I begin by abandoning the introduction that I had scripted, so I have to miss my one joke.

However, Brian raised a serious point and I feel that I owe it to the Assembly to explain why the motion takes the form it does. Over the past few months there has been a rising tide of concern about the problems and delays in the implementation of Objective 1. In considering this, we in Plaid Cymru listed—I ask you to believe—in a constructive way what we thought was necessary for the successful and rapid implementation of the programme. We put it all down in one motion as we hoped that we could get total support.

There is a reason why I look for that support. I am one of the Assembly Members on the Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee. After 45 years in political life, I value having a mandate. There are occasions when I represent the Assembly and have to press a case. On certain key issues it is helpful if I have been given a line, not just by the Economic Development Committee but by the Assembly.

I must add at this point that I am grateful to Rhodri for asking me to chair yesterday’s meeting of the Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee, which I can report marked a new phase in the implementation of the programme. It approved the programme complement and therefore opened the final door to the letters of approval and the start of the flow of money. It also took several steps towards addressing the problems that I wish us to debate today.

The first issue relates to universal concern about the proliferation of regional action plans. There were 14 at the last count but the figure is rising to 20, with seven of them led by the Welsh Development Agency, which claimed that it had been—in the words of one document—’mandated’ by the National Assembly. Llywydd, I think that this is another case where the term National Assembly perhaps does not refer to this body or to any of its Committees. Seeing a proliferation of strategic plans that were supported by powerful Government agencies, the local partnerships feared—not without cause—that the strategic regional partnerships intended to take a large proportion of the money. One document from a regional partnership specifically laid claim to the whole budget for one of the seven priorities of Objective 1. At the same time, different regional partnerships were competing for the budgets of certain measures within the priorities, while other measures in Objective 1 were almost totally ignored. The whole seven-year budget for some measures was almost totally targeted in the fast track round, while other measures attracted no bids at all.

Hence the second paragraph of the motion. We need urgently a simple strategic overview to avoid serious overlap between strategic plans and, at the same time, to ensure that every part of the whole strategy is properly covered. I can report that, yesterday, the Programme Monitoring Committee decided to replace the growing proliferation of regional action plans with six priority action plans, which would cover clearly the six priorities, with responsibility to ensure a balanced programme to cover all the measures. When this is implemented, it will answer the second paragraph. It is not ideal and there was discussion whether the borders should follow exactly the priorities. However, there was widespread relief that, at long last, this has happened. Therefore, in a sense, the second paragraph of our motion is close to being implemented, but it would help to have the Assembly’s approval.

A clear allocation for responsibility for the regional—or as they will now be called, the priority partnerships—does not solve all the problems. There is still a serious division between the regional and local partnerships. It was a year last July at a briefing session of the Economic Development Committee that Plaid Cymru first insisted that a clear decision on the functions of the regional and local partnerships, and on the division of the budget between these levels, should not be postponed. We repeated the point during a full meeting of the Committee last autumn, and argued that this was a decision that should be made as soon as possible and certainly before Christmas. That decision did not have to wait for the European Commission’s approval of the single programming document. However, the Government did nothing, and it must be said that just because a decision is difficult, it does not get any easier if it is put off indefinitely. Not making a decision is sometimes the worst possible decision.

By late spring it was clear that the failure to give a lead on this was causing great tension between the local partnerships, who thought that the Government agencies would run away with all the money, and the Government agencies who, to an extent that surprised me, felt seriously threatened. Once again, Plaid Cymru called for an allocated budget for the local and regional partnerships. Rhodri Morgan stated in one meeting that the relationship between the local and regional partnerships was the Achilles heel of the implementation of Objective 1. I now bring good news. Yesterday, the Programme Monitoring Committee took the decision in principle to allocate indicative budgets to the regional and local partnerships for the whole of priority 3, which covers community regeneration, and for measures 4 and 6 of priority 5, which deal with economic development in the rural areas. These are the examples where the case was strongest for a clear indication for the local partnerships to go ahead. A good precedent has been set, and the next essential step will be a clear division in the budget allocation for measure 1 of priority 1 to support small and medium-sized enterprises.

In the fast track of the September round, bids for over three-quarters of the total available budget for seven years had already been made. Measure 4 of priority 4 on skills training is seriously oversubscribed, and unless we place guidelines, there will be serious conflict between the regional and local partnerships. Sooner or later, we will have to do it, but the sooner the better.

From the Chair yesterday, I stressed that the Monitoring Committee is independent of the Assembly, but it was made clear that the Committee takes the Assembly’s decisions seriously. The Assembly’s support for the principle of indicative budget allocation will be a constructive step. Closely related to that is the question of the exact role of the priority partnerships, the local partnerships and the Welsh European Funding Office in prioritising projects. In my opinion, where the strategic action plans generate a range of local projects in a given local authority, it should be the function of the local partnership to integrate those locally generated projects into a coherent and efficient local plan with serious input from the local partnership into the priorities to be given to those components. At the same time, when different local partnerships generate similar projects such as this one where 11 local partnerships have put forward broadly similar schemes of support to SMEs, it should be the role of the priority partnership to ensure that the best ideas are applied throughout west Wales and the Valleys with a fair allocation of resources. If not, one could have uneven provision. Yesterday, the Monitoring Committee requested that the Welsh European Funding Office defines the relationship between the priority and local partnerships. If we pass this motion, that request will be strengthened considerably.

