I also propose that

These regulations will enable the transfer of funds from a local authority to a health authority and will prescribe those health authority functions that can be funded by such a transfer. The reciprocal arrangements that allow the transfer of money from a health authority already exist. Enabling the transfer of funds in both directions will provide local government and health authorities with greater flexibility to deliver joined-up services for carers and users.

That is the key to our aim of achieving more integrated health and social services in Wales. The regulations supplement the National Health Service Bodies and Local Authorities Partnership Arrangements (Wales) Regulations 2000, which the Assembly approved on 7 November and which came into force on 1 December 2000. These provisions introduce new mechanisms to promote joint working at the boundaries between health and social services, and between the NHS and wider local government.

The regulations and guidance on joined-up and flexible working were developed in close collaboration with health bodies, local government and the voluntary sector. Their continuing support was evident when Jane Hutt launched the framework at a conference in Llandrindod Wells on 29 November 2000.

The regulations before us underpin the Assembly’s commitment to improving the health and wellbeing of people in Wales in new ways that tackle social disadvantage, address inequalities and promote sustainability. Joint working is central to that. The improvements in operational arrangements will promote innovation in the provision of services, which will ultimately improve local wellbeing and health.

Closer integration of health and social care services through effective joint working between the NHS and local government is key to implement successfully ‘Improving Health in Wales’, an NHS strategy for Wales that was launched by Jane Hutt on 2 February. That strategy places the flexibilities of the Health Act 1999 at the centre of successful joint working. There is already much good joint working and innovation in designing and providing services that span health and local authority boundaries in Wales. Together with the statutory partners, the voluntary and independent sectors make a significant contribution to successful joint working.

The NHS and local authority colleagues, with the voluntary and independent sectors, have worked together successfully across Wales this winter to tackle emergency pressures. [Interruption.]

Many of the schemes that operate locally avoid hospital admissions and support the appropriate transfer of care. The regulations before us today would facilitate further collaborative working in these important areas by allowing local authorities to transfer money to health authorities, which would make it operationally easier to provide the services which people need when and where they require them.

To help local authorities develop and enter into joint working arrangements, we have allocated an extra £17 million over the next three years. This money will go as a special grant specifically to promote joint working. Consultation on the terms of the special grant is already underway.

A task group of health, local government, voluntary and independent sector and professional colleagues will start work shortly on implementing the joint working objectives of the NHS strategy in Wales. The task group will consider all aspects of joint working including the implementation of the Health Act 1999 and the partnership arrangements arising from that. It will assist with the development of centralising resources to spread good practice, consider the need for any further guidance and promote monitoring and evaluation.

I am confident that, taking all these measures together, the Assembly will be able to support these regulations.

Yn amlwg, mae cyffro ei ddatganiad cyntaf yn dechrau mynd yn drech na Brian. Fodd bynnag, diolchaf iddo am ei ddatganiad. Datganaf fuddiant fel meddyg teulu a chynghorydd sir.

Croesawaf y mesur hwn y mae Brian wedi ei gynnig y prynhawn yma. Hoffwn godi dau bwynt. Yr ydym yn sôn am awdurdodau lleol ac awdurdodau iechyd. Sut bydd y cyd-weithredu rhyngddynt yn cael mynegiant i ddatblygu gofal canolraddol yn y gwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru yn hytrach na’i breifateiddio?

Fy ail bwynt yw bod nifer o swyddogaethau statudol yn cael eu cyflawni ar hyn o bryd gan awdurdodau iechyd. Beth fydd yn digwydd i’r swyddogaethau hyn pan fo awdurdodau iechyd yn cael eu diddymu o fewn dwy flynedd? Fodd bynnag, bydd Plaid Cymru yn cefnogi’r mesur hwn.

The Liberal Democrats believe that closer working between health authorities and local health groups—which will replace those statutory functions—and social services departments is key to solving some of the issues facing the NHS. There are still high levels of delayed discharge. That is one obvious example of the need for close working. We thank Brian for bringing forward this measure as we believe that these are practical measures which will enable the breakdown of the silos that have existed for too long between those who provide care in health or social services.

I congratulate Brian on his rookie performance at the dispatch box. We look forward to many more performances in his usual robust style. He will not need much defending.

We hope that these measures will successfully encourage joint working. We have no objections to the technical measures before us this afternoon. However, I note that the Government in England has made it clear that if health authorities and local authorities do not take up joint working, it will force them to work effectively together. We would expect that in Wales. If these measures are not used they must be sanctioned and there must be compulsion on bodies to use them. We can have a critical debate on this when we review these arrangements in the light of experience.

I thank everybody for their gracious remarks. David Lloyd made a crucial point about intermediate care. For those groups involved in developing and delivering innovative care, it is an exciting and challenging period. The fact that we are providing these flexibilities will make it easier for them to achieve their objectives.

The task groups involved in implementing the NHS plan, ‘Improving Health in Wales’, will consider the various statutory functions of the health authorities. They are just beginning their work. The details about how this will work out in practice will be subject to recommendations from these task groups relating to implementation. The issue of discharge is important and this is why we must develop intermediate care in the NHS and local government in Wales.

On David’s point, one of the strengths of the NHS in Wales is that we have local health groups that bring local government and health authorities together in a way that is different to England. The fact that we have given extra millions as a special grant to local government to encourage them to undertake this work, is not only a stick, as David would suggest, but a juicy carrot. I commend these regulations to you.

I also propose that

The intended effect of this instrument is to introduce a system of penalty charges to deter evasion of NHS charges. Similar legislation is already in place in the other countries of the United Kingdom. The purpose of these regulations is to impose a civil penalty when a person wrongly fails to pay an NHS charge in respect of provision of drugs and medicine, dental treatment and appliances, optical services or any other appliances, or receiving payments towards the cost of an NHS charter service, to which he or she is not entitled, such as spectacle vouchers or free NHS sight tests.

