requests the Cabinet to continue to pursue all of these proposals with the UK Government, and to press for primary legislation which reflects the particular needs of Wales and respects the role of the Assembly.

Mae’r ddadl hon heddiw yn ymwneud â llawer mwy na Mesurau sesiwn presennol y Senedd neu’r sesiwn nesaf. Mae’n mynd i galon y berthynas rhwng y Cynulliad hwn a Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig, o ran y pwerau sydd gennym a’r hyn yr ydym yn awyddus i’w gyflawni. Mae ein record hyd yma yn ardderchog.

Before we consider a forthcoming Queen’s Speech, which might be made after the often-rumoured General Election, I want to look at what has happened since December when last year’s Queen’s Speech was debated in Plenary. The Assembly resolved to ask the relevant Subject Committees to consider more closely the Bills that most affected the Assembly. I am pleased that most have done so.

The terms of primary legislation are fundamental to the evolution of the Assembly and we should all be concerned with them. I am committed to involving the Committees in this way in future years. However, in the event, the Committees offered few comments on any of the Bills, which I take to mean that there is cross-party approval for our all-round success in influencing the UK Government in the package of measures in this year’s Queen’s Speech. The current Parliamentary programme includes a wide range of measures that will be useful to us in meeting Wales’s needs on education, health and homelessness, for instance. We have what is so far a relative Parliamentary rarity, namely a substantial Wales only Bill that established a Wales only approach and gave us the children’s commissioner with extended powers. It is a testament to all involved here, from all parties, that one of the main issues during that Bill’s passage through Parliament, has been whether England should have a children’s commissioner also.

The Economic Development Committee made one specific recommendation, which concerned the Regulatory Reform Bill. That gives the Assembly a role in deregulation policy for the first time. That is a genuine transfer of new functions to us. However, as it is drafted, it does not allow the Assembly itself to make regulatory reform orders. As the Committee pointed out, that power could and should be an integral part of our work in creating a vibrant business climate in Wales, and the Bill should thus be amended to give that power to us. I agree, and the Deputy First Minister has already made appropriate representations to the UK Government, in line with the Committee’s recommendations. I am sure that he will keep the Committee informed of progress.

I am pleased to say that our success in influencing the Bills selected to be included in the Queen’s Speech has continued. Last month, the UK Government introduced its International Development Bill, which was not included in the Queen’s Speech. That Bill gives public bodies in Wales, including the Assembly, if we want it, the power to provide international disaster and humanitarian relief for the first time. This follows close working between our officials and those in the Department for International Development, and it is further evidence that our system delivers the goods. I know the strength of feeling in the Assembly on this matter, which we saw most recently following the tragic earthquake in Gujarat, and I am sure that this Bill will be welcomed across the Chamber.

To move on to future Queen’s Speeches, we will not rest on our laurels. We need to build on our great success this year to ensure that every legislative programme meets our needs. This is the first time that the Assembly has debated proposals for future primary legislation, but it certainly will not be the last. Standing Order No. 31.10 requires the Cabinet to bring its proposals to Plenary each year. This speech discharges that requirement in the interest of openness and engagement.

Mae hyn yn golygu mwy. Disgrifiais eisoes lwyddiannau’r rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol bresennol. Er hynny, rhaid inni ddal ein tir a pharhau i ofyn am ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol lle bo ei hangen ar Gymru. Felly, yr wyf yn falch o gyflwyno’r cynigion hyn heddiw. Bydd ein cynigion i gyd, sydd wedi eu creu yng Nghymru, yn gwneud gwahaniaeth cadarnhaol a radical i Gymru ac i’n pobl. Dychwelaf at y manylion yn y man, ond mae’r cynigion ger ein bron nid yn unig yn mynd i’r afael â’r materion difrifol a wyneba Cymru ac yn adlewyrchu barn pobl Cymru, ond hefyd yn dangos ein bod yn gallu llunio cynigion aeddfed sydd wedi eu cydlynu o ddifrif am ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol a’i bod yn parhau i wneud hynny. Gallwn ddisgwyl i Lywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig a’r Senedd eu cymryd am yr hyn yr ydynt, sef cynigion am ddeddfwriaeth a luniwyd yng Nghymru, i’w gweithredu yng Nghymru. Dyna brawf o’r setliad datganoli yn gweithio ac yn darparu’r hyn sydd ei angen ar Gymru. Felly gadewch inni roi’r gorau i fychanu’r system a dechrau edrych ar yr hyn y mae wedi ei gyflawni.

The first proposal is for a health and wellbeing Bill. This would contain a package of measures to allow us to implement fully the NHS plan for Wales that we debated last month, ‘Improving Health in Wales’. The Bill’s main provisions would include improving local-level health service provision and co-ordination. It would establish local health partnerships based on existing local health groups, but also embracing the provision of primary, community and some secondary health services. It would also establish strategic planning boards to facilitate joint working between partnerships, NHS trusts and local authorities. The Bill would improve patient involvement; community health councils would be reformed and given an expanded remit to include primary care, nursing homes and other areas. It would establish an independent complaints panel to pursue matters that internal NHS investigations have not satisfactorily resolved. This would meet a long-acknowledged need. The Bill would also consolidate public-health provision. It would establish a Welsh centre for health, originally proposed in ‘Better Health, Better Wales,’ which would provide a new independent source of advice on health and wellbeing, including assessment and research into actual and potential health hazards. The Bill would also create a new body to replace the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which is to be abolished soon.

Taken together, this is an innovative package and a distinctively Welsh agenda to meet distinctively Welsh needs. It complements the current Health and Social Care Bill. We worked closely with the Department of Health on that but it is, in essence, designed to implement the NHS plan for England, whereas we need a similar measure adapted and tailor-made for the Welsh situation. This is it.

