As part of its report on Members’ pay and allowances, the Senior Salaries Review Body recommended the establishment of a pension scheme for Assembly Members. The SSRB advised that the scheme should provide the same categories and levels of benefit as are available to MPs and the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Scheme, in proportion to Members’ Salary and service. This was implemented by direction prior to the election and now we must elect trustees to oversee the management and investment of the fund. This is a non-party matter, which affects us all as members of the scheme regardless of political allegiance. Therefore, each party has been invited to nominate a trustee for the scheme. These names are listed in the motion. In addition, the Deputy Presiding Officer has been nominated. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

I was pleased that so many Assembly Members took the opportunity to listen to the Richard Rogers Partnership presentation last week about the new Assembly building. Party leaders heard the presentation earlier that day. Lord Rogers is a world-renowned architect and has taken a personal interest in this scheme. I was glad he was able to be here on Tuesday, though his talk to Members was delayed by the university degree ceremony in the afternoon, on which I am sure we all congratulate him.

It is time for the Assembly to decide whether to proceed with the construction of a new, modern and forward-looking Assembly building adjacent to this building. For the benefit of those who were unable to attend the presentation and members of the public who visit the Assembly, the model of the proposed design is in the Neuadd.

We must consider three buildings together for the Assembly to function effectively. This building is one of them and will continue to be an important part of the Assembly, though the meeting place for Plenary sessions will relocate to the new building. The others are the new Assembly building with the facilities we discussed last week, and the Pierhead building. I do not understand why there is doubt about the previous intention—widely welcomed on all sides—that the Pierhead building should be used for meetings, small conferences and exhibitions for visitors to the Assembly, particularly school groups.

Those of us who have served at Westminster will know that there is a major gap in provision for school groups’ visits. If they are fortunate enough, they can go into a Committee room or into the Chamber when debates are taking place, but there is nowhere for them to learn more about Parliament or feel fully engaged. This goes back to the earlier debate about the importance of engaging young people and giving them an opportunity. It was always intended that the Pierhead building would fulfil that function, since I decided that it would be wrong for the Executive to use the Pierhead building. The Executive should be in this building so that we and our offices, as an Assembly family, are in the same building.

It is widely accepted that from day one, we have been provided with good quality accommodation here at Crickhowell House. It has enabled us to proceed with business immediately. The facilities in this Chamber were never intended to be anything other than temporary. It will not meet the Assembly’s long-term needs. After a few weeks, Assembly Members recognised the worth of this building and this Chamber as a temporary measure. It has its disadvantages, for example the pillars are an obstruction, there is no scope for expansion and the number of members of the public able to attend Plenary sessions is limited.

Yr ydym i gyd yn ymwybodol iawn o’r amgylchiadau gwaith anodd y mae ein staff wedi bod yn gweithio ynddynt. Yr wyf yn gwybod fod cynlluniau i’w gwella, ac i osod rhyw system dymheru dderbyniol. A all Alun roi sicrwydd y bydd hynny wedi’i wneud cyn yr haf nesaf fel nad oes rhaid i ni, ac yn arbennig ein staff, ddioddef fel yr ydym wedi gwneud hyd yn hyn?

Mae hynny’n bwynt hollol deg. Yr wyf wedi gofyn i’r Ysgrifennydd Parhaol ystyried y sefyllfa a’r gwaith ar gyfer rhoi gwell cyfleusterau yn yr adeilad. Yr wyf hefyd wedi gofyn am yr amserlen er mwyn sicrhau ein bod yn cyrraedd y targed y gofynna Dafydd amdano. Ysgrifennaf at Dafydd i gadarnhau’r wybodaeth hon ac fe roddaf gopi yn y Llyfrgell. Gobeithiwn allu cyrraedd y targed hwnnw.

The First Secretary mentioned that there was a problem with the number of people who could sit in the public gallery. Is he stating that if the new building goes ahead, the public gallery there will be larger than the one we currently have? That is not the impression I had.

Yes, it will be larger. The number of people who can sit in the public gallery at the moment is about 50 and the original intention, looking at the design, was around 100, double the number. It was one of the topics discussed in the helpful session last week, where Members across the parties generally felt that that would be insufficient. This is being considered by the architects. There is sufficient flexibility for them to be able to aim at a higher number, which I believe is what everyone wants to see.

As I have indicated, there are drawbacks in the present temporary Chamber. We now have the opportunity to develop and deliver a prestigious Chamber with public facilities befitting the twenty-first century, which meets the aspirations of the people of Wales. It will be a Chamber of which we can be proud and one that is recognisable around the world. I think everybody recognises that identity, of a capital city and a country, is important. This is an opportunity for us to make sure that we develop that identity. In particular we need a Chamber the design of which lends itself to proper democratic debate, has more open space and unrestricted views and has flexibility for the future. I am keen to ensure that we provide better public facilities, which Members generally aspire to see. I am also committed to the building being delivered for the estimated cost of £12.5 million, which I believe is reasonable and represents value for money. If we decide today to proceed with the construction of this landmark building, and I hope we will, it is my intention to establish and chair a new Assembly building steering group with the three other party leaders, the Presiding Officer and the Permanent Secretary as members.

I think your inability to see me while I was trying to intervene reinforces the points you made about the nature of the Chamber. Due to the timing of the presentation about public facilities I was unable, as were some other Members, to be present. Can you tell us what proposals there are to make it possible for members of the public to bring their children with them and leave them somewhere in the Assembly? What proposals are there for possible facilities for Members’ children and, more importantly, will there be facilities for staff members’ children?

It is a knock-on issue. In this building we have facilities that are fully occupied. The new building will be a small and efficient building. We need to look at the facilities across the three buildings. In these, or in facilities shared with other users in this area, we need to provide the sort of facilities that Helen Mary is talking about and which are outside our scope at present. Today I am concentrating on the provision in the new Assembly building. That has a knock-on effect in releasing facilities here. Facilities like a crèche, which Members want to see, could be provided one way or another in that combined area.

Could I ask for a timescale on when those might be debated? I am being pressed hard, as some other Members are, by women’s voluntary organisations in Wales concerned about the present situation. I am sure they are not alone. It would be helpful for me to be able to tell people when we will have some idea of what the proposals are and how they will be consulted upon.

We have to debate and develop the plans for the new building itself and then look at the areas released as a result and debate the use of those spaces. That is the process of design development that needs to go on during the rest of this year. We are talking about roughly a two year period for the provision of the buildings. Therefore the actual provision is that much further down the line. As you will be aware, the plans we have here are ones that I inherited. I understand why they are as they are because officials have done their best to make the best, most immediate use of facilities available in this building.

Your point indicates that you cannot do everything in the facilities we have at the moment. In pursuing the design of the new building, we should arrange regular briefings so that all Assembly Members are well informed and able to contribute and comment. Questions and suggestions like yours can become part of an iterative process of developing the new building and refining the use of this building and the opportunities that arise as a result of that development. The discussion proved very helpful. One or two Members made the point during last week’s discussion about providing full facilities for the Assembly, its Members and the general public. That is certainly an issue that we all accept has to be dealt with as we develop plans for this integrated new building plus two older buildings.