These regulations provide for a penalty notice to be issued requiring the person to pay the amount he or she failed to pay, together with an additional penalty charge. The regulations set out the period in which these amounts must be paid and the information that the penalty notice must contain. It also details how the penalty charge payments amount is to be calculated. If the amount due under the penalty is not paid within the period required, a further sum, by way of a penalty charge, may be levied. If the regulations were not in force by 1 April 2001, Wales would be unable to deter evasion from NHS charges. We will be considering an appropriate publicity campaign to inform the public of the implications of these regulations before the system becomes operational on 1 April.

The powers enabling this instrument to be made, are contained in sections 122B (1), (2) and (4), 126(4) and 127(a) of the National Health Service Act 1977, transferred to the National Assembly under article 2 Schedule 1 of the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999.

The Assembly expects that the gross expenditure in Wales in 2000-01 for prescribed drugs and appliances will amount to more that £380 million, a figure equivalent to 13 per cent of the total estimated expenditure on the national health service in Wales. We estimate that the net patient charge income will increase by approximately £2 million per year at 1999-2000 rates, as a direct result of introducing point of dispensing checks for prescriptions. That National Audit Office in Wales examined the arrangements in place in Wales for securing income from prescription charges. It found that 9 per cent of cases where an individual had claimed an exemption from prescription charges were on a prima facie basis and no entitlement existed. On that basis, the National Audit Office Wales estimated that the potential income forgone as a result of allowing exemption from prescription charges to individuals who do not meet relevant criteria is approximately £15 million per year.

The introduction of a penalty charge will coincide with the establishment of a new all-Wales anti-fraud unit, as part of the counter-fraud operational service structure in operation in England. Fraudulent claims leading to penalty charges are being treated as civil debts, although there is provision for criminal charges to be brought in extreme or persisting cases. There are no issues affecting the Assembly’s obligation under community law or the Human Rights Act 1998 as regards this regulation.

First, I congratulate Brian on his first time at the lectern.

I am concerned about how this will be aimed. There are several databases available; perhaps we should get them to talk to each other. That could increase efficiency in terms of not only distributing medicines and other equipment and services, but using them effectively.

If you agree that central information technology system communications is a good idea and that it might achieve savings and efficiency of distribution, perhaps we should consider drawing such ideas together. What steps will you take to do so?

I will vote in favour of these regulations. Nobody would want to defend people who defraud the NHS or the Department of Health and Social Security. However, a much larger sum is lost through people who cheat the Treasury of income and corporation tax. We are not talking about a couple of pounds here and there, but billions. We are talking about tax cheats who live in Belize and parasites who count their days in the UK before scuttling off to their tax havens and refuse to pay their whack towards the health service and schools. I hope that we will see a television campaign to shop tax dodgers soon because, while no-one likes paying tax and charges—

While nobody likes paying tax and prescription charges, they are our contribution to the maintenance of a civilised society.

I declare an interest as a pharmacist. I would like Brian to examine a problem that arises when people fill in the rear of prescription forms incorrectly. Although it is obvious that the person is exempt—their date of birth may be on the front of the form—the pharmacist is penalised £6 for every item. That costs pharmacists thousands of pounds. I hope that Brian will look into this.

I welcome these measures on behalf of the Welsh Conservative group. It is important to deter fraud. There is a positive message here that we will get extra revenue to fund a much-needed increase in the drugs budget and, especially, the innovations in pharmaceutical treatment. Many of them relate to rare conditions, where there is not a large market because there are few suffers. Such people are sometimes denied access to medical advance. One way of ensuring that we spend our drugs budget well is to ensure that we have an effective system that gets the revenue that is due to us.

Brian Hancock’s point is true. We did not introduce these regulations earlier because of problems with getting the IT systems to speak to each other. The fact that we are bringing these regulations forward now means that we are on the verge of getting the various IT systems to speak to each other more effectively. There is still a long way to go to improve the clinical delivery of services through improved information technology. The NHS is starting down that road, but there is a long road ahead.

On Alun Pugh’s and David Melding’s points, the money collected here goes back to the relevant health authorities, so it is not returned to the Treasury. Money collected through this scheme will go back into the health authorities and direct patient care. Geraint Davies made an important point, which I will discuss with Jane Hutt and I will try to get back to him on how that is being addressed.

I propose that

You never propose any of these motions, and then suddenly three come along all at once. [Laughter.]

The purpose of this Order is to consider the principle of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2001. These regulations will introduce the new system for charging abattoirs and cutting plants for the supervision and inspection provided by the Meat Hygiene Service. We shall welcome the new system as it will reduce the burden of charges significantly on almost all small and medium-sized meat plants that form such a vital part of the rural economy in Wales. I hope that, having discussed the principles behind these regulations, the Assembly will then proceed to approve that the Order is made in accordance with the draft laid in the Table Office on 14 March 2001.

An amendment to the motion considering the principle of these regulations has been tabled. I therefore, ask the Assembly to reject this amendment and approve the motion as originally drafted. We cannot accept the amendment because it states that the current controls are unduly burdensome. There is always a balance to be struck between the cost to business and the protection of public health. Our BSE controls were examined and endorsed by the Phillips inquiry and the Food Standards Agency’s review of BSE controls. There is no doubt that our strict BSE controls, which are rigorously enforced, have played a vital part in restoring confidence in Welsh and British beef and in maintaining confidence during the recent upsurge in BSE incidence in Europe.