My next proposal is for an education Bill. Again, the main focus here would be on coherence and co-operation, and thus higher standards. Its main provisions would include improving the cohesion between the stages of the education system: pre-school to primary, primary to secondary, secondary to further—

My intervention concerns health. Since we last debated the Queen’s Speech, the UK Government has made a U-turn on miners’ compensation as regards pension entitlement. Why cannot ex-miners who suffer from emphysema and bronchitis be exempted from the iniquitous clawback of benefits? Miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis and other conditions are already exempt.

The Government has already said that it will solve the pensions issue. I will discuss the clawback issue later.

As I said, a main provision of the education Bill would be to improve cohesion in education. People of all ages do not go through sudden step changes in their development and, therefore, neither should arrangements for education and lifelong learning. The Bill would impose new duties on the relevant authorities and, via them, on their agents, to plan transitions properly, to co-operate in doing so and to provide services flexibly. It would also make adjustments to existing primary legislation to facilitate the discharge of these duties, where changes are necessary and following consultation by the Assembly.

The Bill would also reform the independent education sector, particularly as regards special needs education and the placement of children in care in independent schools. It would also enhance the Assembly’s role in special educational needs provision. Finally, it would empower the Assembly to restructure the pattern of provision of higher and further education in Wales if necessary.

My final two proposals do not need a great deal of introduction. I propose two short Bills. The first would require the UK Government to seek the Assembly’s agreement to the content of census forms issued in Wales. The second Bill involves making St David’s Day a bank holiday in Wales. That was a commitment in ‘Putting Wales First’ and we stand by it. However, it would require primary legislation at Westminster; it is not a question of devolving the issue to the Assembly. My proposed Bill would make the necessary amendment to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 to give Wales the holiday that public sentiment and the Assembly rightly demands.

That is not the end of the story. Besides the four Welsh measures that I have mentioned, we are collaborating with Whitehall departments on several of their proposals. This may involve adding Welsh provisions to a proposed Bill, or ensuring that it properly reflects the Assembly’s role. However, Members will understand that the confidentiality surrounding these matters in Whitehall prevents me from discussing them in detail here.

It is no good just picking on a major issue affecting Wales and saying that we want primary legislation to solve it. No primary legislation could, by itself, find jobs for redundant steelworkers or regenerate rural communities more than it could improve the Welsh three-quarter line or send a rocket to the moon. It must be a marriage between what a Bill states and what is deliverable on the ground. I am afraid that most of the amendments in the name of Jocelyn Davies fall into that trap. They are fantasy, wish list politics. I fear that it is the busy bees in the Plaid Cymru central research department justifying their salaries again. Primary legislation is not needed to deal with amendments 2, 3, 7, 8 or 9 and I have no intention of pressing the UK Government accordingly.

Amendment 2 argues that we could have control of home buying and selling. That could be done by a transfer of functions Order. However, I am not anxious to let Simon Glyn be in charge of selling and buying property in Wales. Amendment 3 could be dealt with by Order, as far as teachers’ pay is concerned. Amendment 7 would mean a statutory requirement for a non-statutory concordat. Amendment 8 touches on another issue that we have debated many times. Although I do not wish to belittle it, do we seriously imagine that primary legislation is needed to review the Barnett formula?

I will answer Geraint’s question and address amendment 9, which deals with benefit clawback rules in respect of retired miners and their families. We have previously debated this in Plenary during a Plaid Cymru minority party debate on 15 February. The Assembly rejected an identical proposal to that contained in amendment 9 and decided instead to press the UK Government to distribute funds as quickly as possible. As I said then, ending clawback of benefits would unfairly give ex-miners superiority in law over other claimants after personal injury cases. This is not a matter for primary legislation and it is undesirable to have four bites at the cherry, as Jocelyn seeks to do.

We will not support amendments 1, 4, 5 and 6, as they are premature. Amendment 1 deals with operating aids. Although Objective 1 status may involve operating aids, we will debate the matter fully after Easter. There is no point in trying to debate it now. Amendments 4 and 5 deal with transport. The point about the Strategic Rail Authority in amendment 4 is well-taken. However, we cannot pre-empt the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee’s review of public transport. Likewise on amendment 5, which calls for the nationalisation of Railtrack. I am not sure where Plaid’s nationalisation agenda stops, as Dafydd Wigley was calling for the nationalisation of Corus two weeks ago. Where would Plaid Cymru find the funds for both? Does it have a priority? Amendment 6 deals with the long-term care of the elderly. We debated this on St David’s Day—

A wnewch chi dderbyn ymyriad?

No. I am coming to a close as I am well beyond my allocated time. During that debate, we supported an amendment in Jocelyn’s name calling for the long-term care of the elderly to be examined collaboratively as part of the NHS plan. Less than two weeks later, it seems that Jocelyn has changed her mind and has decided that no further work is needed. I am not prepared to overthrow Plenary resolutions so quickly, particularly on matters that require careful consideration. That is why I recommend that Members reject all the amendments.

Cynigiaf welliant 2. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 3. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 4. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 5. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 6. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 7. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 8. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Cynigiaf welliant 9. Ychwaneger yn bwynt bwled newydd ar ddiwedd y cynnig:

Croesawaf y drafodaeth hon a’r ffaith ein bod yn gallu trafod y pwnc mewn dwy ran daclus, sef ein hymateb ni i Araith y Frenhines fis Rhagfyr diwethaf a’r Mesurau yr hoffem eu gweld yn Araith y Frenhines a ddaw, meddai Rhodri, ar ôl yr etholiad cyffredinol. Mae’n amlwg bellach fod yr etholiad yn mynd i ddod yn weddol fuan.

Er y byddai Plaid Cymru wedi dymuno gweld pwyslais cwbl wahanol yn Araith y Frenhines fis Rhagfyr, mae’n amlwg mai araith ar gyfer blwyddyn etholiad ydoedd yn hytrach nag un ar gyfer blwyddyn lawn o ddeddfwriaeth.

