I congratulate Brian Hancock on the adoption of the careers education regulations and, on that happy note, I hope that we can continue in the same vein. There seems to be quite a widespread measure of agreement on some items under debate this afternoon.

In opening this debate, I repeat the widespread condemnation expressed by all four parties in the Chamber at Corus’s decision to proceed with the termination of employment of 3,000 of its employees and perhaps 1,000 or more employed by contractors—although the numbers are harder to calculate—in Welsh steel processing plants, including the whole closure of plants at Ebbw Vale and Bryngwyn and substantial cuts in capacity at Shotton and Llanwern. I also take this opportunity to reiterate our welcome for the £66 million package of support that I was able to announce for individual steelworkers and the communities affected in my statement on 3 May. That shows that all levels of Government can work together to do all that we can for the steelworkers in Wales as they face this terrible situation.

I will be happy to support William Graham and Alun Cairns’s amendment 1. I too condemn the management practices used by Corus’s directors and I have repeated that time and again during the last months. I am also happy to support Jocelyn Davies’s amendment 2. Corus’s announcement on 1 February involved just under 3,000 redundancies among Corus employees in steel plants in Wales. However, if we take account of the losses caused by Corus since last summer, plus those among the contractors, the sad fact is that 4,000 people employed either directly or indirectly by Corus in Wales have been affected. I cannot support William Graham and Alun Cairns’s amendment 3. It implies that the Welsh economy is in some way shrinking or is in serious difficulties. There is widespread acceptance that the Welsh economy is growing and prosperous. That is why I disagree with Alun Cairns and William Graham. The Tory Welsh Manifesto disagrees with William Graham and Alun Cairns. It states—at least in the Welsh language version—that the Welsh economy is prosperous. That seems to have been removed from the English version. I do not think it was a matter of bad translation, I think it was some clever teenage scribblers in the Conservative research department who suddenly saw what it meant in Welsh when it was translated for them into English and said, please remove that straight away. However, they did not remove it from the Welsh version.

The UK Labour Government has focused on entrenching economic stability for the long term and not the short-termism and the damaging cycle of boom and bust that we saw before Labour came to power. The comparison is fair and the figures back it up. I am convinced that the stable and sustainable growth in the British economy, despite the huge pressures on manufacturing industries, especially on the Welsh type of such industries such as steel, television set and other mid-technology mass production manufacturing, will allow manufacturing industries to grow and prosper in the future, even though employment is declining in manufacturing at present. Fortunately, that fall is more than compensated for by the rise in employment in the service sector. Ultimately, we will get competitive advantage when the euro re-establishes itself back to something like its launch value on the international markets. Likewise, I reject amendment 4. To blame the redundancies on UK monetary policy is to lose sight of the fact that Corus’s latest arguments do not even refer to monetary policy as the reason for the decisions that it took. All companies must deal with monetary pressures in the global economy and they do not all turn their backs on their workers, as Jocelyn’s amendment states. Jocelyn misses the point completely.

I have a few points to make. I will link them together quickly. We are talking about the manufacturing industries and their strengths and failings. At the same time, employees who may be contractors for the steel industries are not getting the same benefits as the steelworkers. My constituents are losing jobs in the manufacturing industry or in the financial service industries but are not getting the same support packages. What will you do about that?

The point about contractors is important. It is our understanding that provided a contractor works in the steel industry for more than 16 hours a week, he or she will be covered by the redundancy payment. That is contrary to and much better news than the cautious interpretation that I gave to you on 3 May. Discussions are continuing with the European Commission on that but it appears that the 16-hour rule is key, because, obviously, contractors often work on more than one site. However, that is our present understanding and I will return to the Assembly and correct it when we receive the final news. This is the subject of ongoing negotiations with Europe, but it looks promising at present, and that contractors can receive payments, provided that they spend more than 16 hours on Treaty of Paris sites, if you like, that is, iron and steel making or processing sites.

On your other point, if I dare stray into that area, I had a meeting with Selectron a few hours ago. It is by no means a lost cause, Brian. Perhaps we will talk about it another time, although it is a difficult negotiation. On the renationalisation of steel, as a Member of the House of Commons, I fiercely opposed the Tories’ privatisation of steel. However, in the real world, which Plaid does not always find easy to inhabit, the cost of arresting ownership from a multinational would be prohibitive, and is not a viable option. Plaid knows that as well as I do. It is its business of being different things to different people in different parts of Wales. It is the foxhunters’ friend in rural Wales and is a sosban Scargill in Llanelli and other places.

The suggestion in amendment 5 that the loss of these jobs is only a continuation of a current pattern in the manufacturing industry in Wales is typical of the Conservatives’ negative attitude. Manufacturing must move to the higher value end of production to survive in a competitive global economy. That is a struggle for many industries, and the manufacturing industry in Wales is under huge pressure. Jobs are lost from time to time, and many have been lost, or there have been announcements that jobs will be lost, since January. However, we are also seeing good, forward-looking companies either coming to Wales or continuing to develop in Wales, such as Airbus and Toyota in Tom’s constituency, Ford in Bridgend, IQE in St Mellons in Cardiff, and Pure Wafer and Agilent in the Swansea area. They bring new opportunities and technologies. We must look forward positively, rather than only backwards as amendment 5 does.

I do not support amendment 6 on the Assembly package announced. The Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities will deal with the technicalities of this in more detail in her reply to this debate. I welcome the £66 million package of support. It shows the UK Government and the National Assembly working in concert. The Assembly will finance the £50 million from its own resources. However, it is not a matter of reallocating from other Assembly services this year. Money has been identified that can be made available immediately from end-of-year flexibility and a balance will be found for future years in forthcoming budget rounds. No programmes have lost out.

Amendment 7 at least shows us that the Conservatives can be a little more constructive sometimes. However, I am confident that the all-Wales steel taskforce, including the unions and Corus, the executive group of the taskforce, as well as the Cabinet working group on Corus, are already adequate to the task of tackling the huge problems left behind by Corus’s decisions. We do not need to establish further groups. We just need to use the ones that we have already established to act strategically and effectively for our steel communities. The Assembly can, and will, work with the UK Government to do all that it can for the future of the manufacturing industry. That is why I will not support amendment 8, which treats our package of support for the steelworkers and their communities as only treating the symptoms. I do not think that the steelworkers would welcome that attitude either.

Amendment 9 is one of Phil Williams’s astrophysically complicated calculations. It suggests that a ridiculous figure of £200 million, including regional selective assistance, would be needed for full recovery. That is another example of Plaid Cymru always inflating the figures, always wanting more, without having any grasp of what can be done realistically for steelworkers. It wants more separation and more money from Westminster, all at the same time. It continues to produce these dream packages while we get on with the business. Only Plaid Cymru could possibly try to deplore the lump sum ISERBS payment of around £2,500 for each worker in social assistance.

Hoffwn i chi glirio un mater, sydd yn fater o bryder mawr y tu allan i’r Cynulliad. Gan fod y pecyn hwn o £66 miliwn ar gael—ac nid oes unrhyw un yn gwrthwynebu hynny—mae ffynhonnell yr arian yn fater o bwys. Beth amser yn ôl, cyhoeddodd y Canghellor, Gordon Brown, y byddai £100 miliwn ar gael i ysgolion ac i’r gwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru. Erbyn hyn gwyddom mai £15 miliwn yn unig sydd ar gael i’n hysgolion. Yn naturiol, felly, gofynnir y cwestiwn, lle mae gweddill yr arian ac, i fynd â hyn gam ymhellach, ai’r arian hwn a ddefnyddir i sicrhau y caiff pecyn Corus ei ddosbarthu?

Yr wyf wedi gwneud y sefyllfa’n hollol glir, Gareth. Mae’r £100 miliwn dros dair blynedd, os deallaf y sefyllfa’n iawn. Felly, mae’r £15 miliwn i ysgolion dros flwyddyn yn unig. Peidiwch â drysu arian sydd wedi ei glustnodi ar gyfer ysgolion â’r arian hwn.

Sir Brian Moffat may well have set his sights on a steel industry that is poised to follow in the footsteps of massive global rationalisation. As the merger with Corus has now failed, he may well see it moving ahead and perhaps even Corus itself being taken over, because it has got into such difficulties. Corus will remain an important employer in Wales. Corus is still at Port Talbot, at Trostre, at Llanwern, where the finishing end will continue, and at the finishing end in Shotton, although that has been shrunk. It will continue to be an important employer in Wales. We have a major task in front of us in helping to rebuild those communities, given the 4,000 jobs that have been lost during these cutbacks. I set out a package of support in my statement on 3 May. There has been further activity since then, which I shall deal with quickly. Jane mentioned the extra £7 million that has been allocated for education, training and employment measures for steelworkers, and 1,700 inquiries have already been received at the five sites involved.