What options are being considered by the Government for the disposal of Crickhowell House? If the Government had opted to take City Hall and not build a new building at all, how was Crickhowell House to be disposed of?

Looking back to the point where Crickhowell House became surplus to previous use, I might look to Rod to delve into his previous ministerial files to answer that. The decision to come to Crickhowell House was taken before I became Secretary of State so I do not know the answer and I am not sure whether it is very relevant to today’s debate.

The central point I was making is that, if we decide to proceed with the construction of this landmark building, and I hope we will, the intention is to have the new Assembly building steering group with the three other party leaders, the Presiding Officer and the Permanent Secretary as members. Also we would have a new Assembly Building—[Interruption.]

Will you confirm that in assessing your costs of City Hall, a figure of over £13 million was included for new radiators, pipes, heating, generators and pumps? How on earth was this figure computed and will he agree that if a figure of only £10 million would be more suitable for this, would it be a lot cheaper than the Bay option?

That is a misapprehension as that figure included roof costs and windows. It is an issue that has been raised with me by another Member. I am happy to clarify any of those historic pieces of information, which predate my occupation of either the office of Secretary of State or of First Secretary. The comparison of costs, and it is really delving into history, shows that the Cardiff Bay option is not as expensive as the City Hall option. I understand that some Members want to crawl over those figures, and it is right that they should be able to do so. I would be happy to answer specific questions but I am not happy to pretend that I am a qualified architect or quantity surveyor and give instant answers to the details about specific lines. I indicated the arrangements we would put in place to keep the steering group fully informed about proposals for the details of the development of the building. I underlined a few moments ago the arrangements that would be made for detailed briefing of all Members. As was obvious last week, it is of value to involve all Members because all Members will use those facilities and it is sensible to have an iterative process of discussion about the design.

I welcome the commitment to including as many Members as possible in the building’s design. In the spirit of inclusiveness, can I see addresses when we come to look at the design and the access to this building for people with disabilities? I am sure that you will come to that in due course. As the present proposals stand, there is in effect a 70-foot ramp to the entrance on the first floor of this building. It would be more acceptable if the entrance were on the ground floor because whereas a wheelchair may be able to negotiate the ramp, someone using a stick or other walking aids would find it very difficult indeed.

I have a deep suspicion that Peter has a mirror over my shoulder so that he knows what my next sentence is. If I had continued instead of allowing him to intervene, I would have answered his question before he asked it.

There is a need to discuss issues about the building with a number of interested groups. I have made it clear—as I did with several building projects in the past—that the interests of disabled people must be considered from the beginning and not as an afterthought. That applies to the interests of people with visual impairment and other disabilities. I take Peter’s point about the different interests of people who use wheelchairs or are infirm and need to depend on sticks and other aids. That has to be considered early in the project.

When one normally goes through a building process, one gets a completed design, which the public sees in its completed form. The result of a competition of this sort is a building design process that happens in the open. It is similar to a goldfish bowl. After a few weeks, we all know what that feels like.

I assure Members that the architects have spent time looking at the way in which access to the building can be achieved, in order to discuss issues with Disability Wales and other groups before the design is finalised. The architects got a clear message from last week’s meeting that this is not merely my priority but one that is shared by the entire Assembly.

The issue is about disability and design. As Members may know, I am partially deaf and have a great deal of trouble with this Chamber’s design because Members sit across from each other. I am probably not alone in that. I manage to understand the First Secretary as he always speaks from the front and I can read his lips; the same is true of the Presiding Officer. However, because she is behind a pillar, I have trouble with Helen Mary.

Don’t we all.

It is politically desirable to have a circular or almost circular Chamber. It seemed to me that that was planned in the presentation last week. I would not like us to lose sight of the arrangement that makes life easier for people with hearing disabilities.

It is not appropriate for me to put Dafydd Wigley’s comment on the record because both of us will be in trouble with Helen Mary.

After a short period, I am glad that we turned the sêt fawr—the elders’ pew—around from facing inwards, as it would have been confrontational. This is not a comfortable Chamber to be in. It does the job but it is not perfect. The atmosphere of a debate is important, not only for someone who has a hearing disability but in terms of eye contact. We are people who debate with other people. The eye contact in the House of Commons unfortunately is confrontational but it is possible to design a Chamber that has different characteristics.

I find the indicative design of the new building to be positive. One of the architects said to me that he would like to lay out a mock-up of the detailed design so that Assembly Members can sit in it and discuss whether it is what they want in terms of space and distance. It would make a difference. Those of us who have seen debating Chambers around the world have seen the House of Commons Chamber replicated within something covering six times the area, which loses advantages and gains disadvantages.

It is right to have a circular Chamber as a starting point but it will need care. That is something that Members will want to engage with. There were other issues raised last week such as the public gallery, energy efficiency and the efficiency of the entire building. The period of being involved in the design of the new building will be interesting as long as we do not spend all of our time on it.

I want to ask a question in relation to the way the building will be constructed. Will you give an assurance that the architects will use materials developed in Wales? It would ensure that the building would be a showcase, not just for traditional Welsh architecture and using slate and stone, but for Wales’ modern, creative designers. Swansea Institute of Higher Education is a world authority on stained glass and the development of new glass. We could ask them to look at ways to use resources. This would demonstrate what could be produced to our own people and the visitors who will come here in the future.

The institute referred to does not happen to be in your constituency by any chance? The architects have tried to look at materials that are indigenous and project an image of Wales. Several Members raised the point that the crafts people and the artists of Wales should be able to make a contribution. That is a positive approach. In some cases, it does not add to the cost if you think about it well in advance. The architects have taken that on board.

If the Assembly agrees to the proposal, we will arrange for the design to be explained in public meetings around Wales. I want the model to remain on display and for the architects to explain their proposals at agreed venues so that they can be fully understood. I seek the Assembly’s wholehearted support for the motion and the agreement that the Richard Rogers Partnership should continue to work on the development of the design of the new building. Business leaders and those who want to promote the economy and image of Wales will be stunned if we fail to do so today.

As far as the amendment is concerned, it may seem clever to propose a children’s hospital as an alternative to a proposal you want to defeat but it is not. Work is being done on proposals for a children’s hospital. Jane Hutt and I discussed the matter with the University Hospital of Wales and Llandough NHS trusts last week. The NHS directorate is assessing their proposals. A measure of their seriousness is the fact that the planning application for phase one is under consideration. To say no to a modern, world-class, cost-effective, landmark Assembly building here in Cardiff Bay would be to break faith with those who want to see the Assembly and Wales succeed.

This debate is about the language of priorities. Unless the First Secretary is prepared to give a copper-bottomed guarantee over his pledge that plans for the children’s hospital are to start immediately, the amendment will stand. This is truly important. It is not a principled opposition to a new Assembly building, but there are things that we should rather be doing when finance is scarce. Our first substantive decision was on cost and allowances and it would be sad if our second was on a new Assembly building. That would again reflect our self-interest and personal motivation.