Now we come to the final question of money. As we say in Welsh, ‘Diwedd y gân yw’r geiniog’. Match funding has been a political football, which makes this part more difficult. However, after we have our knockabout football game, we must set a budget. Public sector match funding is a key factor in setting the budget. Last Thursday, there was a contrast between two speeches in this Assembly. First, Rhodri carefully counted every penny of the money for the Wales Millennium Centre, and there was a threat to the £27 million of millennium money due to the lack of perhaps £10 million of one-off payments. Shortly afterwards, Brian Gibbons accused me of underestimating the ingenuity of local authorities and government agencies in finding the £155 million of necessary public sector match funding every year. If we are to make full use of the structural funds, that £155 million of public sector match funding—the figures come from the agreed single programming document—must be found every year. It is a far higher sum than we have had to supply in the past.

We must know in setting our budget how much extra money we will need to allocate to the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales Tourist Board and the funding council. I do not see how we can properly proceed without knowing that.

One final point. There are different figures available for what will be the actual profile of the spend. My figures are based on allocation, according to the timetable in the agreed programmes, and the spend carried out evenly over the two years.

To conclude, there is no shortage of extremely good projects from the Monitoring Committee. The danger is an overcommitment and too many projects for the funds available. I have no doubt that the partnerships will wish to begin spending as soon as possible. I ask for a 20 per cent contingency in the extra budget for structural funds. If, as we hope, the programme goes ahead at full speed, will our First Minister and Finance Minister press the case for a larger contingency provision to ensure that we can go ahead with this? I worded the motion in the hope that we can get full support, and I urge you to support it.

I welcome much of what Phil said. Many of his points and those highlighted in the motion are well made. There is a considerable amount of concern among people at the coalface in Objective 1 about the overlap and the potential conflicts between the local partnership plans and the regional plans. Some sort of streamlining and prioritisation between the different types of plans and sub-regional plans is welcome. Phil’s comments on the events at the Programme Monitoring Committee meeting yesterday are good news. He also made a useful point regarding the importance of ensuring that all the priorities and the measures in the priorities are covered. It is possible that certain less attractive options may be missed out. However, as Phil said, as we have had so many projects, that is more of a theoretical risk than a real risk in practice. I am pleased about all those points.

However, I have some reservations about the second clause in the motion where Phil calls for a uniform profile of spending. If the reason behind this was to prevent the overhang of spend that occurred on previous programmes and to ensure that there is a fairly even pace of commitment and expenditure, we would all welcome the principle behind that sentiment. However, there is enough guidance or prescription in the European Commission rules already without us tying ourselves down in an any more restricted way than we are at present. This is a new experiment and a new project for us in Wales and it can be difficult for us to find our way forward. Consequently, because we may have to try things out empirically, the more flexibility that we have, especially in the early stages of this programme, the better. Even if we have some difficulty in finding the way forward, it does not mean that we are lost in terms of our goal. More, rather than less, flexibility is, therefore, welcome.

I think that we are doing quite well in Wales at the moment. Anyone who has visited the websites of the other Objective 1 areas will know that we have probably got, if not the most stylish, certainly the most up-to-date and informative website on Objective 1. Even this morning, I have been in contact with developments in Merseyside. People there have had experience of this and, from what they say, there is no doubt that we are doing every bit as well in rolling out the programme as they are.

I would not presume to be able to follow Phil on the detail in his presentation. I will mention the experience of Objective 1 in Rhondda Cynon Taff. As an Assembly Member for South Wales Central and leader of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, I have a particular remit in this field. Following closely on the heels of the deadline of submissions for the local partnership bid, now is a good time to take stock, set things in perspective and tell you at first hand what it is like to be a big player in this vital opportunity to reclaim for the people of the south Wales valleys some of the prosperity and sense of hope that sustained economic and social regeneration can bring to an area gripped by deprivation and poverty, mirrored by a below average gross domestic product of between 63 and 64 per cent. Assembly Members will need no reminding that, as little as 100 years ago, the Cynon, Rhondda and Taff Ely valleys were the workshops of the world, producing the steam coal that powered industry and commerce and brought international recognition for the major towns in the area.

With the departure of our traditional economic base, we need to seek new routes of prosperity. That task has been, and continues to be, immense, challenging and difficult. Due to the lack of clear guidance from the National Assembly for Wales and WEFO, we have effectively been working in the dark against shifting and split deadlines and changing conditions. Nonetheless, we have pulled off the impossible by lodging our bids in harmony with the necessary criteria. Teamwork, commitment, ambition, vision, enthusiasm and the will to succeed have been our partnerships’ driving force.

I know that everyone in this Chamber is undisputedly signed up to the truism that a new regional strategy for south-east Wales is needed and for three clear reasons.

First, the pace of economic change is accelerating to the point where there are no precedents for what is happening in today’s digitally driven and globally exposed economy. Secondly, the advent of the National Assembly presents the regions of Wales with the challenge of designing sustainable economic development programmes that are more attuned to local circumstances. Thirdly, the arrival of Objective 1 funds provides Wales with the unique opportunity to redress the problems of social exclusion, economic decline and environmental decay.

Any of these factors would be a cause for concern in themselves, but all three occurring together makes it imperative that every institution in Wales punches its weight to maximise the opportunities and minimise the threats ahead.

South-east Wales cannot afford to be complacent or parochial. It may be the most prosperous region in Wales, but it is far from being so in the UK context, and even less so in EU terms. This underlines the need for south-east Wales to benchmark itself in a wider framework so that it can compare with the best.

A wider framework of analysis will also be necessary for the Assembly, not least because south-east Wales should not be considered the golden goose of the Welsh economy, a region which can be constrained in the hope that growth will trickle down to less prosperous parts of Wales. The international investment game is such that a project that is denied planning permission in south-east Wales is more likely to go to Cologne, Barcelona or Poland rather than to a deprived community elsewhere in Wales.

We have all seen the labour markets change dramatically. The growth in personal mobility means that south-east Wales needs to maintain a regional perspective in everything it does. This is especially the case with respect to business start-ups, investment, transport, education and training. By forging new and more robust partnerships, however, south-east Wales has the potential to become a much more prosperous region offering a better quality of life for its inhabitants as well as playing a wider role in the regeneration of the Welsh economy.

In harmony with the rest of south-east Wales, therefore, Rhondda Cynon Taff intends to establish itself in the top quarter of the most prosperous regions of Europe and significantly improve the opportunities of individuals, all sections of the community and the industrial sector.

Rhondda Cynon Taff has not recovered from the collapse of coal mining, and the legacy of the first industrial revolution continues to inform population distribution and community tradition. The one-time interdependence of the regions of south-east Wales has been undermined by forces which have allowed certain areas to develop and grow and others to move forward less quickly. Rhondda Cynon Taff, by and large, falls into the latter category.

In the pursuit of economic and social regeneration and our desire to maximise our access to Objective 1, we have taken some positive steps. We have also found ourselves beleaguered by certain negative forces. However, we have emerged thus far with a clearer sense of intent and direction. We have been extremely proactive.

We have had significant problems. There has been much expectation about Objective 1. A misunderstanding is abroad that this pot of gold is there for anyone who feels that they have a valid claim. However, as we all understand here today, there is a need to observe a strict political path analysis in putting together an integrated and constructive bid. The money is not endless and needs to be part of a wider policy in strategic regeneration—

I will do that.

Our partnership has faced high levels of competitiveness and, initially, a lack of understanding regarding the work of other organisations. However, good has come out of this in the long term because the local partnership in Rhondda Cynon Taff has, by the nature of the process, broken down those barriers and allowed a greater understanding of the potential for working together.

The Objective 1 experience in Rhondda Cynon Taff has left me with the knowledge that we have a great deal of work to do. However, through our partnership and shared action plan, we now have the basis to see some positive benefits.

The key factor in Rhondda Cynon Taff is economic regeneration through business growth, community development and up-skilling with a view to long-term and sustained employment prospects well beyond the Objective 1 programme period. This is not a case of whingeing for Wales, but winning for Wales.

I declare an interest as a member of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council.

When I first read the motion before us today, it seemed such a complex and technical motion that I thought that it must have been tabled by a Liberal Democrat or, at the very least, by a professor of rocket science.

When motions are as complex and technical as this, it may be easy for the rest of us to grasp every detail—except, perhaps, Brian Gibbons, who was having some difficulty—but it is difficult for us to communicate effectively with the people of Wales so that they understand exactly what we are debating. That is a serious point that I wanted to make.

The Conservative group supports the motion. On the position of the First Minister, to which the motion refers, we are pleased that he has already taken steps to ensure that the Minister for Economic Development holds no other portfolio responsibility. I hope that he and Wales do not come to regret this particular aspect of his coalition deal. The matter of ‘several jobs Morgan’ has been pressed in the past by Alun Cairns, but when Rhodri Morgan saw that Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales and the Conservatives were going to raise the issue today, he clearly caved in to opposition pressure.

I take this opportunity to suggest to the new Minister for Economic Development, who is becoming engaged with this debate, that he issues the delivery of the European structural fund programmes as the key measure of his performance-related pay assessment, assuming that he has not found some ruse by which to escape from his commitment on this.

The motion states that we should assess the role of European structural funds in the regeneration of the Welsh economy and express our determination that the full funds should be used effectively and without delay. I am sure that everyone in this Assembly—coalition Government and opposition parties—would be happy to sign up to that. However, I will comment on what I consider to be the central role of structural funds.

Objective 1 status is clearly important and I have congratulated Ron Davies, the then Secretary of State for Wales, for showing the commitment that was needed to secure Objective 1 status in 1998. However, it is important to recognise that Objective 1 status and structural funds will not deliver a long-term restructuring of west Wales and the Valleys economy on their own. We often hear comparisons with Ireland and the transformation in the Irish economy as if European structural funds were the sole reason for that. However, from discussion with the people on the ground who were involved in what has happened in Ireland, it is clear that they do not attach the same level of importance to the impact of structural funds. They consider the Irish Government’s fiscal policy and its use of tax breaks a higher priority as well as the recognition by every sector of the Irish economy many years ago that something had to be done—there was unity on that.

I believe that there may be scope for the introduction of tax breaks for research and development—

I am sorry, Brian, but I do not have time to take an intervention because the Presiding Officer is so ruthless.

Tax breaks are not a matter for the Assembly, but the First Minister should discuss the issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Alun Cairns, our Shadow Minister for Economic Development, raised the issue with Gordon Brown last week, so I am hopeful of a result. A low tax and low regulation business environment is crucially important to economic regeneration, both of which the current Chancellor is moving away from. It is a matter of great concern to the Conservatives at Westminster and here in Wales that Britain has the fastest growing tax burden in the developing world. Only this morning, I received a communication from the Institute of Chartered Accountants expressing concern about the rapidly expanding and greater regulation that Welsh business is facing.

The objective of Phil Williams’s motion is to ensure that benefit from Objective 1 funds is spread to all of Wales and to every sector. We agree with that. This is a particularly relevant issue on a day when the new Cabinet sits in the Assembly without a single representative from north, mid or west Wales—a position that causes much concern and disillusionment with the devolution process outside the M4 corridor.

The motion refers to the continuing need for match funding over and above the Barnett block. This was discussed at length when the comprehensive spending review was announced last year, but it was largely overshadowed by the increase in funding that was made available to the Assembly at the time.

I want to move away from this issue and deal with the concerns about implementing the funds. There are many aspects that cause concern. We are more than three-quarters of the way through the programme and nothing has been spent yet. There are reports of confusion among different groups covering the same geographical area, and there is no clarity about where responsibilities lie. Officers are resigning, referring to the implementation process as a nightmare. Council leaders describe the application process as far too complex. Good people, such as Richard Edwards, are complaining about aspects of the programme in this Assembly and the unfairness to areas like Milford Haven, which is in his constituency and mine.

The chairman of one partnership told me that most of the scheme that has been put forward in his area would have gone ahead anyway. All those points must be addressed and we must focus our attention on delivering this programme. It is vital that we press the Chancellor to deliver a fiscal environment that will allow the investment of significant sums of structural funds to be the catalyst for economic regeneration in the Objective 1 areas. It is vital that we, as an Assembly, develop a wider vision to raise the aspirations of people living in west Wales and the Valleys, so that in five years time all of Wales feels that it is sharing in a successful Welsh economy.

I have a duty to voice a political concern regarding the continuing worries that relate to the implementation of the Objective 1 programme. There is a need to reinforce the plans and, therefore, to support the motion. This could best be achieved in several ways that have an effect on the inefficiencies of the processes that affect small and medium-sized enterprises. Llywydd, I declare an interest as a director of a small company that advises on health, safety and environmental issues. SMEs could be the lifeblood. They are sometimes new and innovative industries. They are sometimes indigenous and they can all contribute to the wealth of Wales.

I have a specific example of a small company that contacted the WEFO office in Mountain Ash just before the recent deadline for applications. It needed to talk to a specific person who was responsible for a particular field. It was told that that person was on holiday for three weeks and nobody was opening the mail. When pressed, it was told that it might be better if it delivered its application form to Machynlleth itself. I cannot emphasise how problematic it would be for an SME to run half way across the country to ensure that a deadline is met. SMEs do not have the time to take that type of emergency action to rectify the deficiencies in other organisations. What would have happened if that small company had missed the deadline? Would we be litigating against WEFO?

This scenario is unacceptable and it demonstrates that the whole process is geared towards the benefit of the usual suspects, namely the large actors such as the WDA. Small businesses and voluntary and community bodies are thus excluded from the processes. Action must be taken immediately to make these processes more acceptable, transparent and open at a local level and within WEFO to gain the confidence of small organisations in the process.

The process should be more user-friendly. At present, the application forms are extremely complex. They are about 70 pages in length and they do not even include an address for returns. Small businesses do not have the expertise to deal with the many complicated issues. They are sometimes reduced to tears in absolute frustration and fall by the wayside. This is unacceptable. Mechanisms to assist such organisations should have been established months ago to avoid the current panic regarding the application process.

There is a perception, particularly in small and medium-sized businesses and community voluntary enterprises, that Objective 1 funds are geared towards large organisations. A general concern is that smaller organisations are excluded. The Economic Development Committee visited Brussels and had confirmation that community and social enterprises were enterprises and have an opportunity to gain advantages from the European funds. Therefore, why is there such exclusion when we talk so inclusively?

Last week, I asked the First Secretary, as he was called then, what confidence and hope he could give to business partnerships about the projects that they are developing. I mentioned that the Objective 1 partnership for Caerphilly county borough, which covers my constituency, has 42 projects waiting on the sidelines. No confidence was given. The First Secretary said that I was confused about partnerships. He still does not give hope to businesses—large, small, voluntary, social or private. They still believe that things are definitely not being done at fast-track speed, that the time taken is far too long and that the system is inefficient. They are also still concerned about the availability of the money.

We have not been helped by the bureaucracy. Unclear guidelines, changing drafts and tight deadlines have placed a huge burden on everybody involved in partnerships. There is frustration at the perceived lack of decision-making by the Assembly’s Programme Monitoring Committee. However, faith in the Committee was restored yesterday when, under the able chairmanship of Dr Phil Williams, I observed more decisions of real significance than in previous meetings. The First Minister owes a debt of gratitude to Phil, who has proved that he is a master of his subject.

I want these examples and concerns to be used to correct the developing situation. I demand that immediate steps are taken to significantly support indigenous and new SMEs, be they private, voluntary, community or social. Therefore, I call on Members to support the motion.

I did not intend to speak in this debate and was going to sit and listen. However, so much rubbish is being spoken that I cannot sit quietly. I will respond to some of the comments. Glyn said that we are three-quarters of the way through the programme period and nothing has been spent.

The first year.

The first year, Glyn? This is a six-year programme. Brian Hancock said that we are not doing anything to help small businesses. Brian is a member of the Programme Monitoring Committee and knows that we established the Private Sector Unit in Cwm Cynon and that Helen Usher has gone to run it. He also knows that there will be support to help private businesses. The Committee has travelled around Wales listening to what private businesses have to say. We pass on that information and then assess the programmes and a range of other business support.

Other people who have been involved in this also know that we plan to have special funds that will be easy for small businesses and voluntary organisations to access.

I think the point that Brian Hancock was trying to make was that we might know that, but small businesses do not.

I agree. That is why it is beholden on us to make sure that the information that we put out is right. A huge amount of scaremongering is still happening, with people saying that nothing is happening for small businesses when that is patently not true. We are at the beginning of a six-year process. It will take us time.

A seven-year process.

It may be seven years by the time we get through it. This is the largest structural fund programme that we have ever had in Wales. We are being ambitious in the way we have tried to structure local and regional partnerships. To say that voluntary and private sector organisations are not involved is such patent nonsense when we have structured the one-third principle into all the partnership and decision-making bodies. Therefore—

I will not give way again, Brian. We can talk about this tomorrow.

I come back to the question about whether we can get to the stage where we stop making a political football out of this issue. Rhodri said the other day that political footballs do not score goals. We have a responsibility to give honest, clear information. I was pleased to hear Pauline talk about the benefit of partnership. We have embarked on a journey, which is about learning to work together in Wales; across the private, public and voluntary sectors. It is about learning to judge what will work and make a difference in our communities, what will raise gross domestic product, create jobs and help people to get into the labour market. The more we put out shock horror stories that this programme is going down the drain, the less chance we have of engaging people, particularly—

I will not give way. I am just winding up.

The more we put out shock horror stories that this programme is going down the drain, the less chance we have of engaging people, particularly if we are going to persuade those in the private sector who are not used to working with us in the public sector to give their time and stick with us, and the voluntary sector who do not have the resources to make it easy for them. We must be able to be clear and honest and give proper information, so that we can engage people in this process. It is a long process that we are only just beginning. I desperately wish we could stop throwing brickbats and start engaging on how we make this work.

Phil probably recognises that this motion has been overtaken by events. If the motion were written today, I am sure that it would not appear in the same form. We have been told that the motion is as it is and I am afraid that it is now out of date. There is an opportunity here. In Phil’s opening remarks he was clear about where we are with the whole programme. We have come to a new point in this programme. We have turned a corner from dealing with issues of structure and so on, and moved forward, allowing the Programme Monitoring Committee to get on with the job and the partners to get on with delivering the programme. Yesterday’s meeting of the Committee, which Phil chaired, agreed the programme complement—the detailed strategy for Objective 1—and set the fast-track projects on their way.

We now need to look forward, not backwards. I want to look in some detail at how that will work. I agree with the spirit of the motion, because everyone needs to agree priorities, but I do not agree with its content. We must remember that the Assembly is not the only player in this. If Objective 1 is to work, it must be run as a partnership, not a dictatorship. The Assembly and the partners are bound by the single programming document, which is a partnership document in itself. It is for the Programme Monitoring Committee to advise on the direction and management of the Objective 1 programme and we all agree that effective action plans are the key to delivering the programme. As Phil identified, key decisions were made on this matter yesterday. My general point is that a team approach is the only way to ensure that the Objective 1 programme works effectively. The Objective 1 programme and other European programmes are moving forward and many issues in this motion have been resolved by yesterday’s Committee meeting to which Phil referred.

I am pleased to tell you that the first Objective 1 projects are being approved this afternoon. These projects will receive funding from the European social fund. This is the first day of the Objective 1 programme for Wales. It is a good day for Wales. I am happy to announce that 16 projects will receive funding of up to £27 million under approval letters issued today. This will provide support for some 60,000 people across Wales. I congratulate all those whose projects have been approved, and all those who worked on getting the projects in place. I expect that the first European regional development fund applications will be approved by the end of the week. It is possible that Wales is the first Objective 1 region in Britain to approve projects under ERDF. Only a few social fund projects have been approved in Merseyside, and nothing so far in the other regions of Britain. Wales is not being left behind in using these funds. Equally well, the Objective 3 programme for east Wales is now underway, and all approval letters for this programme have been dispatched and sent out to partners and to project co-ordinators.

What this programme is about now is delivery. It is about giving the partnership the opportunity to get on with the job, and to allow the Programme Monitoring Committee to get on with its job of doing the business. It is time that we try to de-politicise the process itself. It has been tough and hard. Many people have worked hard and fought with tight deadlines, but we are now underway and moving ahead. I am sure that you will all have noticed that in the new partnership government document, a further £60 million of additional match funding is to be provided. That is almost exactly the figure that Phil Williams and I agreed upon last year as being needed. That is good news for the partners.

I have been asked about the 20 per cent contingency provision. This is available if we overcommit. I undertake to take that matter back and consider it and perhaps to defer it to the budget debate on Thursday. The only other matter that I have been asked about concerns the simplicity of the forms. They are complicated. Unfortunately, they are not always written by us in the United Kingdom, and that is a problem. While I accept the motive behind the motion, it is now unnecessary. We keep coming back to the details of Objective 1 rather than concentrating on the strategy, and allowing the partners to get on with the vital job in hand. This is my last sentence, Llywydd. The need now is to avoid this ongoing fascination—

In that case I will return to some of the points that I would have made had I not realised that the clock had reached zero and that my time was up.

Mike, cyfeiriasoch at £60 miliwn o arian cyfatebol ychwanegol. O ble y daw’r £60 miliwn hwnnw?

That £60 million is in the partnership agreement. It is the sum of money that we believe that we need in additional match funding to allow the public sector, in particular, to access and draw down the total of European money. The money comes from the settlement for Wales, which has now been divided in accordance with the agreement in the partnership government document. That is before us, and therefore you can see where it has come from as well as who has delivered it and who is delivering it.

On the agreement on the regional and sub-regional plans, yesterday’s meeting of the Programme Monitoring Committee agreed six overarching priority action plans—one per priority—and 15 local action plans—one per local authority area. There will be difficulty in seeing what the overlap is, but that is the culmination of a great deal of work put in by partners at all levels. These plans will be valuable in providing the strategic direction and guiding selection of projects to deliver programme outputs. I am grateful for the hard work done yesterday. Phil had a reasonably difficult meeting to deal with, and succeeded in achieving the outcomes that meant that this programme has now moved on. It is a complex exercise; it does not allow itself to early, easy, simple solutions, in what is now a six-year programme. The aim is to have a set of action plans in place, which could be agreed by the Programme Monitoring Committee at its meeting of 15 December as the basis for project selection by partnerships. There will still be 15 local action plans, and the Committee has acknowledged the considerable work that the local partnerships have already put into developing their strategies.

Are you content with the make-up of the local partnerships? Val Feld referred to the thirds principle. In my constituency and in the voluntary sector elsewhere, I have experienced real concern about how effectively that will be put into place at a local level. I seek an assurance from you today that you and your officials will pursue this matter rigorously with those responsible for local partnerships, because I am aware that the voluntary sector feels excluded and disenfranchised in many cases.

I am concerned that the local partnerships should reflect, in the way that the Assembly and Programme Monitoring Committee has determined, the relationships on the thirds principle. I have already asked officials to set up meetings with all the local and regional planning areas and action plan groups. I intend to have an early meeting to hear the problems that concern all of the action plan areas. Included in that discussion I will want to see that they are truly reflective of the communities that they represent in the thirds principle.

Will you also undertake in that reflection to look at the serious concern of gender balance?

I will take all the representative factors into account, including gender and where the voluntary sector feels excluded. I am aware of concerns in the voluntary and private sectors in some areas.

There has been much frustration in the first year with money not coming forward. That has now been approved, but we are a long way through the first year. With regard to next year and what will happen during the first three months, people would like to start projects on 1 January in the second year, but they will not know about match funding until April. Is it possible for these projects to have their start dates backdated?

The budget that we will discuss this Thursday will contain the budget for the following year, and we can have a debate on how the match funding will be allocated. The important feature is that on 15 December the Programme Monitoring Committee will agree the action plans. That will give us the basis upon which the first sets of projects can be put in place. If we look forward, and people are planning forward, we can see the pattern developing. We should be on track, with people knowing where they are by the end of this year for the next round of general action plans. It has been difficult, but we must move forward. Whatever the consequences of people’s feelings about the past, we are now trying to ensure that the partnerships on the ground have the resources and facilities to be able to move forward rapidly.

When you say that you hope the information will be available to the local plans and partnerships, does that mean that you will ensure that policy and financial frameworks are made available to them? Will you also ensure that the local regeneration fund, which many local plans will be using to match-fund their plans, is increased? It stands at £18 million for this year. That means a sum of just over £1 million for my own county of Carmarthenshire. However, the county used to receive that amount from the old rural grant. Therefore, there is insufficient money for match funding for local plans.

I am afraid that you will have to wait for the good news on these matters until the budget debate this Thursday.

The planning process will be achieved by 15 December. It is crucial that we realise that these are not matters on which I will decide; the Programme Monitoring Committee will decide. If we are in a true sense a partnership, we should not try to dictate from the top.

Finally, we need to avoid this ongoing fascination with taking things apart to see how they work. My experience is that if you take something apart often enough, it will stop working properly. Objective 1 is a long-term project to improve the lives of two thirds of the people of Wales with a level of funding that we are never likely to see again. We must make the most of it and that is what I intend to do.

Yn gyntaf, llongyfarchaf Mike ar ei benodiad a dymunaf yn dda iddo yn y gwaith pwysig sydd o’i flaen. Dymunwn bob llwyddiant iddo; bydd yn dipyn o her iddo gyflawni’r hyn sydd yn angenrheidiol i wella sefyllfa’r economi. Diolchaf hefyd i’r rhai sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y ddadl hon. Wrth imi gloi, ymatebaf i rai o’r pwyntiau sydd wedi codi.

Yn gyntaf, trof at y sylwadau a wnaethpwyd gan Val Feld fel Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd. Yr ydym yn cwrdd â phobl yn ein hetholaethau sydd â rhwystredigaeth enfawr ynglŷn â’r modd y mae amser wedi mynd heibio cyn i’r cynlluniau hyn fod ar gael i’w gweithredu. Mae’n gyfrifoldeb ar bob un ohonom i wyntyllu hyn yn y Pwyllgor neu yn y Siambr. Cawsom brofiad tebyg fel Pwyllgor wrth deithio o gwmpas Cymru. Nid wyf wedi bod ym mhob cyfarfod—newydd ymuno â’r Pwyllgor yr wyf—ond clywais sylwadau yn uniongyrchol. Mae sialens ac anawsterau. Gobeithiaf, o’u gwyntyllu a’u trafod, y gallwn gael atebion i’r problemau hyn.

Yr wyf yn falch fod y Pwyllgor wedi symud ymlaen ddoe. Llongyfarchaf Phil Williams ar ei gadeiryddiaeth a llongyfarchaf bawb a lwyddodd i symud yr agenda ymlaen. Rhaid inni helpu’r rhai sydd yn rhoi ceisiadau gerbron i weld bod gwerth i’r ceisiadau hyn. Rhaid symud i wireddu’r cynlluniau hyn, a hynny’n fuan. Er mwyn cael mwy o hygrededd, mae angen nid yn unig fwy o bobl o’r sector gwirfoddol, ond hefyd bobl o’r sector busnesau bach yn y partneriaethau hyn. Rhaid inni drosglwyddo’r neges fod gwerth iddynt fod yn rhan o’r cynllun. Rhaid cyfleu iddynt eu bod am gael rhywbeth allan ohono, y byddant yn deall yn well ac yn gallu helpu eu cyd-fusnesau i symud ymlaen â cheisiadau ac i fod yn rhan o’r broses.

Mae Amcan 1 wedi bod yn llanast ym marn llawer o bobl allweddol. Y bobl fwyaf allweddol yw’r rheini sydd yn cyflwyno cynlluniau. Y sialens i ni yw i helpu i greu hyder fel y byddant yn credu eto yn y cynlluniau hyn er lles economi Cymru. Mae rhai sydd â chynlluniau i’w cyflwyno, ac eraill â chynlluniau a allai fod wedi cael eu cyflwyno, ond sydd heb wneud hynny. Mae ar economi Cymru eu hangen i gyd. Yr ydym wedi bod yn ymlwybro i ryw raddau mewn niwl o ddiffyg gwybodaeth hyd yn hyn. Gobeithio y bydd yr wybodaeth ar gael yn rhwydd.

Dychwelaf at un neu ddau o awgrymiadau yn y cyfeiriad hwnnw. Yr ydym bellach yn y degfed mis o’r flwyddyn. Yr oeddwn yn falch o glywed Mike yn cyhoeddi bod rhai penderfyniadau wedi cael sêl bendith ac am gael eu hanfon allan heddiw. Fodd bynnag, mae 10 mis wedi mynd heibio. Mae’n hen bryd i’r arian hwn fod ar gael i’r rheini sydd â chynlluniau. Mae hyd yn oed y cynlluniau trac cyflym heb dderbyn arian hyd yn hyn.

Cofiwn i Rhodri Morgan ddweud na fydd unrhyw gynllun gwerth chweil ar ei golled oherwydd diffyg cyllid. Yr wyf yn falch o’i weld, fel Prif Weinidog, yn ategu hynny yn awr. Gobeithiaf mai dyna fydd y sefyllfa. Gwyddom nad oes prinder cynlluniau. Yr oedd ofn rai misoedd yn ôl bod ansicrwydd ynglŷn â’r cynlluniau wrth inni baratoi’r ddogfen raglennu sengl ac aros am Frwsel ac yn y blaen, a bod hynny am effeithio ar y nifer o gynlluniau a fyddai’n dod gerbron. Gwyddom yn awr nad oes prinder cynlluniau. Cyfeiriodd Phil at nifer fawr o gynlluniau ddoe. Bydd llawer mwy yn amlygu eu hunain pan fydd pobl yn gweld bod yr arian yn dechrau symud o’r diwedd. Gobeithiaf fod Rhodri yn iawn. Rhaid symud ymlaen yn gyflym er mwyn profi effeithiolrwydd yr holl gynllun.

Wrth agor y ddadl, cyfeiriodd Phil Williams at y ffaith fod rhai elfennau yn y rhaglen Amcan 1 eisoes mewn perygl o dderbyn mwy o geisiadau nag y mae arian ar gael i’w cyllido. Ni wn a allwn edrych am fwy o rwyddineb o fewn y rheolau y mae’n rhaid inni weithio oddi mewn iddynt, i osgoi’r perygl hwnnw. Byddai’n drychineb pe baem yn canfod posibiliadau neu ffynonellau cynlluniau da ond na fyddai modd eu cyllido oherwydd rheolau rhy haearnaidd ar gynlluniau’r ddogfen raglennu sengl. Mae’n debyg y byddai’n rhaid trafod y mater hwn ym Mrwsel.

Trof oddi wrth y pryderon at gwestiwn hanfodol yr arian sydd ar gael. Mae perygl, os gwariwn yn ôl y patrwm a ddisgrifiwyd gan Phil, inni fod mewn trafferth cyllidol, er gwaethaf datganiad Mike German. Pwysleisiodd Phil nad ydym yn gofyn am broffil gwario anystwyth. Fodd bynnag, gan ragdybio y bydd arian yn cael ei ymrwymo yn ôl y patrwm a osodwyd yn y ddogfen raglennu sengl ac os yw’r prosiectau’n symud ymlaen ar raddfa wastad drwy’r cyfnod, byddwn yn defnyddio mwy o arian Ewropeaidd nag a ganiatawyd yn adolygiad cynhwysfawr o wariant Gordon Brown yng Ngorffennaf. Byddwn yn defnyddio rhyw £775 miliwn o’r elfen sydd i fod i ddod o Ewrop i Gymru, ond dim ond £442 miliwn sydd ar gael o fewn yr adolygiad cynhwysfawr o wariant. Mae hynny tua £100 miliwn y flwyddyn yn brin.

Dywedodd Mike German fod £60 miliwn ychwanegol ar gael. Gofynnodd Gareth Jones o ble y daw’r £60 miliwn hwnnw. Cawn weld ddydd Iau pan gyflwynir y gyllideb. Nid ydym yn cael mwy o arian gan Gordon Brown yn Llundain, felly rhaid ei fod yn dod o’r arian a fyddai, yn Lloegr, yn cael ei wario ar lywodraeth leol, addysg ac iechyd. Dyna’r realiti. Mae’r cynnydd yn y gwariant yn Lloegr yn 4.4 y cant dros gyfnod yr adolygiad cynhwysfawr o wariant ac mae hynny ar gyfer y rhaglenni hynny. Mae gennym ni gynnydd o 5.4 y cant. Mae £80 miliwn neu £90 miliwn eisoes wedi cael ei gyhoeddi, ond nid yw hynny’n ddigon i gau’r bwlch. Edrychwn ymlaen at y ddadl sydd i ddod i gael yr atebion i’r cwestiynau hynny.

Mae’n hanfodol bellach ein bod yn troi pob carreg i helpu’r rhai sydd â chynlluniau gwerthfawr ar y gweill i’w datblygu. Gofynnaf am sicrwydd y bydd y Swyddfa Ariannu Ewropeaidd Cymru arfaethedig sydd wedi ei chlustnodi ar gyfer Bae Colwyn yn dod yn llawn effeithiol ar unwaith ac y bydd pobl yn y swyddfa honno a fydd yn gallu delio’n unigol â phob ymgeisydd am arian. Byddai o gymorth mawr i bobl fusnes pe bai swyddog penodol i ddelio â’u ceisiadau er mwyn iddynt symud ymlaen.

Gofynnaf hefyd am sicrwydd—os nad heddiw, yn fuan—o’r union ddyddiad pan ddaw Cyllid Cymru i rym. Yr wyf yn cymryd y digwydd hynny yn ystod Tachwedd. Fodd bynnag, hoffwn wybod yr union ddyddiad a phryd yr ydym yn disgwyl i Gyllid Cymru allu delio â cheisiadau.

I gloi, ategaf bwynt Rhodri Glyn Thomas ynglŷn â’r angen am strategaeth gredadwy. I ryw raddau, mae’r ceffyl wedi bod y tu ôl i’r drol yn y mater hwn. Dylai fod gennym strategaeth Gymru-gyfan i ddatblygu’r economi a dylai’r elfennau hyn fod yn rhan o hynny. Hyd yma, nid yw hynny wedi digwydd. Fodd bynnag, nid yw’n rheswm inni beidio â gweithio ar strategaeth o’r fath, fel y bydd y cyfan yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd ar gyfer gweddill y rhaglen hon o leiaf, ac y byddwn, fel tîm, yn sicrhau mantais i Gymru o’r cynlluniau hyn.