Canolbwyntiaf ar yr hyn yr hoffwn ei weld yn Araith nesaf y Frenhines. Cyfeiriaf yn fyr at rai o bwyntiau Rhodri ynghylch yr Araith bresennol a’r Mesurau sydd yn mynd drwy Senedd y Deyrnas Unedig ar hyn o bryd.

Mae Rhodri’n cydnabod y bu trafodaeth yn y Pwyllgorau. Nid yw’r ffaith nad yw’r Pwyllgorau wedi gwneud argymhellion manwl yn golygu fod aelodau’r Pwyllgorau hynny yn cyd-fynd â phopeth ym mhob Mesur. Dyma’r tro cyntaf y bu ymgynghoriad llawn â phob Pwyllgor. Bydd y broses hon yn cymryd llawer mwy na blwyddyn i sicrhau bod y Pwyllgorau yn gallu cyflwyno argymhellion pendant. Mae angen llawer mwy o adnoddau ar y Pwyllgorau os ydynt i gymryd mwy o ran yn y broses. Dylent gymryd mwy o ran yn y broses.

Mae pob Pwyllgor yn ystyried y gwahanol fesurau yn ei ffordd ei hun. Efallai y dylem ystyried safoni’r ffordd y mae’r Pwyllgorau yn trafod y Mesurau oherwydd dyma’r unig ffordd y gall y Pwyllgorau ac Aelodau’r Cynulliad ddarbwyllo’r Cabinet i drosglwyddo sylwadau i’r Cabinet yn San Steffan.

Croesawn a chanmolwn y newid pwyslais eleni a’r ffordd yr amlinellodd Rhodri y Mesurau y byddai ef a’r Cabinet yn dymuno eu gweld yn rhaglen y Llywodraeth y flwyddyn nesaf. Rhag ofn bod Rhodri yn credu mai dim ond dod yma i feirniadu yr ydym bob wythnos, gadewch i mi wneud un peth yn glir. Croesawaf y ffaith fod y Cabinet heddiw yn dweud wrthym pa fesurau y dymunent eu gweld yn Araith y Frenhines ar ôl yr etholiad.

Wedi dweud hynny, pwy a allai wrthwynebu, er enghraifft, fesur i wneud Dydd Gŵyl Dewi yn ŵyl y banc, i newid y Ddeddf ar y cyfrifiad er mwyn i’r Cynulliad baratoi’r cwestiynau i osgoi’r ffiasgo presennol, a’r Mesurau ar iechyd ac addysg, er y byddem yn dymuno gweld y manylion yn llawnach?

Tra’n croesawu’r Mesurau unigol hyn, hoffai Plaid Cymru weld cynlluniau llawer mwy beiddgar a radical. Rhaglen ar gyfer llywodraeth yw hon i fod, a phrin y gallai neb ddadlau fod rhaglen y Weithrediaeth, er mor glodwiw y Mesurau unigol, yn gyfystyr â rhaglen ar gyfer llywodraeth.

Er bod Rhodri wedi gwrthod ein gwelliannau, rhaid i’r Cynulliad ystyried y Mesurau hyn o ddifrif. Os yw Rhodri’n dweud nad oes angen deddfwriaeth i bob un ohonynt, byddai wedi bod o fantais inni gael gwybod a oedd y Weithrediaeth yn cefnogi’r egwyddorion y tu ôl iddynt. Mae’n bwysig inni fynd drwy sawl un ohonynt gan ystyried yr awgrymiadau a wnaethom.

We have several observations on the next Queen’s Speech. We have made it clear, for example, that if—and only if—legislation is necessary to ensure that we could vary taxes in Objective 1 areas, we should push for it. It may not be necessary, as we understand that the Chancellor has made some moves towards varying corporation tax in some areas, and Rhodri acknowledged that today. We should also give the Assembly the responsibility and the right to break the link between performance-related pay for teachers and pupil results. That could be done by a transfer order. Why is the Executive not asking for those powers? That is our point.

There should be a measure to ensure that we have long-term care for the elderly on an England and Wales basis. There are strong feelings on this, and I would like to see a response by the Government on that.

Other Members will discuss specific amendments, particularly on integrated transport and the Barnett formula. However, I want to take Rhodri to task on the issue of clawback. He seems to be particularly sensitive for some reason on this issue. Our proposal is, in essence, simple. There is a statutory instrument that covers England and Wales that insists that when compensation is paid to former miners and their families, benefit paid to them must be clawed back. That is currently the law. The statutory instrument was amended by the Labour Government to make that retrospective. That means that those miners and their families who receive compensation must go through an appeals procedure to decide whether or not that clawback is effective. We all now acknowledge that that kind of clawback is, in 80 per cent of cases, for a sum of less than £100. In most cases, it is for nothing. All we ask Labour Members to do is support amendment 9, which would abolish that clawback for miners and their families. They refused to do so in the debate that we had some weeks ago. This is another opportunity.

Overall, some progress is being made in calling for Welsh legislation in the next Queen’s Speech, but it hardly amounts to a programme for government. We call on the Cabinet to replace timidity with boldness, and caution with radicalism. Let us see whether it is up to that challenge.

We had a debate on the Queen’s Speech some time ago. The response in front of us is a recent one, and one that we can support. However, my group remains disappointed that we did not have a measure in there for the licensing of houses in multiple occupation, which was a major pledge of the Government at the last general election. We felt that this should be in the Queen’s Speech and we hope that it will be in a future Queen’s Speech. It would benefit not only Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom. In that respect, it is not a specifically Welsh measure. It is important that that point is made and that it continues to be pressed. I was pleased that the First Minister made the commitment today that he would continue to press for that when the new Government is in place and the new Queen’s Speech is drawn up. That is important.