The wording of the motion refers to cost parameters. Each time this is debated we talk of different figures—£12.5 million was mentioned today. If that is the figure, why was it not placed in the motion? The First Secretary and the Finance Secretary have been frequently questioned about a capped figure and I raise that question again. Should this motion be passed, we would like to know when a contract would be signed because we will then take part in any discussion about a new Assembly building.

However, we would like to discuss how it would be better for the people of Wales if this money was spent on a children’s hospital. Would not it be a more appropriate monument for the millennium?

How many children’s hospitals were built in Wales between 1979 and 1997?

I am coming on to the NHS stocktake, which perhaps you are thinking about. Anyone who has read that would see that it speaks highly of the NHS over the last few years and says that we are facing a serious position—a £25 million recurrent deficit—regardless of a children’s hospital. We are faced with the prospect of hospital closures unless we garner our resources sensibly. I welcome your intervention because it illustrates my point about the language of priorities and that is the case whichever Government is in office.

Why the sudden Conservative concern about children’s hospitals? Your party was in power for almost two decades and it sent nearly £100 million of Welsh money back to the Treasury as a virility gesture. If you were seriously concerned about building children’s hospitals rather than making political gestures, we would have John Redwood Memorial Hospitals the length and breadth of Wales.

I welcome the intervention but Edwina Hart’s reaction just now demonstrates that that money was not sent back to the Treasury. I am not sure whether Alun Pugh is speaking for or against a children’s hospital. If he is for it, I welcome his support; if he is not, clearly he will vote against the amendment. That is a matter for him.

Is my friend aware that in the 1980s, the average expenditure on new hospitals under the Conservative Government was £100 million in Wales? Now that the Labour party has drastically reduced capital expenditure on hospitals in Wales, it is set to fall from £18 million to £5 million—£5 million compared with the Conservative Government’s £100 million.

Thank you for refreshing my memory. We both attended the Health and Social Services Committee where you made that point. Jane Hutt was somewhat surprised and the civil servants were unable to explain why spending has been cut on the capital programme in the budget. This again illustrates the point that if people recognise our lack of resources, it does not make sense to be spending them on a new Assembly building.

Are you aware that about 10 years ago, firm plans for a children’s hospital in Cardiff were deleted from the programme under your Government?

If you are speaking in favour of a children’s hospital and are trying to hold me to account for what happened under the last Government, I will accept my share of responsibilities even though I was not an MP. If you are saying that it is now important to flag up a children’s hospital, I welcome your support. This issue is not just about whether a children’s hospital should have been built previously but whether it should be built now. We should focus our attention on the issue. The First Secretary seems anxious to intervene but if I could develop these points he will have plenty of opportunity.

You are doing very well on your own.

Thank you. I take it, therefore, that you do not want to intervene. There are some substantive issues about the new Assembly building. Along with many people here, I went to the meeting about it and I am open minded to a fault about its merits. However, there are some issues that give me pause.

The First Secretary said that the auditorium would have capacity for 100 people. We have all been told that our current building is singularly deficient in that respect. I understand that point to a degree because this auditorium, which holds 60 people, is always crowded. The auditorium of the new building is to hold 50 members of the public and 50 members of the press—fewer people than the current Chamber. This issue was raised by all the parties in the meeting and those present can confirm those figures.

I am sure that you simply want to provide information rather than mislead the Assembly. The figures include the numbers for the press and public galleries but because the public gallery number is clearly lower than that which Members require I spoke to the architect to ensure a degree of flexibility for greater capacity in that gallery should it be the Assembly’s desire. I gave that assurance in my contribution this afternoon.

I was not privy to those private discussions but I think the First Secretary would accept that I gave the figures that were in the statement. There was also talk of more people at a higher level without seating and this is an issue that can be addressed.

The higher level is where it will be possible for people to see into the Chamber. Even though on the outside it would be possible for them to use headphones to have an aural glimpse of Chamber proceedings. However, we are talking about the public gallery in the Chamber itself. During the course of questions and answers, the architect made it clear that it was a first fix on the numbers and that Members’ aspirations for a larger public seating area could be met in the design parameters.

The First Secretary will understand the concern about the original figure of 50 for the auditorium. There was much talk of a democratic roof but not of space in the Assembly auditorium for people to hear the debate.

Other aspects that need to be addressed include the ramp and steps that do not lend themselves to disabled access and the fact that previous Richard Rogers’s buildings have been known to leak in the physical and not the Committee sense. These objections to the design do not begin to address the problem of priorities. I do not know their political affiliation but Stephen Day and Geoff Hole have collected the signatures of over 16,000 people in Cardiff who believe that it would be better to spend the money on a children’s hospital rather than a new Assembly building. I suspect that they speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people throughout Wales and we would be contributing to the cynicism in our country if our first two substantive decisions related to our own allowances and salaries and a new Assembly building rather than to the proper language of priorities.

You talked of cynicism but is it not true that Stephen Day and Geoff Hole have combined this campaign with advertising their own business?

I do not believe that this is the case. One of them was motivated by the fact that his child could not be treated in Wales but had to be treated in Bristol for a life-threatening disease. The campaign was not motivated in any way by business or party politics but by a genuine desire to do something for Wales, and I accept it on that basis.

Our misgivings about this new building relate to how the money could be better spent. If we pass this motion unamended today, we will send out a signal about the sort of Wales that we want—a Wales with a new Assembly building, not a new children’s hospital.

Mae Plaid Cymru yn cefnogi’r cynnig ac yn gwrthwynebu gwelliant y Blaid Geidwadol. Hefyd, gwrthwynebwn y ffordd sinigaidd y mae’r Blaid Geidwadol wedi defnyddio’r ddadl hon.

Hoffwn ateb cwestiwn a ofynnwyd i Nick Bourne ddwywaith, sef a adeiladodd y Blaid Dorïaidd ysbyty i blant yn ystod 18 mlynedd o lywodraeth? Yr ateb yw, ‘Naddo’. Nid oedd ganddynt unrhyw gynllun i wneud hynny. Mae’r Blaid Dorïaidd wedi bod mewn grym am 35 mlynedd yn ystod y 50 mlynedd ddiwethaf ac ni chafwyd unrhyw gynllun i adeiladu ysbyty i blant yng Nghymru. Ymgyrch gwbl sinigaidd gan y Blaid Dorïaidd yw hon.

Hoffwn dynnu sylw Ieuan Wyn Jones at y ffaith fod y Blaid Geidwadol wedi adeiladu nifer helaeth o unedau i blant dros Gymru, gan gynnwys uned yng Nghaerdydd.

Hoffwn dynnu sylw Rod at y gwelliant sydd gerbron y Cynulliad, sef adeiladu ysbyty i blant, nid uned. Pe bai’r Torïaid o ddifrif, dylai’r cynllun fod wedi ymddangos yn eu rhaglen yn ystod un o’r 35 mlynedd y maent wedi bod mewn grym ers 1945.

