There is almost a seamless web of continuity here today. Phil raised some interesting issues, which I may not repeat in this statement. He mentioned Ford’s original decision, which was taken in the late 1970s. That in turn, followed on from a decision taken in the late 1960s, when I was a junior civil servant in the former Welsh Office, to establish a large industrial estate at Waterton. That estate remained empty for 10 years, until Ford’s decision in 1976-77 to take up part of that site.

Were it not for the decision in 1966 to establish the industrial site and Ford’s decision in 1976 to build a factory on that site, and for Jim Callaghan, Henry Ford II or III—whichever it was at the time—and Red Poling, the head of Ford in Europe, yesterday’s decision would not have been made. It was with great pleasure that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development, the Minister for Assembly Business—who worked for Ford at Bridgend for five years—and I attended the formal announcement of Ford’s proposal to invest about £240 million in the Bridgend engine plant to produce V6 and V8 Euro Tech engines for use in Jaguar and other Premier Automotive Group vehicles.

This investment will create over 600 new, top quality, well-paid and highly-skilled jobs and introduce an innovative flexible manufacturing line that will be the first of its type. Production of the new engine range should commence towards the end of 2002 and will take the total annual production at the plant to over 1 million engines per year. I am delighted that the National Assembly has been able to play an instrumental role in this decision through its offer of regional selective assistance of £16 million. This is a major boost for the Welsh economy and, coming so soon after the launch of Toyota’s new engine assembly line in Deeside, as part of a new £100 million investment by that company in that plant, it shows how strong Wales has now become in automotive engine manufacturing.

It is an example of how management and trade unions can work together in partnership to bring quality and efficiency into production, and gain new investment against world-wide competition—in this case, from Cleveland, Ohio. This is an exemplary illustration of successful partnership working and demonstrates the considerable advantages that can be gained from joint working. It is in stark contrast to how Corus handled recent events, where it refused to work in partnership with the Assembly, the UK Government and, above all, its own workforce and their representatives. It also highlights the benefits that can be gained from close liaison with the public sector and is a fine example of the Team Wales approach. The WDA has worked closely with the Bridgend management in its bid for the investment and TEC South East Wales is also prepared to offer substantial support for training.

The WDA’s role is also of strategic long-term interest. It is proposing to develop, next door to the Ford engine plant, a new 130 acre business park on the Brocastle site that adjoins the Ford plant, along the golden mile stretch of the old A48. It is expected that this could create a further 1,000 jobs over the next five years. The site is expected to attract a wide range of companies through its proximity to the engine plant, which will also make it of particular interest to automotive suppliers, as well as to the wider engineering industry. Initial talks are already being held between the agency and several companies that may be interested in the site.

Yesterday’s announcement showed a colossal vote of confidence by Ford in the Welsh economy and in the British motor manufacturing industry, and is confirmation that the people of Wales have much to offer blue chip international companies. When the Bridgend plant was opened in 1980, it was widely saluted as the start of a comeback for the manufacturing industry after a difficult time for the Welsh and British economy in the mid 1970s in the wake of the oil price rises of 1973. I am sure that this investment will, in the near future, be regarded in just the same way.

On behalf of Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales, and as a regional Assembly Member for the area, I welcome the First Minister’s statement and Ford’s decision to invest £240 million in Bridgend. The 600 new jobs will be welcome, especially in light of the recent series of losses in manufacturing in Wales. According to Ford’s representative on the radio this morning, the decision to invest in the Bridgend plant was taken in anticipation of the United Kingdom joining the euro zone. Was this explained to the First Minister? Accepting that you cannot tell us when we will join the euro zone, are you committed to joining it, and will you clarify the Assembly’s role in conjunction with its offer of regional selective assistance of £16 million, in securing this investment?

The euro issue is relevant to many recent decisions. These include the decision by Vauxhall yesterday in relation to Ellesmere Port, Nissan’s decision to increase car production at Sunderland by 30 per cent, and Toyota’s decision to increase engine production in Wales, as well as car production in Burnaston near Derby, by 30 per cent. All of these announcements have come since December 5—the day that Corus announced its decision to review its operations and its restructuring proposals, which eventually resulted in that dreadful announcement last Thursday.

The euro issue for them was that they did not want to see joining the euro excluded during the course of the next Parliament. I will put it no higher than that. If the Government had told them that there was no chance of Britain joining the euro during the course of the next Parliament, I believe that all those investments would have gone elsewhere. They would not have come to Wales. That is the significance of the euro decision. Joining the euro is subject to a referendum. It is subject to the date that you hold the referendum and at what rate you set the joining rate, if the referendum on joining the euro is successful. Those are other issues that must be considered closer to the date when a referendum becomes a viable political option. If it had been ruled out for the next Parliament, those investments would probably have been ruled out as well.

As the Assembly Member whose constituency is adjacent to the Ford plant in Bridgend, I welcome Ford’s announcement. You compared it to last week’s announcement by Corus. We must make this comparison. The Ford management handled this professionally. They worked well with the workers and the trade unions, while Corus drip-fed the media, its workers and us. I join you in paying tribute to the Ford workers. They should be justifiably proud that this project has come to Bridgend.

I would not say that it is all down to them, but it is 90 per cent down to them. It is 90 per cent down to the system that Ford introduced of working closely with the unions—in terms of full-time union officers—and everybody at the plant. How Ford dealt with yesterday’s announcement was symptomatic of that. It stopped all the production lines and got everybody who was on the current shift into a room so that they could hear the news for themselves. It used both the stick and the carrot. They were given the decision and told that it would possibly lead to well-paid jobs for their friends. Ford jobs tend to be at the top of the tree; the average pay is certainly higher than that in Corus. They were told that, if they wanted their mates to have jobs with Ford, they would have to produce, and they have.

Ford workers have a good track record on quality. You do not make Jaguar engines that will cause problems or there will soon be problems with the Jaguar contract. However, they have done extremely well and Jaguar is incredibly impressed with how the Ford engine plant has dealt with its contract. That is not implying that it has not dealt well with its other contracts. However, Jaguar is an up-market saloon car, and the company hopes to produce 200,000 or 300,000 Jaguars a year in the UK. With the prestige that Jaguar has, large numbers of Jaguars will be produced if the plans of the Premier Automotive Group within Ford are carried out. All those engines will be produced in Bridgend. That plant will then possibly go on to produce for Land Rover and other parts of the Premier Automotive Group sweep of Ford cars that do not bear the Ford badge, which are not supplied with V6 or V8 engines at present.

The Welsh Conservative Party welcomes the news. Attracting the V6 and V8 engines contract is a tribute to the Bridgend workforce, particularly after failing to gain the I4 and I5 engines contract not so many months ago. Having witnessed the productivity of that workforce during a recent visit, I endorse many of your comments.

You mentioned the partnership that was formed. I am sure that that was a contributory factor, but I cannot help recalling the words of David Jenkins at last week’s Economic Development Committee meeting, when he commented that the true partnerships in his experience were formed in the 1980s during the period of the last Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Those were his words, not mine.

