Mae Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales wedi galw’r ddadl hon er mwyn tynnu sylw at y datblygiadau diweddaraf yn y trafodaethau ar gyflogau athrawon.

Byddwn yn cefnogi gwelliant 1 Jenny Randerson ar ran y Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol.

Mae cyhoeddiadau diweddar yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn ceisio cadarnhau mai’r Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth a fydd nid yn unig yn gosod lefel a graddfeydd cyflogau athrawon, ond yn rheoli pryd a sut y dylai ysgolion wobrwyo athrawon da. Yr ydym, fel plaid, yn derbyn mai gan yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth y mae’r hawl neu’r grym cyfreithiol i osod lefelau cyflog, ond yr ydym yn amharod i dderbyn ac yn anhapus bod yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn torri tir newydd ac yn cyfarwyddo ac yn gorchymyn cyrff llywodraethu ysgolion ar sut i asesu a gwerthuso athrawon.

Mae cynnwys amodau a meini prawf y trothwy yn nogfen gyflogau ac amodau athrawon y Corff Adolygu Athrawon Ysgol yn rym canolog ychwanegol annisgwyl, o ystyried natur cynnwys a chyfarwyddiadau blaenorol y dogfennau hyn. Mae hwn yn faes newydd. Mae’r rhan hon o osod meini prawf yn rhan o ddatblygiad proffesiynol yr athro, sydd yn seiliedig ar yr ysgol unigol ac yn gyfrifoldeb iddi. Datganolwyd y broses hon i’r Cynulliad. Mae cynnwys rhannau o’r meini prawf yn nogfen gyflogau’r Corff Adolygu Athrawon Ysgol yn annerbyniol yn addysgol ac yn groes i ysbryd corfforaethol y proffesiwn.

Mae canllawiau cyffredinol cenedlaethol—heb fod yn seiliedig ar berfformiad disgybl—yn dderbyniol fel fframwaith neu fel trothwy. Gall hynny gyfrannu’n helaeth at y broses werthfawr o werthuso a hybu datblygiad proffesiynol athrawon, ac mae’n fodd i wobrwyo athrawon da. Croesawn hynny. Fodd bynnag, mae’r gorchmynion canolog, haearnaidd—Fictoraidd yn ôl rhai—sydd yn cyplysu cyflogau athrawon â chanlyniadau arholiadau disgyblion ar y trothwy yn gwbl elyniaethus, bygythiol ac estron i ni yng Nghymru. Mae gorchymynion o’r fath hefyd yn tanseilio hawliau a chyfrifoldebau rheolaethol llywodraethwyr a phenaethiaid ysgolion. Mae hwn yn bwynt y dylid ei ystyried o ddifrif.

Pam y mae’r Llywodraeth yn amharod i ddatganoli meini prawf perfformiad y trothwy? Nid oes sail addysgol i wneud hynny, dim ond sail holl bwysig y Llywodraeth hon o gadw grym a rheolaeth ganolog. Gwyddom i ba gyfeiriad y mae’r Llywodraeth newydd hon yn dymuno mynd, sef zero tolerance. Dyna’r targed a dyna sut y mae’r Blaid Lafur yn gweithredu cyn belled ag y mae ysgolion yn y cwestiwn. Dywed The Times Educational Supplement ar 3 Mawrth 2000,

‘Up to 70 secondaries with the worst GCSE records face closure’.

Mae’r erthygl yn parhau drwy ddweud mai gwae’r ysgolion na fyddant yn cyrraedd nod benodol. Dyna’r bygythiad, ac nid yw hyn ond megis dechrau. Gwelaf hyn yn y pen draw yn fygythiad i’n hathrawon. Bydd zero tolerance a dim cyfaddawdu yn berthnasol iddynt hwythau hefyd. Mae’n bwysig inni sylweddoli beth yw’r grymoedd sydd ar waith o’n cwmpas. Mae agenda amgen yn y fan hon, a doeth fyddai i ni yng Nghymru bwyso a mesur agenda’r Llywodraeth Lafur yn y cyd-destun hwn. O glywed y fath fygythiadau, nid yw’n rhyfedd gennyf fod gennym broblem recriwtio yng Nghymru a bod cannoedd o athrawon yng Nghymru a Lloegr yn awchu am adael y proffesiwn. Dyna’r bygythiadau.

Mae’r datblygiad hwn o ganoli grym nid yn unig yn groes i ysbryd datganoli, mae hefyd yn groes i egwyddorion addysgol, yn enwedig yng Nghymru, lle mae ein hysgolion yn ymfalchïo yn eu hunigrywiaeth fel ysgolion cymunedol. Ar yr union amser pan fo galw am gymorth i’n cymunedau, mae penaethiaid a llywodraethwyr ysgolion yn gorfod trosglwyddo’r grym rheolaethol holl bwysig i ddwylo’r biwrocratiaid yn Llundain.

Ystyriwch y raddfa o drosglwyddo hawliau sydd yn digwydd ac sydd wedi digwydd. Bellach, mae’r cwricwlwm wedi ei ganoli. Mae cyllid eisoes wedi ei ganoli ac yn awr mae ansawdd ein hathrawon yn cael ei asesu o’r canol. Meini prawf canolog yw’r safonau cenedlaethol hyn. O hyn ymlaen, caiff athrawon eu talu yn unol â’r hyn y mae’r Llywodraeth Brydeinig yn ystyried yw eu gwerth.

Wrth gwrs, nid yw hyn ond megis dechrau. Ar hyn o bryd, mae hyn yn wirfoddol. Dyna sut y caiff ei gyflwyno i athrawon. Os oes £2,000 ar gael, byddant yn mynd amdano yn wirfoddol. Sut y bydd hi yn y dyfodol? Sut y bydd pethau’n newid unwaith y gosodir y system yn ei lle? Fe welwn dynhau a miniogi’r safonau a byddant yn orfodol yn y dyfodol. Dyna fydd y zero tolerance i athrawon.

Mae’r Llywodraeth Lafur Brydeinig yn ymgymryd â newidiadau mor eithafol o ganoledig fel bod newidiadau Mrs Thatcher yn ymddangos yn ddiniwed o’u cymharu. Ni feddyliais y byddwn yn gweld canoli grym fel hyn gan Lywodraeth Lafur. Mae’n peri dychryn ac mae’n sicr o ychwanegu at bryderon athrawon a’r pwysau sydd arnynt. Mae hefyd yn cyfyngu ar allu ysgolion i ddatblygu syniadau newydd cyffrous o fewn eu cymunedau. Fodd bynnag, y dychryn mwyaf yw’r ffaith fod y cynllun hwn yn un addysgol ddiffygiol. Mae’n drawiadol hefyd mai grym neu ddehongliad deddfwriaethol ac nid hanfodion addysgol sydd yn cael eu defnyddio i orfodi hyn arnom yng Nghymru.

Mae’n greiddiol i’n dadl ar y pwnc hwn fod yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth wedi cyhoeddi y bydd perfformiad disgyblion a chanlyniadau profion ac arholiadau allanol yn rhan o’r asesiad ar gyfer croesi’r hyn a elwir yn drothwy perfformiad. Fel plaid, yr ydym wedi gwrthwynebu hyn o’r cychwyn am resymau amlwg i’r rhai sydd yn ymwneud ag addysg neu sydd â phrofiad ym myd addysg. Mae’r dadleuon a’r rhesymau pam ein bod yn gwrthwynebu eisoes wedi eu gwyntyllu yng nghyfarfodydd y Pwyllgor Addysg Cyn-16. Mae mwyafrif aelodau’r Pwyllgor hwnnw yn erbyn cysylltu cyflogau â pherfformiad disgyblion. Gobeithiaf y bydd eraill, yn ystod y ddadl hon, yn pwysleisio pa mor annoeth yw cysylltu cyflogau athrawon â pherfformiad disgyblion. Nid yw amser yn caniatáu imi ymhelaethu ar hynny. Nid oes neb yr wyf i wedi ymgynghori â hwy yn gefnogol i’r fath syniad.

Mae dau beth dan ystyriaeth. Yn gyntaf, y fframwaith rheoli perfformiad. Er nad ydym wedi gweld y fframwaith terfynol, mae gennym le i groesawu’r argymhellion sydd ynddo. Mae’n adeiladu ar gyfundrefn werthuso sydd eisoes yn ein hysgolion a gwelwn fuddsoddiad yn natblygiad proffesiynol pob un o’n hathrawon o flwyddyn i flwyddyn yn unol â chynlluniau datblygu ysgol. Mae hynny i’w groesawu. Yn ôl yr Ysgrifennydd Addysg a Phlant, mae gwerthuso athrawon—y fframwaith o reoli perfformiad—wedi ei ddatganoli i Gymru.

Talaf deyrnged barod a haeddiannol i Rosemary Butler, nid yn unig am iddi sicrhau stamp Cymreig i’r fframwaith gwerthuso neu reoli perfformiad, ond am iddi ymgorffori yn y fframwaith lawer o’r hyn y buom fel plaid ac fel aelodau o’r Pwyllgor Addysg Cyn-16 yn gofyn amdano yn ein trafodaethau. Credaf, os buddsoddir arian digonol yn y system werthuso ar ei newydd wedd, nid yn unig ar gyfer hyfforddiant ond i gynnal y system i’r dyfodol, y bydd ein hathrawon ac felly ein disgyblion yn elwa o hynny.

Croesawaf ein bod ni yng Nghymru am ymddiried yn yr arbenigedd sydd eisoes gennym yn ein hawdurdodau lleol ac yn ein hymgynghorwyr, i gynnal hyfforddiant, i roi arweiniad i ysgolion ac i sicrhau bod y fframwaith yn gweithredu’n llwyddiannus. Mae’n deg cydnabod bod Rosemary wedi gweithio’n ddygn i’r cyfeiriad hwn i ymgorffori’r syniadau hyn yn y fframwaith. Mae hyn yn dderbyniol ac yn bellgyrhaeddol. Tybiaf fod honno wedi bod yn frwydr galed, Rosemary. Croesawn yr hyn yr ydych wedi ei wneud yn y cyfeiriad hwnnw.

Y maen tramgwydd yw ail elfen y trafodaethau, sef perfformiad trothwy, lle gwneir cysylltiad uniongyrchol rhwng cyflogau athrawon a pherfformiad disgyblion. Mae’r gyfundrefn ganolog yn codi ei phen yma ac yn ein rhwystro rhag datblygu cyfundrefn Gymreig. Pe diddymid y cyfeiriad at berfformiad disgyblion, byddai meini prawf y trothwy yn dderbyniol ac yn addas i broses datblygiad proffesiynol athrawon. Maent yn faterion o bwys mewn unrhyw broses werthuso. Cyfeiriant at wybodaeth broffesiynol a deallusrwydd, dysgu ac asesu, priodoleddau ac effeithiolrwydd proffesiynol ac yn y blaen. Nid yw’r agweddau a’r safonau hynny ond yn ymestyniad ac yn rhan naturiol o’r fframwaith. Felly, ni allwch ac ni ddylech eu gwahanu na’u hysgaru.

