The single programming document before you is the product of considerable effort by the East Wales Partnership. It is the culmination of a year’s work, including three months of negotiation with the European Commission, and it builds on the document approved by the Assembly in its Plenary debate on 26 May.

Objective 2 may be the smallest of the mainstream structural fund programmes benefiting Wales over the next seven years, but that does not diminish its importance to the parts of east Wales that will benefit from it.

The document was approved in the Plenary debate on 23 May.

If so, I apologise.

The programme has been well received in many quarters, including the European Commission. It provides a clear, strategic approach to the needs of the Objective 2 areas and suggests sustainable and appropriate use of the limited resources on offer.

The programme is designed for the new Objective 2 areas of east Wales, and there are also transitional programmes designed to support the economic and social conversion of areas facing structural difficulties. In Wales, this programme has two distinct themes: declining rural areas and urban areas in difficulty, although there are some common problems. The programme’s strategy has been developed bearing that in mind, with a clear focus on the needs of the two areas where appropriate. Having distinct urban and rural priorities shows that policy-making in Wales can address coherently the different needs of urban and rural areas in a common framework to mutual satisfaction. The headline objectives of the single programming document are to increase employment growth, promote economic diversification and develop sustainable communities. The first priority of developing sustainable and competitive small and medium-sized enterprises is generic, while the other two priorities, sustainable rural development and urban community regeneration, are clearly targeted decisions for the affected areas, taken by the local partners.

With the limited funds available, the draft has been written by focusing on specific interventions to maximise the benefits to the Objective 2 area. With a programme of this size, there is little point of spreading the money widely because actions would then become ineffectual. A key element of the programme is the strategy for transitional areas, which sets out how the limited funding that is available to them will be used in a sustainable and effective way. Transitional areas are the previous Objective 2 and 5b areas in east Wales that no longer benefit from the new Objective 2 status. A map is provided inside the SPD document that indicates which areas those are.

Therefore, what are the next steps? We aim to submit the final document to the European Commission in the next weeks. It will then go through its formal approval system. During this month, a shadow programme monitoring committee will be formed and work will begin on the programme complement. This is the expansion of the document in terms of its actions, against which applications can be invited and without which no applications can be approved. Ultimately, implementation arrangements will be for the Objective 2 monitoring committee. The fact that Objectives 1 and 3 monitoring committees are up and running and that money is flowing before the start of this programme will be used to strongly inform the thinking on adopting best practice.

A key area across the programme is that of developing a strong SME base. That lies behind the logic of devoting an entire priority to this goal, while addressing issues in the other two priorities. Funding is based on euros per capita, and I notice that David Davies is not in the Chamber, but as you know, the euro is a stable currency against which the pound is currently moving. The allocation of euros to Wales is 1.39 million for the main programme to the end of 2006 and 39.73 million for the transitional areas to the end of 2005.

For the last 15 seconds, I have been trying to understand what you meant by saying that the euro was a stable currency, because it seems to be the opposite.

I was referring to David Davies’s comment, in a previous intervention, when he stated that when Britain joined the euro, the pound would still move up and down against the euro. I am sure that you recall his statement.

You misheard him.

No I did not. I was trying to point out that the euro is the stable currency used inside the euro zone, against which all these things are measured. The costs and the amount of money that Wales will receive will vary because we are not in the euro zone.

Under the 2000 settlement that was based on the euro at a rate of 63p, we would have received £51.3 million and £25 million respectively for the two strands, but at the current exchange rate, the figures are around £48 million and £23 million.

Do you expect that figure to fall further, bearing in mind the current state of the euro?

That matter is for the markets and is one that this Assembly cannot influence. However, I am sure that we could have a rational debate on whether or not we want to join a stable currency.

I record my thanks to the many organisations that made up the partnership. Through a great deal of hard work and effort, it has put together a good document. Its important features are co-operation and ownership. Those key elements have brought this programme together. I am sure that they will continue to do so in the writing of the programme complement and in the implementation of Objective 2 and the transitional programme which is to follow.

Before the debate begins, I would like to suggest how the Assembly should respond to the amendments laid before it. I recommend that the Assembly reject Alun Cairns’s amendment 1. There is no logical reason at all to suppose that the implementation of Objective 2 will be undermined by the other structural programmes. It is that use of the word ‘undermining’ which leads me to ask you to reject it. On the contrary, those preparing the implementation of this programme’s proposals have been able to build on the lessons of Objectives 1 and 3, and to work closely with the Welsh European Funding Office. Members of all the sectors involved in the east Wales partnership are working closely together to develop these arrangements, which will be transparent and accessible to all potential applicants.

I recommend that the Assembly accepts amendment 2, in the name of Phil Williams. As regards his amendment 3, the information and communications technology targets are a late addition to this document and are currently being added. Therefore I am happy to accept this amendment.

I have no problem with the spirit of amendment 4: co-ordination of rural policies across all the programmes is essential. However, an inclusive rural partnership exists and it would be illogical to replace it with a new partnership. The Assembly may wish to note our intention to create a single monitoring committee for the rural development plan and for the LEADER+ community initiative. We also intend to ensure that links with other programmes are made by ensuring that there are regular meetings of the different monitoring committees, and through the work of the rural partnership that already exists. On that basis I hope that Phil will think it sensible to withdraw that amendment, and unless he would care to amend it, I am afraid I must reject it.

As regards amendment 5, in the name of Phil Williams, I am glad that he approves of the proposals for implementing Objective 2. However, allocating the splits between the local and regional plans in this programme is comparatively easy. It is a relatively small programme and two of its three priorities are already spatially targeted, one at rural areas and one at deprived urban communities. This makes the allocation to the local plans logical. The nature of the Objective 1 and Objective 3 programmes is much more generic, and the division implementation arrangements are more complex. I note, therefore, that this will work easily for Objective 2. However, I do not think that we can draw easy lessons from the programmes and I think that the monitoring committee must still grapple with that aspect, as I am sure that it will do at its next meeting for Objective 1. Therefore, although the amendment’s spirit is right, I ask you to reject it on the grounds that there is good work already in progress to regularise the arrangements of all structural funds in Wales.