It should be noted that when inspections were considered at the Health and Social Services and Agriculture and Rural Development Committees, there were no objections to the statement by Joy Whinney, who said that the level of regulation was appropriate. Therefore, it is slightly surprising that this amendment is before us today. Although, I ask you not to approve the amended motion, it is generally recognised that the meat inspection system is in need of modernisation. The earliest EU food hygiene rule covering red meat is now more than 35-years-old, and the European Commission has proposed to consolidate and simplify all food hygiene legislation, not only that which relates to meat. These proposals have been welcomed by the Food Standards Agency as an opportunity to provide an effective, proportionate and risk-based system of which I am sure William and Glyn would approve.

These regulations are based on the report of the meat industry red tape working group, chaired by Robin Pooley, which was established to address various issues of red tape in the meat inspection system. The group suggested that further work was needed on the issue of charges. As a result, the meat inspection charges taskforce was established in March 2000 under the chairmanship of Colin Maclean. The taskforce’s main recommendation was that further consideration should be given to how charges are levied.

Because of the need to introduce these charges by 1 April 2001, the consultation period was short. In the initial consultation period there was a suggestion that some concern existed about the requirements for dealing with inefficiencies and the lack of an arbitration system. Further consultation took place, and while there was not complete unanimity, there was a high level of agreement with the proposals that are before the Assembly today.

These proposals will ensure, for example, that a small slaughterhouse with 100 livestock units throughput per year will see a reduction in charges from £3,500 to just £200. A slightly larger slaughterhouse with a throughput of 300 livestock units per year will see its charges drop from £2,500 to £1,000.

These regulations therefore address a major area of concern for the meat industry, including the charges that have been levied. The Government is directing extra money towards these particular charges and it is paying directly for the meat hygiene service, rather than plants having to pay the charges. The National Assembly for Wales has supplemented this help from the UK Government with an additional allocation of about £600,000.

In general, the Welsh Conservatives support the principle of this motion. However, we have tabled an amendment that we hoped would attract the Government’s support. I am disappointed that it will not support it as I sought to word the amendment as reasonably as possible and it has widespread support throughout much of rural Wales.

Like most people, I welcomed the conclusions of the Maclean report, in particular that we should move away from a charging system based on actual cost to a system based on throughput. Most people think that that is sensible. The Welsh Conservatives believed it to be sensible as it helps the smaller abattoir. The situation of smaller abattoirs has been highlighted as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak. It has become obvious to the whole country that there has been a great reduction in the number of small abattoirs. When Edward Hamer International Abattoir Limited in mid Wales was closed down because foot and mouth disease was confirmed there, we realised that a huge part of Wales did not have an abattoir, or not one of any significance. That is the problem that we face.

I am not making a political point about this. Over recent years, going back way beyond when the Labour Government came into power, we have seen an accelerated closure rate of small abattoirs. That is largely due to the introduction of European Union regulations. I accept that small abattoirs closed in part because of a natural movement towards larger units in every sector of the British economy. However, to a large extent, they closed because of the imposition of EU regulations. I also accept that the main purpose of those regulations is to support welfare and hygiene. However, we must have a balance.

I draw the Deputy Minister’s attention to the need for balance and a law of unintended consequences. By going to the nth degree on some issues, we create massive issues in other areas that are not being addressed. For example, the Assembly recently approved new regulations on pithing. I could not challenge the regulations as they were right and sensible. However, there is no doubt that the introduction of those regulations again drives the demand to close down smaller abattoirs because of the extra cost entailed. I hope that the Deputy Minister will change his mind after hearing the logic of my comments, and that he asks his group to support my amendment.

We need a strategy from the Government to recreate the small abattoir network that we have lost, or, at least, move some way towards recreating it. Everybody agrees on that. A strategy should be presented to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee or to the Health and Social Services Committee. I hope that you will endorse that, change your mind and support my amendment.

I fear that this amendment is another example of sloppy Welsh Conservative thinking. It does not specify which government to lobby. It talks about the closure of small abattoirs when it was the Conservative UK Government which, despite the industry’s pleas to provide support, failed to listen. At this stage—

At this stage, how can we talk of burdensome regulations when public health is critical to re-establish the credibility of our industry in the face of this foot and mouth disease crisis? Regulations were introduced to protect public health at the time of the BSE crisis. Goodness knows what burdensome means anyway. Following the Pooley report and the Maclean report, this legislation implements the reduction in costs that we want to see. It is incredible that you cannot offer your full support to this legislation. By accepting it, we are implementing the reduction of costs to abattoirs. I hope that we will go further and find ways of introducing more small abattoirs into areas where they are needed. This is a long-term commitment to the industry and I would like to hear from the Deputy Minister in his summing up that the money is a long-term commitment. The Tories shut the abattoirs, increased the costs and ignored the pleas. Now, we need to ensure that rural development proceeds on a broad base and, at the same time, we look after public health.

Croesawaf y rheoliadau hyn. Maent yn bwysig o ran lleihau’r costau enfawr ar ein lladd-dai bach, sydd wedi arwain at gau nifer o’r lladd-dai hynny. Gobeithiaf mai un o’r gwersi a ddysgwyd o’r argyfwng BSE, ond yn sicr o’r argyfwng presennol hwn o glwy’r traed a’r genau, yw bod yn rhaid atal yr arfer o gludo anifeiliaid dros bellter maith. Mae hynny’n creu problemau ac yn lledaenu afiechydon, fel clwy’r traed a’r genau.

