We now move on to item 5, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on ‘The Future of Heritage Services in Wales—A New Strategic Partnership and the Future of Cadw’. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Ken Skates, to introduce the statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Members will be aware that I published a written statement on 2 February to inform them that I had received a report setting out a road map towards success, resilience and sustainability for the heritage of Wales. I confirmed that I’d considered the recommendations in detail and that I would respond to each in due course. I have now written to Justin Albert, chair of the steering group, to set out my response to the nine recommendations made by the group, and I wanted to share my thinking with you today.

Firstly, I would like to record my thanks to the chair of the group, and to each of the institutions, trade unions, and my officials, for working so constructively together to produce such a measured and well-considered report. I am heartened that the suite of recommendations has been produced with the agreement and consensus of all organisations involved, and I’m excited about the opportunities they will create for the benefit of the sector as a whole when they are delivered.

The nine recommendations fall into two broad themes, which cover the future of Cadw and the establishment of a strategic partnership and its future work programme. The first recommendation proposes a new national institution for Wales, outside of Government. Cadw’s core role is to conserve our national heritage and to make it available for our current and future generations, and it should be immensely proud of its achievements. Cadw is performing exceptionally whilst being in Government, and I want to ensure that success continues. My aim is to allow the organisation as much freedom and flexibility as possible to enable it to fully realise its commercial potential and also build on its impressive improvement to the visitor experience and increase in visitor numbers and membership.

I’m particularly pleased with the progress Cadw is making in attracting new audiences to our heritage, by targeting families and younger people through superb marketing campaigns and through embracing new technology. However, I believe it is timely to assess whether the existing governance arrangements are truly helping Cadw to fulfil its potential, as there could be potential benefits of moving the organisation to a more arm’s-length status. This could enable Cadw to adopt an even more commercially focused approach to support the vital work that needs to be done to continue to maintain and protect the heritage of Wales, as well as provide greater scope for Cadw to work in partnership with other institutions.

That said, I would not, at this stage, want to focus simply on the two options identified in the report. There are other models worthy of consideration, such as an internal realignment or Welsh Government sponsored body, and, as such, I have asked my officials to produce a business case to identify and explore the whole range of options before being narrowed down to a preferred option. It is imperative that we test all options thoroughly against the status quo and ensure that we consider retaining Cadw within Government. There will need to be clear and demonstrable benefits for proposing any change. I hope to be in a position to indicate the Government’s preferred option by 30 September of this year.

As part of the business case, I’m also asking my officials to consider the second recommendation regarding Cadw’s statutory duties. The preferred model for the future of Cadw will dictate how this recommendation is taken forward. Cadw’s statutory duties are fundamental to the conservation of our national heritage. The importance of these functions—along with the provision of advice and guidance to owners of historic assets—should not be diluted by any change to the status of the organisation.

Moving on to the strategic partnership, I am excited by the recommendations for much greater collaboration between our leading heritage institutions and the vision for a strategic partnership as the solution to protect the heritage of Wales when public finances are under severe pressure. I want to see the establishment of this partnership as soon as possible.

The steering group has convinced me that the recommendations highlight a real opportunity to bring a sharper focus and a clearer identity to the commercial work of our national institutions, but that it is right that we test these opportunities and evaluate their impact before exploring whether a formal merger may be effective. Bringing commercial functions closer together will not undermine the independence or the identity of the individual institutions. Rather, it will enable them to build on the strengths of each organisation and share the expertise within each for the benefit of the entire sector.

There are recommendations on collaborative delivery of commercial functions, collaborative delivery of back-office functions, cultural tourism, and development of the Blaenavon world heritage site. These are at the heart of my own vision. We have to find new ways for our heritage and cultural institutions to be ambitious about the role they play in our national life, working together to form a compelling vision of that future.

We also have to increase the number of people using our heritage and cultural institutions and develop novel ways to attract new audiences. By working more closely, and marketing and promoting our cultural and heritage institutions more vigorously and effectively, it will create wider opportunities to open up all of our sites to families and younger people in a way we never have before.

I’m also eager to pursue the recommendation to develop a cultural skills strategy. 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. I believe that we need to give greater respect and recognition to them and to offer them greater opportunities to develop their careers in the field. And we need to retain our staff to conserve, protect, and interpret our inheritance for future generations. I want to see this strategy in place by October 2018.

