I propose that

The proposed legislation is to exclude from Class B8 (storage or distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, use of building or land for the storage of, or as a distribution centre for, radioactive material and waste if the building or other land is situated in Wales. This is a Wales-only Order. It follows on from Christine Gwyther’s motion, which was carried in Plenary on 6 March 2001, which instructed me to bring forward such legislation. Her motion was as follows:

‘The Assembly resolves to instruct the Minister for Environment to bring forward subordinate legislation, the effect of which will be to amend the Use Classes Order of 1987 to exclude the storage of radioactive material from Class B8 (storage and distribution).

The objective to be achieved is that future proposals for storage and distribution facilities would not allow storage of radioactive materials unless planning application specifically is applied for and granted.

This is a complicated area of planning regulation. The Use Classes Order describes classes of use for the purposes of identifying development under planning legislation where a planning application must be made for development. Changing the use of a building or other land does not involve development if the new use and former use are within the same specified class. It is important to understand that.

The intended effect of the amendment to the Use Classes Order is to insert a new provision into Article 3 providing that, when a building or land is situated in Wales, Class B8 does not include use for the storage of, or as a distribution centre for, radioactive material or waste.

Proposals involving the storage of radioactive waste would usually involve a planning application. Local planning authorities and the Assembly can have a direct role in that process. Such proposals could be determined by the local planning authority or by the National Assembly if called in.

Some forms of land use development may not require planning consent; for example, certain changes of use, from industry to storage. There have been suggestions that that could, possibly, be a loophole, allowing for factories to be used for storing radioactive waste without planning consent. As regards the storage of radioactive waste, an environmental statement would be required under Schedule 1 or 2 to the environmental impact assessment regulations. If an environment statement is required, the permitted development rights would be overridden. A planning application would be also be required in addition to the environment statement.

In addition to planning controls, HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Environment Agency exercise other controls on the storage of radioactive waste. These controls would not be affected by the proposed change. Some of these powers exercised by the inspectorate are not devolved but others exercised by the Environment Agency are an Assembly responsibility.

The only situation in which the storage of radioactive waste might be possible without planning consent is in the case of changes from types of storage. The current B8 storage class under the Use Classes Order does not differentiate between the types of materials stored; therefore materials stored on land or in buildings can be changed without ‘development’ being involved. Removing the storage of radioactive material from the B8 category of the Use Classes Order 1987 could help to ensure that proposals to change the use of land from storage of one type of material to the storage of radioactive material could not go ahead automatically without planning permission and consideration being given to the environmental impact assessment.

The effect of the Use Classes Order is entirely permissive. It does not follow that excluding the storage of certain materials would always mean that ‘development’ was involved and hence that a planning application would be required. The question in each case would be whether there had been a material change in the use of the land or building. Each case would be determined on a matter of fact and degree. I urge Assembly Members to approve the draft Order.

Plaid Cymru supports this motion. I tried my best to follow that long and complicated explanation. It is important to ensure that the distribution and storage of radioactive waste and material is as tightly controlled as possible, for everybody’s sake.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats also support this draft Order, as radioactive waste should be treated differently to non-radioactive waste. Given the heightened tensions following the atrocities of 11 September, and the danger of the ‘dirty bomb’—where radioactive material is placed next to explosive material to spread it as widely as possible—we support moves to increase the security of radioactive materials.

The plan to use Trecŵn in Pembrokeshire as a site to dump nuclear waste was met with widespread local condemnation; a local petition has received around 30,000 signatures. This Order will prevent the area from becoming a dumping site, and will contribute to a nuclear-free Wales. It will also help to protect health, the environment, local economies and security, and we hope that it achieves the cross-party support that it deserves.

During the Easter recess, I attended a meeting of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary body in Dublin, where we ratified a report highlighting grave concerns about Sellafield, particularly its role in reprocessing global radioactive waste and its inherent storage problems. Therefore, I am well aware that this is a contentious issue. We support this Order.

The Welsh Conservatives recognise that members of the public can sometimes become hysterical over issues relating to radioactive waste, and there is a danger that some less responsible politicians and political pressure groups will be only too happy to exploit that. It is important to take a balanced view. However, in view of the public’s concern over the potential storage of radioactive waste, it seems right and proper that storage is a matter for the planning process. Therefore we will support the motion.

Two days ago, a member of the Welsh Conservative group said in the Chamber that he thought that politicians should not have anything to do with legislation. I hope that he has since changed his mind—although he is not here to tell me so—as I seek the support of all Members for this subordinate legislation.

Members will recall the situation at Trecŵn in Pembrokeshire, where the valley, including a series of tunnels, was purchased by Omega Pacific, ostensibly to develop an aero engine refurbishment depot. The site had previously been given class B8 planning permission for storage, because the tunnels are ideal for a data repository or for storing cheese and wine, which all sounds benign. However, having acquired the site at a knock-down price from the Ministry of Defence, Omega Pacific signalled its early intention to market the site as a nuclear waste storage facility, using the tunnels as deep dumping ground. It could do that because class B8 planning permission meant that anything could be stored.

That signal of intent has had disastrous economic consequences for the surrounding farms, hotels and businesses and has affected house prices. It is a clear case of planning blight, where the presumption of an activity is causing untold harm and distress to those people who must live with it.

Sue has already highlighted that the Environment Agency regulates the safe storage, discharge and disposal of radioactive materials and, in Wales, the agency answers to Sue Essex. Should anyone apply to the agency for a licence to store such material, the water table and other aspects of the valley’s geology would have to be examined. In my opinion—and that of the people who know the site well—such an examination would find it unsuitable for the storage of toxic material. No application has yet been made for such a licence, and the possibility continues to hang like a cloud over the valley and surrounding area.

This legislation will delete the storage of radioactive materials from the catch-all class B8 planning regulation. As Sue said, any proposal to change storage use from one type of material to radioactive material cannot go ahead automatically, without the need for planning consent and a proper impact assessment.

If we pass this legislation today, it will mean that communities across Wales will have more control over their own destiny, in terms of the storage of nuclear waste. As well as discussing the matter in public meetings, as was done in Pembrokeshire, councils will be able to voice their objections formally, in their own chambers. It is a simple piece of legislation, which will give power to the elbow of local communities, when and where they need it most. It is precisely the sort of legislation with which politicians should be involved. I hope that the Assembly will support it.

I thank Members for their contributions and support. I commend Christine Gwyther for using the opportunity of the ballot to bring this issue to the Assembly’s attention and suggest this legislation. I also commend Richard Edwards, in his absence, for his long-term support for people in the Trecŵn area. As Christine said, this shows the Assembly in a good light. Post-devolution, a Member can use the opportunity offered by the Assembly to respond to an issue of local concern. We can plug what most people felt was a loophole in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. The legislation proposed today is Wales-only legislation and responds to the needs of people in that part of Pembrokeshire. I have received many representations over the last few years from local residents and empathise with their situation. This is a small and simple piece of legislation but, nevertheless, it is one that we hope will be effective. I thank Christine Gwyther for bringing the issue forward.