Gobeithiaf mai dechrau yn unig yw hyn. Dyna pam yr wyf yn barod i gefnogi gwelliant Glyn Davies oherwydd bod yn rhaid gwneud llawer mwy, nid yn unig i ysgafnhau’r pwysau sydd ar ladd-dai bach ar hyn o bryd, ond i annog lladd-dai bach i ailagor a gwasanaethu ffermydd lleol. Gallwn wedyn ychwanegu gwerth at gynnyrch lleol drwy sicrhau ein bod yn marchnata cynnyrch a gynhyrchwyd yn y ffordd fwyaf diogel posibl. Hefyd, rhaid pwysleisio’r cysyniad o gynnyrch gwyrdd, glân, lleol a naturiol. Mae hynny’n allweddol er mwyn sicrhau bod y diwydiant amaethyddiaeth yn gallu ail-sefydlu’i hunan wedi’r clwyf presennol hwn.

Croesawn y cynnig, yr ydym yn falch o’i gael, ond cam cyntaf ydyw. Anogwn y Llywodraeth i wneud llawer mwy i gefnogi’r lladd-dai bach hyn a’u gweld fel rhan ganolog o’i strategaeth ar gyfer y diwydiant amaethyddiaeth a’r economi wledig. Oherwydd hynny, cefnogwn welliant y Torïaid. Yr ydym yn falch gweld bod y Torïaid yn cefnogi lladd-dai bach. Ar ôl bod yn gyfrifol am eu cau, maent wedi gweld y goleuni. Croesawn bechaduriaid sydd yn edifarhau a gweld y goleuni fel Cristnogion da. Yr ydym yn llawen am hynny ac yn falch o gefnogi’ch gwelliant ar y sail hwnnw.

I did not intend to speak in this debate but I must respond to comments by Mick Bates and, I am sorry to say, Rhodri Glyn Thomas. I was outraged by their comments. When rural Wales is in crisis and after so many small abattoirs have closed, this is a positive step to try to prevent this sort of crisis happening again.

I will not give way, Mick. Abattoirs are businesses, many of which are small.

I will give way shortly. The Minister for Economic Development, who praised his colleague Mick Bates and supported everything he said, is seeking to preside over an administration that is introducing an initiative to cut red tape, thereby following a Welsh Conservative initiative that was launched some time ago. How can the Minister for Economic Development reject this amendment, yet seek to introduce policies to cut red tape?

Gobeithiaf ichi sylwi imi ddweud ein bod yn barod i gefnogi’r gwelliant, oherwydd ein bod yn croesawu pechaduriaid sydd yn edifarhau. Yn anffodus, nid oedd eich geiriau yn edifeiriol. Yr ydych yn ymddangos yn bechadur hunangyfiawn. Nid oes dim byd gwaeth na phechadur hunangyfiawn. Ymddiheurwch am fod y Llywodraeth Dorïaidd wedi cau y lladd-dai, nodwch eich bod wedi gweld y goleuni a’ch bod bellach yn eu cefnogi.

I am grateful to Rhodri Glyn Thomas for making those points but he is missing the mark. Up until 1997, many small abattoirs were unfortunately closed only because the Conservative Government was forced to implement European policy with which the Labour Party and more so the Liberal Democrats are so obsessed. If they were given the opportunity, they would sign up to a federal Europe in which we would be forced to implement all European regulations in this regard. I ask the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats to reconsider what they said and to support this positive policy, which will make a difference to small abattoirs and small businesses in Wales.

The arguments put forward in support of the amendment have not been convincing. The set of regulations that we have were approved by the Phillips report and the Food Standards Agency. If we were to accept the line of argument taken by Glyn and, to an extent, Rhodri Glyn in supporting the amendment, we would be saying that the Food Standards Agency’s perceptions and decisions regarding food safety were incorrect. I do not think that any Member would make that case. As I said in my opening contribution, Glyn, in particular, had the opportunity when the Health and Social Services Committee and the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee met Joy Whinney, Director for Wales, Food Standards Agency, to discuss the Phillips report. You had the opportunity to question her on the Food Standards Agency’s attitude towards regulation in this area. You both failed dismally to raise any concern. You were asked if you wanted to raise a concern and you failed to do so.

Will the Deputy Minister for Health agree that circumstances have changed since that joint-Committee meeting because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease?

The outbreak of foot and mouth disease emphasises the importance of having strong and proper regulation to maintain public confidence. If we had deregulation along the lines that you suggest and then had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, it would completely undermine the credibility of our food safety standards. The fact that we have been consistent argues against your case rather than for it.

The case was made about burdensome regulations. As I said, we recognise that while we need to maintain rigorous standards—and nobody is arguing that we have the perfect system at the moment—

I am interested in your comments. You are not arguing that it is a perfect system. That was my opinion also. I simply raised the possibility that we could consider the regulations and simplify them so that we could help our small abattoirs. You tried to rubbish my point and now you seem to admit it in your comments.

If your amendment 1 stated ‘imperfect regulations’ you may have had a case, but, your amendment specifically states, ‘burdensome’. That is the issue. As someone said, if you had drafted a more accurate amendment, we might be able to deal with it. However, you specifically stated ‘burdensome’ and in the present context that is incorrect. Moving towards the hazard analysis at critical control points changes could create an improved situation. However, these regulations will not lead to any diminution of the vigour with which food safety measures are enforced. It will be a new and different way of doing it. We have no grounds for supporting your amendment 1. I urge you to support the regulations as they stand.

I propose that

This is an important motion in that it shows again the new relationship that exists in Wales between the Assembly and local government. Under Best Value, authorities report past performance and set targets for the future year against performance indicators. They then publish this information in their Best Value performance plans. The performance indicators help us to assess quality and improvement in the services provided. They also give us a basis for comparison with similar authorities throughout Wales.