I also want to touch on the fact that many of you have raised in the past, that Cadw and the other national institutions are well known and respected brands, whilst Historic Wales has been a working title for this significant initiative. I agree with the steering group that it should be tested alongside alternatives before any changes are implemented. Whatever the outcome, I want to see a strong brand that represents the sector and enables it to market our world-class cultural assets more effectively, not just to the people of Wales, but to the world.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I recognise that a formal agreement is needed for a strategic partnership, and this approach has my full support. The Welsh Government will play its part in supporting and contributing to the partnership, but I believe for it to reach its full potential it needs to be led and be driven by the institutions involved, with their adequate resources put behind it. I, therefore, look forward to discussing the establishment of the strategic partnership and its forward work programme with the national institutions at the earliest opportunity. And so, to close, I accept all the recommendations of the steering group report, with the caveats I have set out today. I am committed to enabling our heritage institutions to maximise the economic benefit that they bring to the people of Wales and I look forward to updating the Chamber on progress in the autumn.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement here today, which follows a previous statement on this issue, of course, as we all know? Following publication of the recommendations made by the steering group in early February, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the recommendations fairly quickly, and the reason for that was that I felt the sector needed assurances going forward. In thanking the Cabinet Secretary for bringing the statement before us today, there are still some questions that need to be answered.

Following earlier discussions, the Cabinet Secretary is aware that I'm quite happy to support the idea of co-operation between bodies in the sector, but I definitely think there is a need to safeguard the independence of these organisations as well. In fact, I'm glad to see that the steering group also recognises the importance of this point. Point 3.1 of the report by the steering group says, in English:

Oherwydd y gyfraith elusennau, siarteri llywodraethu a gofynion statudol eraill, bydd yr argymhellion yn parchu hunaniaeth, gonestrwydd, annibyniaeth a dibenion craidd y sefydliadau cenedlaethol.

PwC's report also talks about the risks associated with merging these national bodies to create a single body across the sector.It was disappointing, therefore, to read again about merger in the Cabinet Secretary’s letter on 30 March to Justin Albert. Specifically, in talking about the recommendations of the steering group, the Cabinet Secretary said, and I quote:

mae’n iawn ein bod yn profi’r cyfleoedd hyn ac yn gwerthuso eu heffaith cyn archwilio pa un a all uno ffurfiol fod yn effeithiol.

Why the talk of formal mergers all the time? It’s mentioned in the statement again today. From my perspective, the steering group’s message is clear, namely, that there is potential for these bodies to work together in a strategic partnership, but that there should be respect for the freedom and independence of these organisations at the same time. Does the Cabinet Secretary not understand that talk of formal mergers generates uncertainty among staff members throughout the sector and that there is a need to stop using that term?

Regarding CADW, a number of reports have talked about the need to move the body out of the direct control of the Government - the Professor Terry Stevens report, the PwC report, and now the report of the steering group. So, we were disappointed to see the Cabinet Secretary propose in his letter to Justin Albert that other options should be considered for, in his own words, ailadliniad mewnol neu Gorff a Noddir gan Lywodraeth Cymru.

All this creates a perception that the Government wants to control as many things as possible centrally.

Of course, it is important that the Government monitors the effectiveness of any investment in the sector. That's what taxpayers would expect. But it is important that the Government does not restrict the freedom and independence of these national organisations, which play a unique and important role in the life of the nation. In talking of investment, it is not clear how the Cabinet Secretary sees the strategic partnership working and whether additional financial resources will be provided to deliver the wide range of recommendations that the strategic partnership will need to address.

In closing, may I welcome recommendation 4.8 by the steering group on the creation of a skills strategy for the cultural sector, and could I also ask the Cabinet Secretary about his vision regarding local museums as part of this statement? I have visited several local museums recently, including, naturally, those in Swansea time and again, and also Tenby, and there are questions arising about how those organisations are interwoven with the national organisations. An update on this would also be welcome. Thank you.

Yes, can I thank Dai Lloyd for his contribution and his questions? I believe I’ve said on numerous occasions now that this Historic Wales initiative could have huge benefits for local museums, not just in terms of skills—I’ll come to that point in a moment—but also in terms of promoting the sector more widely and attracting more people with an interest in heritage to visit not just national institutions, but also local museums as well. And I think, in particular, there are potential benefits with regard to skills development within the workforce, and I do believe that we can build on the recommendations of the Edwards review of local museums to link professional skills between the national museum and local museums. I do think that this is something that the national museum would like to embrace. I think it’s something that local museums very much need.

