I also propose that

I propose that

I also propose that

These motions will complete the legislative side of the national curriculum review.

In January, I was proud to open a debate on my proposals for the revised national curriculum for Wales. I was delighted that the proposals received such a warm reception in the Chamber and across the education community in Wales. One of the recommendations that I put forward during that debate was to increase schools’ flexibility in their provision of modern foreign languages. One of the key elements in the revised programme of study for modern foreign languages was the proposal that, from September this year, there should be no specific list of languages that qualify for the purposes of modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. Schools will be required to offer at least one of the official languages of the European Union and, in addition, could offer any language for which there is a substantial demand and which the school could resource.

The proposal was overwhelmingly endorsed along with the rest of the revised national curriculum for Wales. The Orders that we are considering today are technical in nature. They make the necessary changes to legislation to put the proposal that we have already agreed into effect. I am sure therefore that the Members will wish to approve the Orders. The Foundation Subject (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2000 will amend the primary legislation, section 354 of the Education Act 1996, so that modern foreign languages need no longer be specified in an Order under that section. Instead, the Order, under section 354, may provide that any modern foreign language is to constitute a modern foreign language for the purposes of the national curriculum for Wales. That will be explained later in my speech. This amendment Order also allows the provision of a mechanism for determining disputes regarding whether a particular language constitutes a modern foreign language. It also enables the Assembly to set up circumstances in which a language would not be treated as a modern foreign language. These powers are essentially a safety net and we have no particular language or circumstance in mind.

I am aware from the debate in January and discussions in the Pre-16 Education Committee that many Members share my concerns about improving the linguistic abilities of Welsh young people. As I said in January, this is a challenge that I take seriously and I am acting on a number of fronts towards that end. The Languages in Action project to which I referred in January aims to promote a foreign language capability in Wales and reverse the decline in the number of pupils opting for a modern foreign language at key stage 4. I am also pleased to announce that officials are working to prepare a national languages strategy for Wales. This will focus on encouraging the study of languages beyond the ages of 14 and 16 through improved teaching, promoting its relevance and benefits and making it more fun. This report will come to the Pre-16 Education Committee in the autumn.

These motions conclude the legislative side of the national curriculum review. I have discussed the Foundation Subject (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2000. The Education (National Curriculum) (Modern Foreign Languages) (Wales) Order 2000 specifies that, in a school at which pupils are offered the opportunity of studying at least one official language of the European Union, any other modern foreign language may be taught as part of the national curriculum for Wales. This provision will give schools the flexibility to which I referred earlier and which is an important feature of the modern foreign languages programme of study that was approved by the Assembly last term. This was welcomed by the teaching profession as part of the revision of the national curriculum and will enable schools that wish to do so to offer languages from outside the European Union alongside provision of a European language. I commend the motion to you.

Wrth ystyried egwyddor y Gorchymyn hwn, dylem groesawu’r hyblygrwydd a ddaw yn ei sgîl. Mae’r hyblygrwydd hwnnw yn cydnabod y sefyllfaoedd sydd gennym yng Nghymru o blant o gefndiroedd ethnig lleiafrifol a fyddai’n awyddus i ddysgu eu mamiaith yng nghyfnod allweddol 3. Hefyd, golyga y gall ysgolion ehangu eu cwricwlwm i gynnwys ieithoedd megis Siapanaeg na fyddai’n cael cydnabyddiaeth fel arall.

Mae’r Pwyllgor Addysg Cyn-16 eisoes yn trafod sefyllfa druenus ieithoedd modern yn ysgolion Cymru. Mae’n amlwg fod yn rhaid gwella’r ddarpariaeth yn ein hysgolion a hefyd atal y lleihad yn y niferoedd sydd yn ymgymryd â dysgu iaith fodern yng nghyfnod allweddol 4. O leiaf mae’r Gorchymyn hwn yn agor ychydig o ddrysau ac yn edrych yn Ewropeaidd ac yn fyd-eang cyn belled ag y mae ieithoedd yn y cwestiwn.

Mae’r ffaith fod nifer sylweddol o’n disgyblion yn gwbl ddwyieithog yn Gymraeg ac yn Saesneg yn gryfder amlwg y dylem adeiladu arno yng Nghymru. Mae’n llawer haws ymgymryd â thrydedd neu bedwaredd iaith pan fo plentyn eisoes yn gyfarwydd â dwy. Mae’r newid bach ond pwysig hwn yn y Gorchymyn a’r cwricwlwm yn profi sut y gallwn gyflawni newidiadau o bwys yn ein gwasanaeth addysg.