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

These three statutory instruments are interrelated and have been drafted in light of the approach recommended by the independent expert group on mobile phones—most people will know this as the Stewart report. The National Assembly and the UK Government have accepted this approach, and the proposals follow my announcement on 6 April last year, when I outlined a package of measures. These measures have regard to the outcome of wide public consultation, particularly the major concern expressed about lack of public consultation on the siting of telecommunication masts.

I will outline each instrument. The statutory instrument amending the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 improves existing procedures for prior approval applications for telecommunication development under part 24 of schedule 2. The main effects of the amendments are as follows. They greatly strengthen the current public consultation requirements on proposals for masts of 15m and below, so that they are the same for applications for masts above that height, which already need full planning permission. They increase the time for local planning authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 42 days to 56 days for ground-based masts, and from 28 days to 56 days for masts on buildings. They also extend the prior approval arrangements to cover antennas on a building or other structure where the height of the antennas would exceed the height of the building or structure by 4m or more, and require prior approval applications that involve the construction or installation of one or more antennas to be accompanied by a declaration that the equipment and installation, when constructed or installed, will operate in full compliance with the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection on limiting exposure. A similar amendment requiring a declaration to be submitted for equipment requiring planning permission is also being made to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

The amendment will also require prior approval applications and evidence that the operator has notified the Civil Aviation Authority, the Secretary of State for Defence, or the aerodrome operator, where the proposed mast is to be located within 3 km of the perimeter of an aerodrome. I hope that all Members will support these motions.

For many years, better control over the siting of telecommunications masts has been needed. The small amount of influence that planning authorities have over this issue has been quite distressing at times. Concern about radiation has been widespread and therefore the requirement of a written declaration of compliance with the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection is important. However, it is perhaps more of a precautionary principle than a reality. Some people do not have a choice about being exposed to radiation when a mast is suddenly erected close to their house or child’s school. Using mobile phones probably fries people’s brains around 100,000 times quicker than being near a mobile phone mast, and most people do not seem to mind that. Nevertheless, it is important that people are not compulsorily exposed to such radiation.

The telecommunications industry voluntarily accepts this obligation, but it is important that it also has legal standing. Landscape protection must also be considered because, in some areas, mobile phone masts have been sited in prominent positions. Although many people want mobile phones, there can be quite a high cost in terms of landscape degradation. Trying to persuade the various mobile phone companies to use the same masts is important—

I know that Janet is being slightly frivolous in describing the effect of mobile phones as frying the brain. However, for the record, it is important to state that the effect of mobile phones and so on is marginal, and the subject of major scientific dispute. It would not be appropriate for Janet’s comment to go on the record unchallenged, although I appreciate the spirit in which it was made.

I understand Brian’s comment; however it is a serious point, even if it was put in a rather frivolous way. Some authorities feel that frequent and constant use of mobile phones is dangerous. If you are happier for me to put my point in those terms, I am prepared to do so.

It is important to persuade companies to use one mast in one area to try to reduce the impact on the landscape. I have concerns about whether these changes will be adequate, but it is important that these measures are implemented and then reviewed at a later date. Plaid Cymru will support the motion.

I also welcome this legislation, which is long overdue. I pay tribute to the Minister for listening to the concerns expressed to her about the siting of mobile phone masts, and for bringing this legislation forward as a result. There is great concern in Wales about the siting of mobile phone masts. Whether that is justified is a matter of scientific dispute, as Brian said, and is the subject of research by the Department of Health at a UK level. However, the fact that a mast below the height of 15m can be suddenly raised within yards of schools or residential areas has caused much anxiety and led to protests by many communities. Introducing a consultation period of 56 days and the associated legislation is vital to enable local communities and people to have their say and to ensure that they are properly consulted on what is sited near to their homes. A problem regarding this issue in the past—

Yr wyf yn falch eich bod yn cydnabod y bygythiad i iechyd ac yn rhoi sylw teilwng iddo. Fodd bynnag, yr wyf yn siomedig nad yw’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol yn rhoi’r un sylw i’r bygythiad i iechyd plant pan gaiff ysgolion eu hadeiladu ar dir halogedig yng Nghymru.

You are being slightly disingenuous, Gareth, because, as you know, that matter has already been debated in the Assembly. We are discussing mobile phone masts today, not contaminated land. The Minister gave a full reply to that debate and undertook to consider the matter further and appropriate measures may result from that. However, this debate is not about that issue.

The fact that practice in Wales is inconsistent is a cause for concern. Some councils have used consultation well, whereas others have not. Some have shrugged their shoulders and said, ‘It’s not down to us, but down to the fact that the telephone operator or the Assembly do not require consultation’. The fact that the Assembly is now giving clear guidance is important and will benefit everyone.

In terms of future mobile phone masts, research on the health risks of siting mobile phone masts close to residential areas is ongoing and the subject of dispute, but there are real concerns about the issue. Case law indicates that health concerns can be a material factor in considering planning consent. Several councils will not take that case law into account and are looking to the Assembly for guidance on dealing with those serious health concerns and whether they should be considered in the planning process. I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether she will consider this matter and sound out the mobile phone companies and local councils on how it can be approached.

The fact that the siting of masts under 15m in height is not subject to proper planning regulations is a loophole in planning law. That is wrong, and I am sure that the matter has filled the mailboxes of many Assembly Members—it has filled mine. The Welsh Conservatives are therefore happy to support these motions today and pleased that the public will, hopefully, be reassured about the radioactive content of radiowaves—I am not sure of the correct terminology—and the safety of the masts. Further legislation will, hopefully, be proposed to encourage more companies to share masts in future, as that does not happen as often as it could at present.

The Minister is probably fed up of me raising this issue. I welcome this legislation and agree with the comments made by Janet Davies, Peter Black and David Davies. Residents will now at least be given more time to consider the implications of planning applications for masts in their area. I join Peter Black in asking the Minister to consider the possibility of requiring health impact reports to be compiled as part of the planning application. I also urge the operators to consider sharing masts, which they seem to be resisting. Any action that the Minister can take to encourage operators to share masts would be welcome. The Waverly Care Centre in Penarth has a multitude of masts and is close to a children’s nursery, a playground and several residential homes for the elderly. It is causing a great deal of concern and has a visual impact on the coastline. The planning authority seems to feel constrained by having to consider planning applications purely on planning grounds. It cannot consider the health impact of siting masts in such an area. Any action that the Minister can take, in addition to the legislation being proposed today, will be more than welcome.

This issue has concerned many people throughout Wales for a long time. I am delighted that the Minister has proposed this legislation today. It is a good example of how we can further use our powers, as Christine Gwyther’s excellent suggestion on planning applications for Class B8 indicated, which has now been included in legislation. Landscape throughout Wales has been despoiled by mobile phone masts. Many people are concerned that everyone seems powerless to take action. I welcome these regulations and the fact that more notice will be given to people and declarations will be required. I agree with the comments about requiring health impact statements, which have been called for for some time. Any action that the Assembly Government can take to ensure that such statements are provided will be appreciated. Beautiful areas in Wales are being completely spoiled by masts appearing overnight. Action needs to be taken and, therefore, I welcome the legislation.

We have considered this issue carefully and the Minister for Health and Social Services has been involved in the discussions. As Members have said today, we all have constituents who are concerned about the proliferation of masts. Notwithstanding the fact that most Members, if not all, use mobile phones, and that mobile phones are part of the economy, we must find a balanced way forward.