Clywsom y math hwn o ddadl yn ystod y refferendwm a’r ymgyrch etholiadol. Yng Nghymru, dylem fod yn falch o’r anturiaeth yr ydym yn rhan ohoni. Pa fath o genedl fyddai Cymru pe na byddai’n manteisio ar y cyfle i gael adeilad o urddas i gynnal ei Chynulliad Cenedlaethol? Pa fath o genedl fyddem ni pe baem yn derbyn y dadleuon ymylol yr ydym yn eu clywed drwy’r amser gan y Blaid Dorïaidd?

Ystyriwch ein traddodiad o safbwynt adeiladau o urddas. Pwy fyddai’n dadlau heddiw yn erbyn y math o adeilad a geir yn Aberystwyth sydd yn cynnal ein Llyfrgell Genedlaethol? Gallwn, fel cenedl, ymfalchïo yn yr adeilad hwnnw. Mae ein Hamgueddfa Genedlaethol yng Nghaerdydd yn adeilad y gallai unrhyw genedl yn y byd ymfalchïo ynddo.

Yr ydym yn symud i gyfnod lle mae’r genedl hon yn ymfalchïo yn ei democratiaeth newydd. Gwelwn batrwm newydd o wneud pethau. Mae penderfyniad fel hwn yn ddatganiad o falchder cenedlaethol—datganiad ein bod, fel cenedl, yn ddigon hyderus i gael adeilad y gallwn fod yn falch ohono.

Ar wahân i’r dadleuon ynglŷn â balchder cenedlaethol, mae rhesymau ymarferol dros gael adeilad newydd. Mae Dafydd Wigley wedi rhoi enghreifftiau o’r sefyllfa anffodus yr haf hwn lle mae rhaid i aelodau o’n staff weithio o dan amgylchiadau anodd. Yn ogystal, mae’n anodd i nifer fawr o bobl ddod i mewn i’r adeilad hwn—nid oes digon o le i’r cyhoedd ac mae’r Siambr yn anaddas ar gyfer sefydliad cendlaethol.

Dywedaf wrth bobl Cymru: gwrandewch ar bobl sydd yn credu bod cenedl y Cymry yn haeddu adeilad o urddas yng Nghaerdydd. Peidiwch â gwrando ar blaid sydd wedi gwthio ei blaenoriaethau gwariant am 18 mlynedd ac sydd yn meiddio dweud wrthym ni beth y dylem wneud â’n harian.

This Assembly would be nothing without a flagship standing as proud testament to the way in which it speaks for Wales. If we are to speak for Wales, we must do so in a different manner. The design is imaginative to some, different to others and it may not please everybody. But it would not have any impact without a commitment from the Assembly. Our new building will make a statement that we are trying to look outwards and raise our people’s confidence.

If we remain in a building that looks like an office, we might be comfortable but we would not set the standard for the future. The fact that the Tories oppose a flagship project for Wales is as predictable as snowflakes melting in your hand or, more relevantly, frogs croaking in the dusk. They always oppose, they never propose. We heard the hypocrisy of the Tories calling for a children’s hospital in Cardiff Bay when they have already cancelled such a plan. Thankfully, planning permission is underway for a children’s hospital in Cardiff based upon the University of Wales Hospital.

Is not it hypocritical that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to increase taxes for the sake of education but are happier to build a new palace in Cardiff Bay than to use similar resources for education or a children’s hospital?

It is important that we make a statement for the people of Wales, which will increase Wales’s prosperity. I give Barcelona as an example. Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, which is twinned with Wales. Catalonia has made statements through proud projects. That has turned the economy of that country around. It now has the fastest growing regional economy in Europe. That has happened through raising the confidence of the people and making them look outwards.

We are making a statement of confidence. If we followed the Conservative route and did not make a statement, Conservative Members would bring up something else instead of a children’s hospital—perhaps a railway station or something else that we desperately need or that they felt that we needed. It does not matter what, the list would go on endlessly. Conservative Members would continually oppose, not propose.

The difficulty that they face is that virtually everything that they could propose would be something that they had a hand in cutting in their period of office. When they had a chance to do it, they did not do it. It is hypocrisy of the worst kind to say, ‘We did not do it when we were in charge but now that somebody else is in charge, we want them to remember that it should have been done.’ I am sure that we all remember what they did in respect of health and education, books for schools, class sizes, local government finance, street cleaning, poll tax. It is easy to oppose for the sake of opposing. I ask them to consider, and I am sure that Rod would agree with me, the role model of Mrs Thatcher.

Does the Member accept that under the last Conservative Government there were fewer homeless people, class sizes were smaller, hospital waiting lists were shorter and there were more police officers on the beat?

I will take the general election as my example and, considering where you started and finished at the general election, the answer to your question is no. If you are asking me if the Labour Party has managed to deal with waiting lists and waiting times, of course it has not. But at the general election, the people of Britain and the people of Wales measured the Conservative Party by their achievements, and said that they were not satisfied with the public services provided.

I will continue with my little story. I would have thought that Mrs Thatcher was a role model for some in the Conservative Group, but not for all of them. The new European Parliament building soon to be opened has the support of Mrs Thatcher because she feels that it is a proud representation of the European Community, on which her party has turned its back substantially.

We face the problem of raising our national standing. We must recognise that confidence in looking outwards and standing tall as a nation is something that we will achieve by the way we behave. For people who want to be confident in their country, there is a difference between a renovated office building that is not a proud statement of our country and the alternative, which is a flagship project that says something about the people we represent. That difference is what the building is all about.

However, I share many of the concerns. Disabled access is one that is universally shared in this Chamber, and one which we would expect the architects to deal with swiftly along with the size and nature of the public gallery and the use of the public and private areas. We should be proud that this project will provide more public access than any legislature that I know of in western Europe. There are also concerns about keeping cool in what might be a glass-walled chamber and about a link to existing buildings. These are concerns that we as an Assembly can take hold of and develop.

If we want to be a proud country, making this gesture will show that we represent the people of Wales and that we want to approve something that raises the standards and confidence of our country. Income and an injection of capital will follow that gesture, of which others will think us worthy. People who now find it difficult to accept such a building will change their attitude once it is built. Take for example, the new millennium rugby stadium. Before Wales beat South Africa voices were raised all over the country about the value of such a project. Now that Wales has beaten the world champions it stands as Wales stands—a champion ready to beat the world.

The debate this afternoon causes me to wonder whether the words of John Major in 1997 have been heeded. He said that the Conservative Party would learn the lessons of the 1997 election defeat. Conservative Members have given an excellent imitation of collective amnesia this afternoon. How many times have you heard them defend what happened between 1979 and 1997?

This debate is about a building. The building represents Wales’s future and all that will be good. There will obviously be people who are against a building such as this. There were people against the Sydney Opera House and Mike has already made the point that there were people against the millennium stadium. The new building will provide a spacious comfortable area for those people at the back of this Chamber, who have come to listen to us for a couple of hours and who are today cramping on hard seats.