Mae nifer cynyddol o bobl yn y proffesiwn yn poeni bellach am y gor-ganoli sydd yn digwydd, ac mae’r cwricwlwm cenedlaethol yn enghraifft drawiadol o’r hyn sydd yn dderbyniol ac yn annerbyniol yn y gwasanaeth addysg. Ar un llaw, mae’n gwarchod buddiannau ac yn dysgu pynciau o bwys megis Saesneg, Cymraeg, mathemateg a gwyddoniaeth. Fodd bynnag, nid yw’n rhoi digon o ryddid i ysgolion ymwneud â’u prosiectau a’u blaengareddau eu hunain. Mae hyn ar brydiau yn gwneud dysgu yn anniddorol ac yn strwythurol gyfyngedig. Cwynir yn aml bod athrawon yn asesu mwy nag y maent yn dysgu. Mae ysgolion yn colli eu hunaniaeth gymunedol er holl ymdrechion clodwiw y Cwricwlwm Cymreig.

Nid dyma’r lle i agor dadl ar y cwricwlwm. Fodd bynnag, mae’n bwysig ein bod yn ystyried creu’r strwythur a llacio rhywfaint ar y gafael haearnaidd o’r canol ar raglenni astudiaeth ein hysgolion. Byddai ein hathrawon yn croesawu hynny. Mae’n bwysig fod athrawon yn cael pob cyfle i ddatblygu eu syniadau ac i rannu eu doniau neu eu profiad unigryw gyda’u disgyblion. Byddai hynny yn agor y drws i sefydlu gwasanaeth addysg llawer mwy goleuedig a dychmygus nag sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd. O ganlyniad, byddai dysgu yn llawer mwy diddorol a byddai hynny’n helpu gyda disgyblaeth a lleihau triwantiaeth.

Enghraifft arbennig yng Nghymru yw diffyg amser i gynnal gweithgareddau fel yr Urdd, chwaraeon a chyngherddau. Dyna pam fod y neges y tu ôl i’r Gorchymyn hwn yn un mor bwysig ac yn un y dylem ei nodi ar gyfer y dyfodol.

What I have to say is in some ways parallel to what Owen John Thomas has just said. However, I want to take it further, because I think that Wales is in great danger of missing out. The way in which Rosemary Butler presented this was on the positive side. However, as you know, there is a strong negative side to the situation in Wales on modern foreign languages. If a person has a modern language skill at a good level, that person has an enhanced opportunity of getting other jobs. The emphasis so far in Wales has been on the creation of a bilingual Wales, with the focus directed towards increasing fluency in Welsh. Welsh should be encouraging modern foreign languages and not pushing them out. The neglect of modern foreign languages is a detrimental decision that will have serious implications for Wales’s long term economic prospects. We should be aiming not for a bilingual Wales but for a trilingual Wales—or a multilingual Wales, as someone has just prompted me—a Wales that can be an economic competitor in Europe. If a second language is learnt at an early age, it enhances a person’s linguistic skills and makes it easier to learn a third or fourth language.

We should all take into account a couple of statistics. Between 1996 and 1999, GCSE entries for modern foreign languages dropped by 5 per cent. The drop in A Level and degrees is more significant. There was a 10 per cent drop in A Level French candidates last year alone. There was also a dramatic drop in applications for modern foreign language degree courses. In 1995-96 there were 483 students studying modern foreign language courses at Welsh higher education institutions. By 1998-99, that figure had dropped to 261. That is a reduction from 483 to 261 in less than three years.

I share your concern about the fall in the number of pupils taking modern foreign languages. To what do you attribute that? Do you think that it is possible, as some headteachers have suggested to me, that an insistence that all pupils, no matter what their ability, learn Welsh until the age of 14 has contributed to that? They have to take Welsh. They do not feel confident in taking modern foreign languages anyway and take Welsh at the expense of other modern foreign languages.

It is easy to agree with that argument. However, it does not accord with the facts, David, because the drop is the same in England, where the compulsory teaching of Welsh to GCSE level is not an issue. The problem in Wales is similar to that in England.

Do you agree that the educational advantages of a child’s learning Welsh from an early age and becoming truly bilingual far outweigh any of the arguments against teaching Welsh? It opens up new pathways in a child’s mind and ability to cope educationally. When someone puts forward an argument that all children in Wales should not learn Welsh, we have to look out.

I agree wholeheartedly. I did not intend to say this, but will do so in response. Last Friday I visited a Welsh-medium primary school in northern Powys. I was humbled by the linguistic ability of the five and six-year-olds with whom I sat, who, the headteacher made plain to me, did not come from Welsh-speaking homes. They swapped between Welsh and English as they talked to their teacher and to me. That shows the high level of linguistic skills that young children can gain.

We need to build on our gift of being a bilingual nation and ensure that we put down a marker now. We must look to introducing compulsory modern foreign languages, in addition to Welsh, up to GCSE level in the future. I know that schools are overstretched and that we perhaps need to slim down the national curriculum further. It was not practicable to bring in that change at this point and we will support these measures today, but we must work towards improving our linguistic skills if we are to compete economically in Europe and beyond.

