I propose that

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 received Royal Assent in May of this year. Part I of the Act introduces a new form of tenure called commonhold, which will be implemented by the Lord Chancellor’s Department in England and Wales, while part II—the provisions of which are devolved to the Assembly—makes major changes to residential leasehold reform.

This Order brings into force in Wales the major provisions of the new Act. These reforms give leaseholders new rights and enhance their existing rights. Under the new arrangements, leaseholders in Wales will find it easier to buy their freeholds or extend their leases. The reforms remove unnecessary obstacles to enfranchisement by abolishing the residence test and numerous other unjustified restrictions. The provisions will also, in the case of premises that have been converted into flats where there is a resident landlord, limit the resident landlord exemption to landlords who have owned the freehold since before the conversion. The commercial limit for blocks of flats will be raised from 10 per cent to 25 per cent, and the requirement for at least two-thirds of qualifying leaseholders to participate in collective enfranchisement will be removed, although participating leaseholders would still be required to own at least half the flats in the block. New rights will be given to personal representatives of deceased leaseholders of flats and houses. The Act will also improve the rights of leaseholders of houses who have extended their leases under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Such people will be given the right to buy their freehold and the right to security of tenure if and when their extended lease expires. The Act also provides that marriage value—the extra value when freehold and leasehold interests are under the same control—should be disregarded where leases have more than 80 years left to run. It will also provide that, where marriage value applies, it should be split 50:50 in all cases. The right to seek the appointment of a new manager for a block of flats where the existing management is at fault will be widened, as will the specific grounds under which the terms of a lease can be varied by a court.

The Act contains other provisions that will help leaseholders, including a new right to manage, protection against unreasonable service charges, and restrictions on the use of forfeiture. These additional provisions will require changes to secondary legislation and the proposals are currently out to consultation. I am sure that the new arrangements contained in this commencement Order will benefit leaseholders in Wales. I commend it to Members, and I trust that the National Assembly will welcome these new arrangements.

I recognise the benefits that this Act brings to leaseholders living in flats. However, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002—which was written in London and passed there with reference to England—is another example of Wales’s needs being overlooked. It emphasises again the iniquity of the current devolution settlement, which denies primary lawmaking powers to the National Assembly.

I have been involved in campaigns for leasehold reform for longer than I care to recall. For longer than that, the people of Wales have suffered the iniquities of a system whereby one person owns the land under the home of another. Forty per cent of all the 99-year leasehold houses in England and Wales are located in Wales. Over 100 years ago, Lloyd George described leasehold as legalised robbery. Gwynfor Evans branded the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 a landlord’s charter, and his prophecy proved to be correct.

When the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which dealt almost exclusively with flats rather than houses, was being debated at Westminster, Plaid Cymru MP Elfyn Llwyd put it to the Government that several aspects of existing leasehold legislation which were not touched upon in the Bill should be addressed. He was told that there had been consultation and that the Government was satisfied that the Bill, as it stood, addressed everyone’s needs. I wrote to Edwina Hart before the Bill was presented to the House of Commons and drew her attention to the absence in the Bill of measures to deal with the iniquities that arise when leaseholders seek to purchase the freeholds of their homes. She was advised that there were no such problems and, yet again, an opportunity to influence Westminster legislation for the benefit of Wales was turned down. Yet again, we see an absence of political leadership and the consequent need for Ministers to take their steer from civil servants. During a short debate in the summer I presented an extensive list of iniquities relating to the valuation and purchase process of freeholds, which should be addressed by new legislation. How much longer does the Minister think that the people of Wales will accept the Assembly Government’s acquiescence and apparent complacency concerning the Westminster Government’s shabby treatment of Wales—whether that be in relation to leasehold reform, its failure to implement European directives to help former Allied Steel and Wire workers to obtain their pension rights, or merely the request of the National Assembly to make St David’s Day a national holiday?

Welsh Liberal Democrats have always opposed the principle of leasehold. As has been said, 100 years ago David Lloyd George described the system as legalised robbery. Our aim is to abolish leasehold outright. That would be most easily achieved by making the conversion from leasehold to commonhold as simple as possible. This could be done by proposing an automatic right of ballot for leaseholders in a block of flats and so on. If a majority of leaseholders voted in favour, then ownership could be transferred. The freeholder would be compensated by being bought out by the leaseholder at a price determined by an independent tribunal. Where such arrangements do not exist, we would strengthen leaseholders’ legal rights to take freeholders and management agents to court for negligence and/or mismanagement. However, given the constraints of the Assembly’s powers we cannot implement these policies. We recognise that this legislation is a step in the right direction. If the Assembly were to have powers akin to those of Scotland then we would need to reconsider the issue. In the meantime, will the Minister take up these matters with Westminster?

