I wrote to the Presiding Officer explaining that I would be unable to answer oral Assembly questions to the First Secretary on 16 May as I would be participating in a Wales Week in the region of Rhône-Alpes from 14 to 17 May. I would like to provide Members with feedback about the week, which has done much to raise the profile of Wales in this prosperous and dynamic region of France. It has a population twice the size of that of Wales.

My visit had several combined objectives: to raise the profile of Wales in general, to develop closer political links with the chief politicians of the Rhône-Alpes region, to develop business opportunities for Welsh companies, to promote Wales as a location for inward investment and as a tourist location.

A series of events took place throughout the week. These included a Welsh Development Agency presentation and lunch for French-based companies and regional chambers of commerce on Monday 15 May, which was well attended and which I addressed. There was also a Wales Tourist Board presentation and lunch on Tuesday 16 May for tour operators and the travel press, which was also well attended and which will hopefully stimulate travel journalists to increase coverage of Wales and encourage travel agencies and tour operators in that part of France to increase holiday programmes in Wales. I also addressed that presentation. There was a Welsh film festival, running throughout the week in a cinema in Lyon. You will be glad to hear that I did not directly take part in that. Professor David Hanley of Cardiff University gave an academic lecture on ‘Two Devolutions: Decentralisation in France and the UK’. That took place after I returned. There was also a promotion of Welsh lamb and cheese throughout the week, in which I certainly participated.

The centrepiece of Wales Week was a pavilion showcasing Wales, including Welsh arts, crafts and music, in the central square in Lyon. The public showed enormous enthusiasm to find out more about Wales and their comments were extremely positive: I believe that people in France like filling in questionnaires more than we in Britain. I thank the city authorities of Lyon, which decorated the main shopping street with scores of Welsh flags.

My programme included a series of meetings in Lyon with the president and the vice-president of the regional council, the deputy mayor of Lyon, the chief executive of the chamber of commerce and the regional préfet. I gave about half a dozen press, television and radio interviews in French, as well as the usual half-dozen interviews in Welsh and English for S4C and the BBC. I also visited Grenoble and the regional préfet and the chief editor of a leading regional newspaper there.

My visit to the region also included visits to companies and I believe my visit will develop a closer working relationship and will be of considerable economic benefit to Wales in the future. A trade mission was running simultaneously with the Wales Week and initial feedback from the companies involved in that mission suggests that many business opportunities will flow from it.

Wales had a high-profile presence in the region for the week. There was extensive media coverage of the events in general, and of my role to promote our relationship with the region. We need now to build on the success of this event and consider the possibility of a planned programme of activities and events for the next couple of years.

Finally, the meeting with Mme Anne-Marie Comparini, the president of the regional council—my opposite number—and her employment minister Fabienne Levy was also very useful. I took the opportunity to invite Mme Comparini to visit the Assembly. As a matter of interest, she is also the president of the council of the four motor regions.

Derbyniaf fod budd sylweddol i Gymru o gael cynrychiolaeth mewn digwyddiadau fel hyn. Yr wyf yn sicr y gwelsoch y budd hwnnw drwy fod yn Lyon yn ystod yr ymweliad. Er hynny, byddai’n braf pe baech yn dweud wrthym a oeddech yno fel y Prif Ysgrifennydd neu fel Ysgrifennydd y Cynulliad gyda chyfrifoldeb dros Ddatblygu Economaidd. Ar faint o achlysuron yn y dyfodol ydych yn debygol o fod allan mewn digwyddiadau fel hyn? Fel y gwyddoch, mae beirniadaeth o’r fath eich bod yn dal y ddwy swydd a byddai’n dda i’r Cynulliad wybod a ydych yn mynd i dreulio llawer o amser yn cyfuno’r ddwy swydd ac felly allan o Gymru am gyfnodau helaeth.

Pwynt arall yr hoffwn ei wneud yw ei bod yn amlwg bod ymweliadau â Lyon ac â nifer o leoedd eraill, nid yn unig o fudd i Gymru o safbwynt statws, ond, gobeithio, o fudd economaidd. Pa fath ar ddatblygiadau economaidd y disgwyliwch i ddeillio o’r ymweliad, a pha fath ar fudd economaidd tymor hir y’u cawn fel Cynulliad o ran y pedwar rhanbarth sbardun?

I ateb y cwestiwn cyntaf, mae’n bwysig fy mod yn gallu mynd fel un dyn sydd yn gwisgo dwy het. Yr oeddwn yn gallu cyfarfod, felly, lygaid yn llygaid â’r person cyfatebol i mi fel y Prif Ysgrifennydd, sef Mme Anne-Marie Comparini, llywydd cyngor rhanbarthol Rhône-Alpes, ond hefyd yr oeddwn yn gallu ymwneud â’m swyddogaeth o ran hybu twristiaeth, masnach, allforio, a gobeithio, hybu mewnforio buddsoddi o gwmnïau o Ffrainc. Dyna pam y cymerais ran yn y sesiwn gydag Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru a siaradodd gyda buddsoddwyr a allai ddod â’u harian a’u ffatrïoedd i Gymru.

Pe na wisgwn ddwy het ar yr un pryd byddai’n rhaid inni anfon dau Ysgrifennydd Cynulliad i gyflawni’r ddwy swyddogaeth, neu ollwng un swyddogaeth o’r ymweliad â Ffrainc. Byddai’n rhaid inni ddewis. Mae’r un peth yn wir am yr ymweliad y gobeithiaf ei wneud â De Cymru Newydd yn Awstralia ymhen pythefnos. Byddaf yn cymryd rhan, gyda’r WDA, mewn ymgais i hybu buddsoddiadau yng Nghymru gan gwmnïau o ardal Sydney a De Cymru Newydd. Byddaf hefyd yn annerch Senedd De Cymru Newydd ac yn gallu cael trafodaethau gyda Bob Carr. Bydd Ieuan a gweddill y Cynulliad yn ei gofio yn annerch ein Cynulliad fel Prif Weinidog ei dalaith.

