The next item is the statement by the First Minister on the legislative programme, and I call on the First Minister to make a statement.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased, today, to announce the second year of the Welsh Government’s legislative programme. Before I announce the Bills we’ll be bringing forward in the next 12 months, I want to reflect on the progress made during the first year. Since I made my first statement in June last year, this National Assembly has passed landmark tax legislation, which will enable Wales to raise its own revenue from April 2018—the first time in almost 800 years.

The Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017 received Royal Assent last month, becoming the first Act of the fifth Assembly. If the National Assembly agrees to pass the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill later this afternoon, we will take a further step on our devolution journey and ensure landfill disposals tax—the second of the two devolved taxes—is in place by April 2018. Llywydd, these two pieces of tax legislation establish a new relationship between the people of Wales, the Welsh Government and the delivery of our public services. From next year, money raised from Welsh taxes will be used to deliver devolved public services in Wales.

Last month, the Assembly also passed the Public Health (Wales) Bill. The Bill is expected to receive Royal Assent next week and, once enacted, it will deliver wide-ranging public health improvements, including new restrictions on smoking in certain outdoor public places where children are present, a new licensing regime for special procedures, a ban on intimate piercings for under-18s, and improvements to provision of public toilets and pharmacy services. I announced three other Bills last year, and these continue to progress through the Assembly scrutiny stages.

Llywydd, the Assembly agreed the general principles of the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill earlier this month and Stage 2 will take place after the summer recess. We expect to reach the final stages of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill and complete the first stage of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill before the summer recess. Each of these Bills has been and will be improved by the scrutiny of Members. Scrutiny is a crucial part of the legislative process. It may not always be comfortable for Government—and it shouldn’t be so—but scrutiny delivers better legislation.

Llywydd, the Government will continue to build on the progress we’ve made during the first year, and our legislative programme continues to be shaped by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the proposals we will introduce in the coming year reflect our aim to improve Wales now and in the long term.

Dros y 12 mis nesaf, byddwn yn cyflwyno deddfwriaeth yng Nghymru i fynd i’r afael â defnyddio alcohol yn niweidiol drwy godi isafswm pris ar gyfer alcohol, darparu gofal plant am ddim i’r rheini mewn gwaith sydd â phlant rhwng tair a phedair oed, amddiffyn tenantiaid rhag ffioedd annheg, a diwygio llywodraeth leol.

Llywydd, this Government is determined to achieve a healthier and more equal Wales, and it is our long-held aim to use public health measures to target and tackle the harmful and hazardous consumption of alcohol. Evidence has demonstrated the link between drinking at harmful levels and the availability of cheap alcohol. Legislation is an essential component of our wider strategy to reduce alcohol-related harm. We will therefore introduce legislation to enable us to specify a minimum unit price for alcohol in Wales. We have engaged widely about a minimum unit price for alcohol and consulted on a draft Bill at the end of the fourth Assembly. The majority of people who responded to this consultation were in favour of legislating. Members will be aware that the Scottish Parliament passed an Act in 2012 to introduce a minimum unit price for alcohol, and, of course, of the Scottish Court of Session’s decision that the legislation is compatible with EU law, following a legal challenge by the Scotch Whisky Association and others. Now, the appeal by that association is due to be heard by the Supreme Court this summer. We look forward to the conclusion of those proceedings and are monitoring developments closely.

Llywydd, this Government will take legislative action to tackle the fees charged to tenants in the private rented sector. A good-quality, affordable home is key to well-being. There is increasing evidence that suggests the current fees, mainly charged by agents, are a barrier to people accessing private rented housing, and, once accessed, that fees can discourage people from moving home. Tenants can face significant upfront costs, which include a month’s rent, a substantial security deposit and agency fees for securing a tenancy. The fee can be made up of multiple charges but is often a fixed charge or based on a percentage of the property’s rental costs. Too often, tenants do not know what these costs cover. So, we will introduce a Bill to prevent unfair fees from being charged to tenants and their prospective tenants. This will provide those in the private rented sector with clarity about the costs involved and ensure the system is fair, equitable and sustainable.

Llywydd, we will also bring forward legislation to reform the regulatory controls for registered social landlords in Wales. In September 2016, the Office for National Statistics reclassified RSLs into the public sector. As a consequence, any private sector borrowing by RSLs will become a charge against the Welsh Government’s capital budget. The reclassification decision follows a precedent set in England, but it’s also one that faces both the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments. If not addressed, the consequences of this change by ONS are potentially significant. It may severely restrict the development of new affordable housing by RSLs and may also restrict our own ability to fund other capital infrastructure projects. We will therefore reform the relevant regulatory controls the Welsh Government and local authorities have on RSLs, and we believe this will enable the ONS to reconsider the classification of RSLs in Wales and return them to the private sector.

Llywydd, childcare is an important issue for all parents. One of our key commitments as a Government is to provide 30 hours a week of free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds. When fully rolled out, our childcare offer will help to break down the barriers many people face in getting a job. We’re making good progress, and our first childcare pilots will begin in September. To support this and enable the childcare offer to be rolled out in full by 2020, we will introduce legislation to support a national system for applications and eligibility checks. We’re working to develop a system whereby parents can submit their application and information online, which can then be checked against existing data sets to confirm their eligibility. This system will need to be underpinned by legislation. One of the options is to work with HMRC to integrate applications into the existing childcare service.

Llywydd, local authorities are responsible for providing vital services from social care and education to waste collection and management. Our local authorities also provide strategic leadership to their communities. They must be resilient and sustainable if they are to deliver high-quality public services. We have been discussing local government reform for many years in Wales. It’s important we move forward on the basis of consensus. That’s why we’ve engaged extensively with local government colleagues over recent years, culminating in the publication of the White Paper ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’ earlier this year.

Llywydd, we will now bring forward legislation to reform local government in Wales. The Bill will seek to establish a new relationship between the Welsh Government and local government in Wales. It will provide local authorities with a general power of competence and a new performance framework, and will create greater transparency in decision making. But that’s not enough. It is clear that we need to continue to deliver high-quality services and that local authorities must also work differently. The Bill, then, will provide the basis for greater collaboration through mandatory and systematic regional working arrangements. As a whole, our reform proposals will deliver a new legislative framework within which we will create resilient, renewed, and sustainable local government in Wales.