It is not very fair to refer to the people at the back in such a way because they seem to be comfortable. The point is whether there are enough of them. We have already heard that the new building was not initially conceived as having more seats than here. Sixteen thousand people in Cardiff do not think that this building ought to be built at all. Why not listen to them?

I suspect that there are more people at the back than there will be at the next Welsh Conservative conference. The people at the back do not have a voice, but they have come to hear us voice their concerns. The point, made many times, is that the number of people who will be accommodated in the building can be altered. There is no problem with accommodating 100 members of the public. We are talking about ensuring that the building reaches the design stage and about our own input. This was alien to past Governments, but it will be a first to have input from the people of Wales as to how many people should be in the Assembly building, how many spaces should be for members of the public and what facilities should be available to them. It is also incredible that this argument is presented as a straight fight for resources between an Assembly building and a children’s hospital. I would have thought that anyone proposing a motion to build a children’s hospital would have at least researched the cost of such a hospital. We have not even been told that. Let us see if we are now told.

The figure has been put at around £21 million. I was working on a previous figure of £17 million for the new Assembly building but this seems to be changing virtually every time we look at it and it is now at about £20 million. I would like to make clear that there are a number of private backers in the Cardiff area who are more than happy to come up with any difference in funding between the cost of the proposed Assembly building and a new children’s hospital.

I am surprised that the figure was not put to us at the beginning of the debate. It is something that has been plucked from the air and we will have to see what happens with it. However, we have already been told that there will be a children’s hospital in Cardiff. I cannot understand why this amendment refers to only one children’s hospital. Why one, why in Cardiff and where will it be? There is no problem or difficulty in looking at children’s facilities throughout Wales in future. Those facilities can be provided from the Assembly’s block budget funds or from funds that may be available elsewhere. This is not a straight choice between the Assembly building and a children’s hospital. Far be it for me to raise what happened between 1979 and 1997, but £280 million was spent on new offices in the Palace of Westminster. I cannot remember much in the way of protest at that sum of almost 20 times as much.

It may be worth mentioning that a total of £6 million was spent on the revamping of the Palace of Westminster cafeteria. I do not remember the Conservative Party complaining about that expenditure.

I am very grateful for that intervention, illustrating one waste of money.

Is it not the case that the MP for Ogmore, Ray Powell, was some way in charge of the Committee, in fact Chairman of the Committee that proposed those new office blocks?

Was he in charge or some way in charge? Which is it—one way or another? [CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS: ‘In charge, in charge.’] I hear some chanting on my right-hand side.

I had not realised that Sir Ray Powell, MP for Ogmore, was the person who controlled this expenditure and made the decision in Parliament. The point is that it was supported by the Conservative Members in Parliament.

To set the record straight, the chair of that building project is the Conservative Sir Sydney Chapman.

Billions of pounds were lost because Railtrack was undersold. If local council had done that, they would have been surcharged. We are talking about a figure of £12.5 million, which will be spent on a building that will bring people into the Bay and enable people to see democracy at work, which is not possible at Westminster to any great extent. It will enable money to come into this area. People will come and see the area and the building. Money will be spent in revitalising the local community. We can use those funds to look at other projects in the future. This building is not £12.5 million down the drain. It is an investment. It represents the vision of Wales for the future. I am afraid that those who oppose it have no vision.

I am saddened that this debate has been rehearsed over and over again. I know it is important, but we only have so much time for Plenary sessions. It is costly for us to sit here. Many of us travel from north Wales and that eats into our hours. The Tories have had enough of this debate and the time has come to move on. We have listened long and their dog in the manger attitude to talking about the children’s hospital has to be put to bed. There are other important issues to discuss.

It is unfortunate that the Chamber is this building’s worst feature. It has been likened to an underground car park. Vision is poor, space is cramped, public accessibility is minimal and Helen Mary is hidden by pillars, but not from me Helen. I can see you very well.

The Chamber is the public image of the Assembly and it is important that we get it right. Of course the Tories do not care about that. I say to the Tories, you lost the general election and the referendum, eight seats out of nine are due to a proportional representation system you do not believe in. You are drawing salaries and expenses that you do not believe you should have. For God’s sake, grow up. Treat the people you represent with respect, and start engaging constructively with the devolution process.

The motion asks for the development of the building project to remain within the cost parameters that are to be established. I ask the First Secretary what those cost parameters are, and if one of the cost parameters is the actual cost of the new building, will he guarantee that it will not go over the £12.5 million that he mentioned earlier? I refer him to a paper from his own management services divison dated June 1999. It says:

I am also concerned that the motion suggests that a new policy steering group should be set up to take this project forward so that we can have this inclusiveness, this all-party agreement, this common ownership of Government policy, which I do not much care for. I am concerned that this is delegating powers from the Assembly to this policy steering group so that it can go beyond the cost parameter of £12.5 million to £20 million.

I should like the First Secretary to comment on a paper that the Permanent Secretary kindly managed to get to me this morning. The paper makes a net present value comparison between City Hall and the development of the Bay. Having spent some time as a Minister, one is always suspicious of civil servants and their timescales. I was intrigued that the comparisons that the Permanent Secretary made in his paper were over a period of 17 years. That includes two years before the completion of the proposed new building. Would you explain why 17 years was chosen for a net present value comparison and not perhaps a longer period, which some might have thought would be more appropriate?

I am intrigued that the costs of the Pierhead Building were itemised under the development of City Hall in the comparison the Permanent Secretary made, yet I distinctly heard the First Secretary say that the Pierhead Building will be used in the Bay development. There seems to be an item under the costings for City Hall in the wrong place.

Also on the costings issue, why is it that the current and disposal costs of Cathays Park 1 are not included in any of the calculations? After all, the building is still there and the First Secretary has an office there. His office is approximately twice as big as the office Michael Heseltine had when he was Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that the other eight Cabinet Secretaries have offices there as well. Is this building needed or could it be disposed of?

There will be a HTV programme on Thursday called ‘Wales This Week’, which looks carefully at some of the figures that the Government has published thus far. The programme asks whether the Government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or has it in fact kept many of these cost details hidden not only from the Assembly but, more importantly, from the taxpayer? It is clear that the decision to go for a new building in Cardiff Bay is linked to the problem of the disposal of Crickhowell House. It was a political decision taken for political reasons, not for the reasons that the First Secretary gave.

It has been an interesting and revealing debate. I started off being impressed by Nick Bourne’s willingness to accept an intellectual challenge and try to explain away nearly two decades of Tory damage to the NHS in Wales, as well as general neglect of our children through that period by his party. During this debate, the Conservatives have tried to introduce an element of confusion over the figures. It has struck me again that Rod Richards is better at asking questions than he was at answering them when he was a Minister.