Gobethiaf felly fod hynny yn ateb dau gwestiwn Ieuan. Credaf fod y trefniant hwn yn bwysig ac yn gyfleus ac y mae’n golygu yn lle anfon dau Ysgrifennydd, yr ydym yn gallu anfon un.

I note the final comments in your statement about inviting the president of the regional council to the Assembly. I also note her role as the president of the council of the four motor regions. I welcome the fact that that partnership may be revitalised. However, the Assembly needs to have a view on what we are to get for Wales from such partnerships. I believe that great benefit is to be had from such partnerships, but we need objectives as to what we want from them. These need to be more than the superficial ones of politicians. Hard-nosed educational and economic benefits must result from the partnership. Is now the time for the Assembly to sit down and decide what it wants from regional partnerships in Europe, how we are to develop them and what our objectives are, to ensure that we can take this forward in a concerted manner that delivers the goods?

You have raised useful issues. I would welcome a debate at some level—I am not sure in which Committee that should take place or whether it should take place in Plenary—about what our relationship with the four motor regions should be. We are not one of those regions, but we have been associated with them for some 10 years. That has worked out varyingly, depending on the region. The relationship with Baden-Württemburg was strong, because of historic links between Welsh cities and equivalent cities there. It went pretty well with Catalunya in more recent years, because of the political comparability of Wales and Catalunya; not so well with Lombardy, and not at all with Rhone-Alpes. To kick-start that relationship was one reason for participating in the Wales Week in Lyon.

It was fortunate that the morning after I met Anne-Marie Comparini, she was elected the president of the council of the four motor regions. However, until she has her feet under the table—in a month or so—it would not be right to approach her to ask how we want to push this forward. In my talks with her, she and Fabienne Levy, the employment and training minister of the regional council, placed an overwhelming emphasis on contact between young people aged 18 to 30—university students, young managers in industry and opinion leaders. They want the Rhone-Alpes cohort of the leaders of the next generation to be thoroughly internationalised by visits and contacts with their opposite numbers in other countries. This is not to be exclusively in the four motor regions; to some extent they want contact with Asia and North America as well, for obvious business reasons. Again, the attractions of the English language in business terms are also strong for them in Wales. She strongly held the view that this must be practical and not just mean contact between politicians of the present generation. The next generation must also be involved. I agree with that.

Thank you for your statement. The Welsh Conservative Party welcomes visits to raise Wales’s profile in other parts of Europe, North America and so on, especially when they are held in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board to ensure maximum benefit for the Welsh economy. It is pleasing to note that you can work with the WDA when you need to do so. We hope that that continues.

I was interested to hear in your statement that the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board events were well attended. I would like you to expand further on that, either in your reply or after the debate, because ‘well attended’ is a woolly statement and we want to know as much detail as possible. I question the opportunity that you have, First Secretary, to conduct such visits, because not only are you an Assembly Member and a Member of Parliament, you are also the Secretary for Economic Development and the First Secretary. One of your Westminster colleagues has earned the title of ‘Two Jags John’; maybe you should now be labelled ‘Four Jobs Morgan’.

Wonderful. I have always wanted a soubriquet, but I am not sure that I wanted Alun Cairns to be the one to choose it.

Ieuan Wyn Jones thinks that I am doing too many jobs and you may think that also. However, nobody has contested my going to France wearing both hats. Two Assembly Secretaries could have gone to France, or three—one with responsibility for agriculture or exports. I could have gone as First Secretary without any of those responsibilities. However, having two jobs at once meant that, as the person responsible, I could spend a week covering exports, inward investment and tourism promotion, and—as First Secretary—have regional, face-to-face contact with my opposite number, the president of the regional council. I am not sure what Alun wants. As a good Conservative who is interested in saving taxpayers’ money, I would have thought that he would be glad that, instead of sending two Assembly Secretaries, we could send two for the price of one.

I turn to Alun’s factual question about how many people attended. As a rough estimate, 30 or 40 people were present in the WDA presentation, and some 20 in the Wales Tourist Board’s sit-down lunch. When the WDA and the WTB said that the events were ‘well attended’, they meant that there was not a drop-out rate and the people who were invited and expressed an interest did not find other things to do on the day because they did not think it was important enough; they showed up. That is what was meant by well attended and that is a fair description.

Which hat am I wearing?

I want to update the Assembly on the latest position of BAe Systems’ application for a regional selective assistance grant of £25 million relating to the airbus A3XX superjumbo project. I cannot give much additional factual information on the application, because BAe Systems has asked for commercial confidentiality to be respected. It would be ruinous for Wales’s reputation were we to start breaching company requests for commercial confidentiality.

First, I want to briefly explain the RSA scheme. Regional selective assistance is a discretionary grant that is not automatically available to all capital investment projects in business. RSA is awarded when a project meets the eligibility criteria and can demonstrate a need for the grant. Some applications do not meet those criteria. Many companies that are investing in Wales inquire about RSA and are told that they do not qualify and that it would be a waste of time for them to apply to the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board. Sometimes an application is received by the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and it recommends a refusal. Most months, five or six projects will be put to the board, one will not get through and the other four or five will be accepted, although frequently with a reduced grant. A company that gets the full grant sought is a relative rarity. I should add that, since Christmas, five grant applications have not been awarded, including the BAe Systems application. Three were in south Wales and one in west Wales. Readers of some newspapers in north Wales may be amazed to know that one of those applications was in Cardiff, as it is sometimes implied that the distance from Cardiff means that an application is more likely to be refused. If it is in Cardiff, they may not believe that it can be refused, but that is what has happened.