Bydd dadleuon a datganiadau’r prynhawn yma yn profi mor annoeth yw cyplysu cyflogau athrawon â pherfformiad disgyblion. Byddai’n annoeth inni fabwysiadu’r argymhellion fel y maent. Yr unig ateb yw i ni, drwy lais y Cynulliad a’n Hysgrifennydd Addysg a Phlant, ddylanwadu a phwyso ar yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Addysg a Chyflogaeth, David Blunkett, i roi Gorchmynion ar wahân i Gymru a Lloegr. Byddai’n rhaid i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ymateb i’r ddadl pe bai’r Cynulliad yn galw am hynny. Dyna bwysigrwydd dadl a phenderfyniad y prynhawn yma.

Onid dyna’r cyfeiriad a roddwyd gan Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru, Paul Murphy, yn ei anerchiad yma rai wythnosau yn ôl? Hefyd, onid yw’r Ysgrifennydd wedi cymeradwyo rhai newidiadau ar gyfer Cymru, er enghraifft rôl yr awdurdodau addysg lleol mewn perthynas â’r aseswyr? Mae ef wedi cymryd camau. Felly, credaf y gall yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol, yn unol â’i hawliau a’i gyfrifoldebau statudol, fynd gam ymhellach a diddymu pob cyfeiriad ym meini prawf y trothwy at wobrwyo ar sail perfformiad disgyblion a sicrhau Gorchymyn ar wahân i Gymru.

Gyd-aelodau, mae oblygiadau pellgyrhaeddol i’r argymhellion hyn, sydd yn cryfhau grym canolog ar draul hawliau rheolaethol ysgolion Cymru. Mae hynny’n groes i ddatganoli. Byddai mabwysiadu’r cynnig hwn yn anfon neges ddiamwys i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol fod y Cynulliad o ddifrif nid yn unig am ddatganoli a mabwysiadu hawliau deddfwriaethol i Gymru, ond ynghylch addysg a dyfodol ein hathrawon a’n disgyblion. Erfyniaf arnoch i gefnogi’r cynnig.

In recent months, I have visited many schools in my constituency. They vary in size, social context, appearance and problems. However, not one has supported the concept of performance-related pay. They have all voiced concern about performance-related or performance management pay for teachers. Headteachers, mature teachers and young teachers consider it to be time-consuming, over-bureaucratic and a distraction from the vital business of teaching children from day to day.

Despite those misgivings, teachers are prepared to move forward and develop a scheme that attempts to overcome the obvious weaknesses of any kind of performance-related pay. World wide, performance-related pay is known to undermine teamwork. Above all, schools are teams. They function as teams, with teachers supporting and complementing each other. A workable scheme would emphasise professional development. However, in our Committee’s view, a scheme concentrating on pupil performance in exams would fundamentally undermine teamwork. That is the scheme that we are currently being offered. The Committee has said repeatedly that the scheme will not work in Wales. It will undermine rather than reinforce work being done to improve poor schools. It is essential that we take every possible step to ensure that our voice prevails. The Committee has taken a constructive role in opposing this scheme. We have put forward alternative schemes and ideas. We have worked together closely as a group and taken soundings from the teaching unions and the governors’ association.

The purpose of the Liberal Democrat amendment is to reinforce the oft-expressed views of the Committee. The situation has not been simplified by the apparent change of mind about whether we have the power as an Assembly to introduce our own threshold scheme for teachers. There is no doubt in my mind that we started this debate many months ago with a clear view that we had that power. In an official Assembly press release on 8 July, there was an additional document that stated,

‘the Assembly does have flexibility over the details of any revised appraisal arrangements. It can provide an appraisal system which is more tailored to our position in Wales whilst allowing teachers to access proposed higher pay scales, provided that appraisal is linked to pay and that the appraisal process provides adequate standards and rigour’.

For those of you who are not performance management pay anoraks as we in the Pre-16 Education Committee have become, the issue is this—is the performance management scheme for teachers that happens throughout a teacher’s career and for which we are having a separate Welsh scheme, separate from the threshold through which teachers go to get higher pay, or is it part of the same threshold? In England, it seems to be part of the same threshold. For example, in September 1999, in written evidence from the Department for Education and Employment to the Schoolteachers’ Review Board, it was stated that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment envisages that the outcomes of performance review will inform pay assessments at relevant stages in a teacher’s career. That means that performance management or review are linked to pay. However, it appears that they are not to be linked in Wales. There has been extensive consultation on this in England. We have had no consultation in Wales. One would, therefore, expect a separate Welsh scheme.

The Secretary for Education and Children has taken the Committee’s concerns about who the assessors will be on board. We appreciate that and thank her for her efforts. We wanted the local education authorities to do the work, not a Cambridge based company. The local education authorities will now do the work. However, the albatross of pupil examination results is still around our necks. We have a scheme that refers only to professional development issues for the performance management part year on year for teachers throughout their careers. That scheme is assessed by LEA representatives. When teachers then apply to cross the threshold, those same assessors from LEAs will apply largely the same criteria but also criteria based on pupil results. If that is turned on its head, it will be far more difficult to get through that threshold in a tough school than in a school where the examination results come out well every year. How are we going to attract good teachers to poor schools and hence ensure their improvement? Pupils are not cars. You do not put all the same pieces on an assembly line and get identical models at the end. All kinds of things affect pupil performance. What about the excellent teacher who prepares pupils for their exams one year and hands them on the following year to an indifferent teacher? The pupils get good results because they have been prepared well, but the indifferent teacher gets the public kudos and probably the threshold pay also. You therefore have inbuilt unfairness.

This is a giant sledgehammer to crack a very small nut of teachers who are not up to the job. We faced an impasse in the Committee last week. It is public knowledge that one of the unions has had legal advice and that the Executive has had legal advice. The Committee is seeking its own legal advice and that is essential for the good of the Assembly. The situation draws attention to the unevenness of the devolution settlement in Wales and is a source of frustration. Performance-related pay was rejected in

Scotland. We cannot reject it in Wales. The Committee and the teaching unions appreciate that, and teachers are also beginning to accept that view. However, we must take every possible step, as our amendment states, to tailor the scheme for Wales. I beg you to support the amendment and thereby give added strength to the hand of the Secretary for Education and Children, who has to fight on our behalf.

The Pre-16 Education Committee was presented in the summer with two interrelated papers. One proposed the reintroduction of a system for the appraisal of teachers, and the other proposed the set-up of threshold assessment leading to a new upper pay range. Committee papers repeatedly stated that the appraisal process would be used to assess teachers when they sought to cross the threshold to reach the upper pay range. The association between both proposals was irrefutable.

The report on appraisal, entitled ‘Performance Management Framework’ and issued in October, states clearly that under new pay proposals, appraisal would inform threshold decisions, and that,

‘evidence collected in performance reviews will contribute to judgements about whether teachers have met the threshold standards and can therefore cross the threshold’.

As recently as last Tuesday, 29 February, the Pre-16 Education Committee received a document from Ann Jackson of the Department for Education and Employment claiming that

‘information from appraisal of teachers, including classroom observations, will provide an important part of the evidence to support threshold applications’.

However, the next day, 1 March, Committee paper 2 informed Members that the appraisal system would not be reintroduced in schools in Wales until September 2001. In contrast to this delay, the same Committee paper stated that arrangements giving access to the new upper pay range would be brought forward in Wales, and that application forms would be available by the end of April. We must not forget that the delayed appraisal process is a devolved matter, whilst the rushed arrangements for pay and conditions are the claimed responsibility of DfEE. The odd nature of these hurried changes is highlighted further in a letter dated 3 March, and approved by the Secretary for Education and Children. The letter states that

‘The responsibility for carrying out these assessments, that is to cross the new pay threshold, will rest with head teachers, and assessments will be made against performance standards set by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in England.’

It was no doubt felt by those wishing to centralise power, that the imposition of DfEE’s standards upon Wales would be made that much easier with the appraisal system temporarily out of the way. Under the original proposals, with appraisal clearly determining the assessment process, it would be difficult to argue that assessment was not the product of appraisal and therefore also a devolved matter. However, the postponement of the appraisal system has made a nonsense of the revised proposals as they are now left without a rigorous means of making an assessment. Head teachers will be forced to gather a wide range of evidence for each teacher aspiring to cross the threshold, and then check this against DfEE’s list of standards. The single comprehensive ready reference provided by the appraisal system will not be available, and having to make decisions based mainly on personal judgement will place head teachers in an invidious position. These latest proposals, which have been rushed forward at the eleventh hour, contain some positive modifications. However, they still link teachers’ pay to pupil performance and seek to deny the devolution process. By and large, they do not reflect the views of the Pre-16 Education Committee or of the professional bodies that represent teachers across Wales. They appear to have been not so much constructed to benefit our children’s education as cobbled together in a last minute attempt to thwart the Assembly, whatever the cost, from being the decision-making body in this matter.

Nid oes neb yn herio mai cyfrifoldeb San Steffan yw gosod manylion amrediad y cyflogau uwch, ond mae’n amlwg bod asesu athrawon sydd eisiau ennill cyflog uwch yn rhan annatod o’r broses werthuso ac felly’n gyfrifoldeb y Cynulliad. Mae’r bwriad i rannu asesu a gwerthuso yn ymgais amrwd amlwg arall i ganoli grym yn Stryd Downing. A ddysgant byth?

The Welsh Conservative Party is unequivocally in favour of rewarding good teachers. However, that should be done within a well thought out performance management framework. We have no objection to giving extra pay to teachers who excel. I firmly believe that there is a consensus across the political spectrum that the status of the teaching profession should be enhanced and that pay is a crucial part of achieving that. There are positive aspects to the administration’s performance management system. The plan is, at least, methodical and systematic. I pay tribute to the Secretary for Education and Children, who has accepted many of the Pre-16 Education Committee’s suggestions on the appraisal system. However, the Government’s proposals have fundamental flaws that the Assembly should not and cannot ignore.

The Welsh Conservative Party has three principled objections to the proposals as they stand. The first relates to the system’s centralised nature. It is being imposed on an England and Wales basis, without local flexibility. The assessment criteria are the same, regardless of the school’s circumstances. Rural schools will have the same criteria as inner city ones, small ones the same as large. This system is a far cry from one tailored to the needs of children and local schools. It is, in many respects, a system designed to conform to the control freakery of Millbank.

