Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much. I have had an opportunity to read your blog, where you discuss local government reform, and I was very pleased initially that you mentioned that the blog was some sort of response to a question that I posed to you in this place a few weeks ago in terms of the kind of style you are going to adopt in dealing with local authorities. I'm very pleased that I have inspired you to at least think about that.

The debate about local government reform has been quite fiery at times, and has been going on over many years without any resolution. In reading your blog, it appears that you are willing to put any progress made by your predecessor, Mark Drakeford, to one side, and that you are thinking of starting the whole process once again. So, can I ask: over the past four years, as your Government has attempted to reform local government, what exactly has been achieved?

Llywydd, I'm very pleased that my blog has pleased at least one Member here, and I'm very pleased that she's read it, at least. May I say that what I was trying to say last week when I wrote the blog was to try and establish, and re-establish, a more mature relationship between various governmental parts of Wales, and I don't think that that has been the case over the past decade at all times.

It's not true that I have made any kind of decision, as the Member suggested. Local government itself said that it didn't want to progress with the kind of proposals that my predecessor made as regards regional collaboration. That was not my decision; that was local government's decision, and members from local government did discuss that at their seminar in Cardiff last November. So, in writing the blog, I was responding to the stance taken by local government and not saying what my view was.

Well, from that it appears that the only thing that has been achieved is the waste of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and the time of Welsh Government officials in holding consultation upon consultation, with proposals on legislation that will now be ignored. At least with the most recent White Paper, there was a way forward that didn't require local authority mergers. So, can I ask you first of all what negotiations took place in Cabinet before you decided to put aside the work of your predecessor? Can you also explain to us today what the next action points are? Will you now be turning your back entirely on the White Paper and the outcomes of the consultation related to that? What will be the timetable for this u-turn? Will you create a new map for authority mergers? Is that the intention? If that is the intention, how will you succeed where Leighton Andrews failed?

I would suggest that the Member re-reads the blog, and reads beyond the first paragraphs, to see what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that we need a slightly more mature relationship between the various tiers of local government and to try to move away from the kind of discussion that we have had over the past few years.

I saw that you were reading your second question. It might have been easier had you listened to the answer to your first question, because I stated clearly there that I didn't put my predecessor's proposals to one side. That was done by local government and, because of that, I have to reconsider the local government stance on this. Having had time to consider the way forward, I will bring a statement to the Assembly.

I entirely accept that it's local government who have told you, and I quote from the blog:

'the inherited policy of mandated regional working wasn't a runner'. 

That suggests to me that it wasn't a runner for them, and you agree with them, and you're going to turn your back on that policy. That was the policy in the White Paper, so I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Having clarity would be most useful. So can you confirm today whether your vision, on the basis of what you've heard from local government, will include regional collaboration on a mandatory basis as outlined in the original proposals?

Obviously, local government has stated that they don't want to move in that direction, and I accept that. I will not impose this on local government if that's not what they wish to do, and they have made it crystal clear that they don't want to move in that direction. So, we have to consider this, and in calling for a more mature discussion, what I've been trying to do is discuss with local government what kind of powers are needed on a more local level. We've received a response on that, and then we must consider how to implement those policies. It's important that you read not just the blog in its entirety, but also that you read what local authorities and local government had to say in November. They said clearly that the current structure wasn't sustainable for the future. They were clear on that, and they were also clear that they didn't want to move in the direction that Welsh Government wanted them to move. So, they were clear on those two points in November.

So, we must now consider those points, and I would wish to have time to reflect and look at which options we have before moving forward. In my blog, I was trying to expand or enhance the discussion. I don’t know whether I’ve succeeded in doing that this afternoon, but I’d like a broader discussion on the role of local government and our Government and which powers are necessary for local government and then move on to consider which structures would enable us to sustain quality services and also secure democratic accountability at a local level. That is what I want to do, and that is what I will do. Once this process is concluded, I will come here to make a clear statement on the direction in which we wish to move forward.

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Although the UK Government's July 2017 response to the defence select committee report, responding to the armed forces covenant annual report commented on progress—and it used the word 'progress'—in Wales, there hasn't yet been an independent review of progress and delivery across the whole of Wales since the establishment of the armed forces covenant. You are the Welsh Government lead on policy in relation to armed forces and veterans. What proposals, therefore, do you have to undertake or commission an independent review of progress and/or to give attention to the evidence-based recommendations made by the Assembly armed forces committee inquiry into the implementation of the armed forces covenant?