I do not want the First Minister to lose perspective following yesterday’s announcement. In the last 10 days, 5,000 job losses have been announced in this Chamber. Whereas 600 are welcome, there is a vast difference between the two figures.

I could not agree more. I do not have a roseate glow in front of my eyes that causes me to forget the difference between 600 well-paid jobs at Ford and 3,800 job losses at Corus, and the others at Dewhirst and Dairy Crest announced since January. The four weeks between our return from the Christmas and new year break and the Ford decision were appalling in terms of job losses. On the other hand, there was an exceptionally good period in November and December, when we had almost no bad news and a heavy concentration of new inward investment announcements. I do not know why such announcements tend to come in flows, where we have much good news and no bad news and then vice versa. We need to do much work to ensure that new jobs come in to Wales at the level of the Ford plant announcement before we will have counteracted the effects of the jobs lost in the announcements made by Corus last Thursday morning.

I also welcome the Ford decision. The confidence that Ford has demonstrated in the Welsh workforce is also reflected in Deeside. I was present at the launch of the new Toyota engine last Thursday. Unfortunately, that event was overshadowed by the Corus announcement. Nevertheless, it cannot diminish the confidence that Toyota has demonstrated in workers in north-east Wales by being prepared to invest so heavily in the Deeside plant. Do you agree that the Deeside Industrial Park is an important industrial base, serving north Wales and that the daily migration of workers both ways across the border is an important recognition of the economic engine that exists cross border in north-east Wales and north-west England? Do you also agree that it is important that the Assembly continues to service the development of that relationship for the mutual benefit of all?

That connection is interesting. At the time when Corus was making its devastating announcement, you and Mike German were pressing the button to get the Toyota engine assembly line moving in Deeside. Toyota and Optical Fibres are the largest companies in the Deeside Industrial Park, and Toyota recently announced that it will soon employ a total of 520 people.

Tom mentioned the Merseyside-Deeside-Wrexham industrial belt. There was no motor manufacturing tradition in that area in the 1950s, as the industry was located in the Midlands, Dagenham and Luton. As a result of Jaguar investing at Halewood in north Merseyside, Vauxhall investing at Ellesmere Port—I believe that people from north-east Wales work at both plants, although it is easier to travel to Ellesmere Port than to Speke—and the Toyota investment at Deeside, the Merseyside-Deeside belt will be of huge significance to the motor manufacturing industry by 2003. It could even be as significant as the West Midlands. That is an amazing transformation over 30 to 40 years.

Like all Members, I welcome this announcement, and I am sure that there is no-one anywhere who does not welcome it. It is, therefore, surprising that we should spend so much time discussing it. Has the First Minister received an e-mail from Mike German, as Ministers seem to like sending e-mails at the moment, telling him to develop a programme of positive news stories? Perhaps he has been urged to give good news stories the hard sell and control any leaks of bad news stories. This is no more than an attempt to put a glossy spin on a black week for industry in Wales. We should get on with the serious business of discussing the thousands of job losses, rather than patting ourselves on the back because a few hundred jobs have been created, although this is welcome news.

If David would like to see Dr Brian Gibbons or Dr Dai Lloyd after Plenary, I am sure that he could be treated for the condition from which he suffers of having an aversion to good news about Wales. Your views will not be shared in Bridgend or within a 20-mile radius of the town. People in that area will regard this, and the Assembly’s involvement in it, as being completely appropriate to be considered in Plenary, in the same way as it would if 600 jobs were lost at the Ford engine plant in Bridgend. If that happened, David would be the first to leap to his feet demanding statements and debates. Why do you only want to consider bad news and never good news? We must have a balanced consideration of news. Even when good news is received, it has implications for, for example, regional selective assistance policy and training. Do we have the supply of skilled workers? From where will they come? Are the schools in the area aware of the opportunities in the local factory? What do they need to do to feed into the jobs being offered at Ford? What about the sub-contract opportunities? Who will be supplying the machinery? What are the implications of building a large industrial park next door on the Brocastle site? There are many strategic implications that are completely appropriate and proper for the Assembly to consider, provided you are not a die-hard Member from an opposition party that cannot cope with the arrival of any good news in Wales.

As we hear this news, we are mindful of the contrast between what we discussed last week and will discuss again in a few minutes and the First Minister’s announcement today. An important aspect of that contrast is the role of the trade unions and the way in which management works with them. Last week, many Members discussed the cavalier way in which Corus treated the trade unions. That will probably be raised again today. I attended the meeting of the Economic Development Committee last week when David Jenkins raised—

Yes. It involves the role of the trade unions. David Jenkins stressed the importance of developing a programme for social partnership in Wales. He did not imply that life was much better under a Tory Government than it is under a Labour Government. That is in your dreams, Alun. In view of what has happened with Corus, will you consider, with your colleagues Mike German and Edwina Hart, a programme to promote social partnership through the WDA’s work with inward investors in our approach to business development? Would you see that as a priority for how we work to bring new businesses to Wales and retain them here?

I would. We cannot make it a condition of investing in Wales. However, you could commend it as a method and show where it has proven to be successful. The decision regarding the plant which lost jobs yesterday in Cleveland, Ohio was provisionally made by Ford in November. However, they then agreed with the United Auto Workers in America that if there was a decision to disinvest in Cleveland, Ohio in order to invest in Bridgend, the plant in Cleveland, Ohio would be given 90 days before the decision was set in concrete to enable it to table counter proposals. The management and trade unions in Cleveland, Ohio tabled counter proposals, but they were not good enough to match what was on offer in Bridgend. However, that demonstrates social partnership by global multinationals, which happens sometimes as a result of law, sometimes as a result of the choice of work with the trade unions, and sometimes with the local community. Ford gave Corus an object lesson in how to do it on both sides of the Atlantic, for the winning and losing plant.

As one of the Assembly Members who represents Bridgend, I make clear that this announcement is welcome in that area, contrary to what David Davies previously said. Any good news such as this is welcome. It is important that we celebrate our successes although we are also mindful of the tragedy facing many communities as a result of Corus’s announcement.

I wanted to endorse the previous comments about how welcome this is in terms of the partnership working which has led to this success; the contrast which you made in how that works for Bridgend and Ford and how it did not work in terms of Corus; and how this should be an object lesson to many companies throughout Wales and the United Kingdom on how they should work together with their workforce and with the Government to start bringing benefits to the areas in which they work and to try to create jobs in partnership with all those agencies.

There are two elements to the partnership: it is between the management and workforce at the plant, but it is also between the management and the workforce and the public bodies involved, such as the local council, the Welsh Assembly, the Department of Trade and Industry, and in this case, the European Commission from which permission will be sought to pay the regional selective assistance grant.

Last Thursday we had the dreadful announcement from Corus of the loss of steel jobs throughout Wales and England. The initial response of the Assembly has rightly been one of indignation. This major business, built in Wales refused to work in partnership with Government in any part of the United Kingdom. The contrast with others, such as Ford and other major companies, that have recently demonstrated their faith in the Welsh and UK economy, could not be starker.

