The draft single programming document for Objective 2 before you today is the product of considerable effort by the East Wales Partnership in co-operation with Assembly officials. It constitutes the starting point for a five-month negotiating period with the European Commission and follows on from a consultation document issued in February this year.

This document is remarkable because the many organisations which make up the East Wales Partnership have put in a great deal of time and effort in drawing up this document and have found a remarkable degree of agreement between those who come from or represent the Powys area and those who come from or represent the more industrial areas which are involved in the Objective 2 area. Co-operation and joint ownership between the contrasting originating areas have been the key elements in bringing together this draft. I pay tribute to all those involved.

Although on a smaller scale, it has been a remarkably successful exercise involving a great deal less dispute, disagreement and controversy than the preparation of the Objective 1 document. I recognise that a great deal more hangs on the Objective 1 document. If we can continue that spirit of co-operation between the rural and urban areas in the Objective 2 area it is going to follow through into a successful Objective 2 programme. Likewise, not just the Objective 2 areas but the transitional areas which will be losing their Objective 2 status and that those areas are also covered by this Objective 2 and transitional programme. The responses to the consultation document were positive and indicate a high degree of support for the proposed strategy, its priorities and measures.

Members of the Economic Development Committee and those who attended its meeting last Thursday will agree that prominent members of the East Wales Partnership gave an informative presentation. It was well received by the Committee and I have little doubt that the presentations to the Mid Wales Regional Committee in June and the South East Wales Regional Committee in July will be equally well regarded.

At this stage, we must accept that not all of Wales will be included in the Objective 1 and 2 maps. That is inevitably disappointing for the areas outside them. There will be some transitional protection for the areas that lose Objective 2 or 5b status. Few areas will not receive anything from Objective 1, 2 or transitional protection programmes. The white areas of the maps, which will not receive transitional protection, make up about 1 per cent of the Welsh population. Even those areas will receive Objective 3 funding and are also eligible to apply for funding under the community initiatives. However, we must accept that not all the areas of Wales that are not covered by Objective 1 will be covered by Objective 2. The population limit that the European Commission set us meant that some areas would still be left outside the maps. It is difficult in an area such as Wales, which has a population of three million and a new Assembly. If you are not in an Objective 1 area, which covers two thirds of Wales, or an Objective 2 area, you will naturally wonder what is wrong with your area. The larger the Objective 1 or 2 areas, the harder it is for excluded areas to feel that they have benefited. I accept that. It is part of the process of politics. However, when you are not dealing with the luxury of opposition, but with the responsibility of Government, you must be able to explain to both the excluded and included areas why they are so.

The Objective 2 and transitional programme is designed to support the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties. Therefore, the programme has two distinct themes in Wales: the decline of rural areas and the difficulties they face in diversifying away from over-dependence on agriculture and other staples, and likewise for urban areas in difficulty. Some problems are common to both, but the programme strategy has been developed with a bi-focal approach to the urban and rural reconversion difficulties of the East Wales Partnership area.

The programme’s main objectives are to increase employment growth, promote diversification and develop sustainable communities. The first priority of developing sustainable and competitive small and medium-sized enterprises is generic throughout the East Wales Partnership area. Even a five-year-old could see that the other priorities—sustainable rural development and urban community regeneration—are targeted at the two different kinds of areas. With the limited funds available, the draft has been written with an obvious focus on the specific interventions required to maximise the use of Objective 2 or transitional funding to solve the problems of the East Wales Partnership area. The money cannot be spread too widely, or it will disappear like butter spread across the whole area and nobody will notice any effect. That would be a complete waste and abuse of European assistance.

The members of the partnership agreed the indicative financial tables in this document, based on a maximum intervention rate of 50 per cent, although that is subject to further negotiation. The aim has been to make the best possible use of the limited resources available. Therefore, we are focusing on a few key activities rather than spreading the small sum of money too thinly. As with the Objective 1 programme, the funding implications are being considered as part of the Government’s spending review. We hope that the draft document will go to the European Commission by the end of this month and negotiations can begin, provided it is acceptable. Therefore, this programme is well behind the Objective 1 and 3 programmes. During the negotiations, the shadow programme monitoring committee will be formed. There is already such a committee for Objective 1, which has had a couple of meetings and the shadow programme monitoring committee for Objective 3 is being formed, but Objective 2 is well behind. It is not behind the timetable; it was never intended to be up and running at the same time as the other two programmes. Before the debate begins in general across the Assembly, I will indicate how I suggest the Assembly responds to the amendments laid before it today.

I hope that Phil Williams will agree to withdraw his amendment 1, subject to my comments on his other amendments. We are not happy with the wording ‘subject to reassurance’. We are happy with his other two amendments, 2 and 4. Amendment 2 builds on the valuable points that were made in the Economic Development Committee meeting last Thursday and we agree with it.

We do not agree with David Melding’s amendment 3, which regrets the exclusion of wards in Barry from the Objective 2 area. That is fine in the luxury of opposition: you do not have to say which areas of Wales you would take out so that Barry could be included against a fixed population ceiling. He ought to have been responsible enough to state which needy areas of Cardiff, Newport or Powys would have to come out. I accept that there is an intellectual case for Barry, though not as strong as for the other cases within the criteria that we have to face.

We are happy with Phil Williams’s amendment 4 as we accept that the European Commission has a degree of hostility to infrastructure expenditure. We managed to find ways around that with Objective 1. The programme will certainly offer a clear scope for increasing the prominence of measures such as applying cleaner technologies and better waste recycling. I support the principle behind this amendment but I would ask Phil to remain aware of the limitations of a programme on the modest scale that Objective 2 provides.

Again we are happy with Phil Williams’s amendment 5. We hope that we can secure adequate funding: that is the principle on which this debate is based.

We recommend accepting the final amendment 6 put forward by Mike German. We need to ensure synergy between all the structural funds expenditure: Objectives 1, 2 and 3, the transitional funding and the various other programmes, such as the urban programme. That is the purpose of the Welsh European Funding Office. The different monitoring committees will need to work closely to achieve co-ordination between the different documents as they come into being, covering the next six or seven years. While there will be different personnel on each monitoring committee, WEFO will provide the secretariat for them all. A different Assembly Member will chair each committee, which will ensure the integration that amendment 6 proposes. We are happy to support that.

I commend this document to the Assembly.

I propose amendment 2. Add the following new clause ii and renumber existing clause ii as iii.

ii. recognises that the Objective 2 area includes those areas of Wales with the highest percentage of non-white residents and emphasises the special responsibility of the Objective 2 programme to ensure the full participation of ethnic minorities in the economic and social life of Wales.

I propose amendment 4. Add as a new clause:

I propose amendment 5. Add as a new clause:

You will be glad to know that I want to start and continue on a positive note. The Objective 2 single programming document is a well-written account of a coherent and realistic programme. It appears genuinely to have been written by the partnership: from the bottom up rather than from the top down. Bottom up exercises can lead to incoherence. In this case the different inputs have been well integrated. You can sit down and read this document. On each page you know where you are and where you are going.

Having heaped praise on the draft Objective 2 SPD, I come to the amendments. As the Government fully agreed with amendments 2 and 4, and the spirit of those amendments, Plaid Cymru will withdraw amendment 1.

Amendment 2 aims to reinforce the principle of social inclusivity with special concern for the different ethnic minorities in Wales. You will see, at table 12 in the SPD, a list of 20 wards in Wales where the non-white population is greater than 5 per cent. Seven of those include university halls of residence where the figures indicate a student population from overseas. Of the remaining 13—where the non-white population are long-term residents, with some families going back many generations—11 of those are in the Objective 2 area.

You have just referred to the impact of students’ presence in some wards on the statistics. Do you acknowledge the concern about the impact of large numbers of students on other aspects of the statistics on which these decisions are based? My constituency, although it is one of the poorer constituencies in Wales, only has one ward in the Objective 2 area. That ward is Adamsdown. Two other wards in my constituency are Cathays and Plasnewydd. Cathays has a student population of 50 per cent and in Plasnewydd 25 per cent of the electorate are students. These are inner city wards, but they never appear in the official statistics as being in particular need of measures such as this. That is because students do not appear in statistics on income support for example, because students are not eligible for it, nor in statistics on the numbers of households with children with no earner, because by definition most of them do not have children, although a few might. They do not appear in unemployment statistics, because they are not registered as unemployed. All these wards are therefore artificially judged to be much richer than the indigenous long-term population would suggest. Do you agree that it is time that we examined how the statistics are collected and take action on this? It affects not just Objective 2 but all manner of other issues.

Thank you for that. When reading the document, I immediately became aware that when drawing up statistics on a ward basis you must have local knowledge. I recognised that Cathays, Plasnewydd, Llanbadarn, Aberystwyth North and two of the Bangor wards were special and had special and different problems. That must be taken into account.