At Bryngwyn, a development officer is being appointed to work with the local community to develop a consensus plan for upgrading and further development of the commercial area of Gorseinon. The WDA has agreed with Swansea City and County Council to refurbish existing light industrial premises at West Street and to construct new starter units totalling 25,000 square feet as soon as possible. In the Port Talbot area, the Baglan energy park will go ahead and in south-east Wales we are looking at major programmes of activity at the Oakdale industrial park, where we hope to build 50,000 square feet of premises. I hope that work can start on that later this year. Some £6 million is to be invested in the construction of new premises at Rhyd-y-blew in Ebbw Vale and at Blaina, creating the potential for over 400 jobs.

Work is proceeding to develop land at Queen’s Way meadows, adjacent to Llanwern, to provide 50,000 square feet of premises and a new innovation centre, together with facilities to attract important growth sectors such as research and development, e-businesses and multi-media businesses. That work will continue in the Cwmbran area, which can serve the Newport area. That, combined with the points that I made about contractors being eligible for ISERBS in principle, means that we have dealt with this problem as well as can be expected, given that the origins of the problem lie with Corus but that the solution lies with us, with British Government agencies and with the local authorities. It is for us to put forward a package that will regenerate the affected communities and make them ready for the challenges of the twenty-first century. I believe that this package will do that.

I propose amendment 3. After ‘Llanwern’ add

I propose amendment 5. Insert as a new second clause:

I propose amendment 6. In the second clause: delete ‘welcomes’ and insert ‘acknowledges that £50 million of’ at the beginning of the second clause. Delete the full stop at the end of this clause, then add ‘has to be reallocated from other Assembly services’.

I propose amendment 7. Insert as a new third clause:

I propose amendment 8. Add as a new clause at the end of the motion:

The amendments seek to establish a balance between the responsibilities of the administration and those of Corus. I am grateful that the First Minister is happy to support some of our amendments. However, I will later discuss the ones that he failed to acknowledge and express support for. I was grateful that he was prepared to acknowledge the positive contribution that we are preparing to make. That was welcome, and I accept that comment in the spirit in which it was made.

It is foolish to blame any company for reacting to the environment in which it finds itself. The objective of such an organisation is to create profit. If it does not do so, it cannot create further employment opportunities or even pay its current employees. Nobody can condemn a company for seeking to be profitable and to generate and redistribute wealth throughout the Welsh economy. Nobody can condemn Corus for reacting to the environment in which it finds itself. That is what the First Minister sought to do in many ways. I condemn the way in which Corus went about restructuring and its lack of consultation with the National Assembly and the UK Government, but it wants to make a profit. It is in the business of making money. It makes steel to make money. However, if it is in an environment in which taxes are rising, red tape and business rates are increasing and there is a weak euro, then that badly affects its profit.

I am interested in your comment that we should not condemn any company for making a profit. Will you expand on that and tell us how much profit it is reasonable for a company to make, and whether you feel that giving—I think it was in the region of £700 million—back to Corus’s shareholders was an appropriate use of money? Had it not given that money back, would that have made a difference to the redundancies that we face?

There is no value in Val Feld’s comments; they merely reiterate the accusations about fat cats made before the last general election. However, as soon as Labour came to power it had a completely different attitude and did not act on any of the principles that it sought to establish before then. This administration has courted business, indeed there were 50 signatories in The Times yesterday—all of Labour’s henchmen seeking to support handing money over to the Labour fund. We could always remind them of Bernie Ecclestone and Geoffrey Robinson and so on. If I were to give Val Feld the opportunity to respond—which I will not because of time limits—it would be interesting to hear whether she thought Geoffrey Robinson generated excess profits in his shady dealings elsewhere. That is the position, so I will not listen to any lectures from Val Feld on this. The reality is that she is always obsessed with one issue—equal opportunities—rather than with regenerating the economy and distributing wealth, which would benefit the whole of the Welsh economy. There is no single factor—

In the interest of equal opportunities, I will give way.

You clearly miss me chairing the Economic Development Committee, therefore I will give you the opportunity to have another exchange. The important point here relates to the amount of profit that is acceptable in a democratic society in which we seek to expand businesses as well as to create jobs. What do you consider to be a reasonable level of remuneration and profit for the leaders and shareholders of a company of this size? That is a reasonable question to ask a Conservative AM.

If Val Feld understood business in any way, she would know that market forces and competition will dictate what is an acceptable profit. Clearly if excess profits were made, another company would move into that industry to seek to capitalise on that opportunity, which would put the employees in a strong position.

The Assembly has the opportunity to create that dynamic environment. It is interesting to hear Val Feld and the First Minister discuss this dynamic environment, when they are not prepared to accept the fact that they are the ones creating the business environment, and when they are discussing introducing a local business rate tax. One of the four major costs that Tony Pedder and the managing director of Corus Strip Products mentioned during their meeting with the Economic Development Committee was additional business rates, as well as additional taxes and red tape. If anything were to send business to the other side of the Severn Bridge, it would be the introduction of additional business rates, which the other two parties also seek to operate.

Will you give way?

Yes, if you will be brief, because time is running out.

You will know that I was at the Economic Development Committee meeting also, and although those issues were raised, it has been established that despite the various concessions offered to Corus, it still decided to continue with the redundancies. The main reasons for those redundancies had nothing to do with the type of pressures that you outlined.

That sort of policy seeks to prop up industry. It is similar to what Plaid Cymru proposes in calling for the re-nationalisation of the steelworks. At one point, Corus was accepting £1 million per week in subsidies from the taxpayer. If we were to return to such a policy, would Plaid Cymru request that £1 million per week of subsidies be taken from the health service and given to Corus to keep those people in work? That is the reality. What would Val Feld consider to be acceptable losses before we propped Corus up, to turn her question around?

We will support amendment 2, which reminds us that 4,000 jobs were lost at Corus rather than 3,000. We reject the call for the re-nationalisation of the steel industry. That is typical of the dogmatic, socialist policies that we expect from Plaid Cymru, which are not realistic in the current economy. We have moved forward some 30 years since the nationalisation of the steel industry. I do not often agree with the First Minister, but he was right to say that we have moved forward since the old days of subsidised, propped-up industries.

I close with a comment on the First Minister’s words about treating the symptoms. In response to his statement, I said that we are merely treating the symptoms of the wider economic environment, over which he has partly presided, either as an Assembly Member or as a Member of Parliament. It is interesting to note that he rejects that on this occasion. How can he do so if he has accepted it previously? I call on the First Minister to make a plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the next few weeks or so, while he is still responsible for this issue, to adjust the fiscal and monetary policy that is so damaging to the Welsh economy.

I propose amendment 4. At the end of the first clause add two new clauses:

I propose amendment 9. At the end of motion, add two new clauses:

I feel anger in relation to this issue, so I must take care to discipline myself and stick to facts. However, the facts eloquently express my anger.

Amendment 2 reminds us of the scale of the problem. In May 2000, Corus employed 11,300 people in Wales. In future, the total number of Corus jobs in Wales will be 7,000, not all of which are secure. Therefore, 4,300 jobs at Corus will be lost. If we add on-site contract workers, the total number of jobs lost is 5,000. That is before counting off-site contract workers, shopkeepers, tradesmen and other service workers. It is a huge blow to all four communities involved and devastating to Gorseinon and Ebbw Vale.

The second fact is also firm. Between 1999 and 2000, world steel production increased by over 7 per cent. Of the 25 major steel producers in the world, 24 produced more steel in 2000 than in 1999. The exception was the UK. Neither the UK Government nor the Government in Cardiff have made any serious effort to prevent a strategic industry from falling below a critical mass. When the Party of Wales asked whether the Government had any plans to restore the industry to some form of popular ownership, the idea was dismissed without question. Corus may have achieved a combination of managerial incompetence and ruthless indifference to the communities affected, but the UK Government prefers Corus to run the industry rather than take socialist measures to maintain a strategic industry.

My indictment continues. The Government created the conditions responsible for the decline of the steel industry and many other manufacturing industries. How often did I and other Members of the Party of Wales stand in this Chamber and warn that the high value of the pound was a serious threat to all manufacturing industries, especially commodity industries? How often did we warn that the monetarist policies of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, designed to tackle hyper-inflation in south-east England, showed no concern for the very different problems of traditional manufacturing areas, such as Wales, the west Midlands, Yorkshire and northern England?

Will you join me in further indicting the UK New Labour Government for refusing to sign the EU Directives that would have provided Welsh workers with some protection against action such as that taken by Corus? Do you agree that other Welsh manufacturing jobs are threatened by the lack of protection from multi-national companies, including many in my constituency of Llanelli?

I am grateful for this opportunity to express the sympathy and solidarity of the workers at Corus’s plant in Trostre to those affected by devastating closures elsewhere in Wales. Although the Llanelli jobs may be safe for now, that gives us little pleasure, given what others are facing. Finally, will you join me in demanding that the next UK Government sign the protective EU Directives as a matter of urgency to try, to some extent, to prevent this from happening again?

It is a matter of great regret that the present UK Government continues to give multi-national corporations the freedom to sack workers at will. The deed is done; 5,000 jobs have been lost and the heart torn out of Ebbw Vale. We received a large petition today from the people of Blaenau Gwent, demanding a better future. We cannot calculate the cost in human despair, but we can calculate the cost of replacing 5,000 jobs.