Many issues in the Cabinet’s statement and in Rhodri’s speech are in the partnership agreement. It is evident from that and from what has happened since the partnership agreement was drawn up, that the Liberal Democrat/Labour administration is delivering for Wales. It is starting to test the Assembly’s powers and starting to be bold and radical within our powers. It is a mite unfair of the Opposition to try to claim that we are not testing the UK Government or pressing it on several issues. We are doing so. I remember debates in the nearly two years that we have been here where the Government of Wales has taken up issues with the UK Government on the strategic rail authority, performance-related pay for teachers, and several other issues, which are also in the partnership agreement. We continue to press the UK Government on that. Therefore, allegations that we are being timid are wrong. We are not being timid, but neither are we being fantasists like Plaid Cymru in believing that it can get some of the things that are in these amendments through on a UK level without the Assembly having the powers that it needs to do some of these things. That is important.

I am not giving way David because I am short of time. Plaid Cymru set out to be constructive in the Assembly. Today’s debate destroys the last vestiges of such an intention. It has put forward wrecking proposals. It whinges about our lack of powers. It claims to want primary legislative powers, yet today it shows its complete ignorance of how it would use such powers. It has proposed Bills for actions that do not even require them. Its amendments on the Homes Bill and the Assembly taking on powers in relation to it are effectively asking for us to have a separate Welsh conveyancing system and land registry without being clear about what exactly it wants out of that.

The partnership Government and the partnership agreement has left Plaid Cymru bereft of its own ideas, a political strategy, and any credibility. That is evident from its amendments that clearly show a lack of understanding of the process of government and the relationship between the National Assembly and the UK Government. It is left as a single-issue party that is not even sure what that issue is. It has no influence in this Assembly and not the slightest hope of winning any influence in Westminster. For those reasons, the Liberal Democrat group is happy to join with the administration in voting against all of these amendments. They do not achieve anything for Wales and they are not phrased in a way that will achieve anything for Wales. I will finish now, Llywydd, because I am running out of time. [PLAID CYMRU ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘What a shame’.]

Plaid Cymru is disappointed with that.

We want more ammunition, Peter.

I will give you as much ammunition as you want.

That last contribution demonstrates how seamless the joins are between the Labour part and the Liberal Democrat part of the administration these days.

First, we support elements in these proposals for the next Queen’s Speech such as bits and pieces in the proposals for bills on health and wellbeing and education, which will be dealt with in more detail by David Melding and Jonathan Morgan. We welcome and have always supported the proposals for a St David’s Day bank holiday. We also welcome the proposals for the census form. However, it is an example of legislative shutting the stable doors nine years before the next census. It is not exactly the sort of adventurousness that Peter Black mentioned in saying how this administration was never timid. It was timid on the census form, performance-related pay and other issues. That comes back to a lack of vision across the spectrum of legislative action.

We favour constructive measures that may lead to legislative action because we do not have the same civil service resources as the administration. However, we would welcome proposals to pilot a care trust in Wales, which is piloted in England. That would be a constructive measure. If it does not need legislative action there is all the more reason why the administration should be getting on with it now. We also favour statutory backing for a national gallery for Wales. That is another example of where this administration has been lacking in vision.

Why? It is already there.

I will explain in a minute why it is necessary. It will be given corporate status so that it could raise money from the lottery and so on. At the moment, it is part of the National Museums and Galleries of Wales. If you want to get on with it, Minister, get on with it. We would not be setting up a working party to look at this issue. We know that Wales needs a national gallery. It is about time that you got on with some of these issues. We are adrift. Cardiff could be the European city of culture in 2008 and you are refusing to speak to one of the key players in that exercise. Is it not about time that you started to show a bit of vision?

On schools, we would favour money going directly to them. That needs legislative action—

That is already there.

We have been instructed that it needs legislative action. If it does not, get on with it. What is holding you back? I think that you will find that it needs legislative action. However, it is important that the money goes directly to the schools. [Interruption]

I would happily give way to the First Minister, if he wants to put that remark on record.

I can understand why, given the nature of the remark. If he has anything constructive to say, we would be pleased to hear it. It would help schools if the money went directly to them because the people who run the schools—[Interruption]

I apologise if we are keeping you up, First Minister. If you find it boring, perhaps it would be better to leave the Chamber.

Is it not important that the money goes directly to the governors and teachers, who know how to run the schools? That is what is being done in England and that is what should be done in Wales. We favour that as well as a residual role for education authorities to deal with the remaining functions. That is why we have grave reservations about this Queen’s Speech. It does not show vision and neither has the Government so far. If anything the situation has worsened since two Liberal Democrats were added to the Government. It is high time that the Government began to test its powers. If some of the proposals that have been outlined by us and Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales, can be undertaken without legislative action, is it not time that it got on with them? Are they not the ones who are truly whingeing? The Government keeps saying that it cannot do this or that. If it can, get on with it. If it cannot, then listen to what we have to say and put some of these proposals into legislation.

You took me by surprise, Deputy Presiding Officer, I was so riveted and fascinated by Nick in full flow. I do not want to be partisan, as you can imagine. However, I welcome this Cabinet statement. It is another step forward for devolution and I am glad that Ieuan acknowledged that. It is the first time that we have done this. I am sure that we will do it better next year, and better still the following year. As the Committees get a better sense of how the timetables work and how to translate our work into legislation, the ideas and proposals for what we need will come through thick and fast. I am particularly pleased that the Cabinet accepted the recommendations from the Economic Development Committee to strengthen clause 1 of the Regulatory Reform Bill. It puts down a clear marker that if statutory instruments are introduced to remove regulations, it is reasonable that the Assembly should make them and should not have to wait for them to come through from Whitehall.

