I’m in the same position as you, Minister, in terms of having this cough.

Thank you for your statement. Could I just start with the points on which we agree, perhaps? The process for implementing standards is expensive and bureaucratic, and I would like to—and I’m happy to—support you with any changes in that regard. But another thing that’s expensive, of course, is to ask the commissioner to hold standards investigations on hundreds of institutions within rounds 3 and 4 of the timetable, receiving those reports in 2016-17, and then seeing no steps taken by the Government as a result of that. So, my first question is: how are you going to use the information in those reports in any way that is meaningful? If these reports are essentially binned immediately, and if that happens, well, how much money have you wasted on that process?

Although you’d like to think that those institutions had started to prepare for delivering the new standards, they are likely to see today’s announcement as an excuse to pause that work that they’ve already commenced. So, how will you act now—and I do mean now—in order to encourage them to continue with their proposals?

There is nothing new in your statement to persuade me on the core purpose of the creation of a new commission, I have to say. The responses to the consultation didn’t particularly favour this over other options, and to me it remains entirely unclear as to how independent that new body would be. And this is important, because if it isn’t entirely independent, then you don’t resolve this problem, namely that the organisation making the rules shouldn’t be enforcing them, and the legislator shouldn’t be enforcing legislation. At the moment, there are barriers there: the Government makes the regulations and the commissioner enforces these. If this new commission isn’t entirely independent on Government—. Arm’s length isn’t sufficient here—it is then constitutionally unsound.

As you know, the commissioner has some promotional duties too, and the previous Minister, of course, made it difficult for the commissioner to deliver those statutory duties, but they could be restored. So, essentially, what is the difference between your commission and the commissioner? What precludes you from reforming the commissioner’s office rather than replacing it? Reform would allow a commissioner to lead the cultural change that we agree is required. There is also scope, as we’ve discussed in the past, to enhance the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the commissioner, to ensure that language regulations are not introduced in a discriminatory manner.

Thank you for the update on the current programmes. The decline in the number of teachers going on to teach Welsh or to teach through the medium of Welsh seems to me to be a clear and present danger to the success of Cymraeg 2050. We’re now halfway through this Assembly term, and it’s only now that you are introducing this incentive of £5,000 to help to sort that problem out. So, when will you be in a position to say that it’s had a significant impact? Because I appreciate what you’ve said on capital, but there is a problem here with the number of people who are willing to do this work. I have the same concerns about the education workforce as you had on the health workforce. There is still a problem remaining there and it remains difficult to deal with that, I think.

Finally, as you know, without a commitment from the world of employment, in all sectors, not just the private sector, to create a bilingual working environment, there is another clear and present danger for Cymraeg 2050. So, can you tell us a little more about the Work Welsh programme? What is exceptional about that demand and what is the geographical spread? Also, importantly, how can we assess whether that demand is going to create more confident Welsh speakers who are willing to use their Welsh more often? Specifically, what should you and us consider to be good outcomes in these initiatives in SMEs? Thank you.