This motion endorses the Cabinet’s response to the quinquennial review of the Welsh Development Agency. As this is the first review of its kind for the Assembly to complete, I will explain the review process briefly before discussing the review itself.

Edwina Hart set out the programme for reviewing all of the executive Assembly sponsored public bodies in a statement to the Assembly on 10 May 2000. The Government has a commitment that was first set out in ‘Betterwales.com’, and then endorsed in the partnership agreement, to undertake a review of all executive ASPBs by 2003. Our view is that, subject to the legal frameworks concerned, ASPBs should only be retained where they are the most appropriate and cost-effective means of carrying out the functions concerned. Each review, therefore, first considers the issue of whether the body is still needed. Only if it concludes that there is a need does the review proceed to consider how the body’s operation and performance may be improved. Key issues here include ensuring that the body is properly accountable to the Assembly, reflects the Assembly’s priorities and values in the conduct of its business and makes good use of public funds. Ministers commission the reviews in consultation with the relevant Subject Committee. The Committee is consulted on the findings at each stage of the review, before Ministers make a final decision on the recommendations. Another feature is that the reviews are open and that views of those inside and outside the organisation are widely sought. It is an inclusive process and a welcome innovation, which is only possible as a result of the establishment of the National Assembly.

The review of the WDA was carried out in two stages, as I have just outlined. The first was undertaken by an Assembly official who considered the need for the agency, and the second by the consultants KPMG who considered performance and operational issues. The Economic Development Committee considered their recommendations on two occasions at the end of both stages of the review. An attachment listing the Committee’s recommendations, and the Cabinet’s response to the review and the Committee’s recommendations, is attached to the e-mail containing today’s motion.

The main messages of the review are, first, that the WDA is needed. It is widely considered to have made a major contribution to economic development in Wales. It will have a crucial role in facing the economic challenges ahead. The Economic Development Committee came to that view early in the review process. I believe that there is a wide consensus across this Chamber that an effective development agency is vital. Secondly, the agency’s work has to be meshed with that of the Assembly and our other partners in economic development. The review of business support commissioned by the Economic Development Committee made the same point. I intend to return to how this can best be ensured as soon as the consultation on the report has been concluded.

Good communication and shared thinking will be crucial to deliver the Team Wales approach that we need, and I am sympathetic to the thrust of the reviewers’ recommendations. Linked to that, I acknowledge points made previously by colleagues and others, on measuring the agency’s impact. The net contribution made by the agency and other development bodies to targets for job numbers and growth needs to be properly evaluated. The issue is complex, but we must make progress. The Cabinet’s response expressly accepts that, and I am happy to support Plaid Cymru’s amendment 5.

The third message is that the agency will need more flexibility in terms of its delegated authority, if it is to be sufficiently fleet of foot to be able to respond with urgency to opportunities in what is an increasingly competitive marketplace. The agency currently has to seek Assembly permission for a wide range of spending decisions. These delegated limits are largely a product of the unhappy events of the early 1990s. That was 10 years ago, and the agency has moved on since then. One of the review’s most important findings is that we may be confident in the agency’s robust financial management and corporate governance.

We must now draw a line under history. In broad terms, the Assembly should concentrate on the policy and strategy side of the agency’s work. Subject to the usual safeguards of regularity and propriety, I would like to ease, wherever possible, the need for the agency to refer operational decisions on how it deploys its programme budget in-year. We need to be able to update and, if necessary, challenge the agency’s plans, and it will, of course, have to account to us for its use of funds. However, I see little value in the Assembly second-guessing day-to-day decisions. Therefore, I accept in principle the recommendations of KPMG, and have asked officials to review the current level of authority delegated to the agency. I emphasise that this is not the same thing as autonomy, as referred to in the Conservatives’ amendment 2. An autonomous Assembly sponsored public body is surely a contradiction in terms and, therefore, I will not support that amendment.

I agree with what you said about second-guessing. Land disposals are a vital source of income for the WDA. However, will you look into the disposal of a parcel of WDA land at Pencoed Road in Llanddulas in my constituency, where it is of great concern as it poses serious road traffic hazards to schoolchildren and the infirm?

As you have raised that matter, I will look into it.

All in all, the reviewers made about 50 recommendations that the Cabinet and the WDA are addressing. I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not speak about them all now. They include organisational issues for the agency, such as regional delivery, business development, marketing, communications, skills development, the boundaries with ELWa and corporate and business planning. Several recommendations concern international issues. On WalesTrade International, I read the Conservatives amendment 3 as seeking to reopen the location issue and, therefore, will not support it. However, I accept that the Assembly and Committees must review the work of WalesTrade International. I know that the Chair of the Economic Development Committee is keen that we should pursue that matter. Therefore, while I ask you to vote against amendment 3, I do so in light of the fact that the Economic Development Committee will review WalesTrade International and its performance.

In the interests of clarity—I have raised the point about the Chair of the Economic Development Committee expressing the view to which you have just referred—is it the view of the Committee’s previous Chair or the new Chair? Does the new Chair of the Committee hold the same view? That is what you seemed to be saying.

It is the view of the new Chair of the Committee.