I am disappointed that the list of new legislation does not include a proposal for removing the requirement for referenda on Sunday opening hours in Wales. I wondered whether the Cabinet would consider making that a recommendation. Licensed victuallers in Wales have argued for a long time for legislation to remove the current process, whereby if a certain number of electors in some boroughs indicate that they wish to request that a referendum be held, that a mechanism is triggered. They are anxious that that should not happen again. It is important as we consider what is being proposed by the Cabinet, that we do so in the context of what has come through from central Government and what is now going through the legislative programme that will be of real benefit for Wales. While on the one hand we are considering what we need here, which we cannot assume will come through in central Government legislation, on the other we also need to carefully consider what is coming through centrally and the benefits for and impact on Wales. There are a number of Bills going through now, such as the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which are enormously important to us. That Bill is particularly important to the people on our council estates who deal with nuisance and irritating petty crime.

I am sure that all Assembly Members experience these difficulties when they are called into these areas by constituents. Police forces often do not feel that they have sufficient powers to deal with the problems that arise. This legislation will assist them in that. The Homes Bill is critical for the many people who are on low incomes in Wales—a country that is overwhelmingly dependent on owner occupation. The new controls over the purchasing of housing will have an enormous impact on people. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill strengthens the rights of people with special educational needs to have places in mainstream education. We would all support that. Going back to the kind of nuisance problems that I deal with in my constituency—as many others do—the Vehicles (Crime) Bill will give police and local authorities greater powers to remove abandoned vehicles. Many of us spend a great deal of time trying to get abandoned or burnt out vehicles removed from outside people’s homes. Dealing with car crime is enormously important. Finally, the Road Transport Bill will implement new safety proposals on our trains and roads. Those proposals will be important to all of us. While the step that we are taking may seem small, we are beginning to find our role in the context of Westminster legislation.

I will primarily address our amendments 4 and 5, and make a brief reference to amendment 2. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a broad consensus in the Assembly about the importance of developing a consistent, comprehensive transport policy for Wales. I will not rehearse at length the arguments in favour of that, such as the role of transport in combating rural isolation and spreading prosperity, and the vital role of public transport in reducing car use and combating global warming. A transport system is also important in promoting social inclusion. We are all agreed on that. There is also a broad acceptance that the biggest weakness in the Assembly’s transport armoury is the almost complete absence of power to direct rail. I do not accept the First Minister’s comments about needing to wait for the full review for that. These points have been made repeatedly in the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee and in Plenary and Sue Essex would acknowledge that. The Assembly’s lack of power to direct a strategic rail authority and to appoint its member for Wales is unacceptable. To be fair, it must also be acknowledged that the Strategic Rail Authority has been responsive to our Minister’s representations so far. We all welcome that. However, it is unacceptable that this remains a matter of grace and favour.

Amendment 4 seeks to redress that. Given the amount of time that it takes to negotiate these matters with Westminster, we do not accept what the First Minister said about the need to wait. I trust that he will reconsider and support this amendment. If he is unable to do so, I call on his colleagues to do so. We accept that amendment 5 is more far reaching. Recent accidents have proved—if further proof were needed—that the Conservatives’ arrangements for rail privatisation are a disaster. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that, where Railtrack is concerned, the profit principle has proved incompatible with the precautionary principle of putting safety first. We believe that—and this will answer the First Minister’s point about the costs involved—given the huge public subsidies that Railtrack receives and upon which it depends to operate at all, it makes sense to consider converting these payments into state-owned shares of around 51 per cent. That would enable the Government to effectively control the policy, priorities and expenditure of Railtrack while still enabling private finance to be raised—

I will take your intervention later on, if I have time. Private finance could be raised using the bond model that has proved so effective elsewhere.

Surely only a kind of London New Labour passionate, although inexplicable, romance with Conservative-style privatisation could stand in the way of agreement on a fairly sensible and not terribly radical proposal. Given that colleagues here seem to suffer a little bit less from this curious affliction than some of their colleagues in London, I look forward to broad support for amendment 5. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider Peter Black’s comments in light of the strong support of their colleague, Richard Livsey MP, for a measure of renationalisation for Railtrack.

Amendment 2 seeks to ensure that, in any future Westminster legislation on the regulation of the housing market, the Assembly has sufficient power to ensure that it is appropriate to Wales. It should enable us to ensure that young people’s housing needs are met and that sufficient low cost housing is available. Although we welcome many aspects of the Homes Bill currently before the House of Lords, it fails to do this. If that Bill is not passed before the general election, we urge the administration to reconsider it in a Queen’s Speech, if there is an opportunity to do so. Although I am sure there will be much support across the Assembly for this, it remains to be seen whether Members can vote with their hearts.

It will not come as a surprise to anyone that I do not believe that the current settlement devolution is manageable now, or sustainable in the medium or long term. I am happy to keep whinging for Wales on this, as on so many other issues. I make no apology for that. However, this is the model with which we must work now. Plaid Cymru’s amendments seek to expand the administration’s horizons and maximise the voices of the Assembly and Wales at Westminster where, for the time being, it is vital that we are heard. Despite the comments of the First Minister and Peter Black, I hope that colleagues in the Assembly will demonstrate freedom of mind and consider supporting Plaid Cymru’s amendments.

I am sorry, David, I am out of time.

I will deal with amendment 9, which involves the clawback of benefit payments for ex-miners. This is an emotive issue that raises much concern in the Afan Valley, where I live. During the Plaid Cymru minority party debate held on this issue, it was explained that the clawback relates to benefits where miners have already received payment for loss of earnings. When they receive their legal settlement following a court case, they become entitled to damages for loss of earnings for a second time. There is a strong case to question whether or not it is reasonable for miners—or anyone else—to receive a double payment in these circumstances, as Geraint suggested. If we use the state to provide compensation payment, it is inevitable that the legal settlement will be restricted in terms of damages. Also, tens of thousands of other workers who have already received compensation will wonder why they are not a special case like the miners. The simplistic view proposed by Geraint is not sustainable. However, in the instance of miners’ compensation, we can make significant progress on the clawback issue by considering several issues—

It is so time-consuming to sort out these problems that there have been instances of clawbacks of £22,000 being reduced to £22. That causes a terrible amount of anguish to the miner concerned and there is tremendous waste of public money in sorting it out. Also, there are no clawbacks from miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis. How can a clawback be right for one miner and not for another? All miners should be treated equally.