Moving on to other points raised by the Member, I think generally the outcome of this exercise has shown that many of the fears that existed at the outset of this process were largely unfounded. The steering group has members representing all of the national institutions and, crucially, the steering group has members representing all of the trade unions. I believe that the steering group has done a fantastic job in engaging meaningfully and thoroughly with the workforce in each of the institutions in reaching these recommendations. And I do not fear having an open mind as to what the future might hold for the sector, other than to say that that future must be bright and positive for all involved. That’s why I remain open-minded about the specific means of ensuring that Cadw is given the freedom that it requires to operate more flexibly and more proactively, and to build on recent successes.

If we look at where Cadw is today, it’s got a record number of members, a record level of income and a record number of visitors, but that’s down to a number of factors: one, giving the right people within the organisation the freedom and the flexibility to be as creative and inspiring as they can be. I want to make sure that the organisation is futureproofed, though, to make sure that there is not the potential for interference at ministerial level that could damage visitor numbers, income or membership numbers. For that reason, I wish to explore every option for giving the organisation maximum opportunity to be as innovative as possible. For that reason, I’m open to considering not just the options that have been presented in the review, but also to other options that I think should be explored as part of the process of examining what is best not just for Cadw, but for the entire sector.

In terms of the strategic partnership, I know that the Member welcomed one of the recommendations in the report. Based on the sentiment that he was conveying, it was my inference that he was welcoming a number of the recommendations, including a recommendation for far closer collaboration insofar as cultural tourism is concerned, as far as the promotion of world heritage sites is concerned and, of course, insofar as the sharing of back office duties is concerned, not least because there is already some degree of collaboration taking place, but it’s simply not enough. And I think what should be borne in mind by all Members, particularly those who opposed this initiative from the outset, is that we would not be here today, with agreement from all of the national institutions and the trade union representatives, had it not been for this Government proposing novel but radical action to put the sector on a more stable footing, and that is our objective—to make sure that the sector as a whole is able to weather the storm that will continue insofar as public finances are concerned.

In terms of talking about a merger, I think it’s just as dangerous for Members to rule out any potential pathways for the future for our national institutions as it is for Members to insist that one pathway over another should be pursued. What is best for the sector will surely be judged by the sector and by those who are involved in it, not just by those who run institutions, but by the whole workforce. But let’s agree on something: that whatever the future holds, we would all wish the sector to be in a far stronger, more resilient position in the years to come than it has been during this period of difficult austerity.

Thank you very much for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and for, as you say, sharing your thoughts. I thank you for confirming your acceptance of the steering group’s recommendations. I detected from your earlier statement that you’ve not written off completely the idea of an arm’s-length Cadw, not least in recognition of the freedom to improve the commercial potential—something that’s been repeated in the statement today here. And, of course, it’s a view shared by your hand-picked steering group—it’s a hand-picked steering group which, of course, judging from your statement today, has offered you what seems to me to look like a bit of an inconveniently narrow piece of advice. I suppose what I want to ask you is: wasn’t it their job to come up with the options of which models should be developed through a business case? Of course, they’ve concluded that there are other models that weren’t worthy of being built up into business cases. So, I’m quite curious about why you’ve decided to, effectively, not pay due heed to that advice, and this is one major caveat here. To me, it looks rather like you’re ignoring their advice rather than accepting their recommendation.

In terms of Cadw’s statutory duties, at this stage I’ve got nothing specific to add, except to say that I agree with your point of view that their duties shouldn’t be weakened in any way. But, of course, the freer Cadw would be freer to make partnerships that aren’t limited by their current statutory duties as well, and I’m thinking in particular of potential powers that could help them offer more than advice and guidance to owners of historic assets, many of whom are small and not even as well financially supported as Cadw.