Llywydd, this Government is committed to seeking cross-party support for legislation to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement. We stand firm in our commitment to pursuing a change in the law, and we are continuing to work through the legal complexities to develop a Bill to make this a reality. It’s important we work with stakeholders to ensure that our legislation delivers the outcomes we want and avoids any unintended consequences. We will therefore be consulting on our proposals to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement over the course of the next 12 months and intend to introduce a Bill in the third year of this Assembly term.

Llywydd, last week the UK Government set out its legislative intentions in the Queen’s Speech. That statement included the repeal Bill and other significant Brexit-related Bills. I have previously set out this Government’s position that the devolution settlement must be respected and that the Assembly must be responsible for legislating in devolved areas. I’ve also been clear that where provisions are not agreed between Governments and they do not respect the devolution settlement, we will consider other options, such as a continuity Bill, to protect our devolved interests.

Leaving the European Union will have a significant impact on the business of this Welsh Government and the National Assembly. So, to accommodate the primary and secondary legislation needed for Brexit, the UK Government has announced a two-year legislative programme. It would be naive to assume that it will not also have an impact on our own legislative programme. But it has not yet been possible to determine what that impact will be and when it will emerge. As the picture develops and the impacts become clearer, I will of course keep Members informed.

Llywydd, the Bills we intend to introduce during the second year of this legislative programme will support our efforts to build a Wales that is healthy and active, prosperous and secure, ambitious and learning, and united and connected.

Llywydd, bydd y Biliau rydym ni’n bwriadu eu cyflwyno yn ystod ail flwyddyn y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol yn helpu ein hymdrechion i adeiladu Cymru iach ac egnïol, ffyniannus a diogel, uchelgeisiol ac sy’n dysgu, unedig a chysylltiedig.

I look forward to seeing the Bills come forward and to the scrutiny of committees and Members, and I commend this legislative programme to the National Assembly.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement, and, indeed, the Business Committee and the Llywydd for changing slightly the format of the way this business is going to be transacted this afternoon into statements/debates that hopefully will offer a greater opportunity to scrutinise the proposals the Government have put forward, and hopefully get a full response from the First Minister to the comments that come forward from across the Chamber? So, I thank you, First Minister, for your statement.

I note that there are five Bills that you have outlined today that will form the basis of your legislative programme for the next 12 months. First and foremost, I’d like to welcome the Welsh Government’s proposals to bring forward legislation to combat the plague of letting agents’ fees, a move that has been done under some pressure following the positive action undertaken by Governments in England and Scotland. We support the banning of letting agents’ fees, something towards which Wales is now playing catch up with the rest of Britain, and I am pleased to see the Welsh Government has finally taken action to protect tenants from the additional costs. That said, after being in power for nearly two decades, sadly, this statement does have a feel of groundhog day. Previous programmes have constantly failed to improve the life outcomes for people here in Wales, and warm words and polite lip service sadly offer very little to tackle some of the biggest challenges across Wales.

We, of course, recognise the mandate that the Government has here in the Chamber and, above all, the way it has to bring forward its legislation, but sadly that legislation has left a lot to be desired. The Welsh Conservatives do not believe that the Welsh Government’s legislative programme is ambitious enough for the people of Wales. Apart from the public health Bill, as a hangover from the fourth Assembly, and the additional learning needs Bill, the first Bills do not blaze a trail.

In fact, we’ve had the troubling circumstances involving the additional learning needs Bill, which have exemplified your Government’s slapdash approach to legislation. Ministerial bungling over its cost, the likes of which we’ve seen only too often, has significantly slowed down its passage through the Assembly, to the detriment of children all over Wales. Given the First Minister’s pledge in 2016 that the legislative programme would be published yearly to develop on our practices to ensure they befit the parliamentary responsibilities of this place, what does he make of the fact that the ALN Bill’s financial resolution was postponed—the first time in our legislative history that this has happened—and that the Finance Committee was provided with information of the errors only the day before it took evidence from the Minister?

In 2015, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee specifically recommended a financial memorandum be provided alongside each Bill. Given that the ALN Bill’s regulatory impact assessment contained serious financial errors—£13.1 million to be exact—what measures is your Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government taking to ensure that every Minister’s RIA is financially sound? We are talking about taxpayers’ money at stake here, and it is paramount that the very strongest measures are implemented to protect such cash.

We have, of course, had the introduction to abolishing the right to buy, and the backhanded thank you to the trade unions. I’m sure it’ll come as no surprise that those of us on these benches were extremely disappointed to see these two featured as key planks in the first year of your new Government. It is a big regret to us and one we feel will pull the ladder up on people the length and breadth of Wales.

The introduction of the public health Bill has been unfortunately devoid of any focus to address issues such as obesity and air pollution, while it is now clear that your free childcare offer is very unlikely to deliver, owing to poor funding across the sector. This was, of course, a major pledge made by your party at the last election, and I would appreciate an assessment from your good self on the delivery and likely timescale of this key initiative, as many families will be sitting there wondering what on earth and when on earth it is likely to come to fruition. I do note that the First Minister, in his statement, talked of using existing childcare services.

I’ve sat on the children and young people committee’s scrutiny sessions of both Ministers here—the education Minister and the communities Minister, and the communities Minister has direct responsibility for delivering this—and there does seem to be a difference of opinion as to exactly how this policy will be delivered. I accept that legislation is required to a point, and this is where legislation and policy collide. There are deep concerns as to exactly how the Government will be able to bring both elements to bear so that a successful delivery of this proposal can be brought forward.

I also note, with both amusement and worry, the prospect of yet another local government Bill. We can only hope that it is at least a better attempt than the last shambolic effort witnessed in the fourth Assembly. I would hope that the First Minister will actually be able to deliver on what he pledges to do this time.

Again, I would like to know what your aims are for that Bill and if we are likely to start afresh, or are there some elements of the previous proposals likely to feature? And what role, if any, will the recommendations of the Williams commission play in underpinning this latest legislation? Similarly, how will your Government ensure the wishes of local communities are to be heard in this Bill and the decisions taken on this journey?

I also note, from the First Minister’s statement today, minimum pricing, and the comments yesterday in the House of Commons from David Davis about the need to work with legislatures both in Wales and Scotland, and seek permission from both legislatures as the legislation passes through the House of Commons. This has to be a welcome commitment from the Brexit Secretary.