We have made major strides forward, not only through this legislation, but also by working with the Federation of the Electronics Industry. It has produced a leaflet—I can provide copies for Members if they wish—on its 10 commitments. I have its guarantee that if we feel—

Peter Law’s comments about masts being sited in scenic areas are important. In order to inform ourselves on the subject of this debate, do you know what the current level of mobile phone coverage is in Wales? Many valley communities often cannot receive mobile phone signals and are therefore socially excluded because they cannot use mobile phones. The same situation seems to exist in large parts of mid-Wales. What is your estimate of the areas in Wales that are unable to receive signals?

You are right that large parts of Wales cannot receive signals and people in those areas feel excluded, because they cannot get the benefit of access to the mobile phone network. There is a database of such information, but I cannot give you exact figures today. In my meetings with the industry, it says that it is aiming for complete coverage in Wales. That does not always mean a proliferation of masts in urban areas, as advances in the industry mean that some masts can be removed. If masts are shared, their numbers can be reduced; that issue, which Lorraine mentioned, is important. The electronics industry has said that, if people feel that it is not adhering to its 10 commitments, they should contact the industry. Therefore, in addition to the fact that the Assembly is taking a step forward through this legislation, the industry has also taken a step forward.

Janet’s point about perception is important, and that concern is voiced by constituents. They are worried about health risks and that is why the Stewart report was so important. Our legislation is based on that report’s findings; that has been fundamental. We will monitor the outcome of the legislation. If it needs to be reviewed, I will consider that. Peter Black mentioned inconsistent practice across Wales and we are considering that in light of the short debate on the issue. We have contacted all the local authorities in Wales and there are different views on what is happening and the different processes. ‘Technical Advice Note 19’, which will be published shortly after this legislation is, hopefully, accepted and will ensure a more consistent approach across Wales.

I also remind you that the recently published ‘Planning Guidance (Wales)’ refers to the fact that health impact is a material factor in planning considerations. Therefore, local authorities can consider that.

Part of the legislation is the declaration of compliance with the guidelines. The Legislation Committee had some concerns about whether we could legally request this compliance. Our legal advice is that we can. It is important that we stick to that and, therefore, we will go ahead with the compliance requirement. I assure Members that the Government has set up a £7 million follow-on research programme, which will consider health implications. Members will know that we are also researching the relationship between environmental and health issues and how they interface with the planning system.

The visual impact of these masts has caused great concern. I have discussed with Lorraine the Waverley Care Centre in her constituency. If local authorities feel that the visual impact is unacceptable, they have grounds to refuse permission, but they will have to justify that decision. That option is available, and it is for local communities and authorities to judge on it.

On Peter Law’s point, we are considering the Stewart report and are awaiting further research. The Stewart report has considered these issues and the issue of consultation, which is fundamental to ensuring that local communities have their say and can make positive suggestions about improvement. That relates to the database and sharing masts. These measures improve the situation, but we must be vigilant and ensure that these regulations are enforced and that there is a consistent approach throughout Wales.

I declare an interest as someone who has phone masts on his farm.

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

I propose that

With your permission, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will take a moment to recall the fact that Val Feld died a year ago this week. Last year, we used our final session of the term to remember her contribution to the National Assembly for Wales. I am sure that Members will join me in remembering Val and her family today.

These regulations will significantly tighten health authority procedures for the listing of general medical practitioners, dentists and opticians. This is the first wave of post-Harold Shipman probity reforms for primary care practitioners in Wales. For the first time, non-principal general medical practitioners will be required to be listed with a health authority. They will be subject to the same level of checks and validations as principal general medical practitioners. The regulations require new applicants and existing practitioners to declare any past criminal convictions, police cautions or professional investigations with an adverse outcome. Health authorities will be required to check, as far as practicable, the declarations of practitioners and new applicants. With the applicant’s consent, an enhanced criminal record certificate will be requested from the Criminal Records Bureau to validate the information that they supply. Listed practitioners will be required to notify the health authority, within seven days, of a conviction for any criminal offence, of having received a police caution or having been bound over to keep the peace. They will also have to notify the health authority if they become subject to investigation by any professional body or the NHS Counter Fraud Service.

The regulations will provide new powers to health authorities to refuse a practitioner admission or place conditions on their admission to the medical list on the grounds of fraud, deficiency and/or unsuitability. They also provide new powers for health authorities to remove a practitioner from the medical list or place conditions on his or her remaining on the medical list on the grounds of fraud, deficiency and unsuitability as well as to suspend, with pay, a practitioner from the medical list, when they are a risk to the public, or if it is in the public’s interest. The practitioner has the right to a hearing with the health authority before being suspended, removed or contingently removed and a right of appeal to an independent body—the Family Health Services Appeal Authority. A requirement is placed on practitioners to declare criminal convictions and investigations into their professional behaviour. Health authorities are required to take up references and validate the declarations supplied. The regulations are the first step to ensuring that proper checks are in place to validate the moral, ethical and professional integrity and conduct of primary care practitioners and to protect vulnerable members of society.

The practitioners that we are discussing this morning are some of the most well-respected people in society, but unfortunately the Shipman case highlighted, most appallingly, how problems can arise when someone of that ilk is determined to abuse the trust of their patients. We welcome these regulations.

The Welsh Conservative Party welcomes these regulations. Patients will now have even more confidence in the integrity of the clinicians that protect and promote their health. No-one has anything to fear from these regulations and they will not undermine the standing in which the majority of medical practitioners are held. However, it is important that the system is robust. We expect as much in other fields of life and it is appropriate that that should now be applied to medical professions.

I declare an interest as a non-principal GP. These are entirely sensible regulations and Plaid Cymru supports them.

I welcome the constructive points made by Kirsty, David and Dai, acknowledging our confidence in the integrity of our medical professionals. However, we must ensure the highest professional, moral and ethical standards.

I declare an interest as a member of the City and County of Swansea Council. My husband is also a member. Although I am aware of Standing Orders, I will absent myself for the whole of this debate.

As required under Standing Order No. 4.5, I declare an interest as leader of Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council. I shall not vote on these regulations.

I declare an interest as a member of the City and County of Swansea Council.

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

Datganaf fuddiant fel aelod o Gyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Conwy.

I declare an interest as a member of the City and County of Swansea Council. I shall not vote on these regulations.

I declare an interest as a member of Newport City Council. I wish to speak in this debate.

I propose that

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides the power for the Assembly to introduce these regulations. They will enable county and county borough councils, and national park authorities, to make a new scheme of allowances for their members. These regulations are the outcome of a detailed review of the current arrangements for councillors’ allowances. The Institute of Local Government Studies at the University of Birmingham was commissioned to undertake the review. It recommended to propose a new scheme of remuneration that properly recognises the time invested by councillors serving their local communities; in light of the introduction of new political management structures by local government, to identify councillors’ new roles and responsibilities; and to encourage a broader cross section of people to stand for election to local councils.

