It's a pretty punchy review, I think, although its recommendations, I think, need to be considered alongside the conclusions of the group chaired by Justin Albert on the possible shape of Historic Wales and, of course, your recent decision that Cadw would remain wholly in Government. I just want to speak very briefly about that part of the report that refers to the industrial dispute that affected activities during the museum's recent past. I don't want to dwell on it much, but I tend to agree that this is not a matter for Government to intercede in directly, when it comes to industrial relations of a non-Government body, but I do believe it's right for both parties to inform AMs of their views, because every person involved in this is somebody's constituent, and we, as representatives, can highlight those views to a point where they bring pressure to bear. But that is not the same as the Executive stepping in and influencing.

Whether Dr Thurley has adequately or accurately represented the relationship between staff, management and even Government, I genuinely can't say, but I do think that the need for realistic modernisation of the national museum and the appropriate recognition of staff expertise, commitment and flexibility is not a binary choice. But the fact that it's come up as an issue is illustrative of a theme that has emerged from discussions about the museum in the last year or so. And that issue is the place of Government and its relationship with the independence of the museum.

On the strength of recent scrutiny, not least in this report, the museum's had to face criticism about its ability to manage the concerns of the workforce properly, and, of course, to manage the changes in its financial circumstances and support. Now, as far as I'm concerned, that is about gaps in management skills that can and have to be addressed, and not a reason for Government creep into the independent space of the museum.

That looming prospect of merged commercial functions with Welsh Government was a very successful project in holding up a mirror to the museum so that it could see and begin to plan to overcome its shortcomings, particularly with regard to its commercial activities, and it's exploiting those potential commercial activities that are at the heart of this Thurley review, after all. Now, I have no problem at all with the museum working collaboratively with Cadw to improve commercial, or, indeed, any other, opportunities, but that's just one relationship that will improve their prospects.

And I just want to be clear, since we've had that confirmation that Cadw will remain wholly within Government, that I can't see my party supporting any closer integration between those two bodies. While each should co-operate for mutual benefit—. Actually, Cadw and Visit Wales have cropped up in this review and the Justin Albert report. That's one thing, but I think Government really needs to back off anything that hints at operational interference, or even those elements of the museum's strategy that don't speak to the remit letter or the collaborative work streams.

The review was very effusive about the museum's existing offer and even more effusive about the potential offer, and I think it would be hard to disagree with that. Since it's had its rude awakening, the museum has already raised £10.3 million through earned income—nearly twice as much as any other national cultural organisation—and slashed the dependence on Government income to two thirds in just one year alone, so it can do it. And they're now actively recruiting for a commercial director, although maybe they want to revisit expertise on staff relations as well.

Minister, I'm always a bit sceptical about drawing comparisons with London institutions when we talk of funding our culture and heritage offer, but I hope that the new commercial director will consider even the most controversial ideas put forward by Thurley, just to throw them around and really examine if there's anything that Wales can learn from them. I'd say, as Welsh Conservatives, we support the general principle of free entry to core collections, but we also support the principle to charge for headline exhibitions if the museum chooses to do that, because the evidence points both ways on attendance, and I think some of that can be overcome by allowances within charging schemes, for example. But the decision to charge should be for the museum and not for Government, and it should not be used by either body to argue for cuts or for extra money from the public purse.

Minister, you've said an awful lot about what is impressive about the museum already. I just wanted to comment on something that Dr Thurley raised about changes to some of the sites and where differences could be made, not just to the income potential for the museum, but the coherence of the story, and I think that is a story that needs to be determined by the museum, not by Government, or not, indeed, by Thurley. This is why commercial independence is essential for the museum and its ability to set more priorities for itself. That is not to diminish the importance of the Government's remit letter and its priorities, and, of course, the funding, conditional, to a degree, on those priorities being met, but it needs to be free to grow its finances outside the relationship with Government without the risk of cuts to public support being the main driver for priority setting. Thank you.