At the same time, however, it is fair to say that if the 11 wards that I mentioned in Objective 2 areas have long-term resident non-white populations, then we have a special responsibility and opportunity to bring the people of those areas into full social and economic life. It is no coincidence that those same wards have disturbingly high indices of deprivation. In six of the wards, over 25 per cent of the households with children have no earner and 25 per cent of the population claim income support. It is a salutary reminder to those of us who now live and work in Cardiff Bay, that we do so in one of the most impoverished wards in Wales. However, we also have the privilege of living near to a vibrant community with a strong cultural identity.

Plaid Cymru has always defined a nation as a community of communities. Let us not forget that a significant part of the economic and cultural heritage of Wales is to be found in the dockland communities of Cardiff, Newport and Barry. For consistency, therefore, we support David Melding’s amendment 3. However, I propose amendment 2 because it is a little disappointing that among the 76 organisations listed in 5.66 as forming the official partnership, there does not appear to be any organisation representing ethnic minorities. I ask the Government to bear this in mind when setting up the monitoring committee and in giving it guidelines.

To turn quickly to amendment 4, this identifies and deals with one limitation in the proposed programme. Even so, I pay tribute to the authors of the programme for their honesty in identifying a fundamental difficulty that arises when we consider the potential conflict between economic sustainability and environmental sustainability. Thus, in 7.65, the authors warn that if their target growth in gross domestic product per head and in the number of jobs created is achieved, then

The next paragraph, 7.66, on promoting communications and accessibility, hopes for ‘a positive contribution to the integrated transport objective’, but fears

It is true that there is always a potential conflict between unplanned economic growth and environmental sustainability. We may be forced to choose. Politics is the language of priorities. However, the art of politics is to avoid such a conflict as far as possible. The ingredients already exist in this document to find the largest possible common ground between economic and environmental sustainability.

It will be of no surprise to you if I welcome the mention of renewable energy. The planned development of wind, hydro and biomass resources will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, bring extra income to farmers, aid diversification and generate manufacturing jobs with a large export potential.

The proper development of information and communications technology could dramatically cut the need for car journeys while bringing expanded employment opportunities. A similar virtuous combination applies to waste disposal. It is claimed that we have the worst record in western Europe, although I do not know whether that is true. Landfill disposal of waste is wasteful of energy and resources and also creates methane, a pernicious greenhouse gas. Repairing and recycling, properly audited, can reduce our demands for energy and resource and create new jobs.

I am not asking for a rewrite of the document as it already contains the ingredients. A re-emphasis is needed that exploits the potential for a virtuous combination of economic and environmental sustainability and makes it one of the guidelines for the programme. Finally, I have added amendment 5, which is similar to one that was accepted unanimously by the Assembly in October.

With the draft Objectives 1, 2 and 3 documents and some indications of the likely allocations in the INTERREG, LEADER, URBAN and EQUAL initiatives, we can put together all the financial tables to derive the overall sum that must be the basis of the Government’s input to the comprehensive spending review. I am assuming an exchange rate of 1 euro to 60p. If the euro rises to a realistic and sustainable parity, the total budget in pounds will increase in proportion and I hope that that is included with guarantees in the comprehensive spending review. The EU contribution to Objectives 1, 2 and 3, plus the anticipated contributions to the small initiatives, when averaged over seven years, totals about £190 million a year. Of this, £65 million is in the European structural funds contributions channelled at present by the Department for Education and Employment. Assuming that the negotiations to transfer funding are successful, it is appropriate to give the overall total.

It is also possible to calculate the total public sector contribution to match funding that is necessary to ensure the 100 per cent take-up of EU funds. Over seven years, it averages about £150 million a year. Plaid Cymru has never claimed that every last penny of match funding should be provided by the Treasury in addition to the block. However, the present budget is stretched to the limit. There is not any spare money in health, education, local government or economic development. Therefore, if we are to make full use of the greatly increased structural funds available, we must secure the corresponding extra match funding above the level paid by the public sector over the 1997-2000 period.

We estimate that the funding paid from the public sector over this period was about £80 to £90 million a year. If that is correct, the extra match funding will be about £60 million, although officials can give the correct figure. The principle is that we should take the actual expenditure in 1997-2000 as the starting point from where we can legitimately claim that the budget was close to breaking point and that any extra demands must be met.

In conclusion, to make full use of the present marvellous opportunity, we need a total allocation to cover Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and the initiatives of at least £250 million a year outside the Barnett block. That is the implication of the principles that we accept. All parties in the Assembly agree on this as we recognise what can be done. The Objective 2 document is a wonderful illustration.

I hope that, with unanimous support, Rhodri Morgan and Edwina Hart will be successful in their negotiations with the Treasury. I hope that, in the spirit of the amendments, for which the Government has voiced support, we can have a unanimous voice in endorsing this programme with great enthusiasm.

It is a pleasure to be so positive this afternoon. This document also receives united support from the Welsh Conservative Party. As Rhodri said, it was pleasing to be at the last Economic Development Committee meeting when, for once, we were all united about the document and the presentation that was given by the partners that had written the document.

There is a natural link between the problems of the economy and the priorities that have been set. The aim of priority 1 to improve competitiveness by supporting SMEs through knowledge, new technology and the provision of services is absolutely right for the economy at this time. This is to be achieved by a range of business support mechanisms from sites and premises to innovation and research and development support and it is to be commended under current economic conditions. However, with the extra burdens that are placed on manufacturing industries, we must be aware of changing economic circumstances that could lead to much higher levels of unemployment over the programming period. Therefore, flexibility is essential.

This document is aimed at satisfying the needs of the Commission, but it must also play a pivotal role in empowering and embracing each sector of the economy to play its part. On many occasions, I have highlighted my concern and regret that the SME sector has not played as full a part as I would have liked in structural fund programmes in the past. Criticisms have been made of different organisations with differing responsibilities. However, establishing the Welsh European Funding Office was aimed at answering many of those concerns. I am pleased to recognise under priority 4 of technical assistance that facilitators are to be established. Although these have been used in the past in relation to INTERREG, it is essential that they now embrace the whole programme. I encourage the establishment of similar facilitators for the Objective 1 programme.

I am concerned about our capacity to follow through all structural fund programmes. Match funding is a well-rehearsed debate, which I do not want to repeat. Our ability to fulfil the objectives of the documents bothers me. I am not convinced that the Welsh European Funding Office has the necessary guidance from the Assembly. In addition to administering projects to ensure that they meet the criteria involved, there was a clear intention from the Economic Development Committee that the implementing body should be pro-active. My interpretation of pro-active is to promote, advertise and suggest the types of projects that could and would not gain, and releasing the SME sector to capitalise on wealth creating opportunities in which we can all take part.

I was interested to note that of the 100 staff that will be employed in the Welsh European Funding Office, 88 of them will originate from the former Welsh European Programme Executive or the civil service. This offers the benefit of experience in structural funds administration, but the role of promotion is very different. Therefore, the inclusion of the facilitators is a critical factor. John Clarke faces a serious challenge to ensure that the obligations that we have set ourselves in the objectives in the document and the Welsh economy are fulfilled.

The purpose of this amendment is to recognise the deprived condition of Barry in comparison with some of the areas that are excluded from the Objective 2 map. We are happy to support the other amendments. We had considered abstaining on amendment 2 because the equal opportunity principle is included in the four pillars of the Treaty of Amsterdam in which the document was drafted. In the interest of co-operation, we are happy to support it.

Add at the end of the motion:

This Assembly further requires the Assembly Secretary for Economic Development to bring forward proposals for ensuring synergy between projects undertaken in the Objective 2 area and in other areas of Wales receiving European structural funding, and in particular for ensuring that successful projects in one area can be replicated in other areas.

I am sure the First Secretary will be pleased to learn that we will support all that he said at the beginning of the debate, and all the amendments. That reflects the fact that this is a good partnership and a well-written document. I pay tribute to all those who have drawn up this document. It will touch the one in five of the Welsh population who will receive support under this programme. My only regret is that this programme will not become available throughout Wales until January 2001 at the earliest.

I welcome the clear line drawn between Objective 2 programmes, which will deal only with the European regional development fund, and Objective 3 programmes, which will deal with the European social fund. That is a clear way for applicants to know what they are looking for and where the money is coming from. Amendment 6 is about joined-up thinking and being able to consider Objective 1, 2 and 3 programmes as a whole, along with the community initiatives. Those initiatives are missing from this package and are dealt with in other documents. It is also about the connection between those programmes and the Assembly’s national economic development strategy. It seems obvious to us that if you are proposing a national economic development strategy, all of these programmes, wherever they occur in Wales, should fit within it.

Where there are good programmes, they should be carried forward regardless of Objective area boundaries. For example, a good business development project in Ceredigion could be carried over into Powys. Training for management skills in Newport should be carried over to and implemented in Cardiff. When you consider our overall objectives, the differences between the Objective areas are somewhat artificial. I would hope that there would be an even roll-out of programmes across Wales under the different Objectives.

I welcome Phil’s amendments and his decision to withdraw amendment 1. This document is well worth endorsing. There are five months to go. The document must be sent to the Commission and there will undoubtedly be negotiation between ourselves, the Commission and the partnership during that period. The document will have to come back to us. However, the sooner we can send it off sooner the implementation can take place.

On the relationship between Objectives 1, 2 and 3, nothing more visual comes to mind than Queen Street station in Cardiff. We previously had a discussion about integrated transport and the problems of the Valley lines that run into Cardiff. The problem lies in Queen Street station. If Queen Street station lies in an Objective 2 area, or certainly in a transitional Objective 2 area, then a rationale exists for the Objective 1 areas of Caerphilly, Merthyr and Rhondda Cynon Taff being able to work with the Objective 2 partnership in Cardiff to create the change that we need. I hope that such integration, which relates to the Assembly’s overall objectives, and such crossing of Objective boundaries will occur.

I share with Phil his concern over the problem of match funding. The problem that he did not mention is the overhang of match funding from previous years. We are finishing off old programmes and between £250 million and £300 million of match funding is still to be found before the end of December 2001. That money will have to come out of the budgets currently before the various public organisations which provide it. It should also be recognised that although we talk about the European social fund having a role in London and so on, the match funding for ESF has always come from within the Barnett block grant, with few exceptions. We seek the public expenditure survey cover above Barnett and the match funding above Barnett, and we will measure our First Secretary’s strength and ability to bat for Wales on whether he will secure that for us. We are facing an era where we require double the amount of match funding that we previously required. I will discuss that further in the debate on the Objective 3 document.

I would like Rhodri to answer this question when he replies to the debate. The partnership told us that it viewed the way forward for Objective 2 only in terms of local plans. In other words, everything will be done locally. Is there also a role for co-ordination across the area to take on board collaboration with Objective 1 areas? I mentioned one incident earlier and I hope that others will follow on from it, but the way the programme is implemented may need to be revisited to see if there are ways of drawing together and having synergy between different areas in Wales. Perhaps only having local plans to spend the money is not the best way of doing it, but that is a matter for the future.

I agree with David Melding—who did not speak on behalf of Barry, but I understand the rationale behind his comments—about the map imperfections. However, there is a big imperfection in the Objective 2 map apart from Barry, and that is Wrexham and Flintshire. Wrexham and Flintshire are the white dots on the map. The map that shows which areas of Wales receive European money also shows big white holes for Wrexham and Flintshire. These areas do not have Objective 2 or 1 status and have very little regional selective assistance. They are the hole in the middle of the sandwich between east and west—

We must not forget that a review of this situation is pending and that, hopefully, there will be a reasonable outcome.

I hope that the Objective 2 map and regional selective assistance will be reviewed. If you have had an assurance from the First Secretary, I am pleased, and Tom Middlehurst looks pleased that there will be a review of regional selective assistance in north-east Wales. It will be encouraging to hear the First Secretary’s response to that. However, I wait with bated breath.

It is wise for the Assembly to endorse, commend and pass on the document. We must also thank its authors for the enormous effort that they have put into this project during the last two years and the partnership they have brought together.

As someone who is not usually involved in the Economic Development Committee, I welcome the opportunity to have an input into this debate. To be fair, there has been little opportunity for Members to contribute to the development of these draft Objective 2 single programming documents. The draft was presented to the Committee only last Thursday, therefore, Members have had no input into the document’s content and could only comment on the draft. Neither did they have an input into the designation of areas to be included on the revised UK Objective 2 map, which was sent to Brussels in March. While some Members have sought to include Barry, there are other areas, particularly in north Wales, which are not included on the map. For example, Wrexham will only receive transitional funding, so it is important that full use is made of that, particularly in the light of recent decisions that have affected north Wales: the reduction of regional selective assistance areas which excluded Wrexham, decisions relating to Broughton and cuts in the WDA’s budget. All these decisions mean that transitional funding that is available in that area must be used to its full extent to help it, particularly as it is sandwiched between two Objective 1 areas.

However, as Phil said, I welcome the split in this document between the rural and urban projects. That is an improvement on the Objective 1 document. It is also an improvement that it was developed by three working groups: one urban, one rural and one statistical with a co-ordinating group to bring everything together. Plaid Cymru hopes that this structure will continue and that the same thing happens with the Objective 1 process.

Plaid Cymru feels that the environmental sections must be improved. The European Union is keen on sustainable development and it is a statutory duty for the Assembly to ensure that this principle is adhered to. We would like to see the development of clean technology, the use of renewable energy, an energy strategy and the development of green and sustainable businesses through this programme.

The outstanding issues at the UK level have largely been resolved. However, there are still some differences of opinion between Assembly officials and members of the partnership. Within the partnership, the Objective 2 programme should be implemented through the local partnerships and local action plans. For example, a local partnership in Cardiff has already been set up. The integration of minority groups could be secured at that level. There was a feeling that the emphasis on local delivery was perhaps not shared with Assembly officials. We seek an assurance that delivery is mainly through local partnerships. Those partnerships should develop throughout Wales for the delivery of this programme in the Objective 2 areas.

Presiding Officer, I am grateful to have caught your eye. Despite the fact that I agree with the positive things that have been said about this document, I want to concentrate on the case for Barry. Barry was in the previous Objective 2 area. The people of Barry, including the business people and job hunters, have a right to know why the situation is changing. The Vale of Glamorgan is one of only three councils in the UK to lose out completely in the new Objective 2 map. In many of its wards, Barry is one of the most deprived areas in Wales. It is difficult, with any sub-criteria in the document, to say that Barry does not qualify for serious consideration. At present there are projects in Barry that could, if not founder, not reach a full and successful conclusion. The transformation of the waterfront in Barry is tremendous. We often talk exclusively about what has happened in Cardiff, which is magnificent. However, there is a remarkable revival in Barry, which I do not want to be endangered.

The First Secretary knows that the views within the Vale of Glamorgan Council have been cross-party. All parties that are represented on the Council have agreed unanimously that the case for Barry has not been listened to as attentively as it should have been. They are dismayed by the outcome of the decision to exclude Barry from the map. Local businesses have been here to lobby Assembly Members and Secretaries. In fairness, although Jane Hutt is not here this afternoon, she and I co-hosted a successful event for ‘Pride in Barry’, which looked at the issue broadly instead of simply concentrating on this unfortunate decision. It was naturally one of the main concerns of the people there.

In fairness to the First Secretary, he does not mince his words. He uses the phrase, ‘Barry has been excluded’, and he gives reasons for that. His predecessor used to say that Barry was not being included, which caused a lot of anger. It is not a funny point. At least the First Secretary uses direct language. However, he told me that it is easy to make promises when you can use the luxury of opposition. Opposition is about scrutiny and holding the Government to account, which is why I am here. The First Secretary is here to lead his Administration with his Cabinet colleagues, to make decisions and to be questioned on them. I make no apology for my status as an opposition Member. Everyone agrees that in an ideal situation Barry would be in the Objective 2 area. The First Secretary said that he recognised the intellectual case. Barry has been excluded. It is right that we ask why.

I will speak about exit strategies, using Cardiff Bay Development Corporation as a good example of how not to make an exit. Many groups, particularly in Butetown and Grangetown, were supported and funded by CBDC. They felt badly let down when that funding stopped when CBDC went into its demise. They were left feeling isolated and unwanted. There is nothing more demoralising than building up people’s expectations and not supporting them all the way through. Like other Assembly Members, I have been contacted by various groups. The South Glamorgan Women’s Workshop contacted me today—although South Glamorgan no longer exists. The workshop is based in Cardiff and its members are concerned about the transitional period. Many such groups currently rely on an element of European funding. With the reorganisation of the new Objective 2 and 3 programmes, there is a need to plan properly for this transition. The problem of a possible transitional funding gap must be addressed. In this case, there could be a six to seven month gap. I want the First Secretary’s assurance on that, as many of these groups are voluntary groups. They must be helped through this uncertain period in order to survive.

I am pleased to hear so much positiveness about the way this single programming document has been prepared. Powys has played a part in it and we all know that Powys is the font of much wisdom. We were disappointed to be excluded from the Objective 1 area. However, we look forward to the future.

I support David Melding in his eloquently expressed view about the exclusion of places like Barry. In south Powys, we have wards that have been excluded, which is unjust. We have not heard a coherent reason yet why wards like Talgarth have been excluded. However, I want to draw the First Secretary’s attention to the implementation of this excellent SPD. We are concerned that the good work that has been done in terms of community regeneration through, for example, the work of the LEADER groups, could be lost. I would like to hear the First Secretary’s views on how the interface will work between the communities, the managers and the funding bodies of Objective 2.

I support Phil Williams’s amendment 4 on renewable energy. I would also like to bring home to the First Secretary the fact that the Assembly does not yet have a coherent strategy for renewables throughout Wales. We must produce a coherent strategy urgently for the rural development plan, which includes renewables, as well as Objective 1 and 2. I heard last week that farmers, through growing timber for biomass projects, will become the new ayatollahs of the energy industry. You may laugh but I am looking forward to that in a few years time.

Am I to interpret your comments about biomass in Wales as a declaration of your full support for the proposed project at Newbridge? Is that Liberal Democrat policy?

Our policy on renewables is well expressed. As you are aware, Glyn, the planning application and information about the environmental impact have not yet been received. I will stand by the local authority’s decision on this, as I am sure you would.

Returning to the theme of biomass, I am sure that Glyn is looking to be an ayatollah as well.

What sort of an answer is that?

Saved by the bell. I am concerned that the major source of funding through the rural development plan is the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, which will be available across Objective 1 areas as well. Since the rate of the EAGGF grant has not yet been announced, consideration should be given to making the rate in east Wales more favourable. This would promote our aims better, otherwise the Objective 2 area could be an overall loser to the Objective 1 area.

We were all very disappointed about Wrexham but we are hopeful that our appeal will be heard. As my constituency includes Objective 1, 2 and 3 areas, I think that clarity is important so that the public understands what is available. I would like Rhodri to pick up on this one. I would like an assurance that full information will be available at every level, especially in areas where they are closely linked within a constituency.

This debate has probably been the most pleasing, for a well-deserved reason, that we have had during the 12 months of the Assembly’s existence. We gave well-deserved approval to a well-written document. I make no apologies for that. If the public expect punch-ups in every Plenary session they will no doubt have been disappointed today. They may have thought that the administration put Prozac in the canteen tea this morning, in the same way as the army used to be accused of putting bromide in the naafi’s tea. The reason for the degree of agreement today was not any conspiracy of that sort. It was recognition of the remarkable efforts made by two disparate areas like Powys and the relevant urban areas in Wales that were in the Objective 2 area into overcoming that potential chasm that might have resulted, perhaps understandably so, in a divided document. They have managed to weave a good deal of unity within the Objective 2 East Wales Partnership area. We have battened on to that degree of unity, resulting in the excellence of the writing and drafting and the coherence of thought that has gone into this in spite of the difficulties that could have arisen.

I will go through some of the points that have been raised during the debate. We may then go through some of the votes. I am grateful for Phil’s remarks. Some of his points about how we implement through local partnerships have cropped up as constant themes in many of the contributions this afternoon. There will be a great deal of local implementation. The Welsh European Funding Office people will have to have regard to how you ensure coherence that the local partnerships do not start to go off in different directions, given that the document itself is remarkably good at finding common ground between the problems of Powys, Cardiff or wherever. The issue of where ethnic minorities will need to be brought in through these local partnerships will be a matter for detailed consideration when we come to the implementation stage. That is a key issue for the partnership and WEFO to work on over the next six months. We hope that there will be a commencement of real action on Objective 2 early in 2001.

Alun Cairns’s speech was the first of his that I have enjoyed. I hope he will accept this in the spirit in which it is intended. There is provision for facilitators in the Objective 1 and 3 programmes as well. They can be paid for under technical assistance in Objective 1, 3 and 2. There is no difference.

The issue of co-ordination was important in Mike German’s comments. I approve of his remark that trying to retain co-ordination within Objective 2 and between Objective 2 programmes and the other programmes will be a great challenge. It is a challenge for the Assembly to keep an eye on and for WEFO as the body of officials that would be also doing it.

The Objective 2 map is not negotiable. It has been accepted by the Commission and cannot be amended now. We should stop having any views on that. It is going to be difficult to change regional selective assistance, but it could in theory happen. But not Objective 2. That is closed, finished and done with. That, to some extent, answers the issues in relation to Barry.

My use of the word ‘excluded’ does not represent a change of view. I was repeating the phrasing of the amendment. The point made by Janet Ryder, Mike German and Karen Sinclair about the difficulties of the so-called white area around Wrexham and parts of Flinshire is something that we all recognise given that Merseyside is on the other side in England and the big Objective 1 area in Wales. The problem is trying to do something about it because everybody can see the ward boundary figures. The same applies to Barry. If you look at the map of wards that are most dependent on social security, for example, none of the wards in Barry are in the top twelve, but wards in Cardiff and Newport are invariably in the top twelve. Some of the other areas report long-term illness, including wards in Powys in the former industrial areas around Ystradgynlais and Cardiff and Newport but those areas do not include wards in Barry and Wrexham. Sometimes that results from the fact that the wards are bigger, but we work within those limitations. The wards are the building blocks and there was little that we could do to try to change things. Therefore, you may think that it is tough on Gibbonsdown, Castleland and Court wards, but they are not in the top twelve in terms of deprivation, if you measure deprivation by dependency on social security of the population. We do not want to argue against the statistics; they are there for everybody to see.

I do not want to introduce any notes of controversy. This is not a huge programme. It is only £70 million in terms of European funding over six years, which is not very big, but transitional funding would add another £50 million. If you divide that by six years, it is clear that we are not talking about big sums of money, but that money will be a useful extra in trying to get community regeneration going. Lorraine Barrett is right. When there is a sudden withdrawal of substantial funding, such as from Cardiff Bay, there may be a two or three-year period when it is difficult for capacity building efforts in deprived communities or those with multi-cultural elements. That, in turn, makes it difficult for them to become a part of mainstream Welsh society in a way that they would wish. I hope that we can use what is a modest sum of money creatively and accept that we cannot do so by allocating a few pennies to every ward. The money must be spent in a way that will make a difference, otherwise there is no point having the small sum of money that is in the Objective 2 and transitional programme. If used creatively, I believe that this Assembly will be strongly behind this programme. There has been some unity reflected in the quality of thought that has gone into the programme. There was also unity in the East Wales Partnership area, which is why we have achieved this remarkable degree of support from all four parties in considering the Objective 2 amendments.

I hope that there will be an even greater level of unity over Objective 3 than Objective 2 because in this case there are no excluded areas. Objective 3 funding is intended to be spent in the areas that are not eligible for Objective 1 funding regardless of whether or not they are also eligible for Objective 2 funding. Objective 3 is not a huge programme with £81 million to be spent in Wales over seven years, which does not include what we might be able to spend in terms of match funding and anticipated contributions from the private sector. Overall, we would expect the fund to provide £200 million of additional expenditure over the seven years, which is around £30 million every year. That could be a significant investment to develop the skills of people in east Wales with particular emphasis on helping those who are out of work back into employment and on supporting the development of new businesses and helping existing ones to become more competitive.

That gives the lie to David Melding’s or Alun Cairns’s comment that Barry will get nothing. That is not the case because Barry will be covered by Objective 3. It does not pay any of us to wind up our local areas by implying that they are left out totally when they are not because they will receive either transitional funding from Objective 2 or funding from Objective 3. Thirty million pounds a year including match funding and private sector contributions to the Objective 3 programme will be available for a range of special training programmes, which will help to build social inclusion and help those who are currently out of work back into employment. As I said earlier, they will also support the development of new businesses and help existing ones to become more competitive.

Why is east Wales an Objective 3 area? Although east Wales has a record, by Welsh standards, of reasonably healthy economic performance—otherwise it would be eligible for Objective 1—problems inevitably remain in pockets of high, long-term unemployment. There are deprived communities in east Wales and islands of deprivation in what are otherwise prosperous areas by Welsh standards. Levels of economic activity are higher than in the Welsh average but remain low relative to the UK particularly among women and middle-aged men. Objective 3, therefore, addresses those problems. What do you do to raise activity rates for women and middle-aged men? Many people have low levels of basic skills and overall levels of vocational skills, well below the UK average.

Many people have low levels of basic skills The region also has—comparatively by UK standards—lower levels of self-employment and business start up. Business is characterised by low levels of innovation and the use of ICT and there is inequality in the labour market. The Objective 3 programme has been designed to address those problems by developing a more competitive economy, including a higher proportion of knowledge based businesses, and provide people who are currently unable to participate in the labour market with the skills to fulfil their potential.

Plaid Cymru welcomes the emphasis in the document on promoting social inclusion and equality. However, we have an ongoing concern about the mechanisms to monitor this and to turn it into reality. You will be aware that I raised some concerns about equality in the previous European programmes: all the fine words were there but it was impossible to monitor. How confident is the First Secretary that we will be able to ensure that schemes are adequately monitored and that those who apply get proper advice about the kind of equality and input into their schemes that we would expect? That is not only relevant in the context of Objective 3 but it has implications for all structural funds.

I am grateful that Helen Mary Jones has raised that issue because gender equality is one of the five key priorities. Although it is fifth on the list it is not regarded as the fifth in importance. It is merely accidental that the first on the list is active labour market policies to help unemployed people back to work; second is social inclusion focusing on disabled people and ethnic minorities; third is lifelong learning; fourth is adaptability and entrepreneurship to assist businesses to become more competitive; and fifth is gender equality to ensure equal access to learning and employment opportunities and to address gender segregation in the labour market. Gender segregation is still a dominant characteristic of the Welsh labour market. We have come a long way in the past 30 years from the Welsh labour market dependency on traditional male occupations such as mining, steel works and slate quarrying. However, we have a long way to go. I assure Helen Mary Jones that it will be regarded as a failure if gender equality is not established as a part of the programme. An obvious example—although it is not necessarily one that would be addressed under Objective 3—is the small proportion of modern apprenticeships taken up by women. That kind of gender segregation still exists, deep in the psychology of the Welsh population and the Welsh labour market.

We are close to agreement with the European Commission. Objective 3 is ahead of Objective 2 and is slightly behind Objective 1. We have nearly reached agreement on the final text. Subject to the Assembly’s endorsement of the proposals this afternoon, we expect to have a formal decision approving the programme by the end of June. The themes that support the five key priorities will ensure that activities under the programme support equal opportunities, sustainable development, and the information society. The programme sets out challenging targets for people, communities, and businesses in east Wales that are consistent with the draft economic development strategy of the Assembly and will support the achievements of our national educational and training targets. Some of our young people are disaffected and this manifests itself in unacceptable levels of truancy and school exclusions in parts of east Wales, particularly in deprived areas of Cardiff and Newport. The European Commission has agreed that we can use Objective 3 funding to support initiatives aimed at addressing the needs of these young people in certain circumstances even down to the age of 11.

Raising basic skill levels is an important challenge because without them you cannot compete effectively in today’s labour market. Therefore, the Objective 3 programme will focus on this and raising skill levels among low paid, low skilled workers and people without jobs. As part of this, we want to ensure wider access to ICT skills training. Businesses need to become more competitive. The programme will help to raise the skills of the workforce, including a higher skills level in technology and innovation. About a quarter of the total resources available will be used to help businesses and their employees. The programme will also support modernisation of work organisation. There is an important challenge for the social partners to work together to put forward creative and innovative proposals.

The programme will complement the strategy in the entrepreneurship action plan for the development of new and existing businesses and strengthening the range and quality of support services. We must work towards greater equality in the labour market, and that is why there are challenging targets for improving the position of women and addressing the barriers to learning and employment faced by many groups, including those with disabilities, older workers and people from ethnic minority communities.

We all recognise the importance of developing Wales as a learning country. That is not simply an image or a snappy catchphrase. It must penetrate through to people throughout Wales, regardless of a previous absence of access to education. People must believe that they can be part of the learning country philosophy. I was pleased to be present at an award ceremony for adult learners earlier this week when prizes were awarded to some remarkable people from a background where you would not have expected them to be able to come through via adult education. If we could get hundreds, if not thousands, of people to adopt the philosophy that was shown by the dozen or so people who received prizes in the City Hall from the National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education (Cymru) earlier this week, we would be making Wales a learning country and we could lead Europe in that field.

Do you agree that, rather than re-inventing the wheel, we must start to look at some of the positive role models that we already have and build on success. You mentioned entrepreneurialism, and I wanted to remind you of the Wales Fast Growth 50 initiative, Chwarae Teg and Menter a Busnes. We must look to build on the good, innovative ideas that we have and develop more of them.

There is a base there and I would never say that Wales is a country without entrepreneurs. At a dinner last night with the forum of the Federation of the Electronic Industry at the Celtic Manor, the people with the funds—the bankers and the venture capitalists—were meeting the people who had the ideas but not the funds. This was an attempt to provide a marketplace for people with degrees, PhDs and so on to meet the bankers who may have £5 million or £10 million to invest in high technology businesses. However, this also applies to entrepreneurship without the glamour of involving people who invent electronic commerce and the latest technology. It can involve window cleaners and people opening their own shops as well as those who may be developing a large business idea in silicone valley style. We need all of that and we need it to develop quickly in east Wales if we are to achieve critical mass in terms of having more home-grown industries. We would then be less dependent on being able to attract inward investment in an increasingly competitive market.

The Objective 3 monitoring committee will be appointed soon under the chairmanship of Mike German. I speak on Mike’s behalf in saying that it will be getting down to work straight away. I wish Mike and his fellow committee members every success in ensuring that the Objective 3 programme is a great success. Although modest, it will play a key part in the revitalisation of Wales.

I wish to amend a comment with which I may have inadvertently misled the Assembly, regarding the date on which we received the submission from BAE Systems. It was two Mondays ago, rather than one Monday ago. I had forgotten that I was in Lyon last week. I thought that I should take an early opportunity to put that right.

Cynigiaf welliant 2. Ar ddiwedd cymal ii, dileer ‘a’ ac ar ddiwedd cymal iii dileer y collnod llawn ac ychwaneger ‘; a’.

Cynigiaf welliant 3. Yng nghymal iii, dileer ‘gwahodd y’ a rhodder ‘awdurdodi’r’ yn ei le.

Cynigiaf welliant 4. Ychwaneger y cymal canlynol:

Cynigiaf welliant 5. Ychwaneger y cymal canlynol:

Dechreuaf drwy drafod rôl y Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16 yn y broses o lunio’r ddogfen Amcan 3. Mae cynnwys y ddogfen yn gwbl berthnasol i drafodaethau’r Pwyllgor dros y flwyddyn ddiwethaf, gan gynnwys trafodaethau ar y cynllun gweithredu addysg a hyfforddiant, y Fargen Newydd a dysgu gydol oes. Mae’n gwbl annigonol mai dim ond un drafodaeth fer a gafwyd yn y Pwyllgor ar Amcan 3, a hynny’n gynnar ym mywyd Amcan 3. Wedi’r cwbl, nid y ffaith mai o gronfeydd strwythurol Ewropeaidd y daw cyllid Amcan 3 yw’r ffactor pwysicaf i sicrhau ei lwyddiant ond, yn hytrach, yr angen i weithredu Amcan 3 yn effeithiol. Nid gwahanu rheolaeth Amcan 3 o brif ffrwd addysg a hyfforddiant y Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16 yw’r ffordd fwyaf effeithiol o sicrhau llwyddiant Amcan 3. Mae hyn, o bosibl, yn wir hefyd am agweddau adnoddau dynol o fewn Amcan 1.

Byddwn yn falch o glywed ymateb y Prif Ysgrifennydd i’r pwyntiau hyn—yn benodol y posibilrwydd o drosglwyddo cyfrifoldeb Amcan 3 i’r Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16. Un ymateb y gallai’r Prif Ysgrifennydd ei ystyried yw dilyn model Yr Alban ac uno’r Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd a’r Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16 mewn unrhyw ail-strwythuro pwyllgorau a ddigwydd yn ystod y misoedd nesaf.

Dywedodd y Prif Ysgrifennydd yn ei gyflwyniad iddo benodi Mike German yn gadeirydd pwyllgor monitro Amcan 3 fel cynrhychiolydd o’r blaid leiaf yn y Cynulliad. Ar ba sail y penodwyd Mike German i’r swydd hon, ac a roddodd y Prif Ysgrifennydd unrhyw ystyriaeth i gydbwysedd rhyw ymysg cadeiryddion pwyllgorau monitro cronfeydd strwythurol? Fe’i atgoffaf o’i ymateb i ymyriad Helen Mary pan ddywedodd fod ‘gender equality’ yn ‘top priority’. Sut, felly, y bwriada’r Prif Ysgrifennydd benderfynu ar gadeirydd pwyllgor monitro Amcan 2?

O’r gronfa gymdeithasol Ewropeaidd y daw holl arian Amcan 3 yn ogystal â thraean arian Amcan 1. Un o’r cwestiynau cyntaf a holais yn y Siambr hon fis Gorffennaf diwethaf oedd cwestiwn i’r Prif Ysgrifennydd ar y pryd ynglŷn â throsglwyddo cyfrifoldeb llawn am y gronfa gymdeithasol o’r Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn Llundain i’r Cynulliad. Yr wyf yn siomedig na soniodd y Prif Ysgrifennydd am hyn ac am ei bwyisgrwydd yn ei gyflwyniad i Amcan 3 heddiw. Mae’n rhaid i’r trosglwyddiad hwn gael ei gwblhau cyn dechrau gweithredu Amcan 1 a 3 yn ein barn ni. Heb hyn, wynebwn broblemau enfawr wrth geisio gweithredu’r rhaglenni hynny.

Ar hyn o bryd, deallaf mai un swyddog yn unig sydd yn gweithio o fewn yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth gyda chyfrifoldeb am y gronfa gymdeithasol yng Nghymru. Un swyddog a fydd yn gyfrifol am tua £450 miliwn o grantiau y gronfa gymdeithasol dros y chwe blynedd nesaf. Un swyddog i gadarnhau a thalu pob grant. Bydd yn amhosibl cynnal hyn yn y dyfodol. Mae’r system yn siŵr o dagu a bydd trafferthion gweithredu sylweddol i raglenni Amcan 1 a 3.

Yr ateb a dderbyniais i’m cwestiwn ym mis Gorffennaf y llynedd oddi wrth y Prif Ysgrifennydd ar y pryd oedd bod y trafodaethau ar y trosglwyddiad o’r Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth i’r Cynulliad yn parhau. Hyd y gwn i, bu trafodaethau ar y mater hwn ers o leiaf dair blynedd. Mae’n gwbl annerbyniol, a ninnau ar fin cychwyn cyfnod newydd o gronfeydd strwythurol, y cyfnod pwysicaf o gronfeydd strwythurol yng Nghymru, na chwblhawyd y trafodaethau hyn.