These regulations will enable county and county borough councils to introduce a new scheme of allowances for: a basic allowance for councillors; a band of special responsibility allowances for those councillors who have responsibilities in addition to their constituency role; a dependants’ allowance for those members with childcare responsibilities or other dependants; the payment of subsistence expenses by receipt; a new national motor mile allowance that mirrors that for Assembly Members. This will enable authorities to include in their schemes a mechanism to annually uprate their schemes without having to revoke and replace their schemes as they have done in the past. They will be able to backdate any increases to the start of the year. These remove certain rather archaic and clumsy obstacles to the efficient operation of schemes that have existed in the past.

Although these regulations relate to members of national parks, I stress that this is a technicality. Arrangements for members of these organisations remain largely unchanged. National park authorities have always been able to pay their members basic, special responsibility, and attendance allowances, and this remains the case. In order to replace the existing regulations on councillors’ allowances, which covered national park authorities, the regulations and guidance have been drafted so as not to force any significant change on their current arrangements.

The regulations are supported by statutory guidance. This includes the maximum amount of allowances that councils may make available to members. Councils will make the final decision on their individual schemes within the new framework.

Councillors commit themselves to long hours serving their communities. The University of Birmingham report identified that, on average, councillors spend 90 hours per month on council duty. As a result, many councillors have given up opportunities to advance in their careers and made personal sacrifices by attending meetings and surgeries at unsociable hours during evenings and at weekends. The recent introduction of new political management structures have also had an impact on councillors’ responsibilities. Some councillors, such as cabinet members and chairs of important overview and scrutiny committees, will be required to give up even more time to fulfil these new roles properly.

Many people who care about their communities and who could make a positive contribution to their local authority cannot afford either the time or money to do so. As a result, many of our councillors are retired and the majority are men. While they bring a wealth of knowledge and experience, they do not represent a true cross-section of today’s society. I want to see council chambers consisting of members from all walks of life—young men and women, people from ethnic minorities, disabled people, employed and unemployed people, and retired people.

It is only right that councillors’ worth should be publicly recognised and their work properly rewarded. The regulations and supporting guidance will remove the financial barriers that have, up to now, disadvantaged those without other means of financial support. I am proud that these proposals are a step change for the current arrangements, and proud that they will encourage diversity.

I am aware that finance alone will not solve the problems of low participation in local government. We have too many council seats that are not contested. I want to encourage more people to see their county councils as bodies where normal people decide on the future of their communities. That is why I have launched a campaign, in partnership with the Welsh Local Government Association, to promote wider participation in local government. It is only right that councillors’ worth should be publicly recognised and their work properly rewarded. I commend these regulations to the National Assembly.

We support the Minister’s comments. It seems a long time—I think that it was in 1999—since the first report on councillors’ allowances was published. That report stated that the members’ allowances systems that councils operate were meant to enable councillors to draw their members from the widest possible selection of the public and to prevent their councils being devitalised as numbers of otherwise eligible people were unable to stand for election because they lacked the financial resources to do so. The Minister has illustrated today why many people cannot stand for election as councillors: self-employed people sometimes cannot afford to employ people to take their place at work; some employers are reluctant to release people to perform council duties due to work pressure; many people have duties as carers, either for children or for dependent relatives. All that must be taken into account when we are considering councillors’ allowances. This is a major step forward. We must change the image of the councillor as being male, white and older than 60 years of age. A councillors’ allowance scheme is one way of doing that. It will enable more people to stand for election if they choose to do so. I hope that we can use this scheme to encourage many people from different backgrounds to stand for election, as the Minister said.

Unfortunately, while members must vote on the allowance scheme, it will remain a poisoned chalice for all councillors, as one chief executive called it. It is a poisoned chalice for all elected members when they must vote on their own pay rises. That is one of the burdens of being elected locally to govern locally. We support this scheme.

This is not the most sensitive of times to debate this motion, given yesterday’s day of action. I declare an interest as a member of Unison, which represents many local government workers. I support these regulations for reasons of which Edwina and others are aware. If we are to have a flourishing democracy, people must be properly rewarded for what is a difficult, onerous and often thankless task. However, we must not forget that decisions taken by local councillors are given effect by those who work for our local councils. I support the action taken yesterday by people representing some of the lowest paid workers in the country. We will only get the kind of democracy and quality of public services that we expect in this country if the people who work for our local authorities are properly paid, trained, qualified and motivated. I support the motion, but I put on record my wish for a balanced approach to the provision of local government services, and whereas local councillors should be properly rewarded, so should the people who work for our local councils.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservative Party, we support this motion, particularly as it was subject to wide consultation and ample opportunity was given for representation from all groups throughout Wales. We also recognise that the Minister is keen on individual schemes for the local authorities across Wales, and the way in which this consultation was carried out is a valuable contribution. I also endorse the Minister’s comments about councillors’ wonderful contribution throughout Wales. This motion will hopefully mean that, at last, local authority remuneration for councillors will be available to all, and should help and encourage recruitment from all sectors of society across Wales. We disagree with the divisive cabinet system, particularly with regard to some authorities that are paying high salaries. We also regret that chairs of scrutiny committees are only drawn from the majority group. On balance, we recognise that this has been the product of effective consultation throughout Wales, and we will support the motion.

I am pleased to support this motion. I was involved with this issue, and it is long overdue. I welcome the Minister’s statement today because when people give up their time for communities, their opportunities for lifestyle improvement, their family time and their own opportunities to be promoted in work, they must be compensated in a reasonable and realistic way. This motion reflects that, and is important in getting more people from all walks of life to play an important part in representing their community. As Ron Davies said, it is in stark contrast to yesterday’s protest outside the Assembly building. I declare an interest as a member of the GMB trade union because I was there to support those frontline workers. It is important that we reflect on that. The two issues are somewhat related and you can understand how workers who are lowly paid in local government react in that way. That is a separate matter, and I hope that it will be addressed in the future. I also hope that the Minister will work with the employers’ federations, to support workers and get social justice.

We need to encourage more people into local government and we need to reflect their good work by protecting them and giving them reasonable salaries. That is why these recommendations are in the interests of Welsh local government and will further help us to support in partnership the Welsh Local Government Association in providing the quality services, which we all believe in, to the people of Wales.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats welcome this positive move towards more local democracy. I also agree with Ron and Peter’s support for the local authority staff’s claim for better pay. Local government has been systematically undermined for a generation. Much of the blame for that lies with the Westminster Government’s desire for more power. Predictably, the Conservatives are calling for more devolution to local level now that they are unlikely to be in power. However, not all the blame lies with central Government. Too many councillors have become stagnant, not least because they are not elected democratically. One of the main steps that must be taken is the introduction of proportional representation, as advocated by Professor Sunderland’s independent report. Leaving that issue aside, these allowances will hopefully encourage fresh blood into local democracy and make councils more representative of the people they serve, particularly in terms of gender, ethnicity and age.

However, we are concerned at the inclusion of the seventh group of people in the motion, who are eligible for special responsibility allowances. Cardiff council, under Labour’s Russell Goodway, has spent over a third of the special responsibility allowance budget funding assistant Cabinet members. These assistant Cabinet members did not feature in the Hall report, and they go against the principle of a slimmed-down Cabinet Government. The point of commissioning a report is to abide by its recommendations, and we want the Minister’s assurance that the practice of giving allowances to this group of councillors that were not discussed in the Hall report is discouraged, or even ruled out.