We should be careful not to turn this into a Wales versus England or a Westminster versus Cardiff dispute. It is a clash of cultures between New Labour and educational common sense. This plan is not just bad news for education in Wales; it is equally unsuited to schools in England. We should not reduce this dispute to the level of an England-Wales rugby match, particularly given last Saturday’s result. It is about the nature of devolution and how devolution will allow the Assembly to tailor education policy according to Welsh educational needs.

Our second objection to the scheme is that it is unnecessarily bureaucratic. As I mentioned in the short debate that I tabled on performance-related pay last year, the scheme will be a bureaucratic nightmare. If one looks at the teacher’s list of things to do, you will see school development plans, work development plans, work monitoring plans, self-review plans and annual team reviews. This is a burden that teachers could well do without.

I would like to see teachers in classrooms filling in gaps in our children’s education, not filling in forms for a divisive pay scheme. We would all have been better off had the administration decided to decentralise this matter to schools rather than impose a national straitjacket. Head teachers and governors are best placed to decide how to reward good teachers and good teaching practices. Perhaps a bit of real devolution would not have gone amiss. Instead, we have a ‘one size fits all’ approach, which will satisfy no-one.

Finally, the most controversial aspect of the new scheme, which is the substance of Plaid Cymru’s motion today, is the link between teachers’ pay and examination results. I am more than a little surprised that the Labour Party has come forward with this plan. After all, it was the Labour Party that, only a few years ago, was bleating about the shameful iniquities of school examination league tables. In a U-turn of monumental proportions, it is now advocating a direct link between examination results and teachers’ pay. It is another conversion on the road to Damascus, of which Labour has seen more than a superannuated Syrian long-distance lorry driver.

There are myriad reasons why such a link is both unjust and educationally ineffective. Pupil examination results are the function of a huge variety of factors, including parental support, the quality of primary education, class sizes, having English as a first language and the intrinsic abilities of a particular group of children. All of these factors play a profound role in determining class examination results. Teaching is also a factor, but it is difficult to strip it out of the whole education equation. In short, this scheme will mean unfair results and arbitrary rewards. It will undermine rather than bolster teachers’ morale.

The Welsh Conservative Party supports Jenny Randerson’s amendment 1. It reflects the clear view of the majority of Pre-16 Education Committee members. The Committee has given considerable time to examining this scheme. However flawed the system might be, we want to ensure that teachers in Wales receive the rewards to which they are entitled. Amendment 1 reflects the Committee’s work on this.

The heart of the problem, as other speakers have outlined, is the inconsistency between the initial appraisal and the assessment at the point of the threshold. From July to December 1999, the Assembly Secretary’s line was that the appraisal and assessment of teachers were inextricably linked. The position was that the Department for Education and Employment would decide where the pay point would come and the sum that teachers would be paid. There is no dispute that the DfEE still has responsibility for overall pay and conditions.

In clarification, as you support Jenny Randerson’s amendment 1, are you proposing that, if this policy goes ahead, the Assembly should not pay teachers if they are able to cross the threshold? The Liberal Democrats may want to explain this when they speak again.

There is certainly an ambiguity within amendment 1. It seems to suggest at the first instance that the Pre-16 Education Committee could stop the system. My view and that of the Welsh Conservative Party is that, while the amendment is ambiguous, it reflects the Committee’s work on this. We recognise that there will be a system of performance management and that teachers will be assessed and rewarded accordingly, regardless of the decision and the discussions both in the Assembly and in Committee. Whatever the system and the outcome, we want to ensure that Welsh teachers do not lose out. I agree that the amendment is ambiguous, but I also think that it was right to be tabled as we need to reflect on the Pre-16 Education Committee’s cross-party work on this.

It would be helpful to your group if the Liberal Democrats clarified the ambiguity before the end of the debate.

It is not for me to try to clarify an ambiguity within a Liberal Democrat amendment, but I note your point. We want to see a successful outcome. We want teachers to be rewarded for good practice and for their contribution to their schools. Whatever the outcome of the decisions in the Assembly, we realise that a system will be implemented in Wales that will hopefully reflect Welsh needs.

In my view, there is not an ambiguity in the amendment. It has been clear to all of us for a long time that there will be a performance management scheme in Wales. All possible steps not to implement it refer to performance being linked to exam results and not to the scheme as a whole, which we all know will be implemented as part of measures that are already undertaken.

There is greater inconsistency and ambiguity when one examines the system of appraisal against that of assessment and it is not wilful misinterpretation by opposition politicians. There was an understanding in good faith, not only by us, but also by the teaching unions, journalists and others, that the Assembly would have responsibility when examining the appraisal at the point of threshold.

In December, it was claimed that appraisal and teacher assessment were separate concepts. The Secretary for Education and Children maintained that the Assembly had full responsibility for teacher appraisal but had nothing to do with assessment at the point of threshold. I ask the Secretary to outline the fundamental difference between the appraisal of teachers, when they are assessed on their performance, and the appraisal at the point of threshold, to decide whether individual teachers go through that threshold. To assist the Secretary in her answer, I will tell her that in the Oxford English Dictionary ‘assessment’ is defined as ‘to estimate officially the value of’ and ‘appraisal’ is defined as ‘to estimate the amount, quality and excellence of; to assess’. I suggest to the Secretary that this is a distinction without a difference. No matter what lexicographical sleight of hand the Secretary uses, it does not obscure the fact that a power hitherto exercised in Wales is being repatriated to New Labour at Westminster. Something that was once the Welsh Office’s and the Assembly’s responsibility has been handed back to London.

That confusion must be cleared up, which is why the Pre-16 Education Committee has asked for independent legal advice from the Office of the Presiding Officer so that the Assembly can have a clear, definitive statement on its legal responsibilities in this area. If the scheme is imposed against the Assembly’s will, then we will have to ask serious questions about why we are expected to cough up the cash to fund the scheme in the first place. We have all heard the old maxim: no taxation without representation. Perhaps we should consider the flip side of the coin: there should be no expenditure without representation. Why should the Assembly use its scarce resources to bankroll a scheme that it had no role in deciding? We should consider those fundamental questions in the long term.

In closing, I will restate my opposition to the Administration’s plan regarding performance-related pay where pay is linked to pupil examination performance. The means by which teachers will pass through the thresholds will be divisive and educationally ineffective. We have missed an opportunity to build a performance-management framework for teachers that commands the respect of the profession and that conforms to the needs of pupils. I urge all Assembly Members to support the motion and the amendment as tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

We have heard speeches from my colleagues on the Pre-16 Education Committee and I agree with everything that they have said. I may be forgiven if I ask to be distanced slightly from Jonathan’s remarks on New Labour but that does not mean that I want to be associated with New Labour either. We have heard measured and considered speeches and I hope to make another one.

There is a consensus in this Assembly on the way forward and I believe that the Government of Wales will agree with and be a part of that consensus, if we can find a way to achieve the desired result. I pay tribute to Rosemary because she has gone a long way and has leant over backwards to achieve success for us on the employment of assessors. As a Committee we will take legal advice. I do not know whether we can do so from your office, Presiding Officer, but we will have to take it from somewhere. I read Jenny’s amendment to mean that she objects to the appraisal of teachers in order to have the money concerned and not that we should not have the scheme at all. Let me be clear. I do not want to repeat what has been said before. I want to make a short speech, because I know that many other people want to contribute. Nobody wants teachers to forego the extra money. There is no way that any of us on the Committee—and I do not believe that anybody here in the Assembly—would be prepared to withhold that money because of lack of agreement between ourselves and the Department for Education and Employment. Nobody on the Committee, as far as I am aware, is against measuring whether or not teachers pass the threshold by measuring their performance.

Performance must be involved and the new money will be awarded on the basis of a performance management scheme. It will be performance-related pay. There is no argument about that. It is promotion. It is money to encourage teachers to stay in the classroom. The problem is that the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 was devolved, which gives the Assembly powers to appraise and assess—although it uses the word ‘appraise’—but the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Act 1991, which sets the pay and conditions of teachers, has not been devolved. Therefore, we accept that the threshold is something to be set by the DfEE, but believe that the question of whether an individual teacher attains that threshold is a matter for the Assembly.

There is an argument about that. I believe that Rosemary has changed her view on this, or the advice she has received from civil servants has changed in the last two weeks, but there is an argument about whether or not this is a right interpretation. We shall see. If we can get legal evidence to support what the Committee wants, I hope that it will provide Rosemary with ammunition in her argument with the DfEE.

Looking through previous circulars—the most recent one is the ‘School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document 1999’—there is no use of detailed powers where the department lays down explicit criteria on what teachers should receive if they reach this point or that point of the pay spine.

I believe that David Blunkett is using circulars unusually, if he uses them to define this explicitly and includes pupil results as part of the content. We must wait and see as to whether or not that leads to a judicial review.

We do not like and do not want pupil results to be part of appraisals. It is divisive. It will set teacher against teacher. It will make teachers teach to the minimum and teach the minimum necessary from the curriculum, knowing that their promotion depends on results. As Jenny said, if you are in a good school, you will have a better chance of reaching that threshold than if you are in a bad school.

We have no objection if teachers themselves want to include exam results as part of their appraisal for passing the threshold. However, it should not be mandatory, because it is unnecessary and unfair—depending on the school, whether or not there are statemented children in the school and many other factors. The Government of Wales is not against this, if we can find a way forward. I do not believe that there are more than a handful of Members who are against the spirit of these proposals before us this afternoon. I hope that if they are passed it will give power to Rosemary’s elbow in her negotiations with the department in Westminster.

We are all proud that, through the Assembly, Wales has finally begun to develop its distinctive national education service. We have a national curriculum for Wales, which the Assembly proudly passed this year. Last week, Estyn published its latest report. Estyn represents how Wales has developed its distinctive inspection system, which recognises its needs.

We now appear to be taking a step back. If it is the case that teachers in Wales must, against their will, have their pay determined by pupil results, because of decisions made in London, is it fair that they have had no voice in this matter? The consultation assessment was based firmly on the needs of England with scarcely any thought for the needs of Wales. The Hay/McBear consultants employed to research into the characteristics of effective teaching did not set foot inside a school in Wales. Ofsted was consulted, but Estyn was not. School governors in England were consulted, but those in Wales were not. The National Union of Teachers in London was consulted, but the one in Wales was not. If this is a matter that crosses England and Wales, it is a disgrace that those concerned with education in Wales were not consulted. It begs the question: what steps have really been taken towards devolution?