Does Elin accept that the most important issue arising in our negotiations and discussions with DfEE is that we have the correct transfer value in terms of our responsibility?

Cydnabyddaf fod angen inni sicrhau ein bod yn cael yr adnoddau wedi eu trosglwyddo gyda’r cyfrifoldeb i’r Cynulliad, ond methaf â deall pam ei bod yn cymryd tair blynedd i’r math hwn o drafodaethau gael ei gwblhau. Byddwn wedi gobeithio y gellid bod wedi cael cyhoeddiad ar hyn heddiw.

Yn fy ngwelliant 1, yr amheuon y cyfeiriwn atynt yw’r perygl i weithredu Amcan 3 yn effeithiol oherwydd bod yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn parhau i reoli’r gronfa gymdeithasol Ewropeaidd. Pe baem yn cael cyhoeddiad y caiff honno ei throsglwyddo i’r Cynulliad, byddwn yn tynnu’r gwelliant yn ôl. Byddwn yn cefnogi’r gwelliant yn enw Mike German.

Croesawn egwyddorion a blaenoriaethau’r ddogfen Amcan 3 ar y cyfan. Fodd bynnag, mae’n cyfeirio’n barhaus at ddefnyddio arian Amcan 3 i ychwanegu at raglenni presennol y Llywodraeth yn y sector addysg a hyfforddiant. Mae’r mwyafrif o’r rhaglenni hynny yn cael eu cynllunio a’u rhedeg ar draws y Deyrnas Gyfunol, megis y Fargen Newydd, Ceiswyr Sgiliau, y Brifysgol i Ddiwydiant ac ati. Mae’r ddogfen yn nodi’r rhaglenni.

Nid yw rhai o’r cynlluniau hynny, fel y Fargen Newydd, wedi ein darbwyllo eu bod yn effeithiol wrth fynd i’r afael â phroblemau megis darparu cyfleon sgiliau a gwaith i’r di-waith tymor hir, yn enwedig rhai o leiafrifoedd ethnig. Nid yw cynlluniau eraill, fel y Brifysgol i Ddiwydiant, wedi eu gwreiddio yng Nghymru. Mae’n bosibl eu bod yn torri ar draws elfennau o’r ailstrwythuro sydd yn digwydd mewn addysg a hyfforddiant yn sgîl trafodaethau’r Grŵp Gweithredu Addysg a Hyfforddiant. Hoffwn gael sicrwydd gan y Prif Ysgrifennydd y bydd prif ffrwd gwaith Amcan 3 yn deillio o gynlluniau sydd yn tarddu o gymunedau dwyrain Cymru ac yn cwrdd ag anghenion y cymunedau hynny. Fodd bynnag, derbyniaf fod angen cydlynu’r holl raglenni sgiliau a hyfforddi, beth bynnag fo’r ffynhonnell ariannol.

Mae’n ddogfen Amcan 3 yn dangos bod siaradwyr Cymraeg yn cael eu tangynrychioli ymysg rhai sydd yn sefydlu busnesau. Mae’n bwysig, felly, fod Amcan 3 yn sicrhau bod adnoddau yn cael eu targedu tuag at gyrsiau sydd yn hybu mentergarwch ymysg siaradwyr Cymraeg. Cyfeiriodd Christine Chapman at waith da Menter a Busnes yn y maes hwn. Mae’n bwysig inni adeiladu ar y gwaith hwnnw o fewn Amcan 3 ac Amcan 1.

I gloi, edrychaf ymlaen at ymateb y Prif Ysgrifennydd i rai o’r pwyntiau yr wyf wedi eu codi.

I welcome the amendments in Elin’s name. This programme will touch one person in three in Wales. Therefore, it is a significant programme even if the money is not as much as Objective 1. Its main focus is human resources. We must find a series of Welsh solutions, particularly the extension of the work that has been done by the Digital College in Wales, which can lead to an extensively expanded open learning programme that will help us all.

The other part of the project that is often missed is the tailor-made programmes for companies. Wales has been notoriously bad at that. I hope that this programme will make a substantive effort in ensuring that we deliver the right training to companies when and how they want it.

More than anything else, my amendment looks at the process of joined-up thinking. I think that that was behind Elin’s comments. Whatever happens in Objective 3, as in Objectives 2 and 1, we must ensure that these activities are embedded in the Assembly’s national economic development strategy and priorities. That is why an over-arching view is important. I hope that we will be able to do that in the forthcoming programme.

On transferring the management of the ESF from the DfEE to Wales, I agree with Edwina. I do not believe that that presents a problem. However, the Government is not prepared to transfer the money that goes with it. That is a Treasury problem. We want the money. The Assembly would be wrong to accept responsibility for a programme without the money that goes with it. That argument is replicated by the Treasury on match funding and so on.

The operational programme before you is Wales-driven. Much of the strategy is in the single programming document, which was drawn up in the UK, but I doubt whether it would have been very different if we had had total control over this document ourselves. What is included in this Objective 3 document is broad enough to categorise the range of activities that Wales wants.

The match funding is essential to the transfer. We continually have to remind people that the European social fund matched funding has always come out of the Welsh block. If you are running a course at a further education college, that money has come from the Further Education Funding Council for Wales, which comes from the Welsh block.

We have ignored the problems that that causes. If you are in a college of further education, there is no line in your budget which says ‘Matched Funding’, because the FEFCW produces the money according to a strict code. It is impossible for colleges and universities in Wales to shelve one project and work on another one. They have to shave off the margins, which is an extremely difficult job.

The former chief executive of the FEFCW thought that the only way of having clarity in this matter would be to have a separate matched-funding pot for FE. That would provide a clear additionality line. We are talking about twice as much matched funding than we have had before, and that will affect FE particularly, as well as higher education.

I hope that we can resolve this matter as quickly as possible because Objective 3 will be the first one off the blocks: it now seems as though it will beat Objective 1 and therefore the first of the new programmes available in Wales will be available soon to east Wales. Therefore we want to ensure that we can give people assurance that they will be able to use the matched funding. The overhang from the previous years’ programmes is a blot on the horizon in that matter.

I welcome the EC’s decision to allow ESF spending down to the age of 11, but there is a problem if schools will have to match the ESF they receive. Where will school governors find that match funding? The largest section of budget available to them is for staffing: if they look at staff time, they look at teachers in the classroom. We must address this matter of the mechanism; it is a serious problem. Schools have had little experience of ESF, although some local authorities have acted on their behalf. As budgets are devolved to schools, and new activities are provided, how do governing bodies and schools find that matched funding from their own budgets? We need an answer quickly, and I hope the First Secretary will consider this matter.

My penultimate point is about publicity. Although this is a well-written document that includes a broad partnership, it is a case of ‘the usual suspects’. If you understand European funding, you will be the first off the blocks and the first to get the money. We must ensure that these programmes reach out further and give this opportunity to people who have never touched European programmes before: those in the voluntary sector, the community-regeneration sector, and the private sector. We must have a programme of education, publicity and development that will allow the project to develop beyond the usual suspects.

Finally, I welcome the opportunity to help steer this programme’s development in the coming years. I hope it will be a significant contributor to the overarching ambitions and priorities of the Assembly.

Hoffwn wneud dau bwynt ynglŷn â’r ddogfen Amcan 3. Mae’n ddogfen ragorol sydd yn dangos ôl gwaith manwl a phroffesiynol.

Mae’r pwynt cyntaf yn ymwneud â’r cyswllt rhwng rhaglen Amcan 3 a’r gyfundrefn newydd a fydd yn cael ei chreu ar sail adroddiad y Grŵp Gweithredu Addysg a Hyfforddiant a gwaith y Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16. Mae angen sicrhau bod y cyfle ar gyfer addysg a hyfforddiant yn hygyrch i bobl mewn ardaloedd gwledig, er enghraifft, ac hefyd i bobl sydd yn swil i gymryd at ddysgu mewn lleoliad ffurfiol.