I thank Jenny for her contribution. I agree with almost everything that she said. It is important that we become not just bilingual, but trilingual or multilingual, if we are to take our true place in the world. You answered David Davies’s point well. Janet also answered David’s point, so I thank you both for responding to most of the debate. That is useful. However, you did not respond to Owen John, which is a shame, as I now have to do so.

I take on board much of what Owen John said. However, we had a major debate on the new national curriculum in Wales in this Chamber. It was unanimously agreed and it is much more flexible than previously. There is an evolutionary process but I do not think that it was appropriate to raise those issues during this debate this afternoon.

It is important that we ensure that our children have the opportunity to learn modern foreign languages. However, the key to success in increasing the take-up of modern foreign languages is effective teaching by committed teachers. That is why we are introducing a training grant of £6,000 to be paid to students who undertake postgraduate initial teacher training at secondary level in modern foreign languages. We are also offering a subsequent additional grant of £4,000 to trainees who successfully complete their first year of teaching and continue to teach in those subjects. That makes a total of £10,000 and will be introduced from September 2000. As I said earlier in the year, this is the way forward. The Pre-16 Education Committee has set modern foreign languages as one of the major items for it to debate and investigate in the autumn. This allows us to implement the curriculum that was agreed by this Assembly, and I hope the Assembly will vote for the motion.

I also propose that

I also propose amendment 1 in the name of Andrew Davies. In paragraph (a), replace ‘6 June 2000’ with ‘14 June 2000’.

This Order amends the British Wool Marketing Board statutory scheme, with a view to modernising its boards and committees structures. The British Wool Marketing Board was established in 1950. Originally, its main purpose was to regulate wool prices to provide a guaranteed price to producers. That ended when the guarantee was abolished in 1993. However, it still has statutory powers and obligations to collect fleece wool from almost all UK producers, to grade it, and to prepare it for sale at public auction.

As part of the five-yearly policy reviews of public bodies, a review of the wool board was carried out in 1996. It main purpose was to look at how UK wool should be marketed now and in the future: that is, whether the board’s statutory monopoly should be retained. The review concluded that the case for change was not sufficiently strong to justify ignoring the overwhelming support from the industry for keeping the statutory monopoly. However, the review recommended that the board should rationalise some aspects of its structure and membership, including modifications to the membership of its regional committees and the desirability of limited terms of appointment and an upper age limit.

The amending Order that I am proposing is designed to implement some of these recommendations. The main changes involve a reduction in the size of the board from 16 members to 11 with effect from 1 July 2000; consequent reduction in the number of board members from three to two; a reduction in the number of regional committee members overall from 110 to 79 although this will not affect the Wales regional committee; the introduction of a maximum age limit of 65 for Board and committee members; and changing the current voting method to weight of wool produced rather than the number of sheep registered to the producer.

I emphasise that these are mainly technical amendments to the wool marketing scheme. They do not impose any additional regulatory burden on producers, suppliers or manufacturers of wool. When the board consulted their members about the proposed changes, only one out of about 90,000 UK producers responded. These proposals have also been the subject of a public notice by the National Assembly and the other UK agriculture departments inviting representations. No objections were received to the public notice.

Wool is important as a source of additional income to the many thousands of Welsh sheep producers. It is estimated that the value of the wool clip in Wales is nearly £8 million a year. It is a significant amount and represents just over 3 per cent of the total income of sheep farmers. A slim and efficient marketing body is vital to the future prosperity of the wool industry. The sector has suffered like the rest with depressed prices in recent years. However, recently prices have slowly begun to improve and the board seems confident about achieving better prices over the coming months

As I said, it is 50 years since the board was created. In the new century, the board needs to respond rapidly and flexibly to the changing commercial pressures on it. The proposed changes are designed to do that and will ensure a welcome degree of rationalisation and modernisation to the board’s structure. Therefore, I hope that you will support the proposed legislation.

Yr ydym wedi aros am y Gorchymyn hwn ers peth amser. Yr oedd disgwyl y byddai wedi ei basio ym mis Ebrill. Byddai hynny wedi caniatáu i Fwrdd Marchnata Gwlân Prydain i symud ymlaen â’r etholiadau pwysig hyn er mwyn rhesymoli ei weithgareddau. Yn anffodus, o ganlyniad i gamgymeriad a’r ffaith nad oedd hysbyseb wedi ei gosod, nid oedd modd symud ymlaen â’r etholiadau hynny fel y bwriadwyd ym mis Ebrill. Yr ydym yn gorfod rhuthro’r rhybudd hwn drwodd er mwyn caniatáu i’r bwrdd symud ymlaen i gynnal ei etholiadau.