I was going to move on to discuss Geraint’s first comment, which is covered in the existing regulations. If it is not economical to operate the clawback in certain instances, there is discretion not to use it. Geraint has eloquently illustrated that, in many cases, a tremendous amount of energy and misery is expended in trying to generate clawback when there is no basis for it. Under the current regulations, there are options to try to ameliorate that problem. Another issue relating to miners’ compensation under the clawback mechanism, is the nature of the condition for which payment is made, particularly respiratory conditions. Many conditions for which people can claim compensation occur due to a clearly defined episode, which triggers a specific period of time for which compensation can be paid. It is then easy to define, and if the claim is not made within five years, the clawback does not apply.

It is difficult to determine precisely when respiratory illnesses begin. That uncertainty provides us with the option of looking into whether or not there should be clawback payments in the miners’ case. If we consider those factors, there is scope for a clawback mechanism for miners, which is being actively pursued by individuals like Ted Rowlands and Don Touhig in the House of Commons. They have arranged several meetings with the relevant Minister to pursue that. The Labour Party in the House of Commons is working hard to address those anomalies. This amendment is not necessary because, yet again, while Plaid Cymru talks about doing things, the Labour Party is dealing with these issues on a daily basis.

I commend the administration for devoting so much attention to health and social care in its motion. It is not a sufficient response, but I acknowledge that it takes up a fair amount of the time devoted to this debate. I am also pleased that the Minister for Health and Social Services is present for the debate, because I will address the health and social care aspects of the Queen’s Speech. That is the only commendation that you will get, First Minister, and I doubt that you expected more.

I will pursue the point on care trusts that Nick Bourne mentioned earlier. They offer an innovative model for health and social care. Modern health care needs effective structures that have to change. We have delivered primary health care for around 60 years using roughly the same model. The task of improving health and maintaining wellbeing is multifaceted. However, in considering the NHS and the challenges that we face, we often overlook the continuing outstanding success of primary care in this country. Many of the more difficult challenges are in the acute sector and would, frankly, affect any Government in office. However, we should emphasise successes in primary health care in this country. That is a great achievement of the NHS and the 1948 outcome. There is no crisis here, and it would be wrong to talk in those terms, whatever challenges we face.

The World Health Organisation frequently quotes Britain as having on of the best primary health care systems in the world year-in-year-out. We should build further on that model. Primary care could be integrated with adult social care, community health care and mental health care services that are not acute. We would build on our success in primary health care by extending it to incorporate those health care facilities. A welcome by-product of that would be that social workers involved in adult social care would get added prestige from the general population who would better understand the social workers’ role in delivering social care—how they co-operate with a wide-range of professionals, including many health professionals and how they are involved in delivering and sustaining wellbeing through the support that they offer.

There is a problem with local authorities’ current remit for social care, which could be addressed by strengthening a scrutinising role that local authorities could perform, not just for social care, but also for primary health care. We could consider many models in that area.

I hope that Jane Hutt has briefed the First Minister on changes regarding local health partnerships, because they are interesting. When Jane Hutt abolished health authorities, she did not say what would happen to local health groups, because she wanted to consult on them. I thought that that was a curious approach because when announcing something as dramatic as abolishing health authorities, there should be some indication of the next stage. She stated that that rationale drove her forward. However, we now know what will replace the sub-committees of local authorities or local health groups, but there has been no consultation on the Minister’s proposals. She now intends to establish local health partnerships, which will be significant. I will quote from the Executive’s submission before us this afternoon, which states that local health partnerships will ‘hold assets, control funds, employ staff’.

Only an autonomous body can exercise such functions. The proposition is effectively to establish a trust, which we are happy to support because it is a NHS trust for primary care. However, that is what is being proposed, and we should not allow the Minister to slide into some other use of language when describing it. If the Minister fails to get this legislation by 2003, will she use the Health Act 1999 to do so, because the powers do currently exist?

Finally, I welcome several matters relating to community health councils, in particular the extension of community health councils to primary health care. That is well overdue, and will greatly add to their role. However, their role should be strengthened, which is why I am concerned about the proposal for an independent complaints panel. That is an interesting idea and could give patients much confidence—

I am winding up. Will the role of an independent complaints panel undermine the function of community health councils? Could we not invest that patient support in a complaints process rather than in community health councils? We oppose amendment 6 because it seeks to implement the Royal Commission. If Plaid Cymru had stated that we should have permissive powers to examine those recommendations—

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, you have been gracious, and I now conclude.

One of the Assembly’s major achievements has been the development of a new formula for local government funding based on need, whether arising from deprivation or sparsity. It is regrettable that the same process of needs-based allocation is not used in the allocation of resources to the devolved administrations and English regions. Instead, we have Barnett—the formula, defined as a stop gap in the late 1970s; it is sometimes forgotten that Barnett was originally based on an earlier, albeit crude, needs assessment. However, its mechanism no longer takes account of need, therefore, over 20 years, the link with need has broken down.

In 1980, the GDP per head in Wales and Scotland were similar at around 90 per cent of the average. However, today the GDP per head in Scotland has risen to just below the European average, while that of Wales has fallen to 80 per cent.