Ddydd Gwener diwethaf, yr oeddwn mewn digwyddiad a drefnwyd gan Fudiad Addysg y Gweithwyr yng ngogledd Cymru. Yr oedd y lleoliad yn hynod—y ganolfan byw’n annibynnol ym Mhorthmadog, sydd yn helpu pobl fethedig i fyw’n annibynnol. Yr oedd Mudiad Addysg y Gweithwyr wedi trefnu i bobl o dair ardal—Wrecsam, sydd yn ardal Amcan 3, Pentrefoelas, Porthmadog a Phenrhyndeudraeth—i ddod ynghyd i gyfarfod â’i gilydd ac â mi. Menywod oedd y rhan fwyaf ond yr oedd ystod ddiddorol. Yr oedd rhai yn drigolion tai cyngor ac eraill yn wragedd fferm, er enghraifft, ac yr oeddynt i gyd wedi mentro yn ôl i fyd addysg ac wedyn i fyd gwaith drwy weithgarwch Mudiad Addysg y Gweithwyr. Yr oedd ffactorau allweddol a’u galluogodd i wneud hynny: yr oedd y ddarpariaeth yn agos i’w cartrefi—yn yr ysgol gynradd ym Mhentrefoelas, yn y ganolfan ar stad cyngor yn Wrecsam ac yn y ganolfan yng nghanol y dref ym Mhorthmadog; yr oedd meithrinfa ar gael i blant bach; ac yr oedd y cyrsiau yn gymysgedd o’r galwedigaethol a’r analwedigaethol—hanes lleol, er enghraifft, ar y naill law ac astudiaethau busnes ac astudiaethau cyfrifiadurol ar y llaw arall. Nid oeddent yn gyrsiau a oedd yn gosod gormod o her yn y lle cyntaf. Dywedodd llawer wrthyf na fyddent wedi dechrau’r broses a agorodd ddrysau yn eu bywydau petaent wedi gorfod teithio i sefydliad, megis coleg addysg bellach. Byddai ofn arnynt groesi trothwy sefydliad ffurfiol o’r fath. Yr oeddent i gyd yn sôn am fagu hyder i ddysgu mwy, mentro i waith, ac, i rai, i redeg eu busnes eu hunain. Dylai arian Amcan 3 hyrwyddo’r pethau hyn.

Rhaid sicrhau nad yw darpariaeth o’r fath yn cael ei cholli yn y system newydd sydd yn cael ei chreu drwy’r broses ETAG a’r Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16. Mae perygl y bydd y darparwyr gwirfoddol cymdeithasol hyn—nad yw Mudiad Addysg y Gweithwyr ond yn un o’r rheini—yn cael eu hymyleiddio gan y sefydliadau pwerus yn y consortia lleol a’u hanghofio. Byddai hynny’n golled fawr. Credaf y gellir osgoi hynny. Bydd yn rhaid i’r cyngor cenedlaethol newydd roi cyfarwyddyd am rôl allweddol sefydliadau o’r fath.

Mae fy ail bwynt yn ymwneud â gwelliant 4, sydd yn gwbl anfoddhaol. Mae’r ffaith nad oes cyfeiriad gwerth sôn amdano yn nogfen Amcan 3 na dogfennau Amcan 1 a 2 i’r cwestiwn holl bwysig o allfudiad yr ifanc o’r rhanbarth ac o Gymru yn fater arwyddocaol. Yr wyf i ac eraill wedi tynnu sylw at hyn dro ar ôl tro mewn trafodaethau ar gronfeydd strwythurol ond, i bob golwg, yn ddibwrpas. Mae ymateb y Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16 i’r dogfennau i’w weld yng nghofnodion ei gyfarfod ar 6 Hydref 1999:

‘Bydd addysg a hyfforddiant ar ôl 16 oed yn derbyn rhan sylweddol o’r cyllid posibl a ddaw yn sgil Amcan 1, a dylid gallu mesur llwyddiant Amcan 1 yn ôl nifer y bobl ifanc sy’n aros o fewn yr ardal Amcan 1. Mae yna berygl y gallai buddsoddiad mawr mewn addysg a hyfforddiant, oni fydd wedi’i gysylltu’n ofalus â datblygiad economaidd a chyfleoedd cyflogi o fewn rhanbarth Amcan 1, ddargyfeirio manteision y buddsoddiad hwnnw i ranbarthau eraill, weithiau y tu allan i Gymru.’

Mae hyn yn hollol gywir. Fe’i ceir yng nghofnodion y Pwyllgor. Mae’n cyfeirio at Amcan 1 ond mae yr un mor berthnasol i Amcan 2 a 3.

Cafodd yr argymhelliad penodol hwn ei anwybyddu. Ni wnaed hyn yn ddamweiniol. Nid yw hynny’n bosibl gan ei fod yng nghofnodion y Pwyllgor. Cafodd ei anwybyddu’n fwriadol naill ai gan awduron y ddogfen neu gan eu meistri politicaidd. Cafodd ei anwybyddu am nad oedd yr awduron yn ei ystyried yn fater pwysig.

Yn y ddogfen mae’r dadansoddiad ystadegol yn hynod o drwyadl a phroffesiynol. Mae hynny’n ddiddorol dros ben. Nid oes dadansoddiad ystadegol o batrymau ymfudiad, sydd yn fater hollol dyngedfennol i ddyfodol economaidd, cymdeithasol a diwylliannol Cymru. Mae’r ystadegau a gasglwyd a sut y’u dadansoddwyd yn dangos beth a ystyrir yn bwysig. Mae’r mater hwn yn holl bwysig.

Mae pawb yn cytuno bod addysg a hyfforddiant yn bwysig i lwyddiant economaidd. Fodd bynnag, mae’n bwysig sylweddoli nad yw’r berthynas yn un syml. Yn ôl ystadegau’r ddogfen, mae Powys ar frig y gynghrair o ran llwyddiant addysgol, gyda 57 y cant yn cael o leiaf pum gradd A i C mewn arholiadau TGAU. Fodd bynnag, 79 y cant yn unig o gynnyrch mewnwladol crynswth y pen y Deyrnas Gyfunol sydd gan Bowys. Mae 46 y cant yn cael graddau A i C mewn TGAU yn Sir Fflint a Wrecsam ac mae CMC y pen yn 108 y cant o’r cyfartaledd Prydeinig. Pe bai pob man yn gwneud cystal â Sir Fflint a Wrecsam, ni fyddai gennym broblem economaidd yng Nghymru.

Nid yw addysg a hyfforddiant ar eu pennau eu hunain yn gwneud y tric. Yr hyn a allai weithio fyddai cyfuniad o hynny, strategaeth datblygu economaidd a chynghori gyrfaol effeithiol. Mae’n bwysig fod pobl ifanc yn cael gwybodaeth am gyfleoedd gyrfaol yng Nghymru. Mae modd inni adeiladu ar brosiectau megis prosiect Llwybrau Menter a Busnes, er enghraifft, i fynd â’r peth ymhellach.

Mae eisiau cywiro’r diffyg difrifol yn y ddogfen ac yr wyf yn hyderus nad yw’n rhy hwyr i wneud hynny. Ar dudalen 113, mae rhestr o 12 o ddangosyddion a dywedir y bydd y Pwyllgor Monitro Rhaglen efallai yn dewis ychwanegu at y dangosyddion hynny.

Gobeithiaf y bydd Mike German ac aelodau eraill y Pwyllgor yn gofalu am hyn. Mae angen i Blaid Cymru bwyso arnynt i wneud hynny. Os na chaiff hynny ei wneud ac os na fydd prosiectau a phenderfyniadau ar wariant yn adlewyrchu hynny, mae perygl y bydd rhan fawr o bwrpas y rhaglen wedi’i cholli cyn belled ag y mae Cymru yn y cwestiwn. Fodd bynnag, ni fydd wedi’i cholli cyn belled ag y mae Lloegr yn y cwestiwn. I awduron y ddogfen hon, efallai mai hynny sydd yn bwysig.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservative Party, I want to support the aims of the Objective 3 operational programme. The strategic aim of the programme is to contribute to a competitive and knowledge-based economy with an efficient, flexible labour market. I note the comments made by the First Secretary in his opening remarks when he sought to reflect on the exclusion of places such as Barry from the Objective 2 map and highlight that they would be included in the Objective 3 area. Every area that is not included in Objective 1 is included in the Objective 3 region. He also said that only £81 million was available over the seven-year period and, of course, you cannot have it both ways. We accept that the area is included, but the wider the geographical area, the less money is available in those parts in relation to the Objective 3 operational programme.

The knowledge-driven economy is a key theme that runs through the whole programme. However, I must be clear in defining a knowledge-driven economy. No one would question that we need to attract and generate higher-level added value jobs to Wales and, in this instance, to the south-east region. My definition of the workforce of a knowledge-driven economy is one that holds at least the required skills demanded by employers at the present time, but also the skills required for their expansion plans in the medium term.

The economy of the region lacks the skills that are demanded by existing employers, and the re-organisation of the TECs into the Council for Education and Training Wales will have a major role in moving this forward. I do not want to repeat those well-rehearsed arguments, but the abolition of the TECs will significantly slow down our ability to meet our skills targets. It will take time for the new body to gain the necessary influence even if the structural issues are resolved to satisfy the business community.

The document revealed many alarming statistics. I was concerned to read that only 47 per cent of beneficiaries gained formal qualifications from previous programmes. Formal qualifications are not the only factor in delivering a knowledge-driven economy, but they should be used as an indicator of our progress. That statistic is unacceptable. Therefore, I was concerned that that target is set at only 50 per cent in the document. Given that there are so many vocational qualifications these days, it is important to accept that that figure should be higher.