This Order will replace the Local Government (Best Value Performance Indicators) (Wales) Order 2000, which set indicators for the year 2000-01. At that time, the Assembly committed itself to reviewing performance indicators in Wales. The 2000-01 performance indicators were set for Wales by two organisations, namely the National Assembly and the Audit Commission. This duplication did not help anyone, least of all local government.

We have done what we were charged to do. The process has been streamlined. The Audit Commission will still have the vital role of assessing cost effectiveness and efficiency, but we will set the performance indicators. We want them to improve the delivery of services, not just to become another bureaucratic burden for local authorities. I must stress that this is why we have streamlined the number of indicators. In 2000 there were 172 indicators. The Order for 2001 specifies 86, which includes 12 non-devolved functions. This means that the process will be more focused, more efficient and less of a burden for all concerned.

This motion is the result of a wide-ranging consultation that showed strong support for a single set of indicators put in place by the National Assembly. This we have done. During the consultation there was a concerted campaign for two areas to be included in the Order: training standards enforcement and public rights of way. Indicators covering these service areas have been included in direct response to these arguments.

The performance indicators in this motion will not necessarily be the only ones that a local authority will use. Good local management will mean that additional indicators appropriate to local circumstances will often be put in place. That is how it should be. However, the performance indicators included in the motion mean that the Assembly will have a better means of comparing and contrasting services throughout Wales.

Comments on the wording of the indicators were considered when drafting the Order, and will be considered in the accompanying statutory guidance that will be issued soon.

The Local Government and Housing Committee met on 28 February, and cross-party agreement was given to the streamlining, and to the inclusion of the two previously mentioned indicators.

We all want stability but we will still need to assess the indicators each year so that they are sensitive to Wales’s needs. For example, various projects are currently being undertaken by equality organisations in Wales and the findings of that work may be incorporated into the set of performance indicators for 2002-03. This Order shows how the partnership between the Assembly and its key partner organisations can work together to develop policy that reflects Welsh circumstances.

William Graham has tabled an amendment to today’s motion. Its practical effect would be to reduce the number of best value indicators to a level that would render them absolutely meaningless. That is not the wish of the administration here, or of the Welsh Local Government Association.

This Assembly Government always learns from experience. We implemented a set of indicators last year and we learned from that. We worked with our partners to take the framework forward. There is a wide consensus that this set of indicators is fit for its purpose. We will continue to learn from experience, and in due course we will propose, with our partners, further changes, if necessary.

The amendment represents the Tory way of doing things, William. You never learn from experience, you always know the answer before you ask the question, and you will never understand our partnership arrangement. I ask everybody to reject William’s amendment.

The Welsh Conservatives broadly welcome the Minister’s commitment this afternoon to reduce the number of these indicators. One of the major flaws in the scheme was exposed by the Audit Commission last October. It reported on the 22 unitary authorities and three national parks in Wales, and the commission qualified 28 per cent of these 25 reports because they had significant concerns about their failure to meet statutory requirements.

The Audit Commission, in its latest report, which was published this month, expressed concern in the

and that the

It also states that:

Once again the ratepayer is being done down. It is a well-intended idea that is distorted into an instrument of bureaucracy, inspection and central control, instead of sensible guidelines on outsourcing and efficiency. In other words it means more tick-boxes and audits, which have already contributed to a huge increase in paperwork, red tape, statutory plans and politically-correct procedures, with controls cascading down from local government. In 1997, 4 per cent of total central support came in the form of specific grants. By 2001, this has risen to 10 per cent. Local government studies show that compulsory competitive tendering has led to average savings of 7 per cent, with average savings of only 2 per cent from Best Value. In January 2000, the Audit Commission published a consultation paper estimating that Best Value audit and inspection fees will cost councils in England and Wales a total of £56 million. Under Best Value, there are no general compulsory competitive tendering requirements for councils.

I note the comments of David Jenkins, the General Secretary of Wales TUC. He believes that ‘better value Wales’ appears to be

I would ask where has David Jenkins been since May 1999?

You will recall that Peter Law has said, on several occasions, that the council tax burden on his constituents is so high because Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council runs the local theatre and training centre. If those services had been offered out to tender, the overall council tax burden would perhaps have been reduced. I draw your attention, Peter, to Torfaen County Borough Council, which released the Congress Theatre at Cwmbran into the care of a theatre trust, which continues to attract local, national and international artists, financed almost entirely by ticket sales. Many other services would continue to deliver effectively, if freed from local authority control. Many local authority services would also continue to deliver effectively if freed from bureaucratic regulations and Best Value performance indicators. That is why the Assembly must commit to a further reduction of these indicators for the next financial year.

The Liberal Democrats fully support the proposal to reduce the number of Best Value performance indicators for several reasons. First, it removes several indicators that, important as they were, did not add value to the evaluation of a local council’s performance by the public or by politicians. Secondly, it reduces the burden on local councils in terms of the collection and publication of information and allows them to focus on their own performance and how it is enhancing the quality of life of their citizens. Thirdly, the proposal encourages local authorities to think in a cross-cutting way about the services that they are providing. This will support their new community planning responsibilities. Fourthly, the smaller number of indicators will enable councillors and the public to have a clearer view of progress being made. Finally, together with the development of local performance indicators, these changes will aid the development of policy agreements based on outcomes and enable the Assembly and local councils to work in partnership to improve services.

William Graham’s amendment 1 is, of course, very much tongue-in-cheek. No matter how much the Tories detest Best Value, they would not wish us to reduce the number of indicators next year to minus 4, which is the actual effect of the amendment. After all, it was the previous Conservative Government that first oversaw a huge increase in the number of indicators published by local councils, and introduced the requirement to publish them in local newspapers. The Local Government Act 1992 introduced 77 main indicators, comprising 202 secondary indicators, which were a huge burden on local councils and which we are in the process of putting right with this Order. The increase introduced new burdens on councils without any real focus on the quality of services or their improvement and which, with compulsory competitive tendering, added significant and artificial costs to the administration of the regime.