Moving on to the strategic partnership, I don’t think there’s any serious question about the benefits of collaboration here; there’s a definite movement towards that anyway. I agree completely that all relevant parties should be given the opportunity to test and, I would say, capitalise upon those opportunities before even considering the prospect of merger. Personally, I would like the option of formal merger to be taken off the table now. But if you are going to employ this kind of sword of Damocles, you will need to be crystal clear—absolutely crystal clear—about what success looks like and what will stave off the prospect of merger. With that in mind, I wonder if you can tell me your early thinking on what kind of targets you consider appropriate for the strategic partnership. What kind of KPIs would be appropriate to measure their achievement? Who will set these KPIs and targets—who will you be consulting with on that? How will you balance the institution’s core functions with its commercial potential? What will you do to ensure that Cadw, if it is out of Government, comes to the table as an equal partner and not as a sort of big bossy sister? But, if it remains in Government, I think you will have a very difficult job persuading us that Welsh Government can then operate as an impartial judge of whether the work of the strategic partnership is successful or not, because there will be a blatant conflict of interest.

Then, can you tell us what support and guidance Welsh Government will give to the partnership? You rightly mentioned in your statement that you expect the institutions to put, and I quote, their ‘adequate resources’ towards the work of the partnership. So, how do you or, indeed, they, identify what is adequate for the purposes of this important work? I’m wondering whether you can identify anything in your own budget line that might be allocated to this.

On the cultural skills strategy, yes, I think this is a great way, actually, of helping young people understand that studying science subjects is a route into a career that they may not have considered— culture and heritage are warm friends, really, of anything to do with archaeology and conservation, and I look forward to hearing a bit more about that.

But, finally, on branding, how realistic do you think it is that the institutional brands, which are well recognised, as you acknowledged, can operate side by side with Historic Wales or whatever the name is actually going to be? I hope you’re not talking about a case of one of these cancelling out the other. Thanks.

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her questions? First and foremost, no, the advice on recommendation 1 is not being ignored. I’ve already assured Members that the inclusion of those two other options that I highlighted will form the work that officials are going to be undertaking in compiling a business case, but I do think it’s important to consider every option. Also, the Member suggested that the membership of the steering group was hand-picked by me. Those organisations were able to nominate who sat on the steering group, and, so that Members are in no doubt, I’ll just run through the membership: we had the chair of the steering group, who is the director for Wales of the National Trust—it’s true that he was appointed by me and he carried out a superb job; the director of culture, sport and tourism within Welsh Government; the chief executive of the national museum; the chief executive of the national library; the chief executive of the royal commission; national officers of Prospect, PCS and FDA; and also supporting Welsh Government officials from Cadw.

So, the steering group was composed of experts from across the institutions and also their most senior staff, but it was also composed of members of the trade unions that represent workers across all of the sector. I think that makes the steering group something of an inclusive body that was able to consider in great detail the opportunities for the sector in the future, and as a consequence produced a report that, again, I state my support for entirely—all nine recommendations.

The Member asked what I might see success as looking like in the future. Well, let me run through some of the factors that I consider could demonstrate success as part of this initiative. First, an increase in the number of people who participate in heritage-driven activities. Secondly, the number of visitors, not just to Cadw sites, but to the museum, to the library, to the commission, and indeed far wider—the number of people who visit heritage venues that are not managed or cared for by the national institutions, because the whole point of this project is to generate more enthusiasm and to liven up public interest in the heritage sector. Also, resilience; I would consider it a success if resilience in the sector is improved as a consequence of this initiative, but also the reach of the organisations in terms of widening access. At the moment, I’m afraid there are still too many people, particularly within lower socioeconomic groups, who feel that heritage institutions are not for them. I think there is still a task in hand to break down barriers, psychological or otherwise, in attracting a more diverse customer base, and I do think that that will be a key measure of success.

Also, the economic impact of the sector. I recently visited a very small company just near Corwen, Corwen Glassblobbery. My friend and colleague the Member may be aware of the company, which makes blown glass sculptures that we currently sell in Cadw sites. Whilst I was there, they asked whether there was any chance that we could get in touch with the national museum and ask whether they could stock them there. Of course, I think it makes perfect sense, because if they can double their sales by operating from twice as many sites, then surely that’s good for the local economy in and around Corwen, it’s good for that business, it’s good for the sector, because it shows that—. And, of course, the problem at the moment is that trying to navigate your way through different institutions, for a small business—as I’m sure the Member is sympathetic to, because a lot of small business owners are very time starved—it can be exhausting. Whereas if you were to only operate through one commercial function, bringing together Cadw, the museum, the library and the commission, and if you were only having to deal with one, but you had the benefit of selling through all, then surely, that’s something to be welcomed. That’s good for business, that’s good for the economy, that’s good for growing jobs and for economic growth. So, that will be a feature in what I consider to be a successful outcome.