I do not want anything I say now to be construed as us giving up the fight to save the 10,000 or so jobs which might be lost as a consequence of the decision Corus so short-sightedly announced last Thursday. Corus has agreed to ‘stop the clock’ until a meeting with the unions on 14 February. I know that the unions will be using this time to best effect to find ways of persuading Corus to think again in a proper, strategic, long-term way. We will do whatever we can to help them in this campaign and I know that almost all in the Assembly wish the unions well in these entrepreneurial efforts.

The UK Government and the Assembly will give soundly based proposals from the unions a fair wind. However, we would not be exercising prudent government if we were not also preparing for the worst, bearing in mind Corus’s track record and lack of engagement. For many months the Assembly has been putting in place the processes to respond if Corus continued dramatically to favour its overseas operations while seeking to downsize its UK plants. These processes are now in top gear.

An all-Wales steel taskforce has been in place since the last round of large-scale Corus redundancies in July. This will meet again on Friday to take stock of the current situation and to consider, on a contingency basis, a strategy for managing any response to major job losses in Wales. This strategy and its related action plan were informed by the meeting I called yesterday afternoon with all the key agencies, local authorities and academics.

This was a constructive meeting that considered a wide range of options on the possible ways forward. We agreed that our approach should be to focus any help and support on steel communities, and not solely on Corus personnel who may be affected directly by job losses. We also agreed that any package should be a combination of economic and social programmes, which should also bear in mind the effects of other major recent closures. We again agreed that it was necessary for any response to be more than simply a list of disconnected projects, and that we needed a strategic framework for the areas affected to maximise the benefits of the Team Wales effort that would swing into action, if it were clear that we really were facing the worst case scenario.

Therefore, yesterday afternoon, we agreed the broad outline of a contingency plan dealing with employment, training, infrastructure, new business development and supporting social measures. First, we would ensure that the best services possible are available immediately to meet any redeployment and short-term retraining needs of those who might be affected, not only those who are directly employed by Corus, but also any employees of displaced contractors and suppliers.

The Employment Service and TECs are already working with their partners to develop a package of rapid response measures to assist all those affected by the redundancies. Each Corus plant has an on-site job shop, the latest being established at Bryngwyn this week. The range of measures available will include information on local vacancies, advice on job search activities and curriculum vitae preparation, interview techniques and access to retraining and upskilling programmes specifically tailored to each person’s requirements to enable him or her to access new jobs through Assembly-funded training programmes managed by TECs. The careers companies, which will become Careers Wales from April, will also be involved by providing guidance and advice on career options.

Some communities already experience higher than average unemployment, and tragic situations such as these proposed redundancies make matters worse. It is ironic, however, that vacancies exist and remain unfilled for all sorts of reasons. I have asked the Employment Service to work closely with the TECs to ensure that the skills and experience of those being laid off are marketed to local employers. Some are already expressing an interest, including those who will have significant recruitment needs over the next year or so. Upskilling will play an important role in helping people make the transition from working in steel production to other sectors, but we must also introduce an element of creativity in dealing with the barriers that could prevent people accessing alternative employment. Issues such as poor transport facilities and a lack of basic skills may need to be addressed.

Secondly, we agreed yesterday that, on the basis of the best possible available information on the long-term needs of the affected communities, we would mobilise all the tools at our disposal in a co-ordinated and managed way to address those needs. We recognised the need to diversify the economies of areas such as Ebbw Vale. It would make no sense to leave the economies of these areas, as vulnerable as they are now, to the challenges facing our manufacturing sector.

In moving ahead we would expect the Programme Monitoring Committees to review and refocus European structural fund resources to give early priority to the areas most affected; the European Commission has indicated that it would be willing for us to do this. With the Team Wales partnership we are considering medium to long-term measures such as boosting local training skills provision, strengthening business development activity and ratcheting up international marketing of the areas and their first rate skills bases, which Corus appears to be spurning. We would then deploy the imaginative and ambitious property, land reclamation, town and community redevelopment measures that our agencies are so proficient at undertaking.

Given the moratorium until 14 February, it would not be appropriate to announce a specific set of projects today. That would undermine the efforts of the workers to change the mind of Corus’s senior management and would not make sense. It is also important that projects are well planned and add to the overall economic strategies at a local and regional level. For that reason we are also commissioning impact research studies, which should be available within a few weeks, to inform the choices that will be made in the medium term. We need an agreed and highly effective Team Wales approach, with a Wales-wide strategic approach, locally delivered. Our agencies have considerable professional expertise that will assist us to cope with this blow if Corus insists on delivering it.

As to the need for co-ordinated action and support across the United Kingdom, the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities will make a separate statement this afternoon on yesterday’s meetings in Whitehall. However, I give you an assurance that we will, at the right time, share information on the resources that we would apply. I also assure the Assembly, and those affected, that action is being taken and that plans are firmly in place for a rapid start.

I conclude by assuring the workers at Corus, their families and all others who will be affected by the fall-out if Corus will not listen to good sense, that the Assembly and its partners will ensure that, if the worst comes to the worst, Team Wales stands ready and willing to swing into action immediately with an effective package to help you and your communities emerge from this with a prosperous future. We will not allow your talents, skills and commitment to go to waste.

I welcome Mike’s statement and the fact that he has not given up the fight to maintain steel jobs in Wales. I hope that you can assure us that The Western Mail misreported the First Minister in reporting that he said yesterday that he was drawing a line under Corus.

A letter is on its way.

Good. In that context, I am sure that you are aware, Mike, that world demand for steel is rising rapidly and the UK is the only major steel making country allowing such a strategic industry to contract. In your discussions with the UK Government, have you asked whether it is prepared, in the case of continued steel making not being available through Corus, to take the industry back into popular ownership through providing the necessary legislative and financial support for a takeover by management and unions, as proposed by the consortium of trade unions? In order to safeguard whatever steel industry we have in the future and the whole range of manufacturing industries, do you still agree with your statement of 8 June 1999, when you said that the steel industry

‘had its hand tied behind its back by the over-valued pound and the lack of progress on joining the European currency’?

Do you still agree with a statement made by our First Minister made on 9 May 2000 when you agreed that the strength of the pound was the key issue and you stated that

‘it does not take a mathematician to work out that if a company’s goods now cost 25 to 30 per cent more than they did a couple of years ago, and its other plants, in the Netherlands or wherever, make the product 25 to 30 per cent cheaper, what the company will do’.

As the exchange rate now is almost equal to what it was when you made that statement, is that still the company’s position? Last year, you asked the First Minister what serious steps was the Government was taking to address the problem of the pound. However deplorable the behaviour of Corus over the past two months since its change of chief executive, it had given warning after warning previously, including one in the Neuadd outside this Chamber, of the problems it faced with the over-valued pound. Throughout that period the Government did nothing to bring the pound to a competitive level or to end the uncertainty over the membership of the euro. Do you still agree that we, as Assembly Members,

‘need to put the interests of the Welsh steel and manufacturing industries first, and that we need to tackle the Chancellor’s laissez-faire approach head on’?