I take it that the Assembly agrees that you cannot have one rule for one company such as BAe Systems and another for all other companies. To qualify, projects must demonstrate a need for grant assistance. That is, we must be satisfied that the project will not proceed in an assisted area without a grant. It is not sufficient for a company to say that it will create jobs if we provide assistance, or that it will not create jobs if we do not assist. The criteria under which the scheme operates mean that we must be satisfied that a grant at the requested level is necessary to secure a project. If not, regional selective assistance cannot be offered. The level of grant that is offered in any case is the minimum amount considered necessary to secure the project. Companies invest in Wales for sound commercial reasons without recourse to regional selective assistance.

The four largest job-creating or job-safeguarding developments in the business world in Wales over the past 12 months have taken place without regional selective assistance being offered. In one case, it was because the company did not apply. The other three were discouraged from making applications to the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board by officials indicating that their proposals were not suitable for regional selective assistance. This sometimes followed lengthy negotiations and, in one case, acrimonious phone calls to my officials. The process often includes Members of Parliament, Assembly Members and local councils involved in lobbying. All of this happens in private, not in public. You will be glad to know that the four schemes are proceeding.

The Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board was created by the Conservative Government in 1972. I was a young, middle-ranking civil servant in the Department of Trade and Industry then and I remember it well. The system has not changed in the last 28 years. It is a sensible system, for which I applaud the Conservative Government. The Industrial Development Act 1982 was a sensible Act and part of the U-turn that Edward Heath’s Government made half way through its 1970-74 period. In that pre-Thatcherite period—the second half of the Heath Government—the Conservative Party believed in industrial intervention, job creation and the nationalisation of Rolls Royce. I am sure that the Conservative side of the Chamber will applaud that, as it was one of the greatest acts of courage by a Conservative Government since the war. It was during this period that the advisory board was created.

This unpaid, advisory quango, comprising of people with a business, accounting or trade union background was created to depoliticise the process. This was either on the grounds that Ministers may be panicked into making decisions to support essentially non-viable enterprises or that officials may not have enough business nous to prevent them from being conned by companies into throwing taxpayers’ money at viable schemes that would go ahead without the grant, or at non-viable schemes.

BAe Systems was awarded a repayable launch investment of £530 million by the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 March. The regional selective assistance bid for £25 million was considered on 20 March. Following the failure of that bid, for which no appeal is allowed in the Industrial Development Act, I made a statement to the Assembly on 28 March. The company submitted an entirely different ‘need for grant’ argument on 15 May. I am not at liberty to publicly divulge the basis of the new case as the company has asked for it to be treated as commercial in confidence. This also applies to the dossier that was supplied by BAe Systems to all, or most, members of the Economic Development Committee, although the Committee has a scrutiny and not a decision-making or decision-sharing role on regional selective assistance applications.

BAe Systems has submitted a paper that may be the basis for an application, not an application. The company has stressed the need for a decision by the meeting of the Airbus Supervisory Board that was due to be held on Friday, 26 May. The meeting has been postponed, but the company still requests a decision as soon as possible. It would prefer a decision in advance of the formation of the new Airbus integrated company. The meeting that was intended for Friday is now expected in the near future.

It has been agreed with the company that its new submission should be dealt with urgently, but following the normal rules. As happened last time, we are willing to accommodate BAe’s request for accelerated consideration. Many issues must be addressed before the company can submit a revised application. My officials are working closely with the company to ensure a decision without delay. If the scheme meets the eligibility criteria and can clearly demonstrate a need for assistance, it will be offered a grant. If it does not meet the criteria, it will be no more likely to receive a grant than any other company that applied. Either its scheme qualifies or it does not. The administrative judgment of the officials, the business judgment of the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and my political judgment must be brought into play all together. However, I assure the Assembly that this application will be assessed in the usual way, which is solely against the strength of the case presented by the company in relation to the scheme’s criteria. The final judgment will not be influenced in any way by any outside pressuresThis approach is important to maintain the integrity of the public expenditure decisions on RSA and to ensure the equitable treatment of all RSA applicants. It is always in the company’s, and the Assembly’s, interest to deal with these important matters objectively and outside the full glare of publicity.

I think that you would accept that the way in which this announcement was made, without having been discussed and along with the effect of not allowing the grant to be made, was met with a great deal of disappointment. In your statement, you referred to the Committee’s role in this. There is a process through which these grants must go. Could not the Economic Development Committee have played a part in this by presenting its views on this process? When I have asked questions about this issue previously, such as what involvement you have with a company to help it develop a new bid, your stock reply is that your officials are in communication with the company concerned. Will you detail what that means? How are your officials helping companies? Have they had any involvement in helping the company in question develop a second bid for resubmission?

Do you agree that one way that the Assembly will be judged is on the number of jobs that we are able to, or help to, create? We have an opportunity to create a large number of jobs. Even though we accept that this grant is not perhaps the most appropriate way, can you give assurances that you have explored every avenue of helping this company to secure these orders and ensure that this comes through? Having assured me that you are exploring all avenues, could you also assure me that, as you have discussed with the company how we can help it, you have also discussed how the company can help the region in which it is located to develop? The company, therefore, can, in turn, help that region by establishing strong training links for young people, which will be a lifetime investment. The local authority should also be helped to develop the infrastructure to cope with increased traffic. I seek an assurance that all the measures that could help the company and region to develop are included.