It would be nice if the contributions made in the Chamber could reflect the discussions that have taken place across the four parties in the Local Government and Housing Committee, where we have ploughed through this issue of councillors’ allowances constructively. We have tried to discuss our differences and decide on the future of councillors’ allowances. Each political party has councillors that do a good job for all of us, and we should recognise that service. This is not a day for making cheap points about other parties in the Chamber; it is about the valuable contribution that all councillors make on behalf of all of Wales’s political parties.

I will address the more reasoned comments that have been made. Janet Ryder is right, the issue of members’ allowances is a poisoned chalice, particularly in local government where they discuss their own allowances. I hope that, as this scheme addresses such key elements as carers’ allowances, people will see that it is about encouraging maximum participation and getting new blood into councils for fairer representation across Wales.

William is right, there have been discussions about chairs of scrutiny committees in some areas, as scrutiny chairs are often members of opposition parties. This varies across the piste. However, it is important that we have not only discussed this allowance package, but also considered the wider issue of pensions, which is also key in discussions about councillors.

Peter Law and Ron Davies mentioned the current national pay dispute, and as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I was pleased to listen to Monica Walsh at the demonstration yesterday articulating the issues of low pay and equal pay. We must recognise that, in Wales, local authority trade union action is a matter for employers. However, the National Assembly can be proud of the fact that we had cross-party support for the equal pay campaign—effectively a low pay campaign—which deals with issues concerning women’s wages. We have put our house in order. It is important that, just as we have recognised the work of our staff, people recognise the work of local authority staff. However, it is also important that central Government recognises the importance of local government, as we have chosen to do in Wales.

The current special educational needs tribunal, operating on an England and Wales basis, is an independent body that has existed since 1994, and has heard parents’ appeals against local education authority decisions relating to special educational needs. Under amendments made in part II of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the SEN tribunal will be reconstituted from 1 September 2002, to become the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, or SENDIST.

Under the disability aspect, the SENDIST will hear appeals relating to claims of unlawful discrimination by responsible bodies, schools and local education authorities against children with disabilities. Where it finds that children have been unlawfully discriminated against, the SENDIST will consider remedial action. It will not, however, have the power to order compensatory payments. The establishment of the SENDIST will help strengthen equality of opportunity for disabled children. It will provide the parents of those children with access to a tribunal, to which parents of children with special educational needs have had recourse since 1994. The regulations deal with general provisions and procedures for a SENDIST and I ask for your approval.

Members will be aware that, in ‘The Learning Country’, I set out my intention to have a stand-alone SEN tribunal for Wales. Provision for the establishment of a Welsh SEN tribunal, to operate in both languages, is contained in the Education Bill currently before Parliament. When enacted, the tribunal will hear appeals from September 2003. As disability is a reserved function, the Welsh tribunal will hear disability cases on behalf of the Lord Chancellor. The regulations before you will apply to both tribunals from the dates on which they are established. I ask Members to support the regulations.

Yr wyf am siarad, ond mae gennyf hefyd bwynt o drefn.

Mae Plaid Cymru yn croesawu bod y Mesur Addysg cyfredol yn darparu ar gyfer sefydlu tribiwnlys addysg anghenion arbennig ar wahân yng Nghymru, fel y cyfeiriodd Gweinidog ato. Mae Plaid Cymru wedi galw am dribiwnlys o’r fath. Yr ydym hefyd yn cydnabod na fydd deddfwriaeth ar anabledd, fel y cyfryw, yn cael ei datganoli. Wrth edrych at sefydlu tribiwnlys Cymreig yn Ebrill 2003, a chan nad oes cyfeiriad at fanylion yn y rheoliadau hyn, gofynnaf i’r Gweinidog daflu goleuni ar ychydig o faterion o bryder.

Cyfeiria’r rheoliadau at yr angen i aelodau panel y tribiwnlys feddu ar wybodaeth am blant gydag anghenion arbennig neu anableddau, neu’r ddau, ynghyd â phrofiad o’r maes. Pa fesurau a ddefnyddir i sicrhau hynny? A ddefnyddir mesurau positif i sicrhau y bydd unigolion anabl, er enghraifft, yn aelodau o’r paneli? A fydd y rheoliadau Cymreig yn wirioneddol seiliedig ar egwyddorion cyfle cyfartal? Dywedasoch eisoes y cynhelir yr apeliadau yn y Gymraeg a’r Saesneg, ac mae hynny i’w groesawu. A fydd y rheoliadau Cymreig yn rhoi sylw teilwng i anghenion grwpiau lleiafrifol ac ethnig? A fydd cynrychiolaeth deg i grwpiau o’r fath?

Gyda golwg ar wasanaeth teg a fforddiadwy, a fydd y tribiwnlysoedd hyn ar gael yn lleol fel na fydd rhaid i unigolion a’u teuluoedd deithio milltiroedd y tu allan i’w cymunedau lleol? Hefyd, a wnaiff y Gweinidog sicrhau y bydd y broses apêl yn syml a chyfeillgar yn hytrach na chymhleth a bygythiol?

The Welsh Liberal Democrats welcome these regulations, which are a consequence of the provisions in the Special Education Needs and Disability Act 2001. The Act is a big step forward. It improves the position of children with special educational needs, introducing time limits for LEAs to comply with the orders of the tribunal. It also strengthens the rights of children with SEN to be educated in mainstream schools. It puts provisions in place to enable parents to resolve disputes with schools and local education authorities more satisfactorily and requires that schools inform parents of SEN provisions made for their children. It also enables schools to request a statutory assessment of a pupil’s special educational needs.

However, these regulations are inordinately complex. A publication is about to come on the market that will make them simpler to understand, and I have been told that it is already a bestseller. I welcome these regulations because they are fundamental to the rights of parents and children in the education system. Will you, Minister, undertake to ensure that there is a thorough understanding of the regulations?

The Welsh Conservative Party will support these regulations. It is right and proper that the Assembly should have due regard for those children throughout Wales who have special educational needs, especially those who face particular challenges because of their disabilities. The Assembly should ensure that those young children have full access to the educational provision and resources to which they are entitled. This is, therefore, a sensible piece of legislation. Minister, will we receive annual reports of the tribunal’s work once it is established? The tribunal will relate to our work as Assembly Members and we should be kept informed on its progress. The tribunal could also inform the work of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, who should be aware of the issue of young children’s rights in relation to the tribunal.

I thank Members for their support. These are general regulations to establish a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. It is not a devolved function, as powers with regard to disability have not been devolved to the Assembly. It is also a joint Order, which is why it has been drafted in English only.

However, as you heard in my introduction, I have made it clear that we are considering developing this work in terms of the Welsh agenda. That will obviously be subject to final parliamentary approval. The Education Bill will reach the end of its passage through Parliament in the Lords at the beginning of next week. Early in the next session, I will fulfil my undertaking to hold a debate on a motion that will include establishing a Welsh tribunal. I will keep the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee regularly informed on how we take this issue forward. I reassure you, so that parents are not concerned, that the tribunal will operate locally. I ask Members to support the regulations.

In December 2001, the Assembly Government agreed that we would be prepared to consider the case for additional funding for teachers’ pay costs in the light of any evidence of real difficulty. Over the following months, as individual authorities set their budgets for 2002-03, increasing concerns were expressed by schools, teachers’ unions and Assembly Members about the adequacy of provision for threshold, upper pay spine progression and leadership group costs.