The revision of the principal Act has been long-awaited and these measures propose a major change to the law of real property, although similar forms of tenure exist in many other countries, particularly Australia. However, the Act does not provide for a mix of commonhold and leasehold tenure in one building. A notable theme is the exclusion of residential requirements so that the virtue of ownership is confirmed, rather than the occupation of a flat or house as a home. The rights of residential leaseholders are strengthened and good management is encouraged on a statutory basis. Forfeiture of tenure when small sums are owed is now prohibited, as are restrictive insurance provisions. However the right to forfeit a valuable long lease of residential property for breach of covenant remains. The Minister should explain why the implementation of these measures has been delayed for so long in Wales, given that they have been in force in England since 1 July.

Like Eleanor Burnham, I regard this as a step in the right direction, and it is a measure that we can implement in Wales under the terms of the devolution settlement. There have been a number of leasehold reforms over the last 30 years that have attempted to remedy some of the worst defects. However, the protection afforded by the law remains incomplete and the remedies available to leaseholders are unduly difficult and costly to use—I think that we would all accept that. The commonhold system introduced by part I of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 will help to provide a new form of tenure for properties containing several units that is free of the drawbacks of the current leasehold system. Many existing leaseholders are unlikely to be able to convert to commonhold and therefore there is a need to address the problems that they face within the existing scheme. I accept that there are issues to be addressed in that regard. Part II relates to leasehold reform, which is devolved to the Assembly, and makes reforms to residential leasehold law; it is quite good in that respect. We could ask why the Act has not gone further—that has come out in this debate. The measures in the Act are those which the UK Government saw as the highest priority for action and as those which will have the greatest effect in tackling the problems within the existing leasehold system. Difficult decisions had to be made about what to include. It was decided that it was better to have some reforms than none, and I concur with that. However, the UK Government has committed to a broader package of reforms. I think that we would all want to support that. I will take on board any comments made in the Chamber about further reforms required through the legislative process.

Further consultation has been undertaken in Wales, William, and I am mindful that it is right and proper that we should try to implement promptly anything that is good news for Wales in terms of secondary legislation.

I propose that

The intended effect of this instrument is to ensure that looked-after children have an annual health assessment which is holistic in nature and which includes a review of their emotional and mental health needs as well as their physical health. This will replace the current requirement for an annual medical. This instrument will update and extend the number of relevant agencies requiring notification when a looked-after child moves to a new placement and it will make it possible for follow-up assessments to be delegated from a doctor to a registered nurse or midwife where appropriate.

Children and young people who are looked after are among the most socially excluded groups within the United Kingdom. The welfare of this group is a high priority for the Assembly, and I have given a commitment to promote the health and development of children and young people who are looked after by local authorities. It is essential that we ensure that they receive the standard of healthcare they need in order to achieve good health.

Historically, there has been a poor attendance rate at annual medicals for looked-after children. Many young people find the requirement to attend such medicals stigmatising. This barrier, coupled with the focus on medical intervention and ill health, frequently leads to young people refusing to attend. Consultation responses to the proposed guidance on the health of looked-after children have suggested that young people, carers and social care staff consider that a holistic health assessment would be more appropriate and acceptable than the current medical.

The early years of life are crucial to a child’s development. Currently, only children under the age of two receive health assessments twice a year. This Order will require that children up to the age of five will now have this more frequent rate of health assessments. Together, these provisions will bring about relatively minor but worthwhile changes in healthcare for looked-after children.

Mae grŵp Plaid Cymru yn cefnogi ac yn croesawu’r rheoliadau hyn yn fawr. Pan fydd plant sy’n derbyn gofal yn cael eu symud yn rhy aml mae’r effeithiau arnynt yn niweidiol a difrifol. Mae’n bwysig bod plant yn cael cyfle i drafod eu teimladau ac i fynegi pryderon pan fydd yn rhaid iddynt symud. Bydd y rheoliadau hyn yn caniatáu i hynny ddigwydd.