I am happy to support Plaid Cymru’s amendment 6 on an all-Wales strategy for overseas marketing, although I would ask it to note, in passing, that a consistent brand is not the same as a uniform brand. On the Welsh Development Agency’s role in Objective 1, I am pleased that that has been largely resolved and that the work is now progressing. The one issue outstanding is the infrastructure partnership, where decisions are not yet concluded. I do not accept the reference in Plaid Cymru’s amendment 7 to the WDA not providing an optimum match. The WDA provides a best-fit match, and therefore I ask Members not to support amendment 7.

The last recommendation that I wish to discuss is how we can best support the development of a social economy and community business. I believe that we are agreed that the agency is probably not the appropriate vehicle for that, and I am looking at how we can make progress in this important area.

Finally, I publicly express my thanks to the agency’s Chairman, board, members and staff for their positive engagement with the review at each stage. Such reviews are not an easy time for the organisations concerned, but the agency has been unfailingly helpful. Those of us who were present at the Economic Development Committee meeeting when Graham Hawker gave his response to the recommendations were impressed by the readiness with which he and the agency had taken the comments on board. As is often the case with such reviews, many of the points had already been recognised by the agency, and by officials here, and work was already under way. Officials are now in the final stages of preparing an action plan in consultation with the agency, and we shall monitor its implementation carefully. The action plan will be made public.

The review draws a line and provides a platform. The agency faces, as does everyone in economic development, perhaps the most challenging agenda since it was established, in terms of Objective 1, other European Union programmes, and the emerging national economic development strategy. We need an agency that has our full confidence, which is able to go out to fight for Wales, and which can provide real leadership in its field. I am disappointed that in amendment 1, the Conservatives only wish to ‘note’ the Cabinet’s response to the review. We need to be more positive. In the spirit of seeking broad-based support, I am happy to support amendments 4, 5 and 6. The review provides the basis for us to send a strong message and give the agency our endorsement. It has a big job to do, not least in regenerating the communities ravaged by Corus’s decisions and addressing the consequences for business of the foot and mouth disease outbreak, but also in taking forward the Assembly’s economic strategies. We need to give the agency our endorsement. I do so wholeheartedly today, and I hope that the Assembly will join me in that.

I propose amendment 1.

Add ‘notes’ after ‘Welsh Development Agency and’ and before ‘the Cabinet’s response’.

I propose amendment 2. Delete ‘.’ at the end of the motion and add:

I propose amendment 3. Add as a new sentence at the end of the motion:

I welcome this debate and the Welsh Development Agency quinquennial review. This is also an opportunity for us to recognise the role that the Welsh Development Agency has played in regenerating the economy since its inception. There have been some troubling times, but not for some time, and it is in order for the Assembly to recognise the agency’s contribution, not only in attracting inward investment, but also in supporting indigenous enterprise with its various business support measures.

We are pleased with the vast majority of the recommendations that have been accepted by the Cabinet. I would like to hear more about the implementation of the recommendations that have been accepted. The Minister criticised our amendment 1 and said that we need an agency that has the Assembly’s confidence. The Welsh Conservative Party holds the Welsh Development Agency in the highest regard. We are extremely positive about its intervention in the economy for further development. The purpose of amendment 1 is to note the Cabinet’s response. That is by no means intended as a criticism of the Welsh Development Agency.

On this point of requiring support, I welcome the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development’s commitment to the agency. However, do you agree that the Government has caused great disappointment in the Assembly because the First Minister has almost consistently refused to publicly endorse the agency with the degree of enthusiasm that he should? That is a hangover from the early 1990s. I do not think that he has it in him to stand up in public and endorse this body, as he should do.

I agree. The First Minister has a responsibility to show leadership with regard to the key economic development driver of the Assembly. The WDA does exceptionally well. I would have hoped that the First Minister would have left the sour grapes of the past behind after his elevation to his current position. I regret that that is not the case. I will discuss the relationship between the Assembly and the WDA later in my contribution.

Amendment 1 recognises the WDA’s positive contribution but also notes the Government’s response to the review’s recommendations. To my hearing, the Government has not committed to implementing those recommendations. I would like to hear more about how the implementation of the recommendations will develop.

Amendment 2 relates to the relationship between the WDA and the Assembly. The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development stated that he does not intend to support our call for the administration to respect the WDA’s autonomy. The background to this relates to the former Secretary for Economic Development, who is now the First Minister. I recall a meeting of the Audit Committee where Brian Willott gave evidence, where Dafydd Wigley asked the then chief executive of the WDA when he had last met or had a substantive discussion with the Secretary for Economic Development. I have never seen a chief executive of any quango so embarrassed. He did not want to drop the Secretary in it. He failed to give an accurate response, not because he did not know the answer but quite clearly because their last meeting was so long ago.

There have since been changes and we now have a new Minister for Economic Development. Naturally, a new Minister could potentially interfere in the running of the WDA. One example is the gateway to business support. The Economic Development Committee has considered at length what this gateway should be, whether Business Connect should be rebranded and so on. The WDA was quite clear in its request that, if the Economic Development Committee and the Minister handed over the responsibility of the gateway to business support to it, we let it get on with the job of devising an acceptable structure and make recommendations to the Assembly, rather than insist on how it should do it. Otherwise, what is the point of having the WDA as an arm’s length organisation? That is the purpose of the word ‘autonomy’ in amendment 2. That autonomy must be respected. If the WDA is to have the sharp edge that it needs, if we are to benefit from the arm’s length organisation that it needs to be and if it is to be flexible enough to react to the marketplace and changes in the market, it needs that autonomy. I hope that the Minister will reconsider and support that amendment.