I ask Phil to withdraw amendment 6 because I am sure that he has in mind paragraph 16 of the ‘Enterprise and Economic Development’ section of the partnership agreement:

‘We will also seek provision from the UK Government for the appropriate additional resources that may, from time to time, be necessary to ensure that we are able to draw down the full available amount of EU structural funding.’

Given that statement—and I will add an additional guarantee—I will strengthen those words by guaranteeing that we will seek provision from the UK Government. I hope, with that guarantee, that you will find your amendment redundant and withdraw it.

In conclusion, to move the final part of the motion, the process of this single programming document has shown the value of true partnership work. It has brought together local authorities, the voluntary sector, and representatives from the private sector, as well as the Assembly and national agencies into an open and inclusive process. The process has pooled expertise effectively and operated in a strategic manner, focused on the needs of east Wales, rather than on vested interests. This is a clear demonstration that the partnership approach can work effectively.

On behalf of the Welsh Conservative Party, it gives me great pleasure to support the Objective 2 and transitional programme for southeast Wales and the motion tabled today. The document is well written and the common themes draw directly from the issues highlighted in the description of the current situation and the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, or SWOT, analysis.

Although this is a much smaller programme in financial terms than that for the Objective 1 region, it is equally important to the people of east Wales. It is often suggested that east Wales is a prosperous area, but that depends on the context. Inactivity rates in the whole region are higher across the board than the UK average. There is also a high proportion of income support claimants in some areas. The document states that 47 per cent of households in Tredegar Park claim income support, according to the latest figures.

We know that the Tredegar Park ward is particularly deprived as a large local authority housing estate built on the outskirts of the town. Although it was built in the 1970s, it was the worst aspect of the 1960s practice of decanting people from town centres to the outskirts. Could you assure us that you will press strongly in the Committee that that ward and similar ones in other parts of Wales be given particular priority?

Thank you for those comments. The document reflects those difficult wards. It highlights Tredegar Park and other areas in the Newport unitary authority, such as Pillgwenlly.

When we talk about the so-called prosperous part of Wales, we must recognise that this region has deprived areas and that it is not necessarily even on a par with the UK average. Furthermore, we must always be aware of potential problems that could arise from the closure of troubled industries. Llanwern is regularly reported in the news for the wrong reasons. Its closure would have a devastating effect on the region’s economy. Who could have predicted the announcement a few weeks ago of 2,000 job losses in the electronics industry? The document offers a structured way to overcome some of the difficulties, but flexibility is critical in the implementation from here onwards and after agreement by the Commission.

Evaluation of previous industrial south Wales programmes and rural Objective 5b schemes shows that only 95 per cent of European regional development fund money was committed and, without doubt, not all will be drawn down. This sends a strong message to the implementing organisation, the Welsh European Funding Office, that all forms of support need to be offered to applicants and potential applicants.

I have always sought to highlight the need to support the private sector in maximising the use of available schemes. Paragraph 2.60 highlights the low take-up of resources for supporting small and medium-sized enterprises in the past. The Economic Development Committee is currently reviewing the business support structure. It is essential that implementation and the technical assistance priority be tied in to dovetail with the Committee’s recommendations. For too long we have seen the dominance of public sector organisations in seeking structural fund support. The reason behind my amendment 1 is to ensure adequate support for the SME sector as well as the priority it rightly deserves in the document.

However, in the case of Objective 2 and this programme, there is a potential for the larger Objective 1 scheme to dominate the implementation arrangements. No one would deny the political sensitivity around the Objective 1 scheme. There is a danger that the priority placed on Objective 1, because of the attention that it gains, will undermine the implementation of Objective 2. I will clarify the use of the word ‘undermine’ in my amendment, as the Minister raised that point. The currently perceived lack of resources and effective management in WEFO will limit the capacity to deliver on the Objective 2 programme. However, even with the political sensitivity and so-called priority that Objective 1 has gained, few people would deny that the implementation is something of a shambles at present. I look forward to that improving as the organisation gains experience of handling applications and dealing with prospective applicants. At the moment, the private sector feels excluded, the public sector does not know how the regional schemes will fit with local projects and the voluntary organisations are being held back by the technical and complex method of submitting applications. Furthermore, timescales are unclear and match funding will also relate to this scheme.

We accept this document positively. We will support the motion that proposes the technical changes to gain approval by the Commission. I congratulate the people who have been involved in drafting the scheme and the partnership that they have developed in proposing a positive document. We will support all the amendments.

I propose amendment 3. Add at end of motion as new clause:

I propose amendment 4. Add at end of motion as new clause:

I propose amendment 5. Add at end of motion as new clause:

I propose amendment 6. Add at end of motion as new clause:

When I praised the draft version of the Objective 2 single programming document, the authors were admirably modest and explained that in writing it they had the advantage of learning from the problems with Objective 1. They were too modest; this is a well-conceived and well-delivered policy document. I particularly welcome the way that a coherent strategy leads to a well-considered exit strategy. The main message from Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales is that in reality, Objective 1 can now learn from Objective 2 and that is the purpose of some of our amendments, which are all carefully worded to be positive and constructive.

When the first draft was debated, we proposed three amendments that were adopted. The first was one to ensure that ethnic minorities living in the Objective 2 region play a full part in the implementation of the programme. Economic Development Committee members were pleased to hear of the positive response to the wording of that amendment and how 14 different ethnic organisations are now involved in the partnership. Owen John Thomas will explain why this is an important step, but needs to be consolidated in the implementation.