Are you still prepared to tackle the Chancellor head on, when the misdirected e-mail last week said that the Chancellor’s letter to the First Minister offered nothing and that the message is that the Government is unwilling to offer any help to Wales at this bleak time?

Will you and your colleagues ensure that if any package is announced it is 100 per cent additional to the Barnett block allocation that we have already been given? You mentioned, as we discussed in the Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee yesterday, the possibility of refocusing Objective 1 funds.

Refocusing would mean, under the present arrangements, taking money from existing impoverished areas. According to the advice from the European Commission’s representative, the way to avoid that is to ensure that the Government’s contribution of match funding is equal to the European grant, as it is in the three Objective 1 regions in England. That would mean another £40 million a year. If that is allowed, and the indications are that the European Commission would consider that favourably, will you guarantee that it will be given to us in its entirety and in addition to the existing allocation?

You asked about six questions there. I welcome the support in your first point, that we should not give up trying to get Corus to change its mind before 14 February. Your second question was on the issue of the Assembly supporting the steelworkers in trying to purchase the plants from Corus. I assure you that that is important to us, and we are continuing to give active consideration to whatever help we can give.

I note what you said about the euro, and my views on the euro are the same as they have always been. I expect that you and I, and all sensible Assembly Members, will be on the streets together during the referendum campaign for the euro. After all, we understand what will happen; the vast majority of the political persuasions in Wales will be working in one direction, and only the extremists will be working in the other.

The third question that you asked concerned the e-mail. This concerns the money that the Assembly would get. I would suggest that you re-address that question to Edwina Hart who had discussions with the various ministries yesterday. I am sure that she will be happy to answer that question.

Regarding what the First Minister said yesterday, which was misreported in The Western Mail—a not infrequent occurrence—he actually talked about drawing a line under the last four weeks, not under Corus. It was a complete misquote that altered the nature of the story, and I am sure that The Western Mail will publish an apology.

You made a point about the European Commission; Commissioner Barnier gives some hope for the way in which we look at our programmes. He says that the acceleration of particular focuses of the programme in the wake of job losses would be acceptable to the Commission. That must be taken on board in the coming weeks, should we fail to change Corus’s mind. I think that that covers all your points.

I referred earlier to my visit to Toyota last Thursday. On that fateful day we heard the dreadful announcement that ravaged steel communities throughout Wales. I spent the last few days trying to digest the consequences of that news. The anger in steel communities throughout Wales, not least in my constituency, is manifest. That anger is widely expressed in principled and unprincipled language.

Today, we need to throw our full weight behind the trade union movement’s proposals. Through the moratorium they have an opportunity that was hitherto denied to them. Perhaps Corus has come to terms at last with its responsibilities and is responding to the trade unions’ justified request for discussions on their proposals. We need to demonstrate our unanimous support for the trade unions’ initiative. We should welcome, as I do, the declaration of international solidarity from trade unions in Holland in the face of unbridled international capitalism. Now we must prepare for ‘plan B’ if the strong pressure now being exerted by trade unions and the industry fails.

Do you agree that the casualties of Corus’s decisions, wherever the axe may fall, must be treated fairly and equitably, and that every effort will be made to put a support package into place that would reflect what was available previously under ISERB? Will you consider, in other words, a sum of ISERBs to deal with a mass redundancy if the worst comes to the worst? The magnitude of this announcement has sent communities reeling. The first hurt will be felt by those given their notices first. The Corus announcement was accompanied by a programme and a timetable. Will you assure me that that will be taken into account in prioritising the programme of action that we put into place? I am acutely conscious that Shotton is early in that programme of savage cuts. There is a young workforce in Shotton, which is a disadvantage and an advantage. It is an advantage in that mainly young men—and they are men—will have an opportunity to perhaps find work and take their skills elsewhere. It is a disadvantage in that they carry considerable financial burdens. The trade unions are looking for measures that will assist those people to make a transition from redundancy to new work opportunities. I hope that you will consider those issues seriously.

I can give you an absolute assurance on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales and the Cabinet that we are putting our full weight into supporting the trade unions in their campaign to reverse Corus’s decisions. We will support them, as I said earlier in reply to Phil’s question, in whatever they might want to do to progress their purchase by workers of certain plants in Wales. You refer to plan B. Everyone must be treated fairly and equitably, as well as quickly.You referred to a sum of ISERB’s, that is the support that people want for themselves and their families while they are in training. We must address that issue head on, because if the skills do not match the skills that are needed in other industries, people will need to retrain, and will have family commitments that they have to maintain.

What is shocking, and we ought to recognise this, is that the steel workforce in Wales is young. There are not many people over the age of 50 still working in our steelworks in Wales. The average age is between 35 and 45 years old. They are people with young families, whose children are in school and for whom the first essential question is about their home and family. I can understand that. The action that we are about to take and the timetable that we have put in place must recognise that. I also recognise the timetable. Hidden behind the detail of Corus’s announcement last week was a staged timetable. For many plants, this will not happen next year or the year after, but will be put into train rapidly. In Shotton, for example, there are 200 workers whose notice comes out at the end of February. Yet, on 1 March, according to their timetable, everyone else who will be made redundant will receive their notice. The process goes on almost inexorably. We must recognise that the redundancies already announced must be rolled into redundancies that are about to be announced if the unions fail in their objectives. You have my absolute assurance that the four pillars of help that I announced earlier will be in place and will be ready as soon as the buttons have to be pushed. I sincerely hope, however, that we will not have to push those buttons.

The Minister’s comments in relation to the euro a little earlier were quite outrageous. It is widely accepted that Corus management has been critical of the uncertainty that has been fostered by this Government over the euro. When the Conservative Party wins the next general election, industry will know where we stand on this issue, but it is not at all clear where this Government stands. One minute Gordon is saying yes, and the other minute Tony is saying no, and the following day it is vice versa. That is the uncertainty that has partly led—

I will now move on to the Minister’s statement. He stated that the Government is preparing for the worst and that yesterday afternoon, it agreed a broad outline of contingency plans. Is that not rather late? You agree on a contingency plan after the announcements were made. The First Minister demonstrated on a television programme last week that he had no contingency plan. You are now scraping together soft policies and spin. The people of Wales demand action immediately. They do not want a contingency plan for the long-term future. They need an economic development strategy with specific policies, not broad questions asking people what you should do. I do not know why you do not send out a blank piece of paper saying that you are in Government, but you are looking for ideas and what can people offer.