Amendment 3 relates to WalesTrade International. I regret again that the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economic Development does not intend to support this amendment. All the amendment asks is that the Economic Development Committee reviews the role of WalesTrade International. If the Minister considered the regional development agencies that have been established across England since the last general election, he would realise that they are all developing roles similar to that of WalesTrade International. The WDA has made clear its preference that the responsibilities should lie with it. The transfer that occurred was purely for staff convenience. Of course, staff considerations must be considered during the Economic Development Committee’s deliberations. That is why this issue should be returned to the Committee. If I wanted to rehearse—

If I wanted to rehearse that debate, I would have taken the opportunity to do so now. However, I am trying to take a pragmatic view in referring this issue back to the Economic Development Committee so that it can make recommendations to the Minister. It is up to the Minister whether he accepts those recommendations, but to reject this idea is completely out of order and disrespectful.

I propose amendment 5. Add at the end of the motion:

I propose amendment 6. Add at the end of the motion:

I propose amendment 7. Add at the end of the motion:

I will speak to amendments 4 and 7, which are closely related, and to amendment 6. Brian Hancock will speak to amendment 5. About 18 months ago, I first queried the use of the term ‘National Assembly’ during a point of order. Potentially controversial and important issues are best resolved with an uncontroversial and relatively trivial example. On that occasion, the issue was a questionnaire on forestry issued by an Assembly sponsored public body in the name of the National Assembly. Eventually, as I feared, this unresolved ambiguity led to much more serious consequences, which lie at the heart of the relationship between the National Assembly and the WDA.

To explain this, I turn to amendment 7. In the preparation of Objective 1, we became aware that the WDA was setting up a number of regional partnerships to implement different measures of the single programming document. These included entrepreneurship, business support, innovation, research and development, sites and premises, the information society and agri-food, fuelling the suspicion that the WDA was planning to acquire a large proportion of the Objective 1 budget. I had a different concern. I compared the action plans with the measures in the programme complement and discovered sins of omission and commission. There was potential overlap in the different action plans. I also discovered two serious gaps. There was no action plan for energy although four of the Objective 1 measures provided European funds for energy, and no action plan for integrated public transport. I would certainly have expected energy to be the responsibility of the WDA. In the WDA publication ‘Learning to Work Differently’ the agency proposes to work with partners on the feasibility of improving pubic transport.

At one meeting I asked the representative of the WDA why the agency had chosen that particular set of topics. The answer is etched in my memory: ‘We were mandated to do so by the National Assembly’. That took me aback. I knew for certain that the Economic Development Committee had not considered the list. All Members will know that no Plenary session had approved the list. So how has this decision—I would say faulty decision—been made in the name of the National Assembly? Eventually, I discovered that the instructions to set up those specific partnerships had come in a letter from an official. Therefore I propose amendments 4 and 7. Before we can accept the recommendations on the new strategic relationship between the Assembly and the WDA, we must know what is meant by the term ‘National Assembly’. Let us confine the term ‘National Assembly’ to the elected Members. When we refer to the Executive, let us use the term ‘Government of Wales’. When we refer to the officials, why not revive the term ‘Welsh Office’ or if that is unacceptable why not ‘National Office for Wales’?

I turn to amendment 7. Let us at least recover some of the lost opportunities as a result of that confusion. The setting up of strategic partnerships on the recommendation of the task and finish group has improved the position substantially. It has recommended an infrastructure partnership to include energy and transport. However, the task and finish group cannot mandate it. I understand that there is still no active partnership and no action plan for energy. We are 17 months into the Objective 1 period and we still have no provision to implement what I consider to be four of the most important measures of the Objective 1 programme. That is why I urge support for amendment 7.

I turn to amendment 6. One of the review’s recommendations is that in promoting Wales worldwide there should be full co-operation between the WDA and the Wales Tourist Board. That requires some agreement on a consistent brand image for Wales. The attempts to brand Wales go back to the original initiative by Ron Davies. I believe that a working group was set up, but I understand that there is one unresolved conflict. The Wales Tourist Board believes that our strongest appeal to tourists is as the land of myths and legends; the WDA prefers a land of innovation and technology. It is clear that with limited resources to promote Wales worldwide, and with the WDA and the WTB co-operating as they should in this venture, we cannot simultaneously be the land of myths and legends and land of new technology. We must find a brand image that is at least consistent.

I will not give way. There is a concept that combines the strongest attraction of Wales for international tourists and at the same time lies at the heart of our economic regeneration—the concept of sustainability. The amendment is not prescriptive. It merely stresses that, in accepting the review’s recommendation, we need to decide on the issue of branding Wales as soon as possible. It is with a full appreciation of the value of the WDA’s indispensable work that I propose these amendments, with the purely constructive intention of clarifying some of the points raised in the review.

There is a measure of agreement, certainly in the Economic Development Committee, about the WDA’s worth. I am pleased to read the report and its recommendations, and the fact that the Cabinet has endorsed most of them. The debate in the Economic Development Committee was opened by one member’s immortal words: ‘How often do we have this quinquennial review, then?’ [Laughter.] The fact that the question came from Alun Cairns, the Conservative Party’s official spokesman on economic matters, will not be lost on the Assembly.