In view of the apocalyptic vision that you are perpetuating, Phil, can you explain how one million extra jobs have been created in the UK market alone, with 50,000 of those in Wales? Do you accept that Stephen Byers has already initiated the consultation process on circumstances regarding the Directive about which you are waxing so lyrically?

Nothing has yet been implemented, and it is years too late. Service industries depend on a manufacturing base. If you compare the UK economy with the German economy you will see how perilous it is to let manufacturing industries slip.

The deed is done. We welcome the £66 million to cover European redundancy payments and the cost of retraining. However, that is only a third of the sum required. Rhodri may dismiss my sums, but, if you create 5,000 jobs on top of those in the economic strategy plans, it will require £75 million in regional selective assistance, which must come from somewhere. What about the £40 million required for improved infrastructure, including a passenger rail service between Ebbw Vale and Cardiff? If Corus meets its obligation to remove derelict buildings and decontaminate ground, what about the £20 million required to convert sites into enterprise parks to attract new and modern industry? Judging by the figures in Rhodri’s statement, which notes that £6 million is required to produce 400 jobs, perhaps I have underestimated the cost. The total that I have calculated is £200 million. The package that we welcome is £66 million.

My final indictment goes further. Of the £66 million, only £8 million will come from Westminster.

I welcome the points that Phil made about enterprise zones and the passenger rail service from Ebbw Vale to the centre of Cardiff. Will he acknowledge that that will not transform the economy of Ebbw Vale, but that what it needs is an environment of low tax and low regulation to encourage business to prosper? If employees want to become employers, they are burdened with regulations that prevent them from redeveloping their local economy.

We need an overall economic strategy, which is possible and will work, based on our natural advantages. However, we have not had that yet.

The Government managed to find £1.6 billion for the extra cost of the London Underground Jubilee Line, £800 million for the Millennium Dome, £260 million for Portcullis House and has commissioned a new building for Government Communications Headquarters in Cheltenham at a cost of £1 billion. However, when it comes to Wales, it could only manage £8 million.

A paltry £8 million.

Yes, a paltry £8 million. During the extended Plenary session a fortnight ago, when Rhodri delivered a statement on Corus, the surplus amassed by the Treasury during those four hours was larger than the total it is prepared to give to Wales. It is sitting on a surplus of £16 billion.

Labour is only prepared to give us £8 million. That is how much it cares. It confirms the bleak attitude of civil servants shown in the misdirected e-mails in January. The UK Government has turned its back on Wales, which is now an obvious matter of record. Our justified anger and the lessons we have learned are equally obvious.

As many have stated throughout, Corus deserves our condemnation for its reprehensible behaviour from the beginning. I am pleased to see the word ‘deplore’ in the motion before us. We rightly deplore Corus’s plans to axe jobs and decrease capacity. There is such a contrast when you compare the company’s attitude with that of the workforce, the trade unions, the communities and all levels of Government. Everyone should recognise that the Assembly, Westminster, local authorities and Europe have made an effort to try to engage with Corus, in order to salvage at least something from its proposals. Unfortunately, Corus would not go down that road. As a result, communities and Corus’s workforce are suffering.

I have received many communications from people affected by the consequences of Corus’s decision. Among them were communications from several contractors, many of whom are grade 1 contractors who work full-time on site at Llanwern. These people rightly point to the unfairness of some of the ideas surrounding different treatment for contractors and full-time Corus employees. The contractors are hardly to blame for the status that they hold as a result of their employment contracts. I was pleased to hear Rhodri say that the position regarding ISERBS is not yet finalised. There may be grounds for hope as far as that is concerned. It is also welcome that contractors will benefit from the training and general advice and support packages. I know that that has been well received by them. Nonetheless, the contractors are not happy with the differences in the redundancy packages. However, I accept that there is perhaps little that we can do about that.

I strongly believe that we need to get up to speed with best European practice with regard to information and consultation, as I and many other Members have stated previously. The European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, Anna Diamantopoulou, has announced that the European Commission will implement a package of initiatives. That is welcome news and I applaud it. The EC obviously sees the need for those initiatives. It has considered the situation regarding Corus, Marks & Spencer and others and it can see a need to ensure that companies are forced to do what any reasonable company would do in any event—that is, to properly inform and consult with its workforce. It also goes further than that, as there is talk of worker involvement in ensuring corporate social responsibility. Thst is a progressive agenda that is worthy of all the support that we can give it.

As I listen to John Griffiths, it occurs to me how incredibly different his message is from that which I am hearing from the Government. Are you saying that all those who are socialists, as you claim to be, should vote for the new socialist party in Wales and that all the conservatives with a small ‘c’ who currently vote for Plaid Cymru should return to the Conservative Party?

The Labour Party always has been, and remains, the real socialist party for Wales. [Laughter.] Members may laugh as much as they like: the truth of that is amply demonstrated by how the people of Wales have voted and will vote again, I trust, in the coming general election.

On amendment 3, it is obvious that the Conservatives are raising irrelevancies to fit in with their narrow right-wing agenda. Not even Corus itself has stretched to the extent that the Conservatives do in claiming that higher taxes or increased red tape have been factors in the company’s recent history.

I will give way in a minute. As far as the euro is concerned, I fully accept that the company has repeatedly stressed that there has been a problem with the pound’s exchange rate. The answer to that is to do what would be anathema to the Conservatives in Wales and in Britain, namely to have a strong, Government-led campaign in favour of early entry into the euro when the conditions are right. That would help to strengthen the euro, thus helping manufacturing industry in Britain and in Wales.

I apologise to Alun for not giving way; the Deputy Presiding Officer is indicating to me that I have not got time.

He is telling you to hit him.

That is what he is saying. As far as Llanwern is concerned, it is an awful shock to think that, after the most recently announced redundancies, there will only be 1,325 directly employed workers at Llanwern and 350 contractors. It is such a difference from its heyday when 10,000 to 12,000 people were directly employed at Llanwern. It has been a huge blow to the local economy. There are imaginative proposals to help the local area recover from these hefty blows, many of which entail land use. I hope that the company will be urged as strongly as possible to deal with the contaminated land and with the freeing up of land. It owes that, and much more, to the local communities and workforce.

Finally, I will mention the local authorities’ imaginative plan to deal with the aftermath in terms of land use and the possible establishment of an urban redevelopment company. Those imaginative and constructive plans have been well worked out and will be considered seriously when we take forward our Assembly-led response to the chaos and the difficulties created by Corus.

After that windy socialism I am not sure how to begin. We are concerned primarily for those who are about to lose their jobs. Members will know that the programme of closure has been brought forward and that this has resulted in the nadir of workers’ morale at those works. We have been concerned about press reports that people are worried about health and safety issues due to low morale in the works. I ask the Minister for Finance, Local Government and Communities to bear that in mind.

I appreciate that the Executive cannot give an assurance on the future of the Llanwern works as a whole today. However, I hope that it can offer hope for the people who will lose their jobs and assure them that these skills audits will produce jobs and that the training will produce people who can take up the jobs that will be available. The Executive should work with indigenous employers and with, hopefully, new employers from outside Wales, who can create new jobs in that area. That would give the people of south-east Wales the hope that they deserve.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate as Ebbw Vale is in my constituency. When the initial announcement was confirmed, The Welsh Mirror said that that was the end as far as the town was concerned; Corus had axed it. That is true. I have said a great deal about Corus. In my opinion, Brian Moffat does not deserve the title of human being, given how he treated these communities. It is sad that, even now, he has not had the decency to visit Ebbw Vale to meet the people whom he has sentenced to unemployment and a devastating future.

However, we find ourselves in that situation. It is amazing to listen to Alun Cairns on the Tory benches talk about how you must understand enterprise and industry. He does not have any credibility when he tries to justify that in view of what Corus has done to the people of Wales and Britain. Without a shadow of a doubt, the agenda is to take the British steel industry away. My heart goes out today to the workers at Selectron and their families, and to Brian Hancock, because of the sad news of redundancies there. The plant is not far away from us in Blaenau Gwent, just down the valley in Abercarn. It is a mirror of what happened with Corus. A multinational comes in, takes over, and all of a sudden, jobs are shed and the people in the communities suffer once again. They are the ones left to clean up the mess after these multinationals have left town.

This is not a time to play politics. The First Minister is right. We should rejoice in the announcement. It is a positive announcement on funding that will try to help hard-pressed communities. People talk to me about how good it used to be. The Liberal Democrat, Peter Black, sent me an e-mail reminding me of the old days under the Conservatives, not that I needed reminding—by the way, he is doing a manful job here on behalf of the other five who are not present today. I thought that I would throw that one in—

Have you noticed that over the last four years we have had a Labour Government in Britain? Most of what you condemn happened under that Government.