I think the Member was at the meeting of the all-party group earlier this month when I attended and answered some questions on those issues. Can I say that I'm very comfortable at the moment with the level of delivery in terms of what we're able to do for delivering on the armed forces covenant and our services for veterans? I believe that we need to go somewhat further in the future. There were some very good recommendations from the all-party group. I have, in previous answers, undertaken to consider all of those recommendations and I will in due course, when I have had an opportunity to do so, make a full response on all of those matters. But I absolutely agree with the Conservative spokesperson that these are serious issues that require a serious approach.

Thank you. Notwithstanding the, I think, £100,000 extra continuation funding provided for Veterans NHS Wales, the report highlighted, or recommended, that funding for Veterans NHS Wales should be reviewed and targets for access to the service established, and performance against the targets regularly published. As at the time we debated this in November, waiting lists for Veterans NHS Wales were nine months in the Swansea area and averaging five to six months elsewhere. Although they'd secured three years extra funding from Help the Heroes to employ three full-time therapists to bring waiting lists down, they expected waiting times to rise again without additional support. And they’ve also provided me with figures showing that only 45 per cent of those veterans they're working with or referred to them are actually in employment. How, particularly, are you engaging with Veterans NHS Wales so that you and your colleague the heath Secretary are properly informed (a) on level of demand and (b) on their recommendations to address that?

I hope that we are very well informed on both those matters, but can I say that the main method of engagement, if you like, is through the expert group that we have on these matters? I chaired my first meeting of that group, as it happens, earlier this month and I found the atmosphere there and the conversation we had there to be one of a wish to move very quickly and collaboratively together to ensure that we're able to deliver on all the ambitions and the commitments that we have given and that we have undertaken to deliver on behalf of veterans and others in the armed forces community and family in Wales.

There are a number of different elements to that and you've described the challenges that we have in the health service. There are also significant challenges facing us in education and also in terms of the secure estate and provision in Wales. I think there are some significant areas there that we need to continue to address. I'm confident at the moment that the structure that we have in place helps us to do that. The expert group meeting I found to be a very useful meeting in terms of challenge on all of those different issues, and I will be responding to the all-party group and their report when I have the opportunity to have considered further some of their suggestions.

Thank you, and I'm sure the expert advisory group emphasises that the pressures on the statutory services you referred to add avoidable costs—if we could perhaps do things a little bit differently in terms of early intervention and prevention in this area. One of those areas relates to residential treatment, and particularly respite for people with complex mental health issues who've served in the armed forces. On Monday, your colleague the health Secretary issued a written statement following the removal of veterans' residential treatment facilities at Audley Court in Newport, Shropshire, to which a number of people from Wales have been referred over the years. The statement said:

'The Welsh Government has previously considered the potential for a dedicated Welsh veterans’ residential facility' and you'd commissioned an independent report and that

'concluded that the necessary demand and need to sustain such a facility could not be made out and that community based services were more appropriate.'

In fact, in 2012, the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales report, 'Healthcare and the Armed Forces Community in Wales’, had recommended that the Welsh Government should consider the utility of establishing a form of residential facility within Wales for the armed forces community. This followed the closure of Tŷ Gwyn, which had been packed, in Llandudno, and Pathways, which had opened temporarily near Bangor, which had been packed with unfunded referrals from Wales, not least from the police services. Many members of the armed forces community in Wales had commented on the need for a residential centre for veterans as something you can see, touch and feel, but the Kennedy report, the report referred to by the health Secretary, recommended against that, on terms of reference set by the Welsh Government, concluding there was

'no evidence, nor strong support from the key charities and other bodies working in the field, to warrant a residential facility which supports veterans with PTSD, so long as sufficient capacity exists within existing NHS and Third Sector providers.'

Well, clearly, it doesn't. The evidence is there that that capacity isn't there and, in fact, the third sector capacity has been, sadly, reducing in some areas. So, how will you, or will you at all, revisit the findings of the Kennedy report in the context of 2018 circumstances and look at the overall demand and requirements to meet that demand amongst the armed forces community in Wales?