The previous Government’s obsession with compulsory competitive tendering, taken with the squeeze exerted on local government finance, saw an emphasis on cost, while the quality of services declined. Smaller class sizes, crumbling schools and cuts in home-help provision were accompanied by less frequent grasscutting, backlogs of council house maintenance, potholed roads, dangerous pavements and refuse collection services and street cleansing working to meet impossible targets. The Tory policy was very much ‘never mind the quality, look at the price’.

The fact that we are moving away from that is to be welcomed. Best Value should be about value for money and continuous improvement. To achieve that, we must get the balance right between local control and the regulation and inspection regime. This Order is the first step in achieving that, which I welcome.

Plaid Cymru also welcomes the proposal to reduce the number of Best Value performance indicators but, like Peter Black, we need clarification as to whether or not this amendment seeks to move to a minus number of indicators next year. Does the Tory Party intend to get rid of all the indicators? While the Minister said that she would reconsider them, we are pleased that she has been able to reduce them this year, and that she will keep them under review and, perhaps reduce them if necessary. We would support a further reduction, if that were necessary, but not the total reduction that this amendment seems to indicate.

It is important that these indicators are presented to the public in a way that they will understand. There is no point using them simply to produce a league table of councils—setting council against council. Councils must be able to measure how well they are doing and how they need to improve, and not be measured against each other. Therefore, as we have mentioned on many occasions, we would not welcome any kind of move to compare Welsh counties with English ones. Comparing Welsh counties with each other is acceptable, but comparing Welsh counties with English ones is not.

When these indicators are reviewed next year, as the Minister promised, we would also like to see a change in how they are drawn, moving away from measuring quantity and output. We would like to see whether there is a way of encouraging councils—because these indicators will inevitably drive budgets in some areas—to use them to produce quality work. The easy example is homelessness. It is easy to count the number of homeless people that are placed in a home, but it may be better to count the number of people who are maintained, over a period of time, in that placement. That would encourage councils not only to put the money into providing homeless accommodation, but also to provide the support that those placements need to be maintained. That could be used in many different ways.

Plaid Cymru would also like to see—and we have always said this—whether there is any way of using these indicators to measure the best value that is produced for the local community, in terms of using local firms and sourcing materials locally. Can the indicators be developed to measure that? We will support the Order, but we would like clarification on the amendment.

I am pleased to welcome this Order. It fulfils a promise that I made last year that these performance indicators would be reduced. I remember that debate, and the Minister has fulfilled that promise following the productive debates and discussions that she has had with our partners in the Welsh Local Government Association over the last year. We now have a much more reasonable number of performance indicators, which are in the interest of the council tax payers of Wales who want efficient services of the best quality standards. That is what we, and the WLGA, stand for, which is why this Order should be welcomed today.

If it were not so sad, the Conservative amendment would be laughable. As Peter Black indicated—and I do not quote him lightly—it equates to minus four, which shows how much thought William Graham put into drafting that amendment. It is a bit rich for Tories to talk of rate payers being hard done by, and of increases in paper work and red tape when they were not satisfied with having one health trust when two would do. They also invented the poll tax. Do we all remember the poll tax? They seem to have forgotten about it—[Interruption.] Yes, I know you are proud of that.

When we listen to them, and refer to those days of compulsory competitive tendering that Peter Black mentioned, and think of how divisive that was, how on earth can their comments have any credibility this afternoon? Talking of CCT, in Blaenau Gwent there were two men and a dog in an ex-post office van running the parks. There was no image, service nor hope, which probably sums up the current Tory Party. When Uncle Mott spoke earlier, Brian Gibbons referred to the Tory amendments as ‘inappropriate and unworkable’ and you could apply those words to the entire party. They know that; they are the CCT of this Assembly—the Tory seats won by proportional representation are not best value by any means. They resemble seven men and a dog. That is the effect of PR for the Tory group. I note William Graham’s comment about the Market Hall Cinema in Brynmawr being run by a theatre trust. I am proud that Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council runs that cinema, or we would not have a cinema or theatre at all. However, I do not think that we are in the same league as the Congress Theatre in Cwmbran.

Will you give way?

Yes, I would be delighted. I wondered where you were.

I only wanted to share one comment with Peter. My Uncle Mott was strikingly similar to him. I think we need to remember that. [Laughter.]

I cannot comment on that. However, before you came in, I was commenting about your earlier submission to the Deputy Minister for Health, which was unworkable and inappropriate and which I said was similar to the party you represent. We have an opportunity to work with the WLGA and the Audit Commission to ensure that we are giving even better value for money and better service to our council tax payers. The Order presented by the Minister today enables that. I am pleased to support it.

In considering William’s contribution, it is important to acknowledge that when we look at Best Value in the narrow context of what the Audit Commission may or may not have said about local government, we must realise that it is a new concept. Local authorities must get used to it, and, more importantly, they must respond to it. They must respond to its outcomes, which was Janet’s point. We need to see what services have been delivered in terms of Best Value. We must ensure that Best Value inspections are carried out on larger service areas as well as the tiny ones that require much work. We can, then, see how the Assembly and social services departments deal with bed-blocking, education and other larger areas that are required in terms of Best Value.

William also talked about CCT as if it were some golden era. Best Value is a far better service and delivery framework. It looks for the four Cs—challenge, compare, consult and competition—when reviewing authorities’ delivery of service. It has a wider service focus and allows for consideration of the quality of authorities’ services rather than cost. That is relevant to some of Peter Law’s points about how Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council has had to provide quality areas of service in a socially deprived area.