Mae gennyf gwestiwn i’r Gweinidog ac awgrym pellach yng nghyd-destun y rheoliadau. Fel y gŵyr y Gweinidog, mae nifer o blant, yn enwedig o ddinasoedd mawr Lloegr, yn derbyn gofal gyda theuluoedd maeth yng nghefn gwlad Cymru. Gall gofal mewn lleoliad o’r fath fod yn llwyddiannus ac o fudd i bobl ifanc. Serch hynny, mae hyn hefyd yn creu problemau gan fod plant yn aml bellter oddi wrth eu teuluoedd ac, o ganlyniad, yn fwy bregus na phlant o Gymru sy’n derbyn gofal yn agosach at eu cartrefi. A fydd y rheoliadau hyn yn berthnasol i’r grŵp hwn o blant sy’n derbyn gofal? Os nad ydynt, mae’n bwysig bod y Gweinidog yn ceisio dod o hyd i ffordd o estyn y rheoliadau i’w cynnwys. Gall y sefyllfa fod yn gymhleth o ran cyfrifoldeb yn ôl y gyfraith: ai sir Gâr sydd yn gyfrifol pan fo’r plant yno, neu Birmingham, neu ble bynnag y maent wedi dod ohono? Nid yw’r gyfraith yn glir bob tro ynglŷn â phob plentyn. Pwy bynnag sydd yn gyfrifol yn ôl y gyfraith, mae gan y Cynulliad gyfrifoldeb moesol dros y plant hyn. A gaiff y plant hyn eu cynnwys yn y rheoliadau newydd?

Mae gennyf awgrym pellach. A oes modd cyfuno’r asesiad meddygol â’r asesiadau o ddatblygiad a phrofiadau addysgiadol y plentyn? Gwyddom fod plant a phobl ifanc mewn gofal yn aml yn dioddef yn ddifrifol yn addysgiadol gan y gallant gael eu symud yn llawer rhy aml. Caiff hynny effaith ddifrifol ar eu datblygiad—yn emosiynol yn ogystal ag yn addysgiadol. A oes modd, Weinidog, i chi drafod â’r Gweinidog dros Addysg a Dysgu Gydol Oes i sicrhau eich bod fel Llywodraeth yn defnyddio’r asesiad meddygol a’r asesiad emosiynol, sydd yn cyd-fynd ag ef, i asesu datblygiad y plentyn a’i brofiad addysgiadol? Os nad yw hynny’n berthnasol, a oes ffordd arall i chi weld sut y gallwch wneud yr asesiad rheolaidd hwnnw o ddatblygiad ac addysg y plentyn? Mae’n broblem enfawr i blant a phobl ifanc, fel y dywedodd y Gweinidog. Mae plant sy’n derbyn gofal ymhlith y rhai sydd wedi’u hallgáu fwyaf yn gymdeithasol yn ein gwlad, ac mae addysg yn rhan o hynny.

Mae gan bob Aelod o’r Cynulliad gyfrifoldeb arbennig am ddyfodol plant sy’n derbyn gofal yn ein gwlad. Yr ydym wedi bod yn barod i dderbyn y cyfrifoldeb hwnnw’n ddifrifol. Croesawn y rheoliadau hyn fel cam bach, ond cam pwysig, tuag at weithredu’r cyfrifoldeb hwnnw.

The Welsh Conservative Party welcomes these regulations. These reforms are a modest but appropriate development, and will deliver a more holistic assessment of looked-after children’s health. It is important that medical practitioners take the health of looked-after children seriously. There are particular challenges in delivering appropriate healthcare, particularly with regard to chronic conditions and conditions that require careful assessment as they develop, as well as around issues such as general dental care and other matters that can slip if there is a lack of stability in the domestic arrangements of looked-after children. The Minister’s approach, which is backed up by thorough consultation, is appropriate, and we support it.

I join Helen Mary and David Melding in welcoming these regulations. As all speakers have said, the health of looked-after children is often not what it should be. These children suffer from worse levels of health and wellbeing than one would normally expect to find in their peer group. Given the sometimes difficult situations in which children can find themselves, being moved from placement to placement when relationships break down, it can be difficult to maintain continuity in children’s healthcare. It is also appropriate to mention that these regulations raise the age limit at which children are required to have a six-month check-up to the age of five. It is appropriate that due care and attention is paid to the youngest children, who may find themselves being looked after by local authorities. It is a timely reminder, when several reports have criticised local authorities’ role as corporate parents, that we too should consider the Assembly’s role in corporate parenting. These regulations demonstrate our commitment to trying to improve services for our most vulnerable children.