I was pleased that the relevant programmes and policies were included within each priority and in the measures. That means that people can appreciate what fits within each priority and what I meant when talking about the Objective 2 programme earlier. It also means that they can understand the facilitators’ role—which I acknowledge is included in this document—to empower and to reach out to other sectors of the economy, as Mike German highlighted. Having said that, I am concerned that the New Deal programme qualifies within a number of priorities despite its questionable success in Wales. I am not necessarily speaking against the New Deal programme, but it is as an example of the vehicles through which we can deliver the Objective 3 programme. It is important, therefore, that whichever scheme is used, it is improved or built on from the standing start that we might find ourselves in.

My final point relates to the European social fund. In the Economic Development Committee meeting last week Phil Williams mentioned that William Hague announced that there was an agreement that the ESF should be devolved to the Welsh Office in 1997. It is three years since the last General Election and since William Hague was the Secretary of State for Wales. Unfortunately, Edwina Hart is not here at the moment to hear this, but to respond to the comments that she made earlier during Elin’s speech, I agree that the transfer needs to be right, but I would have thought three years ample time for the necessary considerations.

Diolch i bawb sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y ddadl y prynhawn yma. Dechreuaf gyda chyfraniad Elin Jones, gan mai hi a gynigiodd welliannau 1, 2, 3, 4 a 5 ar ran Plaid Cymru. Cefnogwn bob gwelliant. Nid ydym yn hollol hapus ynglŷn â gwelliant 1, wrth ystyried y cyfeiriad at ‘amheuon’. Mae’n dangos elfen o dynnu’n ôl. Credaf fod pawb i raddau helaeth yn derbyn bod yr ysbryd a fynegwyd yn y Cynulliad y prynhawn yma yn gefnogol i gael y cynllun Amcan 3 trwy’r Cynulliad a’r Comisiwn Ewropeaidd ac i ddechrau’r gwaith cyn gynted â phosibl.

Mae’r mater o drosglwyddo cyfrifoldeb am y gronfa gymdeithasol Ewropaidd oddi wrth yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn Llundain i’r Cynulliad wedi codi sawl gwaith yn ystod y ddadl hon. Mae hyn wedi bod yn llusgo ymlaen am flynyddoedd, fel y dywedodd Alun Cairns. Fodd bynnag, yr ydym wedi cael y drafodaeth hon o’r blaen. Mae pawb o blaid yr egwyddor o dderbyn y cyfrifoldeb o gynllunio gwariant y gronfa gymdeithasol Ewropeaidd a chydgynllunio gyda chronfeydd strwythurol eraill, ond dim ond ar yr amod bod y cyllid yn cael ei drosglwyddo hefyd. Wrth hynny, golygaf gyllid y llinell sylfaen oddi wrth yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth. Os na throsglwyddir yr arian hwnnw i’n llinell sylfaen, nid yw’n fargen oherwydd byddai’n rhaid i ni sybsideiddio gwariant y gronfa gymdeithasol o’n cyllid.

Gallaf ddweud wrth y Cynulliad fod trafodaethau yn parhau. Gwn fod rhai yn meddwl bod hynny’n annigonol a dylid bod wedi cytuno ar y mater cyn hyn. Yr wyf yn hyderus y digwydd hynny cyn diwedd yr arolwg gwariant cyhoeddus ymhen dau fis. Hoffwn pe bawn yn gallu dweud wrth y Cynulliad heddiw fod y mater wedi ei setlo a bod yr Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth wedi cytuno i drosglwyddo’r holl arian o’u llinell sylfaen nhw i’n llinell sylfaen ni. Fodd bynnag, ni wnaeth hynny ac mae anghytundeb yn parhau. Mae trafodaethau, sydd yn cynnwys Edwina Hart, Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru, Andrew Smith, Pen-ysgrifennydd y Trysorlys, a minnau, yn parhau. Ni allaf ddweud mwy na hynny ac ni allaf ddweud yr hyn a hoffwn, sef ein bod wedi dod i gytundeb.

A ydych yn dweud bod gwahaniaethau difrifol rhwng y Cynulliad a’r Adran Addysg a Chyflogaeth yn yr ymgynghoriadau hyn?

Maent yn ddigon difrifol i’m rhwystro rhag cyhoeddi cytundeb heddiw. Dyna’r broblem. Pe bawn yn siarad am ychydig geiniogau o wahaniaeth byddwn yn fodlon derbyn na fyddai hyn yn arwain at lawer o wahaniaeth yn y pen draw. Nid ydym eisiau cweryla dros werth ceiniog o refi, fel y dywedid ym marchnad Llanelli. Fodd bynnag, wrth drafod swm mawr o arian, ystyriwn ei fod yn ddigon pwysig i barhau â’r trafodaethau er mwyn sicrhau llwyddiant yn y pen draw.

Nid wyf eisiau ymdrin y prynhawn yma â’r trosglwyddiad y cyfeiriodd Elin Jones ato, sef y trosglwyddiad cyfrifoldeb o’r Pwyllgor Datblygu Economaidd i’r Pwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16. Mae hynny’n gwestiwn i’r Pwyllgorau ymdrin ag ef, o ran portffolios y Cabinet. Yr wyf yn falch i glywed syniadau Elin ond nid wyf yn cytuno â hi.

Soniodd Elin Jones hefyd am gyfartaledd cadeiryddion gwrywaidd a benywaidd pwyllgorau monitro y cronfeydd strwythurol. Mae hyn yn fater pwysig ond nid oes gennyf ateb ar hyn o bryd. Yr wyf i yn gadeirydd pwyllgor monitro Amcan 1 a Mike German yn gadeirydd pwyllgor monitro Amcan 3. Nid wyf yn barod i ddweud heddiw mai menyw fydd cadeirydd pwyllgor monitro Amcan 2. Yr wyf wedi nodi’r pwynt pwysig a diddorol hwn a dylid ei ystyried ymhellach. Ar hyn o bryd mae gennym ddau ddyn yn gadeiryddion. Nid yw’r pwyllgor monitro arall yn barod i ddewis cadeirydd, boed yn ddyn neu’n fenyw, eto.

Mater pwysig arall a godwyd yn y ddadl yw bod yn rhaid i’r awgrymiadau ynglŷn â phwy fydd yn dewis y blaenoriaethau ddod oddi wrth gymdeithas yn hytrach na chael eu pennu gan y bobl bwysig, neu’r ‘usual suspects’ fel y’u gelwir gan Mike German. Dylai agwedd o’r gwaelod i fyny yn hytrach nag o’r pen i lawr fod yn sylfaen i’r modd yr ydym yn delio ag Amcan 3. Yr wyf yn derbyn hynny, ac yr wyf yn sicr bod Mike German yn ei dderbyn hefyd. Dylai hynny hefyd fod yn sail i’r modd yr ydym yn gweithio, gan ein bod yn trafod syniadau ar sut i gynyddu mynediad i fyd gwaith i’r bobl hynny a adawyd allan o bosibl o’r byd hwnnw yn ystod y pum mlynedd diwethaf. Gwnaeth Elin Jones bwynt perthnasol ynglŷn â’r Fargen Newydd gan ofyn a fyddem yn camddefnyddio arian Amcan 3 drwy ei wario ar y Fargen Newydd yn hytrach na chreu pethau gwahanol ar ei chyfer. Efallai mai achos ein cwyno ynghylch y Fargen Newydd yw ei hannigonoldeb o ran cyfleoedd i fenywod neu’r ffaith nad yw’n ddigon cryf. Credwn y dylai’r Fargen Newydd barhau fel ag y mae, ond gallem gyfrannu rhagor o arian ac ymestyn ei chyfleodd drwy Amcan 3. Ni fyddai hynny’n disodli’r arian sydd yn cael ei wario. Mae’r addewid ynglŷn â sut y bydd y Fargen Newydd yn asio gydag Amcan 3 yn un y gallaf ei rhoi heddiw—ymestyniad, nid amnewidiad.

Mike German raised a point about schools and match funding. The Youth Access Initiative and the Grants for Education Support and Training programme would be available as match funding, we believe. They can widen the range of support in schools for anti-truancy programmes beyond what is already available as Youth Access Initiative and GEST funding. That area will be of interest to people in the education world.

In answer to Helen Mary—she has disappeared behind the pillar at the moment as she sometimes does—

We need a new building.

I know the point. On the question of gender mainstreaming, the Welsh European Funding Office will have an equality unit and gender mainstreaming is eligible for support under technical assistance from WEFO. That is an important point. It will not be difficult to achieve. There will be every public support for ensuring gender mainstreaming. As we have seen in the New Deal, for example, some things are heavily female-orientated. Women take up 96 per cent of the lone parent initiative. Men take up 75 per cent of the New Deal for young people and men represent 85 per cent of the long-term unemployed. There is much gender difference in the way different employment programmes work due to many traditional patterns in the labour market.

There is not much more I can say about the debate. There is general backing for the Objective 3 programme to be pushed forward as soon as possible. That is why we accept all the amendments. I invite the Assembly not only to accept the motion but also to accept all the amendments and to endorse the East Wales Partnership’ proposals for Objective 3.