Following on from Peter Black’s point on policy agreement, Best Value supports the high-level outcomes in the agreement. This allows for annual assessment of progress in the majority of high-level policy agreement targets. Policy agreements are part and parcel of the Best Value approach. The fact that we are not propagating the local government settlement this year is a sign of the maturity of the arrangements with Welsh local government, so that we can move forward in partnership. I ask Members not to support William Graham’s amendment 1 and to support the regulations.

Nothing in this motion will have the effect of reducing the pre-eminence of the authority of the full Assembly or of reducing the role of the Assembly Committees in the exercise of the above functions.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment made the regulations on 9 March 2001 and they will come into force on 1 April 2001. These regulations enable the National Assembly to exercise, in relation to Wales, functions relating to the administration of the European social fund. Those functions could be summed up as managing the programme, approving projects, authorising payments, monitoring and auditing. The purpose of the motion is to seek the Assembly’s agreement to the functions being delegated to the First Minister. This delegation will be made in the knowledge that those functions will be further delegated to myself and onward to staff.

The European social fund is an important element of structural funds programmes in Wales. It funds a third of the west Wales and Valleys Objective 1 programme and all of the east Wales Objective 3 programme. ESF is an important tool in raising skill levels and getting unemployed people back into work. It is important for the Assembly to complete its powers of responsibility for the administration of the European structural funds. Responsibility for certain functions in relation to the European regional development fund, the financial instrument for fisheries guidance and the guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund was transferred in May 2000. Therefore, the transfer of the European social fund completes this process.

Administratively and presentationally, it will be important for the Wales European Funding Office to be able to issue project approval letters to project promoters in Wales on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales. To date, the Department for Education and Employment have issued such letters.

Delegation, therefore, should be a routine matter. The Government of Wales Act 1998 recognises that the Assembly may need to delegate its functions in the interests of administrative efficiency. This motion is no different from many considered and adopted previously.

I ask the Assembly to reject the amendment, on the grounds that it is impossible and redundant.

I have noticed a difference between the last two or three delegation of functions Orders and those considered previously, namely the additional sentence,

‘Nothing in this motion will have the effect of reducing the pre-eminence of the authority of the full Assembly or of reducing the role of the Assembly Committees in the exercise of the above functions.’

Will you explain why the words ‘Assembly Committees in the exercise of the above functions’ are needed in this motion?

I proposed that change when we discussed the delegation of functions for the first time. The reason for the reference to Committees and to the Assembly is that the Committees have a policy-making role—clearly undefined, as you know—and this is about policy making that relates to training and skills matters that come before the Assembly.

This is about the exercise of functions that are being delegated, not policy development. Those are two different matters.

The functions that arise from the European social fund relate to National Assembly policies, as the ESF relates to training and skills development. The Education and Lifelong Learning Committee and the Economic Development Committee can, rightly, comment and act upon such issues. One of the key areas of Future Skills Wales relates closely to the European social fund and its functions, so that connecting the two is important.

I ask you to reject the amendment because it is impossible and redundant. Plaid Cymru’s amendment skilfully rewrites the partnership agreement. I ask you to have the amendment in front of you while I read the partnership agreement, so that you can compare one with the other. That will help you to understand why the amendment is impossible. The partnership agreement states:

‘We will also seek provision from the UK Government for the appropriate additional resources that may, from time to time, be necessary to ensure that we are able to draw down the full available amount of EU structural funding. In order to ensure clarity about the level of these requirements, we will establish a full ongoing audit of the European funding process. Any significant shortfall identified by the audit could lead to an in-year bid on the Treasury reserve.’

A key difference between that quotation and amendment 1 is that Plaid Cymru has added the word ‘successful’. We cannot guarantee that the Treasury will provide funding whenever the Assembly requires it. I hope that Plaid Cymru will withdraw this amendment, as it is redundant in the terms of the agreement that we have reached with the Treasury, which are as follows. The rules for carry-forward of unspent provision into future years is the same for structural funds as for any other element of unspent departmental expenditure limit provision. In addition, and unexceptionally in the case of structural funds payments, if requests for payments exceed forecasts, and thus provision for structural funds in that year, the Assembly may request that up to 20 per cent of the following year’s provision for structural funds be brought forward to meet that need. That is subject to the departmental expenditure limit provision being reduced in the following year by the same amount so that there is no overall increase across the two years. If claims exceeded provision in year one, the Assembly could apply for access to the reserve to draw up to 20 per cent of the year two provision. In that respect, we have completed the requirement in the partnership agreement and secured that agreement, therefore rendering amendment 1 redundant. I hope that Plaid Cymru will withdraw it.

As the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development acknowledged, the wording of the amendment is based on the wording of the partnership agreement. Wishing for success seems to be the sort of ambition that the Assembly could celebrate. We tabled the motion because it focuses on two flaws in the comprehensive spending review settlement that have an impact on this transfer.

To understand the implications of the transfer, it is useful to review the present situation. Up until this month, all European social funds have been passed on to Wales via the Department for Education and Employment. To be fair, the evidence is that, since 1994, the ESF money drawn down from Europe for projects in Wales was more or less entirely passed on. This was in addition to the Barnett block. The grants were paid according to the year to year expenditure, not according to a fixed pre-set budget. In other words, from Wales’s point of view, it was equivalent to an annual managed expenditure not a departmental expenditure limit. That is in stark contrast to the regional development money, which was taken out of the Barnett block. As we now know, not a single extra penny reached Wales as a result of that.