No, it did not. I can go back to before those four years. A great deal has improved in Blaenau Gwent during those four years thanks to the positive attitude of the Labour Government. Everything the Conservatives say turns into negativity, when it comes to Blaenau Gwent and it always has. It is a pity about their manifesto, which, as the First Minister pointed out, did not translate at all well yesterday, did it? Glyn wanted to tell me what the Conservatives did. Under them we had the highest taxes, the highest rates of unemployment and the highest mortgage rates. Yes, that is all different now, but I do not want to be political about it. I want to talk about the fact that we live in a real world here. There are 1,200 people suffering from the knock-on effects of Corus’s announcement.

Will you give way?

No, I do not have time. I do not want to hear any more bilge from the Tory benches because it is insincere and disingenuous when you talk about peoples’ lives in depressed communities like Blaenau Gwent and Ebbw Vale. When we examine the situation, there are nearly 1,200 people there who have no future. Today’s generation always used to wake up thinking that there would always be a steelworks there. Sadly, that is not the case any more. It is a major shock. We must take positive steps to ensure that we provide a future for those young people. The announcement that we have had certainly gives us that opportunity. It is not everything. We will need more funding. I am the first to agree on that. However, unrealistic suggestions of re-nationalisation, as much as I lean toward that, will not be the answer. That is tilting at windmills, and it is not worth doing that today because we are talking about the realities of life.

When Members on the Plaid Cymru benches talk of grabbing money from the air that is not real either. You must be real and you must remember that if you had 40 seats in Westminster it would not make any difference to the national policies of Great Britain.

It would.

Oh no, it would not. The fact is that if you had control in Wales we would be a banana republic with all the commerce and industry running across the Severn Bridge to England. We would not have an industrial base. That is the point. We must remember that we have an opportunity now to rebuild these communities and we need to ensure that we take that opportunity. Those that want to give out money can remember in a month’s time what I said last week. When we come to develop a concert hall across the road, if you only have a limited amount of money start thinking socialist-wise—as I am reminded by those on the Plaid Cymru—The Party of Wales benches, some of whom do so sometimes. Start thinking about how you distribute that among the poor and needy people and not shove it on top of another rich area. There are no Grosvenor Waterside developments in Blaenau Gwent, Rhondda and Merthyr Tydfil. No-one in the private sector is doing anything there. Everything is concentrated down here. All we are doing is obscenely pouring public money on top of it.

We have much to do to ensure that communities like Blaenau Gwent and Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Llanwern are given the future that we want them to have. I want to see new jobs coming to my area. They must be directed there. We need direction there. I want to see the passenger railway line reopened from Cardiff to Ebbw Vale and Newport to Abertillery. That railway must become a reality. I was delighted when the First Minister said that the Vale of Glamorgan railway would be open by 2003. We want the Ebbw Vale railway signed up by 2003 and running by 2005. Nothing less than that will do because we must have some parity in these communities. If the Assembly is to mean something to poor communities, then we must deliver the goods and not just pontificate. I look forward to the Assembly doing that in the future.

I look to the communities in my area, in Gorseinon and Swansea, and I was pleased to hear the First Minister say that action is being taken to invest money into that area. However, I was surprised to hear the announcement on BP Chemicals at Baglan because I thought that I heard about that three to four years ago. If there is to be new money on top of what has been announced already I will be pleased to hear about it. What is important about BP Chemicals in Baglan is the way it has set such a good example in social caring by working with local government and others as it knows that it will be pulling out of the area. That is in stark contrast with what has happened with Corus throughout Wales.

It has been acknowledged that the issue is one of saving the communities and ensuring that individuals and families get the support that they need to deal with the situation they now face and receive the training that they need to take up new employment. There has been legitimate concern over the past months among Members about the financial input needed. That has been voiced over and over again along with concerns about the effect that may have on other budgets. John Griffiths mentioned the issue of possible extra money coming from the European Commission following the announcement on 10 May by the Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs. That is important. That is a package of community initiatives to assist successful adaptation to business change in the context of the need for change by businesses as they adapt to the present global environment. The European Commission emphasises the need for advance preparation and management, including effective guarantees to workers on advance information and consultation. Plans for restructuring must be early and effective. If the European Commission is right about that, I am wondering what will happen to the rest of Corus.

The most important issue that the commission mentioned last week was that it also proposes redirecting European social fund money towards regions and sectors that have been hardest hit by job losses. That proposal could be of great benefit to steel areas and other parts of Wales.

However, as the European Union moves towards stronger measures on restructuring and its effects are felt, the Government of Wales must listen to Assembly Members, and support all those new measures. The Welsh Government must explain clearly to the UK Government that we can no longer afford to be a member state that does not recognise the importance of the early adoption of measures such as the European Company Statute, the European Works Council Directive and working on the basis of social partnership.

I am not sure whether it will still be possible to access that extra ESF money, but we must try. However, in order to do so, we must sign up to those consultative rights. During the next few weeks, the UK Government must turn its mind to that and get on with it. We have seen the UK miss the boat on European issues many times. We were all distressed when Conservative Governments did it, and it is distressing when it continues under Labour. The people of Wales get left out. I make a plea this afternoon that the Assembly does not ignore this extra help, but that it pressurises the UK to sign up to all these new proposals so that the people of the steel areas of Wales will get this benefit that seems to be just within our grasp.

Corus’s very name now has negative connotations throughout the UK, as well as in Wales. I join other Members in condemning Sir Brian Moffat. His performance in response to his workers’ needs has been absolutely disgraceful. He was intransigent in responding to the practical proposals put to him by the workforces, the trade unions, the UK Government and the Government of Wales. Corus has little credibility within and outside the industry. There is widespread disillusionment among the remaining workforce, which has absolutely no confidence in anything that Corus says about the industry’s future. The trade unions have heard it all before, on many occasions.

Nevertheless, a substantial industry remains, as the First Minister said in his opening speech, and we must therefore recognise the needs of the people who remain in the industry. In Shotton the workforce and the trade unions submitted practical proposals to Corus for retaining that plant’s processing capacity. It was a soundly-researched and well-presented business plan, which brought great credit to the skills and talents of the trade unions at the Shotton site. I commend their efforts to protect their industry.

Phil Williams depresses me, and he must depress most people with the doom and gloom that he continually dispenses in this Chamber. Certainly, we have deep-seated problems in Wales in the wake of the collapse of some of our major industries, such as mining and steel. We still suffer the consequences of those substantial industrial shifts. However, Labour in Government is tackling those issues with real investment. I remind the Chamber today that the UK Government gave £5 million to the Airbus project at Broughton, which was welcome and essential for it to get off the ground. I also remind you of the £19.5 million that the National Assembly granted to the Airbus project, which was widely welcomed in my constituency.

The Conservative group was pleased to support the £19.5 million of regional selective assistance for the Airbus project. However, will you join me in condemning the First Minister for the delay that threatened that project, as the work could have gone elsewhere?

Not at all. Had you read yesterday’s newspapers, you would have seen that Rhodri Morgan had to ensure that there was no possible challenge, under international trade rules, to the granting of that amount of money to the Airbus project. It was essential that we got it right and that happened as a result of Rhodri’s persistence and determination in ensuring that we delivered.

In spite of the compelling case made by the trade unions, Corus cynically dismissed their efforts. We now know where we stand and are beginning to come to terms with the scale of the job losses in the industry. We are also aware of the consequent effects of those losses on people indirectly employed by the company, as on-site contractors in other plants or in undertaking work outsourced by Corus. I was pleased to hear Rhodri say that progress has been made in widening the application of ISERBS to contractors. That is encouraging news for many people who have deep concerns about their future, and will provide some comfort for them. It is also encouraging, in these difficult circumstances, to be able to say that while Corus may abandon its workers, the Labour Governments in Westminster and Cardiff will not.

When historians study the situation at Corus, their deliberations will be characterised by massive question marks. They will want to know why the most efficient steel plants in Europe were allowed to close, why the UK was the only country in the world’s top 25 steel-producing countries to cut production and why so much pain and worry was inflicted on vulnerable communities. A major reason why plants will be closed is the high value of the pound, which has put the manufacturing industry in Wales at a great disadvantage and has led to the loss of 20,000 jobs in the sector since 1997. This is the result of the deliberate policy of the New Labour Government in London to use Thatcherite monetarist policies to dampen the economy of south-east England at Wales’s expense.

It is also, of course, easier to make employees redundant in Wales than in the Netherlands, because the New Labour Government blocked, and continues to block, the EU Directive that makes consultation with employees compulsory in the case of redundancies. We have heard Sir Brian Moffat and Corus being condemned, and rightly so. However, the Labour Government is also to blame for blocking this Directive, as consultation would otherwise have been compulsory.

How is Geraint able to describe Labour policies as Thatcherite, when it is generally recognised that this Labour Government’s public spending is unprecedented and at record levels? If that is monetarism, rock on.

Monetarism is responsible for the high level of the pound, which is the policy adopted in this country.

The New Labour Government in London played a crucial part in these closures, as it sustained the high level of the pound and blocked the EU Directive. It should stand up and accept responsibility for its actions.