Both Members who’ve spoken so far have asked about budget lines and whether additional resource can be allocated to this initiative. Well, first and foremost, we’re looking at the cost of the business case being put together, and I do believe that that additional resource will be well worth it, because we need to have the best possible outcome for Cadw and the sector, and so I am prepared to contribute more to this exercise. In the longer term, the whole point of bringing the sector more closely together is to maximise the commercial potential of the sector and therefore I do not see a reason why additional resource would be required. Indeed, I would hope that as a consequence of this great step forward we’ll be able to increase profits within the sector, increase income, and therefore strengthen the sector and potentially grow many, many more jobs and secure the skills that are within the sector at the moment. Again, I make the point that the vision that we have for the heritage sector is one that sees growth and widening access right at the heart of everything that it does.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your considered statement and response to the nine recommendations of the steering group. I want to start by noting the comments you make with regard to Cadw and what you say about impressive improvement to the visitor experience and an increase in visitor numbers, alongside embracing new audience and technology. I think that stands out to me because it chimes with my own experience recently in my constituency in terms of how Cadw has been working with Flint castle and the local community, not just to create interactive visitor boards, but a new staircase in the north-east tower for what I believe is probably the first time in contemporary history, or contemporary memory, anyway. But, what stands out for us in the community is the way, actually, Cadw has taken quite a forward, outward-looking approach in terms of involving the community and looking at a new visitor centre, which actually isn’t just going to be a visitor centre per se, but actually brings other community organisations in the community together as part of it, and gives them ownership, which I think in turn is actually increasing people’s engagement and visiting of the castle and the surrounding area.

Just returning to today’s statement, on that, I think—are there lessons we can learn for Cadw across Wales too, in terms of building on that experience of how they can be innovative and engaging with the community? But returning to elsewhere in today’s statement, I’d be keen to know how the recommendations for greater collaboration and a vision for strategic partnership as a solution to protect our heritage would help enhance our heritage offer across Wales, in particular in north-east Wales, which is currently fairly poorly represented by the national institutions. Finally, in addition, I’m pleased to hear you mentioned trade unions a number of times in your initial statement and in your responses to colleagues and that commitment to the spirit of social partnership here in Wales. But I’d like to actually ask you if you can clarify today: what would the potential implications be for workers in the sector of any greater collaboration?

Well, can I thank Hannah Blythyn for her questions, an also for her observations? The presence of trade union representatives on the steering board added enormous value, and also ensured that the workforce of each of the institutions, and indeed those who were employed through Cadw, were well represented at every stage. I’ve been determined throughout this process to ensure that workers in all institutions right across the sector can look forward to a better tomorrow, not just for themselves and their colleagues, but also for those young people who would wish to have a career within the sector but at the moment, given how fragile the sector is, not just within Wales but across the UK, are wondering whether it would be worth acquiring the skills and going to university in order to get qualifications that would ultimately lead to worklessness in trying to find a job within that particular sector. And so, we’ve always been concerned with the outcome for employees, just as much as we’ve been concerned with the outcomes for the people of Wales—the visitors, the customers, the users, the participants. And talking about users, participants and customers, the Member is absolutely right; north-east Wales is currently poorly represented by national institutions in terms of actual physical presence of any institutions at the moment. There is no national museum, there is no, as such, national library presence there, or commission. However, there are very, very prominent Cadw sites in north-east Wales including, in the constituency of Delyn, Flint Ccstle. I see a great opportunity in the future in bringing together commercial functions of all organisations to deliver more opportunities, more events, more activities within regions that are like Delyn and the rest of north-east Wales that are relatively poorly represented or do not have the concentration of visitor attractions that other parts of Wales have.

In terms of what Cadw has done and what Cadw continues to do, I was pleased to see the Caerphilly dragon visit Flint castle, amongst many others, over the course of summer 2016. It’s interesting that that dragon helped to generate the largest number of visitors during a summer period ever—about 600,000 people visited Cadw sites where the dragon went. That’s a huge increase on the previous year, and it shows what can be achieved when you do have the most creative people in charge of the promotion of our heritage sites. I do think that the institutions that Cadw will now be working with as part of the strategic partnership will hugely benefit from having that degree of innovation and creativity working alongside their current staff.