I thank colleagues for their support for these regulations. In approving this Order, the Assembly will fulfil its commitment to promoting the health and wellbeing of looked-after children in Wales. On Helen Mary’s points, this will be a holistic health assessment, which is far more appropriate for looked-after children. We have placed a large number of looked-after children with foster parents. Cross-border issues relate to our looked-after children and those who come from England to Wales. All looked-after children, whatever the setting, would come under these regulations, and the Department of Health has already amended the regulations to reflect these changes. The responsibility would then be on the originating authority, in partnership with the foster carer, wherever the children are based.

On the holistic health assessment, I am sure it would open doors to other matters, such as education. That does not fall within these regulations, but it would be clear to the registered medical practitioner, the nurse, or the midwife following up the assessment, that the child might show signs of other needs. I will consider further developments for the education of looked-after children with my colleague, Jane Davidson. We will publish guidance early next year on the health of looked-after children, which will cover the legal framework, the roles and responsibilities of the NHS and local authorities, health assessments, the planning implementation review, principles of good healthcare, corporate parenting, health promotion, mental health, and children in special circumstances. This will emerge in terms of the wider health and wellbeing perspective. It is important, as David and Kirsty said, that we recognise that these regulations will support our most vulnerable children, particularly in their early years, and will be an important step forward.

The purpose of this special grant report is to enable the National Assembly to continue to provide financial support to local authorities to help cover the additional costs incurred in providing mainstream education and associated support for those asylum seekers who come to Wales.

Education is a vital component of any package of measures aimed at ensuring that these people are able to integrate into the communities in which they find themselves. Such measures include bilingual support, education psychology support, library resources, and provision of school transport and uniforms. It is not only school-age children who need help. Many adults too will seek assistance to learn English or Welsh to be able to communicate effectively and become active members of society. They are also catered for in these arrangements.

The level of support has been based on information provided by local education authorities on the number of asylum-seeker pupils and adults entering school or accessing language courses. It will also be checked against monthly data provided by the National Asylum Support Service. This will be the second year of specific funding allocated by the Assembly to support the education of asylum seekers in Wales. Last year, £711,500 was made available to LEAs for this purpose. It should be noted, however, that the numbers of asylum seekers are considerably higher this year, particularly in the Cardiff and Swansea areas, where additional contracts have been signed with the National Asylum Support Service.

The total sum being set aside for allocation to local authorities in Wales for 2002-03 is £1,228,261. However, no forecast can be expected to be completely accurate, and we will review the position as information becomes available. I am pleased to see that authorities are responding well to the many and varied educational needs of asylum seekers who have already arrived in Wales. The continued support that I am proposing is the right way to ensure that local authorities do not lose out financially in enabling asylum seekers to become fully integrated members of our society.

The Welsh Conservative Party will support this special grant report. We recognise that we must support local education authorities’ responsibilities in meeting the needs of the children of asylum seekers within their areas. I wish to raise a few points with the Minister. Bearing in mind that these people are in Wales as a result of the Home Office’s dispersal arrangements under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, what additional budget support will we receive from the UK Government to provide the required services? I would be concerned if the money was coming from within our existing budgetary forecast. I hope that, as these responsibilities are the result of Home Office decisions, we will receive additional money from the UK Government to meet them. We note the amount that has been allocated for the 2002-03 financial year. How many grants have been awarded for these purposes since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999? What is the total amount spent to date, not including this financial allocation?

The Welsh Liberal Democrats welcome this special grant report, as it continues the delivery of the partnership agreement pledge to work with local authorities to ensure that the educational needs of asylum seekers receive the necessary attention and that sufficient resources are secured to meet those needs. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that local authorities should receive additional resources to offset the costs resulting from the Westminster Government’s dispersal scheme, so that money is not diverted from existing budgets. In particular, we welcome the fact that local authorities can use the grant funding for a range of support and services, including the provision of school uniforms. The children of asylum-seeking families who cannot afford school uniforms can be picked upon, as they stand out. This grant helps to address that problem.