The compensation package of £66 million is a start, but, as Phil Williams explained, much more is needed. However, as the Westminster Government is primarily responsible for the situation, all of the money should come from the Treasury. Other deprived communities, such as those mentioned by Peter Law, should not have to wait any longer for regeneration simply because New Labour in London will not accept the consequences of its policies.

The £50 million of compensation that must come from Wales’s block grant, could easily be spent in constituencies such as mine.

Where would all this money come from in Plaid Cymru’s wonderful independent Wales?

We are not independent. We are part of the United Kingdom. Gordon Brown has £16 billion in his war chest. It is about time that it was used in a socialist manner for the benefit of the people of Wales.

The Valleys require hundreds of millions of pounds. We desperately need better infrastructure to strengthen the economy. We need integrated transport systems. We need to tackle the problem of polluted land, which is hampering our economic development. We have the worst health statistics in western Europe. This money could easily have been used to accelerate the building of the two hospitals that we are waiting for in Rhondda and Merthyr Tydfil. Given that we do not have the money we must wait for a PFI scheme, which is taking a long time. Needless to say, there are many other problems that need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, yet £50 million of our money is going to redress the mistakes of the New Labour Government in London. If all the money does not come from the Treasury, it will once again be clear that New Labour cares more about the marginal constituencies in middle England than it does about Valleys communities.

This policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul shows a complete disregard for Wales’s needs. Rhodri’s explanation of end-of-year flexibilities does not hold water, because end-of-year flexibilities could be used for health, education, or regenerating the economy. Rhodri and his administration must stand up to the UK Government to ensure that it accepts its responsibilities, and funds the whole of the compensation, so that Wales will get a fair deal.

Like many Members who represent areas hit by the job losses at Corus, I am acutely aware of the profound impact the announcement has had on the communities concerned. The impact of the job losses in Llanwern and Blaenau Gwent is particularly severe. However, the community of Gorseinon in my region has also suffered, not just from the closure of Bryngwyn, but also from the announcement that Valeo is to close, as well as other job losses. That is why I welcome the £66 million that the Government of Wales has put into a package of support for these areas. The jobs that will hopefully come from this package will take time to filter through, and will never replace what has been lost, but at least there is a faint ray of hope that will, hopefully, enable those communities to rebuild something of what they have lost.

Predictably, the amendments to this motion fall into two types. There are those seeking to score political points—we have heard many of those this afternoon—and there are those seeking to reopen old arguments. The mantra that is contained in amendment 3 has often been heard in this Chamber. We always hear about high taxes and red tape, but we never get the justification of what is meant by this moan. Perhaps that is because the 18 years of Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997 did not produce anything to boast about in its management of the economy. The early budgets of that Government led directly to the decline of steel making in this country and the loss of thousands of jobs.

I find it difficult to believe that Peter Black has just made that statement. I am sure that he will concede, possibly under pressure, that the situation that Prime Minister Thatcher inherited in 1979 was very different. Let us remember the winter of discontent, when you could not get your rubbish collected and you could not bury the dead. That was the reality, and changes needed to be introduced to ensure that the economy got back onto its feet. That is what was delivered after 18 years of Tory Government.

What I recall from those days is that Margaret Thatcher was elected with the slogan ‘Labour is not working’, and then managed to increase unemployment and inflation and destroy the manufacturing base of this country.

As for the euro, it is a fact that the strength of the pound has had a great impact on manufacturing industries in Wales. The solution, as John Griffiths said previously, is not to entrench that inequity—as the Conservatives want to do in amendment 3—by staying out of the euro, but to become a part of the single currency when the conditions are right and allow British manufacturing industry to enjoy the advantages of the low interest rates and the stability that that will bring. That is the way out of this and the direction in which we as a country should move.

The arguments on the source of the money are also old ones by now. The sum of £50 million that the Assembly is putting into this package has come from savings and the Assembly reserves. No commitment has been abandoned to find this money and no Assembly services have been cut. Of course, we would welcome any extra money from the Treasury reserves, but that is now becoming Plaid Cymru’s response to every crisis. Clearly, that is how it will want to fund its own substantial spending commitment. However, it should bear in mind that the more we rely on that source of extra funding, the bigger the funding gap grows. If it were ever to achieve the independence for Wales that it desires, what is now a £5 billion deficit would rapidly grow to £6 billion, £7 billion and more. If devolution is to mean anything, the Assembly must stand on its own two feet. We must find Welsh solutions to Welsh problems. We must find appropriate solutions. The £66 million package before us is good and it will make a difference. It has been widely welcomed throughout Wales and the two opposition conservative groups have acknowledged that.

I can only add my words to the words of anger and bitterness spoken by so many here today. It is right that we should concentrate on this and pay particular attention to the efforts to remedy the damage that has been caused by the Corus’s retrenchment. However, we should also not forget—and I think that the First Minister said this—that we will still have a significant steel industry in Wales once this process has finished. Between 5,000 and 6,000 people will still be employed by the steel industry in Wales, either directly employed by Corus or on the steel making plants. Corus, when it announced and justified its drastic decision, said that it was taking that action

In other words, Corus took that decision to protect the workforce that will remain in the industry and also to maintain or restore the company’s profitability. Many of the market commentators who have commented on Corus believe that these changes, drastic as they are, will restore the profitability of the company. It is vital that we use the opportunity of retrenchment to build a stronger platform for the future of the steel industry in Wales. Unless we do that we will be revisiting this painful scenario in two or three years’ time. We must follow a two-track approach to the painful events of the last six months. First, we must do everything to remedy the problems that communities such as Ebbw Vale, Shotton, Bryngwyn and Newport have faced. Equally, we must positively engage with Corus to ensure that the sacrifices that have been made—and I include the 700 jobs that are at risk in Port Talbot—will not be in vain. Corus has said that it needs further investment to maintain its direct production, particularly in Port Talbot where the blast furnace needs relining. We must ensure that Corus lives up to the promise that Tony Pedder made to the Economic Development Committee that it will invest in the necessary infrastructure so that steel continues in Wales. Corus also said that it would concentrate on the downstream elements of its production. The National Assembly for Wales must positively engage with that challenge. Through our national economic development strategy we must instruct the Welsh Development Agency to actively engage in what we can do in Wales to encourage that downstream production. Janet Davies said that she was surprised to hear Rhodri mention Baglan Bay again. However, the dramatic changes that are taking place in Baglan Bay and the assistance given to the Welsh Development Agency’s South West Wales division are all part of the rejuvenation of that part of Wales, and a key part of its social and economic renewal.

Corus stated that one main reason why it found itself in its current situation—previous speakers have mentioned the strength of the pound—was because of the lack of an internal market in the United Kingdom. Given that, I found Phil Williams’s comments on the building of Portcullis House and the Tube in London extraordinary. That is a case of xenophobic nationalism overruling common-sense economics. Construction and infrastructure are among the main markets for steel products in the UK. If we follow the doomsday scenario that Phil Williams was describing, we will not have a market for steel products.

Will you accept that none of those expenditures created any extra revenue in the Barnett block and, therefore, that we did not receive the equivalent moneys? Will you also accept that, for some of these contracts, the steel was imported?

Yes, of course it was. However, if Phil spoke to Corus and listened for five minutes, he would know that the construction industry is the second largest market for steel in the UK. Construction products and the railway lines are a key element of the steel market. If the UK economy is not engaging in building that type of infrastructure, we will not have a market for our steel. Only the Welsh Labour administration in the National Assembly, working with the Labour Government of the UK, will pursue the type of economic policy that will give the steel industry in Wales a brighter, better future than the past miserable six months.

In debating this, we must ask how many Members in the Chamber know what it is like to be made redundant and to see your whole life disappear after five, 10, 20 or 30 years of loyal service, despite the fact that you have embraced all the new technology and working practices. Some people see their whole world and their children’s futures disappear with a stroke of a banker’s or an accountant’s pen. How many of us here have sat on the other side of the table as a company explains its restructuring plans, knowing that not just one or two jobs—although that is important to the individual—will be lost. Multinationals, as we know, only deal in hundreds—or, in Corus’s case, thousands—of job losses. As a trade union official, your duty is always clear. You negotiate until you drop and campaign to the bitter end. We must all pay tribute to the important role played by the trade unions and to their resolve. As the Assembly Member for Gower, I was delighted to be part and parcel of the trade union negotiations on the Bryngwyn plant. I was also pleased that I was able to assist the trade unions in their negotiations on Valeo. However, at the end of the day, you can never forget the numbers of job losses. Behind those numbers are human beings, and every human being counts.

What is our job as politicians and as a Government? We are here, sometimes, just to clean up the blood and sinews—the aftermath of a brutal attack by a multinational that affects the core of the communities and our people. That is what the Government has done in Corus’s case. It has delivered a package in Wales of £50 million, excluding the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefits scheme. We have brought hope to the workers and to their communities. Those workers and their communities care little about our debate today. They have lives to get on with, mortgages to pay and jobs to look for. They are wondering whether they can afford to go on their summer holiday. They must search for their future. The issue of the reserve and how this financial package stacks up is not their concern. However, as Minister for Finance, it is my concern.