My written statement to Members on 2 May reaffirmed our commitment to consider the issue of additional funding in light of evidence from local authorities. Information received from local authorities indicated the scale of costs associated with thresholds and upper pay-spine progression costs. In light of this evidence, I announced on 31 May 2002 that the Assembly Government proposed to provide an additional £18.7 million to enable local authorities to fund the teachers’ threshold, upper pay spine progression and leadership group pay costs in 2002-03. This is the special grant report that you are invited to approve.

This is a significant injection of funds. It means that headteachers and governing bodies will not need to hold back staff from progressing under the new arrangements simply for financial reasons. That received a particular welcome from teachers’ unions.

Local authorities are required to use the grant to meet the costs of teachers’ threshold pay, upper pay spine progression and school leadership group costs. Where authorities have fully or substantially funded those costs in their local schools budgets for 2002-03, they can release some or all of the local schools budget funding for other purposes and substitute the grant funding. Some authorities have already indicated that, as they had to hold down schools’ delegated budgets and budgets for centrally provided school services, they intend to supplement these budgets with the resources that are freed up. Authorities must report by 30 September 2002 on how they have used the grant money, or intend to use it.

Local authorities need to ensure that schools are advised quickly on how their delegated budgets are affected by the additional funding so that schools can complete their planning for September. My officials have already asked authorities to do so on a provisional basis, recognising that your approval today is needed before authorities can confirm their plans to schools.

The Assembly, local authorities and schools have been budgeting in the context of uncertain costs. I am pleased that there is an agreement between the Assembly Government and the Welsh Local Government Association to establish a working party to consider how we make arrangements to accommodate such uncertainties. The costs of threshold payments, upper pay spine progression and leadership are set to increase further in 2003-04 as the restructuring of teachers’ pay continues. Careful consideration needs to be given to how that should be handled.

Provision of this additional funding shows the continuing high priority that we give to education and the need to recognise and reward the teaching profession properly. As reported to the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee on 10 July, local authorities in Wales have increased their education budgets for 2002-03 by 6.8 per cent overall. That increases to 7 per cent when the £18.7 million we are debating today is included.

I urge you to vote in support of the motion to approve the special grant report.

I declare an interest as a registered teacher.

Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales will support this special grant report, although we regret the Government’s lack of forethought, which makes it necessary. It was obvious from the start that introducing threshold payments would substantially increase salary costs year on year. It rapidly became obvious that those costs could not be met from existing budgets for the last financial year, this financial year or future years. The local authorities, the schools and the unions said that more money was needed. Last year, it took until February for the Minister to admit that there was a problem and to act. In response to a question in the month that we debated that special grant report, the Minister refused to acknowledge that there was a long-term problem. When Gareth Jones asked her whether she would change the situation whereby authorities had to cut back budgets in other departments to fund threshold payments, and whether she conceded that the situation was unacceptable, she replied ‘no’ to both questions. She did not admit that it was an ongoing problem, and yet here we are again, debating another special grant report to address the same problem.

The Minister has only taken three months to sort it out this year, as opposed to 10 months last year. I suppose that that could be interpreted as an improvement in performance, but this end of term report will still read ‘must do better’. The reason given to the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee for this year’s delay was that the Minister had to consult with local authorities to establish an evidence base on how much each authority would need. On the face of it, that is fair enough. Given that the Minister is normally so close to the Welsh Local Government Association that you cannot see the join, it is surprising that it took three months to get that information. However, it now seems, if I have read the special grant report correctly, that the funds have, in fact, been allocated on the basis of standard spending assessments. Will the Minister explain that? Did she get that county-by-county information? If so, why was it not used in the allocation? If this grant does not reflect the situation in each county, can she be confident that she will not need to introduce a further special grant report later this year?

The situation on threshold payments is a shambles. The Minister must tell the Assembly what she intends to do to sort it out in the long term. The extra money needed must come to local authorities as part of their annual budgets, year on year. Schools and local authorities cannot possibly plan ahead if they depend on one-off special grants to fund something as basic as pay.

The Minister must listen to local authorities, unions and schools. She must accept that implementing threshold payments, and the performance management system needed to support them, will have long-term ongoing costs. She must accept that those costs must be met centrally and that she needs to plan to meet them. On this issue, as on so many others, the education sector and the Assembly have just about had enough of the Minister’s self-congratulatory complacency. She must assure us today, categorically, that she will plan adequately for these predictable demands in time to include them in the proper budget process for the next financial year.

In the longer term, these matters would be easier to plan and address if teachers’ pay and conditions were devolved to the Assembly. I would welcome the new posts that would be needed in the civil service, if the funding to pay for them was also devolved. It remains a curious anomaly that the National Assembly Government, despite its oft-repeated commitment to developing a distinctively Welsh education agenda—which Plaid Cymru of course welcomes—does not seem to want powers over teachers’ pay and conditions. Perhaps the Government fears that the responsibility might be too much for it; on the evidence of this shambles over threshold payments, perhaps it is right.

I listened to that rather gratuitous comment from my colleague behind the pillar, but I congratulate the Minister for giving a 7 per cent increase to Flintshire County Council’s education budget. That is to be warmly welcomed, particularly as there are schools in my constituency that need attention. Instead of making gratuitous remarks, as was done from the other side of the Chamber, I say ‘well done’ to the Minister for increasing the budget and to Flintshire County Council for increasing the overall education budget by 8.2 per cent. This is good news.

As you say, it is welcome news for the Assembly and for Flintshire. Do you share my concern that Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, although allocated 7.8 per cent, has only passed on an increase of 5.5 per cent to education? Is that not a disappointment for the teaching staff of that authority?

I have made my point.

Listening to the Minister, you would think that there has been an incredible achievement. Today, if you listen to the Government and its supporters, is a day for celebration. However, it is not a day for celebration. The Assembly will have to vote this payment through to solve a problem that was caused by the Government of Wales and by local authorities that have not passed on the full increases to schools. In response to Christine Chapman, if I were to show her the budget figures for Cardiff County Council, she would be amazed at some of the budgetary increases. They are about 4 or 5 per cent for some schools in the north of Cardiff, and they are even slightly lower than that in other schools.

I declare an interest as a school governor in Cardiff. That school has a budget deficit of about £44,000 because our planning for next year could not be satisfied given the level of resource that we would be allocated by the local authority. That problem has been caused by this Government in Cardiff. Today’s payment only rectifies a huge problem that has dogged school governors’ meetings and has put headteachers throughout Wales in a difficult position.

The Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning has been warned continuously by schools, teachers’ unions, and by Assembly Members in Plenary and Committee, that we were facing a huge shortfall of between £18 million and £22 million. This issue has been handled extremely poorly. The Minister had every opportunity up to the Whitsun recess to make a statement to the Assembly, telling us exactly where the shortfall was, and how the Government of Wales was to rectify it. I gave the Minister an opportunity in the last week before the Whitsun recess to make statements to the Assembly. She chose not to do so, although I suspect that The Western Mail had been briefed by someone in her department that a statement was forthcoming. Then, lo and behold, in typical Government style, the statement was made on 31 May. It was a Friday, and most Members had gone back to their constituencies for the recess. The Government has handled this issue particularly poorly.