On minimum pricing, it is important to consider the cross-border issues around legislation that might end up in, obviously, different pricing jurisdictions—something we’ve seen in previous legislation when it comes to the simple commodity of fly-tipping, for example, and the ability, obviously, to move waste across border. I do, whilst offering limited support from these benches on minimum pricing, want to see greater evidence of an ability for this to progress and have the ultimate outcome of improving public health here in Wales, because, undoubtedly, there is a link between high alcohol consumption and poor health, but what we need to be making sure is that the legislation is fit for purpose, and does address the issues of poor health and alcohol and the relation between the two, and doesn’t merely seek to create a back door for a black market of alcohol here in Wales and across the border.

On the reasonable chastisement legislation that the First Minister talks about, we, as Conservatives in this Chamber, have always taken this as a matter of conscience and it will be a free vote from Members within the Conservative group as to the various stages that this legislation will progress through when the Government introduces, firstly, its consultations, I think the statement outlines today, and then, obviously, legislation in the third session, which I think the First Minister talks of in his statement this afternoon.

Within this programme, we would have wanted to see a far greater and more ambitious range of proposals delivering Bills that cover many of the aspects of the needs of the people of Wales. Welsh Conservatives would like to have seen more innovative Bills bought forward, such as a localism and citizenship Bill, which would have brought transparency and local power to the heart of decision making; an economic security and enterprise Bill, which would have created the conditions in which the Welsh private sector could prosper, leading to new skills, jobs and providing economic security to hard-working families the length and breadth of Wales; a health and social care Bill, which would have properly integrated the health system by requiring health and social care providers to work collaboratively; an older people’s rights Bill, which would have enshrined the rights of older people within Wales in Welsh laws; and an NHS governance and finance Bill, which would have delivered greater accountability for patients. And, most probably, the most significant piece of legislation that will have a direct impact on outcomes for communities has come from these benches, with my colleague Paul Davies and his proposals for an autism Bill through the backbench legislation process. As this progresses through its various stages, we hope that this will continue to enjoy cross-party support, and, in time, attract the backing of your Government.

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

After nearly two decades of over-promising and under-delivering, it is a deep regret that the Welsh Government’s legislative programme lacks the ambition and innovative thinking needed to bring the necessary changes. For our country to succeed and to unlock its true potential as a great place to live and work, and to create a truly inclusive society that empowers all, no matter where you come from and what your background, we truly do need a Government that can break the cycle of groundhog day here in Wales.

I had a sense of déjà vu when I saw this legislative programme: minimum alcohol pricing; banning letting agents’ fees; mandatory regional working for local councils and the new childcare offer. They’re all Plaid Cymru policies—four out of the five Bills. But my charge here is not plagiarism; my charge is complacency. These are areas where the Government could have taken action, in some cases, years ago. Removing the defence of reasonable punishment, proposed by Plaid Cymru in February 2014: rejected by Labour. Stopping landlords and agents from charging unfair fees, proposed by Plaid Cymru in November 2015: rejected by Labour. Mandatory regional working by local councils, proposed by Plaid Cymru in June 2015: rejected by the First Minister who claimed it would create another tier of government. Fast forward two years, and we have that regional policy being implemented by Labour almost to the letter. It’s a story that can be found throughout the Welsh Government’s business. We saw it on the new treatment fund, when you claimed in the past that that couldn’t be done; we also saw it on zero-hours contracts— seven times you voted down Plaid Cymru on zero-hours contracts. We’ve seen it on the bedroom tax, where your lack of action means that Wales is the only devolved country where people still have to pay the bedroom tax. People in Wales deserve an agile Government that takes decisive action to solve the problems and injustices facing our country. Instead, they have a Government that takes years to act, and in those years where action hasn’t been taken, people miss out.

One of the most crucial areas that would help parents and working families is the childcare offer. Can the First Minister give me a credible answer today? Why will it take almost an entire Assembly term to get a decent childcare system up and running? You are promising action by 2020. 2020. How does that help parents with children now? Those parents face another three years of having to pay overstretched rates and to fit childcare around their jobs under a system that isn’t fit for purpose. As ever, the problem is a lack of ambition from the Government as a whole. It’s underwhelming and it’s playing catch-up, when Wales deserves a Government that is ahead of the curve.

So, Plaid Cymru will study all of these Bills in detail. We will propose amendments and we will seek to improve what is on the table. And when that happens, it might be an idea for the Labour Government to actually vote for us when they think that we have a good idea, instead of telling us time and time again that what we propose can’t be done.

But aside from those domestic issues, there is another serious legislative challenge hanging over this Assembly, this future Welsh parliament. The UK Government’s great repeal Bill threatens to allow a Westminster power grab. One consequence of leaving the European Union is that powers and frameworks currently exercised at the EU level should return directly to Wales and to the other devolved administrations. But we know from paragraph 4.2 of the great repeal Bill White Paper that the devolved administrations will merely be consulted on those frameworks. In fact, my colleague Simon Thomas predicted this in Plaid Cymru’s response to last year’s legislative statement. He said then, that leaving the European Union would impact environment legislation and agricultural legislation. He also raised the issue of the future of EU farm payments, which are covered by legislation. The common agricultural policy is covered by four basic regulations and the Welsh Ministers are authorised to give effect to the CAP regulations.

Plaid Cymru’s answer to this legislative challenge is a continuity Bill, first proposed by Steffan Lewis AM from Plaid Cymru last November. The Welsh Government has endorsed this principle, but the next step is to make it happen. I note that the First Minister is holding a continuity Bill back as a tool that could be used if the UK Government infringes upon our devolved powers. But a continuity Bill could, and should, be delivered without delay. It could be done as a proactive measure to give Wales some leverage. This Assembly has already endorsed the principle. A continuity Bill in response to the UK Government could well be too little, too late. So, I would urge the First Minister to be more decisive on this; to be quicker and more agile in responding to the complex political situation in the UK; to look again at that decision to hold the continuity Bill back and to now consider bringing one forward at the earliest opportunity.

I hope I can be perhaps a little more positive in my contribution to this debate than the two contributions that we’ve just heard. There is much in the legislative programme that UKIP can support. There are, of course, things that we will oppose. I can certainly agree with what the First Minister said at the end of his statement in relation to a continuity Bill and the Brexit settlement. It clearly would not in any way be supportable if, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has just said, there were to be any kind of power grab from the Westminster Government to reduce the powers that this Assembly already has. I don’t actually believe that that is in prospect at all. It’s another of the demons that the remoaners raise in order to try to continue the referendum campaign from last year, and much good that did them then and will it do them in the future.

As for Plaid Cymru being ahead of the curve, from the speech of the leader of the Plaid Cymru I think it’s more round the bend, as they’ve certainly never been able to explain how they would fill the black hole in the public accounts if Wales were to become politically independent of the rest of the United Kingdom. Because, as we know, Government at all levels spends something like £38 billion a year in Wales, but we raise in tax revenue of all kinds something like £23 billion, leaving a gap equivalent to 25 per cent of Wales’s GDP, which is very much larger than even the deficit that exists in Greece. So, everything that Plaid Cymru has to say in terms of their spending proposals has to be seen in the light of that fundamental flaw.

But we will certainly support the Government on the good features of this legislative programme, and I certainly support the proposal for greater collaboration between local authorities through mandatory and systematic regional working arrangements. I believe also that we do have too many local authorities in Wales, and it would be advantageous if we were to make some reduction in the number, although not as great as the Government previously proposed. We will, of course, support the proposals on registered social landlords, although we will not support the abolition of the right to buy, which seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the housing needs of Wales and would actually make it more difficult to fill the gaps that already exist.

And I am concerned, as is my party, over the proposal for minimum pricing for alcohol—not that we don’t think that there is a problem with excessive drinking amongst a part of the population, but that the proposal for minimum pricing will not address the problem. All indirect taxes are by their nature, as they exist in the United Kingdom, regressive and a minimum price for alcohol would be even more so than the average. It’s also likely to be ineffectual, because the people who are least likely to be bothered about an increase in the minimum price of alcohol are those who are addicted to it. So, this will be a tax upon moderate drinkers, like myself and the majority of the population, whilst doing nothing to address the public health needs of a small minority. There is no real drink problem in the United Kingdom compared with other countries. We are in the middle of the table. [Interruption.] Well, Simon Thomas can speak for himself, of course, on this, but what he gets up to in private I’m not aware of. But if you look at the table of nations’ alcohol consumption per head, the United Kingdom is in the middle of it. In fact, the figures show that alcohol consumption per head has significantly reduced in the last 20 years. In 1998, 75 per cent of men were recorded as having a drink once a week. By 2010, that had fallen to 67 per cent. [Interruption.] And I’m facing reality because I’ve got the figures in front of me. Amongst 16 to 24-year olds, those who drink once a week has fallen from 71 per cent to 48 per cent amongst males, and from 62 per cent to 46 per cent amongst women. Alcohol volumes per person consumed in 2004, per annum, were 9.5 litres; by 2011, that had been reduced to 8.3 litres. That’s a 12 per cent fall in the average consumption of alcohol per head. And alcohol-related deaths, of course, have doubled in that time, despite the figures for male drinking being flat or falling throughout the period.

So, a tax on moderate drinkers is not going to be the answer to the problem, particularly because all the evidence shows that alcohol consumption rises along with income, so the more money you’ve got, the more you spend on alcohol, and the more money you’ve got, the less likely you are to be inhibited from drinking by having a minimum price for alcohol. So, the whole concept to begin with is illogical. So, we’re proposing to target drinks that are disproportionately consumed by low-income people, because champagne drinkers are not likely to be too bothered about this proposal—certainly, Nick Ramsay is nodding in agreement with me over there—but beer drinkers at the lower end of the scale will have to pay more for their favourite tipple. There is no credible evidence to show any link between the alcohol problem and alcohol pricing, which I will certainly go into at greater length when this proposal comes forward for specific consideration. But also, this is the thin end of the wedge. We know that once a power to introduce a tax or to impose a minimum price on anything is introduced then there will be greater and greater pressure forever after to push that up.

So, there’s a bogus moral panic on this issue. If we’re really concerned about addressing the problem of binge drinking, which is, by the way, defined normally as drinking three pints a day—that’s a pretty boring binge as far as I’m concerned—but if we really are interested in introducing measures that are likely to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption amongst problem drinkers, what we should be doing is relating taxes to the strength of alcoholic drinks. This is the big problem that we have today: people preloading by buying supermarket drinks that have a higher alcohol content than the average drinker would consume in a pub. But a minimum unit price is too broad a brush measure to effect that, because it will not single out the source of the problem. So, it’s a very, very blunt instrument indeed.

Whilst there are significant parts of the legislative programme that is before us today that we will support, we will give strong opposition to some of the measures where we do not believe these to be in the public interest. But we wish the Government well in the year ahead and we will do our best to make whatever legislation is put before us in this Assembly as workable as possible insofar as it’s desirable to have it at all.

I just want to pick up on a couple of albeit very different aspects outlined in today’s legislative statement. Firstly, on childcare, I welcome the progress that’s been made with the pilots that have been outlined on the childcare offer and its inclusion for legislation is outlined today. As for many, this is a huge issue for many of my constituents and something that’s been raised with me time and time again in conversation, in correspondence, both prior to the election and in the past year since I have been the Assembly Member for Delyn. Whilst I recognise that it is vitally important that this childcare offer is flexible and the delivery meets the differing needs of working parents, I’m also acutely aware that, for many working parents in my constituency, this most ambitious childcare proposal in the UK and potentially life-changing legislation can’t come soon enough. So, first of all, can I press on the Welsh Government to legislate on this as soon as practically possible so that people across my constituency and across the country don’t miss out on this essential support and key election pledge?

Secondly, on the proposals to introduce a minimum price for alcohol law in Wales in order to deal with the challenges around harmful levels of drinking, fuelled by the availability of cheap and strong alcohol, this is welcome and warranted, but I’d also wonder if the Welsh Government could consider taking this opportunity to address the challenges facing traditional pubs in communities across the country. Many pubs in communities have closed in recent years, and, while pubs remain the hub and heart of many communities, many of which now are also becoming a post office or the village shop, communities currently have very little in their armoury to protect their local public houses from closure, meaning that, according to CAMRA, two pubs continue to close every week here in Wales. I recently became a member of CAMRA myself, which I can assure colleagues was a purely altruistic move to support industry and businesses in my constituency of Delyn. But, in all seriousness, I think something along the lines of an assets of community value scheme could be the difference when it comes to protecting our public houses from further closure in the future, and also the removal of permitted development rights for pubs could empower the community, giving people a direct say before a pub is demolished or converted. So, to wrap up, First Minister, can I urge, as part of any future legislative programme, that steps be taken to support the pub industry in Wales in the future, and steps that allow our communities to have a greater say?

Generally speaking, I welcome the legislative statement today—as Leanne Wood has already outlined, most of it emerges from Plaid Cymru ideas originally, therefore of course we welcome that. It’s interesting to note that it’s the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the One Wales Government, where many of these ideas emerged and have been discussed since that point onwards, including the move towards scrapping the defence of reasonable chastisement. I hope very much that we will see that secured in this Assembly at last. Having said that, the statement is very thin and lacking in imagination.

To be fair to the Government, and trying to look at things from the Government’s perspective, it’s possible that this is intentional, because they may think that we will need to legislate, as a matter of urgency, in terms of Brexit and some of the issues emerging from Westminster, and the concept that we as Plaid Cymru have in terms of a continuity Bill in the area of the environment and agriculture. Therefore, in responding after his statement, and in responding to the debate, I would like to hear from the First Minister whether there is space in the legislative programme for these possibilities—not only the continuity Bill but what’s likely to emerge from the around 2,000 pieces at least of legislation relating to Europe that are now going to be discussed over the next two years in Westminster.

In turning to some of the other issues contained within the statement, I would like to know a little more about the intentions in relation to local government. Clearly, we’re interested here in seeking confirmation that we are extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds for local authority elections, and confirmation of that would be positive.

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has stated in the past that he wants to provide the option of a single transferrable vote—proportional voting—to local authorities. I think that’s a missed opportunity, and that something as important as STV needs to be extended to all authorities. So, I would like to hear how the Government is going to work with the majority, I believe, that exists in this Senedd in favour of STV in local government to ensure that this particular Bill reflects not only the view of the Labour Party but the view of the majority in this parliament.

I am also concerned that there is so much delay in terms of childcare. I accept that we need to legislate for doing anything in terms of data sharing—you need a statutory foundation for that—but there are things that the Government could do now far more swiftly in the field of childcare in terms of extending those rights to far more parents, particularly young mothers. I would like to hear that we don’t have to wait to legislate on data in order to ensure that an appropriate childcare offer is available to all families in Wales.

There are a number of things missing from this programme, too. There are a few things that are looking forward—this is the legislative programme for a year, and there are a few things that look forward, for example, in relation to scrapping the reasonable chastisement defence, and, possibly, issues around Brexit. May I suggest three things that I would like to see the Government doing, if not next year then certainly over the next two years, whilst starting preparations during this legislative year? First of all, a ban on fracking in Wales. The powers will be with us early next year, when we, as a parliament, will be able to ban fracking. I would like to see the Government propose how we could do that. Secondly, a deposit-return scheme: the possibility of ensuring that bottles, particularly plastic bottles and all sorts of plastics that are difficult to recycle and do end up as waste on our beaches, in our seas, and inside our wildlife—that that should be costed so that that cost can be repaid and so reduce the use of these plastics. That could be achieved with new powers. Finally, as has been discussed a few times today already, tackling the problem of gambling, and, as we get to grips with a few powers—not many, but some powers—in terms of fixed-odds terminals, that we look at the possibilities of tackling that issue.

The final point that I want to make, and it is a question, in a way, to the First Minister: although, of course, we are unhappy that there was no separate jurisdiction for Wales provided in the most recent Wales Act, what are the possibilities now that we could continue to press for that? I assume that the Government hasn’t changed its view on a separate legal jurisdiction, so I would like to know what the next steps are for the Government in terms of achieving that.

I’d like to congratulate the Government on its plans set out here in the legislative programme for the next year. I particularly welcome the progress that we’re going to make on the 30 hours a week of free childcare offer, because I think that’ll be of huge importance to parents, and I do think that this is a very ambitious pledge, and it’s absolutely essential that we work it out in the way that is most beneficial to parents. Because, obviously, it will give the opportunity to parents to work, but it will also be good for the children as well.

So, I welcome the fact that we are having pilots and that we are trying to work out the best way to do it, because certainly I’ve had many constituents coming to me explaining some of the difficulties of linking in the foundation phase with child carers and another childcare system, and I hope that, by approaching it in this way of having pilots, that will be the best way to address it. But I don’t think we should talk down this issue. It is the best offer in the UK and will be absolutely transformational, so I do think this is a very ambitious plan, and I commend it.

I also welcome the steps on the minimum pricing of alcohol and the letting agents’ fees for tenants in the private rented sector. I was surprised that the Conservatives didn’t see this as of major importance, because, really, housing is such a crucial issue, and, if you have to pay upfront such a lot of money to get into private rented accommodation, that is a real, severe situation. That, surely, is exactly what we should be doing as a priority. So, I welcome that as well, and certainly welcome the consensual way we are moving forward on local government.

So, I think that these issues that are proposed are real issues that affect people in Wales on a day-to-day basis and they’re offering practical help for people in the way that they live. I think that is one of the reasons why Welsh Labour continues to have its positive results in its elections, because these issues are issues that are very important to people in Wales.

I’d also like to welcome the Welsh Government’s plans to consult about the law about the physical punishment of children, and I hope that this will lead to all children in Wales receiving equal protection from physical punishment in the same way as adults have this protection. I wondered if, in his final response, the First Minister might be able to give any possible timetable for the consultation over the next year, and what form the consultation would take. We did debate this issue on many occasions during the previous Assembly, but I don’t think we’ve actually had a substantial debate in this Assembly, and I think it’s worth reiterating the fact that, in all, 52 countries have introduced legislation prohibiting all physical punishment of children—that includes in the home—and Sweden was the first, nearly 38 years ago.

Among the most recent is the Republic of Ireland, which removed the defence of reasonable chastisement in December 2015, and Canada’s Government declared its intention to prohibit all physical punishment of children also in December 2015, and, in March this year, Zimbabwe has banned corporal punishment of children by parents and teachers. There’s also a private Member’s Bill currently being discussed in the Scottish Parliament, and the outgoing Scottish children’s commissioner, Tam Baillie, said in May this year that the biggest regret of his eight-year term was not repealing the defence of reasonable assault, as it is called in Scotland. He told the Herald Scotland newspaper in April that the UK was one of only five European countries that do not fully protect children from physical punishment. He said that even children who are living in Zimbabwe are better protected than those in Scotland. In May, the UK’s four children’s commissioners addressed a UN committee in Switzerland and called for the law to be changed to protect children and young people here.

So, public opinion is changing. In Northern Ireland, surveys have shown that views about physical punishment are changing, with the majority of people in Northern Ireland now supporting children being legally protected from hitting, smacking and assault. So, in conclusion, I do welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment. I look forward to the consultation period and I do feel that this is a forward, ambitious move by a forward and ambitious Government.

Before I respond to the actual legislative programme, can I just pick up on one point that Simon Thomas made about the issue of plastics and plastics in the marine environment, as well? Whilst it doesn’t figure in here, I suspect this is something we’re going to need to return to, and I might suggest at the end of my short question to the First Minister where that might actually be done as well. But I shouldn’t worry too much about the allegations of déjà vu or groundhog day or whatever. It’s the old nostrum: you tell people what you’re going to do, you do it, and then you tell them afterwards that you’ve done it for them. We produced the manifesto. We’re getting on with the manifesto. We’ll deliver it, and people will thank us for doing it as well, and not least, I have to say, in taking forward proposals that are in this legislative programme on childcare. It is, as Julie Morgan and others have said, the most ambitious childcare package, and anything, particularly the proposals in here that make it easier in terms of registration for people, and clearer on the registration as well, will be welcome, in addition, I have to say, to the measures that have already been announced. We’re not going to have to wait until 2020 for this. It will be phased forward. So, there will be benefits each year as we go forward. I do welcome that.

On the minimum unit pricing on alcohol, yes, this is a difficult issue, yes it’s a contentious issue, but I have to say it’s exactly the sort of progressive policy that this Assembly should be looking at. And it isn’t to do with pricing people out. We can’t be puritanical about this, and I certainly can’t be puritanical about this. I’m not going to put knee breeches on and a black stovepipe hat and say ‘I’m now joining the temperance movement’—although I have to say my old Labour Party branch used to meet in the Rechabite Hall in Gowerton, one of the forerunners of the temperance movement. They weren’t all temperance people themselves, I have to say, amongst those Labour Party people. But this is the right thing to do, because, again, it’s part of that signalling of the responsible use of alcohol. It’s not saying to people ‘Do not drink, do not have a drink, and do not celebrate’. It’s not that, but it is about managing alcohol within lifestyles, because it isn’t only to do to with the individual. It is also, I have to say to Neil and others, about the impacts of this not only on individual health but on the costs to the NHS as well. And I know that he will recognise that. It’s not the fact of one, two or three pints a day; it’s when it adds up on a regular basis, and that adds to mortality issues and so on. I see it in my own constituency.

I welcome very much the legislation on greater collaboration and efficiency in local government. I have to say that that builds on the work that has been done by the Cabinet Secretary sitting to the First Minister’s left there, and it goes with the flow of local government thinking in Wales now, which is to drive more efficiency and to drive more collaboration. But giving it that push, giving it that shove, I think is welcome, and it will be welcomed by those progressive forces within Welsh local government as well.

I welcome the fact that within the statement the First Minister did pay regard to the continuity Bill. I won’t get into who mooted it first and so on and so forth, but I do understand why it’s not being worked up as a Bill in itself. But I welcome the fact that it has been mentioned, because I think all of us in this Chamber would hope that a continuity Bill would not have to be prepared and would not have to be used. But, as a backstop, I have to say—as the big stick being carried behind your back there—I think it needs to be quite clear to the UK Government that if they were to overstep the mark here, and we were to see damage to the devolution settlement because of lack of respect, ignorance, or whatever, then I think we need to have that thought going on within Government and within the civil service.

But the thing that I would like to see brought forward—and it is an early bid, if you like, and it comes back to this issue around the plastics—. Last week, a consultation began by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs. It was called ‘Taking forward Wales’ sustainable management of natural resources’. We have shown such leadership in Wales on the natural environment over the last few years, not only in legislation, but in groundbreaking policy as well. Within that consultation, it deals with issues such as access to the outdoors. Nothing is more political than access to the outdoors. Taking a step in front of each other in the open countryside is the most political act ever, ever since the Kinder Scout trespass. That is an interesting piece of work that I suspect if we bring it forward will need a legislative slot at some point, whatever shape that will take.

There are also things in there to do with water abstraction—a critical issue, as we know—and drainage, and waste in environment policy. But my favourite, most of all, are sanctions under section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—the ability to tackle rogue operators who do not treat waste the way they should, who dump it illegally, who do not look after it, and where they are dumping it, and so on and so forth. It’s the ability to step in as Government and to give power to that Act and say ‘We’re going to put padlocks on, we’re going to stop you doing that.’ So, my bid would be, if we do have the opportunity in the near future, along with the legislation on plastics, which might possibly be weaved into that consultation somehow—let’s look for the slot for that within the legislative programme in future.

I completely agree with the previous two speakers on many of these issues. I’d just like to remind Neil Hamilton that whilst we do not aspire to have Polish, Russian or Finnish levels of alcohol consumption, we are one of the highest consumers of alcohol in Europe. And I would invite him to come down to Cardiff city centre on any Saturday night, and he will see the consequences of young people consuming excessive levels of cheap alcohol, which is what the minimum unit pricing is designed to limit. Because there’s huge amount of research that shows that it’s by setting a minimum price that you prevent those who are least able to deal with the consequences of alcohol—. Too many young people in the city centre are consuming so much cheap alcohol that they absolutely have no idea where they are, or the consequences, or the risk to their safety. So, I completely support the Government’s legislation in this regard, and I welcome we’re bringing it forward now.

I was very surprised to hear Leanne Wood have this glass-half-empty attitude towards practically everything in the legislative statement, given that she must have been consulted in advance on what was in it. And, as she ought to know, childcare isn’t about warehousing children; it is about developing quality childcare and early education, and that takes time, to ensure that we’ve got the right people in place in the right facilities, in the interests of children.

Anyway—. Obviously, I am delighted that the Government is going to bring forward legislation to ban letting agency fees, because it’s perfectly clear to me that—. I was very surprised to hear Andrew R.T. Davies suggest that this was something that the English Government was seizing on, because I’ve yet to see whether or not this lame-duck UK Government is going to be capable of bringing forward such legislation. But anyway, I’m delighted that we’re pushing forward regardless on that, because it does cause a huge amount of harm to many of my constituents—it’s the letting agencies who are charging outrageous sums for often just changing three words in a contract.

But I also just wanted to raise one other matter, which is: we’re talking about the transparency of decision making, and I agree that is absolutely crucial. But, in light of the inadequacy of the current hands-off building regulations, exposed by the appalling fire in Grenfell Tower, it isn’t just about allowing contractors to stick firelighters on the side of high-rise buildings, which is supposedly to improve their energy efficiency. We have to, in my view, find legislative time for a wholesale review of the building regulations, to prevent developers dressing up shoddy building work as so-called luxury development. And there are countless examples of that in my constituency, and throughout the centre of Cardiff.

We have to restore the independent regulatory powers of local authorities to insist that their independent building inspectors sign off new construction, to ensure it is safe and compliant, before that work has been plastered over. Because it is impossible to see what has gone on behind, once the plaster has been sealed. We have to call a day on sick buildings being created all in the name of profit, and ensure that the buildings we are creating with our limited resources are fit for the future, and not just for the next few years.

Finally, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to talk specifically to the minimum unit price for alcohol. Some of you may know that I’m a former licensee, and I have witnessed people who have thought, very often, that they were in control of what they drank. After all, they only came in for one, maybe two, pints on a regular basis, after work. But, the next week, they might have three pints, and so it went on. Even if they only had two pints every single day—and that was very often the norm—it became a habit. And that is the problem with alcoholism. It becomes a habit, and it becomes a need, and it becomes a dependency, and it builds and gathers momentum within the individual.

I have seen both men and women absolutely destroyed by dependency on alcohol. They were living very fruitful lives before that dependency grew. It is a real addiction, it does take over the individual, but it also costs their family, and I’ve also seen the result of that. So, needless to say, I will be supporting the minimum unit price for alcohol, because there is no doubt—. I do agree with the previous speaker when they said that individuals go to the supermarket, they are picking up alcohol as cheaply as they can, they are pouring it down their throats—and that’s the only way to describe it—before they even go out onto the street. It is also destroying public houses, and it was within the public house sector that most of the drinking was actually contained, and people were curtailed in what they drank by the norms of society, in most cases. I do think that there are huge, huge problems with supermarkets selling drink. You see offers all of the time. You only have to walk through the door and you can buy 20 or 30 cans of whatever it is for £10 or £20. That is a really dangerous way to be selling a product that can cause so much misery. So, I absolutely support that.

We must also remember, when we’re talking about dependency on alcohol, that it costs business vast amounts of money for the lost working days every single year; that it costs families, very often, their home; and society in the way that was described by Jenny Rathbone just now. But it also costs our NHS money every single weekend of every single year, and it costs the staff very often, who are affected by those individuals who come in with their brutish behaviour towards the staff. So, I most definitely will be, as you can tell, supporting the minimum unit price for alcohol. I actually think it is forward thinking, and I do commend the Government for putting it in their programme.

I call on the First Minister to reply.

Could I thank Members, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the comments that they have made? If I could start with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, I wrote down here in response to his first comments, ‘What does he want?’ He did go on to say what he would be looking for: a localism and citizenship Bill, an economic security Bill and a people’s rights Bill. I have no idea what they mean, but, nevertheless, I’m sure he will make that clear over the course of the next few months.

One of the things, of course, that we have to realise is that Brexit will dominate. Several speakers have made this point. We will have to make room for Brexit-related legislation—a substantial amount of room, as well, I suspect, over the course of the next year or two, and, indeed, beyond that. That is something that will need to be considered in the light of next year’s legislative statement.

He makes the point about the regulatory impact assessment with regard to the ALN Bill. He is right to say that concerns have been raised about the robustness of the RIA. A review of that RIA has taken place, and there will be a revised version in the autumn. The scrutiny, of course, of that has been shown to introduce issues to the Government that the Government needs to address, and that is right, as part of the scrutiny process.

I’m grateful to you for taking the intervention. The Bill is widely supported, and, hopefully, when it reaches the statute book, it will achieve the aims that are set out. But to be so wide of the mark on the financials of the Bill is of huge concern given all the work that has been done, as I referred to—the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on this matter. It is one thing that comes from partner agencies and organisations: that when legislation is passed in this place, resource doesn’t follow the legislation. So, can you enlarge on why there was such a discrepancy between the original estimate and the final outcome that’s been given to the Finance Committee?

Well, we have made changes to the way RIAs are developed and presented. Revised guidance has been produced that sets out a more clearly defined and staged approach to the development of the RIA, and it provides publishing a draft RIA as part of the policy consultation in order that people can have a better sight of the RIA and at an earlier stage.

I’m not surprised that he doesn’t support the trade union Bill. That needs to be passed before, of course, the competences change, and that is something that we are keen to do.

The right to buy is something I’m sure we will discuss over the course of the next year. From the perspective of the Government, it makes no sense to build houses while at the same time selling them off—in other words, filling the bath when the plug is out.

On the childcare offer, which has been raised, well, as I said earlier on, the pilots are beginning in September. That will roll out then. It is right that this is done properly. ‘Get it right and don’t mess it up’ is the phrase that I always use, and so these things take a little time in order to get them absolutely right.

On the local government Bill, the objective of the Bill, quite simply, is to have better and more sustainable local authorities. There will be mandatory working as part of that Bill. It’s not the intention of the Bill to impose mergers of the local authorities, though that option will be available to them. It is right to say that there will be mandating of cross-boundary working in order for there to be better delivery in local authorities.

There is the issue of the minimum unit price Bill in terms of alcohol. Cross-border issues are always an issue. They’re an issue between Scotland and England. They’re an issue, for that matter, between Northern Ireland and the republic. They do have to be managed—that much is true—but that’s not a reason not to do something.

In terms of what the leader of Plaid Cymru said—‘complacent plagiarism’, I think, was the description that she may have meant. We don’t accept that all. Everything that we are producing is in our manifesto—the manifesto we were elected on. She raises reasonable chastisement; well, there was no mandate in the last Assembly for us to move forward with reasonable chastisement—there is now. There is now. That is something that we intend to take forward, as I’ve said, and in answer to my colleague Julie Morgan: consultation over the next 12 months and the Bill introduced in the third year of the Assembly. That is the timetable that we are talking about here.

The leader of Plaid Cymru mentioned the new treatment fund as being her party’s idea—not so. If I remember rightly, it was a cancer drugs fund that her party were keen to advocate, towards the end of the last Assembly. The new treatment fund is different. And on zero-hours contracts, as she knows, this is something that we have sought to deal with, and with new powers we are able to do that.

In terms of Brexit, she is right to say, again, that Brexit will take up a great deal of legislation. I don’t think that Simon Thomas, with the greatest respect, had the largest of crystal balls when he said, last year, that this would be a problem for farm payments and the environment. We knew this, and he is right. He’s still right, but I’m going to credit him with extensive gifts of foresight in those circumstances. We shared a number of these issues last year, and they, of course, will need to be dealt with.

A continuity Bill, it is right to say, was first raised by Steffan Lewis. I give him credit for that. It is something that we have been working on. It’s not the case that nothing has happened in the meantime, and I want to make sure that when and if a Bill is required—bearing in mind what was said by David Davis yesterday, and I don’t take that necessarily at face value at this stage—then such a Bill would be ready to bring, if that is appropriate.

In terms of what the leader of UKIP said, well, he talked extensively about the minimum unit pricing of alcohol Bill. Let’s bear in mind this is a health Bill. First of all he said that it is a regressive tax, which indirect taxes tend to be. He is right about that in some ways, but then he said, of course, the more you earn the more you drink, which makes it sound like a progressive tax, because it’s based on income. I have to say to him that if you turn the argument around, if you say that the price of something doesn’t deter somebody from partaking in it, it’s similar to the price of cigarettes—it’s similar to the price of cigarettes. Yes, people are aware of the health effects of cigarettes, but one of the reasons why many people reduce their smoking levels or stop smoking is because the price of cigarettes is so high they don’t want to spend their money anymore, and so, you know, that worked, as far as tobacco was concerned.

The other thing to bear in mind is, even though this is health legislation, and the point was made by Joyce Watson, one of the reasons why alcohol has become—. Probably, the main reason why alcohol has become so cheap—and he made the point himself; people are loading up at home, as he put it—is that supermarkets and pub chains are able to undercut traditional pubs, and as a result they have suffered. One of the indirect consequences of such legislation could well be that it put those pubs on a more equal footing with the supermarkets and, of course, with pub chains, who have been able to undercut, because of the lack of a minimum unit price, the offer that is made by rural pubs, and by community pubs, who have not been able to compete with them. So, even though this is a health measure—there is no question about that—there potentially is that indirect effect in terms of those pubs that have found it hard to compete.

A gaf i droi, felly, at beth ddywedodd Simon Thomas? Mae’n iawn i ddweud bod rhaid i ni, wrth gwrs, adael lle i beth sy’n mynd i ddigwydd ar ôl Brexit, ac mae hynny’n mynd i effeithio ar yr amser a fydd ar gael i ni yn y Cynulliad hyn i symud deddfwriaeth trwyddo.

Ynglŷn â sicrhau pleidlais i’r rheini sydd yn 16 oed mewn etholiadau awdurdodau lleol, rydym ni o blaid hynny. Mae hynny’n rhan o’r Bil ei hunan. I ateb ei gwestiwn ef ynglŷn ag STV a’r system bleidleisio, wel, wrth gwrs rydym ni wedi ymladd yn y lle hwn i reoli’r system sydd yn ethol Aelodau’r lle hwn, felly mesur o ddatganoli yw hwn—sicrhau bod cynghorau eu hunain yn gallu dweud pa fath o system sydd yn berthnasol iddyn nhw, ac nid ein bod ni fel Llywodraeth yn dweud wrthyn nhw pa system y dylen nhw ei dilyn.

Fe gododd e sawl cwestiwn diddorol ar ôl hynny ynglŷn â ffracio—rhywbeth i’w ystyried y flwyddyn nesaf, efallai—ynglŷn â blaendaliadau ynglŷn â ‘plastics’, ac ynglŷn â gamblo. Bach iawn o bwerau a fydd gyda ni, ond, wrth gwrs, rhaid ystyried ym mha ffordd y gallwn ni newid y sefyllfa. Ynglŷn â’r awdurdod cyfreithiol, mae’n iawn dweud bod barn Llywodraeth Cymru ddim wedi newid. Mae gwaith wedi cael ei wneud ynglŷn ag ym mha ffordd y gallwn ni symud hwn ymlaen, a bydd yna ddatganiad ar hwn, y byddwn i’n meddwl nawr, yn yr hydref, ynglŷn â beth fyddai cynlluniau Llywodraeth Cymru er mwyn sicrhau bod hwn ddim yn marw fel mater—fel ‘issue’—dros y misoedd nesaf.

I welcome the comments then made by my colleagues Julie Morgan, Huw Irranca-Davies and Jenny Rathbone, and the welcome they gave to legislation. Can I acknowledge, of course, the principled stance and the work that the Member for Cardiff North, Julie Morgan, has put into the issue of reasonable chastisement? She has met with me several times, as did my former colleague Christine Chapman, making the point forcefully that this is something that we should take forward. I hope that she now sees that the conversations we had had an effect, if I can put it that way, and there is now a timetable in place.

Just to deal with the issue that Jenny Rathbone, Member for Cardiff Central, raised, yes, it is right to say that building regulations may need to be looked at in the aftermath of what happened with the Grenfell Tower. Of course, they are regulations that can be dealt with through secondary legislative procedures rather than through primary legislation, but she is right to say that it’s absolutely crucial that we can satisfy ourselves that the building regulation regime is independent and robust, and that is something, certainly, I know the Minister is very keen to examine and to take forward.

On that basis, as I said earlier on, Dirprwy Lywydd, I would commend the statement to the Assembly.

Thank you very much.