Our aim is to make sure that Cadw sites are appealing and exciting, that they are inclusive and that they are welcoming, and I do think that, as part of the strategic partnership’s work on cultural tourism, there is a potential, through the strategic partnership, to agree to a ‘warm Welsh welcome’ initiative that could bring a consistent, high standard of welcome across all heritage sites in Wales.

I think it’s also worth mentioning that the Welsh Government has, as a programme for government commitment, a desire to see a very strong social tourism offer developed across Wales. This will require the heritage sector to work closely together, because social tourism will largely be based on our finest heritage assets. So, to get the best for the people of Wales, who will benefit from the social tourism initiative, we do need the partners within the heritage sector to work closely together.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and his comprehensive comments so far. There can be no doubt as to the importance of our Welsh heritage to the economy of our country, and, indeed, its pivotal role in attracting the 1 million plus tourists we welcome to Wales each year. I’ve noted your comments and your words recognising the work of Cadw and would add my appreciation for the work they’ve undertaken to retain the rich heritage of Wales on our behalf, and that, of course, of future generations.

But perhaps now is the time for a different approach that establishes a body that encompasses all the aspects of Wales’s heritage. However, I feel it is imperative—and I echo Dai Lloyd’s comments here—that those institutions within that body retain the authority and independence that will enable them to effectively discharge their respective remits. Notwithstanding that caveat, a strategic partnership with a body that has an overview is, in my view, the most effective way forward. There should also be a programme of continuous improvements in identifying the skills and leadership that such an organisation requires in order to maintain and improve this vital sector. I understand the concerns you have regarding the structure of this governing body and your due diligence with regard to whether it should be within Government or at arm’s length, and this, of course, is to be welcomed.

So, Cabinet Secretary, I see this statement as a positive move to increase the awareness and profile of the wonderful heritage of which we in Wales are so proud. UKIP will support your ambitions in this direction.

Can I thank the Member for his generous statement and for the support that he and his colleagues are giving to this initiative? I am very grateful for that. Our aim is to make sure that there are net economic benefits from this initiative, not just for the sector, but, again, for the whole economy of Wales. I do believe that, whilst we can retain the independence of the institutions, we should also recognise the interdependence of those institutions and the benefits from working more closely together. To pick up on a point that was raised earlier by Suzy Davies in terms of promotion of our institutions and heritage assets, if we just put ourselves in the position of the citizen of Wales seeking information about heritage assets, surely it’s easier to access information about all of the sectors through one portal, first of all—through one gateway that can capture all of the richness of our heritage and history, and then to find and to discover the various components of Historic Wales: our museums, our castles, our abbeys, our library, our royal commission. Surely, that is the best way for the citizen of Wales, and indeed the citizen of any country, to discover and to learn about Wales’s fantastic heritage.

Well, I find myself in a very unexpected situation—I agree with every word that David Rowlands said, and regret the negative attitude coming from other directions, and the Minister already knows that. But may I just ask two questions? Firstly, the fact that the Minister has accepted the recommendations made by the steering group, chaired by the excellent Justin Albert, having got to know him through the trust, does mean that the Minister is progressing, in general terms, to implementing those recommendations. Is that the case? That’s the first question. The second question is: what is the timetable that the Minister hopes to follow in this regard? Because those of us who share his vision have aspired for many years to seeing the major national institutions being reborn for the twenty-first century as they were born initially at the turn of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century. And the excellent work that Cadw does—and I have referred to this in the past—particularly in interpreting sites such as Harlech castle recently, and the way that has impacted the economy of the area directly, does demonstrate what can be achieved in having more collaboration. So, more wind in the sails of the Minister and David Rowlands.

Well, can I thank the Member for his positive and kind comments, and say that the Harlech castle investment has delivered huge benefits for the community? We’ve seen a very significant increase in the number of visitors visiting the castle, and it’s also won—I’m pleased to say—a number of national architectural awards. It’s helped to put Wales on the global map during the Year of Adventure, and continues to do so this year through the Year of Legends. It’s exactly the sort of investment that I’d like to see steered towards many more of our venues and assets in the years to come. I would like to confirm that, yes, I will be implementing all of the recommendations, and I wish to do so at maximum speed. The steering group has given an indication of the dates by which I should be in a position to implement the recommendations, or indeed the dates by which we should expect the strategic partnership to be established. I wish to see those dates met. I do think we have an opportunity now to take our past into the future in a way that opens it up to more people—people who, until now, have not had the opportunity, perhaps the interest or the desire, to visit a heritage site, but whom I am sure would do, given the opportunity to explore it in a way that meets their intrinsic interests. So, I look forward to taking forward this work, as I say, at maximum speed.