What sort of revenue settlement does the Minister envisage for the financial year 2003 onwards? You will be aware that there will be additional national insurance costs for the education system in Wales to meet. The Library informs me that, in Wales, the costs to the education system will be about £10 million, £5.6 million of which must be found by local education authorities. The cost will need to be met in addition to the £18 million being allocated. In terms of the local government reports due on 30 September, I look forward to the Minister reporting fully on this in the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee, as we should return to this matter as soon as possible. This episode highlights the huge problems that have occurred and that are associated with threshold and performance management. It serves as a lesson to the Government and we must ensure that it does not re-occur.

The Audit Commission report on public services in Wales highlights the excellent performance of education in Wales, which outperforms that in England. We should welcome the fact that we are able to support this grant for teachers, who have contributed so much to attaining that achievement rather than taking the dog-in-the-manger attitude that the opposition parties have taken thus far. There is an issue of concern, particularly in local authorities such as Neath Port Talbot, which is hard pressed to provide the range of services that our community needs. It has been concerned about ensuring that these payments are prompt. In hard-pressed authorities, it is important that these payments are flagged up in plenty of time and that the authorities receive the money as soon as possible. I welcome the improvements made this year—but, again, it seems that improvement is not something to be celebrated.

Croesawaf innau’r grant o £12.7 miliwn. Fodd bynnag, fel eraill, gresynaf at y ffordd y trafodwyd y mater. Yr wyf wedi tynnu sylw yn y gorffennol at y problemau ym Mhowys, a gwnaf hynny eto heddiw fel esiampl o’r angen am well trefn ac am fod yn agored ac yn onest wrth ymwneud â chyllid ysgolion. Mae angen osgoi sbin ac osgoi cyfrif dwbl hefyd. Bu rhaid i Gyngor Sir Powys eleni roi £800,000 o’i gyllideb o’r neilltu ar gyfer taliadau trothwy. Canlyniad hynny oedd bod nifer o ysgolion Powys—gan gynnwys Llanandras a wrthdystiodd tu allan i’r Cynulliad beth amser yn ôl—wedi gorfod diswyddo athrawon. Mae hyn wedi digwydd mewn ardaloedd eraill hefyd.

Pan godais y mater gyda’r Gweinidog ar 13 Mehefin, ei hymateb oedd beio awdurdodau lleol, a Phowys yn benodol, am fod yn hwyr yn darparu gwybodaeth. Yn naturiol, ac yn hollol gyfiawn, mae Powys yn ddig at y cyhuddiad. Gwnaeth ddatganiad i’r wasg ar y mater y mae gennyf gopi ohono o’m blaen. Mae’r cyngor yn nodi i awdurdodau lleol ac undebau athrawon ragamcanu yn Nhachwedd 2001 y byddai angen £20 miliwn ar gyfer y pwrpas hwn; £1.3 miliwn yn wahanol i’r ffigur a ddyrannwyd yn y pendraw. Ar y pryd, gwrthododd Llywodraeth Cymru dderbyn y ffigur a’r angen i ddyrannu cyllid ychwanegol. Cyflwynwyd ffigurau wedi’u diweddaru yn Ionawr, a gwybodaeth bellach ar 22 Ebrill. Mae’r Gweinidog felly yn annheg wrth feio Powys. Dyna hefyd farn ysgolion a phrifathrawon ym Mhowys, sydd â hyder llwyr yn eu hawdurdod lleol. Dyfynnaf o lythyr gan brifathro Ysgol Uwchradd Aberhonddu at Jane Davidson ar 17 Mai:

‘Mae’n annheg i awgrymu mai canlyniad yw’r toriadau yng nghyllidebau ysgolion i fethiant Powys i basio ymlaen yn llawn gyllid o’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Mae’r cyngor bob amser wedi bod yn agored ac yn onest ynghylch y cyllid a ddarperir a’r ffordd y mae wedi cael ei ddefnyddio.’

Mae Powys, gyda llaw, wedi sefydlu fforwm addysg i drafod y materion hyn ers 10 mlynedd. Â’r prifathro yn ei flaen:

‘Rwy’n teimlo’n sicr mai’r ffordd i ddatrys y broblem yw bod yn agored ac yn dryloyw.’

Mae pryder hefyd ynglŷn â grantiau penodol blynyddol ar gyfer blaengareddau newydd, sydd wedyn yn dod yn ofyniad parhaol, ac yn gorfod cael eu cyllido o’r gyllideb graidd. Felly, mae’r ffigurau am gynnydd yn y cyllid i ysgolion yn gamarweiniol, am nad ydynt yn ystyried yr angen i gynnwys yn y gyllideb sylfaenol faterion sydd wedi cael eu cyllido felly yn flaenorol. Mae hyn yn rhan o’r peiriant sbin.

Nid yw’n foddhaol nac yn ddymunol bod y Gweinidog ac awdurdodau lleol yn ymosod ar ei gilydd yn y Cynulliad ac yn y wasg. Ni ddylai’r berthynas fod felly. Gobeithiaf y bydd gwersi yn cael eu dysgu, fel bod ysgolion yn gallu cynllunio a threfnu’u gwaith yn hyderus.

I declare an interest as a qualified teacher. We welcome the £18.7 million to address a shortfall that so many people predicted, but serious issues must be addressed. First is the principle of threshold payments. There has always been a great deal of disquiet within the profession about the process of awarding threshold payments. I am certain that teachers would prefer to be without it, because it has introduced an element of competition into a hitherto collaborative profession. I regret that. We must also examine the financial sustainability of threshold payments. Do you have figures that would enable us to look forward in the budgetary process so that we can remove the anxiety that exists not only in schools, but in local education authorities? This annual anxiety is having a detrimental effect on morale to such an extent that many people, particularly non-teaching assistants, are in doubt of their jobs. When the deficit budgets were issued—and Cynog referred to Powys—governors had to ensure that their budgets balanced and that costs were reduced. Often, that was in the form of staff costs.

We should consider following the comprehensive spending review process and enabling education to work on a three-year budgetary cycle. That would remove the annual anxiety. I would like all representatives of the education profession to meet together to work out how to remove this annual anxiety, which—and I cannot emphasise this enough—is causing tremendous problems in the profession. We must also consider the role of local education authorities. There are discrepancies, and those of us who represent constituencies on the borders of Wales are often draw into making comparisons with the funding of education in England. A funding fog surrounds the funding streams for our schools in Wales. Reference was made to the system of special grants and how they operate. It is fine in principle to use them to target certain priorities such as class sizes, but once the special grant is removed, the priority becomes lost in the general budget. That has financial implications for schools who previously knew the exact amount of money that they were receiving for that targeted priority. That causes genuine shortfalls and problems.

In welcoming this development, I ask you, Minister, to undertake to address these problems, which will undoubtedly reoccur next year—

Mae gen i ddiddordeb mawr yn yr hyn a ddywedwch. Mae llawer ohonom yn cytuno bod niwl ariannu yn bodoli. Fodd bynnag, beth yw bwriadau’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol? Yr ydych yn rhan o’r Llywodraeth bartneriaeth. Pa newidiadau yr ydych yn eu cynnig? Sut ydych yn bwriadu newid y drefn ariannu yng Nghymru? A oes syniadau gennych ar sut i newid y drefn er gwell?

