6. Will the First Minister provide an update on the Welsh Government’s re-opening of the Welsh tourism sector? OQ55318

I thank the Member for that, Llywydd. On 19 June, I indicated that, provided public health considerations allowed, the Welsh Government would lift the 'stay local' requirement on 6 July. At the same time, I signalled to owners of self-contained accommodation to prepare to reopen from 13 July.

Thank you, obviously, for your announcement on Friday, although I have to say that the concept of community consent and the use of the word 'bookings' in the narrative haven't really helped the static caravan park owners, or van owners themselves, understand what they can do.

Last week, I asked the economy Minister why non-VAT-registered tourism companies are being treated differently from non-VAT-registered firms or sole traders when it comes to accessing the economic resilience fund. These are microbusinesses unable to access the self-employed support, and not the larger operations to which he made reference in his reply. Some of them are very exciting, novel, green tourism microbusinesses or small bed and breakfasts, and, anecdotally, quite a high proportion of them are run by women. So, could you please revisit this? As, in my view, there is no justification at all for treating two businesses differently on the basis of a registration at Companies House, with one version having a right to support and the other having to go begging to a hardship fund.

Well, Llywydd, first of all, let me make it clear that static caravans, where they are self-contained, will be able to reopen from 13 July. I’m not absolutely certain that I understand what the problem with 'bookings' is, because people are able to take bookings from 13 July. They need to be aware that that date remains subject to the circulation of the virus at the time. That's inevitable, and that’s exactly the same way that her Government in the United Kingdom has always proceeded. They make announcements, and they make it clear that those things have to be confirmed closer to the time because none of us knows what the state of coronavirus will be in the weeks ahead.

On her point about VAT registration, look, I just have to explain: our aim is to try to get money out to people as fast as possible, and to do so with the least bureaucracy as possible. But, this is public money, and the public have a right to know that there is a level of probity in the way that it is being spent on their behalf. We have used VAT registration as a short cut through a whole series of other checks that we would have had to have made to make sure that people who make applications to us are bona fide. If they have VAT registration, they will already have had to have gone through a number of checks, and we rely on those as part of our probity requirements in handing out public money for proper purposes.

Now, I understand that that has meant that people who are not VAT registered haven’t been able to benefit in the same way, and we’ve worked hard within the second phase of the ERF to try to be able to address that. But, it's there for a proper purpose. It's there for a purpose that Suzy Davies, I think, in other circumstances, would recognise very well: that if you're spending public money, there’s an obligation on you to make sure that you've put at least a minimum amount of checks into the system to make sure that the schemes that we are putting up, very rapidly, aren't taken advantage of by people who just think that, you know, this may be a quick way to get money out of a Government when you are not a proper business at all.