I think starting with the idea of a strategic partnership is definitely to start in a better place. We do, in other areas of public policy, look at the advantages of strategic partnership, but I do want to emphasise just the need for intellectual independence and the ability to think creatively. These are at the heart of heritage organisations, particularly the national museum and galleries and the national library. I think any test of how these strategic partnerships will work will come down to this because these institutions, above all, must fully explore the world of ideas and how those ideas are represented. Sometimes, their mission—let’s face it—is to challenge received views and to challenge interpretations that have become rather like statements of faith. That can make them very unpopular with politicians. And I have to say I was pleased to hear the Minister say that too active an involvement by Ministers can be damaging, and that’s why. It’s nothing against him or indeed any of his colleagues; this would go of the soundest Conservative Government I could conceive of.

I’ve just been looking at the national museum’s blog for an example of what I mean, and there’s an excellent piece there on ‘Cymru Yfory’, which was the exhibition they ran in 1969 as the official event they held to mark the investiture. It was about reflections on that, but particularly on the space age, Apollo 11, and the whole visual experience that was being changed with these contemporary designs and whatever. There are fantastic photographs on that blog site, which I hope people will look at.

This was an astonishing breakthrough—the first time something really contemporary was in the main hall of the museum, and it emphasised that museums are not just about interpreting the past. I can imagine that if this institution had existed then, some of us may have been saying, ‘What on earth is the museum doing, when we should be marking the wonders of the investiture in a more traditional way?’ You know, ceramic commemorations, or whatever, of past royal events. I would have a lot of time for that sort of exhibition if anyone’s out there wanting to run it, but it’s not for us to make those choices. We need to be tested and we need to be challenged.

Can I just end by saying that there’s a real need for intellectual excellence here, as well as the very sound things that you’ve said about the need for accessibility? Because all people can benefit from seeing events that are great interpretations and testing our views. But the national museum and gallery, and the library, have been instrumental in promoting the reputations of David Jones and Thomas Jones, amongst others, in the twentieth century—two outstanding figures who had been overlooked and are now regarded as towering members, really, of the creative artistic pantheon. There’s a new biography of David Jones just published, which is reviewed in ‘The Economist’, for example, and ‘In Parenthesis’ has obviously been reinterpreted by Owen Sheers. These are fantastic achievements, and both of those figures, if it wasn’t for our heritage institutions, may still be languishing in undeserved obscurity. That in itself does a great job for Wales and getting our message across and allow us to flourish and enjoy fully our national life.

Can I thank David Melding for his contribution and say that I agree entirely that there must be intellectual integrity, and that that integrity should be maintained and protected? There should be the freedom to challenge, to be disruptive and also to be innovative. I believe it was Professor Dai Smith who said that it was the role of culture and cultural institutions to be disruptive of the establishment and the status quo, but equally I think sometimes government needs to be innovative and to challenge as well. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re making sure that those who currently enjoy the freedom and the independence to act creatively, swiftly, dynamically continue to do so without being protectionist.

Actually, what I’m doing is the complete opposite of what you’re warning us not to do, and never to do, because I’m saying to Cadw: ‘Please, be free. Be free of any sort of inefficient operation that you currently experience, or any control by a Minister.’ You know, it’s quite astonishing that a tweet from Cadw has to be approved by me in this day and age of immediate social media. That just makes the whole system inefficient and ineffectual. It doesn’t allow them to respond quickly, and surely that is not in my interests, that is not in the Government’s interests, and that is not in Cadw’s interests or Wales’s interests. So, actually, what I’m doing is the complete opposite of what those who feared this process suggested I was doing. I’m actually giving away, I’m not taking more control, and I’m doing that to make sure that the institutions themselves together are stronger.

David Melding also made a very strong point about the museum’s current activities, and it’s my belief that intellectual integrity and inclusive appeal are not mutually exclusive, and that together—again, together—the institutions, I believe, can broaden the range of people that are attracted to their operations and activities, for the betterment of all of Wales and all of our communities.