The blank piece of paper is the Conservative party manifesto, is it not? First, Alun, if you want to know what the situation is in respect of currency, listen to what Ian McAllister said yesterday and reflect upon it quietly at home where you can come to a sensible decision. You have chosen to misrepresent the use of the word contingency. I regret that. The reason for the word contingency is that it is a contingency against the workers and their work not being successful. I wonder whether you support what the trade unions are saying? If you do, you will want me to put the word contingency in this document and not take it out. I would be grateful if the Conservative party could tell us whether it supports this vital work that the trade unions are undertaking to try and protect work in Wales. We know that Corus only took short-term decisions and did not look at the medium to long-term. I said that, and I have given you the headlines of that programme. You must take it from me that the programme will be ready if we have to push the red button. I do not want to push it.

I regret that it has been necessary to trivialise this debate because of the wild banter from the Muppet show on the Conservative side of the Chamber. This is a serious subject for these affected communities and we should all concentrate on it.

It needs action.

I have seen your type of action before. I fully agree with the Minister on his strategy this afternoon, and I welcome his commitment to fight. We must do that at present. I hope that after 14 February the Minister for Assembly Business will arrange an early opportunity for a debate on the outcome of those discussions. That is vital. Without a shadow of a doubt, there must be a contingency plan. Nobody is accepting any closures at present. In an isolated area such as Ebbw Vale—which I represent—a taskforce has been in place since 1975. Despite good work by the Government, the Welsh Development Agency and local authorities, we have never achieved the amount of jobs that we once had. Diversification is welcome, but large companies are needed. Few, sadly, have come to Ebbw Vale in 25 years. That calls for a radical approach. Does the Minister agree? Bearing in mind the high value of these Corus jobs to a depressed community, would he be prepared, when appropriate, to meet with Corus and the trade unions to discuss providing some financial resources to retain these quality jobs at a plant with a full order book and a skilled and loyal workforce? The loss of such a plant would be a terrible psychological blow and an economic disaster to an already poor community.

You spoke much truth. First, the Minister for Assembly Business is nodding agreement that a debate after 14 February would be appropriate if we fail to retain the jobs. It is a matter of great regret that Ebbw Vale must face what this company intends—a death wish for a community. I agree that it will need a radical approach. I am happy to meet with union representatives and the company management. One of the examples to which we can look—and I know that this Assembly will always do that—is Tower Colliery. On the other end of the heads of the Valleys, we saw a company that management said was unprofitable. The workers bought it out and turned it around. That is an example of a successful company working hard and expanding daily against the odds. We must leave no stone unturned in this task of looking at alternative arrangements, to retain those vital skills of one of the most productive workforces in the world and the most productive workforce in Europe.

Will the Minister give an absolute commitment that nationalisation will not form any part of your plans for the future? That is a blind alley and it is about time that this shibboleth was nailed to the wall. It is an unquestioned economic judgment, that the nationalisation of steel was an unmitigated disaster. After 14 privately-owned firms were nationalised, a bloated dinosaur with 152,000 employees was created. It was then necessary for the Labour Government to undertake major reductions in steel production. Those reductions hit our communities in Wales as hard as those that are planned now. During the slim down of the 1980s there was a considerable economic downturn in south-east Wales. The people of south-east Wales rose to that challenge and created what can only be described as a success. Among steel men you will hear the name of Ian McGregor. He is not exactly a folk hero in south-east Wales, but steel men recognise that his expertise was able to make the British Steel Corporation a highly-competitive, well-funded, world-beating company. It exported Welsh steel and expertise. It created a modernised and well-funded industry with a well-equipped, skilled and dedicated workforce. Does the Minister agree that nationalisation should not form any part of your plans? It does not ensure job security—quite the reverse. What more of an example do we need than the socialist paradise of the former Soviet Union?

Neither the National Assembly nor I have powers to nationalise and therefore it is unlikely to feature strongly in any proposals that I will bring before the Assembly. However, I do not believe that nationalisation is a contender. That is not for any emotional or philosophical reason, but because of the problems of financing it. We estimate that it would probably cost over £3 billion to purchase the company. However, Peter Law and others quite properly raised the issue of the workforce having the opportunity to take over a company and run it for itself, in the way that Tower Colliery’s workforce did. That is an acceptable approach, and the National Assembly can support it in every way possible.

I support the strategy that you are following Mike, which I consider to be hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. If we are faced with the worst option, do you accept that we will face a bill running into tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds? It will place unprecedented and extreme pressure on the budgets of the local authorities involved, bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency and the TECs, and on the National Assembly’s own programmes. Bearing in mind that two thirds of Wales qualifies for Objective 1 status and that it is among the poorest parts of Europe, with less than 75 per cent of the European average of gross domestic product per capita, do you agree that it would be wrong were the additional costs of the remedial programmes to fall on people who are among the poorest in Europe? Do you accept that if we are to face these additional costs, they can only be met fairly by an additional contribution from the Exchequer? The suggestion in Saturday’s The Western Mail that we should be prepared to forgo those items of expenditure out of income—which are already our agreed entitlements—as a quid pro quo for receiving additional help should be dismissed with absolute contempt as the unscrupulous blackmail that it is.

Pressure on the budgets and whether additional costs should be claimed from the UK Government are matters that the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities will deal with in the statement that follows. If she fails to address the points that you have raised, you could take them up with her afterwards.

I would be grateful if the Deputy First Minister would take out his blank sheet of paper. It would match the blank look on his face and the blankness of the ideas that we have heard so far. On his blank sheet of paper perhaps he would like to write the following: speak to the Chancellor about the proposed energy tax; speak to the Chancellor about bringing down fuel tax; speak to his own Government about getting rid of the working time Directive; speak to his own Government about unravelling all of the red tape that this Government has imposed on businesses; and finally, end the uncertainty over the euro. He may describe those of us who do not approve of joining the euro as extremists. I find that word offensive. If this Government were to end the uncertainty, I am sure business in this country would flourish as a consequence.

I note your bid to get back into the Conservative Party in the National Assembly. I would urge caution in this matter because this is an issue of great seriousness. The National Assembly must take hard action, if we have no option after 14 February. I have no qualms whatsoever about the programme that is before us and the programme of amelioration that was put before the company, which reflected many of the issues about which you are complaining.

The First Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales and I had a positive and constructive series of discussions in London yesterday with the Prime Minister, Andrew Smith, Stephen Byers, David Blunkett and Tessa Jowell on the overall shape and possible component parts of a remedial package. There was a most encouraging recognition of the seriousness of the current situation for Wales, but a strong resolve to support the trade unions’ strategy of engaging with Corus to find alternatives to last week’s appalling decisions.

It is vital that the company engages with the unions during the remainder of the 14-day consultation period—having failed to do so up to this point—as no genuine and viable options for saving jobs should be excluded. I am aware from my discussions today with Tom Middlehurst, Peter Law and other Assembly Members, that the unions are actively engaged at plant level—as in my own constituency—to look at every possible means, including workers buy-outs, to try to protect their jobs. As an Assembly, we must ensure that we give them maximum support.