Helping the company to secure this order will have the long-lasting effect of helping the region to develop. I would like an assurance that, as you talk to that company, you encourage it, wherever possible, to work with and develop local supply companies so that the whole region benefits, not just one company.

If I am right, Janet has just asked four questions. She is contradicting my understanding that the purpose of the Economic Development Committee is to scrutinise decisions after they have been made, not to share the decision-making process. As far as I am aware, and according to advice that I have received, this is a matter that is delegated to me as the Secretary with responsibility for economic development and it is a decision that I should make. It is not a matter on which the Assembly or the Economic Development Committee would wish to take a vote before the regional selective assistance grant is made because it would cut across the structure of the grant scheme. Officials study the scheme with a company and knock it into shape before it is recommended to the Industrial Development Advisory Board. That board, from its business acumen, decides on its views before it is handed to me to apply my political judgment. The Economic Development Committee can challenge me on a decision that has been made, but it is not a shared decision. Janet obviously takes a different view, and from his movements I sense that Phil Williams also takes a different view. I will be interested to hear what he has to say.

As regards the officials, they, and myself, are working hard. We have had frequent meetings with the company, probably more than with any other company in a long time, to try to get the application into shape so that its submission might be successful in securing RSA. I have been involved in the meetings, which have taken place in Cardiff, in Filton and in north Wales. The officials have been in frequent contact with the company to try to assist it to be considered as a contender for RSA.

Janet also mentioned job creation. This is a large and important application, which is why we have taken a flexible attitude. We had a special meeting of the advisory board in March at which that was the only subject on the agenda. We would be willing to do the same and we have told the company that. There is no point in putting it to the advisory board until it looks like a serious runner.

Janet mentioned the issue of what else could be done if the company was not necessarily capable of being assisted by RSA and it could not be knocked into shape. Many things could be done in terms of training, infrastructure and building up the supplier base in Wales. I entirely agree with her on that.

Thank you, Rhodri, for making a statement to clarify the position on this issue, which is of crucial importance to the economic future of north Wales. It is impossible to overemphasise the catastrophic consequences that would follow from Broughton’s failure to secure the A3XX wing contract. It is likely that this would entail a progressive degradation of Broughton as a leader in modern wing assembly technology. The future of the plant and some 15,000 jobs across Wales would be at risk.

My colleagues across north Wales and I have received far more correspondence on this question than on any other matter, even the vexed issue of the council tax. The letters that I have received have been of the opinion that the recommendation not to grant RSA was regrettable. I agree with the First Secretary that he should not have used his powers to override the views of WIDAB. It is a shame that commercial confidentiality prevents him from exposing the detail behind the rejection of the application.

During intensive discussions with representatives of BAe Systems and the unions, I was concerned to discover that Assembly officials who discussed this application with BAe Systems had been less than helpful. It was not fair to make BAe Systems wait for six weeks after the application had been rejected for an explanation. I hope that you agree with me on that. It is not a shining example of the constructive two-way dialogue between the Assembly and industry.

I do not share the opinion that the RSA grant would not make a difference between BAe Systems winning or losing the order. It could tip the balance. Even with £25 million, that order could still go to Germany. There may have been deficiencies in the original application. The present case will be a totally new submission. I echo what Janet Ryder said and hope that we can assure BAe Systems and the workforce that our officials and everybody in the Assembly will work hard with them to ensure that they can present a case for WIDAB. Close consultation and partnership between BAe Systems and the officials is vital. I hope that by making the statement today we can alleviate some of the problems and fears of people in north and north-east Wales and that we are still convinced that BAe Systems’ contribution at Broughton is vital to our aims for a stronger and modern economy, a target which we set ourselves in ‘Betterwales.com’. We have a long way to go to reinvest the confidence of the Assembly in the people in north Wales.

I agree with Ann’s phrase, ‘tip the balance’. That is the key issue that we must consider here as with all other RSA applications. Would a lower amount of RSA, if awarded, tip the balance between the project going ahead or not in the assisted area? Initially, officials must make that calculation. Their work is then cross-checked vis-à-vis business acumen by the advisory board and then my political judgment is applied. The issue on which it all depends is whether it would or would not tip the balance in one direction or another for jobs to be in the assisted areas in Wales. That is a critical issue, so I am pleased that Ann used that phrase. It encapsulates it all.

I do not agree with the allegation that I have read previously about officials being called ‘less than helpful’. I have seen this in newspapers and there seems to be an implication that the officials are either inflexible or are not positive or do not burn the midnight oil. That is completely untrue. Officials organised a special meeting of the Industrial Development Advisory Board. They burnt the midnight oil to ensure that the Industrial Development Advisory Board received the case. They have given an undertaking to the company that they would do so again, with my participation, to ensure that it is knocked into shape. We would have another special meeting of the Industrial Development Advisory Board to consider BAe Systems’ case, if that was necessary. There should be no implication that we are being less than helpful. Because of the size of this case, and within the normal rules, we are being more than helpful. We are giving them special treatment. We are being as flexible as possible and giving them accelerated consideration. If you give a company accelerated consideration, that entirely rebuts the accusation that officials are less than helpful.

Finally, there is absolutely no bias. This statement today gives me the opportunity to rebut the allegations in the newspapers that, in some way, there is bias against north Wales companies in the consideration of regional selective assistance. We have given some large RSA grants to north Wales. In fact, during the 12 months as Secretary for Economic Development, I know that north Wales received the largest grant.

I will preface what I will say by commenting on which hat the First Secretary is wearing. I heard him ask as he began his statement, ‘which hat am I wearing?’ It is a fair question. I think you concluded that it was the Economic Development hat, although the Cabinet statement indicates that you are making the statement as First Secretary. This shows the confusion. You are like Tommy Cooper who had many hats and was never sure which one he was wearing at any point. It will all end in tears.

On the more serious issue, which you have indicated is urgent and serious, you received the revised paper on 15 May. In an answer to Alun Cairns, you indicated to the Economic Development Committee that you had not looked at it on 18 May. Given that there was to be a meeting this Friday, the revised paper did not receive the urgent, important consideration that it should have received. Are you satisfied that the jobs in Broughton are safe? After all, this is really about the existing jobs. Are you also satisfied that, apart from providing this sort of assistance, we could get additional jobs for such a prestige project as this? I cannot agree, and neither can our Party, with the comment in the statement. However, you did qualify the comment slightly with a ‘perhaps’ when you said that the high political profile that the company has given to this issue in the media and elsewhere is most unusual and unfortunate. That is understandable and justifiable. I cannot see why it is unfortunate, or ‘perhaps unfortunate ’, as you said when you read the statement. Perhaps you could indicate why you think that a company of that nature should not fight for its workers and to provide essential jobs in north Wales, and to provide this prestigious project in north Wales. Perhaps you could also indicate how to dispel this confusion with your different roles, which cause problems with questions that are sent back. We cannot ask a question to the First Secretary unless he is answering as Secretary for Economic Development, and vice versa. When will this confusion end?

If the leader of the Conservative Party used his normal perspicacity of mind and applied himself to this issue, he would have heard the Presiding Officer refer to me as First Secretary, or Presiding Officer. I was only responding to the Presiding Officer’s semi-humorous remark. Nick, after you finished the silly, initial play with the titles First Secretary and Secretary for Economic Development, you said that you wanted to get on to the serious issues. Ergo, you did not consider what you had said previously to be serious issues. We all agree with you on that. A lot of silly nonsense has been said about the two jobs of First Secretary and Secretary for Economic Development. Where is this confusion that he is talking about? Which person above the age of two and a half could not understand whether I refer to matters as Secretary for Economic Development or as First Secretary? If Nick has a problem, I will explain it to him with my abacus. I can help him to understand when this is a matter pertaining to the Secretary for Economic Development and when it is not.

Regional selective assistance was delegated to the Secretary for Economic Development by Alun Michael, the former First Secretary. That situation remains unchanged.

Why does it say First Secretary on the paper?

That is a typographical error. If he wants to make a big play about typographical errors, that is fine. [CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS: ‘Oh.’] If they want to make this braying noise, that is fine as well. It just shows that they are a bunch of no-brainers as far as I am concerned. If that is how they want to present themselves to the electorate in Wales, I cannot help them.

To return to the serious issues, according to Nick Bourne. He was unhappy that I said that the glare of publicity is unfortunate. It is as simple as this. If a company has a good scheme, which is a runner for RSA, it does not need additional publicity to get it through, because it will get a grant anyway. If a company has a scheme that does not have the basis for successful qualification for RSA, then no amount of publicity or pressure will make it qualify—it still has to qualify for RSA. That is the simple explanation for that reference in my statement as Secretary for Economic Development.

Do you accept that BAe Systems is an employer of regional significance, which is why the British taxpayer has contributed £500 million of launch aid? I receive letters from BAe employees living in my constituency in Kinmel Bay and Ruthin. I accept that the process must be non-political, and I deplore the bandwagon jumping that we have seen in this Chamber. Do you accept that if BAe Systems packs up its wings and flies away, it will be a disastrous day for north Wales?

Yes, of course. That is the entire issue. We are back to the question of tipping the balance. However, that applies to every application for RSA. No application for RSA is ever made where the company does not assert that without the grant the scheme will not go ahead. That assertion is always made. However, there must be more than an assertion. There is no such thing as proof—it is a matter of judgment in the end—but a decision cannot be based on the constant repetition of the assertion that without this grant a company will disappear, and that with this grant the company will stay or grow. That assertion is always made by all RSA applicants, including those that are refused—one a month since Christmas: three in south Wales, one in west Wales and one in north Wales. That is always the case. There is no difference between BAe and every other RSA applicant. They all say that, because they know that if they do not even start from that point, then their scheme is not a runner at all.

On judgment, the same applied to BAe as to every other applicant. Do we accept the case studies made based on this company’s assertion that the grant will tip the balance, as Ann Jones put it, between growing or developing, or at the very minimum, safeguarding jobs in the assisted area? That is the issue. The decision and judgment must be based on more than the company’s assertion that the grant will make a difference. How much grant is paid must also be considered. According to RSA rules, you must pay less grant than is being sought if you believe that that is good enough to do the job. As I mentioned earlier, it is relatively rare for a company to ask for ‘X’ and to receive ‘X’. It is more normal for them to ask for ‘X’ and to receive ‘X’ minus a certain quantity. Sometimes they receive the full amount. I am not making any comment about this application because it is not yet an application. That is a matter that my officials and I are continuing to consider.

May I say to the First Secretary how well he looks on two jobs. Time was when I was responsible for health, social services, education, employment, training, Welsh language and culture, rural affairs and goodness knows what else. I felt very well on that.

To come to the issue. The situation as it is has created great uncertainty in north-east Wales and for the employees of BAe in particular. The uncertainty with which they live is the problem. Time is therefore of the essence. Will the First Secretary give us an assurance that he will expedite this decision and that this issue will come to an end, one way or the other, whichever way the balance is tipped?

I agree with him. That applies, of course, to every other application. Normally, employees do not know that an application has been made or they do not know the timing of the next meeting of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, the next meeting with officials or with Ministers, or whatever. It is because this is being done in the full glare of publicity that that element of uncertainty has been created. Take all the other companies to which we have refused RSA. Their employees, had they known, would have also been involved in that uncertainty. That uncertainty cannot be ascribed to anything that we have done. We are attempting to get round the problem that is being created by the amount of publicity generated by this regional selective assistance. That publicity is unique to this application and is unlike anything that has been seen anywhere in Britain in the last 28 years. We are trying to get round that by giving it accelerated consideration the first time round and we have also guaranteed the company and the representatives of the workforce that we will give it accelerated consideration the second time round. My officials are still working to try to come to an agreement with the company to try to knock it into the best possible shape to be a serious runner for regional selective assistance. I cannot say whether or not it will eventually come out that way. The uncertainty will continue for some weeks more. I hope that you are not blaming me either for the fact that the German aerospace industry has cancelled the meeting which was originally supposed to take place on Friday 26 May which had been set by the company as a deadline before which they wanted the meeting to take place. That has been suspended sine die, although we expect the meeting to be reinstated in a few weeks time.

Thank you for that statement, for which I asked yesterday. Unfortunately, it does not take us a great deal further in understanding what is happening with BAe Systems’ application. Bearing in mind the information that has been given to the members of the Economic Development Committee, which I think is similar to the information that you have, there are some features that you could have told us today in your statement. Does the new submission—which is a word I use because it is in your statement, and whether it is a submission or not, we have been given enough information—

It is not an application.

I understand that it is not an application, but it is a submission. Does the new submission that has been put to you represent the basis for an application that is within the rules? We need to know whether the company is barking up the right tree. You can give that information. From the facts you have given this afternoon about regional selective assistance, it should be clear whether or not that submission could become an application.

Rod Richards touched on the issue of the timing of the decision. Can you give us—perhaps in your oral reply here but also by means of a written answer or a statement within the next three weeks—information on the likely timetable? The speed is essential because of the restructuring of the airbus industry. If we are going to see the loss of the BAe Systems veto, which at present allows BAe Systems to retain the wings submission—given that they will only have half the shares of the Germans who want to have the wing work in Germany—it is essential that we get this matter solved so that the BAe Systems case can be financially strong and sound before the company makes that decision. We do not know when the airbus integrated company will be set up. The sharehold agreement is underway and, undoubtedly, the first discussions will take place in the next month. That means that the BAe Systems case has to be solid and in the bag before they go to the new company. That means speed on our behalf. I ask you two questions. Will you be prepared to inform us of the timing of your decision? Secondly, is this submission the basis for an application within the rules?

I am prepared in principle to agree to the provision of information on the timetable for a decision, but much may depend on progress made in meetings between my officials and the company today and tomorrow to try to work out some of the knotty points in the submission that you and I have read. I cannot make a promise until those meetings with officials have taken place and until we know whether they have reached agreement on the meanings of certain figures. In principle, I have no objection to giving the timetable as long as my officials know that we are near enough to saying, for example, that in the next week we can finish this off now and that it would be ready to go to the next meeting of the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board on 6 June or whether we will have to convene a special meeting. I cannot add anything to what I have said already. We are willing to repeat the accelerated consideration that we gave to Bae Systems’ grant application in March and we would be equally willing to do the same if they were to miss the deadline on 6 June. We are also waiting to hear from the company when the meeting that was originally to take place on Friday will be reinstated. We do not know when that meeting will take place. We expect that it will be during June, but we do not know when and we are waiting for information from the company.

Before I give my statement on the alleged missing items of subordinate legislation, I inform Members of the outcome of the Business Committee’s special meeting this morning to consider items of subordinate legislation. Acting on the Business Committee’s advice, the Deputy Presiding Officer determined, in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.5, that the following items of subordinate legislation need not be referred to a Subject Committee: The Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Languages) (Wales) Order 2000, The Foundation Subject (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2000, The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (Wales) Regulations 2000 and The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (Wales) Regulations 2000.

I take this opportunity to set the record straight about grossly unfounded recent criticism that the Assembly’s legislative procedures are defective. You may have seen the article in last Tuesday’s The Western Mail on this matter. Newspaper reports suggested that legislation had somehow gone missing in Wales. Originally, it was alleged that 600 pieces of legislation were missing, that was then miraculously reduced to 100 and then to 87. Those estimates appear to have been based either on guesswork, pre-dating the Assembly’s establishment or as superficial comparison titles of English and Welsh legislation as published on the HMSO website. On reading about these allegations, I asked officials to make a proper analysis of the figures and it transpires that there is categorically no missing legislation. Of the alleged 87 missing statutory instruments, it was found that in 49 cases, no further action was required either because the Welsh legislation was made before its English counterpart or because the provisions were not relevant to Wales. They were essentially local or special in character or because the policy was different in Wales. Of the remainder, many pieces of legislation were currently under consideration or in the course of being drafted and, in two cases, the relevant function had not been transferred to the Assembly. The Business Committee has received this report and is happy with the conclusions.

I hope that Members will agree that it is time to put to bed the spurious and ill-informed criticism of the Assembly and its lawmaking role. The new legislative procedures are one of the defining characteristics of devolution in Wales. They offer an opportunity to greatly increase the accountability, consultation and legislative scrutiny in our lawmaking very much in contrast to what happens in Westminster. I am working with officials and Members, particularly through the Business Committee, to ensure that our consideration of the handling of proposals for Assembly legislation is fully informed. Our aim is to ensure that we have meaningful debate where there is scope for independent policy and that our process for creating subordinate legislation is efficient and effective whether or not there is, in practice, scope for such independent policy.

The Business Committee is currently reviewing the working of Standing Order No. 22, which covers the handling of our subordinate legislative procedures. In due course, proposals are likely to be presented to the Assembly for revisions to this Standing Order, which has the full agreement of the Business Committee. At a recent meeting that looked at these issues, the Business Committee also considered how we could best use the time available in Plenary to fully debate those Orders that will either have the most impact on Wales, or those that will be most controversial. The Committee thought that one way to free up more time would be to put certain Orders to a vote in Plenary without any time being given for debate, where appropriate. The party groups would have an opportunity to examine such Orders and all groups would have to be in agreement that no debate was necessary. It would be possible for a number of such Orders to be grouped together under one motion for the Assembly to resolve to approve the Orders. We would call this the accelerated procedure in that an order would go through each step of our normal standard procedure but time would not be set aside to debate the Order. The Business Committee is also minded to rename the urgency procedure the executive procedure, to reflect the fact that the standard procedure needs to be disapplied for some Orders for reasons other than urgency. For example, an Order may need to be made when the Assembly is in recess, as was discussed this morning in Business Committee.

I am interested in the views of Members on these proposals. They can be sent to me directly, or via officials or your party Business Manager.

I thank you for this statement. I want to clarify the issue in relation to the so-called ‘missing’ legislation. I am sure that the Business Secretary agrees that it would be helpful to clarify to the Assembly in Plenary from time to time the progress that has been made with secondary legislation. That would prevent any further comments about these matters. Do you also acknowledge that a great deal of cross-party work has been done within the Business Committee to try to resolve these matters? Hopefully, with good will on all sides, we can ensure that the Assembly is working through the statutory programme and its secondary legislation as efficiently as possible. However, we must remember that under the current constitutional settlement, our powers are limited to secondary legislation. Does the Business Secretary also acknowledge that one of the key issues is ensuring that the legislative framework in London allows for the development of independent policy? Does he also acknowledge that flexibility in secondary legislation depends a great deal on the co-operation of the Westminster Government in recognising that the Assembly’s functions are best delivered where the greatest scope is given under that legislation for independent policy? Will he also recognise that the way in which independent policy is determined will be but one of the measures which people outside and within Wales will use to determine whether the Assembly is successful or not? Does he share my disappointment—although perhaps this is understandable in the first year—that so little, if any, independent legislation was developed by the administration? Will he give an assurance that it is his and his Government’s intention, in the second year of the Assembly’s life, that independent policy will be developed and promoted and that we will see secondary legislation which is homegrown in Wales and which is in tune with the priorities of the people of Wales?

Thank you for making many constructive points. Reports to Plenary are a good idea. The way we deal with subordinate legislation is more complex. Members who sit in the House of Commons, like yourself, know that the way in which the Assembly deals with secondary legislation is very different and more complex than the system in the House of Commons. One of the first things that I did as Business Secretary was to try to establish a central record of all subordinate legislation that was being dealt with under the Welsh Office, as it was known, and under the Assembly, as it is now known. No such record existed previously. That is how we have tried to manage the system and to accommodate the mass of legislation that is being dealt with by the Assembly. Through all-party agreement in Business Committee, as you said, I hope to look at how we deal with legislation and to make it as effective as possible.

Your last point was about independent legislation that reflects the needs of the Assembly and the people of Wales. It was generally agreed that we need to streamline our procedures to get the maximum opportunity to deal with items of legislation to which we feel we can make a difference.

On the question of the drafting of primary legislation, I think that these points were made when we discussed the Queen’s Speech last year. There was all-party agreement that we would want the drafting of primary legislation to be as permissive as possible to allow us the maximum scope for deciding our own priorities for the people of Wales, as articulated through the Assembly. I agree with the points you make. You said that the Assembly has only originated a few items of legislation, which is a matter for regret. I think all parties would agree. In future we are determined to change that as an Administration.

I would like to ask some questions about the Business Secretary’s statement. I also have some additional points on things that were ad libbed, which were not in the statement but are important.

We welcome the clarification on the so-called ‘missing’ legislation. I am sure that you would not want to leave the impression that this was just a story whipped up by the media. That would be a threadbare, overworked ploy because officials have been indicating this. That was certainly the case in the Legislation Committee. We were persuaded that there was a considerable backlog, which was unexplained. There was continuous talk of 100 pieces of legislation that were waiting to come to the Legislation Committee. That was not confined to the media. We need to put that canard to bed and dispel that rumour.

As a lawyer, not being cannibalistic, could you give some indication of the number of new lawyers that are needed to deal with new legislation? We were told in the Legislation Committee that additional lawyers would be needed because of this backlog. Will you tell us how many lawyers we have at the moment, how much they cost and what would be the additional cost of the projected numbers of lawyers?

I want to speak about the two points that are not in the written statement but they were in your oral statement. The first point is the renaming of the urgency procedure, which the Business Committee has considered. We recognise the need for an urgency procedure. You underlined the fact that some things need to be dealt with in the recess. By definition, that means urgency. We as a party will continue to oppose the renaming of the procedure. We do not feel that there is any need to tinker with the name.

The last point was perhaps not raised in your statement but it was raised by comments made by Ieuan Wyn Jones on independent legislation. We are supportive of independent legislation, as we have shown on numerous occasions. The most recent occasion was over the issue of GM crops. There will be an opportunity for the Labour Party to demonstrate their commitment to the issue this afternoon. We have also demonstrated our support of independent legislation on the beef on the bone ban and on capping councillors’ allowances. We remain committed to seeing the Assembly doing things independently. I hope that the Labour Party will join us in that crusade.

I was delighted to hear you refer to the threadbare, overworked ploy, which you never use. While the allegations were reported in the media, they unfortunately originated from sources that were perhaps from the elected side or from other sources. The media only reported the allegations. I hope that I have firmly rebutted the idea that there is a logjam or missing items of legislation. I do not know the number of additional lawyers that the Assembly has employed. However, it has been reported in Business Committee. I will get the information for you. I do not know the cost of the additional lawyers either. Because of the burden of the way we deal with secondary legislation, we need additional lawyers to manage the process. The major reasons for this include the fact that we have a commitment to produce bilingual legislation. Therefore, we need lawyers who are able to draft legislation in both English and Welsh.

I understand your concern about the use of the term ‘urgency procedure’ and renaming it ‘executive procedure’. However, the Business Committee felt that ‘executive’ is a more accurate description of the process. Officials and colleagues know that as Business Secretary I have tried to minimise the number of times that we have used urgency procedure. The need for urgency will be drastically reduced as a result of the mechanisms and the management systems that we are implementing. That is the intention of the administration and the Office of the Presiding Officer. In terms of making a difference through our subordinate legislation, we have all-party agreement that we will demonstrate that we are making a difference to how this country is governed. The way to do that in the final outcome is by introducing new legislation.

I welcome the fact that you intend to reduce the number of statutory instruments that you present to us on the grounds of urgency. I suggest that whenever you present statutory instruments to the Legislation Committee as having already been passed on the grounds of urgency, the Executive presents reasons for that urgency. There could be many reasons, including a summary adjournment, but there could also be muddle regarding those reasons and, as a result, delay. If Andrew voluntarily decided to produce reasons, it would concentrate the minds of the Executive and those working for him to ensure that statutory instruments enacted on grounds of urgency were few and far between.

I would counsel you against giving more power to the Business Committee through party groups because it would be wrong for them to be able to vote on certain subordinate legislation without discussion. That cannot be done through the groups because someone would have to report that those groups had agreed to it, and group Members can change their minds. It would be possible if there were a safeguard that, for example, allowed for around six Members to put up their hands at a certain time, indicating that the particular statutory instrument could not go through undebated. It could only go through undebated if there were no constraints against it using that method. The Assembly should not rely on party political groups but on Members voting in Plenary.

The Executive gives reasons to the Business Committee on the use of urgency. I will check on the procedures of reporting to the Legislation Committee and if we are not giving those reasons, the procedure can be resolved easily. I would not say that we are giving more powers to the Business Committee, it is more a case of knowing how to prioritise the mass of legislation with which we must deal. As I said in my statement, we are trying to prioritise the legislation so that we can decide which is purely technical or which is required for annual uprateing, where there is nothing contentious. Such a decision would not be made in Business Committee because Members will already have had prior notice of those Orders or regulations and will have had an opportunity to contribute to, or make comments on the legislation. If John Marek raised these points in the Labour group meeting, I am sure that the group would be more than happy to discuss the issue.

I am delighted to hear that there are not 87 pieces of missing legislation. However, although you put a brave face on it, Andrew, I think that you would agree that there have been problems, because certain legislation has been in the slow lane when it should have been in the fast lane. At one time, the slowness of early stages of legislation development meant that it came to us with more or less a take it or leave it approach. We were told that we could not oppose it, because if we did the public would suffer because the legislation was being introduced in England on Friday and we would not have passed it here on Wednesday. All parties recognise the pressures on staff. As Ieuan mentioned, some of the London departments such as the DETR and DfEE seem unaware that devolution has taken place. There should be an all-party effort to persuade the London departments to take devolution firmly on board because, at the moment, we are still following London’s agenda, not just in terms of the legislation’s content but in terms of its timing.

The Business Committee has made progress and I do not agree with the Conservatives’ view on the abandonment of the term ‘urgency’. The Executive uses that process for matters other than urgency and I do not want it to hide behind the cloak of urgency. I want it to be known to the world that only the Executive has decided on this and not the whole Assembly. However, we could still have problems during the summer, for example, with local government legislation coming through right at the end of our summer term. There could be a need for the Executive’s procedure to be used in the summer. I would be concerned about such controversial legislation being dealt with in that way.

In conclusion, we have begun dealing with this issue. There is a long way to go. For example, we are just starting on the scrutiny of legislation prior to its introduction into the House of Commons. That is where we will make our mark if we want legislation to be written flexibly enough for devolution to be meaningful within the current settlement.

I am not putting a brave face on. Members of the Business Committee and other parties will know that I have always been upfront about the problems we face in dealing with a new way of making legislation. If anything, the legislative process is one of the most innovative things that we have done. It is one of the areas where, initially, we have the least control. Therefore, Members must realise that the legislation with which we are dealing is largely within the primary legislative framework established by Westminster. As a new institution, it was too late for us to influence primary legislation earlier. We now have the opportunity. We have demonstrated that we have influenced the drafting and the enactment of several major items of primary legislation. That process will develop. For example, the Care Standards Bill was initially going to have about 30 pieces of subordinate legislation; that has increased to about 50 or 60, if not more. Therefore, we will be dealing with a greatly increased amount of legislation. However, we will now have early indication of that legislation.

Your point about the summer recess in terms of openness was raised in the Business Committee meeting this morning. We were upfront, we were not hiding the issue. It was made clear that the Commencement Order on the Local Government Act is likely to be enacted at the end of July, because of the final signing off of that legislation by the Queen. Therefore, we will have to deal with anything that comes through to us in the summer, which may well only be the Commencement Order, not the many items of subordinate legislation. However, we have been upfront and open about it, and have stated the position. We have not sought to hide anything or hoodwink anybody.

This is a new system. We have made great strides in managing the process with all-party agreement. It is something of which we can be genuinely proud. It does not do us or the institution any good to belittle what has been achieved or talk about missing items of legislation or logjams of legislation where no such thing exists.

The overall view is that I would have to go through a long list of every single instrument by which we could exercise what is now clearly our legitimate duty. We are told in each case that we do not have that power or influence.