This is a matter that was raised at a previous question session by the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. I undertook at that time to give due consideration to the matters that you've raised this afternoon. You will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for health has announced an additional £100,000 to increase the capacity of our mental health services in the community, and he has also given an undertaking to look and understand how those services are being used and whether we do need to increase our capacity in those services. But I do accept that the point you raise is a very valid and important one and it is a matter that we will keep under due consideration. And if we do believe that there is a requirement for change in the way that you've described, then certainly that's a conversation I will have with the Cabinet Secretary for health, and I will come back to the Chamber to make announcements on that.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Minister. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I may, relating to your recent statement on reforming local government electoral arrangements in Wales. One of your proposed reforms is to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. One of the arguments that has been used recently in support of that move is the principle of no taxation without representation, but I note that 16 and 17-year-olds aren't actually supposed to pay council tax, and figures from HMRC for 2014-15 suggest that only around 15 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds pay any income tax. So, I think it's a laudable aim to extend the vote, but I wonder: is there an argument that perhaps we could extend the vote to some 16 and 17-year-olds but perhaps it might be extended to those who are actually paying tax?

I'm not entirely sure of the point that the Member seeks to make, but I will say to him that the decision to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in local elections—and I hope the National Assembly will follow in due course—is that we're talking about extending and deepening a franchise to enable people throughout our communities to play an active role in taking decisions upon the future of those communities. It is the view of this Government, and I think of people on most sides of this Chamber, that 16 and 17-year-olds certainly should have the capacity to be engaged in political debate and discussion, and should have the ability to vote and take part in decisions that will affect them and their friends', neighbours' and families' lives. I think we are in a process of renewal and change at the moment. I'm looking at extending the franchise in order to enable us to hold local elections on the new franchise, which will also seek, of course, to ensure that all foreign nationals who are resident and living in our communities will also have the vote. 

Yes, I'm aware of those proposals as well. If I can restrict these questions to the 16 and 17-year-olds issue for the time being, another perhaps related point is that we have in this Assembly recently passed legislation that in effect banned 16 and 17-year-olds from being able to use sunbeds or to get a tongue piercing. We in UKIP supported those pieces of Government legislation. If you're now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds should have an automatic right to vote, so they are able to exercise political judgment, but at the same time they're not able to exercise judgment over issues like using sunbeds or getting a tongue piercing, does that not present an anomaly? Can you see that the electorate may see that there is a certain incongruity about the attitudes that are coming from the Welsh Government with those two seemingly conflicting attitudes?

I think most people are aware that reaching the age of majority for different parts of social activity, whatever it happens to be, may happen at a slightly different age for different issues, and we're aware of that. A 16-year-old may be able to vote but they won't be able to drive. We're aware of these issues.

What I'm looking at doing is doing something slightly different, and that is to invest in more cohesive communities, where people feel enfranchised and able to play a full part in ensuring that people have not just the right to vote and the ability to exercise that vote but also, of course, the knowledge and the capacity to be able to participate in political conversations and political debate about the future of those communities. I hope that we'll be able to go further and ensure that we then extend the ability to vote in all sorts of different ways, from electronic voting through to voting on different days, and ensuring that people, whoever they happen to be in our communities in Wales, are able to play a full part in determining the future of those communities.

Yes, you raised the important point there that people need the knowledge. If you're going to give them the responsibility of voting, they need the knowledge, and I think that that is a crucial point. Now, you said in your statement that:

'Within schools, the active citizenship theme of personal and social education will provide young people with an understanding of politics and the right to vote.' 

That's the end of your quote. Now, it has been raised recently by young campaigners—who actually support what you're doing and who actually want the vote to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds—that many of them feel that what they have in schools at the moment in the active citizenship theme, which you alluded to, isn't actually sufficient to give them that political knowledge. So, I wondered were you seeking to change that element of the national curriculum in Wales, working with the education Minister, or does your statement actually indicate that you think that the education system at the moment does provide 16 and 17-year-olds with that knowledge?

The Member will be aware that we are refreshing the curriculum in its entirety at the moment. Can I say this? I do remember the Member giving a media interview during the election campaign where he said that he never canvassed, never knocked on people's doors, because he saw it as a terrible intrusion upon their lives. I would suggest that the Member does knock on some doors and does talk to people who he seeks to represent. Were he to do that, he would find some very engaged 16 and 17-year-olds—young people who want to play a part in shaping the future of their communities, young people who have both the knowledge and the vision for what they want to see in the future. So, I wouldn't take quite the view that he takes, but I do accept that we do need to ensure that through a curriculum refresh we do ensure that these matters are fully covered in the curriculum. But I've got far more faith in 16 and 17-year-olds than, perhaps, the Member for UKIP.