but where Cadw may be present. There are some where Cadw, the national museum and the national library are not physically present. And in those circumstances, and those communities, it’s essential that local museums, local libraries and local archives are given support and have strong national leadership, with the skills to be able to back them up, and to make heritage real, tangible and accessible for all people in all communities, regardless of where they live.

In terms of some of the work that’s being done on a national basis, I think the pan-Wales heritage interpretation project was a great success, but there is no doubt we need to do more in terms of promoting our industrial heritage. This is one area—I know Jeremy Miles spoke for 89.9 seconds last week about the value of industrial heritage in many communities. There is no doubt in my mind that we can and could do more if we lever in more resources, grow skills within the sector and grow the number of job opportunities that there are.

Cabinet Secretary, I had the opportunity at lunchtime to visit the plethora of societies and trusts in the Oriel upstairs dedicated to protecting our historic environment; to name but a few, the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and also of course the Friends of Friendless Churches, often mentioned in this Chamber. They have concerns about this process. They are optimistic as well about some aspects of it, but they do have concerns. How are you working with these smaller organisations to make sure that this process is as smooth as possible, and that these organisations are reassured?

Secondly, I will be frank, I’ve not always had the best of relations with Cadw. I think Cadw do some things very well. I think there are other things, certainly in the archaeological field, that they do less well. I remember in this Chamber in the last Assembly questioning the previous Minister for culture on the discovery of the prehistoric lake in Monmouth. A local archaeologist was telling me that there was evidence of prehistoric boat building on the shores of that lake. That was refuted by Cadw for months and months until they finally accepted it. They didn’t listen to the local expertise.

So, when it comes to your new proposals, will you ensure that, whether you go down the line of a new larger body or retain smaller bodies, that that larger body does tie in with the local community, does tie in with locally based organisations, and does listen to their expertise, which is often very extensive and very important to the local community? I don’t think that the current structures have always done that. As I say, in some cases, they’re particularly good at conserving what we already know, but in terms of valuing what we are just about discovering, they’re not so good at that. So please will you ensure that the new structures do take account of those aspects?

I’d like to thank Nick Ramsay for his questions. I’m very pleased that he enjoyed the event here today. I hosted the event and I took the time myself to speak to a number of the groups that came along with fascinating information about Historic Wales. There were some concerns raised. I was able to dispel them, and I think that is a task for me in the weeks and the months to come—to assure that we’re doing this to grow the sector to make it more sustainable. This isn’t a threat to any institution or organisation. This is an opportunity. To work together will be of huge benefit to the smaller organisations, and of those organisations here today, we fund many of them, and I think they would also recognise that, although our support is absolutely crucial, what is even more important in the years to come is that they themselves find other ways to lever in resources as well.

I recently visited, with my colleague Lynne Neagle, a museum in her constituency where I heard that there had been in recent years a loss in the number of paid staff, and whilst they were replaced by volunteers, the situation has now arisen where they are just under immense pressure, financial pressure, to maintain the service that is vital to that community. They actually said the opposite to what I’ve heard in some quarters, which is that we have to make sure that we have strong leadership, we have to make sure that we have strong national institutions, but above all we have to make sure that there are means of levering in additional resources to make the entire sector stronger. It’s very difficult for me to say to small, community museums and community libraries, ‘We cannot afford to fund you’, and yet they then say to me, ‘But you’re increasing the resource for national institutions’. What I would like to see emerge is a culture in which everybody collectively in society is contributing more through being more active in the culture sector, so that small organisations lever in more resources and large institutions do likewise. That’s the vision, and I would urge any Member who is opposing what we have outlined, and our position, to come forward with an alternative vision. Because the problems that the sector faces will not go away simply by ignoring the need to change.

In terms of Cadw’s engagement with communities, the first thing I did with regard to Cadw when I was appointed to my previous role was to write to all community groups within a certain radius of Cadw sites, to ask them whether there are any functions that they would like to use those sites for. We provided the names of the custodians at each site, and, as a result of that, I am now aware of new festivals that have taken place at Cadw sites, and new community activities. I’d like to see more of that activity right across Wales.

But Cadw serves two functions, and I think, sometimes, those two functions, as far as people—the customer, the population—are concerned, are conflated. The two functions are, of course, the statutory function and the commercial function. And, sometimes, the commercial function can be inhibited, or the commercial success of Cadw can be inhibited, by virtue of being in Government. It can’t operate quite as flexibly sometimes.

So, this is not a power grab from me. I do not want to take the national museum into Government. My portfolio is wide enough as it is. And, actually, I want to liberate—if anything, I want to give power away to people, so that people are able to embrace their assets locally. Because I know that historic assets are often what defines our communities in Wales. They’re what make people most proud of where they live, and I want to make sure that they’re better utilised, and that they are visited by more people.

I just wanted to come in briefly, to try and analyse some of what’s been said today. You will know that, as Chair of the culture committee, I’ve have had quite a lot of communication from people. You raised a question over the content of some of those letters. I would like to say that, perhaps, they are written as they are because they have, in my view, some level of confusion as to your intentions. I say this because, in your previous statement, you mentioned about merging the commercial functions of the national museum with Cadw, and that seemed to be your focus, and then, today, we have a statement that includes more institutions.

So, if you are not in favour of a full merger, can you tell me how a partial merger would be able to then satisfy what you want to happen, in relation to people working closer together, but then also ensuring that the independence of those institutions is respected, in the context of the fact that they will not then have power over the commercial functions, as outlined in previous statements that we have had here today?