Plaid Cymru has commissioned an independent report on the operation of Barnett, which includes the relationship between public expenditure and GDP per head for the 12 UK regions. For eight of them, there is a fair, sensible relationship. Therefore, the regions with the lowest GDP per head have the largest identifiable public expenditure and vice versa. The richest areas have the lowest. However, there are four regions or nations, which receive public expenditure that is far in excess of the general trend, namely Northern Ireland, Scotland, south-east England and, above all, London. They have between £700 and £2,000 per head more than you would expect considering the relationship that applies elsewhere.

London is the anomaly, with the highest gross domestic product per capita and the highest identifiable Government expenditure by far. If we could add the allocation of the so-called, non-identifiable expenditure with the same exactitude, the anomalies would become even larger. For example, the spending of the Ministry of Defence on jobs and contracts shows huge discrepancies and there is no relationship between economic need and resource allocation; Wales receives about £100 per capita and the south west of England receives just under £800. When we include estimates of the regional distribution of all Government expenditure, including the non-identifiable expenditure, Wales receives just below the average Government expenditure per capita in the UK, yet has the second lowest GDP per capita. This shows that the present Government does not have a serious regional policy to tackle the discrepancy in prosperity throughout the UK.

A proper regional policy should have two elements. It should contribute the extra funds necessary to close the gap—the extra funds for deprivation and sparsity but also the funds necessary to stimulate growth. It should also be able to reduce the revenue raised from industry to encourage growth, which would also close the gap. That must be the aim. The lessons from Ireland are clear. The two most important factors behind its remarkable economic growth are the strong emphasis on education and the reduction of corporation tax. That is why Plaid Cymru proposes amendments 1 and 8. We need more money—

I tangle with Phil at my peril. If Plaid Cymru supports having an independent self-governing Wales, surely the English have the same right. If you support that why do you believe that the English should help Wales?

I do not see why they should not help us. We are a united kingdom at present and we should move towards economic prosperity in all parts. However, if we had full control of our own affairs we would move faster and be in a similar position to Ireland.

After the Nice conference, Tony Blair confirmed that the UK Government had the power to vary corporation tax and national insurance employee contributions on a regional basis. That would be an important step. According to the press last weekend, the Chancellor proposes to transfer £1 billion from the south of England to the north. However, this should not be done on a one-off, ad-hoc basis but on a proper, agreed and rational basis as we did with local government. That is why I disagree with the First Minister. It requires a statutory provision, which requires primary legislation. Scotland may not support the change, but I remind Rhodri that he is fighting for Wales. We urge him to fight much harder.

I want to raise a few points on the Queen’s Speech and suggest some areas that the Government may wish to pursue in the future. First, in relation to the role of local education authorities, which is outlined in the position paper and which Nick Bourne mentioned earlier, the Welsh Conservative Party would favour an amendment to the statute and an Act of Parliament to determine the mechanism by which the Assembly sends money to schools. The Assembly has the power to issue special grant reports, but whichever way it does that, the money must go via LEA bank accounts. We do not have the ideological attachment of other parties to the role of local education authorities in the delivery of education in Wales. Therefore, we would like an amendment to the Act that would allow schools to determine how to spend their budgets in line with local needs.

The Labour-dominated local government association in England published a newsletter several months ago, indicating the potential threat to LEAs. It outlined how they failed schools throughout the United Kingdom and suggested that they would come to an end shortly—

Hoffwn eich atgoffa, er bod rhywfaint o rinwedd mewn rhoi arian yn uniongyrchol i ysgolion, bod gan rai ysgolion yng Nghymru warged o dros £300,000. Gallai hynny olygu bod plant ysgol ar eu colled. Mae’n bosibl bod mwy na £40 miliwn, y dylid ei wario, yn eistedd yng nghyfrifon banc ysgolion Cymru. Mae perygl, felly, yn eich awgrym.

I do not think that there is a danger in what we are suggesting. We are suggesting that, year on year, money should be sent directly to school bank accounts, bypassing local education authorities altogether. Schools would then have the right to determine how priorities are met and fulfil local needs as they are addressed. We believe that school headteachers and governors are aware of the needs of local communities in terms of education provision. We do not believe that it should be left to local councillors to decide.

I will not give way, as I do not have much time left.

This was recognised by the Labour-dominated Local Government Association, and was also recognised in the Audit Commission’s report ‘Money Matters’, which stipulated that a greater degree of hypothecation was needed so that schools would know what levels of finance they would achieve. The world has moved on. However, the Assembly has not embraced the changes that have happened in England because the administration thinks that it has to do things differently. We are calling for something that is based on common sense. I cannot see why you must have an ideological attachment to local education authorities, when the people who know how to deliver the education service in Wales have their hands tied by those authorities. It is high time that we started to trust our headteachers and gave them the tools to do the job.

Special educational need is also outlined, and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill is currently before Parliament. We ask for regulations to be tightened. There is lack of co-ordination between local education authorities on SEN provision. I am sure that Members are aware of examples where families with a statemented child move from one LEA area to another, to find that the statement did not follow the child. That has been the case in some of the casework with which I have dealt. If a local education authority statements a child that has certain needs under the special educational needs provision, that provision should follow the child. It should be mandatory on the local education authority in retaining, in our view, a small residual role, perhaps in the field of special educational needs, to provide for that child if, and when, a family moves. We must tighten up the regulations, and the Bill before Parliament should be amended with that purpose.

Another aspect of special educational needs is the provision of classroom assistance. It is often the case that primary school teachers have difficulty in addressing the needs of children with learning difficulties. Classroom assistance provided by trained teachers, not governors or parents who are willing to give up their time, would be welcome.

Reference is also made to disruption. We would like to see a small schools initiative that would ensure that schools threatened with closure are kept open in order to fulfil their educational responsibilities towards children currently in those schools. Many children are thrown out of schools half way through their schooling because the school has had to close. We would like a moratorium on school closures to ensure that schools remain open until all current pupils complete their schooling.