Against this background, the trade unions have asked that no package of measures be finalised and announced until they have had the opportunity to put their case. The First Minister received a letter asking for that intention to be made known to Assembly Members. I intend to fully respect their wishes. Assembly Ministers will visit the plants affected to lend their support to the unions’ approach. It is essential that we are seen to support the unions in what is a difficult time for them and their members. The Assembly should be in no doubt that we are working on detailed contingency plans in the event that unions’ efforts prove unsuccessful. These have been alluded to by the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development in all the discussions that he undertook yesterday to get those component parts together.

It will be a package tailored to meet the immediate needs of the people—because, first and foremost, the Corus announcement is a human tragedy—but also to meet the regeneration and economic development needs of each area of Wales affected by the announcement. The needs are different in each area. We must recognise those differences and have a strategy to deal with them. To this end, we are working in close consultation with the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency, training and enterprise councils, the Employment Service and others. I stress again that I shall not be drawn this afternoon on the details of the proposed package. That would be premature and undermine the efforts to save jobs. Work is ongoing. We have already had helpful indications of what can be done. Commissioner Barnier has announced that he is prepared to refocus structural funds programmes within existing boundaries in Wales to address the situation should the job losses be confirmed.

I will return to London on 8 February for further discussions with ministerial colleagues in Whitehall, and I shall report again to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity thereafter.

I thank Edwina for that statement, but there are several questions that arise from it, including some that were put to Mike German, which he deftly passed on for Edwina to answer. First, if Edwina, this Government and the Westminster Government are seriously considering the alternative of an employee and trade union management buy-out—a Tower colliery-type solution, to which Mike German referred—or any such proposal within a 14-day programme, will she confirm that indications are being given to the trade unions of the amount of money available to the Government to make that option a runner? Without giving that information, the trade unions cannot be in a position to put forward a proposal to Corus or anyone else to take over responsibility. Will she give details of the exact figure that will be made available?

Secondly, in the event of such proposals coming forward, will Edwina give an assurance, as far as she can, on behalf of the Assembly’s Government that support will be given to ensure that these jobs are maintained and that the fight for securing these jobs will not be abandoned until every possible alternative has been exhausted?

Thirdly, if we come to the point where those alternatives have been exhausted and we face the real devastation that will befall communities such as Shotton, Gorseinon, Llanwern and particularly Ebbw Vale, where the effects are so devastating, will she give a categorical answer to the question that Phil Williams, Ron Davies and others raised earlier, namely that any money that will be used to meet this contingency will be over and above our existing budget and the Barnett formula allocation for the next three years? On refocusing structural funds, does Edwina think that it is unacceptable that unemployed people in Deiniolen, Blaenau Ffestiniog or Rhondda must sacrifice the opportunity to find work because a Government with so much money in the Treasury in London is unwilling to make additional resources available? Whichever option will be followed, it will cost hundreds of millions of pounds to solve this problem. That must be new money, which is over and above our existing budgets or there is no chance of finding a suitable solution to this tragic problem.

I am in the middle of a series of meetings and negotiations. I am too long in the tooth as a former trade union official to start talking about the deal that will be made. We must recognise that this is about negotiation and about getting the clear picture. We must also recognise that the job losses in Wales are great but that there has also been equity. If a job goes in Teeside, it is as devastating to the individual as a job lost in Ebbw Vale. These issues of equity and also how the situation is different in Wales must be addressed. Funds are a key area in terms of what would be required if the worst came to the worst and I am discussing this.

On your first point, the unions are aware of our position and that of the UK Government. There were discussions on what could have been done for Corus as a company prior to the announcement. We would be prepared to offer trade unions what we would have been prepared to offer Corus if they were looking at any buy-out arrangements. We must also recognise that it is for the unions themselves to decide what are viable options. No trade union would want to lead its workers in an unsustainable situation. When they come to us with a proposal we will be able to tell them how we can assist. We can assist them in the interim if they need technical help and advice through the WDA, for example. The Deputy First Minister has made clear the type of help that he is prepared to give in that area. We must also look at viable options at the end of it. The viability issue will be key in this.

I cannot comment on the speculation about nationalisation and our national need for steel, Dafydd, as that would be inappropriate. That is a matter for the Westminster Government and we must take it in that context. I can only assure you that, as Ron Davies mentioned, we must prepare for the worst. I hope that I will not have to put this package into operation in any shape or form and I am sure that we all agree on that. In preparing for the worst, every issue is up for grabs in terms of what is needed to regain sustainable development in some of these communities if these plants close.

I also welcome the constructive discussions with UK Ministers. I strongly support the trade union’s initiatives and urge Corus to finally engage with the unions. If the worst occurs, do you agree that the need for new UK Government money will be great, given that around 2,000 jobs will be lost at Llanwern, including those of contractors and managers, in addition to last year’s 450 jobs, 350 of which are yet to go? The lowest estimate of dependent jobs is 1:1, giving an overall figure approaching 5,000. The average disposable income involved is £20,000 per annum, which means that it would be a huge blow for the local economy and that the effects will spread far and wide into the Gwent Valleys and surrounding area. Throughout Wales, 750 suppliers provide £339 million worth of supplies and services to Corus, sometimes representing 50 per cent or more of its total turnover. In Newport East, the large Ringland council estate exists cheek by jowl with Llanwern and relies heavily on it for employment. It was already included in the 100 most deprived wards in Wales before this closure, which will lead to further deprivation.

Do you further agree that the Assembly’s response to the situation in the worst affected areas will be a litmus test of devolution, by far the greatest test for the Assembly to date? There are considerable difficulties for a fledgling institution to try to respond to such a grave situation. Our constituents sometimes question what the Assembly has done. We know that it is the bread and butter issues that count with the people—primarily the economy and jobs. The people of Newport East, and its surrounding areas, as well as those of the other badly hit areas, want to know that the Assembly is with them in their fight to recover from the desperate situation that Corus has created. Do you agree that by our actions we must clearly and powerfully demonstrate that we will provide all the support, resources and commitment that these communities have every right to expect and demand?

When you consider the roll-call of job losses across Wales and England, you realise that these housing estates have close links with these large businesses, and what their closure will mean in terms of human tragedy. In the final analysis, the Assembly will be judged on what it can do. The UK Government will also be judged on the package that it will provide.

One feels a little like Don Quixote in the Assembly, tilting at the windmills of global capitalism. The realisation is that, in terms of what nation states are in the context of international companies, there is little room for manoeuvre if you consider how international business works. That is the most frustrating thing for us as politicians. You want to go in a certain direction, but the world has moved on since the day when you could send in gunboats to deal with certain issues. We will be judged by our commitments not just to the short-term solutions, which are important in terms of individuals and their training needs, but to the long-term solutions in terms of what we do to regenerate those communities by attracting new investment. The Assembly is in a difficult position at the moment as the trade unions try to get packages together. We want to be as supportive and upbeat as possible, but in our heart of hearts we know how difficult it is. We have to start talking about plan B. In some ways, we do not want to discuss plan B, but we have to get the deal right.

First, what surprises us greatly—and it is no reflection on the Finance Minister’s abilities—is that, following the meeting yesterday between the First Minister and the Prime Minister, the First Minister did not inform us of what happened regarding the most important issue to face the Assembly for a long time. It is a matter of great surprise to us that he is not presenting this statement nor saying something about the other story in The Western Mail that only he can refute first hand.

We welcome any progress that can be made in reversing these decisions, but at the same time, I am sure that you would wish to join me in recognising that, while Edwina was tilting at international capitalism, we were welcoming jobs created by international capitalism in Wales in the shape of Ford and Toyota—

David Davies did not welcome them.

If you wanted to present this statement, First Minister, I am surprised that you did not do so, rather than sit there—

Within the 14-day period, can she tell us what assistance the Government will make available to Corus and whether that offer is the same as the earlier one in terms of rate relief and help with research and development? I see her looking at the First Minister, which is another indication that he should be making this statement—

Grow up, Nick.

It would be helpful if he behaved less like a spoilt child whose lollipop had been taken away—

He should not be so easily taunted.

Secondly, I ask the understudy, what help will be made available by Westminster in terms of a general package? I recognise that she may not want to give the details, but, generally, what help will be available, because we should not be expected to finance that help through the Assembly budget? Thirdly, I welcome the fact that the need to help these stricken communities is being underlined, in terms of the contingency package, because, as we know, there was no such plan last week, which was confirmed to me many times, and people will be aware of that fact. Fourthly, will you investigate the possibility mentioned by a spokesman for the Labour Party in the House of Lords, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, that Corus has been acting illegally by failing to consult with the trade unions? If that is the case, I trust that action will be forthcoming. I am surprised that that has not been investigated. Fifthly, I would like an answer to a question that William Graham asked to the Deputy First Minister some time ago on the dumping of cheap steel in Wales and the UK, which I think, unsurprisingly, has not been answered so far. Clearly, that is a serious issue at a time when Welsh jobs are under threat.

However, above all, the underlying impression during this crisis—and it is a crisis for Welsh jobs, I agree with the First Minister on that, at least—is not knowing who is in charge of it in Westminster and here. Is it the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or the Prime Minister? In this Assembly, are you taking the lead or is the Deputy First Minister or the First Minister? We need to know who is putting this package together. We hope for the best in this consultation period, but clearly, as has been said, we have to be prepared for the worst. Who is taking the lead on this? Is it the First Minister?

I can tell you one thing, I am not the understudy, and I think that I am the Oscar winner and not the First Minister. The decision to make this statement today—although I do not know why I should dignify your question with an answer—was mine because it was on a financial package. It is important to recognise that this is a collective administration. The Deputy First Minister was engaged in discussion yesterday with the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning on all aspects of training and what could be done in Wales. The First Minister and I represented the Assembly in a series of national meetings yesterday. We were delighted that the Secretary of State for Wales could join us because of his role and the fact that he is a member of the UK Cabinet, so that he could add weight to the discussions. That is the reality of Government. You might not like it, Nick, but that is the reality.

Your asking a question about whether Corus is acting illegally is rather rich when you consider the employment law framework that the Conservatives left behind, which made it much easier and cheaper for UK companies to bow out for the rest of Europe. I have not heard you speak before on the importance of ensuring more rights for the workers. There was even a Conservative contribution on how you do not want European directives. Therefore, we can put the point on Corus acting illegally firmly in its place and put the lid back on the box.

Importing cheap steel has bothered the trade unions and I will try to find more up-to-date information about inquiries on that, and will let you know. However, we are discussing what deal will be available, and, as you will recall, the original package containing the proposed measure offered to Corus consisted of improving the business environment, reductions in business rates, training aids alongside research and development and environmental protection. There were also projects involving surplus land transactions. We need to have ongoing discussion on these subjects. I envisage that the issues that were originally a matter for Corus, would now be a matter for us to consider with the Corus trade unions, if they were interested in doing anything to protect jobs. It would be unfair to offer assistance to one side and not to the other.

In Westminster, we have links with the Department for Education and Employment on the Employment Service strands and we are looking at how it can deliver on that and what resources would be deliverable in Wales. Some matters are not devolved to us and we must therefore consider and discuss them with UK Ministries. It is a case of bringing a contingency package together across those various strands. It is difficult to discuss creating a package until you know what you will face. We have seen that happening with Corus all the time. It has upped the ante at certain stages. We all thought that Port Talbot was going to close, and then Corus suddenly came in with its normal salami slicing and everybody thought it is not as bad as we thought it would be, but it is pretty bad. You cannot make contingency plans on the basis of what that company will do when you do not know what it will do. We have tackled this correctly. We are now giving the trade unions time to discuss and we are creating a package that will be available if those discussions fail. We will keep our fingers crossed that following the involvement of the trade unions, at least some people will keep their jobs.

First, I clarify a point that I made to the Deputy First Minister for Economic Development earlier. I was not focusing on a workers buy-out for Ebbw Vale. I was talking about financial incentives being made available to the company to help to keep overheads down. However, either way, I am pleased that that option is being considered. I will tell you the logic behind that. You could spend tens of millions in a community to develop industrial sites and build advance factories. We have had that, and I welcome that if that is the contingency; it is necessary. However, my people would say that they would rather put the money into the plant and keep those 780 jobs and be assured that those jobs will be in place for a minimum of 10 years or so. Those jobs are well paid and that is important to our economy.

I support what the Minister said, which will meet with the general approval of the people of Wales. Her positive approach is appreciated. I know that she agrees that we must work with the trade unions and wait to see the outcome of their discussions as workforce representatives. However, if a contingency plan has to be employed, it is reasonable, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said recently, to expect some extra funding from Whitehall to help with community costs. It is reasonable for this Assembly to consider that. I know that she will pursue that strongly on our behalf, as she has already made clear.

I thank the Welsh press for the positive support that it has given Corus workers, particularly The Welsh Mirror editorials that supported Ebbw Vale. Will you deplore the junketing of the Corus senior management at the weekend? I consider that insensitive and it is in contrast to the mortgage and debt counselling that occurred in Ebbw Vale to help our people—the dedicated, but alarmed and worried workers of the Ebbw Vale steelworks facing the consequences of last Thursday’s announcement. We read today that those people could face the prospect of their jobs being stolen by the Dutch Corus plant. That, if true, is unforgivable. As I understand, the one line cannot be absorbed into Trostre, and that workforce, in fairness to it, is asking how it is supposed to meet a capacity increase of over 50 per cent. That would be even worse. Do you agree that that, if true, is deplorable bearing in mind the support that communities throughout Wales wish to give the Ebbw Vale workers to ensure that these important works remain open in the Valleys?

I understand that Corus had a hospitality box at the match on Saturday, and I am sure that if I were a member of the Ebbw Vale Corus workforce, I would be concerned that Corus could enjoy such an event when it had to make such swingeing, devastating job cuts in Wales. Peter put across the community’s position well, and that is essential. We should never forget that we are talking about debt counselling and people’s futures. We need only consider the fact that Ebbw Vale did not recover from the last closures. We must consider the deprivation index in Blaenau Gwent, surrounding Ebbw Vale, and how deprivation will be even more prevalent when those jobs go. We must recognise the full extent of the problems that will occur in Blaenau Gwent as a result of this closure. I was told last week that—and I am not certain about the figures—we do not produce enough tinplate for UK consumption, yet we are thinking of getting rid of the Ebbw Vale works. It beggars belief for the majority of us in the Chamber.

A yw Edwina Hart yn cytuno â sylwadau Will Hutton, un o gyn-gyfeillion Llafur Newydd, yn The Observer ddydd Sul fod ymddygiad Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig a Llywodraeth y Cynulliad ar y mater hwn yn drewi o ragrith? Defnyddiodd yr ymadrodd ‘reeks of hypocrisy’. Yr oedd yn cyfeirio at y broses a lwyr drefnwyd yn fwriadus dros yr wythnosau diwethaf o roi’r holl fai ar Corus—ac yr ydym wedi clywed hynny yma heddiw eto—er mwyn gwarchod y gwir ddihiryn, sef Llywodraeth Lafur y Deyrnas Unedig. Clywsom Mike German a Peter Black yn ymuno yn y gytgan honno heddiw.

A yw Edwina yn cytuno â golygyddol The Guardian—un o’r papurau mwyaf cefnogol i Lafur, ar wahân i’r Welsh Mirror yr oedd Peter Law yn canu ei glodydd—ddydd Gwener, a oedd yn datgan,

Yn y trafodaethau y cymerodd ran ynddynt, a fu Edwina Hart, ar ran y Cynulliad, pobl Cymru a’r cymunedau dur, yn pwyso am y ‘root change’ hwnnw? Gan ei bod yn glir mai’r dihiryn mawr yn yr achos hwn yw Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, gan gynnwys y Trysorlys, a fydd hi a gweddill Llywodraeth Cymru yn pwyso ar y Trysorlys i sicrhau bod pecyn cymesur â’r angen ariannol yn cael ei ddarparu, a bod hwnnw’n arian ychwanegol? Gofynnodd Dafydd Wigley y cwestiwn hwnnw ac mae Ron Davies wedi sôn amdano, ond nid ydym wedi cael unrhyw fath o addewid i’r perwyl hwnnw. Yr oedd David Hanson yn y Senedd ddoe hefyd yn gwrthod rhoi ymrwymiad y byddai arian ychwanegol ar gael o’r Trysorlys ar gyfer yr argyfwng difrifol hwn.

Yr ydym yn byw mewn gobaith o hyd y bydd yr undebau llafur yn llwyddiannus yn eu hymdrechion, ond os yw’r ymdrechion hyn i lwyddo, golyga hynny gymorth ariannol digonol. Mae hefyd yn golygu creu hinsawdd ar gyfer diwydiant gweithgynhrychu a fydd yn galluogi’r busnes hwnnw i lwyddo yn ogystal. Mae’r cwestiynau mawr yn aros.

Ynglŷn ag ailffocysu arian strwythurol Ewropeaidd, a all Edwina awgrymu pa ardal yng Nghymru a ddylai golli arian er mwyn i Flaenau Gwent elwa ohono? Yn bendant, mae angen cymorth ychwanegol ar Flaenau Gwent, ond pa ardal a ddylai golli arian? Atgoffaf Edwina o’r ergydion ledled Cymru yn ystod yr wythnosau diwethaf ym maes gweithgynhyrchu.

A yw Edwina Hart wedi mesur beth fydd yr anghenion ariannol gwirioneddol, ac a yw’r weinyddiaeth hon wedi gwneud hynny? Clywais y ffigur £100 miliwn. Mae hynny’n rhy ychydig. Soniodd Ron Davies am gannoedd o filiynau o bunnoedd. A yw gweinyddiaeth Cymru wedi mesur beth fydd yn angenrheidiol os daw i’r gwaethaf? Mae’n iawn inni wybod hynny.

A yw Edwina Hart, ynghyd â gweddill Llywodraeth Cymru, yn fodlon rhoi Cymru yn gyntaf? ‘Rhoi Cymru’n Gyntaf’ yw ei hymadrodd. A yw’n fodlon gwneud hynny? Wrth gwrs bod gennym gonsýrn am weithwyr yn Lloegr ac ati, ond busnes y Cynulliad yw canolbwyntio ar anghenion Cymru yn y sefyllfa hon ac ymladd ein cornel ni. A yw hi’n derbyn mai cyfrifoldeb y Cynulliad yn y sefyllfa hon yw bod yn llais i Gymru ac arwain y genedl yn yr ymgyrch am gyfiawnder? Nid cardod ond cyfiawnder sydd ei angen arnom. A yw gweinyddiaeth y Cynulliad yn barod i ddangos yn glir ei bod yn fodlon gwneud hynny a rhoi lles ei gwlad o flaen lles ei phlaid?

That is the difference between us—you speak like a nationalist and I speak like an internationalist. Whether you lose a job in Teeside or Blaenau Gwent you are just as affected. I want what is best for Wales and I will fight for Wales and for the right package for Wales. However, at the end of the day, wherever people work, if they lose their jobs they will suffer because of mortgage arrears, because their children cannot go on school trips and from the fact that they may never find another job. We must get this into perspective.

On Will Hutton, I am not sure about his politics these days. When I read his articles I sometimes wonder whether he is on the right or the left. As for The Guardian, sometimes I agree with its views and sometimes I do not. Sometimes I can do the crossword and sometimes I cannot. That is my general attitude towards opinions expressed in the press.

We must be clear. I can only give a commitment on the Assembly’s package to which I can commit the Assembly. I cannot and I will not give a commitment on what the UK Treasury or the Prime Minister will do. I can only give a commitment to negotiate as best as I can, within that framework, to get what we can and to make all the arguments possible to ensure that we get the best deal. There is recognition that we need extra resources. That is important. It would not be helpful for me to be drawn on the nature and content of the discussions that I may or may not have had yesterday. Nothing irritates Whitehall departments more than them thinking that a matter is being discussed that has not been discussed with them first. My job is to try to get what I can and not to be drawn into some of the issues that have been raised today.

We are talking about justice. However, we can only ask for money because we have this devolution settlement. If we had what you wanted, Cynog, we could not go to the UK Treasury. We could not ask the Government in Whitehall for anything, because it would not be part and parcel of our Government. You support Europe, so do I. You support the expansion of the European Union, so do I. However, by implication, globalisation will affect Welsh manufacturing jobs. That causes problems. It is not a matter of the economic problems of this Government. When we look at what is happening in the UK, there is good news and bad news. Strategic changes are occurring in industry. We see changes that are devastating people’s lives. We must deal with that. That is our challenge and we will be judged on how we meet it. There should not be idle banter about what we may not get, what we may negotiate, or what is wrong in Westminster. We can put right what we can put right here and we can discuss issues with our colleagues in Westminster. It is fortunate that the Labour/Liberal Democrat administration here and the Labour administration in Westminster can at least talk. I would hate it if it went the other way.