I sum up, Presiding Officer, by addressing what this means to social inclusion. We know that there is no support for relating pupil performance to teachers’ pay in Wales. There are many reasons for this, which have been rehearsed by other Members. However, my concern is for socially deprived areas, especially in the south Wales Valleys. There are problems when the best teachers are sucked away from teaching pupils with the greatest need. It is widely acknowledged that the teacher is only one factor in determining a child’s results. Economic status, family life, peer group and societal expectations are some of the issues which have a role to play. It is entirely irresponsible to ignore this when setting criteria for determining teachers’ pay.

With Objective 1 status being designated to west Wales and the Valleys, this is an important point for Wales. Promoting social inclusion must lie at the heart of policies for Wales. Education can play this most vital role. We must encourage good recruits into the teaching profession and encourage them to stay there. Rewards should be given on the grounds of professional development and input into the classroom. Putting ever increasing pressures on good teachers frightens them away from the profession with a misplaced zero tolerance mentality, which Gareth outlined, and will ultimately be to the detriment of education in Wales.

Given the run of the debate so far, I am glad that you have called me to speak, Llywydd. John Marek is wrong to perceive a consensus across the Pre-16 Education Committee and across the Assembly in terms of this issue. I do not share the consensus that has emerged from the speakers so far.

I start from a different point of origin. That is, not the teaching profession per se. I do not set off this debate worrying about what is best for the teaching profession, although I am concerned about that, but I begin with what is best for the pupils in schools in Wales—the life chances of our children. The point of teaching is to change for the better the life chances of our children. To remove the child, in terms of assessing the performance of classroom teachers, which is what all the speakers so far have done, is to take the centre away from the equation. It destroys the whole house of cards and collapses in on itself. It is to deny our duty of care to pupils and parents across Wales. I accept that pupil progress—

This is important.

I accept that pupil progress is not equivalent to exam results. I have made that argument in committee. The option of taking on board exam results should be retained because we have thousands of talented teachers who would want us to take into account the fact that they have an aptitude for drawing out the best in children through examination. There is nothing wrong with that. We must also accept that a huge proportion of the population of pupils in our schools rely on exam results for their main life chances. Ninety per cent of the people sitting in this room have got where they are through succeeding at examination. I am talking about those pupils who are probably in the majority.

What about the 10 per cent?

Chwarae teg i David Davies.

I will make a point about you, David, later on.

Because of the type of constituency I represent, I reject this woolly-headed nonsense. For decades, the main route of escape from social exclusion and poverty in a constituency like mine has been through examinations. That may not be pretty, but it is the situation we face. I am not going to sit here while people suggest that we should deny that reality and thereby disadvantage our children. The Pre-16 Education Committee has continually run away from the debate about how we could face a distinctive Welsh option in measuring teachers’ performance. We could have had a debate about other distinctively Welsh options that were not tied slavishly to exam results. My suggestions were the cultural and social capital of our children, for instance. These were comprehensively rejected in the first phase of kow-towing to the latest National Union of Teachers press release. That is unacceptable and an abdication of responsibility. If this motion, particularly as amended, is passed, there is nothing ambiguous in it. It follows in the footsteps of John Redwood and suggests that the Assembly campaigns to send millions of pounds back to the Treasury which could have been in the pockets of Welsh teachers. That is effectively what the amendment says.

Llywydd, I address these final sentences to you. I am concerned that we should get into a situation where the Assembly is used too often to debate issues for which we have no responsibility. That leads us into political grandstanding of the worst sort, what the Militant Tendency used to affectionately call the transitional demand. It is easy to put to this body an amendment over which we have no powers—which by its nature entails that the Government of Wales will fail—and then to put out a press release saying that the Government of Wales has betrayed the Welsh people. That is unacceptable, disingenuous and dishonest because it does not address the competence of this body. That is a difficult matter for you, Llywydd, to steer through but I hope you will take that on board. Finally, I appeal to Members to put, just once, the child at the centre of your thoughts.

It has been an interesting debate and it is obvious that every Member, certainly all the ones that have spoken, are committed to ensuring that we get the best education possible for the children in Wales. There is a slight variation in how we achieve that. I will make two points before I address the motion. To explain to the non-anoraks—that was a good way of describing the Pre-16 Education Committee; I have thought of other things in the past, but anorak will do for today—that performance management is an ongoing system of continual professional development of teachers, ensuring that progress is continual within the school and that it is ongoing for every school in Wales. The threshold is a paypoint for allowing access to the new higher pay scales.

This motion rests on a fundamentally false premise. Despite what the motion suggests, it is not the plan that teachers should be paid simply on the basis of pupil performance. We are determined to ensure that teachers who choose to stay in the classroom can be paid more. The amendment to the motion is also seriously flawed and, although Jenny tried to explain it, what she says she wanted to say is not what is before us today. This suggests that there is some role for the Assembly to play in teachers’ pay when the legal position is that we do not have a role. That is important. It invites the Assembly to frustrate the intentions of a competent authority responsible for the matter. I regard this as wrong and potentially unlawful. The idea behind this motion may seem superficially attractive to some people, but it would damage the standing of Welsh education, both here and in the wider world.

Let me tell you about my vision for education in Wales. I want to see Wales recognised as an outstanding place in which to learn. I am passionately committed to working in partnership with schools and enabling teachers to develop their capabilities and to sustain genuinely high standards. I want to see good teachers properly rewarded for their work. If we do this we will make a huge contribution to rebuilding the profile of the profession in the public mind, attracting and retaining dedicated and remarkable people and providing fulfilling careers. I want to keep good teachers in the classroom. Paying them more is a good way to achieve this.

I want all this because teachers make a difference to the life chances of every schoolchild in Wales. What is the point of teaching if it is not to improve learning? I have not met one good teacher who does not speak of the overwhelming satisfaction in the tangible improvements in pupil learning that their efforts bring. Good teachers constantly examine what they are achieving for the children and young people that the profession exists to serve. They are not afraid to face up to the outcomes of their work. They know that they make a difference.

Let us look at what the Department for Education and Employment proposes to introduce. The purpose of the scheme is to reward good teachers and to allow them to stay in the classroom. At present, once a teacher has reached scale-point 9, they must take on responsibilities outside the classroom in order to get more money—heading off into management, away from the children to whose lives they have been making a difference. From the debate, and from media coverage, it would appear that teachers will be paid solely by exam results under this scheme. That is not the case.

I wish to correct three misapprehensions, which have almost developed into three myths. First, the DfEE proposals will not be imposed on teachers. Teachers who wish to take advantage of the scheme will do so if they, and they alone, choose. If they want to stay with the current system, they can. What is proposed is the introduction of a new pay range that will enable good teachers to achieve significantly higher salaries regardless of the social and economic context of their work setting.

Second, pupil progress alone will not determine the outcome of a threshold assessment. When head teachers review applications to cross the threshold to the new pay range, they will have to consider the application in the context of the teacher’s work as a whole. That means, as well as looking at pupil progress, that they will have to give equal weight to four other areas: teachers’ knowledge and understanding of their subjects, their general approach to teaching, their wider professional effectiveness and their strength in motivating pupils and building their confidence.

Third, the standard on pupil progress does not require teachers to meet an arbitrarily imposed set of quantitative targets unrelated to setting, subject, or differences year by year in pupil cohorts. There are real safeguards in the system that ensure that pupil progress, when considered, must be related to pupils’ prior attainment. In short, how the pupil was doing before they came into contact with the teacher being assessed. The threshold assessment will be looking for the difference that the teacher has made to a set of pupils based on where they started.

I am grateful for the kind words that have been said about me. I would like you to know that I have worked hard to persuade the DfEE to use local education authorities in Wales in the conduct of these assessments. This means that they will be conducted rigorously but also with the greatest sensitivity.

Let us take a look at the proposals in the pay-scheme, as there has been some confusion this afternoon. The pay-scheme designed by the DfEE will be part of the terms and conditions of service that apply to all teachers in Wales and England. Its common standards are a necessary element of a system that is common to both countries. Some want it both ways—they want pay and conditions to be common except when it is not in their interest. When it comes to threshold assessment and access to the new pay range, common standards of fairness and consistency, in Wales and England, will benefit Welsh teachers.

Some Members feel that the appraisal system that currently operates for all teachers means that a separate assessment system for access to the new pay-scheme is unnecessary. But the appraisal system is designed for a different purpose. We need common standards. Standards that include pupil progress in one country but not the other could not be regarded as comparable or equivalent. Teachers in Wales would be subject to the slur that standards at the threshold were lower for them and that they were being offered easier access to higher pay. There is a danger that this could devalue the profession in Wales with the corrosive impression that our teachers were in the second division compared with their colleagues in England. We could see a restriction in the cross-border flow of teachers.

Some Members would also like the legal position to be different but we must deal with the statutory position that exists. My job is not to design a different set of powers for the Assembly, but to ensure that the powers that we have work. Some Members would like to control the threshold standards but we cannot pick and choose the issues that we would like to add to the Assembly’s responsibilities over this.

Concentrating on this one issue is not realistic. We either have to control teachers’ pay and conditions of service in Wales, which means controlling everything—including related issues such as pensions—or we leave matters as they are. If we want to control them we must carefully consider all the possible implications, including additional cost to the Assembly—about 150 extra members of staff has been mooted. As things stand, I know of no-one who argues that the transfer of all the functions related to teachers’ pay should be a priority for the Assembly or that it would be in the interest of the teaching profession in Wales. Not one union has written to me in favour of transferring powers to set terms and conditions of service to the Assembly.

Despite the focus of this debate, this issue is not primarily about teachers. It is about pupils. It is their interests and those of their parents and carers that must be paramount, even though the interests of the profession also deserve respect and responsible judgment. Monitoring pupils’ progress and measuring outcomes informs teachers and schools of their strengths and weaknesses. Monitoring provides critically important information to teachers about how they can work to build on those strengths and overcome those weaknesses, not just for their benefit but, even more importantly, for the benefit of their pupils.

I hope that Members, unions and professional associations in Wales will see how much progress has been made in establishing a new system that offers special rewards for good teachers, sets high but realistic standards and takes into account fairly all the attributes that make up a good teacher. I hope that teachers will see the clear direction of the scheme, which is to provide a means of recognising and rewarding the huge contribution made by teachers in securing pupil progress. That is my vision. I am determined to keep good teachers in the classroom in Wales if that is their career choice.