Our national heritage institutions will play a crucial role in improving the well-being of Wales and I hope that, by working together, they will reap the rewards of the work that they will do for the country.

Finally, Bethan Jenkins.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your response and I’ve listened to all of the responses here today. My first reaction would be to say to you that, if you accept the recommendations by the group that you’ve commissioned, why have you not ruled out a merger? I’m finding it difficult to understand, if you are accepting those recommendations, why you need to commission more research within your Government as to the future outlook of Cadw. Surely, if you accept those recommendations, you can now carry forward those recommendations as they stand? Because we all understand here that there were civil servants on that particular working group. So, I’m trying to understand why the experts seem to be less heard, potentially, than civil servants within your Government. If they’re going to come up with these constructive recommendations, I don’t feel, from what you’re saying today, that that’s truly reflected in your response.

My second point would be, I’ve heard from numerous questions that Dai Lloyd and others have asked in the past that you’d said that you’d be having a public consultation on this. I haven’t heard anything today on that basis, so I’m wondering what you can tell us about, when you make a decision finally, how that consultation will take place. People are muttering things here—I haven’t heard you say when the consultation will take place. I think that’s important for us to hear here today.

The other question is, I know that the national library are welcoming the review that they are having, but I would be personally curious to hear your opinions about how other institutions would be reviewed, if you’re minded to carry forth any merger or any changes, as well. Because, while you and others have mentioned the successes of Cadw lately, they have been historically underperforming as compared to the other national institutions. It’s quite difficult to get all the detail on income and expenditure. My colleague Dai Lloyd has put forward freedom of information requests and has struggled to get all of that information. So, if we could have a review of Cadw and also a review of other bodies, then I think that would be fair with regard to this process.

My other point would be, I’m struggling also—I’m struggling a lot today—to understand, if you are supportive or looking into a merger, how that would not mean that their independence would be undermined. Because, if you’re going to be taking commercial functions away from them and there’s going to be this body that will be making those decisions, what interventions will they have or what voice would they have within that process? I think that’s obviously one of the key concerns. But in practical terms, if that independence is to be realised—you say you support it—then what does that mean in practical terms for them to carry forward with being able to take those everyday decisions so that they can put on various exhibitions? Not that I’d want to see the same types of exhibitions as David Melding, but I’d want to see exhibitions that have been run by them internally as national institutions.

So, I hear what people are saying and I don’t think anybody’s against change, but I don’t understand why the merger is still on the table and how you will carry forth these discussions if they feel, potentially, that you haven’t listened to them as you could have done. Thank you.

Can I thank Bethan Jenkins for her questions and points? I’d actually dispute the claim that nobody is against change. I think there has been resistance to this initiative. To those who have objected to closer collaboration, I would ask one very simple question: what’s your alternative vision? Because, quite frankly, if there is no vision, if there is no action, then the heritage sector will crumble in the years to come. So, it’s required action from the Government and that’s precisely what we are delivering.

In terms of the potential for a consultation, I don’t believe that a strategic partnership between those independent institutions would require a consultation unless they so wished to hold one, and a consultation on the future form of Cadw would be dependent on the business case and, ultimately, the proposal that we make for its future in or outside of Government. So, that would be a consideration for the autumn. In terms of the performance of all of the institutions, of course, we have Simon Thurley carrying out a review of the museum at the moment. He’s carrying out benchmarking work as part of his review. But the whole point of us changing the way that Cadw reaches out to the citizens of Wales, to customers, and to visitors, was because I felt that we were not maximising opportunities, based on albeit quite rough work that I did personally in looking at benchmarking Cadw sites against similar types of historic assets in England and Scotland. I think the fact that we’ve seen such a sharp rise in visitor figures at Cadw sites justifies the belief that I had, which was that we could and we should do more with our assets. It’s my belief that we should and can do more with all of the institutions in the years to come on behalf not just of the people who work in the institutions, but also the people, taxpayers, who pay for them, and visitors who walk through their doors. So, it’s my view that action is needed. There has been resistance to change. I think now, largely, that resistance has fallen away, but the test will be in how much everybody now embraces the need for a greater degree of collaboration and partnership.

Finally, the point made, or the suggestion that was made, that officials on the steering group somehow led the steering group to its conclusions, I do not think is a fair claim and I do not think that fairly presents the strength of opinion and expertise that was presented by those people representing the national institutions.

Diolch i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet.