Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I note that in the Welsh Government’s legislative programme, you’re now proposing to legislate in the area of letting agency fees, which I think is a welcome development. There was support from various opposition parties and some Members of your own party for this, so I’m glad that you are now moving towards legislating in this area. Now, I know you needed to consider evidence from elsewhere before you took any action. I wondered where your considerations had led you to. I know there were possible issues over whether, if letting agency fees were banned, it would lead to rent being pushed up instead. I know that research was undertaken about the effects of doing this in Scotland, so I wondered what your thoughts were on this or any other related issue.

I’m very pleased I can count on the support of the UKIP Members in taking forward our legislation on letting agency fees, which it is our intention to introduce, as the First Minister make clear yesterday. The sticking point was purely that of displacement of cost, and we would have to be convinced that the displacement of cost wasn’t attributed to the rents by letting agents. I know many Members, including Jenny Rathbone on our benches, have been keen to pursue this very issue.

Thanks for that, and I hope that the legislation is taken forward and is, ultimately, effective. But going on to another issue that was covered in ‘Taking Wales Forward’: nursery places. There was a Welsh Government commitment to providing 30 hours a week of free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds. The intention was to pilot new schemes starting this coming September to cover approximately 10 per cent of eligible families. So, I wondered what information there was about where the pilots will take place and on what basis your decision was taken as to why to initiate in those particular areas.

I’ve issued several statements on the childcare pledge, and I’m really looking forward to the start of that programme developing from September of this year. Indeed, in Blaenau Gwent, in my colleague Alun Davies’s constituency, the whole of Blaenau Gwent will be considered as a pilot scheme, and, therefore, our young children having free childcare places for working parents. This is the most dynamic childcare pledge in the whole of the UK, which we’re starting to pilot here in Wales. I would refer the Member to my statement in terms of the areas that this will be conducted in. They were chosen from offers made by local authorities in terms of which could come forward with the scheme at this point in time. But let me give reassurance to the Member, all authorities across Wales, by the end of this term of Government, will have full coverage of our childcare pledge in Wales.

Thanks for that, and I look forward to that happening. Just moving on to an issue that we talked about last week, in the aftermath of the Grenfell Tower disaster, now I know you made a statement on this to the Chamber, so we have discussed these issues—. One thing that has arisen as a possible problem in tackling regulation in Wales is the split of responsibilities between yourself and your colleague Lesley Griffiths, in that Lesley Griffiths’s responsibilities, I believe, cover the building regulations side, whereas you’re in charge of fire and rescue services and community fire safety. So, I just wondered what your thoughts were on that and how you would tackle the difficulty of that split.

Let me give reassurance to the Member again: there is no difficulty in terms of responsibility within the Welsh Government on this. I am the lead Minister on this, including the building regulations side, and the fire risk to any properties in Wales. I have had several meetings with the UK Government, and my Scottish and English counterparts, on this. This is a very live issue, which we are taking very seriously. I work very closely with Lesley Griffiths’s department, but I am the lead Minister.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Jenkins.

Diolch. It’s been three months since the announcement of the 1,600-capacity men’s prison in Port Talbot. And I just wanted to probe further on your response from last time I raised this. I didn’t believe that you were clear and forthright enough when you made a statement to the Assembly on 22 March regarding the level of engagement that you had had with the Ministry of Justice. The prisons Minister has confirmed, in a letter dated 31 May to me, that your department proactively helped the MOJ to identify sites, and that’s a little bit more than ‘had discussions’, which was all that you said at the time. On 22 March, you also said, and I quote,

‘there are many questions that remain unanswered by the MOJ.’

Since it has been confirmed by the prisons Minister that you were engaged in the process before the news became public, why don’t you have more answers regarding the MOJ’s intentions?

I think the Member’s being rather overzealous in her questioning to me. I was very clear to her: I had one discussion with the prisons Minister prior to his announcement, which was on the day. Indeed, my team, and a team of other officials from another department, were engaged with the prisons Minister’s department in terms of deciding and offering sites that were available right across the south Wales region, which I know the Member is clear on also.

Can I just ask then, why did you just have one conversation? If you had offered those sites, surely it would have been good for you, as a Cabinet Secretary, to be proactive in actually taking on some of the concerns that you would have prior to that public announcement. I’ve seen a list of quite a number of sites, which has clearly been given by your department. Were questions raised, such as, was this category C prison needed? The Wales Governance Centre has proven in research that such a size of a prison is not necessary for Wales. There’s no women’s prison, so why not have conversations with the MOJ with regard to expansion in that regard?

Can I just get an idea as to what ongoing conversations you’re having, to satisfy the people of Port Talbot that you are making every effort to make them aware of releasing the land, where that location will be—hopefully, it won’t be happening, but where the location you have identified would be—and how they will be kept informed of the process ongoing, via yourself, not just the UK Government?

I think what the Member is trying to relate to is the fact that, trying to develop an argument that this is our project. It isn’t our project. And it’s the same exactly with any other business investment that comes to Wales, whether that’s private or public sector. An engagement process takes place on land availability, and that is an action that takes place on a daily, weekly basis here.

I recognise the point the Member makes, in terms of, once the decision has been made by the UK Government, our engagement process has to start there, about the ability for what we think is appropriate for Wales. I have started that discussion currently, but it wouldn’t be fair to say that the decision of making a prison site here in Wales was a Welsh Government one. This is an application coming from the UK Government.

But it would have been within your gift to have allocated that land for something else, prior to now having a prison. So, that’s something that we’ll argue about again, in the future.

I want to have one question about fire safety. Although you said last week that there were no buildings with the particular type of cladding used in Grenfell Tower, the BBC reported yesterday that tower blocks were being tested for similar aluminium composite material, ACM, cladding, such as in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board. I’d like you to clarify a number of things, if you could, because statements from the Welsh Government have been less clear than they should have been in recent days.

For example, you’ve initially suggested the testing was voluntary. You said last week that you would urge local authorities who want to test cladding to do so. Do you think a stronger statement from the get-go would have been better? There hasn’t been much clarification since. The Welsh Government has said that it is telling local authorities who suspect use of ACM in tower blocks that they need to test their buildings. But a Welsh Government spokesperson also added that the Welsh Government does not have the powers to compel any local authority to test their buildings, but added that it was encouraging them to do so. I’m seeing a variety of words—‘need’, ‘encourage’, ‘compel’. Can I get some clarity on what is actually being done, and what you have the power to actually do, so that we can satisfy our minds that, with regard to Welsh buildings, we’re doing all we can?

Okay. Let’s take the two points that the Member raises. First of all, the Member’s incorrect in her assertion that I had an option in terms of the land issue regarding the prison. The Member said that we would discuss this at a further date, and I am more than happy to do that.

The second point, and a very important one with regard to fire safety, is that my understanding, through advice, is that I don’t have the powers to compel authorities or RSLs to conduct tests, because they are an entity in and of themselves. But what I have done is had contact with all of these. I don’t believe it is in any of the interests of the RSLs or local authorities not to test where they see or perceive risk. And that hasn’t come back to me in terms of where they wouldn’t do that. And that discussion continues.

The advice I received last week—and it stands today—is that the ACM product that was used in the Grenfell fire disaster is not in place in any of our buildings here in Wales, but there are ACM panels, which I have also instructed authorities to have tested on the basis of fire integrity. I’m seeking advice from my senior fire adviser and a panel of individuals who can give us professional advice on the integrity of buildings. But I think we are learning more each day, and I had a long conversation with the UK administration yesterday about ACM products, about insulation, and about the integrity of whole units. And that’s what we’ve got to consider here: making sure that the first and foremost position for myself, as Minister with responsibility, is the safety of residents in these premises.

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. In the summer edition of the Bevan Foundation’s ‘Exchange’ newsletter, the director of the Bevan Foundation, in an article entitled, ‘Learning to Love Local’ says that the January 2017 White Paper, ‘Reforming Local Government: Resilient and Renewed’, once again focuses on collaboration, and she then says that, essentially, the public is being asked to agree to major changes in how local services are delivered without knowing how they can make their views heard, which clearly falls more into your portfolio.

The Building Communities Trust is working with the Talwrn network of Welsh third sector organisations and the community branch of the union Unite, identifying the key factors in developing the community resilience at local level that would deal with the issue raised by the Bevan Foundation, and state that they’ve already engaged with Ministers and civil servants in the Welsh Government on these issues, which include looking at the Rhondda Cynon Taf public services model, working with the third sector to develop a local community well-being approach, using asset-based community development—that’s people’s strengths. And they go on to say that independent community organisations are well-placed to effectively deliver local services, from social care to family support and employability, and hosting these provisions by others. I wonder if you could tell us what discussions you’ve therefore had with this organisation and their partners, and what actions, if any, might result from that.

I haven’t had a conversation with those particular organisations, but I will check to see whether my team have. In terms of the first point on local government reorganisation, I think what’s important is that there will be a consultation process, which Mark Drakeford will lead on, not myself, but I do have conversations with Mark about community resilience and what that looks like. I think the Member is right in terms of the fact that local need and local influence have to have a purpose in developing policy and the delivery of services. We are working in a very different financial environment as we stand, and therefore, I would encourage third sector organisations, or local organisations, to get engaged with the PSBs, and a good example the Member raised was the RCT one, the Rhondda Cynon Taf PSB. It’s something that I’m engaged with very closely, in terms of delivering a children’s zone within that particular area. And they’re taking that as part of their well-being assessment.

Thank you. I think the key message from that project was the need for independent third sector organisations to be involved in design and delivery with the statutory sector— adopting models that weren’t introduced originally in the situation of budget constraint or austerity or whatever you want to call it; they were introduced because they made life better.

One of the organisations, as an example, that’s working in communities with young people to unlock those assets, those strengths, is ScoutsCymru. They carried out a number of independent evaluations and independent assessments in 2011, and found that 89 per cent identified that Scouting had helped them build key skills, including social, team working and leadership. A more recent report on the employability of young people in Scouting has found that this had helped them develop the skills that they need in work and helped their future employability. This year, Edinburgh University released the results of a study into mental well-being, finding a positive impact on those who participated in Scouting or Guiding throughout their lives.

Concerns have been raised by ScoutsCymru regarding Flintshire—and I’m not picking on Flintshire, but it’s just that they tell me that it’s thus far the only county that’s done this—regarding the removal of discretionary rate relief from Scout groups and the impact that that’s going to have, particularly on young people from poorer backgrounds. They’ve also been refused access to the hardship fund, where they say that the work that they’re doing is actually providing assets to the community and helping the local authority do more with the resource available. While you may not want to be specific about Flintshire, what actions can you take to engage with local authorities to recognise that projects such as this are actually part of doing things better and not an easily disposable cost?

Of course, and I think there are a couple of points there with regard to the independence of organisations. I and the Member meet many independent organisations that do a great job on a day-to-day basis in all of our communities, but we just can’t fund them all. But access to projects and access to influence is something that I would share with the Member in terms of developing well-being strategies for local authorities. It’s a good idea and the Member alludes to ScoutsCymru and the Girl Guides, which all have a positive effect in general on the mental well-being of young people and their health. I support that.

With regard to the very specific question, Flintshire aside, I am familiar with the issue that the Member raises and I think that for one of the Scout groups involved in that, the actual cost—and while I recognise that the Member is raising a general principle of investment—the actual cost to the Scout group is £1 per week in terms of the increase in their rateable value or the rate cost. I think it’s around that number. Notwithstanding that, I do recognise that the value of Scouts and other organisations have to be considered in terms of a very challenged financial settlement for local authorities. But I do, and I think they do also, value the contribution that they make to our communities.

Finally then, in the context of helping local authorities and other public sector bodies understand how this can improve lives, it’s about early intervention and prevention and saving money for the statutory services that they provide, so it’s actually a part of that agenda. You might be aware, and if not, hopefully you will be now, that in Flintshire, as has happened elsewhere in Wales, there’s going to be a third sector conference on 7 September, ‘Co-production in Practice’, looking at the principles of co-production, early intervention, adverse childhood experiences, strengthening the power of the third sector and building resilient communities. You may be already aware of it—I asked that you be invited—but, if not, and your diary is free, will you consider attending?

Of course, I am aware of that event and I will give that some further consideration. As the Member will appreciate, my diary does get rather busy at times, but if I can come along, I will do so.

I’m absolutely in the same space as the Member in terms of early intervention and prevention, but we’ve got to work on this together because if you come to us, saying, ‘Look, the waiting times in some of our hospitals are increasing and there is pressure there’, then my colleagues will have to react to that because of the political will around that. But, actually, if we have a clever investment upfront in our young people, and that’s what, as a children’s Minister, I’m trying to do on a daily basis, we can actually prevent some of the A&E pressure and the longer term illnesses, but we’ve got to work together; we can’t be critical at both ends. This is a transition of support for families and individuals, and I hope that the Member can get on board and support us with that.