Now, for those practicalities. The first point to make is that there are sporadic examples of this idea in practice already, thanks to organisations like NAS Cymru and the Alzheimer's Society. Brecon is a dementia-friendly town, Milford Haven is an autism-friendly town, both titles being predicated primarily on awareness training. Some of our major stores and theatres have introduced quiet or relaxed shopping periods and performances to help people and their carers, as well as staff, feel more comfortable sharing these everyday experiences and they'll have signs or certificates to show that as well. 

Mark Isherwood told me, a few days ago, about Communicating With Confidence, which is a small charity in north-east Wales, which raises awareness of the communication difficulties of people of all ages and walks of life as a result of stroke, Parkinson’s, MND and brain injuries. They want a national communication symbol to add alongside those familiar badges for hearing, visual and physical impairment, and already use signs and stickers locally to promote awareness.

And as for defibrillators, well, I’m sure you all have seen the lightning mark appearing in more public places now, but it is hardly universal coverage. We are still in a position where the key information on where your nearest defibrillator is can only be discovered by phoning the ambulance service, using up valuable time. The head of the British Heart Foundation this week declared his support for extending the principles in this petition, saying,

'Ensuring the public know where they can access a defibrillator or help from a CPR trained individual is vital to saving lives.' 

What this shows, I think, Cabinet Secretary, is that all of us, not just people with disabilities, respond to recognisable symbols where those symbols are consistent and widespread. While I imagine we’re talking consultation again on what any new symbols might look like, the cost of adding a few more symbols to the existing sticker collection, websites or written material is hardly likely to be exorbitant.

Who should be responsible for training? Well, it's clear to me that training should be carried out by people who know what they’re doing, including people with disabilities themselves, absolutely on co-productive principles. I don’t think it’s beyond the sector to be responsible for the strategy and planning either, but this is an open question as far as I’m concerned. I can foresee, for example, that this is likely to affect taxi licensing, which is a local authority responsibility, but that doesn’t mean that the cash-strapped local council should assume responsibility for the entire scheme. Local authorities play a key role in the food hygiene system and various parts of the public sector could, or even should, be partners in this. 

As ever, the questions that will trouble everyone will be cost and cost effectiveness. Again, I am completely open on this, but in this era of participatory budgets—they're coming to the fore now—this is a scheme that is discreet, easy to explain and easy to understand. So, why not offer it up as an idea? The principle of pooled budgets and more inter-sectoral collaboration is also the direction in which we’re heading, so there’s less reason now, I think, to say that this must be financed by the central health budget or a local authority budget. There is no reason in principle why the wealthier end of the disabled charity sector can’t contribute to a common budget. Explore all ideas and don’t let the old financial models close down the development of great new ideas. 

And then, finally, just with regard to cost-effectiveness, the first thing to point out with this is that this is not a replacement for Disability Discrimination Act 2005 compliance. It’s not about enforcement or even the applications of rights. It's primarily about information, but even then it's part of something bigger. I think interest in this scheme is further evidence that society is becoming more accepting, whether consciously or not, of the social model of disability, that disability is a feature of how society is organised, rather than an impairment that just has to be lived with.

There is no obligation in this system for business owners to do anything with their premises. The scores on the doors are just that: public information. If they result in soft persuasion for businesses to improve their services, which I think they probably would, then I wouldn’t be advocating that those businesses should be charged for re-assessment, as happens in the case of food hygiene certificates. The improvement itself is a step towards that reorganisation of society.

I see this scheme being of great value to people without disabilities. When signs become part of the landscape, to the extent that you don’t really notice them perhaps, then they have achieved something. It’s like when you cross the Severn bridge and it slowly dawns on you that the road signs aren’t bilingual anymore. You may not be a Welsh speaker, but your unconscious, unseeing expectation is momentarily challenged, because something that’s usually there oddly isn’t, and that's what I can see happening here: all of us becoming so over-familiar with the expectation of universal accessibility that it jars a little every time we see a poor score. 

This is why I support this idea over apps or other sources of direct information to people with disabilities, useful as they are. Because it’s not just about services for people with disabilities; it is a nudge towards this positive societal change. It's about normalising the expectation of access to all, about it being surprising if buildings are closed off to groups of people with a particular disability, and about this being an everyday consideration for everyone, from the town planner to the architect, from the HR department to the union rep. I think that’s quite a lot of value for money from a few stickers, Cabinet Secretary, and I hope that you will pursue this idea with vigour. Thank you.