The simple response to his question about the possibility of rising costs is that if you add more facilities and requirements and expense, then it will cost more. If you do not and if we keep the cost within limits, and I believe we have to exercise discipline over the cost of the scheme, then you keep the cost within limit. The figures are simple. The £19.7 million was the figure mentioned at the time of the legislation. That is divided between the £7.2 million for Crickhowell House and the adaptations for the Chamber that we are in now and the £12.5 million, which is the figure that I have mentioned and will continue to mention as the figure for the new building. Rod asked about a number of other matters to do with the finances, including a rather obscure question about Crickhowell House. Crickhowell House was constructed during the last administration and taken on by the Welsh Office. It is part of our inheritance and that must have been part of the decision to make use of it. The disposal or use of the building are balancing factors in any figures.

I want to go back to the net present value comparison and the period of 17 years. Will he comment on the cost of keeping Crickhowell House with that of the new building and on the figures the Permanent Secretary gave me, which related to comparisons over 17 years?

It would be interesting for Rod to reflect on the wriggling that went on when Ministers were asked questions about Crickhowell House when he was in Government.

I am asking you now.

I know you are. That is what I am saying: you are better at asking questions than you ever were at answering them because we never got to the bottom of what was going on at that time. There would be many people interested in hearing your answers about that period.

As far as the net present value is concerned, you have the economic appraisal in the paper that was given to you. The net present cost is not the cost per year. It is the cost of the full period for the appraisal, which is 17 years in this case, representing 15 years of operation once the new building is completed. It is on that basis that a like-for-like comparison is being made. This attempt to introduce confusion over figures is part of the Conservatives failure to answer the question, ‘What are they up to’? The answer to what they are up to is simple; they do not want the Assembly to work and succeed. I frequently disagree with Ieuan and Mike, but today we are choosing to vote for hope and a positive vision of the future for Wales.

I am proud of our capital city. In 1973 I became a member of a city council and authority responsible for a run-down and demoralised city, clogged with traffic, with a fine Victorian civic centre but a decayed city centre and a dying docklands. After years of hard work and partnership, we have a thriving city centre, St David’s Hall and a world wide reputation. Our docklands have been regenerated, not least by the local authority building that not only generated confidence in the private sector but saved money for ratepayers. It has been a combination of public initiative and private enterprise, a partnership that is at the heart of the Assembly. It has driven the city to the position that it is in now.

The First Secretary has clearly been avoiding my questions, so I will put it to him very simply. Has this Labour Government extended the lease of Crickhowell House, yes or no?

Not as far as I am aware. Rod asks interesting questions and I will make enquiries. I am not aware of an extension of the lease, but Rod specialises in interesting questions which are meant to divert us from the real question of whether we want to continue to build a new building which is worthy of the people of Wales. The city has become a success on the partnership between public initiative and private enterprise. As a youngster, I used to come to Cardiff from north Wales—usually for rugby—and I found it a disappointment. I want people who come to Cardiff to see democracy in Wales working and to be proud of our capital and our Assembly.

It is about creating confidence throughout Wales, and we see that in towns and cities such as Swansea and Wrexham. We also are pushing redevelopment of the economy in the rural areas of mid and west Wales. These are not alternatives but objectives that must be achieved by a confident Assembly, democratically working together to build a new Wales. That involves building a new Assembly Chamber in which our debates can continue with the maturity and the quality that Wales wants and deserves. I commend the motion to the House.

Could I have a recorded vote on this?

I therefore ask for a confirmatory vote.

I shall try to be as quick as possible, partly because this is our third debate on this subject in a week. The foundation stones that have been laid in that Objective 1 has been secured for 65 per cent of the population of Wales, which includes the the Valleys and west Wales. Nobody could describe that as a disappointing outcome to the lengthy negotiations. The same applies to the announcement last week that the assisted areas cover 71.5 per cent of the population of Wales. The DTI will send the announcement to Brussels. You can carp about that but you cannot complain.

Those are the foundation stones and the background to the national development strategy document and the two programme documents that accompany it. They have set us very challenging targets. It was the UK Government as a whole—virtually before this Assembly was set up—that achieved the Objective 1 settlement. Tony Blair negotiated through the night in the Berlin summit and then dashed to Llandudno to announce the details. I cannot claim the credit for those foundation stones as they were the work of the British Government. The same applies to the assisted areas announcement last week and to the national development strategy. It is an attempt to do bottom-up rather than top-down economic planning. I commend the people—

Cyfeiriodd Rhodri at y datganiad a wnaethpwyd yr wythnos diwethaf ynglŷn â’r map statws datblygu. A all gadarnhau y bydd y Llywodraeth yng Nghymru yn ychwanegu at y map a’r statws cyffredinol a ddiffiniwyd ar gyfer Prydain o fewn y datganiad yr wythnos diwethaf? A ddaw rhagor o fanylion ar gyfer Cymru, yn arbennig ar gyfer busnesau bach? Byddai’n gymorth pe baem yn cael gwybod, cyn cau ar gyfer yr haf, fod pecyn mwy yn dod gan y Llywodraeth.

Mae’r trafodaethau yn parhau yn ein hymdrech i gynnwys rhagor o ardaloedd o dan fap Amcan 2 nag y gallem dan gyfundrefn Llywodraeth Prydain lle gallwch gael grantiau ar gyfer busnes newydd neu i symud busnes i mewn. Cafwyd datganiad ar ran Lloegr ond nid ar ran Cymru yr wythnos diwethaf gan John Prescott, y Dirprwy Brif Weinidog. Siaradodd am help arbennig y tu allan i’r ardaloedd oedd ar y map. Yr ydym yn adolygu’r holl system o gymorth i fusnesau bach ac yn gwneud hynny mewn modd mwy integredig a dyfnach nag yn Lloegr. Bydd hynny’n cymryd llawer mwy o fisoedd a disgwyliwn y byddwn yn dychwelyd at y pwnc yn yr hydref. Fodd bynnag, oherwydd ein bod yn ei wneud yn well, os gallaf ymffrostio am eiliad neu ddwy, nid ydym yn gallu ei wneud yn gyntaf neu ar yr un pryd â Lloegr.

The approach to preparing this national plan is a bottom-up one. That is how the task force has done the job. It is courageous to have a task force representing all these separate elements in Wales, coming through with its ideas. Somebody has to integrate those ideas because they represent so many disparate elements. To be fair, the task force itself has progressed along those lines. It emphasises how you should integrate the creation of more jobs—particularly in less prosperous areas of Wales—with raising skills levels. Those establishing new firms require people who have been through the training centres and skills upgrade projects. It is the Holy Grail of economic development but we do not consider it unobtainable; we consider it a challenge. It is nothing less than trying to do a ‘Graham Henry’ on the Welsh economy, particularly on the lagging areas such as west Wales and the Valleys.

We are not the first country to have delivered the step change. Although its circumstances are slightly different, the Republic of Ireland has helped to show the way. We do not have all of the freedom of manoeuvre that the Republic has, but we have strengths that they do not. If the Republic of Ireland delivered that kind of step change, despite the differences, there is no reason why we could not do the same. It is a wonderful coincidence that the Assembly is creating, in political terms, a climate of hope and not fear. When the consultation period is over and this goes to Brussels, we must implement this report over the next seven or eight years. We will also replace the climate of fear with a climate of hope in the economy. That is why I commend this report to the Assembly.