The matter behind this motion is not for the Assembly. The functions on teachers’ pay have not been transferred to us and there is no point pretending that we can affect them. The amendment to the motion ignores the fact that this matter is not a devolved subject. It suggests that there is a role for the Assembly when there is none. It implies a willingness to prevent teachers from getting access to the proposed new threshold pay increase. It talks of all possible steps when there is no realistic way to achieve what the motion seeks. It suggests that it would be acceptable for the Assembly to intervene in matters where the power rests elsewhere, when any institution with an ounce of responsibility would know that that is not the way that mature political bodies behave.

If we ignore the statutory realities, we indulge in gesture politics. We will not send a signal to London. If we did, we would let down Wales’s teachers. Worst of all we would do a huge disservice to Wales’s children. The teachers of Wales deserve substance, not gestures. I do not intend to support this motion.

Mae’n anrhydedd cloi dadl mor bwysig â hon.

Mae hawliau a phwerau’r Cynulliad ar y mater hwn yn fater o bwys—traethodd Rosemary Butler ar hynny. Anghytunaf yn llwyr â’i safbwynt na ddylai’r Cynulliad geisio dylanwadu ar faterion sydd y tu hwnt i’w bwerau cyfreithiol a’i hawliau. Credaf fod dylanwad y Cynulliad ar benderfyniadau Llundain yn rhan eithriadol o bwysig o’i rôl. Mae gennym hawl i’n safbwynt yma a hawl i ddisgwyl i Lundain gymryd sylw o’n safbwynt a gweithredu arno. Mae holl gwestiwn y farn gyfreithiol ar y mater hwn yn dal i gael ei ddatrys ac edrychwn ymlaen i’r canlyniad. Trafododd Jenny Randerson yn ddeallus y gwahaniaeth rhwng y trothwy perfformiad ar y naill llaw a’r fframwaith rheoli perfformiad ar y llaw arall. Mae gwahaniaethu rhwng y ddau beth hyn yn nonsens llwyr.

Gobeithiaf felly y bydd gan y Cynulliad yr hawl i benderfynu’r meini prawf a fydd yn dyfarnu pa un ai yw athro yn cael croesi’r trothwy neu beidio. Yr wyf yn sicr mai felly y dylai hi fod ac y gallai hi fod felly pa un a ddylai fod gan y Cynulliad yr hawl i drafod cyflogau athrawon mewn ystyr gyffredinol neu beidio. Mae hi’n annioddefol ein bod yn trafod bygythiad i dynnu arian allan o’r gyllideb Gymreig oni bai ein bod yn fodlon dilyn gorchymyn Llundain ar y mater hwn.

Mae’n gwbl glir bod modd gweithredu dymuniad y Cynulliad hwn os oes ewyllys gwleidyddol i wneud hynny. Gellir gwneud hynny un ffordd neu’r llall. Mae dau fater, felly. Yn gyntaf, a oes gan Lywodraeth Cymru yr ewyllys wleidyddol i weithredu yn ôl dymuniad y Cynulliad? A yw’r ewyllys wleidyddol yn bodoli o fewn y Blaid Lafur? Mae hynny’n gymysglyd ar hyn o bryd gan fod gwahanol leisiau wedi dod o’r Blaid Lafur. Croesawaf hynny. Deallaf fod y Blaid Lafur yn bwriadu atal ei phleidlais ar y mater, sydd yn dynodi diffyg argyhoeddiad o blaid yr argymhellion. A oes gan Gabinet y Cynulliad a’r Ysgrifennydd Addysg a Phlant yr ewyllys wleidyddol i wneud yr hyn y mae’r Cynulliad yn ei ddymuno? Canmolwyd Rosemary Butler am yr hyn y mae wedi’i gyflawni ac yr wyf finnau’n ei chanmol hefyd. Fodd bynnag, yr wyf yn siomedig o’i chlywed yn amddiffyn yr anamddiffynadwy y prynhawn yma. Y cwestiwn arall yw a oes gan y Prif Ysgrifennydd ewyllys wleidyddol? Tybiaf ei fod yn ei swydd bresennol am ei fod yn fwy parod na’i ragflaenydd i weithredu polisïau priodol i Gymru. Mae hygrededd Rhodri Morgan ar y lein i raddau helaeth.

Yr ail gwestiwn yw a yw’r ewyllys wleidyddol i barchu Cymru, i barchu’r farn gyhoeddus yng Nghymru ac i barchu’r Cynulliad a’i farn yn bodoli yn Llundain. Mae ein sefyllfa yn dangos yn glir ddiffygion y model o ddatganoli sydd gennym. Mae angen i’r broses ddatganoli symud ymlaen a hynny ar frys.

Mae llwyddiant datganoli yn dibynnu ar ddau fater. Yn gyntaf, mae angen defnyddio pwerau’r Cynulliad yn llawn. Mae hynny yn fater cymhleth. Mae gwybod beth yw hyd a lled pwerau’r Cynulliad hwn yn dipyn o gamp. Mae’n rhaid inni ddefnyddio’r pwerau hynny’n llawn. Mae llwyddiant datganoli yn dibynnu hefyd ar barodrwydd Llundain i ymateb i ddymuniadau a dyheadau y Cynulliad yn y modd y mae’n llunio deddfwriaeth ac yn caniatáu amrywio is-ddeddfwriaeth.

Yr wyf yn falch o’r cyfle i ymyrryd gan fod Cynog wedi sôn am fy hygrededd. A yw yn ceisio dadlau y dylai’r Cynulliad gael y pŵer i ddatrys materion tâl? Dywedodd Rosemary yn ei haraith y byddai hynny’n golygu dros gant o swyddi ychwanegol, ac ystyried fod 150 o weision sifil yng Ngogledd Iwerddon yn datrys eu materion tâl hwythau. A ydych chi’n bwriadu gofyn am y pŵer a’r swyddi ychwanegol y byddai eu hangen i ymdrin â materion tâl ein hathrawon? Yn ail, mae’r Cynulliad wedi gofyn i David Blunkett a fyddai’n trosglwyddo’r hawliau dros y mater hwn yn wirfoddol. Gwrthododd wneud hyn yn wirfoddol, felly beth ddylai’r Cabinet ei wneud? Derbynia Cynog fod y gyfraith yn nodi’n glir na throsglwyddwyd y mater hwn i’r Cynulliad dan Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 1998. Beth y mae’n disgwyl i’r Cabinet, y Prif Ysgrifennydd, y grŵp Llafur neu unrhyw un arall ei wneud?

Ar bwynt cyntaf Rhodri, yn sicr nid wyf yn dadlau dros drosglwyddo holl gyfrifoldeb trafod a phenderfynu ar lefel cyflogau athrawon i’r Cynulliad ar hyn o bryd. Yn y diwedd, carwn weld hynny’n digwydd. Mae’n berffaith bosibl yn yr Alban ac felly yng Nghymru. Fodd bynnag, nid yw hynny’n flaenoriaeth yn sicr.

Mae’n ddigon eglur y dylai fod gennym y gallu a’r hawl i benderfynu ar delerau dyrchafu athro a’r canllawiau ar gyfer penderfynu a ydynt yn cael dyrchafiad cyflog o ganlyniad i fesuriad o’u perfformiad. Yn sicr, dylai fod gan y Cynulliad yr hawliau hyn yn llawn. Mae’r ffaith nad ydynt gennym yn dangos yr annibendod presennol yn y system ddatganoli ac, fel y dywedodd Gareth Jones, mae’n dangos y gall pŵer gael ei dynnu’n ôl o Gymru o dan y system bresennol. Mae’r holl broses o adolygu cyflogau athrawon bellach yn cynnwys rheoliadau manwl ynglŷn â’r modd y mesurir perfformiad athrawon a’r hyn a gynhwysir o fewn hynny.

Ar ail bwynt Rhodri, credaf ei fod wedi gollwng y gath o’r cwd. Dywedodd fod Cabinet Llafur y Cynulliad wedi gwneud cais i David Blunkett roi’r hyblygrwydd inni a’i fod wedi gwrthod. Mae hynny’n fater difrifol. Yr ydych wedi gwneud cais i’r Ysgrifennydd Gwladol dros Addysg a Chyflogaeth i ganiatáu gwahanol driniaeth yng Nghymru i’r hyn a fydd yn Lloegr ac mae wedi gwrthod. Os yw wedi gwrthod, mae’n euog o’r union control freakery sydd yn destun y fath ddicter yng Nghymru ac, fel y gŵyr ef, o fewn ei blaid ei hun.

Trafododd Owen John Thomas yn ddeallus y modd y cymerwyd y penderfyniad i wahanu asesiad i’r trothwy a gwerthuso athrawon. Mae’n amlwg bod agenda gwleidyddol y tu cefn i hynny.

Mae lles ein cyfundrefn addysg a chreu fframwaith synhwyrol a theg ar gyfer talu athrawon a systemau dyrchafiad yn y fantol. Peidied neb â dadlau y bydd gweithredu’r math hwn o gynllun sydd yn cysylltu tâl athrawon â pherfformiad disgyblion o les i blant. Mae hynny’n gamgymeriad cyfeiliornus. Mae morâl a thegwch wrth drin athrawon yn eithriadol o bwysig i les plant. Yr ydym oll yn cytuno bod lles plant yn ganolog i hyn.

Yn bwysicach ac yn ehangach na’r gyfundrefn addysg y mae democratiaeth Gymreig. Mae hawl pobl Cymru i benderfynu ar faterion o bwys yn ôl eu gwerthoedd a’u hanghenion ymarferol yn y fantol. Mae angen i ddemocratiaeth Gymreig symud yn ei blaen. Mae’r cynllun hwn yn sôn am dynnu’r broses ddemocrataidd yng Nghymru yn ei hôl. Mae gorfodi’r cynllun hwn ar Gymru yn erbyn ewyllys unfrydol y genedl yn groes i ysbryd democratiaeth ac mae’n eithriadol o bwysig fod Aelodau’r Cynulliad yn pleidleisio o blaid y cynnig ac yn erbyn yr awgrym hwn.

I also propose amendment 3. At the end of the motion, add

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, its wind-up and the procedures for doing so have been discussed on a number of occasions in the Economic Development Committee. If the principle of equal opportunity had stretched to every member of that Committee, perhaps we would not need such a debate this afternoon. However, I am pleased to propose the motion and to reveal the interesting findings of the research I have conducted.

The redevelopment of Cardiff Bay from an area of social and economic deprivation to one of prosperity, social inclusion and sustainable economic promise will deliver the key objective of the New Towns and Urban Development Corporations Act 1985. The vision of Labour’s Lord Brook and the then Secretary of State for Wales, the Conservative Nicholas Edwards, will have been realised. Cardiff will be put on the international map as a superlative maritime city that will stand comparison with any such city in the world, thereby enhancing the image and economic well-being of Cardiff and Wales.

I pay tribute to the chairman of CBDC, Sir Geoffrey Inkin, as well as his board of directors and the chief executive, Michael Boyce. I hope that the First Secretary will join me in congratulating them and the staff. Their achievements have been considerable in the face of much hostility from key individuals, no-one more significant than the now First Secretary. Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, from its public sector funding base of £500 million, has already gained more than £1 billion of private sector investment, which will ultimately lead to more than £2 billion. It has created 20,000 new jobs and developed 5,000 new homes, a quarter of which are classed as social housing. The corporation has reclaimed 400 hectares of land, all for the community of Cardiff, striking a balance between social needs and economic development. The barrage is the pinnacle of the project. One of Europe’s largest and most prestigious civil engineering projects has been built in Wales. There is every reason to celebrate that achievement, to sell the image of Wales as a forward-looking, dynamic, reborn nation, confident of its culture and heritage as well as innovative and creative for the future.

However, in place of a royal opening attracting journalists from all over Europe, a fitting celebration of the achievements, we will have the subtle unveiling of a brass plaque—a news item that will capture the bottom left-hand corners of the UK journals if we are lucky. The reason for that is the First Secretary’s hostility and spite and to save his embarrassment. It is sad that a cause to celebrate and promote Wales throughout the world is being ignored because of one individual.

I will nail that canard straightaway. There was no suggestion of the Assembly proposing a royal opening during my time as First Secretary. For Alun Cairns to use it as a platform for a shoddy attack on the present First Secretary is outrageous and not in keeping with the standards that we should uphold in the Assembly.

Thank you for that contribution, but the excuse made by the Government of Wales’s official spokesman last week, that the royal family was not available, was a weak one. It was then discovered that the Prince of Wales will visit south Wales on 15 March. That would have been an appropriate occasion to celebrate the opening of Cardiff Bay.

It is not possible, and I am sure that it would be impossible for the present First Secretary, to discuss long-term or short-term arrangements with the royal family. That is not the way it is done. To try to draw the royal family into a piece of political point scoring is outrageous and falls below the standards that we expect in this Assembly.

I agree with your last point. That is why I was particularly disappointed that the Government of Wales’s official spokesman used the royal family as an excuse last week.

The hostility originated some time ago, with filibustering in the House of Commons breaking every record and delaying and obstructing the will of the people of Cardiff. It is estimated that that delay alone cost over £5 million in administration. The cost in lost business opportunities for Cardiff and Wales can only be imagined. It is ironic that the man who fought every battle to prevent the redevelopment of Cardiff Bay became responsible for the whole operation and organisation of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. It is no wonder that the current fiasco has developed.

We are short of time in this debate. We only have an hour and several of my colleagues would like to contribute. However, I will give way to the First Secretary.

This is a bit personal.

It is true, is it not?

I know that you were not around in Cardiff at the time and are therefore speaking from a position of almost perfect ignorance, but I must correct you on the history of CBDC and the barrage. The will of the people of Cardiff was never sought on this issue. The barrage was imposed on Cardiff and Wales by the then Tory Government, run by people who did not even represent Welsh constituencies. It rumbled on and on over many years and the will of the people of Cardiff was never considered.

Thank you for your contribution. You are right: I was not around in Cardiff at that time. However, I can look objectively at the situation. CBDC has been an enormous success for Cardiff and, as a result, we are all happy to take part in that success through the establishment of the Assembly here in Cardiff Bay.

I lived in Cardiff in the early 1980s and went to university here. I was at the press conference when this project was announced and it was greeted with widespread acclaim. It was a privilege to see the top financial journalists and all those interested in regeneration projects, including people from North America, here to say that Cardiff was leading the way in maritime redevelopment in Britain.

Thank you for that comment. That would have been the sort of publicity that an official opening would have gained us: journalists from North America and from financial journals across the UK and Europe. However, unfortunately, we are left with this situation.

I will move on, if I can. To describe a situation as a ‘fiasco’ is often to overstate. However, on this occasion only the words ‘fiasco’, ‘shambles’, ‘disaster’ and ‘debacle’ combined could describe the political fix that has developed in the winding-up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and in the handover to successor bodies. Last April, Alun Michael, as Secretary of State for Wales, agreed a memorandum of understanding with the leader of Cardiff City and County Council, Russell Goodway. Within any negotiating procedure, no-one would blame Russell Goodway for seeking to gain the best possible deal for Cardiff. However, it would be fair to say that we would have to rely on the honesty, integrity and the skills of the Secretary of State for Wales at the time in achieving a fair and reasonable outcome. What would be a fair and reasonable outcome? I would say that it would be one that passed a balance of assets and liabilities to a successor body. One would assume that inheriting the prosperity of the development of Cardiff Bay, together with the extra income that will be afforded in time, would be enough of a bonus for any local authority.

Swansea, west Wales and north Wales would have been delighted to have received infrastructure benefits on this scale. What was the outcome of this agreement? Cardiff county council will receive assets of more than £16 million. It is not until the details are revealed that this financial scandal comes to light. With the transfer of assets to Cardiff council, it will receive £6.1 million of net benefit for no apparent reason to spend as it wishes. Evidence at the last Economic Development Committee meeting demonstrated that there are no plans for this £6 million and it was clear that Russell Goodway intends to spend this on whatever projects, inside or outside the bay, that he chooses. I have been forced to table an amendment to my motion because of the scandal that Cardiff council is running away with £6 million over and above what is needed.

After the massive, inflation-busting council tax rises that have been imposed on every council tax payer in Wales, would not they have appreciated a bonus of a £6 million handout? Would not our health service or our schools have welcomed a £6 million injection over and above what they have been allocated? However, the biggest scandal is the political fix and the blatant way in which this has been done.

Standards in public life have been criticised on many occasions. We all accept rules and regulations to maintain public confidence in the interest of openness and transparency. Government ministers are expected to adhere to those regulations. However, the Secretary of State for Wales at the time, who for no apparent reason, rushed through this memorandum of understanding before the establishment of the Assembly, did so contrary to the Government’s own code of conduct for Ministers. Regulation 64 of the Ministerial Code states that

‘Where Ministers have to take decisions within their Departments which might have an impact on their own constituencies, they should, of course, take particular care to avoid any possible conflict of interest.’

Thank you, Llywydd. I seek to give you my assurance. In spite of regulation 64 of the Ministerial Code, I believe that Alun Michael, as Secretary of State for Wales, agreed to hand over £6 million of net benefits to Cardiff county council, a local authority in which he had a critical interest as a Member of Parliament for Cardiff South and Penarth.

I agree. I am so concerned about these allegations that I intend to refer them to Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, and to the Standards and Privileges Committee of the House of Commons, because it was done at the time that Alun Michael was Secretary of State. I will be doing it through the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin. I trust that that satisfies your concerns.

I believe this to be potentially the biggest financial scandal that the Assembly will have to face. That is why I will be taking the action that I have highlighted. If only the shenanigans and political fix and what I believe to be handouts ended there.

Last October, you will recall that the then First Secretary made a statement to this Chamber on his second memorandum of understanding with Russell Goodway. After 36 companies had followed a European procurement procedure over 18 months, in which Thames Water was selected to become the preferred bidder to run the Cardiff Bay barrage, Russell Goodway threw together a contract in 48 hours and was awarded the deal. This seemed either to be super-efficient of the public sector, compared with the 18 months taken by the private sector, or another political and financial stitch-up. You have guessed it. I have come to the same conclusion again.

It seems that the Finance Director of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, Phil Higgins, left the corporation on Sunday 5 September and started work for Cardiff county council on Monday 6 September. It is no wonder that Cardiff county council could offer an agreement, irrespective of any expertise that it offered.

An estimated £12 million was proposed to run the harbour authority, but Alun Michael agreed with Russell Goodway that Cardiff county council would be able to save £2 million over three years. In spite of the corrupt way in which it was achieved, that proposal sounded reasonable enough in the first instance. However, the paper offered to the Economic Development Committee in January showed that this £12 million had mysteriously risen to £14 million for no apparent reason. Questions at that time offered no explanation. I was pleased to see in the papers for last week’s Committee that this figure had been revised to £12 million. This all adds to the unsavoury demonstration or arrangements that I believe have taken place in the negotiations leading to the wind-up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation.

As for that alleged saving of £2 million over three years, there will be a few extra costs. Thames Water believes that its deal would have been £3 million cheaper in any case. I understand there will be many legal implications as a result.

However, in addition to the extra cost, there will be a delay of freshwater impoundment for 12 months, lost business confidence, and a barrage that is designed to hold water back will have to move to a tidal regime in the summer months to maintain water quality, which is likely to lead to considerable damage to the structure. This has been likened to a car with five forward gears and one reverse gear being driven in reverse for twelve months. No manufacturer would offer you a guarantee on that operation, therefore nobody would expect the barrage designers to offer a warranty on a tidal flow regime. The potential costs—

I will bring my speech to a close. Alun Michael’s and Rhodri Morgan’s negotiations have led to the Assembly picking up the tab for the 12-month delay of a freshwater impoundment, scouring damage, lost business confidence and safety implications of barrage operators who have not been trained. The shambles of the agreement that the First Secretary has fixed with Cardiff county council, or is still trying to negotiate, is potentially putting the safety of the barrage operators and the city of Cardiff at risk.

We are only three weeks away from Cardiff county council being handed the responsibility of running the barrage. Yet, it was less than three weeks ago that the recruitment procedure commenced. Within that short period, Cardiff county council must have sifted the applicants, short-listed the candidates, interviewed potential operators, allowed those operators to serve notice with their existing employers and completed all necessary training. All within five weeks—Russell Goodway is living in a dream world.

However, last week in the meeting of the Economic Development Committee, Russell Goodway said he thought it was possible. Therefore, why did he say that he had negotiated a buffer contract with Crest Nicholson—the current barrage operators—to run it just in case? In discussions yesterday, Crest Nicholson told me that no such negotiations had been concluded and that it had, in fact, sent out redundancy notices yesterday. It is not interested in a three-month contract, but may consider something longer-term. Who are we to negotiate? We are being held over a barrel by Cardiff county council and the negotiations that have led to this.

The most prestigious civil engineering project in Europe is being sidelined from an official opening. Freshwater impoundment is being delayed by 12 months. There are enormous costs in terms of lost business confidence, scouring and lost warranty. Cardiff county council is receiving a £6 million handout in what I believe to be a stitch-up. Negotiations took place which contravened the Ministerial Code. By awarding the agreement to Cardiff county council and rejecting private sector bids, which apparently were cheaper, Russell Goodway is holding the Labour Executive over a barrel and the agreement is yet to be signed. We are three weeks away from the end of the existing barrage contract and nobody has been recruited, employed or trained to operate the flood prevention mechanisms. All this and Andrew Davies has the audacity to table an amendment to the motion. I will let the Assembly decide, Llywydd.

I am not here to chuck allegations about. My purpose is to ensure that the interests of the Assembly and the taxpayers of Wales are fully protected. I might say that I come not to praise Caesar—or CBDC—but to sort out some of the problems that it left behind. As one who was around during the difficult initial stages when CBDC was set up, and one who is concerned about local people’s concerns not being taken into account, I feel that it is right that the local authority should try to recover some of the functions that it has lost.

The people of Cardiff may not like Russell Goodway, but they do not like CBDC either. However, we should seek to maximise the financial benefit and get the best value for the Assembly. At the same time, one would expect Cardiff county council to seek to maximise the financial gain to Cardiff and its citizens, therefore we are definitely in a negotiating process. The ongoing negotiations between the CBDC, the Assembly and Cardiff council have been tense, sharp and, as you might expect, will continue to be tough. Ultimately, this Assembly, working on behalf of the people of Wales must ensure that they feel comfortable and that their interests as well as ours have been protected. The underpinning memoranda of understanding, which Alun Michael signed in April and October do not place legal obligations on this Assembly but they have been used as the basis for the Section 165 Agreements that underpin everything.

There is a range of unanswered questions and my amendment seeks to address that fact today to protect our interests. It is right for this Assembly to seek best value for the taxpayer’s money in Wales. There are some in this Assembly—colleagues in my party, Rhodri Morgan, Sue and others who would have wanted the barrage to be in a different place. Unfortunately, that is a matter of history. We cannot wind the tape back; we have to continue from where we are at the moment.

Best value does not necessarily mean that we should put our faith and trust in Thames Water. Look at its record. It is the leakiest water company in Britain. It also has a poor record on technical competence. That would require some examination. It is an unanswered question because when we asked the local authority last week what it planned to do to meet the water quality conditions of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act, it said that it had not yet determined the method that it would use. This Assembly needs the assurance that there is a methodology in place that is precise and that will pin down the proposed contractor to ensure that the water quality conditions are met. I agree with Alun Cairns: there are a range of concerns about scouring, water quality and other issues that should be addressed.

My amendment 2 also addresses the fact that £6.1 million has been allocated for additional regeneration. Members of the Economic Development and the Environment and Local Government Committees who met together to discuss this issue are genuinely concerned about it. Although the contracts were to be concluded by 31 March and have not yet been signed, we were told that the agreement did not include details of how the money should be spent. In other words, the decision on how to spend the money would be left until after the agreement had been signed. That is not satisfactory. The interest of this Assembly has not been met if that is going to be the case. We must establish what will be in the contract for that £6.1 million.

In April 1999, Cardiff council accepted that any funding provided for training, community activities, business development, event management and tourism promotion would be restricted to the purpose of completing the development of the bay area. Note the word ‘completing’ not ‘continuing’ or ‘undertaking’, so it must be possible for us to be able to identify and to cost the work that is necessary to complete the development of the bay area. In the meantime, the WDA is faced with managing the completion of the Bute Avenue PFI on a reduced budget. That is inequitable, so we must establish whether we are getting the best value for money from the contracts before us.

This amendment seeks to express the views of the Economic Development and the Environment and Local Government Committees. Negotiating with Cardiff council and its leader, as I am sure that Ron Davies and others in this Chamber will tell you, is rather like handling a slippery eel. I suppose that that is better than being hit by a wet kipper. One way or other, we need a strong way of ensuring that arbitration between the Assembly and Cardiff council and its leader in subsequent years is in place. At the moment, I am not satisfied that the contract documents allow sufficiently strong arbitration to enable us to reserve and strengthen our position. We must be convinced that the taxpayers and the people of Wales will not be forever digging deeper and deeper into their pockets, not knowing where it will end.

This Assembly cannot be a bottomless purse with money diverted from other public services, both for Cardiff and elsewhere. Every single document available on this transfer shows different figures. No matter where you look, whatever you are trying to find a solution for or whatever you are paying for, the figures will vary from one day to the next. That does not do much for public confidence.

Our worry is that the Assembly will continue to shell out more and more money without having the essential controls in place. That is what amendment 2 seeks to do. It asks this Assembly to ensure that the contracts are sufficiently watertight to ensure that the Assembly does not have to pass out more and more money from the public purse and that the purse will not forever be drained by the resources that we will be required to continue to provide, as we negotiate on issues which Cardiff council want us to complete. I therefore ask you to support amendment 2 to ensure that we, as an Assembly, seek to draw the line and keep control of the public purse.

I will try not to take such a combative approach as my colleague, Alun Cairns did in setting out these issues so vigorously. Perhaps my mode of delivery can be a bit more ‘thought for the day’.

When we consider the future of Cardiff and the achievements of the last 15 years, it is appropriate to put it in a wider perspective. Cardiff, for me, symbolises the history of Glamorgan. I am proud to say that I am a Glamorgan son. I was born in Neath. I have lived in Cardiff most of my life and now live in Barry. The county means a lot to me. It is not the whole of Wales. I grant those who are from other parts of Wales that sometimes we can get drawn into that trap. However, it has certainly been a county that has played a prominent part in the history of Wales and its historical and industrial development.

If you visit Cardiff Castle, you can see the foundations of the Roman walls. This reminds us that, from the earliest historical times, people in this part of the world have sought to build an environment that gives them vision and security for the future. In medieval times, this was an important place, although the settlement of Cardiff was fairly small.

Llandaff Cathedral had a huge influence on church matters. However, it was the industrial period that saw Cardiff expand remarkably from 2,000 people in 1801 to 165,000 by 1901 and nearly double that today. It was an astonishing growth. Many of us look at the development of cities in the New World and North America and forget that Cardiff developed at that pace.

In 1910 there were roughly 400 coal mines in Glamorgan. One third of the world’s exported coal passed through the port of Cardiff, which was one of the world’s greatest ports. This was an astonishing, development. It is a small part of our history if we look at it now in a wider perspective. However, at the time, the vigour and vision that that brought to people was astonishing, and it is that success that we must build on. We are not abolishing anything. When we find a new use for the magnificent docks that were left to us, we will not be turning our backs on that heritage, but realising that our world is different. However, we hope to have the same enterprise and vision for the future as our forebears.

In the period between 1900 and the 1930s, the civic buildings in Cardiff were built to an astonishing degree. They are quite magnificent. For example, City Hall, the museum and other buildings built with the profits of coal owners, such as the Temple of Peace, bring a vision that linked Wales with the League of Nations and international issues in a striking and innovative way.

By about 1980, Cardiff seemed to be in decline. When I came to University in 1981, people were rather depressed about the future of Cardiff, particularly Cardiff south of the tracks. I remember being reminded by lecturers on an economic history course how different Cardiff was if you took the railway line and divided Cardiff into north and south. In south Cardiff there did not seem to be much hope for the future. A new vision was conceived in the early 1980s, and it is fitting that Alun Cairns paid tribute to the cross-party involvement of all the people in Cardiff and south Wales. This was not created by one party.

While it is important that we recognise the benefits that this scheme has brought to Cardiff, will David Melding accept that some people have suffered as a result? Does he share my concern about those who saw their land compulsory purchased in order to make way for a bird sanctuary? Some have still not received compensation, and I declare an interest in that I know one of those people. He lost 300 acres of land that had been in his family for centuries. While it is right that we celebrate this achievement in Cardiff, does my colleague agree that it has not been to the benefit of everyone?

I sympathise with anyone who feels aggrieved. There are procedures to deal with people who feel that their affairs have been maladministered.

I started by emphasising the part that the built environment plays in human affairs. We must concede that when we build something such as the barrage, there are costs and losses. However, it has always been man’s endeavour to control the environment. It is impossible to live the modern enterprising life that we all take for granted unless we control everything from agriculture to telecommunications. The built environment is part of that. I am uncertain about the specific issues to which my colleague referred, but I am sure that they are worthy of further examination.

I mentioned the cross-party support shown to the Cardiff Bay development by people such as Lord Brook, Nicholas Edwards, who was a visionary in this respect, and Sir Geoffrey Inkin who took the idea forward. There are others who were involved and I have named but a few. I am not saying that local authorities did not have a part to play. It is easy to play a harsh partisan game about who should have taken this forward. Many people and authorities had a part to play.

Some previous points need re-emphasising. One of the basic problems is that we have suffered from three individuals who took different views. Our previous First Secretary favoured the barrage and wanted it publicised. The new First Secretary was against the barrage and any publicity. In between these two we had the Lord Mayor, Russell Goodway, who favoured Russell Goodway and wanted to publicise that. Has that not been one of the great dangers and the reason why we have not seen the publicity that this project deserves? This is to the detriment of Cardiff and Wales.

This is a brief intervention and it would be even briefer if I were allowed to finish.

I thought that I would be assisting by making an intervention rather than a speech.

We have only had two speeches so far.

My point relates to the important issue of the benefit to the people of Wales. It is a shame that there are not more Labour and Plaid Cymru Members present to hear about the benefit that should accrue to the city if the £16 million of assets were identified to fund projects in Cardiff, and if the people who are supposed to work the barrage were in place and were properly trained.

I commend my friend’s remarks to the Executive for further consideration.

I was taking a thought for the day approach and I will now move to a conclusion. It is important to look forward. There have been battles along the way. When I look around Cardiff and witness the astonishing transformation, it is clear that we are about three-quarters of the way through this project. A lot of land is now becoming available. The final stage in many ways clinches the success of the project, or whether it merely achieves a more average outcome. We must now focus on the last stage and ensure that the local authority with responsibility for its delivery meets the most exacting demands and executes a vision that takes Cardiff forward. This is one of the great cities of Europe. We live in a world where the provincial world is again being writ large. In many ways, the age of centralism has ended. We want to take our place as one of Europe’s great provincial cities, and we can. The last stage is here and we can succeed or, if we bicker, fail. Much has been put in place for us to move forward and achieve an outstanding outcome. We should all seek to be part of that, regardless of party and past stances on these issues. Cardiff deserves the best from us all.

I have not always lived in Cardiff and have not always been aware of the machinations around this issue. Therefore, I will give you an outsider’s view of how it has appeared to people living at the other end of Wales, particularly in the last few weeks.

This issue and how it has been handled does not seem to have been an example of good practice or even—it must be said—open government. Many more questions have been raised than have been answered, despite joint committees and so on. However this has been handled, the important issue is getting appropriate water quality management strategies right and in place by the summer. If we do not, we could be in a bad position, especially given the location of this building. I declare an interest, as a new resident in the bay area. It will affect many of us who have moved into this area.

Water quality is important and I will concentrate on that. During our meetings with it, Cardiff City and County Council has consistently refused to give assurances on several critical issues relating to the transfer of functions. There has been no clarification on how the council will respond to the Environment Agency’s directives, no confirmation that the council has a methodology in place to control the lake and no clear indication of the methodology that it will employ to secure environmental standards. That is the crux of the issue.

Cardiff Bay Development Corporation put a tender in the Official Journal of the European Community in early summer 1998 and companies then made bids according to that tender. CBDC decided to give work to one main bidder, instead of to many companies that bid for different aspects of the tender. That main bidder turned out to be Thames Water, with other companies—local companies perhaps—managing water quality and the barrage. The tendering process was open and was according to public procurement requirements. The bids were worked on, developed and refined over the months. Then, suddenly, on 7 December, 1999, the former First Secretary made an announcement to the Assembly:

‘I turn to the other issue covered by this statement. Over the past month, I have personally supervised a detailed exercise that has scrutinised the options in this area. This has involved close consultation with CBDC, Cardiff City and County Council, the Environment Agency Wales and representatives of the business community. I am now in a position to draw conclusions. The Development Corporation put a proposal to me that the future management of the bay should be the subject of a three or five-year contract let to Thames Water, who had emerged as the preferred bidder following a tendering process conducted by CBDC in line with EU procurement rules.

However, in my statement to the Assembly on 20 October, I confirmed that Cardiff City and County Council would be assuming the responsibilities and functions of the harbour authority as part of the wider succession arrangements for Cardiff Bay. Instinctively, I think it is right that the local authority with its democratic mandate should be given the opportunity to assume as many of the post-CBDC functions as are appropriate to transfer to it and that it is able to discharge.

Against this background, it is only right that the local authority should be consulted on that decision, as it would assume management responsibility for the Thames Water contract if it were let. In the event, the county council was able to formulate an alternative to the Thames Water option, which I have also carefully considered. After doing so, I have I have concluded that the council option offers better value for money. It offers advantages in terms of cost and affordability, better control of risk and a more comprehensive solution in terms of maximising the business and leisure potential of the Cardiff Bay.’

That raises a number of questions about the whole process. To an outsider looking at the process, it is at that point that matters seem to have gone behind closed doors. No-one would dispute that giving control of the bay to a democratically elected body is the right thing to do. Nobody is here to defend the actions of CBDC. However, the then First Secretary said in his statement that Cardiff council would assume management responsibility for the Thames Water contract if it were let. In the next sentence he said that the council was able to formulate an alternative to the Thames option. He carefully considered the council offer and concluded that it was a better offer.

However, had the council, when it formed its bid, seen the Thames Water bid, and is that an open and fair way of doing things? If it had formed an alternative to the Thames scheme, then why has it consistently failed to come forward with this scheme? We must question whether this alternative ever existed, apart from the rumoured alternative that the council could do it cheaper.

The Economic Development Committee’s minutes of 15 December state that the council would be given further time to consider how to come forward with this scheme. In the last joint meeting with the Environment and Local Government Committee, councillor Russell Goodway said that the council had still not determined how it intended to monitor water quality. That is not good enough, because maintaining water quality is the main point of this whole issue. There are other issues about Section 165 Agreements, which in the Committee we were assured we could see. When I asked to see them they were given to me, but all the figures had been erased, which made it hard to evaluate them. Those figures have been available to other people in the past, and I want to know where those figures have gone. There has been an evaluation of those figures, which would show that the Thames Water bid for the management of the water quality is cheaper.

We need a clear assurance that if the scheme the council decides upon to manage the water quality is more expensive than the first option, it will not be able to come back to the Assembly for more money and it will have to find the money itself. We need an assurance today that no blank cheque will be given to Cardiff council if maintaining water quality, monitoring the barrage and developing the bay area proves to be more expensive than it first decided. We agree with the motion, Mike German’s amendment 2 and Alun Cairns’s amendment 3. However, because we cannot agree with the way the first speaker conducted himself in this Chamber, we cannot support the motion or amendment 3. We will not vote against them because we agree that this has not been handled properly, but the first speaker should have been more considerate in his arguments. We will therefore abstain.

It is rather late in the day for me to start my speech, but this is a debate that the Conservatives have introduced. As a general warning to Alun Cairns, when you dip your shovel in the manure and start flinging it about, you will find that the manure shovel develops a certain boomerang quality. It is not right or proper for Alun to start making allegations of corruption, either about Alun Michael, Russell Goodway or myself. If he wants to assemble a dossier of facts and submit it to the proper quarters, that is fine, but to use Assembly privilege in this way lowers the tone of the Chamber. I do not think that anybody in the Chamber, probably including many in his own party, wants to be associated with the way in which he conducted himself this afternoon. He will have heard the reaction from Janet Ryder. It is in common with the reaction of the other parties in the Chamber.

I turn to the issue of the opening ceremony in order to put it to one side. I have said it before and I will say it again—I do not think that Alun, nor perhaps Nick Bourne will accept it—I was not responsible for any decisions relating to the opening ceremony being a huge whizz-bang one or being the unveiling of a small plaque. The issue is that the barrage is not finished yet. The question of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation wanting a small plaque to be erected before it went out of existence, even though the barrage is not finished, was a decision that had to be taken by the previous First Secretary. I was in no way involved in blocking a huge ceremony of the kind that Alun may have in mind. I wish that he and Nick Bourne would accept that once and for all.

I accept that. I wonder if, at the same time, he would acknowledge that it is a worthwhile venture and that, once this project is completed, it would be to the good of Wales and Cardiff if we had such an opening. At least then we would have achieved something through this debate.

That may well be the case. It will be a matter for Cardiff City and County Council rather than for the Assembly. I am sure that the council will bear his words in mind. It would have borne them in mind more favourably had Alun not spoken in the tone that he did today. We cannot have such penny in the slot, personalised polemics polluting our debates.

We do not believe that it is responsible for the Conservatives to table a motion criticising the administration’s actions and think of a reason why they did so later. They waited until after the Economic Development Committee before they thought of a reason for tabling the motion in the first place and then they explained the reasons for the original criticism. To amend your own motion because you have thought of a reason for tabling it is an absurd way of going about it.

Does the First Secretary accept that there were several revelations at the last Economic Development Committee that needed airing in this Chamber and that the amendment fits the concerns of the Committee?

Yes, but since you did not know that when you tabled the motion, I find it difficult to understand that kind of conduct. John Redwood said that the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was going to be wound up. He originally wanted it be wound up on 31 December 1999. A three-month extension was given by Ron Davies, to which Alun Michael adhered during their respective periods as Secretary of State. The barrage has taken a lot longer than that to build. Cardiff Bay Development Corporation will go out of existence in 17 days’ time with the barrage incomplete. It should have been completed during 1998. It will be completed in 2000-01 as soon as the freshwater dredging is completed. That is why dissonance has arisen between the termination of the life of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and the completion of the barrage. The barrage is two years late.

I will refer briefly to the £6.1 million. I believe that 95 per cent of that is related to the sports village. Therefore, the expenditure that will relate to the completion—Mike German is right to use the word completion—of training and other urban regeneration projects linked with the transition from Cardiff Bay Development Corporation to Cardiff City and County Council is small, probably about £200,000 over the three-year period. The rest of it is the money that will be paid for the land acquired in connection with the sports village.

Labour will recommend its own motion because it changes the tone of the original Conservative motion. We will support Mike German’s amendment 2. After Alun Cairns’s conduct earlier, we cannot support his amendment 3. Because it is such a large project, the National Audit Office was already looking up the question of the accounting issues relating to the wind-up procedures of Cardiff Bay and, on a value for money basis, of the barrage project and CBDC. That is natural and it has been ongoing. Meetings have taken place between officials of the Assembly and the National Audit Office in line with this review project by the National Audit Office, which has been going on for some time. It is not in any way related to the absurd allegations about corruption that Alun Cairns made. I say that in case he tries to claim the credit for the National Audit Office being engaged in those exercises.

It is also fair for me to point out that I hope to come back to the Assembly with further details on how much the barrage will cost. We have been working to a capped figure of £197 million. The barrage will probably breach the £200 million mark by the time that the final settlement is made. I do not want to weaken the bargaining position of officials, who hope to come to an agreement with CBDC and the contractors fairly shortly. By the end of this month, I hope that I will be able to return to the Assembly and give a statement in Plenary on the final cost of the barrage.

Thames Water is disappointed but there was a perfectly proper procedure, in which Jon Shortridge, as the Assembly’s Accounting Officer, took a full role. He recommended strongly that the Cardiff City and County Council option was cheaper. I do not think that anyone in this Chamber would say lightly that one should ignore the Accounting Officer’s support for the view taken by Alun Michael and myself that the Cardiff council option would save £2 million. We still hold that view and therefore the allegations about backstairs deals with the leader of Cardiff council are absurd. I hope that parties across the Assembly will support amendment 1. If amendment 1 is adopted we will support the amended motion. If not, we will oppose it.

Like David Melding, I do not think that I stand much chance of matching the combative performance of my colleague Alun Cairns earlier. I will therefore content myself with eliminating all of the gentle contribution that I had intended to make to this debate and concentrate instead on the gently combative element that was my planned wind-up.

The Assembly has taken an enormous risk with the barrage. We are courting disaster by transferring the management of the barrage to Cardiff council, which does not have the obvious expertise or experience to undertake such a project. We look to the First Secretary to sort out the mess. In electing you, First Secretary, the Assembly placed a great deal of confidence in you. That confidence could ebb quickly, like the strength of a one-legged duck caught in a strong current, if you do not get a grip on this issue and on the leader of Cardiff council. I have previously chided you gently—I can see that you feel sensitive today, so rather than I say that I criticised you, I will say that I chided you gently—for not taking ownership of the WDA in the past, for not making it feel wanted and for not giving it political leadership. You must now give political leadership on the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme. It is another project that you have opposed, I am sure for good reasons. You have done everything you can to destabilise it in your own determined way in another place. However, as with the WDA, if you fail to deliver and to make the Cardiff Bay barrage a success, you will fail as First Secretary.

I hope that Plaid Cymru Members will rethink their decision to abstain on this motion because they disagree with how it was presented. I have often disagreed with the way that Plaid Cymru has presented issues, but if I agree with it and believe that it is right, I vote for its proposals. If Plaid Cymru behaves in what seems to me to be an incredibly chicken way today, it will let the people of Wales and Cardiff down.