We now have a transfer of responsibility, with a transfer of a fixed sum of £149 million to cover years two, three and four of the ESF programme. We welcome the transfer of responsibility. It would have been completely absurd to administer part of Objective 1 through the National Assembly and another part of it through DfEE. This transfer, which was planned for 1998, is long overdue. However, the transfer of financial responsibility raises two questions. First, is the transferred budget adequate? Secondly, if it is not, what is the appropriate procedure?

When we predicted the likely spending profile of European grants, the disagreement between the Government and Plaid Cymru is on record. The Government predicted a shortage of projects and a slow take-up. Indeed, I was blamed for discouraging valid projects. So, according to Government predictions, even by year four, we would only have reached 74 per cent of the average spend over the whole period. Plaid Cymru predicted a more rapid build-up, so that by the end of year two we would be spending at the average rate. If I can personalise this, either Rhodri’s sums were correct or mine were. Despite the delayed start, and despite an acute shortage of public sector match funding, it is clear that hundreds of valid projects have been proposed. It is certain that not all of them will be funded. Some measures in the programme complement are already oversubscribed. On the one occasion when I had the opportunity to chair half a meeting of the Programme Monitoring Committee, the main problem raised was the number of valid applications. I take no pleasure in reporting that Plaid Cymru’s sums seem to be closer to the truth than those of the Government. I notice, in answer to the point that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development made, that the finance department has written to the Treasury rehearsing the existing mechanism for bringing the spend forward by 25 per cent in the first year and 20 per cent in the next. However, over the four-year period it does not provide a single extra penny, because it is all taken out of the fourth year. Therefore, that will not solve the problem.

We have received an allocation, therefore, to fund the European social fund over the first four years of the programme. I estimate—although there is uncertainty in this figure, because we need to know the breakdown of the overhang commitments—that we have a shortfall of about £80 million. There is not enough to fund the ESF component of the new programme let alone the overhang.

It is ironic that if responsibility had remained with the Department for Education and Employment, we would have received all the valid ESF grants on top of Barnett; about £80 million more than we will receive through this fixed departmental expenditure limit budget. In essence, the actual extra funding that we received in the comprehensive spending review on top of Barnett is much less than it first appeared.

Recently the Government had the audacity to suggest that Plaid Cymru did not understand the difference between AME and DEL. If the Government, as is claimed, intended to pass on all the European grants drawn down for projects in Wales—and that is why it put the word ‘successful’ in the amendment—and if there was uncertainty in the projected spend, why did it not adopt our advice and obtain the European money as an annually managed expenditure as applies to so many others?

Due to the failure to obtain enough money and because of the inappropriate mechanism of funding such an uncertain budget as a department expenditure limit we now need to bail out the shortfall by robbing other budgets, especially education. How can the Government, through the existing mechanisms, remedy the mistakes made at the time of the CSR? It can only be done through the mechanism suggested in the partnership agreement, which is enshrined in our amendment.

The principle of administering ESF at a Wales level was adopted by the former Secretary of State for Wales, the Right Honourable William Hague MP, leader of the Conservative party and its general election campaign. He committed to this. However, I regret that it has taken three Secretaries of States, four Welsh Office Ministers, two First Ministers and four years to deliver it. To add insult to injury to the Labour backbenchers, a Liberal Democrat has been given the opportunity to come before the Assembly to propose the motion.

As the Deputy First Minister pointed out, this makes the ESF an integral part of Objective 1 and other European programmes. I express concern, however, that the quality of the Objective 1 schemes, particularly the ESF schemes, has not been of the highest standard. This is an opportunity for him to correct that. If, as he said, it gives the Wales European Funding Office rights to issue the project approval letters, and if he is depending on its administration, then I do not hold too much hope in that regard.

The purpose of this motion is to delegate functions to the First Minister. Bearing in mind the recent leaked letter, in which the Government thought to abdicate responsibility on Objective 1 to the chairmen of the respective Programming Monitoring Committees, I would like to remind them that the motion clearly reads, ‘the delegation of function of ESF to the First Minister.’ We may well use this quotation again and remind the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of this when another crisis occurs in relation to structural funds. We are happy to support the nationalists’ amendment. We welcome the delegation of functions, not least because it was the Right Honourable William Hague MP who was originally committed to it; a Secretary of State, some might argue, who truly reflected devolution.

Alun, your crisis is of your own making, as you rightly admit. I take this opportunity to correct you. The approved ESF projects are of a high quality and you will know that the Objective 3 Monitoring Committee—

I am not giving way. You wanted me to correct you, and I am doing so. The Objective 3 Monitoring Committee sent back projects to be revised where they fell below the quality threshold, which they decided to follow through. I also note that you do not like letters to be dealt with by the people to whom they were addressed.

I will deal now with the matter of substance, which is whether Wales will get all its ESF money. As I made clear to the Economic Development Committee on 7 March, if we need more money than was forecasted—and there is money in the budget—and if provision for structural funds in that year exceeds the money in the budget, we have an agreement with the Treasury that we can request up to 20 per cent of the following year’s provision for structural funds to be brought forward to meet that need. In other words, if the money is there, and if we need it, we can bring it forward.

Do you accept that that figure is 25 per cent in the first year taken from the next year, 20 per cent in the second year from the next year, but it does not add to the total available over the entire period, so there would then be a shortfall on the last year? Is that not the case?

I do not accept that because the total amount of money will be paid, and as you realise it will be the eighth or perhaps, even the ninth year before we reach the final payments. Therefore, that goes beyond the programme’s lifespan. We get the first payment back in the seventh year provided that the Government accepts that from now on, all the European money will be additional to the Barnett block. We currently have the security of knowing that we will have that in future years; the Assembly would take a different view if that were not the case. With that guarantee, I reject Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 1.

I request that the bell be rung to call Members to vote.