Plaid Cymru’s first amendment is grammatical and we accept it. We have no objection to the second amendment either and are going to accept it. However, there is a whiff of amendment for amendment’s sake. Nevertheless, we do not disagree with the sentiments behind it. When Phil Williams explains what they are, I am sure that we will agree with them. With the encouraging, inclusive and all-Wales approach this afternoon, I hope not only that the debate and the consultation will go well, but that this report will turn into a finalised document when it comes in front of us again, before it goes to Brussels in October.

No. 2, at the end of the motion add:

However, we believe that for the documents to be as effective as possible it is necessary to establish a strong theme that combines the different elements in the existing material, and complements the clear analysis of the present economic difficulties of Wales with a greater emphasis on the real potential for Wales to make a significant contribution to the sustainable development of the European economy.

We therefore charge the Economic Development Committee, in close co-operation with the Post-16 Education Committee, to be actively involved in the public consultation, giving special attention to those elements that were not fully represented in the Task Force, and to develop fully the case presented in the draft documents.

Nobody can disagree with the motion. We must thank the hundreds of people who have worked hard. We must at least note the eventual publication after many delays and encourage the widest participation. However, it is not enough. In this report, there are many good points and lots of useful detailed material, but the overall impression is sometimes disappointing. Everyone knows in their hearts that there is still work to be done. Wales has every reason to be grateful that the Assembly exists to ensure that the work is done. I think that it was Ann Jones who said in the Economic Development Committee that these are the most important documents we will ever set our eyes upon. It is not acceptable to go on holiday at the weekend and come back in mid-September expecting the work to have been done.

Do you agree that the debate on these important documents has been curtailed by unnecessary nonsense earlier on?

I do. The total budget involved must be 200 times the size of the Assembly budget. We should have—

I will concentrate on the national economic development strategy. In a logical procedure, this is a strategy that should have been finalised long before writing the single programme documents. In the spirit of inclusiveness, I will not go over the past. I will say simply that there are failures in it that the Assembly must remedy. There are three weaknesses that we can and must correct.

The most serious weakness is the lack of a strong, unifying theme that makes a compelling case. We must establish a strong theme that combines all the best elements in the existing material; a theme that tackles our problems within a global context. Yet, that theme is already in the document, waiting to be given a proper emphasis. It is one of the nine themes listed in chapter 3. It is a theme that links the development strategy with the Assembly’s functions, as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998. It is our duty to promote sustainable development. A proper emphasis on sustainable development is a theme that will transform these documents and show how Wales can make a maximum contribution to the future economy of Europe.

I draw your attention to the requirements from the European Commission that there be four cross-cutting themes: sustainability, equal opportunities, employability and adaptability. These have to run through all European programmes, particularly Objective 1. Do you agree that it is the Economic Development Committee’s job to scrutinise the cross-cutting themes to determine priorities and ensure that the measures in place will tackle gross domestic product?

A full development of sustainability requires adaptability, gives full opportunities to different parts and spreads prosperity. To an extent, it is the prime theme that can deliver most of the objectives.

There is a problem in the definition of the term ‘sustainable development’ as it has three different meanings. There is an old changing meaning of sustainable economic growth that refers to steady growth in a managed economy; a process that smoothes out the traditional stop and go. That is an important aim and not a trivial matter.

The second definition is that it is development that can be stimulated by external support to become self-sustaining and continue after external funding has come to an end. That is an important aspect in making a case to the European Union because the hope is that we will become eligible for Objective 1.

The third meaning is the most important as we enter the next century and it is not given enough emphasis. We must find a form of economic and social life that can continue indefinitely within the finite limits of the planet. The whole world faces the challenge of making a profound transformation from an economic pattern that is exhausting resources while making irreversible changes to the global environment. This is not merely a question of protecting our natural and built environment in Wales, important though it is.

I live in a beautiful valley, rich in flowers and bird life where the red kites are returning in force. It would be easy to be complacent and forget that global imperatives require a more profound transformation than a mere increased concern for our local environment. My background is in space and atmospheric physics and, as a scientist, I insist that sustainable development does not allow an increase in the average level of carbon dioxide beyond a limit we are fast approaching. That demands a cut of more than 50 per cent in the present level of carbon dioxide production. If you interpret that in its global effect, there will be a wholesale transfer of energy production from fossil fuels to non-polluting renewables. That transformation will create massive, new and profitable industries with an opportunity to establish widespread export links, which is good news for Wales.

Wales is geographically ideal for hosting the prototype of that shift. With the geographical factors and the well-established university sector in engineering, we have all the ingredients. Only 15 lines are given in the document to getting the development strategy, something that will undoubtedly be one of the fastest growing industries in the world over the next 20 years. This is an industry where Wales has unique potential and where development is appropriate for support from European funds.

Sustainable development also requires that, wherever possible, we replace part of the increasing level of road traffic with the transport of information. Information and communication technology is emphasised in the document as a way of helping small and medium sized enterprises, especially in rural areas. This is important. However, there is little sense of the huge revolution that real board-bound communication is bringing. It is a revolution that brings a truly sustainable knowledge-based economy where, at a stroke, no part of Wales is remote and where it is possible for young people to follow careers at the highest level without leaving Wales.

In this context, it is not irrelevant that auto-electronics is another industry that is bound to grow rapidly in the next 20 years. It is an industry where Wales already has a world lead. The potential benefits to Wales are so varied, far-reaching and integrate so many aspects of the whole strategy that the industry should be given a more central position.

Apart from making a good and well-reasoned case, there is another reason why I stress the importance of having an overriding theme. Once it is established, it leads automatically to the next step in a successful economic strategy called sector selectivity. In every case where I have observed at close quarters the rapid economic growth of a small nation, there has always been an element of selectivity. In Finland, it was computer-controlled garment manufacturing and mobile phones. In Ireland, there has been a deliberate emphasis on computers, software engineering, call-centres and, presently, electronic commerce. We also need to pick our winners. An important consequence of sector selectivity is that it allows us to define our future needs for training in the appropriate skills. We cannot determine the future demand for skills without knowing which sectors we are planning to develop. There is an important debate on the future of training and enterprise councils and it is often expressed as a choice between supply or demand driven further education. How can we determine demand for skills without a clear idea of what sectors we seek to expand? What areas of research do we encourage in our universities? I must say in passing that—

It is disappointing that there is no serious mention of the university sector. I want to end on a positive note. The third criticism of the development strategy in making the case is that the document concentrates almost entirely on negatives. The first two pages make depressing reading: a country of low average income, low activity rate, low productivity, few entrepreneurs, poor education performance, low skills, low levels of research and development, poor housing, poor health and high crime rate. All these factors are true but they are not the whole truth. There is a positive side that needs to be emphasised. It would have helped if the report had added in passing that, until around 20 years ago, Wales constantly sent a higher proportion of young people to universities and colleges than England. Our tradition—

Wales has never had poor education standards throughout our history. The problem has been the constant drain of our best talent out of Wales. The lack of high quality jobs throughout Wales is the reason for the recent drop in education standards, not the consequence of it. There has always been talent, inventiveness and skill, but these have never been developed in Wales. That is why the European funds are so important. They can help break the cycle that has served Wales badly.