Following Corus’s announcement on 1 February, I conducted a vigorous review of Assembly programmes, which helped to identify what money could be made available to help to alleviate the problems caused by the announcement. First, I considered the end-of-year flexibility, based on the estimates that were available at the time. I will make a full statement on end-of-year flexibility in due course during this term. Secondly, I looked whether there were any savings within budgets. Thirdly, I intended to use the forthcoming budget planning round to consider reprogramming expenditure in future years, depending on what profile was needed. Fourthly, I considered the Welsh reserve, which stands at £33.4 million in 2001-02, £97 million in 2002-03 and £153.4 million in 2003-04. As I confirmed in my supplementary budget statement on 29 March, the Treasury has made an additional £100 million available for the next three years.

This is normal, prudent budget management, reflecting changing priorities during any given financial year and the size and complexity of the Assembly’s budget. We are talking about some £9.7 billion this year on a resource basis, rising to over £11 billion in 2003-04. However, the objective is to ensure that frontline services do not suffer as a consequence of this package. We can deliver it and, at the same time, I can continue to give my commitment to public services.

I wish to continue as I have limited time.

The £50 million package, including ISERBS, will have to be funded from the Assembly’s budget. However, by no means will it all have to be found during the current year. That is an incorrect assumption that has been voiced in various places. We are talking about an extended time framework for regeneration through infrastructure projects that will bring lasting benefits to the steel communities affected by job losses. The administration’s objective is to bring lasting economic and social benefits to the areas concerned, through a long-term strategy, such as the rail link to which Peter Law alluded. This is about opportunities for the futures of those communities, not about indulging in quick-fix solutions, as Phil suggested when he said that we must do something with the buildings. We are asking communities, in consultation with local government and partners, what they want to do. It is important that we discuss our tomorrows.

The Secretary of State for Wales made a bid to the reserve on behalf of the Assembly, in line with the statement of funding policy that governs the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved administrations on budgetary and financial matters. That was done early in the process. It was not successful, but neither were the bids of Whitehall departments to cover the costs of remedial packages in England.

A redundant worker suffers whether he or she lives in Wales, Scotland or elsewhere. It is important that, when the First Minister outlines a scheme including the ISERBS arrangement, everybody welcomes central Government’s contribution.

No, I am not.

That contribution was welcomed wholeheartedly by local authorities and trade unions. They recognise that only a Labour-led administration could deliver for the steelworkers.

Rubbish has been spoken during this debate. According to Phil, Janet and Geraint, everything is the UK Government’s fault, not that of Corus—the multi-national company. In the general election period, the UK Government of Tony Blair is being blamed. I have also witnessed Plaid Cymru’s supplicant approach. Do you have any principles left as you strive for power? You once stood for independence, which was a principled position, although I did not agree with it. Now you ask the UK Government for handouts, although it has no role in your future vision of Wales.

Turning to the Welsh Conservatives, history is obviously not part of your core competencies. Do you remember the coal industry? Do you remember who closed it down and destroyed vibrant communities? We remember that. None of us can escape our past. As a socialist, I acknowledge my past. My party is proud of where it came from and where it is going. We delivered this package for Corus workers and their communities because they are our communities. Labour delivered and we will continue to deliver. You cannot play politics with people’s lives and it is about time that the Opposition learnt that. Government is about three ‘r’s. It is about being responsible and responsive, which the administration has been. Now let us get on with the third ‘r’, namely regeneration, and give hope to those communities.

First, I thank Rhodri Glyn Thomas for his work during the first half of the year in preparing the Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee for my succession to it. Standing Orders identify several different roles for Subject Committees and I will say something about policy development, scrutiny of the Executive and consideration of legislation.

The main theme of the Committee’s work last year was the long-term development of the rural economy. The recent experience of the impact of foot and mouth disease has stimulated great public interest in the structure of the rural economy. Next year, I expect the focus to be on the recovery of the rural economy following the devastation that has been wreaked upon it. Foot and mouth disease has brought into sharper focus a theme that has been running through the Committee’s work during the last year.

The Committee’s most obvious contribution to its long-term agenda was its review of economic diversification in rural Wales. It is a huge topic that has taken over a year to complete following the vast amount of oral and written evidence presented to the Committee. Professor Terry Marsden of Cardiff University has served as an expert adviser to the Committee and we are grateful for his advice, work and commitment. The Committee has produced its interim report and should be in a position to publish the final report during the next few weeks. The report will address important issues such as the need for the Assembly to lead strategically on the development of the rural economy, the role of the planning system, the need for skills development, business advice and a co-ordinated marketing strategy and the encouragement of grass-roots development initiatives.

The Committee has also considered the controversial issue of modulation of direct farm subsidies, recommending the introduction of modulation at a limited level as a way of redirecting resources away from production to target investment in rural development. The Committee has maintained its drive to bring producers closer to the market through regular meetings with the Agri-Food Partnership. It has also contributed to the development of Farming Connect and the Wales Woodland Strategy and will continue its work on non-agricultural aspects of the rural economy.

The Committee considered the report of the Phillips inquiry established by the Government to look into aspects of BSE dating back to early 1996 when the link between BSE and CJD was first discussed publicly.

It has looked at the introduction of an independent appeals mechanism for farmers in relation to subsidy schemes, which is an important issue for the Committee. It has also considered a co-ordinated approach to help deal with problems associated with rural stress, which has become more evident during the foot and mouth disease epidemic.

An important aspect of the Committee’s work during my short time as Chair was scrutinising the Minister. The Committee has devoted a significant proportion of its time in meetings over recent months to scrutinising the Minister’s report, which led to two extra meetings during the Easter recess, one of which was a joint meeting with the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. The Committee has served as a forum for Members to ask questions about the rapidly changing situation with foot and mouth disease and its impact on the rural economy and communities.

Next year, the diversification report will be published and we will look forward to the Government acting on its recommendations as a step towards the long-term recovery of the rural economy. During next year the Committee will take an active part in the Minister’s stocktake of Tir Gofal—the Government’s flagship agri-environment scheme. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee will also consider the Nautilus report on salmon and freshwater fisheries in Wales, and will conduct an inquiry into how the information and communication technology infrastructure can be developed for the benefit of rural communities and businesses.

Finally, I thank the Committee Members for almost always contributing constructively, and for helping me as I have tried to fit comfortably into the chair vacated by Rhodri Glyn Thomas. I also thank the officials, particularly Adrian Crompton, Howell Rees and Menna Williams for their commitment and skill, which they have demonstrated during the year as they have helped us to carry out our work.

Y mae’n anrhydedd mawr cadeirio’r Pwyllgor Llywodraeth Leol a Thai, ac mae hefyd yn fraint cyflwyno’r adroddiad cyntaf ar gynnydd y Pwyllgor i’r Cyfarfod Llawn.

Sefydlwyd y Pwyllgor dros flwyddyn yn ôl, ar ôl penodi Sue Essex i’r Cabinet. Er bod y Pwyllgor yn canolbwyntio ar lai o faterion na’r Pwyllgor Llywodraeth Leol ac Amgylchedd blaenorol, mae ganddo ystod eang o gyfrifoldebau o hyd, gan gynnwys materion polisi a chyllid llywodraeth leol, tai, gostwng troseddau ac adfywio trefol. Mae’r Pwyllgor wedi gweithio’n galed i wneud cyfiawnder â holl ystod y cyfrifoldebau hynny.

Y mae’r Pwyllgor wedi datblygu dull agored o drafod lle gall pawb gymryd rhan, ac mae’n cydweithio’n agos â phartneriaid y Cynulliad ym meysydd llywodraeth leol a thai. Mae hefyd wrthi’n datblygu ei berthynas waith gyda chyngor partneriaeth llywodraeth leol.

Over the year, housing was the Committee’s top priority, in recognition of the role of good housing in promoting better health and helping to combat social exclusion. Much of our attention has been on the development of the national housing strategy, which is a tremendous example of a new and inclusive approach to policy development.

The Committee has also considered in detail what is our most pressing housing problem, the poor condition of much of the council housing stock. We have undertaken a review of the Cabinet’s policy on housing stock transfer, which has focused on how to generate the finance necessary to overcome the massive backlog of repair and modernisation work. I will not say too much about the review, as we are due to consider the report in detail next week.

On local government, the Committee is keen to encourage the delivery of high quality and cost-effective services within a framework of greater local accountability. It has considered all aspects of the Cabinet’s extensive modernisation programme for local government. This includes the development of new political management structures, the introduction of policy agreements, the development of the Best Value regime, the new ethical framework and community strategies.

The Committee gave high priority to the ongoing work of developing and reforming the local government finance system. It is keen to ensure that resources are allocated fairly on the basis of an objective assessment of need, and that local authorities, with their democratic mandate, have the discretion to spend in line with their assessment of local priorities. The Committee has taken a close interest in the introduction of the new standard spending assessment formula.