Will you give way on that point?

Sorry, Alun, time is pressing, and I hope that I will get injury time for that intervention.

I will say a few words about the retiring chair of the Welsh Development Agency, Sir David Rowe-Beddoe. Many of us will recall that he was appointed in controversial circumstances. We should reflect that the controversy had much more to do with the political circumstances of his appointment than his personal qualities. The Assembly, and certainly those of us on the Economic Development Committee, owe thanks to David Rowe-Beddoe for his services to the Welsh Development Agency, and to Wales.

During his two successive periods as chair, his conduct was exemplary. I worked closely with him and he was always diligent and absolutely committed to the cause of economic development and to Wales—he is a patriotic Welshman. He was absolutely above- board in all his dealings, privately and publicly, and was motivated by public service. He did a first-class job and I wish him well in his retirement. He served five Secretaries of State for Wales—I was privileged to be one of them—and he served with three chief executives of the agency, two First Ministers, and two Economic Development secretaries. He still has a few months before he retires, and those figures may change. [Laughter.] He served as a beacon of stability, and the fact that the WDA is more or less synonymous with Sir David Rowe-Beddoe’s name is a testament to what he has done.

I want to mention two issues. First, the report’s principal recommendation that the relationship between the National Assembly and the Welsh Development Agency should be strengthened. The Assembly must learn to value the agency. Glyn’s point was interesting: we must all be prepared to stand up and say that we back the agency. We have set ourselves the huge task of improving and transforming the Welsh economy. The WDA will be the principal instrument of that, and if we undermine or hold back that agency, we will have no way of even starting to meet those targets. We must be much more supportive, which means recognising that the agency will fail sometimes. We want it to be enterprising, and if you have enterprise, and are searching for successes, you must sometimes pay the price with failures. We must recognise that.

Secondly, in that search to strengthen our relationship, we must have a long-term strategy and political leadership. It was interesting that one of the first things that Mike German did as Minister for Economic Development was to commission a report on the functioning of Objective 1, which indicated that there was a lack of political leadership and of strategy in the handling of the Objective 1 programme. In a sense, the WDA fell into a trap—not of its making—caused by this lack of strategy. It is a key element in the various partnerships; it has no direction and is not told that it has a principal role in talking those partnerships forward. It has the resources and expertise and, naturally, it fills the vacuum. It is then whacked over the head by the other partners who accuse the WDA of trying to steal the show. It is a pity that we have not had a greater clarity of direction from the Assembly, indicating to the WDA that we expect it to play a principal role in delivering on Objective 1. I welcome Mike’s point about delegated authorities, and I look forward to the further report, in due course, indicating the extent to which those delegated authorities will be enhanced.

I am sorry, but I only have about 30 seconds left, so I will have to conclude.

We must make clear to the WDA what we want. I have been concerned by three examples during the past 12 months. First, it was a pity that WalesTrade International was taken away from the WDA and not enhanced within the agency. I think that there was a temptation, when we consider Business Support, to indicate to the WDA, not only that we expected it to deliver, but how we expected it to deliver. We tried to assign to ourselves as politicians the proper managerial and executive role of the WDA, which is also a pity. We were tempted to do the same with Finance Wales, and believed that we could pass political resolutions instructing the WDA on how best to set up the managerial arrangements. We cannot do that; we must have the confidence to say what we want the WDA to do and let the agency go away and do it.

Finally, I will refer to sustainable development. Recommendation 7 of the interim report said that

‘the Agency’s main strategic measures are generally felt to be inadequate because they are neither strategic nor do they form part of a coherent set of measures of economic development at the national level . . . We would expect the NEDS to address these issues’.

The Assembly, the Economic Development Committee and, by proxy, the Welsh Development Agency, now have a statutory responsibility to develop sustainable development schemes. We have debated many times in the Economic Development Committee the need for an index of sustainable economic welfare, but we do not have that yet. I hope that Mike, or whoever replies to this debate, will give us a clear indication that national economic development strategy, when it is finalised—and I now understand that we have plenty of time for a further review—will incorporate the need to have sustainable development as part of its overarching responsibility, and as a particular responsibility of the WDA. That will send a clear message to the WDA as to what it should do in the future.

We must all agree that the Welsh Development Agency has changed, and is still changing, for the better. Its reputation as an inward investment machine and as a land reclamation agency has been unquestionable since its inception. Lately, the dealings that I have had with the Land Division, on a local basis, have convinced me that the WDA is making a real effort, across all its departments, to have due regard not just to inward investment, but also to local businesses and communities. Small businesses have tended to mistrust the agency, and they felt undervalued by the organisation. However, that is also changing.

I agree with the point that you made about small businesses and the WDA. However, do you accept that, at the agency’s outset, supporting small businesses was not a strategic objective, as it was tasked primarily with attracting inward investment? There was, therefore, a misunderstanding among many small businesses, as they had a great expectation of the WDA, but the agency was not responsible for them.

That is a fair point. However, as someone who worked at that time with small businesses, the frustration was apparent. It is our job, along with the WDA, to try to overcome that frustration.

We have heard this morning about the common gateway or portal, formerly known as Business Connect. How to engage properly with business will be a big challenge for the Assembly, which must happen when it is possible for business to do that and not necessarily between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. I attended a Business Support consultation meeting recently, and was interested to hear a WDA official talk about plans that the agency might have for a real interactive electronic portal. I urge Michael German, as Minister for Economic Development, to work up proposals for that with the WDA. I would like to see that done as a matter of urgency.

On the Committee debating WalesTrade International, Michael German was right; one of the first requests that I made of him in my first meeting as Chair was that we have a debate on the outcomes and performance of WalesTrade International. It is important that we do that, not in the spirit of raking over past debates, which would be pointless, but to examine how it works for the firms that use it. Is it more business friendly? Again, that comes back to the interface with business. Is it doing the job? It is now providing grants for firms to undertake their own overseas trade missions as an alternative to being tied in to the all-singing, all-dancing ministerial trade missions, which might not be what they need. That is a step in the right direction. It might be less visible, but it will certainly be more effective, and I support it in the work that it is doing on that.

I declare an interest as I am a consultant and a director of a small company that advises on occupational health, safety and environment management and training matters, and I have been since July 1992.

Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 aim mainly to achieve a greater accountability, clearer objectives and more appropriate targets and use of public money. I will revisit some points. Amendment 4, as you heard, is proposed to clarify responsibility in respect of the use of the term ‘National Assembly for Wales’. I have often heard ‘the National Assembly this’, or ‘the National Assembly that’. In reality, we do not know which part of the Assembly the speaker means. Is it the Government, sometimes called the Executive or the administration? Is it the civil service, or is it us, the Members, in Plenary? Sometimes it is hard to know who is making the decisions. I know one thing; it is not the backbenchers. So, that clarity is important.

Amendment 5 concerns jobs accounting. That is extremely important. Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales has raised this previously in the Economic Development Committee. In the past, the WDA only reported jobs forecast. It now says that it more fully monitors jobs and reports on those actually created, not just those promised. The WDA and the Assembly should fully and regularly monitor job losses. To what extent does the WDA monitor the ongoing balance-sheet of jobs created and lost, by area and by taking account of the effects of job losses on local communities? Has the WDA or the Government any plans to improve labour market intelligence, which is a valuable investment tool? We all know that any job lost is a tragedy. Any job lost in any community has a knock-on effect. Job losses of 50 or less are not recorded. Rhodri Morgan, in a letter to Phil Williams, recorded that fact. It is a serious problem, as a considerable number of jobs are involved. Small numbers of job losses in rural communities have a great effect and we need to see this change. What we really need is a proper record of jobs. We should look across the water and learn the lessons that Ireland has learnt. It has acquired success in its job prospects.

On amendment 6, we ought to be proud to say what we make and do in Wales. Our produce should be marked ‘Made in Wales/Gwnaed yng Nghymru’. We must sell Wales to the Welsh. If we lack self-confidence and a belief that we can do it, then it becomes difficult to convince other people that we can do so. Phil has dealt with amendment 7.

Returning to jobs, I add that in 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry released figures that stated that 153,335 VAT and non-VAT rated businesses were recorded in Wales. Of those, 99.3 per cent had less than 50 employees. That is why it is so important that we know what is going on in our communities, particularly the rural ones. Of all the businesses in Wales, 95.1 per cent have less than 10 employees. We are talking about micro-businesses, lifestyle businesses and people who just want to create a small amount of employment and some wealth for themselves and their families. However, there is another interesting growth sector among businesses with less than 10 employees. These micro-companies could be the high-tech companies that are the potential earners and could grow to be part of the group of businesses with 250 or more employers. We must consider developing and supporting them. Of all the businesses recorded in Wales, 66 per cent have no employees. They are the businesses of self-employed people. If we could encourage each one of those businesses—about 100,000 businesses with no employees—to employ one person, could we not solve unemployment in Wales?

I will move on quickly because I am being signalled to finish. The sustainable development aspect is important. However, I would like to add sustainable economic development to that. Community enterprise in Wales is important. It originated in the Welsh Development Agency. The Economic Development Committee went to Brussels and found out that it is acceptable that community and voluntary enterprises are businesses and need to be treated as such. Under the circumstances, I will wind up. Please support the amendments.

This debate is important as far as constituencies such as mine are concerned. Talking of known facts—like the fact that Liberal Democrats cannot be trusted—it is a known fact that the Welsh Development Agency is a wonderful asset. [LIBERAL DEMOCRAT ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Oh.’]

You are lucky you did not get more earlier on, but I will come back to you afterwards. That is what the partnership is like—they are in the partnership one minute, outside it another and exploiting it any way they can. Do not worry, it will be going up in flames soon. The Minister is starting to smoulder quietly.

When you come from a place such as Blaenau Gwent it is important to record the practicalities of the importance of the WDA. I appreciate its work and that of its retiring chairman. In fairness to Sir David Rowe-Beddoe—I endorse the thanks that Ron Davies gave him earlier—he is a decent Tory, not like those over there on that side of the Chamber. We have found him helpful and understanding. The organisation has been invaluable to my area. Without the WDA, deprived communities such as Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda Cynon Taff and rural communities in Wales would have little—indeed, we would have nothing at all. I remember when this important organisation was established and Sir David Davies chaired it and Ian Gray was its chief executive. I have dealt with it ever since in various capacities. I know of the lifeblood that it has brought to my own community, even though there are still so many problems there. However, without the WDA it would be even worse. If you look right across the spectrum at economic development, inward investment, overseas investment, the whole marketing of Wales, the community regeneration—I have looked at my own area and if it were not for the fact that it is a pivotal arm of Government—

I am grateful for some of Peter Law’s comments.

You are still not a decent Tory, but go ahead.

He talks about the inward investment in areas such as Blaenau Gwent. Will he join me in congratulating the last Conservative Government, which almost doubled the amount of regional selective assistance support to businesses in Blaenau Gwent in the last four years of its existence in comparison with the first four years of this Labour Government, which is about to exit office?

I am afraid that I could not join him in congratulating the last Conservative Government for almost doubling RSA, because it almost doubled the unemployment rate in Blaenau Gwent. That is what we understand. We look at the situation in Blaenau Gwent and look around us. When one comes here, one gets a false sense of reality. You need to bear this in mind. Another £25 million of public money is to go for a concert hall across the road from the Assembly in the next month or so and £12.5 million a year to take the algae off the lake here and—remember this—£200 million has already gone on that. That is why the WDA is so important. It is trying to make up for that kind of deficit in constituencies such as mine, because there is no private investment there. You cannot find any private investment in a place such as Blaenau Gwent. Show me a project that has been built by a private developer—you will get a coconut, because there is not one. That is the point. That is why it is so vital that we are able to rejoice—

You have had one intervention, you are not having any more. You are not worth it. We need to get this in perspective. It is important. I want to make that point today, because it is important to record the appreciation of deprived communities throughout Wales for what the staff and the board of this organisation have done and have worked so hard for so many years to achieve. Believe me, we can all nit-pick and we can all concentrate on the principles and the in-depth discussions of the Economic Development Committee. I respect that important Committee, and I congratulate Christine on becoming its Chairman. However, what is important is how it affects people on the ground. Believe me, this organisation has acquitted itself honourably as far as people in deprived communities are concerned.

We should rejoice in the organisation’s success, show our confidence in it and look forward to the developments that it will put into our communities in future. I am grateful to the WDA for its work on the regeneration of the former Dunlop Semtex plant in Brynmawr, and for the work that it will be doing in Ebbw Vale on redeveloping Corus’s site following that sad announcement. I am also grateful for the support it will make, through community regeneration packages to the local authority, with land reclamation and so on, and for bringing back the passenger rail service to Abertillery and Ebbw Vale for us all in the Gwent Valleys. That is what it is all about. It will make a positive contribution to the work of my friend, Christine Chapman, through the Objective 1 partnership, and I am also grateful to her for all that she does. We need to support the WDA in future. It is, without a doubt, our greatest asset in developing a vibrant, successful nation, of which we all want a share.

The Liberal Democrats also recognise the high-quality work undertaken over the years by the WDA, and in particular the leadership of its retiring Chair, Sir David Rowe-Beddoe. I will refer briefly to the previous speaker’s remarks, and remind him of Ron Davies’s remarks on the partnership Government when I had to remind him that the partnership has brought hybrid vigour to this institution, and that it is better for it. [Interruption.] I am not taking an intervention. I will also use an analogy from history, which I am sure will not fall on Peter Law’s deaf ears too well. I remind him of the fate of the dinosaurs. The analogy with Old Labour is apt, and Peter would do well to remember that. One has to move with and adapt to the times.

The dinosaurs are all up in Powys.

They are all Old Labour, buried underneath a rock.

To return to the debate on the WDA, I would like to examine the balance between attracting new enterprises into Wales and the need for the retention and regeneration of businesses and our communities, particularly in the light of Section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which commits us to take sustainable development into account in all our actions. I refer to that against the background of the devastation caused by the foot and mouth disease. We may need to rename the Welsh Development Agency ‘the Welsh sustainable development agency’.

On new businesses, I would like to hear from the Minister—and Phil Williams referred to this earlier—what action the agency has taken to co-ordinate the development of renewable energy in Wales. We have a tremendous opportunity here not only to attract new businesses, but also to develop a great many indigenous businesses in Wales that are currently at the leading edge of technology in developing renewable energy.

Secondly, I would like to examine the impact of the WDA on the regeneration of our market towns. I declare an interest here. Under an initiative called the market towns initiative, I led a community regeneration scheme, which proved to be a useful mechanism. It involved communities developing an integrated community development plan that gave rise to community regeneration. Against the background of devastation caused by foot and mouth disease, what strategies are being developed by the WDA to ensure that we can regenerate our market towns? These market towns are still pivotal and lynchpins in the development of all rural areas. The market towns initiative, to which I referred earlier, was one of the best ways of ensuring that all areas had a focus for regeneration.

I refer back to some of the action points accepted by the Economic Development Committee, as there is some confusion over who is responsible for developing the social economy. That must be clarified so that everyone in Wales can see that the WDA plays a leading role in community development. If that is not done, the small businesses to which I referred earlier will disappear from rural areas and become focused entirely in urban areas. It would be sad for the WDA to allow that to happen.

Croesawaf sylwadau’r Gweinidog ei fod yn awyddus i ryddhau’r WDA o rai o’r cyfyngiadau sydd arno ar hyn o bryd. Mae’r rhain yn ei rwystro rhag gweithredu’n effeithiol ar adegau drwy ei orfodi i fod yn or-atebol i’r Cynulliad am bob gweithgaredd. Hoffwn weld y WDA yn cael mwy o ryddid i ymateb mewn ffordd hyblyg a chreadigol i’r sefyllfa economaidd bresennol.

Cefnogaf sylwadau Peter Law a Ron Davies am y gwaith da y mae’r WDA yn ei gyflawni. Credaf y dylai’r Cynulliad, ac yn arbennig y Weithrediaeth hon, greu’r fframwaith a’r strwythur mwyaf effeithiol er mwyn galluogi’r WDA i gyflawni’r gwaith y gall ei wneud yn effeithiol. Yng nghyd-destun Cyllid Cymru yn arbennig, credaf y dylem roi rhyddid iddo a’i annog i ymateb yn greadigol i ofynion busnesau bach yng Nghymru.

Digwydd nifer o lwyddiannau’r WDA y tu ôl i’r llenni. Nid agor ffatrïoedd newydd a helpu sefydlu cwmnïau yn unig a wna. Mae’n datblygu sectorau arbennig yng Nghymru fel y sector bwyd-amaeth er enghraifft. Cyflanwir gwaith gwych i helpu’r sector hwn i ddatblygu, nid yn unig gan y WDA ond hefyd gan y Bartneriaeth Bwyd-amaeth. Clywsom lawer am y gwaith hwn yn y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Datblygu Gwledig. Yr wyf yn cydnabod y gwaith da a wneir gan y WDA yn y mater hwn.

Hoffwn weld y WDA yn cael rôl ganolog yn natblygiad ein polisi ar dechnoleg gwybodaeth a chyfathrebu. Yr awdurdod, yn fwy na neb, sydd yn deall problemau a gofynion busnesau yng Nghymru, yn arbennig yn y Gymru wledig. Credaf fod gan yr awdurdod rôl ganolog i’w chwarae yn natblygiad ein polisi. Hoffwn ei weld yn cael lle canolog yn y gwaith pwysig sydd o’n blaenau.

It is important that the WDA continues with the work it has been doing for the past 20 years. It is interesting that Peter Law, despite what he said earlier in his diatribe, forgot to mention that regional selective assistance for areas such as his constituency, Blaenau Gwent, has halved over the last four years. It was twice as high under the previous Conservative Government. That Government recognised that the old heavy-duty manufacturing industries had been in decline for 40 or 50 years and could not continue indefinitely. We recognised that and, through the WDA, we were able to attract various inward investments in high-tech industries. Over the last years of the Conservative Government, Wales attracted nearly 25 per cent of all inward investment, despite the fact that its population constitutes only 5 per cent of that of the United Kingdom. That is an outstanding achievement.

However, businesses in Wales are finding it ever more difficult to prosper and to develop, because of this Government’s policies. The WDA needs to address this issue. How can businesses flourish under the increased burden of extra taxation and bureaucracy? How is it that in Wales, business tax is set at a different level to that in England? It is set at a higher level for larger companies. How much more difficult will it be for large businesses to flourish in Wales under those circumstances? The WDA needs to consider these issues.

Will David Davies join me in asking the Liberal Democrat/Labour administration to abandon any plans to introduce a local business rate tax? Businesses of course want a successful WDA to support them in their initiative, but what they want more than anything is a low tax, low regulated economy, so that they can be flexible and meet the challenges of the global and modern economy. However, this Government plans to introduce a local business rate tax, which will devastate small businesses across the whole of Wales and send business the other side of Offa’s Dyke and the Severn Bridge. It will send the Welsh economy into further decline, even further than it has gone over the last four years.

I am happy to echo that call, but I am afraid that it is likely to fall on deaf ears. We know that the Labour Party likes to put up taxes, but at least it does not tell us about it. Therefore, it is not quite so obvious to businesses under a Labour Government that their taxes will rise, because Labour does not let on about the damage it will do. However, the Liberals boast about the fact that they will increase the taxation regime. Therefore, while I support my friend’s call to the Liberals to abandon this, I am afraid that the chance of that happening is small.

However, if I can move away from narrow party politicking, which has been so apparent on some sides of the Chamber this morning, and say that the previous Government recognised that manufacturing in the old sense could not carry on forever. We did much to bring in the high-tech industries. However, if you talk to people who were involved with the WDA or who have been involved in large companies in Wales, they will say that while that was a good policy at the time, it is not a sustainable policy. It is becoming obvious across eastern Europe that companies are also relocating here due to the lower costs and the highly educated workforce. If we want to compete and to continue competing at the level at which we have done in the past, then we need to develop the workforce by encouraging more people to train and gain a higher understanding of, for example, IT and the internet. That is the only way we can compete in an increasingly competitive world.

I make one more point, which is a personal observation. I visited the WDA building in Builth Wells recently and I was disappointed to see that the three flags flying were the European flag—which particularly disappointed me—the Welsh Development Agency’s flag and y Ddraig Goch. There was no sign of the Union Jack. We are part of Europe and companies come here because they can export their goods to Europe. I have always supported free trade with Europe. However, many companies come here because ours is still a United Kingdom. I hope that the WDA will not forget that. It should be proud to fly the Union Jack. I would like to see it flown over every building in the United Kingdom.