The other issue I had was that you refer to this report—I’m sorry to be pernickety about this—as the Baroness Randerson report. But my reading is that it is a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, but then there’s an advisory panel by Jenny Randerson. So, I’d like to understand whether Jenny Randerson has endorsed the whole of what the PricewaterhouseCoopers report says, and whether you have her full backing in this, because it wasn’t my understanding that this was the Randerson report, and I think we need to clear up that confusion.

I also want to understand, because you’ve now said that it’s up to the steering group to decide upon, whether the public consultation will be on their preferred option or whether it will be on the various options that they discuss. Because, of course, it’ll be at that point when the institutions, when the people who’ve written to my committee, will be able to engage with the process. So, I think that is part of their fear—that they’re going to be engaged after this, as opposed to being engaged prior to some of the announcements that you’ve made.

I’d also like to agree with what Suzy Davies said in relation to the discussion that we’ve had previously over the royal commission and Cadw. It is not my version of history that there was wide, timely and necessary support for that to happen. In fact, when I talked to your predecessor John Griffiths, he did park the issue of the merger after many of us—and noises from the sector—campaigned against that. So is this your way of coming back to it, but with a different edge?

You also mentioned Cadw and marketing. I would just like to understand what that budget was. Did you put this out to an agency? I think it was called Equinox. How much did you pay that agency to do that marketing work? Because they may have additional benefits that potentially the national museum didn’t have. Would you not agree with me that the numbers are down at the national museum due to the redevelopment of St Fagans and that that may then pick up when that redevelopment has seen the case through?

My final question is: we’ve had quite a lot of debate recently in the environment committee about the issues surrounding Natural Resources Wales. I would urge you to look at what is happening there and to reassure yourself that any future decision that you make on how national institutions are potentially merged or encouraged to work together in the future are able to do so in a way that they feel comfortable with, so that there aren’t the same problems that are in the staffing arrangements at NRW currently. That is the last thing that we need—we need to have a happy and productive workforce, regardless of anything else, to make sure that they then can deliver effectively to the people of Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I’d like to thank the Member for her questions. I think it’s absolutely essential that anybody who feels confused about the proposals reads what the options are and assesses carefully what the options are, because after assessing what those four options are, I think it will be abundantly clear to anybody that wholescale merges are not on the table. The Member asked—and I’m sorry I didn’t pick up on the question that Suzy Davies asked about what lessons have been learnt about the proposal many years ago to merge fully Cadw and the royal commission—well, the chief lesson that was learnt from that is that you don’t fully merge institutions. What you can do is encourage those institutions to work together more for mutual benefit. So, I’d invite anybody who feels confused about the future to read what those four options are and to be assured that the steering group will propose recommendations that will be consulted on as part of a public consultation where people and organisations will be able to make observations, not just in terms of the recommendations but also the four options. I wish this process to be transparent and I wish as many people as possible to be engaged in it. But when I say that as many people as possible should be engaged in it, we should be doing more to reach out to those individuals, those families, those communities who, as I’ve repeatedly said, in the past, and still to this day, feel excluded from cultural activity for one or a number of reasons—whether it be psychological or physical, it doesn’t matter, too many people still do not feel that they are part of Wales’s culture. That needs to be addressed. The relevance of our institutions must be addressed—[Interruption.]

I thought you’d finished, Cabinet Secretary.

Sorry, just two more quick points. I do apologise for overrunning.

Cadw’s budget—if you look at last year’s budget rounds, you’ll see that Cadw’s budget, I believe, was reduced by more than the national museum, so in terms of marketing, it’s actually done more with less by driving up income and figures. In terms of St Fagans—oh, and I also believe that there are many contracts that the national museum has with external partners who carry out marketing functions and catering functions. So, it’s not as though everything is currently delivered by the museum itself. So, if there are already companies in the private sector that are carrying out some of the work on behalf of the museum, what would stop those companies or companies that operate on behalf of Cadw from actually doing it together—again, just joining up, making sure that we have efficiencies of scale? In terms of St Fagans, I hear what the Member said—I think it was Dai Lloyd who suggested that this operation could harm the St Fagans project. As the Member has suggested that, I am quite happy to carry out an investigation—an inquiry into the work that’s been conducted so far at St Fagans and an assessment of whether any move to create Historic Wales would impact on the scheduled completion of that project. I am absolutely certain that project will drive up numbers, as Bethan Jenkins says.

But in terms of visitor numbers, I think it’s also important not to set targets that are lower—future year targets—lower than what you are currently achieving, and I’m afraid, in the past, we have had just that from the museum. That must stop. I think David Rowlands is right, we do need to set more stretching targets—not just to get the same people repeatedly visiting our national institutions, but actually to get new people as well visiting national institutions.

And finally, Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

I won’t keep you for too long, Llywydd. I just wanted to ask the Minister whether he agrees with me that heritage doesn’t belong to the past, but it belongs to the future. We are talking here about institutions that mainly came into being—. That’s why they have royal charters—that was the only way to create national institutions during that pre-devolution period. We are talking about institutions that were established in the first part of the last century, and therefore I am entirely supportive of the Minister's vision, and I thank him for what he has done in Harlech, and Owain Glyndŵr agrees with me on that.

I cannot thank the Member more, and I would never, ever question his wisdom or his ideas. He is, to me, something of an Obi-Wan Kenobi to my slightly naive Skywalker. But in all seriousness, I think it is about protecting our heritage and protecting the institutions for the future, but ensuring that the institutions serve the people of Wales first and foremost, and that we do not take our eyes off the horizon.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary?