This is good news for Wales, given that we have had the massive Objective 1 programme and 75 per cent coverage of the population under Objectives 1 and 2, it would be easy to forget about these community initiatives, but they represent an additional bonus for the economic development of Wales.

The draft single programming documents before you are the result of considerable effort by various partnership groups over many months in co-operation with Assembly Officials and, in the case of INTERREG, with colleagues in Ireland.

Ex-ante evaluations being prepared by consultants will accompany the programmes when they are submitted to the European Commission and copies will be made available in the Assembly Library.

I place on record my thanks and appreciation to the many organisations that make up the partnership, which put in a great deal of time and effort in drawing up the documents. Co-operation has been the key word in formulating these drafts. If the Assembly is content that the documents can go forward, we will initiate a negotiating process with the Commission in which the partnerships will continue to be involved.

I will now discuss each of the programmes in turn. On the Wales-Ireland INTERREG programme, the purpose of strand A of INTERREG III, under which the Wales-Ireland programme has been prepared, is to facilitate cross-border co-operation between neighbouring authorities with the intention of developing cross-border economic and social centres through joint strategies for sustainable territorial development.

The SPD has been jointly prepared by Assembly and Irish Government officials, who were assisted by a partnership drafting group. It derives from analyses of the socio-economic baselines of Wales and Ireland, the environmental profile of the area, the evaluation of the INTERREG II programme and a mutual desire to broaden, strengthen and deepen the relationships that the programme created. There is a desire to establish truly common projects, which are jointly developed and managed and which will have a significant impact on the communities in the programme area. There are two headline priorities: to encourage the economic, social and technological development of the cross-border area and to achieve sustainable growth by enhancing the overall quality of the cross-border area.

The programme recognises the limited funds available and the impact that a cross-border programme can have in limited time, yet seeks to make a positive contribution to the needs of the area. It was endorsed wholeheartedly by the Economic Development Committee on 18 October. The indicative global budget is 47.6 million euros—29.8 million euros from Wales and 17.8 million euros from Ireland. The maximum intervention rate is 75 per cent in Wales and 50 per cent in Ireland. That is an excellent budget, more than twice the previous programme period. Last time, resources were split 10:1 in Ireland’s favour, this time it is almost 2:1 in Wales’s favour. That is a real victory and is particularly good news for north-west and south-west Wales. We aim to make the best possible use of these resources and to focus on key activities rather than trying to spread a sum too thinly.

The purpose of the LEADER+ programme, like its predecessors, is to pilot innovative approaches to rural development. The SPD was prepared by the Assembly, assisted by a partnership group consisting of key players from the public, private and voluntary sectors. Wales has benefited from LEADER programmes in the past—LEADER I in 1991-93, and LEADER II in 1994-99. Most of rural Wales participated in LEADER II, with the exception of a few areas in north-east and south-east Wales, which were not eligible because they were outside the Objective 5b area.

All rural areas are eligible to participate in LEADER+, through groups that will be selected through a competitive process. However, the focus of this programme is quite different from LEADER I and II, because groups will be required to develop strategies based on a theme. This programme consists of two themes: groups must decide whether to focus on community development or business development. The funds available under LEADER+ are modest compared to the mainstream Objective 1, 2 and 3 programmes and the other community initiatives. Wales has been allocated 14.8 million euros for 2000-06. It is important to use this money wisely and not to fund activities that could be funded from other sources, such as Objectives 1, 2 and 3 or the rural development plan.

The interesting point about the budget for Wales is that we have sustained a budget for LEADER, despite pressure from the newly-eligible rural areas in England. That is good news for rural Wales, where we have been able to sustain a budget that would otherwise have come under pressure for reduction because of demands from English rural areas.

The challenge for the partnerships now is to ensure added value and innovation, given the large amount of resources available in the mainstream programme, and the lessons learned under LEADER I and II.

In the past, evaluations have shown that LEADER groups have spent a disproportionate amount of their time seeking match funding for projects, and this has reduced their effectiveness. It is proposed that the Assembly will provide most of the match funding for LEADER+. The sum of £1 million per year was included in the draft budget for each of the next three years; this is subject to approval of the final budget later this month.

It is envisaged that most of the LEADER+ programme will be administered through a global grant, and the Welsh Development Agency has agreed to act as the intermediary. This procedure is not new to Wales since the LEADER I programme was administered in this way, by the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales, between 1991 and 1993. This will provide for much more flexibility in the flow of funds to LEADER groups, and the WDA will be able to offer support and guidance to groups for their projects.

I will now turn to the URBAN programme. Following an open competition across Wales, Wrexham was chosen to run the new URBAN II programme. This will provide a golden opportunity to address the economic and social regeneration of the designated nine wards in Wrexham west. I appreciate the disappointment felt by the unsuccessful bidders for the programme but, given that we could have only one programme in Wales, tough choices had to be made and in the end the best bid won.

The programme document has been developed by the Wrexham partnership within a tight deadline. The partnership gave a presentation to the Local Government and Housing Committee on 1 November. The Committee welcomed the progress to date and emphasised the need to address the problems encountered in previous URBAN programmes.

The partnership was also grateful for the Committee’s comments on developing a long-term strategy and ensuring the empowerment process and community-driven approach continued beyond the life of the programme.

A top priority at the front end of this programme is to complete the development of an effective partnership that involves local community organisations fully and provides a clear mechanism for its priorities to come to the fore. It is anticipated that clear and effective community structures will be in place by the time the programme begins in the middle of next year.

A key to the success of the programme will be the development of a strong local partnership, which needs to be as wide as possible and in which residents’ groups have a major role to play.

Wrexham has a legacy of industrial decline associated with the disappearance of steel-making and mining from its economy. The resulting economic, social and environmental problems have led to the loss of community pride and networks. That is why we must create an entrepreneurial and participating community, with the empowerment of the residents to take forward their own future as a key feature.

As the programme document is developed further over the coming months, and subsequently implemented, I expect that a real and visible difference will be made to the west Wrexham area. This programme will be worth around 10 million euros from the European regional development fund, which, with match funding, brings the total value to around £12 million. In URBAN, in this allocation, we have almost twice the previous budget allocation, and this is good news for the people of north-east Wales.

This initiative is somewhat different from the others in that the emphasis is on a financially highly-concentrated programme, targeted within a small area, providing a series of integrated actions and covering as many facets of urban regeneration as possible.

I now turn to the amendments. On amendment 1, I am aware of Jocelyn’s comments, but there is a difference with the assurance that I gave last time. The difference between what is in the partnership document and this amendment is that if it is needed, we—the Government of Wales—guarantee to press the Treasury to provide the additional funding, not that we seek in advance an assurance or guarantee that they will provide it. That is the difference between the two because, as you know, treasuries do not respond to that sort of pressure. However, you have our assurance that we need to guarantee—

Will Mike give way?

No, I will not because I only have 30 seconds.

Therefore, I ask the Assembly to reject that amendment. On Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 2, I welcome the support for young people as a target group within the LEADER+ programme. I sympathise with the point that has been made regarding the loss of the link between LEADER and deprivation. However, it is clear from the European Commission’s guidelines on LEADER+ that the selection of groups should be based on the quality of their bids and how innovative they are. It would be misleading to call on LEADER groups to target the most deprived communities in their areas since that may weaken their bids and may not be acceptable to the EC. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment although I will ask officials to pursue this issue with the EC during the negotiations that will follow. I sympathise with the point, but I cannot support it because it might weaken our application. I am pleased to support amendment 3 and hope that we will continue to have an excellent relationship with our Irish colleagues.

I propose amendment 2. Add at the end of the motion as new clauses:

I propose amendment 3. Add at the end of the motion as a new clause:

I will speak on the URBAN initiative, Elin will speak on LEADER and Ieuan will speak on INTERREG.

I welcome this initiative for the Wrexham area as it is the only area in Wales chosen for URBAN II, which is one of the four new community initiatives. I welcome the fact that, having missed out on Objective 2 and assisted area status, the problems of Wrexham are at last being acknowledged.

European funding will be around £6 million and will come from the European regional development fund. As Wrexham is not in the Objective 1 region, the ERDF can only contribute up to 50 per cent of the total cost of the programme. That leaves about £6 million to be found from a number of match funding resources. Where will that money come from? No provision was made in the comprehensive spending review to provide any match funding for Wales to take full advantage of the European funds.

In Swansea, the only previous URBAN programme area in Wales, the primary source of match funding was Swansea City and County Council, which invested around £2.2 million of its own money in the programme. That strengthens the call that local government must have big increases in its budget for the next year, to cope with the need to find match funding for the whole of the European programme. Although it might normally be possible for Wrexham to fund this match funding, the effects of the flooding of the last few weeks on the area, and the impact of the repairs and the restoration of damage—albeit that we have heard that funding will be provided for this—will affect the county’s budget and that must be borne in mind. I seek a specific assurance today from Assembly officials that this will be considered.

The URBAN II initiative is directed at economic and social regeneration of the designated area, to promote sustainable urban development. That will be done through an integrated programme consisting of many projects that complement each other. The key for Wrexham will be to develop an effective partnership of local players to ensure that the area benefits in full from this funding.

I welcome, as Mike has already mentioned, the work done by the URBAN consultative group in evaluating the only other experience of administrating an URBAN project in Wales, together with other URBAN programmes elsewhere, to establish best practice. That approach should be commended. Innovation and exchange of experiences and good practice is one of the key features of the new URBAN programme.

The single programming document shows the lessons that can be learnt from the Swansea project, which experienced many early difficulties in implementing the programme. It is to be hoped that the Wrexham project will be more successful in ensuring that community members become directly involved in the process. Local ownership and empowering local people in their communities is central to any urban regeneration.

It is important to include all groups, such as people with a learning or physical disability and ethnic and minority groups, in the mainstream plans rather than treat them as an add-on to any aspect of the programme. Wrexham is putting these lessons into practice.

It was made clear at the last North Wales Regional Committee meeting during a discussion on the Communities First programme, that it is easy for agencies and larger groups to speak on behalf of the community without being truly representative of that community. It is crucial that effective monitoring and evaluation systems are built into the programme from the start and that community voices are heard. The proposed management arrangements, with the creation of five committees and two sub-groups to focus in depth on the two main priorities of the programme, show a bottom-up approach to community regeneration. Plaid Cymru welcomes that and it is in line with one of the main thrusts in the European Union structural funds programme.

The programme must have synergy with all the other initiatives already underway in the Wrexham area. Wrexham County Borough Council and the Welsh Development Agency are preparing a strategy for the economic restructuring of the area. That covers 17 wards. Nine out of those are included in this new URBAN II initiative. Wrexham also has an Objective 3 local action plan and numerous other local strategies. Linkages into wider strategies and complementing other strategies are key features of the new URBAN programme. It is also vital that the programme demonstrates added value and does not in any way replace any national or local funding already earmarked.

The programme must also combat social exclusion by tackling issues such as the narrow economic base of the area, the poor environment legacy containing a number of derelict sites, the low educational attainment and poor public transport. I welcome the many positive elements proposed in this initiative that will help to combat social exclusion and create a more equal society. I particularly welcome the development of a community resource fund to address local needs and to create employment. However, I call for guarantees that assistance will be targeted on the most deprived communities. I understand that there is scope in this programme to apply for loans from the European Investment Bank. I ask Assembly officials to consider this option and to assist the Wrexham area by maximising every opportunity to secure funds and make a success of this programme.

I want to talk briefly about the three programmes because although they are small in relation to our structural funds programmes, they are an enormously important part of the whole that we are building. They are an important part of the opportunities that we have to draw down European funding from a range of different sources. When we talk about the need to bring resources into Wales, we must draw down as much European funding as possible.

What is important about the new LEADER programme is that it builds on previous successful programmes and takes them a step further. What is particularly welcome—though, unfortunately, there is not one in my constituency—is the 33 individual rural wards outside of the area that we normally call rural Wales that are now included in that programme. That is a major step forward. We live in a country that has many pockets of rurality. To target those wards and enable resources to tackle those problems is important for people on the ground.

I hope that Assembly Members will look at the programme, identify those wards in their constituencies and work to ensure that those people, often in sparse communities, know how to access that money and build the necessary partnerships. I hear what is being said about deprivation, but we must remember that this is part of a series of programmes. The Objective 1 programme and the URBAN programme particularly target deprivation. The LEADER programme is about rurality and sparsity and tries to reach people who may not find it easy to reach the other programmes and need particular help to make a difference at a local level.

It is also good that the new LEADER+ programme is so focused on innovation and partnership and that it is very much about building transnational links. When we become, as we have been, preoccupied with our structural funds programme, it is also important that we engage in programmes that make us look outside Wales to other parts of Europe. That enables us to see the work that is going on, not only so that we learn from people in other countries, but that we share our experiences with them.

That is also the great strength of the INTERREG programme. Again, we are building on past experience. We have got to the second phase because our work with the Republic of Ireland was so successful. My only disappointment is that Swansea is not included in this strand, although I am promised that there will be a further strand. However, from an economic development point of view, the great importance of the INTERREG programme is the opportunity that it offers to start rebuilding, particularly since the Assembly has been established, our old Celtic trading and cultural links, which could offer great opportunities in the future.

On the URBAN project—and I noted Janet’s comments about Swansea—I have been involved in developing the Swansea project, although it is now based in Andrew’s constituency, and it has been a difficult process. I am pleased that Wrexham had the sense to learn from Swansea’s experience. I am also pleased that we have learnt that, when you spend a large amount of concentrated resources in an area of high deprivation, you must build on existing local structures and leaders, and work closely with the local authority. Although I accept the arguments about trying to bring more money into Wales through match funding, what made the difference in Swansea and what enabled it, in the end, to turn the corner, was the local authority’s commitment of expenditure to that programme. It is right that Wrexham should put money in. Although I note from an earlier contribution that it will be reimbursed for the money that it spent on the floods, and that additional resources will go into local authorities, which is an important principle. I know from my past experience that there are strong, active tenants’ associations in Wrexham, which can pick this programme up and work with it. The local authority has a good record of working with its tenants, so there is every chance that it will be successful.

Finally, returning to the points made when we discussed Objective 2, it is enormously important that we pull all these programmes into the framework that sits within our national economic development strategy, so that we use our European resources effectively to drive forward the areas where we have particular problems. We have to invest over the long term and build partnerships to generate change in the Welsh economy. I know that Mike believes in the need for us to co-ordinate, monitor and use all these programmes—however small, they are tools that we can use—to tackle some of our long-standing problems. That is an important part of the jigsaw.

The Welsh Conservative Party will support today’s motion. Although these programmes are small in funding terms, compared with the structural funds that we have debated, they are important to the people involved in them.

The LEADER+ programme, for example, is worth 14 million euros. That was equivalent to £8.4 million at my last count, before I came down to the Chamber. No doubt, by the time that I get back to my office and check the exchange rate, it will be even less. Nonetheless, it is extremely important to the communities that we are seeking to support.

There are obvious improvements in this programme, compared with the former LEADER scheme. For example, we welcome the fact that the only source of funding will be the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, unlike other programmes. That will simplify administration. That is to be welcomed.

We welcome any simplification in the process because the technical way in which all structural funds have been administered in the past has restricted interests. A report documented in the LEADER+ programme by a consultant, whose name escapes me, raised several questions about the Welsh European Programme Executive, which implemented the former programme.

I am concerned, as I have mentioned in previous debates, that the vast majority of the Welsh European Funding Office’s staff is made up from the Welsh European Programme Executive. Cultural changes—as we know—take a long time to happen and there is not a great deal of time left for these structural schemes. WEFO has an enormous challenge. I raised concerns last week about its ability to deliver the objective of the programming document. That remains the case in relation to these schemes. Objective 1 has rightly dominated the agenda, but WEFO has still been criticised—it is fair to say from all quarters—on the application process and the lack of support in seeking to develop the Objective 1 schemes. I am concerned that the administration and implementation of additional schemes, such as those that we are debating today, will end in further confusion and, ultimately, frustration. That runs the risk of turning away the innovators that can come forward with positive schemes from all sectors: the public sector, the private sector and the voluntary sector.

One of the benefits of LEADER is that the innovation it endeavours to foster results in the pilot schemes that it sometimes delivers, which can be expanded on a much larger scale elsewhere through other structural programmes as well as independently funded programmes. If we are to bring new people, new organisations and new thinking to make use of structural funds, particularly in relation to those pilot schemes, ease of process is essential. I welcome the sharing of innovative schemes through the dedicated LEADER website, which is also documented in the single programming document. This initiative should be adopted for other structural funds programmes to kick-start new thinking. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. The WEFO website has been hailed by many as a success. On the other hand, many more have hailed it as confusing. As soon as the fast-track schemes have drawn down funds, and there is real evidence that they are making a difference, I hope that we will endeavour to communicate that to foster thinking so that all partners involved from the three sectors can use that as a springboard to develop their own thinking.

The integration of schemes must be incorporated into all structural funds, which I was pleased to note is contained in the document. A number of debaters have highlighted that today. It is easier said than done, and the implementing agencies have massive challenges ahead of them. There are regulations and monitoring, and the Assembly and its agencies can put pressure and offer support. We should also call on the European Commission to simplify the process because we are often held back when we are trying to support no matter if it will be unsuccessful, as it is at the moment. I welcome the document on INTERREG. Implementation will, of course, be posed with different challenges on the INTERREG document because there is not a natural centre to all the collective local authorities that are covered. Gwynedd, Anglesey, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and parts of Conwy and Denbighshire are covered. That will naturally create challenges, but I am confident that, with the right support from the right people, we can achieve it. In relation to the URBAN II document, I welcome the support that Wrexham will receive from it, but I also regret that Barry is not included, as well as some of the more deprived parts of south Wales.

We will support amendment 1 and 3 tabled in the name of Jocelyn Davies. We will reject amendment 2 because we feel that operating some initiatives on an all-Wales basis can bring together the team-Wales approach in a way that has been adopted in other agencies far more productively.

I will confine my comments to the LEADER+ single programming document. I also take this opportunity to thank the LEADER groups in Pembrokeshire: the South Pembrokeshire Action for Rural Communities, and Menter Preseli in the north of the county, for all the hard work that they have accomplished over the years.

I will focus briefly on the selection criteria for the new local action groups, and flag up my concern, which is shared by others in Pembrokeshire, about the extent to which some of the new LEADER groups—there is no need to mention any names—will be proactive in promoting community involvement. The SPD talks of the power of communities as a development base, when provided with proper support. It also says that community development based on a grass-roots approach is a long-term process that requires ongoing commitment from local action groups if it is to succeed.

The section on selection criteria laudably indicates that it is important that applicants are able to demonstrate true partnership and avoid domination by a few organisations, and that relevant community groups should be actively engaged in the planning, management and delivery of LEADER+. I hope that the Welsh European Funding Office will be as good as its word in applying these conditions, because, in Pembrokeshire, the Objective 1 local partnership, in which the county council is the lead body, excluded communities, or at least community councils, from its board on the grounds that they were not statutory bodies. I am being serious. That was done despite clear guidance to the contrary from WEFO; they would not take my word for it.

The point, although obvious, needs to be emphasised that where local authorities act as lead bodies, their role must be that of an equal partner facilitating on behalf of the entire community, not dictating to it or excluding it altogether. To be fair, things have improved in Pembrokeshire. The LEADER management boards must be as wide-ranging as possible to ensure full community engagement and empowerment. We do not want so-called independent cabals operating a closed shop.

Croesawaf y drafodaeth bwysig hon ar gynlluniau INTERREG, LEADER ac URBAN. Hoffwn siarad yn benodol ar y cynllun LEADER+. Mae cyfraniad LEADER at ddatblygu gwledig yng Nghymru wedi bod yn allweddol dros y 12 mlynedd diwethaf. Galluogodd ddatblygiad cynlluniau ar lawr gwlad a rhoi cyfle i bobl arloesi. Ar ddechrau’r 1990au, adnabu grwp LEADER Antur Teifi bwysigrwydd ychwanegu gwerth at gynnyrch bwyd lleol. Yr oedd hynny flynyddoedd cyn y clywyd sôn am y sector bwyd-amaeth. Gwelsom grwpiau LEADER eraill yn arloesi wrth ddatblgu cynhyrchion, megis Cymad â chig rosé Llyn, ac Antur Cwm Taf Tywi â chig oen wedi’i halltu. Mae grwpiau LEADER hefyd wedi rhoi arweiniad ar gynlluniau twristiaeth ddiwylliannol a thwristiaeth amgylcheddol.

Tra’i bod yn bwysig bod LEADER+ yn cydweithredu â’r strwythurau sydd yn bodoli i reoli a rhedeg Amcanion 1 a 2, mae hefyd yn bwysig bod grwpiau LEADER yn rhydd i arloesi ac i weithredu cynlluniau blaengar. Golyga hynny y dylai rhaglenni prif ffrwd ymhen 10 mlynedd gael eu treialu gan grwpiau LEADER yn ystod y blynyddoedd nesaf. Mae’r gallu i arloesi yn dibynnu ar sicrwydd ariannol. Un peth sydd wedi dal grwpiau LEADER yn ôl yn ystod y pum mlynedd diwethaf yw’r ffaith eu bod yn chwilio am ddarnau mân o arian cyfatebol yn dragwyddol, ac yn gwastraffu llawer o egni wrth hel taliadau i sicrhau eu llif arian. Byddai ailgyflwyno’r system global grants, drwy Awdurdod Datblygu Cymru, yn rhoi mwy o sicrwydd ariannol i’r grwpiau hynny sydd, wedi’r cwbl, yn fentrau gwirfoddol a chymunedol ar y cyfan. Yr oeddwn yn falch o glywed y Gweinidog yn cadarnhau y prynhawn yma y bydd system o’r fath yn gweithredu fel rhan o LEADER+.

Trof at welliant 2 yn enw Jocelyn Davies. Bydd sawl agwedd ar LEADER+ yn wahanol iawn i raglenni LEADER blaenorol. Mae pob ardal wledig yn gymwys i wneud cais cystadleuol i weithredu cynllun LEADER, heb fod unrhyw orfodaeth arnynt i ystyried cefnogi’r ardaloedd mwyaf difreintiedig. Mae gennyf amheuon ynglŷn â hyn, gan fod ein hardaloedd gwledig yn amrywio’n sylweddol o ran cyfleoedd economaidd.

Clywais y dadleuon y prynhawn yma gan rai sydd yn croesawu’r ffaith y bydd pob ardal yn gymwys i wneud cais i fod yn rhan o grwp LEADER. Fodd bynnag, credaf y dylem fod yn ofalus ein bod yn gallu targedu’r ardaloedd mwyaf haeddiannol a difreintiedig yn y gweithgaredd hwn o dan LEADER+ hefyd. Cydnabyddaf, o dan reolau Ewropeaidd LEADER+, fel y soniodd y Gweinidog, na ellir gwahaniaethu rhwng ardaloedd gwledig difreintiedig a’r rhai mwyaf breintiedig. Fodd bynnag, dylid sicrhau, o fewn rhaglenni grwpiau LEADER, y gwneir pob ymdrech i dargedu cynlluniau i’r ardaloedd mwyaf difreintiedig. Yr oeddwn yn falch o glywed bod y Gweinidog yn cydnabod ysbryd gwelliant 2 ac y bydd yn ymchwilio ymhellach i ba mor ymarferol yw gweithredu’r egwyddor y tu ôl i’r gwelliant.

Mae’r rhaglen LEADER+ yn benodol ar gyfer datblygu gwledig. Un o brif broblemau ardaloedd gwledig dros y blynyddoedd, ac yn gynyddol felly dros y blynyddoedd diweddar, yw’r llif o bobl ifanc sydd yn gadael ein cymunedau cefn gwlad oherwydd diffyg cyfleon gwaith a gyrfa. Ychydig iawn o dargedu rhaglenni economaidd at bobl ifanc sydd yn digwydd. Ni chafodd pobl ifanc fawr o sylw o dan raglen Amcan 1, a dim ond ychydig mwy a gawsant dan Amcan 2. Hoffwn weld LEADER+ yn blaenoriaethu targedu pobl ifanc ac yn creu rhaglenni arloesol a fydd yn mynd i’r afael â chreu cyfleon gwaith a gyrfa i’r garfan hon o’r boblogaeth. Byddai hynny yn ffordd arbennig y gallai rhaglen LEADER+ ychwanegu gwerth at raglenni economaidd prif ffrwd.

Pwynt braidd yn bryfoclyd i gloi. Mae unrhyw gynlluniau datblygu economi a busnes yng nghefn gwlad yn fach o ran natur, ac y maent yn creu 10, 20 neu efallai 50 o swyddi. Fodd bynnag, gwnant gyfraniad enfawr i’r cymunedau gwledig hynny. Mae’n gynyddol amlwg i mi mai dim ond cynlluniau mawr trefol sydd yn creu sawl cant o swyddi sydd yn haeddu datganiad ar lawr y Cynulliad. Er bod y cynlluniau hynny’n bwysig ac i’w croesawu ar gyfer cymunedau trefol, methir â chydnabod datblygiadau pwysig yng nghefn gwlad sydd yn creu gwaith ar gyfer 20 neu 50 o bobl. Deallaf angen y Llywodraeth glymblaid i fynd am y penawdau, ond pryd y bydd y Cabinet, a’r Gweinidog dros Ddatblygu Economaidd yn benodol, yn gwneud datganiad ar lawr y Cynulliad ynglŷn â chreu swyddi—degau ohonynt, o bosibl, yn hytrach na channoedd—sydd yn bwysig iawn i ardaloedd cefn gwlad Cymru?

I will speak on URBAN II, as the majority of wards in that submission are in my constituency. As Mike German articulated, this successful submission by Wrexham County Borough Council is the culmination of a huge effort and commitment by the council to the regeneration of the west part of Wrexham. It is a particular pleasure to work with Shân Wilkinson, the leader of Wrexham County Borough Council, and with the council’s economic development department. I take on board Janet’s earlier comments about flood moneys impacting, but, if it is any reassurance, that was not articulated yesterday when I spoke to Wrexham County Borough Council. Therefore, it obviously does not see it as too much of a concern at this point. However, we must keep that in mind.

The area of Wrexham that is being discussed today has borne the brunt of heavy industrial decline. I have lived in the area, and therefore know it very well. The whole area was dependent on heavy industry such as steel and coal. The metamorphosis seen in many other areas has, sadly, largely passed by this part of Wrexham. There are many industrial scars in this part of my constituency, the largest ones being Brymbo and Plas Power. Mike German visited those sites recently, and I was pleased to accompany him to show him the work that needs to be done.

Working in conjunction with other innovative ventures, URBAN II is the opportunity to energise and reinvigorate these areas, and I welcome it for those reasons. Priorities have been set to begin this regeneration. They are ambitious and exciting, they embrace business creation and development by participation—that is important—and training and community empowerment. Much work needs to be done in this area to reinstate pride and aspiration, but I am confident that the people of Wrexham west are more than ready to take up the challenge and the opportunities that URBAN II will provide for them.

The clear vision of the priorities set out in this comprehensive document will give the long-awaited opportunity that has been so desperately needed in this area. I am confident that Wrexham will grasp this opportunity with both hands to bring the greatest chance for regeneration that we have seen in this targeted area. The reinstatement and the development at the old steelworks site and the Plas Power site are imperative. I am determined that this much-needed work will breathe new energy into this area, and in conjunction with URBAN II will revitalise the area, attracting new business and creating the opportunity for indigenous businesses to evolve and thrive.

However, new business will not evolve without a great deal of work and energy, without training opportunities or without decent childcare, which is so often missing in these urban villages, which are quite isolated. It will not work without collaborating with other agencies, not least Wrexham’s university and further education establishment, both of which are excellent. It will not evolve without the vision, the commitment and the funding. In close conjunction with the other initiatives in the area, such as local regeneration funding and the People in Communities programme, I am confident that we will see new energy and new economic activity in the communities here, and I commend this comprehensive submission.

Yr wyf yn falch ein bod yn trafod yr arian sydd yn cael ei glustnodi o dan y cynlluniau hyn heddiw. Trafodaf y cynllun INTERREG yn fyr, ond yn gyntaf talaf deyrnged arbennig i Menter Môn sydd wedi bod yn gyfrifol am y rhaglen LEADER II hyd yn hyn. Fel y soniodd Elin am ardaloedd eraill yng Nghymru, bu cynllun LEADER Môn yn un arloesol, a thalaf deyrnged iddynt am eu gwaith arloesol mewn sawl maes.

Ar INTERREG, mae gennym brofiad yng ngorllewin Cymru, ac yn fy etholaeth i yn benodol, o’r ffordd yr ydym wedi gallu defnyddio arian INTERREG II rhwng 1994 ac 1999. Gobeithiaf y bydd ein profiad o redeg y cynllun hwnnw o gymorth inni wrth inni symud tuag at INTERREG III. Yn Ynys Môn, yn fy etholaeth i, yr oedd pencadlys y cynllun gwreiddiol rhwng 1994 ac 1999. Rhaid cofio bod y cynllun hwn, pan y’i cyflwynwyd yn 1994, yn arloesol, oherwydd mai dyma’r cynllun cyntaf yn Ewrop rhwng dwy wlad â ffin arforol. Y mae hynny yn rhywbeth y gallwn ymfalchïo ynddo.

O ystyried y math o gynlluniau yr ydym wedi gallu eu gweithredu o dan INTERREG, gwelsom pa mor amrywiol y gall y rhaglen honno fod. Ceir amrywiaeth o brosiectau mewn meysydd fel hyfforddiant, grantiau datblygu economaidd i wella’r amgylchedd, twristiaeth, a sicrhau bod mwy o ddeialog rhwng Cymru ac Iwerddon—ein bod yn edrych i’r gorllewin yn ogystal ag i’r dwyrain am hwb a datblygu economaidd.

Un cynllun penodol a elwodd o’r cysylltiadau â’r Iwerddon o dan INTERREG yw marina Caergybi. Bydd 100 o angorfeydd yn y marina yn barod erbyn mis Ebrill 2001. Mae’r cysylltiad y mae’r rhai sydd yn datblygu’r marina wedi ei wneud gyda’r marina yn Arklow yn Iwerddon wedi bod yn allweddol i’r datblygiad. Maent hefyd wedi gwneud cysylltiadau gyda’r cyfeillion sydd yn gweithredu’r marina yn Dun Laoghaire a gwelsom bwysigrwydd defnyddio INTERREG i hybu twristiaeth. Clywsom yn gynharach am yr angen i ddatblygu twristiaeth rhwng y gwledydd Celtaidd.

Gwn o brofiad fod y cynllun wedi gwella cysylltiadau rhwng pobl sydd yn gweithio mewn meysydd arbennig yng Nghymru ac Iwerddon. Gwelsom ef, er enghraifft, yn cael ei ddefnyddio gan grwpiau o ffermwyr ifanc, gwasanaethau gwirfoddol a grwpiau o wragedd fferm sydd â diddordeb mewn datblygu twristiaeth.

Un siom ynglŷn â dogfen raglennu sengl INTERREG III yw nad oes sôn ynddi am y diwydiant ffilm. Mae llawer o botential i wella ein darpariaeth ar gyfer y diwydiant ffilm. Byddai wedi bod yn braf gweld hyn yng nghynllun INTERREG. Gwelsom Iwerddon yn elwa’n sylweddol o ffilm yn y blynyddoedd diweddar, ac mae modd i ni ddysgu gwers ganddynt drwy gynllun INTERREG. Mae hyn yn wir hefyd am ddysgu Cymraeg a Gwyddeleg i oedolion. Dyna rywbeth arall y byddwn wedi dymuno ei weld yn y cynllun.

Un o’r problemau yr ydym wedi’u gweld gyda chynllun INTERREG, sydd yn debyg i’r hyn a brofwyd gydag Amcan 1—ond ar raddfa lai oherwydd bod y symiau’n llai—yw cael hyd i arian cyfatebol digonol. Gwyddom y bydd modd inni gael gwell canran o brosiectau’r cynllun hwn oherwydd mai mewn ardal Amcan 1 yr ydym ni. Er hynny, mae angen edrych ar y mudiadau—mudiadau gwirfoddol weithiau—sydd yn methu â chael hyd i’r arian cyfatebol.

Mae hynny’n arwain at y ffaith mai dim ond 80 y cant o arian INTERREG a glustnodwyd ar gyfer Cymru a gafodd ei wario. Yn naturiol, gwariasom fwy mewn rhai meysydd: er enghraifft, 93 y cant mewn addysg a hyfforddiant, ond dim ond 65 y cant o’r arian ar gyfer prosiectau trafnidaeth a ddefnyddiwyd. Mae’n amlwg bod lle i wella.

Un mater arall y dylwn gyfeirio ato yw bod nifer o gyfeillion a oedd yn gweithredu cynllun INTERREG yng Nghymru yn dweud bod gennym fwy o fiwrocratiaeth ynghlwm â’r cynllun nag a oedd gan eu cyfeillion yn Iwerddon. Mae gwers inni yno ar sut i fanteisio ar y cynllun yn well.

Gallem ddysgu o’r anawsterau a gawsom ag INTERREG II a gallem sicrhau bod cynllun INTERREG III, a fydd yn cynnwys cronfa fwy sylweddol, yn cael ei ddefnyddio’n fwy effeithiol. Dysgu’r wers a symud ymlaen y dylem ei wneud.

I am pleased that there is at least lukewarm support for this aspect of the structural programme here in Wales. Generally, our attitude towards the stuctural funds is such that, if there were an olympic competition for making pigs’ ears out of silk purses, the opposition parties in the Assembly would be well placed for a gold medal. The response has been so negative and pessamistic that it is undermining the central vision and dynamism that is essential to drive all the Objective 1 programmes forward. That includes the range of programmes that we are discussing here today.

Bearing in mind the experiences that all partners have had with the Objective 1 programme, do you not accept that it is inevitable that we, as opposition parties, might be negative in relation to these documents?

I will come to that.

Let us look at the role that the media in Wales has played in this Objective 1 programme and structural funds generally. Whenever there seemed to be any problems with the funds, there was nothing but the flowing of tears, wailing in the willows, and gnashing of teeth. However, when there is good news, it scarcely merits a single line in the Welsh media. For example, after the second roll-out of the Objective 1 approval at the beginning of this month, we searched the first 10 days of Welsh Mirror and The Western Mail for a reference to it: not a single line.

No, I need to go on, Glyn.

It seems that, whenever there is good news, it does not flicker the least interest in newsworthiness on the Richter scale of the Welsh media. As Val Feld said a number of times in this Chamber, this negativism and pessimism seems to pervade the private sector also.

I do not have time for an intervention, David.

In the last few weeks, I attended a meeting in which a leading south Wales business person—to repeat again what Alun Cairns suggested—bemoaned the lack of private sector involvement. He stated that if this was taking place in Ireland, it would be up and running and half way around the track by now. We know that in the United Kingdom, Wales is performing every bit as well as any other region that is entitled to Objective 1 funding. However, I decided to look to see how well Ireland, as the super trooper of Objective 1 performance, is getting on. In Ireland, in the Border, Midland and Western region, which is the Objective 1 area, the complement document has not yet been approved, one month after ours in Wales has been approved. Therefore, while people continually look to other places against which to measure our performance, they fail to acknowledge that Wales is performing as well as other parts of the United Kingdom, and even as well as Ireland, to which people continually point as an example of good experience.

Alun Cairns mentioned the WEFO website and commented that it is not a wonderful work of art. However, if people looked at the websites of other Objective 1 areas, they would find that they do not compare to the WEFO site.

What has she got that we have not?

Objective 1 has been debated on several occasions in this Chamber. I wondered whether the speaker intended to talk about the LEADER+, INTERREG or URBAN initiatives?

Yes. That is why I mentioned that all the structural fund programmes have been bedevilled by negativism. The initiatives that you mentioned are small programmes and if the same attitude is adopted towards them as has been adopted towards the bigger programmes, they will have no chance of success. Nothing in any human institution is perfect. There are problems. However, I wish that people would acknowledge our success when we perform better than other areas. Let us work to make things better, but please let us not get into this death wish and negativism that has permeated structural fund programmes up until now.

We must set the LEADER+ programme in its broader policy context. It forms part of several other areas, including rural and sustainable development. As Alun Cairns rightly said, the problem rests in the implementation of the programme. This is an important point, because as things stand, there are serious inconsistencies in the coalition’s approach to policy. If left unchecked, these inconsistencies will undermine the success of the various European projects.

Planning is an important area where the coalition is letting people down. The planning system imposes prohibitive costs on the very businesses that the coalition says it wants to encourage. Projects that have the support of local people and even local planning authorities are called in on what appear to be spurious grounds.

Businesses are willing to make the investment. They want to work in partnership with communities to ensure economic and social regeneration, but this Government will not let them. For example, wind power is a means of bringing alternative sources of income to farms, in addition to being a clean and efficient source of energy. Yet, it takes about three years for applications to be considered and only 20 per cent of them succeed.

We must consider another tension in the context of European funding as a whole. While I welcome the money that is coming into Wales, we must face up to another harsh reality. We must take account of the fact that we are being impeded by a range of additional European regulations which interfere with Wales’s ability to regenerate. In particular, we are faced with the prospect of a range of new environmental dictats. Regulations such as the Habitats Directive place constraints on developing rural areas, which the coalition says that it will help.

If the current climate of giving in to anything that the green willy—sorry, welly—brigade says continues, then we will not regenerate these areas. We cannot build a sustainable economy on bird watching alone. We need long-term jobs for a long-term future.

The coalition must face up to the inherent tensions that exist in trying to make these projects work. On the one hand, there is inconsistency in the coalition’s policy and, on the other hand, there is the danger of the red tape passed on to us by Brussels. We cannot allow warm words to be substitutes for action. We must focus on the delivery of these projects. We must ensure that the coalition becomes consistent in its policies, which will support this programme.

It was interesting to hear that. [Laughter.] However, I want to respond to Brian Gibbons’s earlier comments, because there can be few people who possess as much enthusiasm for this process as I do and I believe that this is good news for Wales. Given that we already have a massive Objective 1 programme and that 75 per cent of Wales is covered by Objectives 1 and 2, we could easily have forgotten about community initiatives. That is something that is close to my heart, as I have worked with community initiatives for many years. I strongly believe that community initiatives are sustainable and bring great advantages to our communities.

These initiatives represent an additional bonus for economic development in Wales. URBAN, for example, has twice its previous budget allocation. That is good news, as we have already heard, for north-east Wales. INTERREG is an excellent initiative and has a budget that is three times the size of its previous programme. Last time, resources were split 10:1 in favour of Ireland. This time, they have been split almost 2:1 in favour of Wales. That is a real victory and good news for north-west and south-west Wales. The LEADER programme’s budget has been sustained, despite strong challenges from England, because there are now LEADER programmes in all English rural areas. This is good news for rural Wales.

I want to refer to people’s comments about the Objective 2 programme, which has been an equally successful process. However, I emphasise that I do not want east Wales to miss out on this process. I want east Wales to gain grant availability that is equal to that of west Wales. In particular, I would welcome an announcement that one day east Wales will receive tier 3 funding.

I commend the LEADER programme, in particular, because community development programmes are sustainable. I will mention the work of Menter Powys. Many references have been made to menter groups around Wales, and Menter Powys provided equally innovative work to assist community development. One thing that we should not forget as this process moves forward is that they too provided a voice for communities, one that was independent of statutory bodies.

In this process, it is important that people gain ownership of their bids. In this respect, we must ensure that WEFO, in particular, publicises all the available funding throughout rural Wales. Access is important and I hope that Farming Connect, which the partnership Government is setting up, will assist many farmers to receive assistance under these programmes.

Finally, I make a plea. One criticism of the LEADER initiative is that it was developed in isolation and that there was little co-ordination between different LEADER projects. Therein lies a lesson for us, particularly in east Wales, where we have Objective 2, Objective 3 and the rural development programme. These programmes should work in an integrated fashion so that we do not duplicate expenditure.

In Mick Bates’s opening comments he said that he would like to tie his speech in with that of Brian Gibbons, who compared us with Ireland and other parts of Europe. Is it not right that we should be benchmarking ourselves with the best in Europe, not necessarily only one nation?

I agree that the best practice is the way forward. In the documents you will see that the best practice, for example of LEADER, has been taken forward in the evaluation process. I am sure that that process will occur through the other monitoring committees.

I end by commenting on this process. It would be greatly beneficial to all these programmes, particularly in east Wales, that the monitoring committees work closely together. We could at least have joint evaluation of the programmes as they proceed so that we know where we are going. At the moment, it appears that the isolation of LEADER will be repeated not only in the monitoring process but also in the evaluation process. I would like to hear that there will be joint evaluation of these programmes so that as we proceed through these seven years we can ensure that we get the most effective spend and best value for our money.

I thank everybody for their interventions, speeches and interesting points. I will try to pick up most of them, but I will collect some of them together under themes. Janet Ryder raised a point about match funding and local government budgets. I am informed that the partnership in Wrexham is working on identifying match funding for the area. The local government budgets can be enhanced by the use of the Assembly’s local regeneration fund as match funding. Edwina Hart has already announced that that budget is available for these purposes and I am sure that there will be further announcements. Part of the partnership agreement was that we would provide £60 million of extra match funding per year. That would help all of the programmes to achieve the additional match funding that is required due to the growth in the programmes that we have in Wales. I would encourage the programmes to do that.

The URBAN programme is identified as targeting deprivation. That is why it targets the nine wards. It is about deprivation, whereas LEADER is about rurality. I am happy to talk to officials about Janet Ryder’s point about INTERREG III and spatial planning. The issues of evaluation and monitoring have been well rehearsed by the Economic Development Committee, by myself and in previous Plenary debates. It is clear to me that we need to have continuous evaluation of where we are with these European programmes so that we can adjust and ensure that we are on direction for achieving the ambitions set out in the single programming documents. I hope that the Economic Development Committee’s debates tomorrow and on Thursday and the development of the business support review will help the debate on this matter. There are some specific proposals to make, of which Committee members are aware.

Cohesion is an issue that has been raised significantly across the entire programme. I have taken that on board, and as soon as these programmes are up and underway we will have monitoring committees for them to ensure that we are all working together. The key direction in which we can bring people together is the national economic development strategy. What matters to us in Wales is to have a single strategy that sets out the vision for the future and the pathways towards that vision, towards which all the partnerships are working. I and the Economic Development Committee are working vigorously on having a document available early in the new year, which we hope will be substantive.

Would you accept that an effective strategy must be truly dynamic and must adapt to the environment that it seeks to improve? One document that would reflect many others that we have had, be it the single programming document or ‘Betterwales.com’ is not a sufficiently effective strategy and there must be something more.

The most important thing about a national economic development strategy for Wales is that it must not just sit on a shelf gathering dust. It must be a dynamic document and must be reviewed. That is the whole purpose of the evaluation exercise, which, when it shapes and sees where we are going, informs the process of reviewing the national economic development strategy. It is a continuous circle. At the moment, we have not broken into that circle sufficiently well to set out our vision and direction. However, I agree with you that the evaluation process will make that document dynamic.

I wish to comment on some of WEFO’s roles, which you mentioned in your speech, Alun. It must interpret Commission spending rules. Some of the problems that have been identified quite consistently by Assembly Members, are not always within WEFO’s control or even within the control of the National Assembly. I agree that Commission rules require simplification. We should work towards achieving simplification on a partnership basis with the monitoring committees and through the Assembly.

I sympathise with Richard’s point about community councils. They are the backbone of bottom-up development and growth in the development of our communities in Wales. It should be encouraged. I assure you that it is not the intention of the SPD nor is it mine that there should be a closed shop in Wales on European programmes. Some people will be well prepared because they have been in the business for many years. We should try to assist those people who are new to European funding so that they can also benefit from it and new partners can be brought on board.

Elin, I am grateful for your support for the WDA’s global grant approach and I also appreciate that you understand that we can support the spirit of the amendment, but we have a problem at present with the timing and negotiations with the European Commission. We have a big challenge, and the challenge of LEADER+ is innovation. We know that innovation must have a counterbalance, which may be to target deprived areas. Many deprived areas will be assisted through the target groups identified in chapter 4 of the SPD for LEADER+. Young people, for example, are a priority in that chapter and there are others: micro and small businesses, farming families, Welsh speakers, underemployed people, and women. All are identified in chapter 4, so there is targeting of groups there.

We need to look into jobs for rural areas. That is what this and the rural spatial planning of Objective 1 is about. The First Minister talked today about Invertek Drives Ltd and the 30 jobs there. The national economic development strategy, which is currently being developed, also needs to address this issue so that we have a clear hymn sheet from which we can sing. I agree that the ultimate aim is to see the mainstreaming of LEADER projects in the medium term. That is the purpose of the community initiatives. They should be mainstreamed so that we can learn from past experiences and pass on the information.

Ieuan, on the INTERREG II experience, I note what you said about film. As you know, the partnership agreement states that we should have a film strategy for Wales and that my colleague, Jenny Randerson, would bring such a document before you. However, you should note that Objective 1 can help to create the financial incentives that other Celtic areas already have. Perhaps INTERREG is a little too small to get the momentum that we need so that it can be helpful. From Objective 1, we could look at Finance Wales, but film and languages can be funded under priority 2, measure 2 of INTERREG III which is the culture measure that is interpreted in a broader sense. I believe that the bureaucracy that we face in these matters will be best overcome by a single joint secretariat for the new programme and simplified procedures. I have to see that through.

Peter Rogers, I only have two words written down here: the first word begins with green and I do not want to repeat the second.

On WEFO, the issue of publicity and co-ordination is crucial because we need to ensure—this is a point that Richard made—that those inexperienced people who have not yet been involved in such programmes can get involved in the new programmes in an exciting way.

I hope that people throughout Wales will be encouraged to take up the new programmes that are available to them. We must build on the inclusive partnership approach to developing these programmes. That not only relates to the forthcoming negotiations, but to the implementation process itself. Each community initiative is distinct, but all our designs complement and add to the mainstream structural fund programmes. The resources available for each programme provide a real opportunity to take forward the individual aims and objectives, develop sustainable growth and provide the maximum possible benefits.

Over the next months, these documents will no doubt undergo a number of amendments and I will keep the Assembly informed of developments. You can see that we currently retain a degree of flexibility, which is only right at the beginning of a negotiating process. I hope that the Assembly will sign up to these drafts and allow us to move forward into the all-important next stage.