I will stretch my mind to comment on David’s last remark. I am sure that we all remember that it was his Secretary of State who hauled down the Red Dragon outside the Wales European Centre in Brussels so that Wales had no representative flag there at all. We must ensure that we are part of Britain, but we are also proud to be Welsh. I hope that the Conservatives will also be proud to be Welsh and, perhaps, they will rescind—

I will not give way. I will finish my sentence. I hope that you will recognise that that is a fault of your previous Secretary of State. It was good, however, to hear everyone’s powerful support for the WDA. It sends the right signal from this Assembly that the agency is needed and that the good work it is doing needs to be strengthened and can be continued. I also note people’s comments about the lighter touch, which we will be able to have with the agency, recognising that this Assembly will want to involve itself in the strategic views and policy-making that we implement.

The Welsh Development Agency enters into local partnerships in much of its work. That can often lead to concerns among local people about the accountability of those partnerships and their work. In Porthcawl, local residents are concerned about the regeneration partnership between the WDA and Bridgend County Borough Council. Will you consider meeting representatives of Porthcawl residents, for example, members of the town council, local councillors and other politicians, to discuss their concerns about that scheme?

You and Alun Pugh have raised local issues. It is important that we address Members’ concerns about their areas. I would be pleased to have a meeting with the WDA and the people whom you mentioned.

I will discuss some of the issues that arose from this morning’s debate. On WalesTrade International, Alun Cairns said that its role must be reviewed. I accept that, but I do not accept that location is an issue at this time. Many of us had views about that decision but it was made, and movement between organisations would not necessarily be an effective way—

Will you give way?

No, I will not give way on this matter because I want to complete the sentence. I am about to give you some information. If you listen to the end of the sentence, you will hear the point that I am about to make.

It will be important for the agency and WalesTrade International to work closely together. I hope to come back to the Assembly and, particularly, to the Economic Development Committee with action points on that matter.

I also need to pick up the other point—

You raised an earlier point and I will finish responding to that point—

Will you give way?

You asked me about implementation and I would like you to wait for me to finish responding to that point.

As you know, the draft action plan has been seen by the Economic Development Committee and commented upon. We will publish the plan when it has been finalised. There is conflict here. Some Members have difficulty in realising that better government sometimes means letting go. I believe that that is how Members want to treat the WDA, to give it more opportunity. Yet, at the same time, the same Members cannot recognise that the programme monitoring committee, which is responsible for implementing European programmes, also has its autonomy and has to be let go and given a chance.

We need a consistent message across the piece. I will come back to you in a moment, Alun, but I want to mention one of the issues that Phil raised. In the context of the partnerships, the programme monitoring committee must be in the driving seat. That is now the case. If we were ever to retrace our steps—we had little to learn from anywhere else previously—we have learnt a powerful message on the role of monitoring committees.

On branding Wales, one of the key points that emerged from Ron Davies’s review of this issue some years ago was that it is not about one single brand. You cannot have one strapline for Wales. It is about images that have different messages. We must recognise that because we are not going to recognise the connection between the two.

I will take Alun’s point first, and then I will come to you.

I want to return to your points on WalesTrade International. It is my recollection that, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats when the duties of WalesTrade International were transferred from the Welsh Development Agency, you made strong representation to the Secretary for Economic Development at the time, opposing such a transfer. You also condemned the then Secretary for Economic Development for not consulting with the Economic Development Committee, which should have had an integral part in that decision-making process. Therefore, do you agree that, given the persistent uncertainty that hangs over staff who work for WalesTrade International, this issue must be resolved once and for all? This is intended as a pragmatic, positive amendment, so that the issue can be referred to the Economic Development Committee so that its members can make representation to the Minister. If he chooses to—

May I take Phil’s intervention before responding to Alun’s comments?

I am trying to recognise that matter of uncertainty, Alun. If we continue to put WalesTrade International’s future location in any level of uncertainty, we will have done nothing to support its sterling work over the last year. Of course, the decision was controversial and, at that time, my view was not dissimilar to yours. [CONSERVATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS: ‘Oh.’] For goodness’ sake, a matter of public record now becomes a surprise to the Conservatives. I seem to remember that some Conservative Members had left the Chamber when this issue was raised and they returned on realising that something important was happening. However, Alun’s point on uncertainty is crucial. We cannot have uncertainty. I will not recommend to the Assembly that we throw this into uncertainty, which is what the Conservatives want to do.

Does the Minister accept that, with the increasing joint activity between the WDA and the Wales Tourist Board in promoting Wales in various events throughout the world, there is an incompatibility between myths and legends and white heat technology when they work closely together?

The two messages do not sit comfortably alongside each other. However, there are ways for us to work together that do not create that divergence of views with audiences. [Interruption.] I do not have time to take another intervention as I only have a minute to wind up. I must respond to three points made by speakers. On sustainable development, the WDA has developed its own sustainable development strategy that is in line with the National Assembly’s scheme. Sue Essex is meeting with Graham Hawker to discuss the implications of the Assembly’s scheme and to explore the extent to which the agency could act as a beacon for other Assembly sponsored public bodies. In response to the point raised by Mick Bates, the market town initiative is still alive. The current business plan allows for it to be extended within the WDA and I would encourage it to do that. When David Davies was banging on about the WDA and regional selective assistance, he may have missed the point. RSA is demand-led and delivered by the National Assembly, not by the WDA. There are no regional allocations.

I am grateful for Members’ comments and for the support that we are sending to the WDA. We are sending a strong signal of confidence in it. That is important for it as it moves forward to provide Wales’s future economic prosperity.