We are not in favour of power to deal with performance-related pay being transferred to the Assembly. The Government should exercise some muscle in persuading David Blunkett to vary the Order in Wales, which would allow the Assembly to implement a policy to decouple pupil examination performance from teachers’ pay. We do not have the power to do so, but David Blunkett could vary the Order in Wales, if he so wished, and the Government of Wales should act to ensure that that happens.

Today’s debate is central to one of the most important aspects of the devolution settlement, namely to make primary legislation work for Wales. Many believe that primary legislative competence should be devolved to Wales. I, nor any other member of my party, would disagree with that view. However, that does not change our task of making the best use of what we currently have. I am baffled, therefore, why Plaid Cymru has decided to use this debate to table a series of fancy-dress amendments that demonstrate an astonishing ignorance of the legislative process. Most of the amendments refer to policies taken from elsewhere, including the partnership agreement, only some require primary legislation and all are designed to publicise the forthcoming general election manifesto, to a Parliament that it admits it does not have any hope of influencing, let alone control.

In case any opposition Members would like to know where I, as a Liberal Democrat, stand on issues such as free care for the elderly, the Barnett formula, teachers’ pay, miners’ compensation, you are all welcome to attend the launch of the Liberal Democrats’ party manifesto, as and when this Parliament in dissolved. I can assure you that it will contain a radical, costed and workable programme for government. [Interruption.]

Further to that point of order, the Minister is supposed to be speaking on behalf of the Government of Wales, but I do not think that he is doing so.

Further to that point of order, if the Minister is taking up time as an ordinary Assembly Member, surely every other Member should have time to contribute. If he is answering as a Minister, he should provide a Ministerial reply on behalf of the Executive.

Further to that point of order, I believe that Mike German is speaking as the Deputy First Minister. In which case, he is delegated by the First Minister and is therefore speaking on behalf of the First Minister. We must assume, therefore, that the First Minister agrees with the comments that he has just made.

We are looking for a policy that would stand some chance of getting through Parliament. A party that does not put candidates forward in Walsall or West Bromwich will not be able to influence the Westminster Parliament. That is a fact.

Ymhellach i’r pwynt hwnnw o drefn, cafwyd cyfeiriadau lu y prynhawn yma at etholiad cyffredinol. Nid wyf yn gwybod am ba etholiad cyffredinol yr ydym yn sôn. Yr unig etholiad cyffredinol y mae gan y Siambr hon ddiddordeb ynddi yw’r etholiad ym Mai 2003. Dyna yw ein hetholiad cyffedinol ni. Os ydych am sôn am etholiad cyffredinol mewn lle arall, dylech ddefnyddio enw arall ar ei gyfer.

Further to that point of order, is it in order for Members to make constant points of order to interrupt a speaker, disrupt the Chamber and to make points that are not points of order, but rather political statements?

The Assembly’s influence on primary legislation has been excellent, and the proposals of the partnership Government represent the most significant advance in the history of this nation in pioneering Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. We stand by those proposals.

I turn to the amendments. Amendments 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9 do not require primary legislation. Amendments 1 and 4 are included in the partnership agreement and will therefore be delivered.

On fiscal variations, Members will know that the Chancellor has already delivered five fiscal variations as a result of pressure by us.

I only have a few minutes. Plaid Cymru has had its points of order. You only gave me four minutes, therefore, it will not be worthwhile to take other interventions on the same points. I am about to reach the substantive part of my closing speech.

We have started this process. The Assembly, through the partnership Government, has put pressure on the Chancellor to open the door towards fiscal variations and we are progressing those even further. That is something that this Government has achieved and will continue to work towards, as Plaid Cymru knows.

On teachers and performance-related pay, the teachers’ review body meets in October to review this matter and we will voice the Assembly’s views. We keep informing the Assembly of such matters but, unfortunately, opposition Members do not listen.

I agree with Peter Black’s views on the registration of houses in multiple occupation and we are discussing how to take this issue forward with the UK Government. You have heard the commitment today, which stands us in good stead.

On the role of local education authorities, I am interested to know, as it has not been made clear to me—nor, I do not think, to any other Assembly Member—what the Conservative Party’s policies will be on local education authorities. I heard a Member of Parliament, who supposedly represented the party, saying that the Conservatives wanted to abolish all local education authorities in Wales. At some stage, I would value some clarification on that matter, outside of this Chamber.

I am not giving way now. On the referendum on Sunday opening, it is my understanding that that matter has been dealt with and that no further referendums will be held. I will write to you to clarify that matter if it is incorrect.

I am sure that Helen Mary will have noticed the references to the strategic rail authority in the partnership agreement. I must clarify that Railtrack does not receive all of the subsidies and, therefore, it would be difficult to take subsidies away from the other operators. It would be a massive task. I would value your party making it clear as to where the money would come from to do this.

I turn to David Melding’s point about the local health partnerships. We do not need the care trust model in Wales, as we have the proposed development and strengthening of the local health groups. These are coterminous with, and include local government in a full multi-profession team with elected member representation to progress joint working. This will facilitate the continued expansion of primary health and social care. We are consulting on the future role and constitution of local health groups. However, it is clear that we have the opportunity to promote our own primary care legislation, which is the purpose of this part of the proposed Bill. We need to tailor our own legal framework for our own purposes. The local health groups will need to employ staff and hold assets if they are to develop. However, that does not mean that they must become primary care trusts. They will have a different set of accountabilities because of their role, membership and status in Wales. The proposals on community health councils reflect the current debate, which has been under consultation in the Health and Social Services Committee.

We assure you that the National Assembly has a workable programme of legislation. I would therefore ask Assembly Members to support this motion and the radical progress that has been made, and to build upon the success that this Government has already achieved in creating legislation to suit our needs.