Our second amendment in May and our amendment 2 today—and I am glad to learn that it will be supported—starts with a genuine appreciation of the honesty of the SPD in facing up to a major challenge in implementing sustainable development. There can be conflict between undirected economic growth and the environment. However, at the same time, there are many opportunities to combine geographically distributed economic prosperity with positive environmental gain. Cynog Dafis will mention some of the ways in which that can be done. However, we need more than a reassuring form of words. We must ensure that there are clear environmental targets in the programme complement and that there is a proper emphasis on environmental targets in the scoring criteria adopted by the Welsh European Funding Office. The record of Objective 1 is mixed, with only eight of the 32 measures giving environmental factors a high weighting. It is particularly disappointing that in scoring priority 2, measure 5 in Objective 1, renewable energy is assessed not according to environmental criteria but according to whether it is cost-effective. We need a more convincing commitment to environmental protection.

It will not come as a complete surprise that I want to ensure that sufficient emphasis is given to information and communications technology, with clear targets. That is a recommendation in the European Commission’s response. It is fully justified, and I welcome that amendment 3 will be supported. Pious words are not enough where the development of ICT is concerned. All over Europe, and in the poorest and least dynamic regions in particular, is a conviction that ICT offers salvation and that it will enable those regions to lead the world. The full and rapid development of broadband communication is essential if we are to encourage value-added jobs to be embedded in Wales. However, we must establish ambitious and achievable targets to ensure that we do not fall too far behind in this rapidly changing, state-of-the-art technology.

One other theme that I pick up from the response from Europe—which was positive—is the need for better co-ordination of our programmes, particularly in rural areas. At the moment, we have four European programmes with a rural component: priority 5 of Objective 1, priority 2 of Objective 2, the rural development plan, and the LEADER+ community initiative. If we do not co-ordinate carefully, anomalies will arise. The definition of a rural area is different in the different programmes. In Objective 1, it is proposed that a rural area is a ward where the population density falls below 1.5 per hectare. In LEADER+, the limit is 1.2 per hectare. There may be a good reason for that. There is not a consistent definition in the four programmes. That is just one anomaly. Perhaps the most serious anomaly is that unlike the clear division between the deprived communities of the Valleys and the prosperous urban regions, there is no such clear division in rural areas, which are more continuous throughout Wales. According to official figures for example, the average gross domestic product per capita in Powys is lower than in much of the Objective 1 area.

As far as possible, within the rules of the EU funding and knowing that the levels of support must vary according to the agreed boundaries, we should seek a coherent policy for regeneration in all rural areas. That requires much more co-ordination than we have had in the past. I am aware that in developing the Objective 1 rural component, we were doing so in the room next to where the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee was developing the rural development plan. I welcome Mike’s assurance that steps will now be taken to ensure co-ordination, but we should have taken them before. I want amendment 4 to be put to this Assembly.

Amendment 5 also heaps praise on Objective 2. I agree that it was a simpler programme, but the clarity of the division between regional and local partnerships in Objective 2 highlights what remains a serious weakness in Objective 1. We need that clear distinction. The Objective 1 programme has not resolved the problem, and I must put on record that it was a year last July that Plaid Cymru first pointed to that as a serious problem that needed tackling. Last month, Labour Members and Liberal Members voted against solving the problem by allocating indicative budgets. Okay, you rejected the method used effectively in many other European countries, but what is the answer? We must find one soon because in the implementation of Objective 1 and particularly in priority 1, measure 1 and priority 4, measure 4, this must be faced quickly. We need a lead, and if we do not take it, there will be confusion and anger. You can vote against the amendment, but it is a problem that must be tackled. If it is not tackled soon, the full value of our structural programmes, particularly Objective 1, will be damaged.

I now come to my final amendment, amendment 6. Its wording was chosen carefully. Only a dishonest or indifferent person reading that amendment carefully could possibly vote against it. It starts by recognising that there are extra funds on top of the Barnett block. It then points out that the comprehensive spending review assumed that actual spending on the whole raft of new European programmes would increase gradually. That is beyond dispute. It is in the public domain and the figures are Government figures. It will be £49 million this year, £91 million next year, £131 million the year after, £145 million the year after that and an average of £191 million for the last five years of the programme. Judging by the large number of high quality proposals that WEFO has already received, with some of the measures already oversubscribed, there is a likelihood that we will approve over £200 million of European grants this year under Objective 1 alone. It is certain that actual spending will reach the full average level in two years. I included the word ‘if’ in the amendment. If I am correct on that—and you can look at the figures and the applications that WEFO has received and if you think that there is even a chance that I am correct—actual spending will reach the full average level much quicker than assumed in the CSR. We want to know that the Government, with the Assembly’s full support, will press for the extra funds. Otherwise, there will be a shortfall.

Finally, I read the coalition’s partnership agreement carefully. There are many things in it that I found reassuring. I recognised the clause which states that on a year by year basis, the spending of European grants in Wales, and hence the level of European grants drawn down from Brussels to London, may be greater than the spending assumed in the CSR. If that is the case, we support that negotiation. However, that is an agreement that represents the views of two parties. What I wanted in this amendment—and I urge you not to vote against it because it is carefully worded—was for the whole Assembly to press not for an allocation from UK revenue—

That is not in the wording.

As I said, it is difficult, if you look carefully at the wording, to see how you could deny the opportunity to say that Wales as a whole, represented by all parties in this Assembly, not just two, has a right to money that is drawn down from Brussels for specific projects in Wales. It should have been an annually managed expenditure, not a departmental expenditure limit, but that is a technicality. The fact is that it would surely be of strength if the coalition could press for this with the full support of the Assembly. The wording of the amendment was carefully chosen to include the word ‘if’ Rhodri. I urge you to reconsider that—[Interruption.]