I also welcome this educational assistance. There is no doubt that asylum seekers arriving in certain areas mean that authorities will incur additional costs, in terms of the children’s and adult’s education, as the Minister said. Also, given the home countries of the majority of our asylum seekers—13 per cent come from Afghanistan, 9 per cent from Iraq, 9 per cent from Somalia, 8 per cent from Sri Lanka and 5 per cent from Iran—we can expect these people to have substantial health needs, in terms of mental and physical damage. We discussed HIV and AIDS earlier in today’s Plenary, and we know that the prevalence of tuberculosis is increasing. It is therefore important that the necessary resources are in place to provide support for asylum seekers, as Jonathan said. It can be fairly easily to accommodate small numbers of asylum seekers. However, if there is a significant deployment of asylum seekers to Wales, it is important to ensure that the necessary resources are supplied so that we can carry out our humanitarian and international obligations and duties. This subject is particularly emotive for me in light of the comments made at the Irish Consulate last night, when the First Minister and the Irish President referred to the fact that this country was a haven and a refuge for many Irish people during Ireland’s most difficult economic times.

History also shows that many suffered a hostile reaction, even though the hand of friendship was extended to the majority. It is important that the negative aspects of that experience are not replicated here. We must remember that Britain only accepts 1 per cent of applications from the world’s refugees. The right-wing media in this country would have us believe that people are coming to Britain by the truckload to avail themselves of our hospitality and benevolence. That is not the case. Even though the voucher scheme has gone, people on assistance are living on a pittance—a fraction of income support—under the refugee support system. Given what they have been through, and depending on your point of view regarding charity and social solidarity, we owe it to these people to give them our support and to reach out and give them a new and, hopefully, better start.

For local authorities, the key is access to allow the special teaching support to be developed. The report notes, however, that authorities should send a completed form for February 2002 to October 2002 to the Assembly by the end of November 2002. This deadline has already passed before the Assembly has approved this special grant. It is another example of retrospective payment by the Assembly. Surely, councils need this funding in advance to provide the services in the most efficient way. How many applications has the Minister received for this money? Also, what provision exists to develop teachers who are able to communicate with these children and adults in their first language?

I am grateful for Members’ support for this initiative. Jonathan asked about the overall funding from the Home Office. Funding is delivered to the National Assembly via the block grant but, last year, for the first time, we operated a separate amount of funding for education needs, which the Assembly supported. We allocated £711,500 in such funding last year, but local authority claims amounted to only £522,300. On Janet’s points, this is retrospective because, when looking at grants relating to actual numbers of people, at the point of entry into Wales, we do not know whether asylum seekers will be single adults, children or families. The allocation of money varies, as you see from annex A to the report. Local authorities have been happy and secure in the knowledge that, because of this grant, actual costs incurred for actual people will be met. That is why the grant is retrospective. However, I am grateful for Members’ support. I remember from last year that Members were keen to emphasise the Assembly’s social responsibility, such as the importance of school uniforms being eligible costs under the grant, and I reaffirm that today.

This special grant will provide support towards expenditure incurred by local authorities in developing information technology software in relation to new Supporting People funding arrangements. The Welsh Local Government Association and local authorities have expressed concerns about their capacity to establish the necessary IT infrastructure to allow successful implementation in time for April without additional resources. I propose that an additional payment of £50,000 be made to each local authority in Wales this financial year. It will be a one-off payment to assist them in developing their IT systems before the Supporting People programme comes on-stream on 1 April 2003.

The Welsh Conservative Party is happy to support this motion. However, I would like the Minister to respond to a point on hypothecation. Will this funding be hypothecated for this purpose within the local authority? If this principle is accepted in this case, why is it not accepted for other areas of policy, such as social services, care for the elderly and education?

The Welsh Liberal Democrats support this special grant report. Supporting People is a highly complex agenda—even though it is less complicated than what preceded it—which we ask local government to implement on our behalf. It is appropriate that we use IT in a way that will help them deliver this programme for their clients. Software for these IT systems is expensive to develop, therefore it is acceptable in this instance to make a special grant available to local authorities to offset the expenses of developing this system.

Kirsty is correct that the Supporting People programme is a difficult area for local government to get to grips with, but it is certainly simpler than previous arrangements. On Alun Cairns’s points, a series of special grants are made for many purposes and for many policy areas. I refer you to my opening remarks—this was a request from Welsh local government.