The case we must make is not that Wales is intrinsically backward and hopeless and needs to be propped up but that it is a nation with a combination of resources, virtues, talent and values which, properly developed, match the main challenge of the next century. I understand that the amendment and, more important, the spirit of it is accepted. It is important that the Economic Development Committee is involved in the consultation and discusses these issues with the Post-16 Education and Training Committee. In Ireland nearly 40 per cent of structural funds are directed to education. We need a joint meeting before February. All four parties must work together to ensure that the final document not only makes a powerful case for economic regeneration but is a source of pride for the Assembly task force and an inspiration to Wales.

There have been many political battles to date about who has been responsible for gaining Objective 1 status for the Valleys and west Wales. However, without the Conservatives’ local government reorganisation, the framework would not have been available. It is time for those battles to end and for us to seize the opportunity before us. It is not often that the UK receives anything worthwhile from Brussels, so let us ensure that this project works for the whole of Wales. Increased prosperity in some regions will help further develop others. East Wales cannot be neglected but west Wales and the Valleys must have priority.

Do you agree that one of the key factors in making this programme work effectively across Wales to tackle poverty and inequality is to achieve a consensus among the organisations involved in delivering the work and determining the strategy? The task force has set out to do that. We should put a high priority on seeking to achieve political consensus in this Chamber so that we can give strong political leadership and direction to this programme as it rolls out across Wales over the next six years.

Thank you for those comments. In supporting the motion, we will put that consensus into practice. The most important period of the Objective 1 project has now arrived. The foundations for the success of any business scheme are laid in the planning and preparation stage. The documents must be seen and interpreted as business policies—a business plan for Wales plc. They provide the blueprint for economic activity for the next 10 years. It is not about short-term political gain, as Val has already said. It should not be a political football.

Many of us may not be here in 10 years’ time, when the programme comes to an end. This is about rediscovering our confidence and shaking off any feelings of insecurity. It is about reforming our culture and the misconceptions about us abroad. The documents are not for us politicians but for business people who can make this happen. Our role is to lay the base of the pyramid so that the private sector can help us reach for the pinnacle. We must create the environment for stable and long-term sustained growth. The private sector must be allowed to lead and regenerate our economy. For too long the Welsh economy has lagged behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe, with a smaller private sector, fewer start-ups and more insolvencies.

Objective 1 provides the opportunity to correct this. However, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. On first reading the documents, I felt that there were nuts and bolts missing that needed—

There is not enough time to expand and develop my argument. However, the recommendations made by the National Assembly Advisory Group that you have highlighted have to be abided by under Standing Orders.

My point expands on what Phil Williams has said. The big idea is missing. To bring together all of these nuts and bolts and for the engine to run in the right direction, we must have a clear path ahead. That would enable the private and public sector to pull together so that training and skill requirements work towards the same purpose. That big idea is missing from the documents. I hope consultation will bring that idea.

The Liberal Democrats feel that these documents provide a framework and signpost the way forward. However, there is much work to be done. We support the motion and the amendment and particularly the emphasis on education and training. Phil mentioned earlier that the Irish Government put about 35 to 40 per cent of their Objective 1 money into education and training. They were aware from the beginning of the importance of doing this. As a member of the Post-16 Education and Training Committee, I welcome the suggestion that that Committee play an active role in the process with the Economic Development Committee.

These documents, like the ETAG report, are bare bones. It is up to the Assembly to put the flesh on those bones. We need to address some matters, particularly the economic inactivity, as it is called, of young women for long periods because they are at home and unable to get training or education. There is a desperate need for childcare. We also need to look at how young people can both work and take courses without losing out on salaries. I also flag up our appalling record among the over 16s on generic skills, particularly communication.

One of my pet issues is our attitude towards language and language learning. Some of us are becoming more and more like our neighbours over the border and think that being monoglot is cool. We need to accept that bilingualism, trilingualism, the ability to speak four languages even, is a European norm. Money must be invested in that, as it was in Ireland. The underlying need is for a qualifications framework to allow people to dip in and out of education and training throughout their lives and for funding childcare and other schemes to allow people to take up education whenever they want.

It is a great pity that this important debate has been cut so short. Perhaps we can learn the lesson that time is precious, as well as opportunity. Opportunity is what we seek to create for our people through seizing the chances offered by the structural funds. I am glad that Phil Williams stressed the need to work positively for a sustainable economy. I agree that we must look to the long term. I have said often that we must not see this as an opportunity to take our bucket to the source of a stream of money and then spend it. We must transform the economy.

I welcome the report. Rhodri Morgan and I have acknowledged that it is strong on identifying the problems we face and that we need to strengthen how we see the opportunities offered and develop a strategic plan that will work. I agree that the report is not perfect. However, we should underline its strengths. It was developed through the good will of partners across different sectors of the Welsh economy. However, somewhere along the line there was a loss of focus. I am grateful to the Permanent Secretary, Jon Shortridge for chairing sessions to ensure that the entire project came back on track. We have moved in the right direction and the task force has done us a great service by providing us with this report. However, it should be regarded as work in progress: something that gives us an opportunity to move forwards—a springboard rather than the end of a task.

The main lines of the strategy are clear. The new strategic approach fully integrated with the Assembly’s mainstream programmes will provide the critical mass of effort that the economy needs. A coherent cross-cutting approach to problems in our most deprived areas and communities is what we as an Assembly have taken as a central theme. It will involve major investment in terms of skill and training and will be based on a fresh approach to enterprise, supporting the formation and the growth of small and medium sized enterprises with new emphasis on technology, skills and exports. The recently published Rural Partnership report will help us move forward in underlining the need for a separate rural development plan for Wales linking Objective 1 measures with other actions to support agriculture and the rural economy. The emphasis is rightly placed on these things and the Assembly must concentrate on them in the future.

We must emphasise that the report is ambitious, as is the target of raising Welsh per capita GDP to 90 per cent of the UK average over a decade. It sets the target of raising the west Wales and Valleys per capita GDP to 81 per cent. That will require the Welsh economy to grow around 0.75 per cent faster than the UK growth rate over that period. It poses an immense challenge, with the increase of a 136,000 in net jobs and the reduction of the number economically inactive people by 90,000. That must be the first stage in working together across this Assembly and demonstrating that partnership can work, and be effective. If we deliver on this, we will deliver a future for the people of Wales, particularly those in the more deprived communities and the least effective economies. I am delighted that that has formed the positive emphasis of this debate. We face a mammoth task, but with the atmosphere of today’s debate and the determination to carry it forward, I believe we can succeed. It is a very brief response to a short debate, but a major one on major issues that we must tackle together.