Thank you, in your new role as Deputy Presiding Officer, for allowing me to speak. This is an important part of the end of the first stage of the development of our structural funds programmes. It is important that we see this in the context of the three structural funds programmes and our range of community initiatives. I will speak particularly about the issue of co-ordination and monitoring and evaluation and how these programmes fit into our role as an Assembly and our need to develop an economic development strategy. As many of you know, the Economic Development Committee, having started to develop a national economic development strategy last year, put that to one side to work on the structural funds programme. We have now returned to it. We are clear about the importance of locating these programmes in the context of the strategic objectives of our overall economic strategy. How do we ensure that? Alun Cairns made some points earlier—and I agree with Alun and Mike—that the Objective 2 programme is important. It is particularly important because we build directly on the experience of the old industrial south Wales programmes, which have been in existence for six years. Half of these are transitional programmes from the old programme and some are new Objective 2, but a great deal of it is built directly on our experience.

We have a great deal to learn from this for the Objective 1 programme. We have done six years of this before. We now know much more about what works and what does not. We know about the problems that can arise if there is not a clear strategic framework in terms of the likelihood of money going to projects that duplicate services on the ground. We also know of last minute applications because of money that must be spent by a certain end-year, and of partnerships that are partnerships in name but not in daily practice. We can learn a great deal form this and build it into our Objective 1 programme. I know that Mike is keen on monitoring and evaluation, as am I, and I refer you to a couple of paragraphs from the single programming document. Paragraph 2.1, which refers to the evaluation of the previous programme, states that,

‘despite the positive results in the programmes, there has been little evidence of any real relative improvements in the economic performance of the area’.

That is of real concern to us and and we must consider the reason why. It is partly because there are many macro-economic factors and changes in the industrial base. Things happen that can impact on the actual changes that can be delivered by these programmes. They were not huge programmes compared to Objective 2.

The other very important element for us is that on these old industrial south Wales programmes—I declare an interest because I was a member of the monitoring committee for the industrial south Wales programmes—we did not have proper baseline data when we started to develop the project. We did not have the information on which to judge what would demonstrate progress and, because we did not have that data, many of the targets that were set were not easily measurable or did not judge performance. I quote from paragraph 2.18 of the document:

‘The targets set for the programmes were quite modest and in some cases of limited use in assessing performance against the programmes’ objectives. The overall approach to establishing project targets and monitoring subsequent performance was often unsatisfactory.’

Clearly we must do it much better now, and we must do so across the three programmes, and across the community initiatives also, if we are going to make this money work for us. The report goes on to state:

‘A major weakness in the approach to monitoring the performance of the programme relates to the lack of integration between the various monitoring systems employed … and the lack of consistency and low level of commitment to the value of monitoring and evaluation amongst project sponsors.’

I know that we will do it differently, but we must ensure that this happens effectively. Integration across the programmes will be fundamental to this. Here I come to Phil’s proposal on rural areas. I strongly believe that we must have a regular mechanism for bringing together the monitoring committees of all these programmes. Some of you know that I have pushed hard on this issue in committee—

I am just concluding. We must discuss a great deal more how we will do this, whether we separate rural and urban areas, whether we separate different issues. That means a great deal more debate, but it needs to happen. Also the Assembly must not be frightened of taking a clear strategic direction over this, in the context of our national economic development strategy when it is finished. We must be willing to say to the monitoring committees, if required, that they should adjust their priorities and the allocation of resources, and ensure that we watch the impact of all of these programmes on the ground.

Yr wyf am ddweud gair yn arbennig am yr adran yn y ddogfen ar gynaliadwyedd amgylcheddol, o baragraff 7.45 ymlaen. Hoffwn siarad hefyd o blaid gwelliant 2 yn enw Phil Williams. Croesawaf y gydnabyddiaeth onest yn y ddogfen hon y gallai cyrraedd amcanion economaidd y rhaglen wrthdaro â lles yr amgylchedd.

Yr wyf yn pwysleisio mai’r ffordd o ymdrin â’r gwrthdaro dichonol hwn yw sicrhau twf sylweddol mewn sectorau sydd yn seiliedig ar egwyddorion cynaliadwyedd. Er enghraifft, gellid pwysleisio trafnidiaeth gyhoeddus a defnyddio cerbydau sydd yn defnyddio hydrogen, tanwydd y dyfodol—sydd yn cael ei ddatblygu eisoes—strategaethau gwastraff cynaliadwy, ac yn y blaen.

Hoffwn yn arbennig groesawu paragraff 7.51 a’r adran am gynnal a gwella asedau amgylchedd y rhanbarth, sydd yn cyfeirio at yr angen am wrthweithio newid yr hinsawdd fel ystyriaeth ganolog, ac yn dweud

‘Bydd hyn yn golygu camau i hyrwyddo arbediadau ynni … ac i hyrwyddo defnydd ffynonellau ynni adnewyddadwy cynaliadwy.’

Yr wyf yn hynod o falch nad yw’r ddogfen hon yn rhoi effeithlonrwydd ynni ac ynni adnewyddadwy mewn cystadleuaeth â’i gilydd fel y clywais rai bobl yn ei wneud, gan gynnwys rhai o swyddogion Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru. Mae’n rhaid gwneud y ddau beth, wrth gwrs, hyd eithaf ein gallu. Mae arbed ynni yn bwysig eithriadol; mae potensial mawr iddo. Fodd bynnag, ar yr un pryd, mae’r galw am ynni ar gynnydd carlamus. Er enghraifft, bydd datblygu teledu digidol yn cynyddu defnyddio trydan yn sylweddol ac, felly, allyriadau carbon. Mae’n rhaid gwneud rhywbeth am effeithlonrwydd ond, ar yr un pryd, rhaid cynhyrchu ynni mewn ffordd fwy cynaliadwy.

Ynglŷn ag ynni, mae’r ddogfen yn dweud, wrth gyfeirio at ddatblygu busnesau bach a chanolig eu maint ym mharagraff 7.65, fod effaith gyfan y rhaglen yn debyg o fod ychydig yn negyddol o ran yr amcan hwnnw. Fodd bynnag, os cymerir pob cyfle i sicrhau effeithlonrwydd ynni ac ynni adnewyddadwy, gall y rhaglen gyflawni effeithiau cadarnhaol.

Mae’r Gweinidog dros yr Amgylchedd, o bawb, yn sicrhau ein bod yn colli pob cyfle yn y maes allweddol hwn. Derbynia gymorth parod gan fudiadau sydd yn honni eu bod yn caru’r amgylchedd, a Chyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru yn arbennig. Eu gwir agenda, hyd y gwelaf fi, yw gwarchod Cymru fel gwlad brydferth. Nid yw hynny yr un peth â chynaliadwyedd amgylcheddol. Mae hynny’n creu trafferthion i gwmnïau Cymreig.

Ddoe, cawsom gyfarfod gyda chwmni o’r enw DJ Construction/Windjen o Gonwy, fe gredaf. Mae hwnnw’n gwmni Cymreig sydd wedi arallgyfeirio i ynni gwynt. Caiff ei gosbi’n ariannol am wneud hynny, er bod Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol wedi gwahodd pobl i fynd i mewn i’r maes allweddol hwnnw. Mae’r hyn sydd yn digwydd i DJ Construction drwy weithredoedd y Gweinidog dros yr Amgylchedd yn groes i’r hyn sydd yn y ddogfen hon ac yn groes i’r hyn y dylem fod yn ei wneud o ran sicrhau datblygu cynaliadwy.

Rhaid inni warchod yr amgylchedd a datblygu’r economi fel eu bod yn gweithio gyda’i gilydd. Daw cyfle pwysig i ddechrau gwneud hynny gyda’r ddogfen ar strategaeth ynni adnewyddadwy, sydd yn cael ei pharatoi gan Sustainable Energy Cyfyngedig.

Do you agree that calling in applications and extending the process for dealing with proposals over a period of perhaps two or three years is an almost equally effective way of destroying those proposals as is working openly against them? The Assembly has been guilty of that on several applications.

Cytunaf. Mae lle i amau bod y rhai sydd yn gweithio yn erbyn y cynigion yn agored yn gweithio i sicrhau bod ceisiadau yn cael eu galw i mewn. Mae’r ddau beth hynny gyda’i gilydd yn ffordd o ddinistrio diwydiant sydd yn tyfu ac sydd â photensial pwysig yn y maes hwn.

Dychwelaf at y cyfle cadarnhaol sydd gennym. Mae dogfen ar strategaeth ynni adnewyddadwy yn cael ei pharatoi gan Sustainable Energy ym Mae Caerdydd, ar gais y Prif Weinidog. Bydd y ddogfen honno yn barod cyn bo hir. Bydd yn rhaid inni sicrhau fframwaith cynllunio ffafriol ar frys i sicrhau bod y strategaeth honno yn cael ei gweithredu’n rymus, er mwyn inni achub ar y cyfle i roi Cymru ar y blaen. Yr ydym yn cwympo yn ôl, y tu ôl i Iwerddon a’r Alban, sydd yn symud ymlaen yn gyflym yn y maes hwn. Byddai hynny yn rhoi sylwedd i’r holl rethreg sydd gennym ynglŷn â datblygu cynaliadwy. Nid rhethreg sydd ei heisiau arnom, ond gweithredu effeithiol. Rhaid inni symud ymlaen, datblygu’r diwydiant, creu swyddi a chreu ffyniant.

It appears that this debate has turned into one about renewable energy. The higher the profile, the better, of course.

Returning to the document in hand, I agree that we must congratulate its authors. It is a reflection of the process that has taken place through the East Wales Partnership, which includes diverse groups such as Powys, Newport and Cardiff. The whole process has been handled and run well and the document clearly identifies needs that will be met by this programme.

Without raking over too much history, there was always tremendous disappointment in east Wales that rural Powys was not included in the Objective 1 programme. We are sandwiched between the English counties, which have received extra assistance from their Government, and west Wales, where there will be substantial investment through Objective 1.

Although the funds—£50 million, or whatever the sum will be when it is drawn down—are welcome, the Minister must make efforts to ensure that east Wales receives regional assistance in the form of tier 3. Other property grants must also be extended to ensure that we can retain and develop our small and medium-sized business base in east Wales, which is one of the primary objectives. The competition from Objective 1 may well attract more and more businesses to Wales or, indeed, as I mentioned before, to the English borders.

We are particularly concerned about the decline in the economy of rural areas. I know that the needs could be met with greater co-ordination. I agree with many speakers who insisted that all the raw elements of the documents before us must be well co-ordinated. To this end, we need to establish a body in this Assembly to oversee that. It is important that it meets the Programme Monitoring Committee to ensure that time is not wasted. There could be considerable duplication of effort.

The voluntary sector, with which many of us are familiar as members of the Programme Monitoring Committee, often gives its time freely. We must consider how people’s time will be affected by so many rural elements. Within that process, the lead body needs to be appointed urgently. The lead body will require considerable technical assistance to be able to provide the secretariat to prioritise all the bids. I want to know how soon this will occur and what technical assistance will be available to ensure that the process keeps moving. One of the great things about Objective 2 is that, through the east Wales partnership, the people have kept the process moving.

Cynog raised the issue of renewable energy. There lies the greatest challenge for us in Wales. Cynog mentioned the need for good planning guidelines to allow this to happen. I want to introduce another dimension, which I consider equally important. Without this overall strategy and the planning guidelines to enable this development to take place, the companies will not look at Wales. They will turn to other countries where there is a positive and proactive attitude to the development of renewable energy—

In the light of what you have said about renewable energy, how content are you with the approach of your coalition partners to renewable energy projects?

Thank you, Helen, for the opportunity to expand on the coalition’s attitude to renewable energy. You will be aware, of course, that, through the creation of the National Assembly sustainable energy group, we have lobbied extremely effectively to get this Assembly to produce a renewable energy strategy. In the document, there is also a commitment to the development of biomass. We have the potential to meet the demands, as Cynog and others have said. We provide a framework that will enable Wales to become a world leader in the development of renewable energy, rather than being a country with ideas that are never developed. At this stage, I am content, but, like you, I await the published version of the strategies. I hope that they will be productive and that we will attract other industries to Wales on the back of them.

I return to the theme of co-ordination and coherence in the measures. Lessons have been learnt because of the 5b process, which was a scatter-gun approach. I am hopeful that east Wales will provide a climate to achieve the priorities in the document. It is important that we monitor developments. We must not duplicate and waste time and we must ensure that there are no hold-ups in the process of providing technical assistance.

I welcome this document and I am particularly pleased to see that Plaid Cymru’s amendment, which it proposed in Plenary in May concerning the inclusion of ethnic minorities, has now been embodied in the current paper. Two of the local authorities that are partially covered by Objective 2 funding account for a large proportion of Welsh ethnic minorities. I refer, of course, to Cardiff and Newport. In fact, the table for wards that are recorded as having high levels of ethnic minority populations shows that Butetown is ranked number 1 and Pilgwenlly in Newport is ranked number 2.

It is no coincidence that, among Objective 2 areas, these same two wards are ranked second and first, respectively, in the table of districts exhibiting high levels of deprivation. Therefore, I am pleased to learn that Cardiff City and County Council has acted to engage ethnic minority groups in the local partnership process. It is important that this involvement of ethnic minorities should also be encouraged in Newport, and beyond the partnership process into the membership of the Programme Monitoring Committee. Representation of ethnic minorities on that Committee would consolidate the moves taken in Cardiff, and hopefully elsewhere, to involve them in the local partnership.

Representation on the Programme Monitoring Committee should be handled with great sensitivity, as it is important that no one ethnic minority should be represented to the exclusion of all others. As the Committee will meet over a period of at least six years, it is possible that different representatives from the main ethnic groups could serve on it in annual rotation. The close correlation between the preponderance of ethnic groups and deprivation makes this matter of involvement one of crucial importance.

Ethnic minorities must also be targeted to ensure that technical assistance in obtaining and completing the forms for aid is available to encourage their fullest possible involvement in the Objective 2 programme. In the Butetown area in particular, on our doorstep, this is an opportunity for the National Assembly to show its worth and embrace Wales’s longest standing ethnic minority group and help improve the quality of life of its members.

It is certain that when future statistics are printed for this ward after next year’s well advertised census—and Helen Mary will say more about that later—the new figures will show an unprecedented improvement in Butetown. However, this unfortunately, will not be as a result of improvements in the cosmopolitan heart of the area, but through the new developments on this side of the railtracks.

A challenge for the local authority, its partners from the voluntary sector community, trade unions, the business sector and the National Assembly is to make Objective 2 funding work also for those on the other side of the tracks.

I have read the report, although in not as much detail as I would have liked, and have discussed it with others. I would like to associate myself with all the previous comments. It has been a well-received report outside of the area and we should congratulate those who have prepared the single programming document for Objective 2. It greatly adds to the stature of the Assembly when a report is as well-received outside as it is within.

The reality is that there is not much money in the Objective 2 programme. Without being able to pinpoint the exact detail because of the points that Mike German made earlier, it will be about £70 million: £50 million for the Objective 2 programme and £20 million for the transitional programme. That is not much money. In Powys, where I have had some discussion about this, it is about £3 million a year for the length of the programme. One of the schemes that I was involved with many years ago, and was hoping that it would benefit, would in itself take the whole sum.

Given the points that you have just raised, do you not acknowledge that if we were members of the euro zone the amount of money would be greatly increased? Therefore, are you advocating a swift entry of the UK into the euro?

That was a very silly intervention that took unnecessary time. I am not criticising the programme in any way. I raised the point because of a silly point made by the Minister for Economic Development when he introduced his speech. I am not criticising the balance of expenditure: that is right. I accept that you must have this balance between investing in opportunity and investing in need.

Considering our current position in Wales, it is sensible that we should concentrate our investment in need, which is clearly in west Wales and the Valleys. Therefore, I am not criticising the size of the programme. However, for a number of reasons, I am concerned about the position of Powys, the whole of which falls within mid and west Wales. Phil Williams has already talked about Powys having a lower level of gross domestic product per capita than many parts of the Objective 1 area. I have already spoken about the limited funds that are available.

There is a possibility of some negative impact arising from the Objective 1 programme. There is a need for the Assembly to find match funding for projects in Objective 1. It is a huge programme that could have negative effect on Objective 2 areas. There is also the position of competition for the extra spending power that has been allocated to Wales. That could also have a negative impact.

Mick Bates mentioned the tier 3 funding that is available over the border in England. The difficulty for any person considering investment is that, when looking at a map of Britain, they see a big wide space, which is the section in-between. That could also have a negative effect. As I said, I am not criticising the size of the programme or the single programming document. However, I would welcome a reassurance on two issues from the Minister for Economic Development in his response.

First, pressure and quick decisions are needed on tier 3 funding. I agree with the points made by Mick Bates earlier and at previous meetings that it would be beneficial, even if there was not a great deal of money involved, to take away that big wide space that could be negative. Secondly, it is important that we have some form of continuing evaluation. The impact on east Wales during the seven-year programme could be such that we must ensure that we evaluate it throughout that period. We cannot wait until the very end before addressing a situation where Powys could be going backwards while we concentrate our investment in west Wales and the Valleys.

Croesawaf y gydnabyddiaeth yn y ddogfen i bwysigrwydd y dechnoleg newydd yn y cynllun hwn. Cytunaf â’r siaradwyr eraill nad oes llawer o arian ar gael yn y cynllun. Felly, mae’n bwysig ein bod yn targedu’r gwariant hwn mewn ffordd benodol. Dywedais yn y Siambr hon yn y gorffennol fod y dechnoleg newydd yn rhan hanfodol o’r ffordd yr ydym yn edrych ar ddatblygu economaidd ledled Cymru, yn arbennig yn ein hardaloedd gwledig. Mae technoleg gwybodaeth yn delio’n glir â’r tair blaenoriaeth a amlinellir yn y rhaglen hon.

Dylem ganolbwyntio ar bedwar cam mewn perthynas â’r rhaglen. Yn gyntaf, rhaid codi ymwybyddiaeth ymhlith busnesau a chymunedau ynglŷn â phwysigrwydd technoleg gwybodaeth ar gyfer y dyfodol. Yn ail, rhaid ateb y galw am dechnoleg gwybodaeth ymhlith busnesau. Yn drydydd, mae’n rhaid inni ddarparu’r cyngor a’r gefnogaeth anghenrheidiol i bobl. Yn olaf, rhaid sicrhau bod y strwythur telathrebu priodol ar gael iddynt. Nid wyf yn argyhoeddedig ar hyn o bryd fod y strwythur yno. Rhaid cymryd camau pendant i wella’r ddarpariaeth bresennol.

Cymeradwyaf y datblygiadau a enwir yng ngwelliant 2. Fodd bynnag, hoffwn ychwanegu twristiaeth. Ni chlywsom lawer am dwristiaeth y bore yma. Mae twristiaeth yn bwysig i ddatblygiad yr ardaloedd gwledig. Rhaid inni gefnogi cynlluniau i ddatblygu twristiaeth yn yr ardaloedd hyn.

Soniodd Cynog a Glyn am ddatblygu cynaliadwy. Mae rhesymau da pam y gelwir y cynlluniau hyn i mewn: mae iddynt oblygiadau y tu hwnt i’r ardaloedd lleol. Rhaid inni ddelio â hwy mewn ffordd strategol oherwydd y goblygiadau hyn. Fodd bynnag, cytunaf fod yn rhaid inni anfon negeseuon positif at gwmnïau sydd eisiau datblygu yn y sectorau hyn. Rhaid inni gefnogi ac annog hyn ar gyfer dyfodol ein hardaloedd gwledig.

Many interesting points were made during this debate encompassing the whole of the economic development policy for Wales. I will try to address those, but I would prefer to concentrate on some of the specifics of this document. Alun Cairns’s contribution and William Graham’s intervention showed that this document proves that there are pockets of deprivation in Wales that are not in the Objective 1 area. It is crucial that we recognise that and that the document takes those matters forward. Tredegar Park has the highest rate of households without a wage earner in the whole of Wales. It is essential that we target resources to the areas with the most difficulties.

Technical assistance was raised by many speakers today. The total technical assistance budget is 3.6 million euros, which is only just over half a million euros per annum to be dispersed among the partnership across Wales. That is not a great deal of money. We must therefore ensure that we get the best value from our euros. I ask colleagues not to expect too much in terms of amounts of money. It is essential that the money goes to those who deliver and help to deliver these programmes across Wales.

Much has been said about co-ordination between the European structural fund programmes. Do you not agree that implementation, which I mentioned in my amendment, is an extension of co-ordination? When you couple that with your comments about the relatively small sums that are available for technical assistance, will you not reconsider and support the amendment?

I cannot support the amendment because it states that Objective 2 is being undermined by Objectives 1 and 3. I cannot accept that the ESF programmes cannot work together properly.

Co-ordination is an important issue that was raised in this debate. There is a danger that we could go in for overkill on that. However, we must ensure that the lessons that we learn from each other are well-versed and well-presented. That does not only relate to the monitoring committees. I agree that we need to bring together representatives from those committees so that lessons can be learnt across the board. We must also bring together those who are managing and developing projects and ensure that we roll out good programmes and ideas from Objective 1 into Objective 2 and 3 areas and vice versa.

Does the Welsh European Funding Office have the capacity to deal promptly with Objective 1 and 2 bid submissions? Will all guidance notes, either in draft or final form, have any political steer or will they be issued by WEFO without reference to yourself?

You must understand WEFO’s role. There is a contract between the monitoring committees and WEFO; it works for them, and is the responsible agent to them. However, it also works for the Assembly.

Many of the themes in this debate need to be brought together into clear thought. What is the Assembly’s role in working within the structural programmes? I am glad that people are accepting the notion of evaluation and monitoring in a way that will enable us to see whether the Assembly is in the vanguard of strategic thinking. I am glad that the Welsh Conservatives are coming on board. I thought that Val Feld and I were ploughing a lonely furrow on this.

I am sure that the forthcoming debate in the Economic Development Committee resulting from the small business support review will raise these issues as key ones. We must recognise that the Assembly’s role is ensuring that the programmes deliver strategically what we have set out in the single programming documents. To do that, we need powerful evaluation processes that allow us to track our progress at any particular moment, and monitor whether we are meeting the objectives that we have set ourselves. That is a strategic role. The Assembly is not in a position to overtake the monitoring committees’ views. We should set a strategic vision and the monitoring committees should carry out and execute those processes. It has to be a partnership between all levels of Wales, in which everyone feels they have an ownership. Cohesion across the programmes, technical assistance and ensuring that the Assembly has a role, are all tied up closely with evaluation.

I will not discuss the planning application process except to say that this is a matter for the Minister for Environment. However, I am mindful of my role in ensuring that economic development is sustainable. It is an issue that we must take on board over the coming months. We must ensure that the good guidance contained in this document underpins our thinking.

Do you agree that, when the Government takes decisions about calling in planning applications, it should be on the basis of the guidance and the need to call them in, and not because they are pressurised by a local pressure group?

Planning guidance and how planning regulations are approached in this Assembly is a matter for the Minister for Environment. As I have said, I do not intend to intervene in that matter, but I am mindful of the role that I play in ensuring that economic development in Wales is sustainable. This single programming document contains some good guidance as to how that should happen and I am mindful of ensuring that that is continued.

Tier 3 is an important issue. Decisions and discussions on this matter are ongoing, but I warn colleagues not to consider the English scheme as necessarily the best one for Wales. It may be in our interest to develop our own scheme to suit east Wales. I encourage you to encourage me to continue those discussions.

Owen John Thomas raised the issue of representation on the Programme Monitoring Committee. We still await a full set of nominations. We asked the partnerships to submit their nominations several months ago and we are still waiting for some of them to be submitted. You will be aware, Owen John, that we work on a proportional basis of a third each from the public, private and voluntary sectors. We asked for nominations from all those sectors and we await them with interest. I encourage all the organisations that are involved and interested in the development of these structural programmes in east Wales to ensure that they have submitted their nominations so that we can take those decisions.

Regarding the size of the budget that is available to Objective 2 areas, as mentioned in the document, Members who represent east Wales must remember that this is only the European regional development fund component. The European social fund component, which is available to Objective 3 areas, is also available to those areas. There is scope within that programme for good, high-quality bids to be made in the next few months.

Tourism, Delyth, is a subset strand that appears throughout the document and is mentioned in various pockets. We could give it a separate identification, but it is a key component of economic development. It sits well and it is a key generator of economic development in east Wales. That should be taken on board and I will bring that to the attention of the Programme Monitoring Committee.

Can you explain why amendment 6 contradicts the partnership agreement in any way?

Amendment 6 duplicates the commitment in the partnership agreement. It is, therefore, redundant, because those matters have already been agreed and will be implemented by this Government.

Before you conclude the debate, I refer you to Pauline Jarman’s intervention. She asked whether you believe WEFO has sufficient resources for effective implementation of Objectives 1 and 2 and the other schemes? If it does not currently have sufficient resources, when do you expect that it will have?

I know that you are a fine and avid reader of the partnership document. You will be familiar with the section that refers to this matter. Therefore, you are asking how I am progressing with the implementation of the partnership document, which you so clearly support.

The issue of how that review is taking place is ongoing. It is being put in train. I must ensure that WEFO has the resources to carry out this task. The review process has begun. It will be carried out as fast as possible. It is crucial that WEFO has the resources to carry out the work. You know that those resources are available, because it says so in the partnership agreement.

I ask Mike to reconsider the reply that he gave to Phil Williams in respect of amendment 6. I am a warm supporter of much of the content of the partnership agreement, especially the commitment to press the Treasury. However, the partnership agreement is, essentially, an agreement between two political parties. No-one in the Assembly has had the chance to vote on it. As this commitment has been included in the partnership agreement, that seems to me a strong argument for supporting amendment 6, rather than rejecting it.

Secondly, if Mike could cast his mind back to the time when we sat in an Economic Development Committee meeting discussing the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, he will recall that we pressed the then Economic Development Secretary to give such a guarantee in respect of Objective 1 funding. Rhodri was forthcoming and made it clear that he would press the Treasury for that money in respect of Objective 1 funding. Can Mike tell us the logic of refusing to give the same undertaking in respect of Objective 2 as that which has already been given in respect of Objective 1?

It is not the same. There is a distinction here between what is in the partnership agreement, which the Government of Wales is keen to put into place, and what was said earlier. There is a difference between the wording of the amendment and the document. I clearly laid out this Government’s commitment earlier, and I quote from the partnership agreement:

‘We will also seek provision from the UK Government for the appropriate additional resources that may, from time to time, be necessary to ensure that we are able to draw down the full available amount of EU structural funding.’

That guarantee is in place. It is different from the guarantee that was sought earlier.

I conclude as I have gone over my time.

I am not taking any more interventions.

It is, as I am sure that you will rule, Deputy Presiding Officer. As I cannot pursue the matter directly with Mike, perhaps you could tell us what provision is made in Standing Orders for referring to documents that are not Assembly documents and which are, essentially, party political documents. Do party political documents have any authority or status in the National Assembly?

The inclusive partnership approach taken in developing the SPD is not only exemplary but can be built upon during the implementation process. The single programming document is a coherent, strategic document. It makes the best possible use of limited resources and makes clear links to Objective 1 and 3 and the rural development plan. It has not been developed in isolation, but in full recognition of its role as part of the bigger picture of resources available to east Wales. Although the resources are relatively limited, they provide a real opportunity to create sustainable growth in the area. I have no doubt that the partnership will aim to achieve the maximum benefit possible with a view to life beyond structural funds. I recommend support of this document, which is widely recognised as providing a good quality programme. It is now the Assembly’s role to send a clear message to the European Commission that the programme is supported in Wales. I ask Members to follow their negotiated acceptance of its contents with swift formal ratification.

Ymhellach i’r pwynt o drefn hwnnw, nid yw’r ddogfen bartneriaeth ar gael yn llawn ar y fewnrwyd oherwydd nid yw ar gael yn Gymraeg hyd yn hyn.