Thank you, Gareth, for those interesting comments. If you had listened, you would know that I propose removing the annual budgetary cycle, which gives rise to this great anxiety, and ask the Minister to examine how all of the education sector can consider a three-year budgetary cycle. It would benefit the stability and sustainability not only of measures funded through special payments, but of many jobs in education.

Finally, I urge you, Minister, to consider this issue, because there are genuine problems. I know that people have raised them with you when you have visited schools. We must make a statement to all those in the education sector that we are looking to get rid of this annual anxiety through the introduction of a three-year budgetary cycle.

This debate has demonstrated that schools and their needs are key issues for Assembly Members. Many Members’ contributions focused on the overall funding for schools and the role of local authorities, rather than on the special grant itself.

I will begin by picking up on some of the broader points. Teachers’ pay costs will be fully considered in the local revenue settlements for 2003-04 and beyond. This matter will be taken forward in the working group that Edwina Hart is setting up with the Welsh Local Government Association. The £18.7 million is not, and cannot be, a one-off payment. It deals with ongoing costs that need to be funded in future years.

There will be an opportunity to review the factors that local authorities can take into account in deciding on funding formulae for schools’ delegated budgets. That will be in the context of regulations to come forward under the Education Bill. Many teachers, schools, local authorities and Assembly Members have raised concerns about the present requirement that 75 per cent of funding for primary and secondary schools must be distributed by reference to pupil number factors. We can reconsider that issue once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. As regards the broader financial issue, Edwina Hart provides indicative budgets for two years beyond the current financial year. The Education Bill proposes the establishing of budget fora, such as the one operating in Powys, which would operate in the same way across Wales. We can then ensure a strategic dialogue between schools and local authorities on budgetary needs.

When we consider that I first made a statement on my commitment to respond to concerns about this issue in December 2001, several arguments made this morning fall down and can be seen to be fallacious. We are committed to being an evidence-based administration. That does not mean that someone cobbles together a set of figures and makes estimates, but that we test to discover how many teachers can take up these new opportunities in every local authority in Wales. Given that funding for education is not hypothecated in Wales, we test whether we are delivering the equivalent expenditure that would be delivered by hypothecation. I commend those authorities, some of which have already been mentioned, such as Flintshire County Council, Vale of Glamorgan Council, Bridgend County Borough Council, Conwy County Borough Council, which have delivered education expenditure above their local government settlement. Non-hypothecation of funding can deliver that. I am sure that we welcome that. I also commend Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, which decided to spend 2 per cent below its overall settlement on education this year. It is up to the authorities to decide on these matters. Overall, that has led to a situation whereby the level of expenditure is right compared to the standard spending assessment budgets.

I take exception to the suggestion that this Government is complacent. I only use the word in response to Cynog’s speech; it is not a word I usually use in my speeches. Only yesterday the Audit Commission’s report, ‘Public Services in Wales—Delivering a Better Wales’ highlighted that the education service is excellent. I am delighted to endorse that report and Brian Gibbons’s views. I thank everyone who is professionally involved in delivering education in Wales for contributing towards achieving that wonderful accolade from an external organisation.

If the Minister does not like the word ‘complacent’, will she settle for ‘self-congratulatory’?

No. The whole point is that, according to the Audit Commission’s external assessment, the system in Wales is working. Our commitment to comprehensive education is working. In Wales we had the best results at every level last year. Children in Wales are benefiting from the education system that is being delivered. We are also delivering our obligations to teachers in ensuring that they can all proceed properly through the pay system and reach their individual ambitions. The Assembly Government is absolutely committed to supporting the profession.

The Minister is in great danger of sounding complacent. She made a comment about Rhondda Cynon Taff, where the council is putting in less funding than it should, according to the settlement. It is all very well to say that that is its decision, but what about those suffering in the schools there? Also, regarding your comment about hypothecation, if money is hypothecated, that does not prevent local authorities from spending in excess of that amount. They can always do that. Is that not a desirable outcome, so that we can increase the level of educational attainment throughout Wales?

Yesterday’s report demonstrated that we are improving educational attainment across Wales. We will continue to do so. The Assembly Government continues to be committed to democratically accountable local government. It is important that local government is involved in taking decisions at the local level. However, local authorities must also be accountable for those decisions to their electorate. We should also be clear, in considering the support that we put into the teaching profession in Wales, that the £18.7 million this year is not a one-off. I acknowledge that there have been difficulties and the Government has consistently acknowledged that. We had the first year of the threshold, then the second year of the threshold, and then, this year, the first year of teachers moving on to the upper pay spine. When you go through such major changes, you need to ensure that the systems cope properly. The Government has made its commitment to the teaching profession in Wales that we will reward teachers for their work. The working group that Edwina has set up with the Welsh Local Government Association to consider distribution of funding in future years will enable accurate information to be provided. That can also be informed by the school budget fora that will be established throughout Wales.

Wrth ystyried ffigur o 7 y cant—sydd i’w groesawu yn gyffredinol—fel arian ychwanegol gan y Cynulliad, a gytunwch mai problem i’r rhan fwyaf o’r Aelodau yw’r ffaith nad yw hynny’n golygu cynnydd o 7 y cant i bob ysgol? Mae disgwyliadau yn cael eu codi. Er ichi sgorio pwynt gwleidyddol ynghylch Rhondda Cynon Taf, y ffaith yw y bydd rhai ysgolion ar eu hennill o lawer mwy na 5.2 y cant—neu beth bynnag yw’r ffigur—a bydd rhai yn cael llai. Mae hynny’n wir am bob awdurdod. Dyma’r camddealltwriaeth: mae clywed am ffigur o 7 y cant yn gwneud i bob ysgol ddisgwyl derbyn cynnydd felly. Nid yw hynny’n digwydd o dan y drefn sydd ohoni.

That is why I said that the funding formulae are key. We have 22 local authorities in Wales and 22 funding formulae. We will have an opportunity, in terms of the new legislation that will be required under the Education Bill, to consider what schools’ delegated budgets will take into account.

Schools come to us with real, earnest inquiries, as Darland High School in Rossett did yesterday. There is a health and safety issue with the science technician there, which could result in the school not being able to offer science. Do you agree that north-east Wales particularly has problems because it is alongside Cheshire and Shropshire? I have brought these points to your attention many times and we need concrete evidence of how you are helping that area, in particular.

You made two important points, Eleanor. The first demonstrates absolutely that we should not fund schools directly. If we did, the cash-rich schools would get richer and the cash-poor schools would remain as poor, and the differential would not be dealt with at all. That is why we fund strategically through local authorities.

Your second point concerned north-east Wales; of the authorities that have chosen to put more money into education this year, that small group in north-east Wales is all included. We must welcome the fact that, although north-east Wales’s authorities were on a low base in terms of education they, almost without exception, invested money over and above their general settlement. Therefore, local authorities’ important role is delivering, not just for the people of north-east Wales, but for people throughout Wales—not least because of our huge commitment to ensuring that all school buildings are fit for purpose by 2010.

I am pleased that Members welcome the additional money being provided, and I hope that we can look forward, together, to ensuring that the education system in Wales fully reflects our ambitions to be a learning country.