Over the last year, we have also considered a range of issues relating to urban regeneration and crime reduction, as well as cross-cutting issues, such as sustainable development, social disadvantage and children’s issues. For the future, the Committee will contribute to the development of emerging strategies and initiatives across the full range of the Minister’s responsibilities as set out in the forward work programme. The Committee will also shortly start work on a policy review on community regeneration. This will probably focus on the scope for streamlining existing community regeneration programmes and how to improve the arrangements for their delivery. The review will be reflected in the detailed work programme as soon as the plans have been agreed by the Committee.

I would like to thank Members for their contribution to the Committee’s work. Although we have had several membership changes over the year, the Committee has worked well together throughout. I am grateful to colleagues for their constructive and positive approach to Committee business. I also express my gratitude to the officials who support the Committee’s work, here and in Cathays Park. Finally, I assure Members that I will bring any points raised in today’s debate to the Committee’s attention.

Diolchaf i Glyn Davies am ei gyfraniad unigryw. Ni chredaf ei fod wedi cyfeirio dau sylw caredig, canmoliaethus tuag ataf mewn pum munud erioed o’r blaen, ac ni ddisgwyliaf iddo wneud hynny eto, ond yr oedd yn braf cael y profiad hwnnw y prynhawn yma.

Mae’n dipyn o newid i symud o fod yn Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Datblygu Gwledig i fod yn Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Diwylliant. Un peth braf ynglŷn â’r Pwyllgor Diwylliant yw nad yw’n wynebu anawsterau ynglŷn â gweithredu unrhyw benderfyniadau oherwydd ymrwymiadau i San Steffan ac Ewrop. Mae’n llawer rhwyddach i’r Pwyllgor fynegi barn a cheisio ysgogi gweithgaredd.

Mae’r adroddiad ffeithiol i’w gael ar wefan y Cynulliad o dan Busnes y Pwyllgorau. Ymddiheuraf nad yw ar we’r Siambr am ryw reswm. Mae dau adroddiad yno gan y Pwyllgor Llywodraeth Leol a Thai. Yr wyf yn awyddus i geisio esbonio yr hyn y mae’r Pwyllgor Diwylliant yn ceisio’i gyflawni. Etifeddodd y Pwyllgor adroddiad hynod bwysig, ‘Diwylliant Cytûn’, a baratowyd gan y cyn Bwyllgor Addysg a Hyfforddiant Ôl-16. Cyflwynwyd yr adroddiad hwnnw i’r Siambr, ac fe’i nodwyd gan yr Aelodau. Mae hynny’n peri ychydig o bryder imi fel Cadeirydd.

Yr ydym ar fin dechrau ar adolygiad o’r iaith Gymraeg, y byddwn yn paratoi adroddiad arno. Caiff adroddiad ei baratoi hefyd ar adolygiad o chwaraeon yng Nghymru. Yr ydym yn paratoi adroddiadau manwl, a’r rheini’n cael eu nodi’n unig gan y Cynulliad. Yr wyf yn hynod o ddyledus i’r Gweinidog dros Ddiwylliant, Chwaraeon a’r Gymraeg, Jenny Randerson, am ei pharodrwydd gwirfoddol i ymateb i’r adroddiad ‘Diwylliant Cytûn’ yn gadarnhaol. Ond, dylai bod ymrwymiad ar y Cynulliad i ymateb mewn manylder i adroddiad o’r fath. Yr ydym yn cyfrannu tuag at ddatblygu polisi, ac yn trosglwyddo’r syniadau hynny i’r weinyddiaeth. Cyfrifoldeb y weinyddiaeth yw gweithredu’r polisïau hynny oherwydd ganddi hi y mae’r pwerau gweithredol.

Yr ydym hefyd yn archwilio gwaith y Cynulliad a’r Gweinidog. Ar hyn o bryd yr ydym yn edrych ar ailstrwythuro Cyngor Celfyddydau Cymru. Geilw adroddiad Wallace am hynny, ac mae cyfeiriadau at hyn hefyd yn ‘Diwylliant Cytûn’. Mae hynny’n waith pwysig, ac mae archwilio’n fanwl yr hyn sydd yn digwydd a’r hyn a gyflawnir gan weinyddiaeth y Cynulliad, a chan y cyrff hynny sydd yn atebol i Bwyllgor, yn gyfrifoldeb mawr ar unrhyw Bwyllgor. Mae gennym gyfle i edrych yn fanwl ac ymchwilio i’w gweithgareddau a hefyd i ofyn cwestiynau. Gobeithiaf fod y Pwyllgor yn cyflawni’r rôl honno mewn ffordd gyfrifol.

Daw cyfleoedd i Bwyllgor gyflawni gwaith ychydig yn wahanol. Yn ystod yr wythnosau diwethaf cawsom gais gan y Gweinidog dros Gyllid i edrych yn fanwl ar gostau rhedeg Canolfan y Mileniwm, petai’r ganolfan honno yn cael ei hadeiladu. Byddwn yn edrych ar y cynllun busnes newydd a gyflwynir ger ein bron gan fwrdd Canolfan y Mileniwm yfory. Mae’n deg i ddweud bod llawer o’r newidiadau angenrheidiol i’r cynlluniau hynny wedi digwydd o ganlyniad i’r ymchwil fanwl a wnaed gan y Pwyllgor Diwylliant. Mae’r rôl honno yn un arbennig a phwysig.

Cawsom gyfle yn ddiweddar i edrych ar gais Cyngor Dinas a Sir Caerdydd ar gyfer Prifddinas Diwylliant Ewrop 2008. Yr oedd yn galondid imi dderbyn gwahoddiad gan yr Arglwydd Faer Russell Goodway i eistedd ar bwyllgor prosiect y Cyngor ar gyfer y cais hwnnw. Mae hynny’n dangos yn glir ei fod ef, fel arweinydd awdurdod lleol, yn gweld rôl o gydweithio â Phwyllgor y Cynulliad.

Felly, mae ystod eang o weithgareddau y mae Pwyllgor yn gallu ymwneud â hwy a gobeithiaf fod y Pwyllgor yn cyflawni’r rheini yn gyfrifol.

Fel y Cadeiryddion eraill, diolchaf i’r holl aelodau. Cawsom un newid yn ein cyfnod byr fel Pwyllgor. Mae Gareth Jones ar fin ymddeol o’r Pwyllgor. Yr ydym yn ddiolchgar i Gareth am ei gyfraniad ac yn ymwybodol o’r baich trwm yr oedd yn ei ysgwyddo wrth eistedd ar ddau Bwyllgor. Edrychwn ymlaen at gyfraniad Dafydd Wigley, yr aelod newydd. Yr wyf hefyd yn ddiolchgar i’r ysgrifenyddiaeth am y gefnogaeth a’r cyfeiriad y mae wedi ei rhoi i’n gwaith, ac i’r ymgynghorwyr arbenigol sydd wedi gweithio gyda’r Pwyllgor hwn a’r Pwyllgor blaenorol ar yr adroddiadau pwysig y cyfeiriais atynt, a hefyd y swyddogion sydd yn ein cynorthwyo yn ein gwaith. Mae’n bleser gennyf gyflwyno adroddiad y Pwyllgor Diwylliant ichi.

Siaradaf yn benodol am adroddiad y Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Datblygu Gwledig. Mae’n amlwg ac yn gwbl ddealladwy fod gwaith y Pwyllgor hwn wedi cael ei herwgipio gan argyfwng clwy’r traed a’r genau dros y misoedd diwethaf, ac mae’n debyg y bydd y clwyf a’i effeithiau yn parhau i fynd â sylw’r Pwyllgor yn y dyfodol.

Darllenaf yn The Western Mail heddiw fod Cadeirydd y Pwyllgor eisiau gweld y Pwyllgor yn ymgymryd ag adolygiad sylfaenol o bolisi amaeth ac y bydd yn codi hyn yn y Pwyllgor yfory. Penderfyniad y Pwyllgor yw’r rhaglen waith ac efallai y byddai’n ddoethach i’r Cadeirydd drafod gydag aelodau’r Pwyllgor yn gyntaf cyn trafod â’r wasg.

Darllenaf hefyd yn y wasg heddiw fod Cadeirydd Pwyllgor Amaethyddiaeth a Datblygu Gwledig y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn galw am ymchwiliad annibynnol llawn i driniaeth y Llywodraeth o glwy’r traed a’r genau. Nid oes cyfeiriad at ba Lywodraeth, pa un ai yng Nghaerdydd neu yn Llundain. Nid oes cyfeiriad ychwaith at y ffaith nad yw’r Pwyllgor erioed wedi trafod yr angen am ymchwiliad annibynnol. Fel aelod cyffredin o’r Pwyllgor, byddai’n well gennyf ddarllen barn y Pwyllgor ar y rhaglen waith yn yr adroddiad sydd o’n blaenau heddiw yn hytrach nag yn The Western Mail.

Gan fod y Cadeirydd wedi gosod cynsail, dywedaf innau am y rhaglen waith y byddwn yn gobeithio’n fawr y bydd y Pwyllgor yn ymgymryd ag adolygiad llawn maes o law ar ddileu clwy’r traed a’r genau yng Nghymru. Yn rhan o’r gwaith hwn, dylai’r Pwyllgor edrych yn benodol ar y rhwystrau a achoswyd ac sydd yn parhau i gael eu hachosi gan y ffaith mai MAFF sydd â chyfrifoldeb ar bron bob maes ar reoli’r clwyf yng Nghymru. Mae’r Gweinidog eisoes wedi datgan ei gefnogaeth i hyn yn y Pwyllgor a mawr hyderaf y cawn drafodaeth lawn ar y materion hyn maes o law.

Mae problemau’r sector amaeth a’r economi wledig yn gyffredinol yn rhai difrifol ar hyn o bryd. Er gwaethaf hyn, bu’n bleser bod yn rhan o’r Pwyllgor dros y flwyddyn ddiwethaf o dan gadeiryddiaeth Rhodri Glyn Thomas a, bellach, Glyn Davies. Mae’r ddau wedi gwneud gwaith clodwiw, y rhan fwyaf o’r amser.

Mae un frawddeg siomedig yn yr adroddiad, sef paragraff 3.1:

‘Cynhaliwyd pob un o’r cyfarfodydd yng Nghaerdydd’.

I welcome the report of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. We have seen considerable change since the last report, including a change of Minister and Chair. My time is now split between trying to keep Carwyn in line and being kept in line by Glyn. The Committee can be proud of some of the detailed work it has undertaken. There is not too much disagreement on the Committee’s priorities for rural Wales, even though there are major differences of opinion on how best to achieve those priorities.

The Committee has also performed a useful scrutiny role during the foot and mouth disease crisis, and I expect that it will play an important role in the inquiry into how the Assembly’s coalition Government handled the crisis. The crisis will also affect the detail of much of the other work that the Committee will undertake. We all knew of the agriculture industry’s desperate economic position before the foot and mouth outbreak, and this crisis was just another hammer blow to rural communities. The industry’s economic structure has been profoundly changed by the crisis. It is undoubtedly the case that the coalition’s plans and the Committee’s work must reflect the new economic context that the industry now faces.

The new situation will mean that the Committee will have to approach its work with renewed vigour and will require a fresh approach to the long-term problems of the agriculture industry. I look forward to full and frank debates in Committee, debates where, after exploring all the arguments and evidence, the Committee will agree that I was right in the first place.

Mae blaenraglen waith strategol y Pwyllgor Diwylliant yn cyflwyno cyfle gwych inni i ymwneud â materion sydd yn ganolog i’r amcan o godi hyder a delwedd y genedl. Hoffwn gyfeirio’n gryno at nifer o bwyntiau yn y rhaglen waith honno, rhai sydd yn rhoi pleser ac eraill sydd yn peri gofid.

Yn gyntaf, mae’r adroddiad cynhwysfawr ar y celfyddydau a diwylliant yn cynnwys casgliad o sylwadau ac awgrymiadau diddorol a chyffrous am ddatblygiadau posibl yng Nghymru. Yr wyf yn falch bod camau breision wedi eu cymryd eisoes i gryfhau’r celfyddydau a diwylliant ym mhob rhan o Gymru, yn ogystal ag i ystyried hyfywdra Canolfan Mileniwm Cymru.

Mae’r adolygiad o’r Gymraeg yn ddigwyddiad o bwys hanesyddol ac yn gyfle inni i sicrhau ei ffyniant. Serch hynny, rhaid taro nodyn o rybudd. Mae adroddiad dadansoddol Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg ar gyflwr ac anghenion y Gymraeg yn cynnwys targedau er mwyn cryfhau’r iaith. Pennwyd dyddiadau a chostau ar gyfer pob targed, ond pan ddaeth yr amser i gyllido’r targedau, nid oedd y gydnabyddiaeth angenrheidiol yn y gyllideb. Dim ond drwy weithio gyda’n gilydd y gallwn greu Cymru ddwyieithog, a rhaid i ewyllys da ddarparu’r arian angenrheidiol.

Mae angen inni hefyd roi mwy o sylw i ddarlledu. Er bod y Cynulliad wedi ymateb i’r Papur Gwyn ar ddarlledu a chyfathrebu, rhaid inni sicrhau mewnbwn pellach i’r broses ddeddfwriaethol, yn dilyn cyhoeddiad y Mesur. Bydd angen, wrth gwrs, i’r Pwyllgor ystyried y mater hwn ymhellach.

Ceir pryderon ynghylch gwendidau’r ddeddfwriaeth arfaethedig i amddiffyn ansawdd rhaglenni rhanbarthol a chenedlaethol. Er na ddatganolwyd llawer o bwerau yn y maes hwn, mae cyfrifoldeb ar y Cynulliad i wneud cymaint â phosibl i warchod gwasanaeth neilltuol Cymru ac i sicrhau y cynhelir natur a nodweddion unigryw darlledu Cymraeg. Un ffordd o wneud hynny fyddai drwy sefydlu Ofcom Cymreig.

Yn olaf, trof at chwaraeon. Yr wyf yn falch y bydd y Pwyllgor yn cynnal adolygiad o’r maes hwn y flwyddyn nesaf. Yr wyf hefyd yn falch fod Cyngor Chwaraeon Cymru wedi llwyddo’n sylweddol i ddenu mwy o bobl i gymryd rhan mewn chwaraeon. Fodd bynnag, nid wyf yn fodlon bod rhai chwaraeon megis paffio a phêl fas, sydd yn boblogaidd mewn ardaloedd difreintiedig, yn cael y gefnogaeth y maent yn ei haeddu.

Teimlaf mai’r chwaraeon sydd yn elwa fwyaf o gymorth cyllidol yw’r rhai sydd wedi cael y cymorth hwnnw ers tro, tra ei bod yn anodd i’r grwpiau llai huawdl, llai dylanwadol a llai breintiedig gael mwy na briwsion. Mae’n rhaid inni sicrhau cymorth ymarferol, ac nid geiriau slic yn unig. Gobeithiaf y bydd y Gweinidog dros Ddiwylliant, Chwaraeon a’r Gymraeg yn cofnodi’r sylwadau hyn ac yn gweithredu arnynt.

Mae’r Pwyllgor Diwylliant yn cynnal adolygiad o’r iaith Gymraeg a chroesawaf hynny. Fodd bynnag, dylai pob Pwyllgor ystyried yr iaith Gymraeg fel rhan hanfodol o’u gweithgarwch ynghyd â dyfodol yr iaith a chyfleodd cyfartal. Er enghraifft, ym myd iechyd mae adroddiad diweddar gan Gyngor Defnyddwyr Cymru wedi amlygu’r pwysigrwydd i gleifion drafod eu hafiechyd gyda meddyg neu unrhyw berson arall yn eu dewis iaith. Mae hynny yn fater hanfodol, yn ein barn, nid rhywbeth ychwanegol.

As the Chair of the Local Government and Housing Committee said, this Committee has dealt with a number of issues over the year. A number of those issues have implications for other Committees. With regard to the report, it was discussed for the first time in Committee last week. That would be one of my criticisms of it. It feels like the Chair’s report, perhaps it would feel more like the Committee’s report had we discussed it earlier in Committee in draft form. Perhaps we can do that next year.

The Chair highlighted some of the issues we considered, the national housing strategy, for example. Again, I do not think that we have spent—or, looking at the forward work programme, will spend—enough time on this strategy before it comes to Plenary. I appreciate that a lot of time has been allocated to a forward work programme in one of the Committees. However, as has been said before in Committee, this housing strategy is perhaps one of the main strategies that the Assembly will produce. It has implications for almost every other Committee. Housing is fundamental to creating better communities and helping to create healthier lifestyles and people. It was developed, in its early stages, with a great deal of co-operation from outside bodies based on task groups working together. It was then drafted into a draft strategy. Plaid Cymru would like to see that strategy return to Committee for more than one long period with those task groups returning to help us review and draft it. It will be a major Assembly strategy. Perhaps it may be delayed slightly in coming to Plenary to allow more time to develop that draft. I know that it will not be set in stone and that we will return to many aspects but we would like to see more time being devoted to that in the forward work programme.

It is difficult to set a forward work programme for a year when circumstances can change so radically that they may require more time. For instance, business rates. No one would doubt that business rates must be reviewed. However, because of the foot and mouth disease crisis and its effect on rural industry and the tourism trade, we need now to undertake a quick review to see how we can help businesses survive the foot and mouth disease crisis. That needs to be worked into the forward work programme and I would like to see more time given to that.

Of the cross-cutting issues that we were asked to look at, housing was obviously one of the major ones. On the housing issue, we need to be able to signpost on other Committees’ decisions that might impact on the housing strategy, just as decisions taken on the housing strategy need to be flagged up in other Committees. I do not think that the Assembly has developed that way of cross working among Committees.

I will highlight quickly another two strategies that the Local Government and Housing Committee considers have major implications for other Committees. Communities First is not something that merely involves local government. It involves health, planning and economic development, as should the development of community strategies. As yet, the Assembly has not developed that method of working across Committees, not just on cross-cutting themes, but also on issues that affect all Committee business.