Yr ydym wedi cyrraedd sefyllfa lle y gallai’r bwriad i resymoli fod wedi ei beryglu. Mae nifer o aelodau’r bwrdd bellach wedi cyrraedd diwedd eu tymor ar y bwrdd. Os na chynhelir yr etholiadau hyn yn fuan bydd y bwrdd mewn sefyllfa anodd ag aelodau wedi dod i ddiwedd eu tymor a dim modd i ethol aelodau newydd. Felly, dylem dalu sylw i’r camgymeriad hwn. Nid y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol sydd yn gyfrifol am y camgymeriad hwn.

Mae’n rhaid gosod hysbysiad o fwriad fel hyn mewn tri phapur newydd: yn The Edinburgh Gazette ar gyfer yr Alban ac yn The Belfast Telegraph ar gyfer Gogledd Iwerddon. Fodd bynnag, ar gyfer Cymru a Lloegr, mae’n rhaid iddo ymddangos yn The London Gazette. Nid wyf yn siŵr faint o ffermwyr Cymru sydd yn darllen The London Gazette. Felly, nid yw’n syndod nad oedd ymateb i’r hysbysiad. Dylai’r Cynulliad ystyried ar fyrder i’r hysbysiadau hyn ymddangos mewn papur yng Nghymru. Byddai rhywun yn disgwyl y byddai’n ddigon rhwydd i’r Cabinet Llafur yn y Cynulliad drefnu ei fod yn ymddangos yn y Welsh Mirror, gan mai dyna yw eu papur swyddogol hwy.

O ganlyniad i’r sefyllfa sydd wedi datblygu a’r angen i sicrhau bod y Gorchymyn hwn yn cael ei basio heddiw, ni fyddwn, fel grŵp, yn ei wrthwynebu er ein bod yn bryderus ynglŷn â gwelliant 8, sydd yn gofyn am ychwanegu paragraff 37A ar ôl paragraff 37. Cyfeiriodd Christine at hyn, sef y bwriad i atal pobl sydd dros 65 oed rhag bod â’r hawl i gael eu hethol i’r bwrdd ac os yw aelod o’r bwrdd yn cyrraedd oedran o 65, mae’n rhaid iddo ei adael ar ddiwedd ei dymor. Gwahaniaethu ar sail oedran yw hyn, mewn diwydiant lle mae 58 yw cyfartaledd oedran ffermwyr. Yn y sector defaid, mae’r cyfartaledd oedran yn hŷn na hynny, mae’n siŵr. Yr ydym yn gwahardd pobl sydd ag oes o brofiad yn y diwydiant hwn rhag cyfrannu’n greadigol tuag at farchnata eu cynnyrch eu hunain. Yr ydym fel grŵp yn gwrthwynebu’r gwahaniaethu ar sail oedran. Pe na bai’r argyfwng sydd yn wynebu’r bwrdd o ganlyniad i’r methiant i hysbysebu’r newidiadau hyn yn The Belfast Telegraph wedi codi, byddem yn gwrthwynebu ar y pwynt hwn. Fodd bynnag, ildiwn er mwyn sicrhau bod y Gorchymyn yn cael ei basio. Fe’i cefnogwn gan fynegi pryder am y gwelliant hwn.

The Welsh Conservative group approves this Order. I take this opportunity to praise the British Wool Marketing Board and its Chairman, Mr Alun Evans, for sterling work during difficult times in the wool industry, particularly in north Wales. A company which has been in charge of the collection, marketing and grading of wool for the last 50 years went out of business at the beginning of the year and the British Wool Marketing Board stepped in and safeguarded all those jobs. It is now going to look for a central depot to ensure that our area is serviced. That is a big thing. Some of the initiatives that the British Wool Marketing Board has taken on should also be praised, particularly the training of shearers, which it has undertaken in a big way this year. The weekend course in Ynys Môn that it ran was oversubscribed. The board gives a lead to farmers. It is a credit that so many young farmers took up this opportunity across Wales. We agree with this Order.

I declare an interest as a producer of wool.

I declare an interest as a farmer and a producer of wool. The Liberal Democrats accept this Order and the amendment but we would like a couple of clarifications. In paragraph 6, we are slightly concerned that the word ‘Minister’ is used. Is that acceptable when you are named the Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development? Could you clarify that this is therefore legal? I would like to support my colleagues, particularly Peter, in paying tribute to the British Wool Marketing Board, which has been in existence for 50 years, for its sterling work. I wish to correct you. The returns from wool have declined to such an extent that the return on the wool clip does not pay for the shearing of the sheep. It is important that the Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development understands that.

However, I refer to the remarks of the Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee about where these changes are advertised. If you recall, Christine, I wrote to you on 9 May with my concern that due to an ‘oversight’, as you put in your reply to my letter, elections to the British wool board could not be held in north Wales. I would like to know which department, according to you, overlooked placing these adverts in these newspapers and what action you have taken in order to ensure that the advert is placed in a more accessible paper to Welsh farmers?

I start with Rhodri Glyn’s comments. I was glad that you made it clear—although Mick appears not to have caught your drift—that the oversight occurred in Northern Ireland, not in Wales. When some people read that there was an oversight that was concerned with devolution, they assumed that it concerned Wales. It did not. It concerned Northern Ireland. Since then, the Northern Ireland Assembly has been recalled. I was delighted to find, at my last meeting with its Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Brid Rodgers, that Northern Ireland will be a great ally for Wales in our negotiations with the rest of the UK. I am also pleased to say that Brid is not one of those revolving door Ministers. The agriculture and rural development post in Northern Ireland will be secure and will have a continuity, which we all want to see.

On advertising in the Welsh Mirror, Rhodri Glyn and I should get Paul Starling to do a major piece on the wool marketing board. We could possibly get that through with Rhodri’s help. Stopping people aged over 65 applying to be members of the board is a delicate and emotive issue. The industry asked us to try to inject some new blood into the board and it was felt that that was probably the best way to do it. As we go through our various appointment procedures, this question may come up again. It is not without precedent. It is a sensitive issue but, on this occasion, it was the right decision to make.

On the point of ageism, there are one or two Members here who might face that in the next Assembly elections. Your leader, for example, will be in his sixty-fourth year.

Yes, but Rhodri will not be 65, unless he is lying about his age.

I concur with Peter’s point about the wool marketing board and its good work. On a general note on the uses and properties of wool, an awful lot can be done with it. I was interested in Phil Williams’s earlier comments about research and development. There is a project with which one of the LEADER groups, Cymad, is involved, to use wool as an insulation material. If there was ever a story of bringing town and country together, that is it. Much lateral thinking and good work is going on in the wool industry.

I declare an interest as a sheep farmer and a wool producer.

These proposed regulations amend and update the current Animal and Animal Product (Import and Export) Regulations 1998. They implement, in the UK, European Union directives laying down requirements for veterinary checks on animals and certain animal products that are traded between Community countries, all of which are imported into the Community from third countries. The body of the regulations sets out the rules that apply in respect of such imports and exports and the action that can be taken if illegal consignments are discovered. The regulations must be reviewed and updated at frequent intervals to incorporate the steady influx of new EU legislation on these matters. We need to introduce these new regulations quickly, as amendments to the council directive dealing with intra-Community trading in cattle and pigs have not been implemented. We might otherwise face proceedings against us.

The details of the changes arising in the new regulations are in the memorandum. In summary, the main changes are as follows. By implementing council directives 64/432/EEC as amended by council directives 97/12/ EC, 98/46/EC and 98/99/EC on the health of cattle and pigs traded within the Community, new requirements are introduced on transporters for cleansing and disinfecting their vehicles, on the registration of dealers and on the approval of assembly centres for cattle and pigs. There are changes to the schedules listing the relevant EU and domestic legislation governing international trade in live animals and certain animal products such as semen, ova and embryos and changes in schedule 2 to the list of current border inspection posts approved by the European Commission. Traded animals from third countries can only come into the UK through a border inspection post. There are currently no border inspection posts in Wales.

There are no new requirements relating to fish but the new regulations will tidy up the existing legislation by ensuring that all existing requirements relating to the import of live fish are contained in one set of regulations. At the moment, these provisions are spread across two sets of regulations. They are the Animal and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1998 and the Products of Animal Origin (Import and Export) Regulations 1996. The new regulations will remove the current restrictions whereby cattle can only be imported into Great Britain from Canada during a window from 1 February to 15 April each year.

In England and Wales, 91 interested parties were consulted on the proposed regulations. These included organisations representing livestock importers and exporters, enforcement bodies, animal welfare organisations, agricultural consultants and other interested individuals. The result was disappointing in terms of numbers. Only six substantive replies were received. One was from the Farmers Union of Wales. However, the comments were generally favourable. The organisations that responded welcomed the new regulations and were pleased to note that the UK had decided to apply the lightest possible touch in implementing the new EU directive on intra-Community trade in cattle and pigs. There were no comments that would affect the substance of the proposals. I commend these regulations to you.

I also propose that

As these two regulations are interrelated, I propose that the Assembly considers them together.

First, I want to talk about the purpose of the regulations and give some context. These regulations are being introduced as a response to a recommendation from the European Council for a standard design for the disabled parking badge across the European Union. This will replace the parking cards or badges of various shapes, sizes and colours that are currently in use by member states. I am sure that we would all agree that that is a sensible move. In the UK, the orange badge scheme of parking concessions for disabled and blind people came into operation in December 1971, by virtue of regulations made under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The scheme is designed to give registered blind people with drivers, and those with severe mobility difficulties, the ability to park close to the facilities and services that they need to use to improve their lifestyle. The new badge will be blue—I am sorry but the colour is not within my ambit to choose—

Can I ask whether it will have gold stars on it as well?

Do not push your luck. The introduction of these new regulations does not affect the eligibility criteria or parking concessions currently in place. These will be the subject of a separate review that will begin shortly and be carried out by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions on a UK-wide basis, in conjunction with the National Assembly and other devolved administrations. It is intended—and it is important that all Members understand this—that the new blue badge should be phased in over three years from 1 July 2000 in Wales. This will happen as existing orange badges come up for renewal, or as new applications are processed. It is not intended that there should be a wholesale replacement of orange badges before their expiry date. I stress that because I know that, like me, you get many people who are worried about that. Their badge will be valid; there is no problem there.

Ar y pwynt hwnnw, pe bai pobl eisiau bathodyn glas oherwydd eu bod yn bwriadu teithio i wledydd ar y cyfandir ac yn gweld mantais o gael bathodyn glas, a fydd hawl ganddynt i wneud cais i gael bathodyn glas cyn yr amser priodol?

I am sure that that would be the case. All I am saying is that they do not have to replace their present badges. If they go to their local authorities, I am sure that that would be possible, Dafydd. If there is any problem come back to me.

The second point with this Order that I wish to draw to Members’ attention is slightly more complicated because this needs to be seen in the context of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the Legislation Committee. This point is quite complicated. Primarily the concerns lie with the appeals process as detailed in the regulations and within the context of the Human Rights Act 1998. There are two concerns, if I understand this correctly. First, the Legislation Committee is concerned about the limited availability of appeals: there is only a right of appeal in relation to the misuse of badges, and not in relation to medical or other issues. It is important that everybody understands that point. The Committee felt that this could be seen as a direct contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998, which abides with us. It does not abide with other Government bodies in the same way. As a result, the legislation would not be permissible under the Government of Wales Act 1998.

However, the grounds for appeal—and this is where it becomes complicated—as set down in the proposed regulation, reflect the limit of powers contained in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, to which I referred. That is the primary legislation on the subject. The National Assembly has no power to extend the grounds of appeal beyond those contained in section 21 of that Act, and is protected from challenge on that front by section 107 of the Government of Wales Act. As a devolved body, we relate to the 1970 legislation.

The Legislation Committee was also concerned about the inclusion of the right of appeal to a magistrates court, which has been introduced. That appears to strain the limits of that enabling primary legislation. Appeal provisions were contained in the original Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982 and will be repealed. Those provisions are reflected in the new regulations and we responded to them in our concerns about the draft regulations. In doing so, Wales opted to go out to consultation. That explains the slight time gap between us and England and Scotland. We felt that we needed to go out to consultation on the right of appeal to a magistrates court. Therefore, we consulted the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor’s Department, the Council on Tribunals and others on the draft regulations. None of them questioned the appeal decision. Ironically, the Council on Tribunals was pleased to see its insertion in line with the regulations laid in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

However, having seen the advice and concerns expressed by the Legislation Committee, I must respond to this. I will consider how I can contact Lord Macdonald regarding human rights legislation. Although I am responding, there is no record of an appeal being received by the Secretary of State for Wales, and now the National Assembly, since the provision was first included in 1982. That is the context. If an appeal were made to the Assembly, I would ensure that an independent panel would advise me before a decision was taken. However, having been aware that the Legislation Committee had those concerns, they have been laid down in a memorandum in the Table Office.

In conclusion, because of those concerns, I suggest that the way forward is for me to withdraw the regulations as they stand, so that I can remove the few offending paragraphs on the appeal procedures, and then use the urgency procedure to put the amended regulation through. I am intent that these regulations, as amended, will be adopted. I would not normally use the urgency procedure but this is important. Dafydd is concerned about this and other Members probably have the kind of concerns that I have. I ask Members to bear with me, in view of the anomaly that has arisen. I will withdraw this set of regulations, remove the reference to appeal procedures and then put the regulations through the urgency procedure. In doing so, I assure you that we will seek to establish another set of appeal procedures, which we know are legally watertight but can respond to human rights legislation.

Yr wyf yn falch o gael cyfle i drafod y mater hwn. Diolchaf i Sue Essex am gyflwyno’r Gorchmynion yn y modd a wnaeth, ac am y ffaith ei bod am geisio sicrhau bod y newidiadau yn digwydd fel eu bod yn unol â’r darpariaethau hawliau dynol.

Credaf mai dyma’r tro cyntaf i’r Cynulliad weld gwendid yn y ddeddfwriaeth wreiddiol—Deddf Cleifion Cronig a Phersonau Anabl 1970—a sut y mae hynny’n cyd-daro â’r darpariaethau sydd gennym i ystyried hawliau pobl.

Credaf y bydd hynny’n codi fwy nag unwaith yn y dyfodol lle gwelwn ddiffyg darpariaethau megis hawl apêl, sydd yn hawl sylfaenol, yn y ddeddfwriaeth wreiddiol a basiwyd yn Llundain. Rhagwelaf y bydd angen, dro ar ôl tro, i ddilyn ystyriaethau fel hyn. Efallai y bydd cyfle yn y dyfodol i sgrinio ar gyfer y math hwn o ystyriaeth cyn ein bod yn symud ymlaen gyda rheoliadau drafft fel y rhai sydd ger ein bron heddiw.

Wedi dweud hynny, gobeithiaf y bydd modd mynd drwy’r broses frys mor fuan â phosibl. Byddwn yn falch pe bai Sue Essex yn cadarnhau y bydd y Gorchmynion hyn, drwy ddefnyddio’r drefn honno, yn gallu cael eu cwblhau cyn inni dorri ar gyfer wythnosau etholaeth yr haf.

Disgwylir y newidiadau hyn. Mae gan bobl anabl hawliau ac mae’n iawn i sicrhau’r broses apêl. Cefnogaf yn llwyr ein bod yn darparu ar gyfer hynny, ond y mae angen gwneud hyn heb fawr o oedi. Cyn belled ag y bo sicrwydd ynghylch yr amseriad, byddaf yn falch o weld hyn yn mynd ymlaen a’n bod yn darparu ar gyfer yr apêl fel y dylem bob amser.

We welcome these regulations and, like the Plaid Cymru leader, we want to see the whole issue finalised as quickly as possible. We do not wish to see any further delays. We will co-operate to see that the regulations are passed as quickly as possible. I was visited recently by a constituent who wished to go on holiday and was concerned because he felt that had he been living in England this would already have been sorted out. There has been an unnecessary delay in these provisions coming before us. It is unfortunate that some people who live in Wales have been inconvenienced by the delay.

Alun Cairns raised a serious point. I understand that the European so-called flag will be on these stickers. I find it disappointing that British people, whether they support the union jack or the draig goch or both, will once again be forced to fly a flag of an artificial state that, in the words of its own auditors, and by the tacit admission of Neil Kinnock, one of their commissioners, is fundamentally corrupt.

According to a report by the European Union’s own auditor, millions if not billions of pounds are being lost due to fraud. That is not my opinion but a fact. It has been verified by its own auditors who refused to sign off its accounts. It is also a tacit admission by Neil Kinnock, who was forced to resign—not that it was his fault and nobody suggested it was—because of the corruption within the European Union. I am not making a political statement but reflecting a fact that seems to be widely accepted. [Laughter.]

I will ignore what David Davies said. This legislation must go through as soon as possible because if we were to introduce the blue badges here, we would enable our blue badge holders to park in disabled spaces in other EU countries. Hence the need for an instantly recognisable disc. However, badgeholders from those same states would not be able to park in disabled spaces here. This is an anomaly that we should clear as quickly as possible because it is a matter of courtesy to other members of the state to which we belong. We support the principle of this legislation and the moves that Sue Essex has recommended that we take.

This is a unique occasion for the Assembly. I stand before you as the chair of the Legislation Committee to report on its views, which must be done in respect of the legality of Orders put before it.

I am grateful to Sue for withdrawing the Order, because otherwise, tomorrow, you would have been faced with the difficult decision of having to vote on an Order which was ultra vires. I am glad that Sue has withdrawn it and I recognise the delay that this causes. We hope that the procedure that she has outlined will allow us to move ahead as swiftly as possible.

For the sake of salving David Davies’s conscience, he should be aware that the legal adviser to the Legislation Committee wrote to the Speaker’s Counsel—who is legal adviser to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in Westminster—questioning why it had included the section on appeals in the English regulations, which in our case would have been ultra vires. The response he received was that there is no power to provide such an appeal and that we ought to have spotted that regulation 10 (11) was an unjustified addition to the regulations, under which they themselves have made a mistake. However, this puts us in a difficult position, because we were asked to accept an appeals procedure that was outside the powers of the National Assembly. If we had done that, we would have been in contravention of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which this Assembly has signed up. Therefore, we would have pointed out to the Assembly that this was ultra vires. Sue has kindly withdrawn the approval of this Order from us today. However, the Committee wanted it to be known that in no way did it want to frustrate the Assembly’s desire to deal with these matters urgently.

In considering the clash that has developed between our own Standing Orders and the need to abide by the human rights provisions—and the provisions of the primary legislation have been drawn up without that in mind—is this likely to be a cause of continuing difficulties? Is there any way in which there can be some provision that covers amendments to primary legislation to ensure that it can be interpreted in Wales in line with the Assembly’s requirements?

Indeed. Of course the problem is that the enabling power, which is the primary legislation in this case, namely the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, does not allow us to be consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998. Therefore, it would require changes to the primary legislation. Undoubtedly, this will occur again in primary legislation that was passed before the human rights legislation was on the horizon. I ask Sue to ask the DETR if there are plans to amend the enabling Act to allow for these anomalies to be corrected. The Assembly Legislation Committee has decided to try to visit the legal adviser to the Speaker’s Counsel in Westminster, where we could put these points even more strongly. However, it illustrates that we are in difficulty, because the enabling powers were cast so long ago.

To get to the heart of the issue so that people understand it, the regulations as they stand state that

‘A person whose application is refused…or who is required to return his badge…may, within the prescribed time, appeal to the Secretary State’—

now of course the National Assembly for Wales—

‘who may confirm or reverse the decision of the local authority;’.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that people must be given an appeal which has a degree of independence and is held in public. In other words, people must be given a fair hearing, That would have been the case if we could have included the reference to an appeal to the magistrates court, but we could not do that because we do not have the power to do so. However, we could not simply have an appeal procedure to the Cabinet alone.

What Sue must do to the legislation as it currently stands before it can come back to us under the urgency procedure is as follows. First, the section on the magistrates court will have to be not simply deleted and replaced but made compatible with, and vires with, article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have to ensure that any appeal will have a degree of independence, be in public and cannot be dealt with by a member of the Cabinet alone. That is the advice that we are getting. An appeals procedure will therefore have to be put in place to ensure that we are not in contravention of article 6.

Having questioned the legal adviser closely on this this morning, it would appear that it is possible to insert a clause to state that there will be an Assembly appeals process, which will have a degree of independence and be in public. It will then be sufficient for Sue to come back with a detailed scheme and announce to the Assembly that it has been put in place. Therefore this should not delay the process of getting this legislation through.

While this is a unique occasion, we are not particularly pleased about that. No one on the Legislation Committee wanted to hold up this process. However, I am sure that you would not have wanted to have a motion put before you, where you would have to decide whether or not to pass legislation that is ultra vires. In fact, you would have had a recommendation from the Counsel General—and I presume also from the Presiding Officer—that you could not pass such legislation.

I think that Sue intends to bring the regulations back through the urgency procedure. The Legislation Committee is content for that to happen. We ask her to include the matters that I have raised this afternoon.

I thank Members for their contributions. Dafydd and Mike are quite right. This has repercussions wider than these regulations. I will write to Lord Macdonald, as I said, to draw his attention to human rights legislation on this. To be clear, Mike, about what I intend to do—because this issue of urgency is important and I hope, Dafydd, that this will be a matter of a week, not weeks, and that we will get this through quickly—I will amend the regulations to take out the reference to the magistrates court. I am quite happy to insert the sentence that you mentioned if we can get legal agreement that it is right. If we cannot, I do not wish to delay the regulations. In that case, I will ensure that these regulations are processed through and that we then work hard on the appeals procedure. That is important. If what you say is true, then we can do both and we can get this accommodated within a week and go through the urgency procedure.

The Legislation Committee will have to consider the amended regulations. We will have to take a view on the basis of the legal position. Our role is strictly defined. However, I am sure that with the legal advisers to the Legislation Committee and the Office of the Counsel General working together on this matter, we should be able to get a simple and quick solution that will allow these regulations to proceed. I hope that that will be the case. I think that it would be the easy answer to this.

I hope that that process does not mean that this will turn into weeks, not a week, because there is a general will in this Chamber for these regulations to go through as quickly as possible. We do not wish to pass legislation that is ultra vires, but on the other hand we do not wish to delay these regulations when, as I said, we have not had an appeal on this since 1982, and when it will impact on people’s lives this summer. I make that proviso.

I agree that we need to sort this out as quickly as possible. However, in doing so, might it be possible to ask whether we could have Henry VIII-type powers to enable us to amend any primary legislation from Westminster which would mean that we were ultra vires as regards our Standing Orders on human rights provisions. That may sound open-ended but it would be for use only in that context and it would avoid these sorts of delays every time we stumble across this sort of inconsistency in future.

That is a useful point. Perhaps that might be taken up by the Legislation Committee. I do not wish to delay this any further; it is a long process. On your points, David, this is important for disabled people across Europe. It is a human right that they are able to make the same kind of journeys and visits as able-bodied people. Therefore, this standard system across Europe is important and is to be commended. We have now gone through the whole context, so when the urgency procedure goes through, people will understand the context in which this was made.